normal

This might not be such a destructive system , but once a "normal" person learns to use this technique, consideration of new or unusual things or ideas is only necessary when the classification system itself fails or is too limited in range to encompass this new thing or thought. It is the duty and function of "normal" people to classify, label and file the whole of creation. Perversely the description of the object itself is more often then not based on the physical appearance of the article. It's the "normal" way of thinking to believe that we call a thing by a name and classify it as a certain kind of thing because that is what it is. "Normal" thinking dictates that name defines make-up, that a thing is what you say it is and you say it is what it is because that is what it is. "Normal" thinking disregards the fact that two different people can look at the same object in the same place at the same time, and reach two entirely different conclusions about the nature of that object: not because the object itself is subject to change or has two or more natures, but because every individual bases conclusions and deductions on the whole of experience and their likes and dislikes, or physical/emotional state at any given moment. As a result, one person may glorify the image of a man being tortured to death and brand "obscene" the image of a child with no clothes on, and someone else might consider the man as hideous, and the child as pure and innocent. Some people may maintain that their ideas are their own, but are they really? Or are they what society tells them is right and proper, therefore normal?.
             If normal is what the majority of the population is and conforms to, than what is normal? The family with Mommy, Daddy, little Bobby, and faithful Fido, living in a two storey house with a white picket fence? Daddy works 9-5, Mommy takes care of Bobby, they never fight, there is no alcohol or abuse of any kind.