I see the normalcy issue in the same vein that one might look at an animal in the wild and say "jaguar" or "rabbit". It's a label for something that one perceives beyond the label. To use a crude example, it's normal to **** out of your *******. There are behaviours that one would consider "normal" in that more individuals in a population do x in y situation. We might differ because you might see normal as an issue of value, while I'm seeing it as objective, observable phenomenon.
Easy for someone to say who only thinks deeply. While I think the way the world is people are being actively obstructed from reaching deeper potentials, I see thinking deeply similar to how I see any physical capability. One might be a hella fast swimmer, but Michael Phelps' body is literally built in such a way that gives him an undeniable advantage as a swimmer.
Very much since words are in many cases arbitrary. We could see someone we consider normal and decide that instead of being called normal, we'll just call them weird. But I am actually speaking on a conceptual level rather than on a lingual level
And you're right, it's not about the words, but what the words represent the impressions they deliver which are vastly and infinitely more complex than the words themselves
But normalcy, the concept of it...It's moreso just embedded in your perspective. You could look at the world and see the normalcy, but hidden beneath the normalcy, you could also see the chaos driving it. It depends on which lens you choose that day and second or that chooses you
Any patterns we see are a reflection of something, but not anything that has to do with others, it has to do with us. Sometimes I am inclined to see multitudes of people as doing the same exact things everyday and see that as 'normal', but then I have to question if they're all actually doing the same exact things everyday or if that's not just a figment of my illusions. The fact that any other person could look around and not see that same pattern means the pattern doesn't actually exist except in someone's mind
that doesn't mean it doesn't matter, it just means it means something different than what they thought it did
as for the deep thinking thing. I feel like that doesn't fit the Michael Phelps analogy as we can put Michael Phelp's body through tests, we can study him, we can do a great variety of things producing easly tangible results to see that his body is that of a spectacular swimmer and he was given that gift. But how do we measure such things when it comes to the mind, the brain, the intangible self?
I do think I need to elaborate on 'deep thinking' tho. I don't believe there's a certain specific set of characteristics of a deep thinker in regards to what will be produced by their deep thought. Most people look at intelligence, knowledge, understanding, deep thought, etc. as matters that can be measured by what's produced, but that would be remiss because what can be produced is infinite, as infinite as the individual and their imagination
If Michael Phelps had never even dipped a foot in a pool, his body would still be that of someone who could be an elite swimmer. But how do we measure the capabilities and the cap of human mental potential? What if there is no cap on it? What if it has infinite forms? how do we know what someone can do with their mind before they do it?
