open minds Community Group
Respectful, open discussion of philosophy, religion,spirituality, and other topics with the purpose of opening our minds and broadening our horizons. Differences of opinion are welcomed but intolerance will not be tolerated, so please show respect at all times.
Okay :) dispense with the sighs I am fully cognizant of the fact this subject has probably been recaptulated to the point of tedium.. however I was hoping for more contrary input, contusive perhaps to a more cryptic vein of approach. I have this posted elsewhere but the subject "do you think you are sane" gave cause to introduce it here..I hope that is okay. :)
It was inspired in fact by a friend who recently under went a gruelling and intensive five hour physchiatric examination. My friend is the defendant in a pending Court hearing and the Appellants chief line of defence is the danger my friend poses to themself and others due to the affliction of their mental illness. Thus a leading Physchiatrist was appointed to conduct a thorough examination and report. Upon finalisation of the analysis the Physc. smiled at my friend and advised in his professional opinion that not only was my friend neither threat to themself nor society..but he penned the word 'normal' on the dotted line of the report for submission to the Court!
I have quickly perused 'normal' under google. Similar and standard explanations are apparent however...I cannot find any solid evidence that convinces me there is in fact a strict guideline definition for the term 'normal' person. I had been advised once that it was "conforming with the ideals of society, adhering to or constituting a normal standard pattern of behaviour and this incorporates 62% of the population. Anybody habitually functioning out of that sphere therefore does not constitute as one within the realms and bounds of normalcy. (Have to concede it was with much glee and delight I revelled in the discovery that it was such a low percentage) lol.
I also read an opinion which stated 'the average and the common are normal. But it is unsatisfactory and incomplete. Conforming to social edicts does not guarantee normalcy. Think about anomic societies,periods of history Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. Model citizens subjected to these hellish environments beacame criminal and sadist.
If a patient is functioning and happy, well and normal. However many mentally ill people are rather happy and reasonably functional."
So would you care to share any other interesting, alternative, refreshing, diverse, incongruous ideas in an attempt to define normal?
May I be excused from a submission? I sat the 'ink blot' test with my friend today...and failed...still crushed, devastated and inconsolable..not to mention I am of the firm belief I failed the 'sane' quiz posted here also..sigh :) thanks
It was inspired in fact by a friend who recently under went a gruelling and intensive five hour physchiatric examination. My friend is the defendant in a pending Court hearing and the Appellants chief line of defence is the danger my friend poses to themself and others due to the affliction of their mental illness. Thus a leading Physchiatrist was appointed to conduct a thorough examination and report. Upon finalisation of the analysis the Physc. smiled at my friend and advised in his professional opinion that not only was my friend neither threat to themself nor society..but he penned the word 'normal' on the dotted line of the report for submission to the Court!
I have quickly perused 'normal' under google. Similar and standard explanations are apparent however...I cannot find any solid evidence that convinces me there is in fact a strict guideline definition for the term 'normal' person. I had been advised once that it was "conforming with the ideals of society, adhering to or constituting a normal standard pattern of behaviour and this incorporates 62% of the population. Anybody habitually functioning out of that sphere therefore does not constitute as one within the realms and bounds of normalcy. (Have to concede it was with much glee and delight I revelled in the discovery that it was such a low percentage) lol.
I also read an opinion which stated 'the average and the common are normal. But it is unsatisfactory and incomplete. Conforming to social edicts does not guarantee normalcy. Think about anomic societies,periods of history Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. Model citizens subjected to these hellish environments beacame criminal and sadist.
If a patient is functioning and happy, well and normal. However many mentally ill people are rather happy and reasonably functional."
So would you care to share any other interesting, alternative, refreshing, diverse, incongruous ideas in an attempt to define normal?
May I be excused from a submission? I sat the 'ink blot' test with my friend today...and failed...still crushed, devastated and inconsolable..not to mention I am of the firm belief I failed the 'sane' quiz posted here also..sigh :) thanks
People I think would also be afraid of people with mental illness - behaviour being less predictable and therefore riskier to engage in any social/commercial interaction, so you'd label them abnormal and exlude them from society. I think Foucault wrote some juicy stuff about the this.
Normal seems to apply to the norm within a group as one must compare oneself to another to evaluate normalcy. Correct? So then the norm would apply to a group..or society or a grouping within a society. All members of that group would appear normal for that grouping however would appear somewhat skewed when viewed by another faction. An example would be Hippies or Beatniks as seen by the main focus of society at that time. Another example would be Soldiers while appearing normal within society and within their own culture they can also be seen as outside of normal for their duty to kill.
Depression was mentioned and I don't think that has a place in the discussion of normalcy. Depression is a state of mind caused by serotonin imbalance and therefore is a medically adjustable condition.
Can a medical condition cause a tilt in normalcy? HMMM. One operates within their groupings in the socially accepted manner. Alliances are made and allowances for behavior flaws are accepted within the parameters of friendship, treatment, religious groups, etc.
People are social animals and I think all people seek out others that they see as compasionate with like ideas and ideals, values and principles.
These are my thoughts. Kathy