Extraneous Strangeness

Words!

Strange!

The "stra" in strange comes from "extra-" (Latin) meaning 'outside of'.

So, even if it's not intentional at all, when we use the word 'strange', we're creating a spatial relationship. This also means that 'strangeness' and 'normalcy' are measures of location. In the same way that 'loud' and 'quiet' are measures of volume. And again, the 'extra-' in 'strange' is telling us why we could think of it this way.

Then we can imagine a circle or some kind of amorphous blob or rectangle or hexagon and everything beyond its borders is what we would call 'strange'. It's outside of the border of normal.

BUT! Is there any word that suggests the opposite of 'strange' using the same spacial connotations? In other words, is there any word that means 'normal' that suggests 'inside of''?

I submit to you to, dear reader, that there is NOT!

normal- comes from normas, which means a rule. or a judge, or a carpenter's square or something.

average- comes from an arabic word meaning damaged merchandise

plain- comes from the Latin plangere which is to lament. Meaning 'plain' is related to 'complain'.

Let's take a look at the word 'internal'. It comes from the Latin, inter- which means "between". This fits with our earlier concept of borders of normal. Yet, "internal" doesn't tell us anything about the 'normalness' of something. You wouldn't describe anyone or anything as 'internal'.

Well, why is any of this important? It's important because language, and therefore thought itself, is assembled around dichotomies! To understand light, there has to be dark. To understand good, there must be not-good. To understand chocolate chip cookies, there must be cookies without chocolate chips in them. life/death. Car crash/ pony ride. Blah blah blah!

BUT! If we find a word like 'strange' which has no apparent opposite, then that gives us permission to make wild jumps in logic to reconcile our earlier assumption about dichotomies!

If we lack the capacity to talk about the things within the boundaries of normal as normal, then I conclude that these things are non-existent and incapable of being expressed!

And this is because language necessarily makes things 'strange'. Language exists so that we can take the gobbledy-gook in our brains (what is inside of us--what we could call 'normal' in some sense) and turn it into something that exists outside of our heads and can be interpreted and heard.

And there's the same spacial relationship! Language has to be 'outside' in some sense to be language. We learn language from the outside. We use language to interact with and affect the outside.

And therefore! To use the word 'strange' in its usual, limited, dismissive sense is to deny the underlying strangeness of anything and everything that can potentially be understood or felt or expressed. The regular usage is a conceited, egotistical, ostentatious stance that assumes the person contains some universal truth or knowledge that can be purely expressed and purely understood in all times and all places throughout the history of everywhere and forever! And they have judged something against this great, infallible nugget of truth they possess and deemed it 'strange'. 

HA-HA! And HA! again!

But I hear you say, wise reader, "Well aren't you proud? You've made another argument for relativism. Bust out the champagne (SEVERE EYE ROLL!)"

And this is true, sarcastic reader. To some degree, I have. And I apologize.

But  wouldn't it be a better world if we were able to recognize our own thoughts as a kind of 'strangeness'? Instead of assuming that the things outside of us are deficient or wrong or incapable of being known because they are outside of us? As soon as we choose to express what is inside of us, those things must also become strange. And if we don't express them then they are, in effect, nothing. Recognizing the underlying strangeness of everything puts us in a much better position to make judgments and evaluate stuff. It liberates us from the bias of ourselves! We can't just make quick assumptions using that gobbledy-gook. We have to take the time to be considerate and evaluate things and use reason and arguments before we talk about the validity or normalness of something. Or its worth in being included or recognized or shared.

And maybe that's the best we can hope for at this point. 

---------------------------------------------------------------

Also, here are some words that don't sound like what they mean.

pulchritude-- great beauty

effulgent- radiant, shining

lugubrious- tremendously sad.