It is not new, but is also not hidden, that society is by-and-large obsessed with a concept of normalcy, which for reasons unfair gets conflated with goodness. Not only are normal people flawed in many ways, just as the abnormal ones are, but the normality of the ways in which they are flawed contributes a greater force of angst and malaise to the general public. Now, as a society, we are particularly hellbent on "normalization," a word we collectively fail to use properly, and thus abuse. To "normalize" traditionally meant to return from an abnormal state to a normal one, such as when I get a migraine and return to normal. Then, the mathematicians and scientists picked it up, and gave it the meaning of standardization, and this remains the dominant meaning in statistics. However, nowadays, we confusingly use the word "normalize" to mean "mainstreaming" or "popularizing." I stand against this sense of the word, because to "normalize" something in this sense is not actually to make things normal, but indeed to pervert things or make them weird. [^1]

Unfortunately, once a meaning has been introduced into the lexicon, it leaves an indelible mark. Sometimes we do a pretty good job at scrubbing it off, but the traces will remain. Now, we live in a culture where instead of correcting an abnormal thing to align with what is normal, we also must correct the norm so that abnormal things become normal. This is very fair; for if the norm be flawed, then it is best to be proactive, get in there, and start correcting things. However, I do not think that constitutes "normalization" in the purest sense of the word, but should be aptly deemed any of the following:

Each of these carries a distinct charge; for instance 3. connotes structural modifications to the entire domain. The first one or two are probably the most standard in maths, and thus are kosher.

This may seem like pedantry or sophistry, but since so many of our psychological complexes revolve around our ideas of what is normal in our culture, or between cultures, it make sense to desire a robust terminology. I am in agreement with the phrase "normalizing eccentricity is bad," but with a huge caveat: I do not think that eccentricity becoming mainstream is a bad thing, but I think forcing eccentric people to be "normal" is unethical, because it waters down our society to the lowest common denominator.

Andrius Kulikauskas, another mentor of mine, pointed out rightly that if someone were average or "typical" in every respect, they would be an astronomical statistical anomaly, and thus atypical. Extrapolating a bit, we can apply this to society as well; a homogenous society of typical folks would be suspiciously stable, and thus suspect, as in order to achieve these we would need to cull everyone who deviates even slightly from the mean. Thus, to involuntarily force mass conversion therapy upon an entire populace to the levels necessary to satiate the cabal would require genocide. Obviously this is unacceptable.

Yet, on the other side of the coin, if our norms are of a most harmonious nature, then we should penalize people for deviating from them. Yet, further still, this is a paradox. How could one deviate from a maximally harmonious principle unless it has failed to harmonize the entire populace? So, we are left to analyze by and for whom the written and unwritten social legislature is meant to profit. Obviously, in a normal society, that would be normal people; so, whatever we normalize for determines the meta-norms, which in turn determine who reaps the good crop at the end of the harvest. The answer should be apparent: it shall be those who tilled the soil, planted the seeds, and watered diligently. In other words, the activists shall take home that cornucopia which they have labored so hard for; and, if they are altruists, they will share it with the rest.

So, the hoity-toity avoid mingling with the hoi-polloi, and so we get a classic tradey of the commons Only, the common good in this case is social capital, and the many will alwa s abuse it at their own expense, while paradoxically, those who we most envy end up in the least enviable limelight. The result is a class-based segregation which reinforces itself through the tension of its own unsustainable existence. In a way, this is not too far off from the general state of life, which is lived through the tensions of the muscle and of pathology; thus, that state of perfect state of health and tranquility that always seems so far off is actually a state of death. A ghost who comes to visit the medium during a séance is really like a billionaire who decides to donate a sliver of time and attention to the working man's cause.

The difference between jealousy and envy is that jealousy implies an indignation at the fact that the other has what we do not; a sense that they do not deserve it. Meanwhile, envy implies that we wish to have what they have. In the context of these definitions, we are indeed jealous of both the billionaire, and also of the dead. Some also envy the billionaire, and some the dead; the billionaire for what he has, and the dead for what they have had. Since every one of us has the capacity to move on from this life to the afterlife[^3], we can play with this analogy a bit and see that we can also become billionaires. It is really quite simple: since fiat currency has no grounding in any material substance, it is a pure energy. It results from work and affords rest. The same is true of enlightenment as well; and in fact, the more we nurture this inner life, the more we will see how rich and vibrant it is. Just as physical health increases our quality of mental health, so too does the mental health work this way. This is not "magical thinking," this is just a conclusion based on all the available evidence.

To circle back to the original point, extreme wealth has not been the norm in this world, and extreme poverty is no longer the norm. As much as we might decry the existence of a middle class these days, it is alive and well; and the irony is, the family in the middle is as rich or as poor as they think themselves to be.[^4] So, in sum, normalcy is the freedom to choose to be abnormal.

End Notes

[^1]: The "or" here is playing an instrumental role, for as I have stated, weird must not be conflated with "bad"

[^2]: Meta-normalize implies we make the norm conform

[^3]: Please don't do this

[^4]: Think themselves into being