I realize just what. . . ” normalcy means to me. (And yes, I had a song in my head when I started writing this.)
“Normal” =~= dull, dim, boring, useful only as it presents a “Normal” for experimentation and possible awakening–or even just a minor crack in the wall that bars “Normals” from seeing a perspective on reality that is outside their rut.
Now, while I definitely view “normals” as dim-witted, I admit there are very intelligent, high-functioning “Normals” who can excel in their limited mental worlds. I even admire some high-functioning normals. I also admit that there definitely are some low-functioning “Odds” who also (along with low-functioning “Normals”) probably should not be out and about without a keeper.
But, in general, even high-functioning Normals (see, I’ve dispensed with the quotation marks. You can reason out why) seem. . . dull, interesting mostly as case studies or for hints on how to camouflage oneself as a Normal in order to skate by in their weird (well, weird to me, and as I’ve discovered, to many other Odds), tribal realm.
At times, the shiboleths, totems, superstitions, myths, memes, and taboos of Normals seem other-worldly, almost as if these creatures have been bred from alien stock from some far distant galaxy. How Normals can interbreed with Odds is a genetic mystery for the ages. *heh*
Ah, but they do, and it’s a wonder to behold a family of mixed Normals and Odds.
Nowadays, Odds are generally miscategorized by Normals in one category of the DSM, because we are outside their realm of understanding. They call it a “spectrum” of whatever. Amusing, since the whole of the rest of their p-sych manual of “issues” is devoted to a baffling range of p-sych issues that sweep all of normalcy into one or another p-sychological problem area. They simply can’t seem to come to grasp with the fact that Normalcy itself is their real problem.
72% of the voices in my head approve this post. (Most of the rest just think I should leave the Normals alone in their boxes.)