That does all make sense, and I thank you for writing those thoughts. You discuss the important reality that we on the one hand need normative structures but on the other hand are constrained by them. The foundations of shared norms and semantic structures allow us to communicate and work with each other. But as I argue in many of my articles, those normative structures and shared semantics become toxic when they become the only permissible way to act and communicate.

Much of the problem is that the norms are human creations and often are entirely arbitrary, and always reflect the prevailing power structure. It seems that so many people feel the need to divide people into good/bad, acceptable/unacceptable binaries. They latch onto differences of skin color, sex and gender, heteronormativity, spiritual beliefs, and so on to justify that desire to feel superior to others. They thus seek to silence the worldviews of anyone considered contrary to the established norms and leave them outside the social structures.

I will agree with Derrida on one point: that the metaphysics of presence is a significant problem. I much prefer Lyotard’s answer, though, which I will write about and publish next week. Like you say, it’s our job to consider the gray areas, and I add to that, not just the gray areas but the many colors of individual worldviews that can and should shape our normative foundations. But how to do that well? That is the question.

Thank you again for your thought-provoking response.