Proving the Rule

A theory or a theorem is a rule. It’s a sort of dictates that all actions under the relevant umbrella must follow the same set of behavioral definition. On the contrary when you become an exception you are said to be proving the rule. That’s because your occurrence is a minor aberration over the general rule.

Now it would not be perhaps incorrect to say that average as a concept is a fair indication mathematically of the type of occurrences. Average socially however connotes a different sort of meaning. It sort of means that you are not up to the mark and therein lies the confusion. Most promotions, incentives, recognitions, rewards in the world especially in the “mankind” scheme of things are not for the average kind. They are, rather, for the exceptions that are not part of the rule.

This means that we do not want to care about the averages and take them for granted but actually only deal with the higher level aberrations and keep rewarding them. So the averages finally take over the exceptions and we come to a situation where nothing seems to be satisfactory and everything reaches a level of mediocrity.
So logically the natural rule is therefore on the average rather mediocre. So my question is that why prove the rule since the latter is rather average and does nothing for your self esteem.

On the other hand, if you desire to increase the volume of say happiness all around you have to deal with the average. And society at large (the average) would not really lend a shoulder to support you. This is turn means that the average human being is actually against the average human being.

And that is so confusingly true.

P.S. Read this at your own risk. The average reader won’t!! or would? Which one is the exception? Sphere: Related Content