Dare to be abnormal

[coberst]

Dare to be abnormal

 

"When a story enchants us, we lose the sense of where we are; we are drawn into the story so thoroughly that we forget it is a story being told. This is, in Aristotle's phrase, "the suspension of disbelief."==Nigel Spivey, “How Art Made the World”

 

To understand is to grasp meaning; it is a suspension of disbelief. Understanding is a confluence of emotion and reason wherein I create that which is meaningful to me.

 

Know is see. Understand is grasp. These are rather common metaphors. Such metaphors help us comprehend.

 

Empathy is a technique for understanding. We can try to understand another person by creating a means whereby we can ‘walk a mile in her shoes’. We can create analogies of what the other person experiences as a means for us to ‘put on their shoes’.

 

An artist may paint in the manner of Picasso, or perhaps in the manner of a Rembrandt, or perhaps in the manner of a Monet. These different forms of painting represent different ways of seeing. They represent a personal understanding which provides us with a prism for seeing.

 

Mathematics is a way of seeing. Mathematics is the science of pattern. Imagine a very elaborate Persian rug. Imagine that you have only a small fragment of that rug. Mathematics offers a means whereby you might be able to construct the rest of that rug to look exactly like the original. Math can perhaps create a formula for the pattern in the rug such that you can, by following that math formula, exactly duplicate the pattern from which that rug was created.

 

Understanding is a stage of comprehension whereby a person can interject them self into the pattern through imagination. ‘Understanding is math’ because it helps the individual to ‘walk in the shoes’ of some other entity.

 

Understanding might correctly, in my opinion, be considered to be a personal paradigm. Knowledge is about truth but understanding is about meaning. Understanding is a means for placing the individual within the picture including the entity about which the individual wishes to become very familiar.

 

Understanding is a creative process that extends knowing. Understanding may or may not enhance the truth quality of comprehension. Picasso and Monet may paint the same object but have they captured the truth of that object?

 

Is truth anything beyond what humans have normalized (standardized)?

 

Does understanding aid or deter normalization?

 

Are you normal? Would you rather be normal than right?

 

Dare to be abnormal, but not foolish!

[quantum dot]

Understanding might correctly, in my opinion, be considered to be a personal paradigm.

 

Firstly, very eloquent post, Coberst:) I've been pondering this same idea for quite some time (and so have many renowned philosophers, I think), and I'm glad that you brought it up. I completely agree with your opinion about understanding being a personal paradigm. Imo, each person perceives things in a unique manner. Reality is not absolute. It is subjective and relative to individual perception.

 

Is truth anything beyond what humans have normalized (standardized)?

 

That's a good question. Let's say, for example, you are with a group of people and you see a big bear that no one else sees. We will automatically conclude that you are hallucinating. If it was only you and me and one of us sees the bear but not the other, it's impossible to tell who is right. So, it's clear that we always tend to think that it is what the majority thinks, or what is normalized, is what is correct, or is the truth.

I think this is true in most cases, excluding the imo theoretical "ultimate truth" that is absolute and timeless.

 

Does understanding aid or deter normalization?

Considering what you previously said about understanding being a personal paradigm, then I think it follows logically to say that understanding deters normalization, and not aid it.

 

Are you normal? Would you rather be normal than right?

 

Dare to be abnormal, but not foolish!

 

Wanting to be normal and to fit in societal norms is instinctive and has evolutionary purposes, that's why factors like peer pressure can have a very large influence. Personally, I think I'm abnormal, I usually see and understand things very differently than others.

[Moontanman]

Hey! Abnormal is my middle name! Right is always better than normal if normal is ignoring the truth to be one of the group. many things in life require that we belive in something that isn't true to be one of the group, racism, conservative-ism, liberal-ism, religion, the list goes on and on. sometimes it's difficult to sperate out the turth from some sort of ism. Even science has parts that are not based on the best available facts. Dare to be Abnormal, I like that, it should be on a bumper sticker at least!

[nutronjon]

I am a female attempting to engage in conversations with males

 

Our minds work in totally different ways, so these conversations are sometimes very stimulating and sometimes appear to be completely futile. Understanding? How can a male who organizes thoughts completely differently from a female, understand the female thinking? Fortunately, there are some females capable of thinking in male terms and some males capable of thinking in female terms, and when these enter into mix sex conversations a degree of understanding becomes possible, but we are far of the ideal of equality of the sexes. Women's liberation has made it taboo to be feminine and the cultural impact of male domination, along with taboo against being feminie is devasting to humanity.

 

On the other hand, female conversations without male qualities are not my cup of tea. :shrug: Thank God for the Internet, that throws us all together because I would not want a life restricted to female conversations.

 

Also the consciousness of the elderly is so completely different from the consciousness of the young, understanding is not possible in many things. It is like Spock returned from death, and Doc asking him what it is like to be dead. Spock asked Doc, have you ever been dead? Doc, said no. And Spock replied it would be pointless for him to explain the experience of being dead to someone who had no experience of being dead, to reference from. Like how do you explain the flavor of chocolate to someone who never tasted chocolate, or the change in our nation, to someone too young to remember when people closed deals with a hand shake, and we trusted each other, and organized ourselves in such a way to inhance trust, instead of destroy it. We must have shared experiences to have understanding.

 

This is especially true when it comes to the reality of the affluent, verses the reality of the poor. These are completely different realities and unless one has had at least some experience with both, there is no understanding of what it is like to be in the shoes of another. A White person could not have the experience of a Black person and visa versa- this is now changing but it will take a few generations to get past the old memories and old sense of right and wrong.

 

What Obama said of rural people clinging to their bibles and guns is right on, and it sickens me that the person who appeals most to the least sophicated people, could become our president. Understanding?, it would be nice if there were enough people who understand what Obama said, for him to win over Hilrary who appeals to the lowest intellectual level. Next to Bush who proudly announced he doesn't think too much before taking action and got elected twice, thanks to the bible belt.

 

Is truth anything beyond what humans have normalized (standardized)?

 

Does understanding aid or deter normalization?

 

Are you normal? Would you rather be normal than right?

 

Dare to be abnormal, but not foolish!

 

Here is hoping the US does not sink to its lowest level and does reach for a higher one.

 

:shrug: By the way, what is "normal" for a female anyway? What is her place in a male dominated world? The role and nature of the ideal woman has changed dramatically in my life time.

 

PS. What the masses believe is true, can be far friom the truth. In a democracy it is very important to speak out, even though one is the only voice that speaks the truth. Remember the story of King who was conned into believing only stupid people could not see the cloth of his new suit, and the little boy, who dared to say, the King has no clothes? The whole nation believed Reagan when he said we don't need to conserve. And later, backing Bush in the invasion of Iraq shows how wrong the majority can be. I remember the intense social reaction to saying we need to conserve oil and the invasion was wrong. Now Bush is leading us to bomb Iran and I am afaid the masses will allow him to it.

[Moontanman]

I am a female attempting to engage in conversations with males

 

Our minds work in totally different ways, so these conversations are sometimes very stimulating and sometimes appear to be completely futile. Understanding? How can a male who organizes thoughts completely differently from a female, understand the female thinking? Fortunately, there are some females capable of thinking in male terms and some males capable of thinking in female terms, and when these enter into mix sex conversations a degree of understanding becomes possible, but we are far of the ideal of equality of the sexes. Women's liberation has made it taboo to be feminine and the cultural impact of male domination, along with taboo against being feminie is devasting to humanity.

 

On the other hand, female conversations without male qualities are not my cup of tea. :shrug: Thank God for the Internet, that throws us all together because I would not want a life restricted to female conversations.

 

Also the consciousness of the elderly is so completely different from the consciousness of the young, understanding is not possible in many things. It is like Spock returned from death, and Doc asking him what it is like to be dead. Spock asked Doc, have you ever been dead? Doc, said no. And Spock replied it would be pointless for him to explain the experience of being dead to someone who had no experience of being dead, to reference from. Like how do you explain the flavor of chocolate to someone who never tasted chocolate, or the change in our nation, to someone too young to remember when people closed deals with a hand shake, and we trusted each other, and organized ourselves in such a way to inhance trust, instead of destroy it. We must have shared experiences to have understanding.

 

This is especially true when it comes to the reality of the affluent, verses the reality of the poor. These are completely different realities and unless one has had at least some experience with both, there is no understanding of what it is like to be in the shoes of another. A White person could not have the experience of a Black person and visa versa- this is now changing but it will take a few generations to get past the old memories and old sense of right and wrong.

 

What Obama said of rural people clinging to their bibles and guns is right on, and it sickens me that the person who appeals most to the least sophicated people, could become our president. Understanding?, it would be nice if there were enough people who understand what Obama said, for him to win over Hilrary who appeals to the lowest intellectual level. Next to Bush who proudly announced he doesn't think too much before taking action and got elected twice, thanks to the bible belt.

 

 

 

Here is hoping the US does not sink to its lowest level and does reach for a higher one.

 

:shrug: By the way, what is "normal" for a female anyway? What is her place in a male dominated world? The role and nature of the ideal woman has changed dramatically in my life time.

 

PS. What the masses believe is true, can be far friom the truth. In a democracy it is very important to speak out, even though one is the only voice that speaks the truth. Remember the story of King who was conned into believing only stupid people could not see the cloth of his new suit, and the little boy, who dared to say, the King has no clothes? The whole nation believed Reagan when he said we don't need to conserve. And later, backing Bush in the invasion of Iraq shows how wrong the majority can be. I remember the intense social reaction to saying we need to conserve oil and the invasion was wrong. Now Bush is leading us to bomb Iran and I am afaid the masses will allow him to it.

 

I don't think the differnces between men and women are big enough to keep us from undrestanding each other if we really want to. Cultural conditioning is what keeps us apart. If you are told all your life that women and men cannot comunicate then that's what you believe and that is difficult to over come. But if you are like me and think that women and men have more in common than they have different then it's not a great stretch to start understanding. This aplys to all so called basic differences between groups of humans. As long as we don't try to break down barriers they cannot be broken down!

[coberst]

We comprehend a statement as being true in a given situation when our comprehension of the statement fits our comprehension of the situation closely enough for our purposes.

 

I think that comprehension is a hierarchy and can be usefully thought of as like a pyramid. At the base of the comprehension pyramid is awareness, which is followed by consciousness (awareness plus attention). Knowledge follows consciousness and understanding is at the pinnacle of the comprehension pyramid. We are aware of many more things than we are conscious of and that sort of ratio follows all the way up to understanding at the pinnacle.

 

Understanding is a far step beyond knowing and is significantly different from knowing. Knowledge seeks truth whereas understanding seeks meaning.

 

I think that we are slowly making intellectual normalcy lower and lower. We have filled our life with gadgets and have made it normal to waste away our time on trivial pursuits. We have dumbed down normalcy and seldom strive for understanding.

[Ahmabeliever]

What do you think of the saying

 

"The meaning of your communication is the result it elicits"

 

Understanding between persons in my experience is best utilised with paraphrasing. Repeating what you thought you heard to the other, in your own words, and them correct it until a consensus is reached.

 

Our differing backgrounds or modes of interpreting data lead to much confusion and with this knowledge - that communication is fraught with misunderstanding - we can work on a model to improve communication ie: paraphrasing, written contract, etc.

 

I wonder if deaf people have difficulty communicating sign among themselves like we do plain english?

 

Slang alone can turn a conversation into a confusion. A handshake (my preferred contract) may not be sufficient where data exchanged requires more than a bit of short term memory.

 

The difference in you or I is as plain as the noses on our faces, the similarities give rise to relating our frame of reference to each others communication.

 

To be different, you need a frame of reference you consider normal, or abnormal, to be different from.

 

Be yourself. That is all you need to be different.

 

What the hell is normal anyway? Your normal is not mine, you being normal to me may be deemed abnormal.

 

But someone else will think it's entirely normal. Trying to be abnormal? No, be yourself and embrace your quirks, just be.

 

Enough people will think it's abnormal for you to maintain the illusion you're different.

 

Thing is you are, and simultaneously you're not, just like the rest of us.

[coberst]

Normalcy = Conformity w/o CT (Critical Thinking)

 

Abnormalcy = Conformity Modulated by CT

[nutronjon]

You all may not agree with the research that has determined the neural connection between the right and left brain is greater for females than males, and the author of Men are Mars, Women are from Venus, but I think the following is pretty good example of the male/female difference and a slight communication problem.

 

 

Why Men Don't Write Advice Columns

 

Dear Walter: I hope you can help me here. The other day, I set off for work leaving my husband in the house watching the TV as usual. I hadn't gone more than a mile down the road when my engine conked out and the car shuddered to a halt. I walked back home to get my husband's help. When I got home I couldn't believe my eyes. He was in our bedroom with the neighbor lady. I am 32, my husband is 34, and we have been married for twelve years.

 

When I confronted him, he broke down and admitted that they had been having an affair for the past six months. I told him to stop or I would leave him. He was let go from his job six months ago and he says he has been feeling increasingly depressed and worthless. I love him very much, but ever since I gave him the ultimatum he has become increasingly distant. He won't go to counseling and I'm afraid I can't get through to him anymore.

 

Can you please help?

Sincerely, Sheila

 

 

 

Dear Sheila: A car stalling after being driven a short distance can be caused by a variety of faults with the engine. Start by checking that there is no debris in the fuel line. If it is clear, check the vacuum pipes and hoses on the intake manifold and also check all grounding wires. If none of these approaches solves the problem, it could be that the fuel pump itself is faulty, causing low delivery pressure to the carburetor float chamber.

 

I hope this helps.

-Walter

[nutronjon]

I think that we are slowly making intellectual normalcy lower and lower. We have filled our life with gadgets and have made it normal to waste away our time on trivial pursuits. We have dumbed down normalcy and seldom strive for understanding.

 

What makes it "normal" for a person to think in one way and not another?

 

When I had the luxury of being a stay at home mother, my mind was consumed with the needs of my family. Everything I thought, I thought in a domestic framework, with domestic terms and meanings.

 

When I reentered college, I was expereincing mid life crisis, teens in trouble, mother dying, and major phycial problems of my own. I returned to my major, gerontology. The department was run by a woman when I first began the gerontology program, and run by a man when I returned. The change in the program and the male leadership of it, was a nightmare to me. The male director of the program and professor of several classes, knew and understood males of his own class, but understood nothing about women and the lower class. He insisted our research papers be based on reseach in the abstracts. He realized little was in the abstracts about women going through the mid age crisis and that my paper was about women in mid life crisis, still he rejected the flood of research done by women, that was done on the female model and not the male model, so it did not qualify as reseach accepted by the abstracts. I could easily relate to this feamale generated information, and it greatly increased my ability to manage my own life, but the professor gave me the lowest possible grade without flunking me. Sorry, fellows but I carry a huge resentment about this.

 

I was deeply impressed by the huge difference between domestic thinking and excepted college level or professional thinking. :) how much in our society is the domestic mentality respected and valued? What does a lack of domestic thinking do to our culture? :) what is lower intellectual normalcy and higher intellectual normalcy?