Frances says:
The normal is what the perfect ought
to be in mind, and not what it actually is, because the perfect
ideal is only as real as the norm of sense.
I respond:
If that is so, how do we experience the normal, or know it when it occurs?
You have set up a tautology by which neither state, perfect or normal, can be
known and neither, therefore is different from the other, except in non-normal
idealization. You proclaim a belief system, and that's fine with me because I
want to claim that all consciousness is embedded in belief. But to get past
that subjectivity we need to pretend that signs stand for an objectifying of
belief (we make-believe). Since you seem to deny that requirement, we are left
with a permanent gap between belief (idealization) and real, objective normal
(not pretended via make-believe). And that means that both states remain
equally subjective, or idealized, taking us full circle back to my assertion
that your normal is equivalent to anyone's perfect.
WC
