Ethics and aesthetics; “normal” and “pathological”; our bodies and what moves them

I have been reading “The Normal and the Pathological” by Georges Canguilhem. Epistemological understanding of norms that direct the everyday perceptions, stemming from scientific authorities, empiria and theoretical delienations (those that make theories logical) is more than desirable if we do not want those rigid formations to direct our sense of the real  via unconscious belives, and sublimated aesthetic ideals. At least I find that these theoretical ghosts and visual landmarks combining positivist ideas of good, healthy and beautiful can gain almost religious authority in the society where the God is proclaimed dead (Nietzche) but humans cannot cease to  embody gods, and to reintroduce deus ex machina, whenever there is a potential for slowing down,with danger of representaional colapse; or, when the historical scars became obvious, readable due to the transparency of  the very body itself.  The need to remember; to preserve the particularity when there occurred  trauma  larger than the humanist comprehension of right and wrong; instigates subjects into inscribing their realties,and choreographing specifics of the most mondane, even peripheral aspects of their ellusive quotodian real. This heterogenuous, multifaceted real that challenges grandioze visions and subversts the need to unify experience into the totalitarian oneness , interrupts generalizations through turning  close attention (this does not exclude ironic approach to marginalia)  to subtlety, and uniqueness of perceived objects and perceiveing subjects always transitioning  (After all we are children of Modernity, solving issues through moving futher, and only later realizing that certain points repeat ).