roachboy

i started thinking about this seriously (again) while i was putting up the thread about berlusconi's decision to deploy the italian military around the country as part of a campaign against "crime" and it's neo-fascist synonym in the "illegal immigrant"....

we are embedded creatures--we operate within frameworks and we move with them. these frameworks are, arguably, linguistic in their basic structure (in the way and to the extent that memory is, that it relies on syntax and operative theories concerning category to order itself, to become ordered)...ideology is maybe a set of social rules that shape how we interact with what we order in real time--and what we order is what we experience--so ideology is an ontological framework, in that it conditions subject-verb-object relations, which is a way of thinking about how we experience stuff in the world, a way of organizing it in statements about it.

so subject-verb-object relations are shaped by second-order rules that operate by shaping and disappear into what is shaped. in this way, ideology becomes like the perception/projection of space or extension.

but if that's true, then our experience would shift as these rules shift.
it would be a real *problem* saying much coherent about an adequately dominant ideology.
there are ways to limit this--even in a pseudo-democracy like the american, the fact that there are a number of political positions which jockey for influence means that to some extent it's possible to relativize most ideological frameworks.

but at the same time, if the above is true, then it would follow that what we understand to be "normal" would drift as the rules which define it drift.
and that as adaptive creatures, we would have difficulty sorting out what conditions are and are not normal, what conditions are and are not acceptable--because anything we experience that can be assimilated into the "normal" is just that.

this possibility is maybe why ethicists like the idea of some god so much--it enables them to argue that there are transcendent norms that come from somewhere that limit the drift.

but it seems to me that anything--at all--can be integrated into this floating notion of the normal if the theater which stages it is adequately dense or compelling.

history doesn't help with this because typically the factoids that it uses for collage-production are ordered around a notion of an outcome, and so everything one way or another leads to that, which effectively evacuates the space for choosing.

if that is the case, then our adaptability is in a sense a danger, even as it enables us to function. if that is the case, a single dominant ideology is a real problem, in that it reduces the possibility for relativization and entails adaptation to ANYTHING that is presented as part of the environment, as routine, as normal.

how do you figure out what is politically normal, what is acceptable?
what do you appeal to and why?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

mixedmedia

I've been thinking about this ever since I first read it this morning. I was getting ready to go out and didn't have the time to devote to it and, consequently, I thought it would be good to give it some thought.

But I've realized that I have no idea what is politically normal and, in fact, I'm becoming of the mind that political thought and action are anormal. I'm not even sure if that's a word, anormal, but it should be - an alternative to abnormal because it is not just a deviation from normal, but the antithesis of normal.

Assuming that normal is a state where one always considers what is right over what is best...because they are often incompatible in practical ways. Sometimes doing what is right calls for risk and possibly sacrifices of an unknown nature. And I think that is largely what is behind most political action - risk avoidance. Even if it's in an impossibly illogical way. In other words, anormal.

So I guess that's what I appeal to. Always doing right even if it means dealing with unknown consequences.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Willravel

Mean; median; mode. Eventually in life we start to recognize averages, as they are a necessity in the day to day assumptions that come with being alive and sentient.

As for the perception shift... I'd say that's normal. From my limited experiences, filtered through my ontological ideologies, I've seen this demonstrated again and again and again. Change in perception is normal. Challenging and testing perception is healthy in attaining a less ideological perception. Still, that doesn't mean I won't defend the conclusions I've come to under my current ontological ideology, and I'm not opposed to shifting again if I find a better ideology.

Also, the US is a Republic, not a Democracy. Oh, and I don't believe there is a god because god can not demonstrated logically and as such I return to the null hypothesis: no god. But those are better explored elsewhere.

ring

Normal: is what doesn't get me kicked out of,
the current tribe or pack that I belong to,

sound chaser

Normal is relative to individuals and societies. Being yourself is the ultimate "normal". (and yes I've stated the obvious but cut me some slack...lol)

pig

roach: i'm thinking about this, because it's your birthday or maybe it was...i didn't pay attention to the dates.

politically normal. i'm not sure what to make of that phrase. do mean in terms of a set of actions, or in terms of a social status? if the former, then i'd say that politically normal is doing nothing, unless you seek to attain power via your actions. i say this because that seems to be the average behavior of humans in society, and probably other animals as well. do nothing unless you seek to be the alpha. in which case, you should grab as much power as possible. if you're what i'd consider to be normal.

if you mean normal in the context of a social ordering, i'd need to know if you equate normal with acceptable, or if you equate normal with 'as usual.' i think both of these would drift with differing social mores, but 'as usual' can explain some pretty atrocious situations. acceptable would seem to need some context of history and philosophy. both would be situational. i think.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

World's King

Normal for you should be whatever makes you comfortable.

__________________
heavy is the head that wears the crown