Sanity is rules regarding ones thinking and acting relative to what he tries to achieve.

If one wants to be alive, sanity ‘says’ he should better not starve, not stab himself, not otherwise harm himself. The same is true if he wants his village alive as well, or anything else he wishes to create, preserve or even destroy.

If somebody wants his nice home, he should better not burn it down, unless he wants chaos. That chaos is called insanity –it occurs when result contradicts intention.

Sanity is alignment and insanity contradiction, chaos.

However, there is no problems posing and solving without some chaos present, as a problem is the opposite of a solution, and opposites are chaos. The thinking about problems, being interplays of problems and possible solutions, bring about chaos. A problem is a product of previous chaos too, but let’s not get the topic too complex now.

The more tolerance one has for chaos the larger and more complex problems he could take up to resolve. On the contrary if one was intolerant and yet did incite lots of chaotic thinking in himself, he could then as well submit to and identify with it (become his thoughts). In extreme cases we could have phenomena like those of the classic guy who laughs ‘insanely’ (aggressively) and attacks you–physically or otherwise- being unable to face the chaos in his thoughts (like the Joker and other ‘psycho killers’ in movies). You’re liable to get that if you communicate a problem too big and complex for somebody to tolerate. The too-easily-irritated by chaos will try to suppress it, impose order, in one way or another. And they will also express chaos, as that’s what they will be identifying with. Ironically, they will incite more chaos in doing so. It’s a cycle.

Absolute order in terms of thinking -absolute sanity, that is- would be no problem posing/ solving at all, and that’s not quite what we get taught to do at school and elsewhere, that’s not what we do when we think about the (bad) news. It is the opposite. So you see, absolute sanity is an unattainable myth, unless one does the exact opposite than what he is told to do. What would that mean? It would mean to either pose no goals to attain, or attain goals without any problems posing/solving involved whatsoever.

To try to be sane, while abiding to rules that require from you to do otherwise, is a game you cannot possibly win, and a win-win for those who look for patients to treat. The absolute sanity in presence of problems posing/solving is a contradiction within itself –insanity that is.

Moreover, some have arrogantly used ‘sanity’ and ‘insanity’ to control fields wherein they’re not supposed to. You can’t call a band ‘insane’ because they dress like clowns and go ‘crazy’ on stage. Those guys are supposed to make music and give a show -whether one likes it or not- and that’s what they do. They’re perfectly sane in doing what they say they do.

Similarly one cannot call somebody ‘insane’ because he doubts some political system, or other agreed upon ideas, like they used to do in Soviet Russia for a while. The same stands for religion, philosophy or anything else, unless one after some authoritarian regime, trying to impose some ‘righteous’ thinking, that is not logical in the first place, as I see it. If -for example- Aristotle’s theories were declared to be the sane ones, all the rest who would not be aligned with Aristotle would be considered insane. Again, sanity is relative to what one tries to achieve.

Sanity and insanity are man-made terms. They haven’t been put there by any God, gods nor by any mother nature. Moreover, their theories have evolved (changed) tremendously ever since sanity and insanity were first conceived, and things that used to be considered insane some long ago are not anymore, however, their opposites are.

The authority of those theories -whether logical or not- is authority among those who -logically or not- abide to it. So, better know what you abide to if you do, unless you fancy yourself some chaos, that is.

For me, there is no absolute sanity –definitely not in presence of fighting (chaos) that is meant to bring about peace,  bringing about more fighting instead, until ashes occur.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s