ordinary & extraordinary

[soull]

for sometime now i have been trying to understand the relationship between the ordinary, extraordinary and the less ordinary lives. in particualr i have been attracted to the eriksonian thoughts on extraordianry aspects that emerge during the course of identity development in peple that make the ordianry lives change into life histories, also his views on case histories that lie soemwhere on the other end of the continuum.
anyone open for a dialogue?

[spidergoat]

I propose that even the most ordinary life is by nature extraordinary. The difference is in the judgement of the observer as to what is more interesting. There is no inherent difference.

[whitewolf]

Read Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punnishment. The idea of ordinary and extraordinary people is at heart of that novel.

Every life is different, and each personality is different, as it develops through lessons learned in a particular lifetime. Therefore, being different from everybody else is rather ordinary...

[spookz]

here in america, it is known as being in the "right place at the right time"

:D

[ProCop]

Shakespearean view was that the tragedy can happen only to talented, high positioned people ( eg. King being betrayed) . Low people were the subjects of commedies...

In Death of a Salesman Miller has shown that also a simple person can be the subject of a deep tragedy.

Conclusion: It is how you experience your life what makes it (extra)ordinary. (The same "story" can be lived als "ordinary" or "not ordinary").

[Mystech]

Well where is the dividing line between what is extraordiary and what is meerly ordinary?

[soull]

hello! all and thanx for writing in, i have to confess that on the hindsight this post seems very narrow in scope as i wrote it in a specific context (eriksonian theory on psychosocial identity) so those not familiar with it may have their own versions of the post.

I do agree with you spideroat as I have myself been drawn to seeing extra even in the mundane but somehow something seems missing somewhere and am not so sure if it is only in terms of the “judgement of the observer”. Could it be as spookz says being at the right place at the right time? Then you’d say that people like shaw, james, martin luther king, etal were all who they were only by courtesy their milieu or is it to say that we would also need to give some credit to something more than the historical factors (what erikson calls psychohistorical factors).

Yes procop, I think also that even a simple person can have extraordinary experiences and moments which is again to say that extraordinary emanates from the ordinary and that is precisely where I start from, theorists working on issues around personal identity have proposed that only a few (extraordinary ones) are able to arrive at a sense of personal identity and the rest keep struggling somewhere in between. To me this sounds like trivialising the pursuits and lives of so many who are perhaps not exactly in the hall of fame but do have traces of extraordinariness.

[Mystech]

But again, what is extraordinary?

It reminds me of the distinction between normal and paranormal. If something is normal then it is explainable through scientific methods, it's observable and knowable, but everything which IS meets these qualifications, thus everything that IS falls within the realm of being normal, and what phenomena are left that can be described as paranormal? Well, only those things that are imaginary, really, but if they were not imaginary they would be normal.

What then is extraordinary, and what extraordinary? What factor separates one from the other? The only classification I can think of is that something is extraordinary when it lies outside the expectations of a persons paradigm, but then the term extraordinary is completely subjective and arbitrary, and why even bother with it?

[machaon]

If the sky split open in a bright flash of primary colours every day and deposited , by the hand of God, enough food to feed every human on Earth, It would stop making the 6:00 news in a month.

[whitewolf]

Shakespearean view was that the tragedy can happen only to talented, high positioned people ( eg. King being betrayed) . Low people were the subjects of commedies...
It's not Shakespear's, it's Greek! From way back when Christ wasn't born yet! Sorry, just an unquenchable need to correct here...
I agree with Machaon.
You need to carefully define terms first. In the source I mentioned before, the extraordinary is the one who can kill large ammounts of people and do evil deeds that in the end will come out as a benefit, and he will never be punnished either by law or his own conscious; ex.: Napoleon. The ordinary is the one who is subject to laws of the society.

[soull]

Hey mystech let me talk about my understanding of the concept, I think what you say of extraordinary is correct (be it a phenomenon as you put it, or in terms of human qualities) we do refer to something as extraordinary when it lies outside the ‘norm’ and yes, if taken at an individual level it would be something arbitrary indeed but if taken at a social level then it may not seem as vague. To contemplate on the issue is definitely a question of personal interest, as I mentioned before, for me it is of concern as it connects to the issues around personal identity (in terms of an individual arriving at a sense of personal identity through the social which would require some common definitions of favourable xtraordinary qualities that would help the person to make a place in the social in spite of and along with the internal and external obstacles).

[soull]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by whitewolf
I agree with Machaon. You need to carefully define terms first.
indeed!!

[soull]

Originally posted by whitewolf
In the source I mentioned before, the extraordinary is the one who can kill large ammounts of people and do evil deeds that in the end will come out as a benefit, and he will never be punnished either by law or his own conscious; ex.: Napoleon. The ordinary is the one who is subject to laws of the society. [/B]
yeah but it can not be taken to generalise all extraordinary human qualties. Xtraordinay maynot be only one extreme you have Hitler as one, Gandhi as the other and Shaw still another…
My interest is however in the numerous others like me (and perhaps you)who oscillate in between.

[soull]

Sigh! I was hoping that we could sustain a dialogue on the same if we get through the initial hurdles of arriving at some common understanding on the subject in absence of which mystech's question might seem apt.."and why even bother with it":eek:

[sargentlard]

Face the hard facts...nobody cares any more.

[soull]

Originally posted by sargentlard
Face the hard facts...nobody cares any more.
dont know what would get to me first my optimism or their apathy

[soull]

anyways, thanks for showing enough concern ;)

[whitewolf]

Gandhi and Hitler didn't comply to laws, did they?
Well, the ones like you and me who do, we're quite ordinary, using that definition. Besides, you and me in particular, we haven't really done much in our lives that would impact a large population, did we?
Impact on society is my requirement for being extraordinary. You?
Oh, by the way, welcome to sciforums.

[soull]

Originally posted by whitewolf
Gandhi and Hitler didn't comply to laws, did they?

yes they did not yet the effects were quite different, i mentionmed the names only as a small clarification to make sure we are taking the term to be inclusive of both axis

[soull]

Originally posted by whitewolf
Impact on society is my requirement for being extraordinary. you?
am glad you clarified your position on it, would help remove some mist/fog/whatever:D

[soull]

..taking it further to look at the dimensions of personal identity in terms of development, it seems that only certain kind of extraordinariness provides an individual to derive a sense of generativity(through takings and givings withthe society) after having arrived at a sense of self

[soull]

i think extraordinary or ordinary or even less than ordinary is a mix of the individual and the socio historical-context, (remove either and you might have an xtraordianry person seeming like less than ordinary and vice-versa) but am afaid this seemingly simple statement has more than simple consequences especially for the marginalised

[whitewolf]

Please note that one doesn't have to be extraordinary in order to arrive to a sense of self and generativity... The process is called self-actualization (look it up in psychology) and, although not a 100% of the population will complete it, it is average and therefore ordinary.
In terms of impact... I've said this before and I'll say it again:
Atlas holds up the world one person at a time.

[soull]

Originally posted by whitewolf
you and me in particular, we haven't really done much in our lives that would impact a large population, did we?
Impact on society is my requirement for being extraordinary. You?

my immediate response is like YES!you're so very right but then as i look around i begin to feel uncomfortable as i feel i might be takign too simplistic and restrictive a criterion, i dont mind placing xtraordinariness in more everydaylife termsand in that i would see glimpses of it in impacts on any of the social orders, be it the world, country,neighbourhood, family.....

[soull]

Originally posted by whitewolf
Please note that one doesn't have to be extraordinary in order to arrive to a sense of self and generativity... and, although not a 100% of the population will complete it, it is average and therefore ordinary.
let me understand your position better, are you saying that arriving at a sense of identity is average/ordinary?

[soull]

[i]Oh, by the way, welcome to sciforums. [/B]
thanks!(the connection failed me as i typed that in the morning)..had been holding my breath for some acknowledgement:D

[whitewolf]

let me understand your position better, are you saying that arriving at a sense of identity is average/ordinary?
Yes it is part of becoming mature. It is what you do with that identity that will make you extraordinary

[soull]

Originally posted by whitewolf
Yes it is part of becoming mature. It is what you do with that identity that will make you extraordinary
no i think it would be the other way around, if at all. to arrive at ones identity requires maturity (what some psychologists also refer to as agency or in lay person terms wisdom).
i think we might be going round and round for a lack of common understanding on the term identity itself, for me it stands for everythign one has come to become. although it can be looked at from various perspectives but for the present purposes i have been talking in terms of a psychosocial identity which enables the person to arrive at a place for him/herself in the larger society, to achieve his/her potentials to the optimum. in this sense then it works both ways, ones own extraordinariness as well as the extraordianry socio-historical situations provide a platform for an identity resolution and further one is able to highlight these xtraordinary aspects by utilising and integratingthem to the fullest. a person called erik erikson has talked extensively about it and i largely agree to his framework but for my discomfort with his limiting to eurocentric male as a norm.:m:

[whitewolf]

I have recently read an article in a (Russian) newspaper, where there was an excerpt from one of George Orwell's essays (we worship George Orwell, yes!). Some of what he said to describe a personality of a writer relates to our topic. I have translated it to keep the wording of the article; while George Orwell's actual words may differ, the idea stays the same.
"1. Pure Egotism.
Thirst to look smarter, desire to be remembered and talked about after your death, striving to surpass those adults, who belittled you in your childhood, etc. [...] This is present in scientists, artists, politicians, lawyers, warriors, successful businessmen [for our purposes, let's classify the creme de la creme of these groups as "extraordinary"]. Majority of the human population, in general, are not ambitious. Around thirty years of age, they lose personal ambitions and slowly suffocate from annoying jobs. But there's always minority of gifted, stubborn people, and writers belong to this type.
2. Aesthetic Ecstasy.
Perception of world's beauty, or [...] beauty of words, their exact organization. Ability to receive pleasure from combination of sounds, from rythm of a story. Desire to participate in society's experience, which you value, and which, from your perspective, must not perrish. Sometimes a writer experiences a special love towards the drawing of typographical script [etc]
3. Historical Impulse.
Desire to see things and events the way they are, preserving the facts for future generations.
4. Political Goal.
Desire to push the world in a cetain direction, to change people's thoughts. ... [etc]..."
Let's agree that some writers, including George Orwell, are extraordinary. Some of these characteristics are a part of personalities of extraordinary people (some mentioned above are specific to writers). Agree?

I am familiar with Ericson's works. Pleasure to see his name mentioned. I do not remember to whom belongs "self-actualization", when I have time I'll look it up. However, definition of "identity" is not vital to our discussion. We are looking for specifical characteristics of "extraordinariness" in character.

[halcyonsbane]

THE BACON CAME FROM WILBUR.

[soull]

Originally posted by whitewolf
"1. Pure Egotism.
Thirst to look smarter, desire to be remembered and talked about after your death, striving to surpass those adults, who belittled you in your childhood, etc. [...] This is present in scientists, artists, politicians, lawyers, warriors, successful businessmen [for our purposes, let's classify the creme de la creme of these groups as "extraordinary"]. Majority of the human population, in general, are not ambitious. Around thirty years of age, they lose personal ambitions and slowly suffocate from annoying jobs. But there's always minority of gifted, stubborn people, and writers belong to this type. Yes and these make the life histories, my only problem is that I am beginning to have a difficulty in taking the lives of the “majority of the human population” only in terms of only these characteristics, in that, feel it illustrates reductionism by delimiting the criteria for xtraordinariness or even identity to such traits. Yes there are some who are able to make a mark and be classified as “crème de la crème” but the efforts and struggles of the others can not be taken as only a lack of agency. I guess what I have been struggling with in my posts is that: 1)what defines an individual’s (xtraordinary)characteristics is as much a part of the socio-historical context as the person him/herself 2) perhaps erikson and others like him have taken the easier way out to look for the elements of identity (which includes extraordinariness) in only the life histories (or the case histories- the other end) without choosing or being able to appreciate the same in the majority of lives. If I recall correctly then erikson himself has mentioned somewhere the lag in his work and (his) difficulty to capture the elements of….in the everyday life.

[soull]

Originally posted by whitewolf
I am familiar with Ericson's works. Pleasure to see his name mentioned. I do not remember to whom belongs "self-actualization", when I have time I'll look it up. .
Yes erikson is one of my fav., I find his perspective befitting at a meta level. Maslow was the one who was quoted for the concept (self actualization) for the first time though there were many others who used and advanced it later

[soull]

Originally posted by whitewolf
However, definition of "identity" is not vital to our discussion. We are looking for specifical characteristics of "extraordinariness" in character. .
i still think they are intertwined at least in the way that I see it.

[soull]

Let's agree that some writers, including George Orwell, are extraordinary. Some of these characteristics are a part of personalities of extraordinary people (some mentioned above are specific to writers). Agree?

some ,Agreed!:)

[soull]

Originally posted by whitewolf
I have recently read an article in a (Russian) newspaper, where there was an excerpt from one of George Orwell's essays (we worship George Orwell, yes!).
i dont know him much.. havent read him, but is impressive to my understanding, though couldnt but help wonder where worship would stand in relation to totalitarianism ;)

[whitewolf]

When you talk about ordinary and extraordinary people, you are bound for generalization; furthermore, when talking about these concepts you are automatically assuming that ordinary is the majority and extraordinary are the minority (and elite).
However, you may also talk about how each individual life, each individual personality is extraordinary, thus assuming that everyone's life is extraordinary in some way at some certain point(s). This point of view will take you down a different route.
i still think they are intertwined at least in the way that I see it.
Yes, I meant to say that we are trying to identify some specific traits of identity (because identity can be dissected into different traits of character).
i dont know him much.. havent read him,...[etc]...
You should read his work. 1984 is the one read most commonly, and it is considered his best (last) work. It will open your eyes onto politics, society as a whole, human personalities, and rights. The work I advised you to read above has been considered a prophecy to a certain extent.

[soull]

Originally posted by whitewolf
You should read his work. 1984 is the one read most commonly, and it is considered his best (last) work. It will open your eyes onto politics, society as a whole, human personalities, and rights. The work I advised you to read above has been considered a prophecy to a certain extent.
i think i would, have read some excerpts of the same and reviews but having read a bit of arendt i think orwell's satire would be a pleasant change on the subject. thanks for the reference.
for sometime now i have been tryign to gather some thoughts on totalitarian phenomenon at individual levels, any ideas?

[soull]

yes i admit that the idea of extraordinariness in the ordinary does stimulate me more and it should have the same elements of xtraordinariness as that in any other case, so which direction are we talkign about.

[whitewolf]

so which direction are we talkign about.
It's your call, you're the starter of the thread.
Everyone has a bit of extraordinariness, and those who have more of those "extraordinary trates" end up on top as extraordinary people, and the rest are ordinary.
We are all extraordinary in the sense that we are all different, however we are alike in a lot of ways. Those who are more different from the rest are extraordinary.
What are your views? What, do you think, are the extraordinary traits?

[soull]

Originally posted by whitewolf
Everyone has a bit of extraordinariness, and those who have more of those "extraordinary trates" end up on top as extraordinary people, and the rest are ordinary.
We are all extraordinary in the sense that we are all different, however we are alike in a lot of ways. Those who are more different from the rest are extraordinary.
What are your views? What, do you think, are the extraordinary traits?
indeed! if we bother to look closely enough we'd be able to appreciate xtraordinariness in the seemingly ordinary,i dont quite see the differences in quantity ("more" or "less") but perhaps it is in quality of traits.
there seem to be specific traits that are valued more than others in particular socio-historical contexts and accordingly people who are able to integrate those in different aspects of their lives are seen as extraordinary. there are numerous examples that elaborate on this point, but does it echo with you?

[whitewolf]

I already sense that we may run into stalemate here. Let's define criteria for extraordinary traits. What are your ideas?

[soull]

i concede..looks like you're right(about the deadlock),we seem to be going in circles
about what i think of extraordinary i have mentioned on pg.2, post 2, yet i would try to put the junk in my head into words again.
for one i think extraordinary is a combination of the dominant discourses/technologies with the individual characterisitcs, in other words when certain individuals are able to consolidate the dominat technologies with the personal development, extraordinary becomes conspicuous. in this i am also implyingthat there are individuals/groups whose xtraordinariness (abilities,characteristics,qualities,skills) may get camouflaged or even be mistaken as useless particularly when the "dominant" discourses do not support and recognise these. i see this in many a marginalised groups..women, certain socio-economic groups.
from our dialogue so far i do not think that there is much difference in what we are talking at our ends (upto a point atleast, and in that the criteria for extraordinariness and its visibility) i am only taking it further to challenge its absense in (majority of) others who are labled as less than or merely ordinary.


p.s -all said and done this thread has enabled me to get some coherence in relation to my doubts on the issue, so i owe you for participating :cool:

[whitewolf]

for one i think extraordinary is a combination of the dominant discourses/technologies with the individual characterisitcs, in other words when certain individuals are able to consolidate the dominat technologies with the personal development, extraordinary becomes conspicuous. in this i am also implyingthat there are individuals/groups whose xtraordinariness (abilities,characteristics,qualities,skills) may get camouflaged or even be mistaken as useless particularly when the "dominant" discourses do not support and recognise these.
very interesting. Could you please explain, and give examples.

The question here boils down to Socrates's " What is virtue?" and the like.

[soull]

though there are others, but the example that comes to my mind of hand is of the lives of women.

[whitewolf]

I doubt that this discussion should be gender-oriented; the difference between men and women, in character, is very small and hazy (no this isnt another gender discussion thread). The soul is sexless, so is virtue and extraordinariness.
Again, please explain your thought in detail (very interested).

What women's character traits do you admire most (planning out argument for showing that men have them too...)?

[soull]

now that i am not as sleepy, let me blabber some more..

it need not be mistaken for a gender biased post, all i intended was to highlight some ways in which the context determines what needs to be considered not-normal,less than ordinary, ordianary,special, extraordinary (some sort of linear manner).

i sense that we are basically differing in quality of categories that we're using, i am looking at these as a set of concepts that operate inseperably mostly and in that i talk about extraordianriness as being intertwined with elements of identity. if i have undestood accurately(correct me if i am wrong) you are taking extraordinary, identity...as exclusive categories and so are 'sight' is bound to vary.
another point of difference may be arising our possibly different orientations, for me wellbeing is an important consideration and element for assessing human life.

if i take the premise that what appears extraordinary might be a combination of the context and individual, then extraordinary would not remain extraordinary by itself, taking it further, it might be possible to place the individual within the specific context that s/he comes from and locate some extraordinary elements which might otherwise be overlooked.
:m:

[Mucker]

:D @ Spookz.