A highly intelligent and most beautiful spiritual Lady you are Foxy, and a person who is highly inspirational to myself and undoubtedly others. I wish you a healthy, loving, fun and adventurous 2010 and beyond.

Firstly, we must define what is a "social norm".

What is normal for one person or group, can be radical for another person or group.

Let's take Boaz/polycarp/agir and myself for instance. Boaz/polycarp/agir claims to be a Christian, and I claim to be a Christian. Yet Boaz/polycarp/agir follows a movement that emphasises intolerance, fundamentalist right wing political standardisation, a harsh and violent God and a very hard and sometimes violent response to those who don't conform. And I follow a movement that emphasises acceptance, tolerance, a "politically" non-denominational faith and a kind and loving God. We both claim to be Christians, yet clearly worship through radically different faiths.

So, any of the thousands of sub-sets within society can have it's own individual "social norm". A social norm that can be either radical or normal to an "outsider".

Dear Benq,

Each subset is a holon. That is - your Christian movement and Al's Christian movement are both holons - each movement is complete in itself, and yet part of of a wider system that includes all Christian movements.

Dear We Are Unique,

Thank You for your kind words.
I've met some amazing souls, (like
yourself), on this Forum.

Humans are the most extraordinary creatures, and
a big part of me still wants to reach an even
greater understanding about who we are.

If someone asks me what makes me happiest, it's
never anything I can quantify like a house or a
possession or something I can touch. It's the spirit
of the human being, which can fill me with more joy
than anything in the world

I only just happened across this interesting thread. I've discussed homeschooling with my wife of late as I'm disgusted with institutionalised education. I wish I could sit down with you, Poirot, and discuss the pros and cons of home schooling. I was only recently reading about Mary Shelley's being home schooled by her father William Godwin, who also managed a private tutor for her despite being perpetually broke. Part of her education was being taken on various expeditions, mainly among the cultural heritage of Britain, what fun!
Mary would in my view be a positive example of someone thinking outside, or critically of, cultural norms, whereas Winston Churchill would be an instance of a negative, narcissistic version, according to Koestler's autonomous definition. Indeed I would argue that this type is most common among the elitist conservative classes; Maggie Thatcher for instance, who didn't believe in society at all, or Hitler, whom Koestler surely had in mind when he formulated his categories.
I don't advocate Romantic or elitist versions of individualism, but subscribe in the main to Koestler's ideas as Poirot describes them. It's a nonsense to suppose that anyone can bypass acculturation, however I hold out the hope that transcendence can be attained in terms of cultural and personal objectivity. We don't have to be sheep.
Whether the Buddha actually attained enlightenment or not he is, for me, the archetypal instance of "self-transcendence"; so what did Koestler have against the Buddha's example?

What did Koestler have against Buddhism?

Perhaps it was a value system that Koestler
associated back to the beatniks?

Buddhism these days is most likely to be
associated with its spirtual leader the Dalai
Lama and a pro-peace, pro-environment ethic.
As author Tor Hundloe tells us in his book,
"From Buddha to Bono: seeking sustainability..."

"Recall Buddha's message. The concept of finding
a middle way has struggled to gain ascendancy
over the milennia. In the century just past we
tended to extremes - the extreme of Stalinism
versus the extreme of robber-baron capitalism.
Yet we found the mean, the moderate way, in the
modern welfare states of Scandinavia, and some
other countries of Norther Europe. These countries
provide a model of moderation for their citizens,
and a willingness to do more than any others in
providing aid to the Third World. These countries
are also leaders in linking the environment to the
economy, with their pollution taxes, green energy
promotion, cradel-to-grave recycling and waste
minimisation...A model exists..."