Throughout human history, mankind has fought hard to prove its might; first, by brute force, and second, through architecture and cultures. While in recent times, there has been a sweeping neurodiversity movement, this is exceptional under the metric of our species' entirety. For long it has been thought, and by many it has been thought, that normalcy precedes strength; to be physically strong, one must be first physically normal, and to be exceptional in one's career, one cannot be too much of a maverick or deviant. Despite the implication here that the procurement of excellence will result from an initially normal state, most of the so-called "normal" people never exceed mediocrity in any capacity. Thus, we have a large sector of the populace whose *only* claim of success is indeed their averageness; there is another sector whose only claim is their deviance or off-beatness; and, finally, there are the "truly" exceptional.
I do not mean to put forth a qualification for the phrase "'truly' exceptional" here (I myself am anything but), only to note that it is a basic fact that the extremes of a statistical distribution can not under any sane measure be considered the "norm" of a population. Thus, most people wind up in a middling state, because they are too afraid to take risks or to venture beyond normalcy. For others, the greatest risk would be to take none at all, and to remain in a sordid place. #Nietzsche wrote about the modern man and his fondness for comfort, which seems almost necessary to him, though this ruse is sometimes violently ripped away in moments of great distress and uncertainty. Yet, the more one invests in some enterprise, the greater his comfort in investment shall become in the future. He will become increasingly content the more he is inspired to accept a state of discontent. It is almost paradoxical. According to Kaufmann, stability is necessary in order to preserve the objectivity of the facts at hand; for, if my life were to rapidly descend into chaos, a statement of its stability would be rendered invalid, and further, *every* statement about the self would cease to be true if it could not be maintained for some time. Thus, we find ourselves in a tension between, on the one hand, seeking to preserve the identity of the self, and on the other, opening it up to the possibility of renewal. It is the so-called "Cartesian apple basket;" we must select only the very best fruits to preserve.
The above consideration tells us that we do not tether ourselves to any permanent anchor; thus, any attempt to do so is an illusion. It is not any ordinary illusion, however; it is a fantasy of the *ego ideal*, a Platonic, "perfect" version of ourselves that could exist in principle. Yet, Christianity and human nature tell us that our histories are scarred by previous faults. Thus, if we conceptualize our lives as linear timelines, the ego ideal becomes untenable. For this reason, to the extent that all persons have egos, all persons are inherently narcissistic in various fashions, for the ego, like the immune system, seeks to be preserved. Yet, the ego cannot be an objective attribute of the psyche if there exists no permanent station under its name. By assuming the ego to be an objective space, we tacitly fix an idealized version of the self to strive towards. This is what George Kelly would call a "superordinate construct," and it is basically our modus-operandi or moral compass.
When we assimilate perfection into our lives, then perfection becomes normal, and the proverbial bar only rises. We can conclude that it is easier to do morally right in a morally bankrupt society if we are willing to be relativistic; yet, the cycles which entrap the denizens of these societies, from which escape is difficult, tell us a different story. The uneasiness we feel stems from moral struggles, because on the one hand, society forces us to normalize ourselves, but on the other, exceptional morality has never been normal for humans. So, the drive for harmony is in conflict with the wills to power and beauty. Therefore, the sacrificial nature of our deeds is evident, for everything has its tradeoffs. The gambits we must make in order to improve ourselves are not unlike those of chess, because on some level life is a game, or at least it *can be* gamed. This leads to the idea of "games of the ego," and today I write about a specific subcategory in which the game is to preserve equilibrium.
The word "performative" is often bandied about like a slur these days, but the truth of the matter is that all is essentially theater. We are all method actors, who improve through improv. The only difference between our world and the one on stage is that there has never been a play with a cast of billions, except for the worldwide multicultural spectacle that is humanity.
The one who acts normal with respect to society plays the every(wo)man. (S)he must eat healthily, take care of herself, and thus serves as a [[The Everyman as a Clinician|clinician]], at least locally. She does not prescribe drugs, but ways of being; sometimes, quietly in her own mind, and other times, in the pulpit of social media. She is thus also something of a ruler; something of a comedian; of a friend, of a partner, etcetera., and it is all very exhausting. Where this is most evident is in the household: the kids are expected to be raised as well-rounded individuals, and anglophone obesity rates show that this is often taken literally.
Yet, the more that is invested into blandness -- into mildness -- the more irate and "mad" the "filthy casual" becomes. #DnC Doctrine and Covenants 3:1 reads "The works, and the designs, and the purposes of God cannot be frustrated, neither can they come to naught." Yet, no such thing is said of our species, and the sociopolitical machine (up to and including the family "unit") is allegedly well-oiled but truthfully and intensely frustrating. Thus, the more one feeds into this machine, the more their sanity is ground to bits, and there are in fact no sane normal people. So, people toil away to keep up with the Joneses, who always have nicer cars and bring better foods to the potluck, and whose neuroses are kept strictly behind closed doors.
So, in sum, in order to remain a banal (generically "pleasant") person, one must play extraordinarily well at the games of inhibition, but as soon as it is revealed how invested she is in her strategy she can no longer appear normal. The norm in every culture is neurosis, and the only escape is acceptance of the absurd; for, isn't it rather absurd the things we let bother us? These unpalatable sensations, which has evolved within us to protect us from danger, has such a death-grip upon us; isn't it a wonder how we even made it to this life to begin with?
Anyways, that's my ramble for today.