Frances to William and Cheerskep with respect...
In realist philosophy, the normal is the ideal norm and this
normative norm is simply what ought to be, while the abnormal is
what ought not to be. The normal is thus not the ordinary nor is
it the average. The idea of the abnormal being deemed a handicap
or a disadvantage seems to be beyond what ought not to be. The
normal norm is thus not what was or is or could be or will be or
would be or even must be, but what might be found as being
loosely what should be. The norm is an objective logical
construct, but one realized indirectly and subjectively in mind,
which mentality of mind happens to make pure objective logic
degenerative, and thus what ought to be. If my profoundly and
multiplicitously muddled assertion, that art and science are both
acts of only normal humans, and tend to be engaged in naturally
by instinct without any undue nurturing, needs to be clarified in
regard to the term normal without resorting to some unclear
synonym like ordinary or common or average, then perhaps some
correction might be offered. The normal for constructs like
buildings in architectural theory after all seems to be of some
importance for experts in the field.
