Hi Paul

[snip]

[The above <snip> is Norbert's, so that everyone else does not think that either
Paul or I removed the vast bulk of his previous message containing Paul's
detailed comments.
It is very frustrating to both of us, Norbert, that you have not once verified
that you understand or agree with what you have chosen to snip out. There were a
number of items in your Part 1.1 to which a response was necessary (even merely
to be civil), but you gave none.
Many of your follow-up questions and comments in your several messages to date
have lead us to conclude that you do *not* understand much of what you are
actually reading - and I maintain it is a lack of English comprehension. If you
would at least rephrase in your own words what you think the meaning is of what
Paul has written in his comments to you, that would help at this end. Otherwise
I doubt that much progress is being, and can actually be, made with you.

Verifying understanding is a wise step to include in any communication between
people, even those whose native language is the same, but who use slightly
different meanings for words and phrases. It eliminates the trap of "assuming" -
for which there is a memorable phrase:

Ass-u-me - "Making an 'ass' out of 'you' and 'me'". **Kitty]


> I maintain that
> not all problems are able to consider them in consensual norms.
>
> [I cannot understand the above sentence. --Paul]

I explained that with the subjectively evaluation. These evaluations are not
solvable with justicial norms as it your system must be. Your system would
mean that all evaluations (also them, which are not justicial because they
are subjective in nature but neccesarry for maximization of lifetime
happiness) must resolve by justice. And that is an error.

[Your explanation is still very difficult, but I think that I know what you mean
now. It is particularly hard for me to understand many of your meanings because
I cannot imagine that you could interpret my system in such ways if you have
actually read it.

Actually, the vast number of evaluations of interpersonal actions (all those
that are not violations) would *not* be "solved" by any stipulations of the NSC.
Instead they would be "solved" by the private discrimination of individuals. You
appear not to have understood this. The NSC philosophy is far removed from
"anything that isn't forbidden is mandatory". --Paul]


> And
> outside of this framework it is the human nature to resolve such
> problems with power. Where are your references to this fact?
>
> [My arguments are in the Social Meta-Needs essay.

No. Not to this point.

> If you disagree with
> them, then quote here what you disagree with and explain why you think it
> is wrong. --Paul]

I dont disagree. I say only it is not complete.

[Again, I ask you to specify exactly where you think it is incomplete. Bear in
mind that I have already pointed out that it is *not* in the nature of many
current humans to resolve disputes with force (which is an existence proof that
it is possible for humans to act that way), and that for any truly free society
to be achieved its members must all learn to have such an advanced human nature
(which I maintain they can and will do when they realize that it will best allow
them to maximize their lifetime happiness). --Paul]