"Abnormality" is primarily a social judgement or a judgement that one has wandered out of one's freely chosen course and has become contradictory to one's own intentions. Now, to state my situation clearly, it has been a long time since I specifically studied Sartre, but Sartre’s philosophy is founded upon Heidegger's. In Heidegger, the 'They' self of everydayness is the fundamentally real self we have all the time and we all have together whether we like it or not (so truly "Hell is other people"). But the existential categorical structure of "falleness", though there is no place like Eden or heaven that is fallen from, constantly reminds the 'They' self of the real world that it is not satisfied with the average, but just as constantly puts thinking clearly about that off BECAUSE IT IS ABNORMAL, it takes one out of the crowd, "das Man". It is definitely NOT a good survival factor in the struggle of everyday life. This is what Heidegger calls inauthenticity, and I think as least partially what Sartre refers to as "bad faith". Please clarify this for me. Therefore my primary one is, when the everyday real 'They' self, for whatever reason, commits itself to discovering in resolve what it desires as its 'true' or authentic self, then it steps outside by absolute necessity of the judgements of society, "das Man". This is because, as Heidegger would say, dasein, i.e., fundamental 'mineness' or 'owness' directs one towards what is one's ownmost by following the call of conscience. But this is an ontological conscience, a conscience long before any conscience that defines good and evil or acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. ALL it does is purely pull at one to me one's ownmost in total honesty. "Honesty" is a much better word here than truth because honesty simply states the situation as it actually is and is NOT defining ANY sort of REALITY such as the 'They' self irrevocably is. In other words, on the one hand, the real and constant 'They' self never escapes inherited traditional judgements of good and evil, acceptable and unacceptable, normal and abnormal. But they are simply necessary baggage one drags along to deal with the everyday world. That baggage has no fundamental value or meaning other than a purely practical one. Whereas on the other hand, the ownmost within your 'They' self wants something 'better', nobler, higher, something that justifies on a higher plain the utter triviality of being-in-the-world. But upon getting to that 'higher' plain of authenticity, one gains the clarity of one's ownmost possibilities, but one has left behind as no longer valid the standards by which one judges those possibilities. One is fully aware of the situation, but one has to 'descend' to indulge in a choice. And that choice therefore MUST be, in essence, for 'interested', not pure and disinterested reasons. A pure and disinterested decision is a contradiction in terms. So essentially with Heidegger, dasein's ownmost in authenticity is all dressed up and ready, but then has no place to go. Any external standard of value judgement is just that -- someone else's. How then do you attain yours? Inauthentically, with bad faith. I think I am correct on this, at least simply on logical grounds. You cannot escape the everyday self. All you can do is create a platform from which to view it from. The Indian philosopher Shankara calls it, quoting from the Upanishads, the "unwitnessed self", the true and fundamental self one "always already" has been to which has been added the 'They' self of the everyday world. But when one attains this realization in "jivanmukta", then one drops all concerns, standards, accepted ways of acting AND HE WILL NOT CLARIFY HOW A "JIVANMUKTA" CAN OR SHOULD ACT WHILE STILL ALIVE IN THE EVERYDAY WORLD!