A Referendum on Normality

Content and method: the former is everything and everywhere, and these diverse objects require different methods of study. 

However, sometimes things get turned around and the content becomes a function of the method. The thought just now occurs to me that this is a good working definition of ideology, or of the cosmic tautology of ism-ism. Could this be true?

Think of science: each particular discipline adapts itself to the object under study, biology to living organisms, physics to the properties of matter, cosmology to the universe, etc. 

In fact, I just looked it up on Wiki, and there are many more branches of science than I had imagined -- for example, alethiology (the study of truth), agnoiology (the study of ignorance), algology (the study of pain), autology (the study of oneself), and archelogy (the study of first principles) -- and that’s just some of the A’s.

[Scanning the list, a few others pop out: ktenology (the study of putting people to death), zythology (the study of beer), pseudology (the study of lying), and coprology (the study of feces and progressive pseudology).]

I wonder if there is something like a study of study, i.e., studiology? If not, there ought to be. I see there’s gnosiology, the study of knowledge, but who studies the knower? Epistemology looks into the grounds of knowledge, but what about the ground of knowers? 

Back to the point about ideology and ismism: broadly speaking, science is the study of the natural world. But the moment it claims the natural world is the world, it transforms to an ism: scientism. 

Besides, what do we even mean when we say “natural world”? Natural implies supernatural, and if we didn’t transcend nature, we couldn’t know a thing about it, for — obviously — the mind that knows is not a material object. 

Is there a study of the self-evident? Yes, it’s called conservatism, or anti-coprology:

Conservatism should not be a political party but the normal attitude of every decent man.

The intelligent man quickly reaches conservative conclusions.

The conservatism of each era is the counterweight to the stupidity of the day.

The forthcoming election is a referendum: on normality. Or abnormality. 

Indeed, it is even a referendum on whether there is such a thing as abnormality. You could boil it down to one question: no offense, but is this pathetic fellow normal or abnormal?:

If he is normal, then we are not. Simple as. We don’t hate him, nor do we wish him harm. Rather, we pity him and wish him the best. 

But we do detest the movement that would pretend he is normal and then try to foist this abnormality on children. Seriously, that’s a crime.

Normology. It’s not on the list. There is, of course, pathology, but how can there be disease if there’s not health? 

This post took off in an entirely unforeseen direction. I'll get back on track as we proceed with this question of objects and methods, but I do actually have to make a beer run -- or rather, I must make preparations for my close study of zythology, which I plan to combine with baseballogy tonight at 5:03. It's called a multi-undisciplinary approach to leisure studies.

We'll leave off with an aphorism:

The conservative is a simple pathologist. He defines sickness and health. But God is the only therapist.