One of the ways spiritual autism seems to manifest is a failure to grasp distinctions (perhaps explaining the relentless reductionism of the modern mind). One of the greatest such failures concerns the distinction between the normative and the universal.
The normative simply describes general norms, pertaining to the forms or essences in which people participate. A norm is universal only in a loose sense: it describes the universal form or essence. It doesn't require that any particular person fall under the purview of that norm.
A good example: men are taller than women is a normative statement, because they are. There are to my knowledge no societies in which men are shorter than women, and we would all rightly regard such a society as an aberration and question what has produced it. It doesn't matter that there are individual men who are quite short and individual women who are quite tall -- these are deviations from the norm. Very short men and very tall women are exceptional.
(Does the exception void the rule? If it did, it would not be an exception. If it wasn't an exception, it could not void the rule.)
In a loose sense, the norm is a statistical average; but it's not precisely the same thing. The statistical average is the mathematical expression of the norm. It is evidence that the norm exists without being the same thing.
Or consider "the reproductive system is ordered toward reproduction." Hardly a leap. That's what it's there for, that's why we have one. Common sense, as they say. A normative statement. Everything we know about it lends credence to that claim: the nature of the act, the nature of the desire for the act, the physical structure of the organs involved, etc.
Yet somehow the fact that the reproductive system doesn't always lead to reproduction (whether due to chronic or periodic infertility, withdrawal, the fact that the system can be used in some other manner such as with masturbation, etc.) is evidence that there is no norm, to the modern mind. Because he interprets it universally.
In other words, the modern mind will accept a statement only if it is true everywhere and always, when r = 1. But r = 1 only in the case of tautologies, so nothing but tautologies are true; so, functionally, nothing is true.
But just because r does not = 1 does not mean that r = 0.
There are, in fact, an infinite range of values between 0 and 1.
How better to express the modern condition than as totally insensibility to the infinite?