Yes, reflection is still part of the norm. Luckily... :)
Normal is what reflects the norm. That natural, observational norm (type, mode) and deontic, optimal norm ("as it should be") so typically ("normally") diverge, so the latter is found in the standard deviation, comes from the very point that was raised initially: growth («To experience, voluntarily, then grow, is the norm»), or the point where you are in it, proceeding towards the right extreme.
There is no escape from the norm (and its negative), you see: if good, then optimal norm, peripheral in the curve; if lacky, then observational norm in the centre. And between the two there is a sort of a continuity, thresholds aside...
That the "world" looks so abnormal, the bad way (hence you can call 'abnormal' the normal), is justified in such framework - especially when you look at it as a playground. And we just say, ok, if it were possible just to reduce the collateral damage...
Normal is what reflects the norm. That natural, observational norm (type, mode) and deontic, optimal norm ("as it should be") so typically ("normally") diverge, so the latter is found in the standard deviation, comes from the very point that was raised initially: growth («To experience, voluntarily, then grow, is the norm»), or the point where you are in it, proceeding towards the right extreme.
There is no escape from the norm (and its negative), you see: if good, then optimal norm, peripheral in the curve; if lacky, then observational norm in the centre. And between the two there is a sort of a continuity, thresholds aside...
That the "world" looks so abnormal, the bad way (hence you can call 'abnormal' the normal), is justified in such framework - especially when you look at it as a playground. And we just say, ok, if it were possible just to reduce the collateral damage...