> not a normal guy
I assure you some people try themselves - and I do not see what is not "normal" about it. To experience, voluntary, then grow, is the norm.
I assure you some people try themselves - and I do not see what is not "normal" about it. To experience, voluntary, then grow, is the norm.
-- either you go along well, hence that she agrees with your opinion is a weak test;
-- or you married her to test yourself, which would prove my point.
TND; QED. /J
Normal is what reflects the norm. That natural, observational norm (type, mode) and deontic, optimal norm ("as it should be") so typically ("normally") diverge, so the latter is found in the standard deviation, comes from the very point that was raised initially: growth («To experience, voluntarily, then grow, is the norm»), or the point where you are in it, proceeding towards the right extreme.
There is no escape from the norm (and its negative), you see: if good, then optimal norm, peripheral in the curve; if lacky, then observational norm in the centre. And between the two there is a sort of a continuity, thresholds aside...
That the "world" looks so abnormal, the bad way (hence you can call 'abnormal' the normal), is justified in such framework - especially when you look at it as a playground. And we just say, ok, if it were possible just to reduce the collateral damage...
I'm doing better now! The buprenorphine injection has made my life so much better.
Of course my trauma was one of the real driving forces behind that "experiment" and thought process. Really, my "lets find out what its like" was a rationalisation it seems.