What is Normal? What is Healthy?

Posted on Posted in Thoughts
What is Healthy? What is Normal?

In conjunction with the first part of my anniversary 2016 foods for thoughts – here I assert why there’s no such thing as either “healthy” or “normal”. 

<TL;DR> The words “Healthy” or “Normal” is only an outcome so subjective. Both morally and ambiguously egoistic in interpretation. Such that I don’t think (the majority) of us today ever realise how wasteful and futile pursuit all this is. From all this confinement of subjectivities into either “Healthy” or “Normal”. Whilst ignoring individuality contexts and circumstances.

So, do you wish to continue believing all these binary semantics? I don’t.

Why? Because “Normal” or “Healthy” are both institutionalised. Unicornian pejorative bullsh*t. </article>.


Still reading? Good.

So many times I’ve lost time and effort resorting exactly just what anyone else would do. Curating as many “answers” possible and try to “condense” from there.

Day by day, disappointments brew. I did not realise all along, that all this pursuing for such an empirical “correctness”; are actually all flawed. Exhausting and dare I say it – dangerous and misled endeavours, in and of itself.

Having examined the crisis of confusion over what is “normal” and “healthy” led me to conclude to just three reasons. Why – resorting to “Healthy” or “Normality” is an exercise in futility.


Nothing is “normal” in nature. Because nothing in nature ever PRE-defines anything as “normal”.

Nature is “just is”. Go outside. The air you breathe – has no “normality”. It consists; alongside “oxygen” – some bad radiation, and toxicity. Everything contains some “spectrum” of multiple things, to help compartmentalising its own manifestation.

Take the phenomenon of “colour”. Each is a spectrum. Yet we sentimentalise them into labels anyway. Why is the colour of the sky named “blue”? (Hint: someone else AND everyone else tells you that it is because simply it is “just is”). That the “normal” interpretation to it is simply accepted as being “blue”. 

But is this something that mother nature pre-defines simply as “blue”“Here you go – “blue” is blue pigment you can’t “make” it or “constitutes” it any other way than its solidarity existence as – “Blue!”

Everything seemingly has a codex or a spectrum of many microcosms we are yet to understandYet Governances, Institutions, & dietary guidelines – remain incessant for believing that everything can be predefined through semantics. Out of this results in pursuit for simplicity. Through meta-analysis and epidemiology over defining what is “blue”. Should we then demonise all who are colour-blind?

In respect to the ever so complicated “Nature” – who or what defines “Normal“? Nothing. Nobody. It is neither up to me or you to prescriptively define what that is. 


Nothing is “Healthy”. Because we remain obsessed at oversimplifying & containing – natural chaos.

Are you an average statistical means of data? Or are you a self-contained individuality of “being”?

We are constantly bombarded by a world of competing objectivities behind such is perceived as “correctness”. “This is good for you”. “This is bad for you.”. An online food advisory named “Eat this! Not That!”  exists for the attention-span deprived. Someone must have willingly paid a hefty sum just to secure that domain name.

So what do we do whenever we’re challenged from one side; whether left or right – whilst us trying to simply in state of  “be”? That is, for simply “being” ourselves? For being within our own Self-Authenticity? Unfortunately, “Healthy” still requires conformity for being “Normal”.

They – the status quo – use every means possible to stabilise – Chaos. Institutionalise as objectively far away from all other subjectivities.

De“-fine, generalise and simplify. That is what textbooks tell us what to do. But how or why to think? Becomes a contextual chaos. That right there – is reason why I believe “Simplicity” is an illusion to hide or elude – contextual chaos. 

Why do we do this? Because it’s too complicated. I even daringly admit – that even my own career are guilty of this paradigm.

What is Healthy? What is Normal?

“Graphic Design” is more or less – a coordination of chaos into individually contextualised – appeasement.

Anyone can be a “designer”. Just an ipad, a surface tablet, and a creative cloud subscription. Wait until you’re given these familiar request lines. “Make it pop“. “Do your magic.” “Make it look good“. “Make it look special.”  Worst of all – “we want to make things clean, crisp, simple.” 

Take Apple’s main photographer – Peter Belanger; for instance. I bet he gets sick over and over again if told to make things look “simple”.  How many cameras or lighting rigs, reflectors, equipment, etc used in the process? Just to get that perfect “white” as truly-objectively-correctly-neutral “white” background? Just to get that perfect shine reflecting/bouncing off the Gorilla® glass?

Let’s go back to the-sky-as-“blue” as correctness interpretation. Objectifying it as a persona of “cool” or of “security” to me is absolute non-sense. Shroud the colour blue in the “right” context – it can even be contradictively be “depressing”,  “sterile” and “loneliness”. Who’s to say that one is correct? Next time a client ask straight in your face “I want it whimsical”. You’d be wise to respond back – “Define to me what you mean by whimsical.”

You’ll eventually get “the” picture. their picture. Not yours. Unfortunately, “money” is at stake. So I have to conform to someone else’s “normals”.

What is Healthy? What is Normal?
Justin Main @ Unsplash.com


“Healthy” or “Normality” only implies an outcome. Not a process.

I’d be the first to admit that our current notion of “Health” actually bears some “good” intent. At least – in the outcome of attaining biological “prestige”. Alas, such prestige is an outcome. An already finished product.  Is it that simple then by following by what is “normally” instilled confide us to the same outcome? Absolutely not.

To say we need to be “healthy” is one thing. Getting there is a chaotic disorder altogether.

The number “100” for “normal” blood glucose seems to be “empirically” recognised for being “balanced”. HOW much of an “effort” is there required to meet or maintain this “normal” blood glucose in the first place? One person may need to fast for however needs to be get to that level. Maybe not for others. Maybe one person needs to exercise less. Others need more. Then there’s  stress levels, do you have enough money to survive the next week?

Normality” and/or “Healthy” are both illusion of hope/s. They condescends the individual as communal drones. Should he/she respond unfavourably to such institutionalisations.

So “Healthy” is empirically and effectively means – Mediocrity. In all subsistence. In all persistence.

A paradigm much akin to Socialism. A very good intent, but an implausible logistic at meeting biological context of individual subjectivities.

What is Healthy? What is Normal?
lianemetzler.de / unsplash.com

So what do we you do?

Everyone is an individual. Thus each of us has to qualify, not quantify – our reasons at believing what is right or wrong. Such is rightfully carried by an individual decision – led by his or her own biological self-authenticity. Not to be misled by epidemiological or democratic – decision. 

I believe it all comes down to how we (willingly) reassess and periodise our understanding of Logic, Instinct and Cycles. All three realms are all context-driven, and time-specific. Nothing lasts forever as “correct” in one context vs the next. I may need “X” as my imploration for “correctness”. But you may need “Y”, or that others may need “Z” – based on their specific time, or life’s circumstance. In other times – I may NOT need more of “X”, but may later gravitate my need to more of “Y” upon the arrival of a different circumstance. 

Nature is an elusive form of dictatorship. We must therefore reconcile ourselves to meet “it” via respecting its imposingly chaotic, numerous contexts. Cyclically and periodically. Overtime.

Just like we have a day and a night. Our biology and physiology revolves around these cyclical contexts. Much the same as we need to inevitably compensate our glycogen in context of exercise. Or in context of within long enough caloric deprivations. But we must remain Authentic at meeting our objectivities, genuinely felt to the bone.

Likewise we have both genuine Certainties and Uncertainties. Abundance and Scarcities. We must therefore ably realign our purposes at surviving under these conditionality. In honest capacity.

TLDR; “healthy” or “normal” are ambigious.

“A totalitarian for correctness objectivity amidst unaddressed ambiguity.” – would be the most pragmatic way I’d describe what “healthy” and/or “normal” means.

You are deservedly – your very own voice and being of reason. What you eat as a “meal” therefore; serves as “ration”. To help you rationalise – your current manifestation.

I hope despite much sincerity have transpired you readers to periodically change your own “selves”. By WILLINGLY periodise our logical thinking/s – to embrace every one of Nature’s own cyclical contexts of chaos.

Just as Friedrich Nietzsche once said – “There are no facts. Only interpretations.”

Would you still fight facts with more “facts”? Even if that somewhat remains eventually and infinitely – subjective in interpretations? Post your thoughts below!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *