“Do you know where you’re going to? Do you like the things that life is showing you? Where are you going to? Do you know?” Those are lyrics from a Diana Ross song titled ‘Do You Know’, they’re often stuck in my head and they are profound questions to dwell on… just a random thought. Parents, guardians, and supervisors are principally designated to edify children, to nourish them, to protect them, and to shepherd them into a life brimful of joy, accomplishment, and satisfaction. But, from birth we’re all blitzed with ideas and notions that aren’t our own. We’re taught that “normal” is whatever the general consensus perceives as acceptable, and anyone who deviates from those norms are strange, weird, or just “not right”. It’s abnormal and erroneous to think for yourself on planet Earth!? There are 8 billion people on this planet, and most people honest-to-goodness believe that every single person alive and breathing should have matching life goals and aspirations. Because of the unanimity among the prosaic majority, a lot of people become acquiescent in their uninspired attempts at being normal. In my opinion, acquiescence and conformity are the central causes of people’s ultimate failure in reaching their individual life goals, if they even have independently-inspired goals. I’ve always understood that a great deal of people form decisions exclusively based on their presumption of the decisions’ communal reception, in lieu of making decisions based on their personal confidences and desires. In other words, an overwhelming abundance of people only do what they believe other people want them to do. Point-blank, if people weren’t indoctrinated to forsake their own thoughts and judgements to appease the preponderant collective, then the world would probably be a happier place. The problem is, feeble-mindedness and idiocy are two of mankind’s most common and natural characteristics. And, from a psychological perspective, I wholeheartedly believe that the presence of mental illness in humans is far more common than the absence of mental illness, but I digress.
There’s a prominent distinction between consanguinity and family, at least from a cognizant perspective. To share kinship or the same bloodline isn’t the same as sharing a sincere, intimate bond. In fact, many people deem their closest confidants as family, even if they are not blood-related. Titles and formalities are a diminutive, inconsequential detail when it pertains to interpersonal relationships. An adored relationship isn’t determined by common ancestry, or living arrangements, or uninvolved familiarity, it’s determined by love, affection, compassion, and the sort. One notion that vexes me supremely is the ill-considered, ill-advised proposal that people should always respect their elders and revere their parents and relatives, regardless of the situation or the circumstances. That’s probably top ten ‘dumbest shit I’ve ever heard’! To respect someone is to have admiration for that person, and to understand and appreciate them for their importance, value, and significance. People, regardless of their familial connection or acquainted association to other parties, must, by principal, earn and deserve reverence and esteem. What self-respecting person is going to respect someone who’s domineering and demeaning, or who gossips behind their back, or who’s abusive to some degree, or who’s just openly disrespectful?! We all know family doesn’t always have your back or your best interest at heart. But, the dilemma arrives when it’s time to differentiate tough love from a total lack of love. And, because people are so stupid, a stern lover can be easily mistaken for a discordant foe, and vice versa. Also, weak-minded people are inherently insecure and excessively defensive, so they’re easily daunted by the slightest sign of disparity and they’re usually extremely difficult to deal with. The latter statement goes both ways, because some weak people try to control and exploit other people to feel dominant, and other weak people may feel like someone’s trying to manipulate them when that person’s just attempting to aid them. The fact of the matter is, some people don’t want to be loved, some don’t deserve to be loved, some don’t understand what respect means, some are uncomfortable reciprocating love and respect, etc. There are multifarious explanations behind people’s actions, and deciphering a person’s motives can be complicated, but diagnosing the dynamics of a relationship and deciding if a person is paramount to your life is uncomplicated. Mother doesn’t always know best, you don’t have to forgive someone for doing you wrong or forget what they did to you, and if you turn the other cheek someone is bound to slap that motherfucker. Rejecting reason and rationale to propitiate other people by unreluctantly yielding to their conceptions defies logic, because it only makes sense for someone who wants to be happy to use reasoning to justify taking logical steps toward enhancing their own life. But again, people are stupid, and often their logic isn’t logical at all.
The concept of right and wrong is based on the premise of a decision-maker’s recognition of morality and virtue, and whether they’re capable of making orthodox decisions. Righteousness can be obscured by a lack of mental capacity, an inability to accurately assess a situation, an unwillingness to accept facts or reality, or a copious array other reasons. A person must pass judgement on a decision-maker to form a perspective on the decision-maker’s choices. Ultimately, right and wrong is a matter of opinion, and there are no concrete guidelines to determine if any chosen decision was justified or not. Even laws, rules, and regulations are devised from suppositions. By the same token, the idea of normality is founded on the grounds of theory. Theoretically, a “normal” person is someone who conforms to widespread conventional standards, or someone who does precisely what’s customarily expected of the masses. However, customs and conventions vary vastly in the grand scope of human civilization. There are divergent traditions and institutions in all accustomed, idiosyncratic societies and cultures. And, of course, everyone has their separate viewpoints on the rationality and viability of those unique traditions and institutions. Who’s to say what should be and what shouldn’t be? What qualifies a person or a group of people to fabricate provisions and stipulations for everyone else? What obligations do people have to follow any ritualistic procedures to meet the expectations set by society? I believe it’s up to individuals to adjudicate what’s proper for them in their own lives. For me, there’s nothing improper about being sui generis or original. It suffices to say that nobody “normal” ever accomplishes anything great! Normality is mediocrity, it’s being uninspiring and monotonous, it’s the white flag of life. If a person takes active measures to be normal, they’re basically capitulating to society’s dictations and subjugating themselves under the rule of opinion. No matter who you are or what you’re doing, someone is going to have an opinion on your actions. There will be people who understand, agree with, and relate to you, and there will be people who don’t. But, at the end of the day, who and what are you living for?
Self-awareness is conscious knowledge of one’s own character, feelings, motives, and desires. But, to have knowledge of self you must be insightful and intuitive, you can’t be mindless or delusional, and you must be forthright and honest with yourself. The problem is, most people are brainwashed to the point that even reading this invokes an impulse to seek a second opinion, even though it all makes perfect sense… or does it? Sadly, some people only gain confidence after receiving affirmation or reassurance. As I mentioned, I understand that a lot of people live to serve the yearnings of others and most people are stupid, and if you don’t understand that you’ll certainly have a clue by the last sentence of this article. A popular opinion is a belief supported, accepted, and expressed by many. To share commonality, many people attune their positions on certain matters to reflect those more generally received. It’s natural for people to protect themselves, and few posses the fortitude to withstand the scrutiny of being insurgent or antithetical. I believe people fundamentally conform and acquiesce to avoid conflict, because they don’t want to be confronted or singled out for opposing a cooperative view. Adaptation is a visceral survival technique, but resignation is cowardice. A person should never compromise their character or jeopardize their wishes for acceptance. We’re all imperfect, and the bliss is in realizing that there’s no such thing as the perfect person. If being normal means persistently working toward but never reaching the goal of being the quintessential person, and being yourself means simply accepting who you are and being proud of it, which option is the most sensible? “Misery loves company.” “People fear what they don’t understand and hate what they can’t conquer.” Though quotes frequently come across cheesy, those are two you should think about when evaluating your stance on solidarity in society. Try to cope with the fact that sometimes it’s best to stand alone. Some people will never be happy, and they’ll execute their damnedest effort to convince a happy person that they aren’t living right. Essentially, it’s up to you to deduce who wants to see you win, who you want to be, what’s right and what’s wrong, and what life means to you. And, when dubiety strikes, never forget to ask yourself, “Who the fuck are you?”.