Extraordinary vs. Common

While reading Sells’ Mystical Languages of Unsaying, the concept of ”Mysticism and Unsaying” particularly caught my attention.  On page 7, it reads “In apophatic mystical texts, there is indeed a sense of extraordinary but the extraordinary, the transcendent, the unimaginable, reveals itself as the common.”  Immediately after reading this part, various questions popped into my mind.

Doesn’t the classification of “extraordinary” and “common” rely on relativeness?  A person might come across something that is unusual and completely unheard of, which makes that phenomenon extraordinary in his or her eyes.  However, someone who witnessed such occurrence frequently may be unaffected by it and just consider it common in his or her mind.  So shouldn’t the distinction between these two terms varies and differs when taking into account the individual (or group) experiencing a happening?  It is all relative to the person.  For example, when I walk around Times Square in New York City, I see the awestruck faces of those first time visitors and tourists – it is extraordinary.  For me, on the other hand, I am unaffected and rather jaded by the sight – it is common.  We are both experiencing the same event, yet different reactions arise among us.  Thus, how can something be strictly labeled extraordinary and common?

If we strip down the “amazing event” to its bare minimum, is all that is left just a “simple act” that we overhype?  I believe that Sells mentioned on page 7 that the one birth of the son of God, as astounding as that sounds, is truly just familiar act.  Essentially, it is the birth of another baby.  Nothing new here.  The fact that it is of a specific figure, however, is what makes this particular birth significant in our eyes.

Ultimately, my curiosity lies in distinguishing the “extraordinary” and the “common.”