>But without a standard of normalcy, how do you know that A is A, when the person beside you says it's B?

Maybe we are both right, as long as he's not denying that A is itself. Without identity, it is meaningless to even talk about differences and disagreements.

>What determines who is the normal preceiver when 2 perceptions differ?

Maybe nobody is a normal perceiver. With regard to logic alone, it doesn't matter.

>Are the laws of logic universal? How do you know? How can you have universal perception of 'things'?

I've been over this... >>358
Yes, laws of logic are universal. I know because (I can see and identify that) existence is self-identical. I don't need to be able to perceive the whole universe to know that things that are not themselves don't exist, never have and never will.

>There is order, because there is order? What is the argument here?

There is order because there is causality, because there is identity, because there is existence.

>The laws of logic you use to interperet your perceptions, the uniformity of nature which makes sense of knowing anything, and the idea of 'perceptions' in a 'material' universe for three.

Logic... that's what I'm trying to deal with first. I think I'm doing a good job :)
Uniformity of nature... we could discuss that too. I've hinted at it in my response just above~
'Perceptions' in a 'material' universe. Eh... I don't really know what matter is. That's for physicists to worry about, not my concern. My concern is with objects and identities. And I'm not quite sure what sort of account you are looking for. I'm conscious and I perceive things. Perhaps you could give your account of perception in a... spiritual(?)... universe. So I have something to compare. And criticise :)

>Surely you jest :)

Nope. I do not believe in free will. But choice definitely exists.