"Why can't you be normal?"
How many times have I heard that said, to me. The trouble is, nobody has ever explained quite what it is to be normal.
I would have to take an average, of all the various versions of "me" that exist, in the infinity of parallel universes - that would be normal for me (just as an aside here - would there be a universe somewhere in that lot - where parallel universes don't exist?) - but what is quantifiable anyway? How do we measure human-ness? What meaningful set of statistics can we come up with?
What lies to either side of normal? Is it left and right, short and tall, good and bad?
Have you ever looked at your pet cat or dog and wondered to yourself, even just briefly, what it would be like to be it, transferring the whole of your existence to another being?
Have you ever looked into a large mirror, switched off your self awareness and seen yourself in that mirror as a separate person, as others presumably see you?
Just games I play in my imagination.
Is that normal behaviour?
You know what I think?
Despite our attempts to conceal ourselves from each other - only going out in our "Sunday best" personalities - I think we have much more in common with each other than we dare, or care to imagine. I think our distinctions are paper thin - superficial. We've all got different heirlooms and junk up in the attic - but that is all quantifiable, can be weighed, valued and measured.
But does that get us any closer to answering the question - am I normal?
Looked at from a logical point of view, surely normal can only imply that cause and effect have not contradicted any universal law.
Nothing exists that can contradict or confound universal law.
Human-ness, whether we view it from a phsychological, emotional or a physical perspective - is bound also by universal law - cause and effect.
Perhaps it is only our imagination that has any freedom to manoeuvre.
Is that the space where these parallel universes are to be found, in the space surrounding our decisions - the separation between the choices we make?
So in human terms - I feel that normal means the same as uniqueness - and that's what I've always felt my answer should be - "Well, I am being normal - for me."
3 comments:
My goodness! You do have multiple incarnations, don't you??? Are they all residing in the one universe or in parallel ones???
Why am I not surprised to find myself enjoying your post? And what a great blog name too!
OK, to something less serious:
Can the law of cause and effect work in a timeless reality, which I experience as the deepest reality (to date)? Because if it can't, then why bother with the premise of 'normal' you've offered i.e. 'normal...as long as the laws of cause and effect are observed' (I'm paraphrasing what I think you said).
And in any case, *who' is asking? :-)
If you ask me, we are all fundamentally the same, capable of expressing all traits, all idiosyncrasies, etc. Actually, to be more accurate, we are all the One expressing in infinite forms. The bandwidth of 'normal' is but a sliver of this infinity, made possible only because the individuated expressions have become time-bound and thus unable to see the whole in its eternal now.
mmm...I'll go and rest for a while now...Lucy
Thank you for your enlightened comment Miss Lucy and thank you also for visiting - obviously the wind was in the right direction.
I suppose cause and effect are only arbitrary divisions of perception anyway - as is our measurement of time, but it is my understanding that stability is a consequence of the immutability of universal laws - the primordial glue - and whatever that is - we are subject to it.
To question normality is to put all that to the challenge.
"Who is asking?"
Another Koan?
This time I have the answer - my wife.
Ah, you spotted my koan yet again!
And what a great teacher your wife is, encouraging you to seek the deeper reality! And what a clever student you are answered so well!
Watch out for the next koan! :-)Lucy
Post a Comment