Hi Geoffrey, Derrick and all,
I've been following this Insanity thread with great interest, having to deal
personally and frequently with the psychological problems of a close one. My
up-close contact with psychiatrists has left me decidedly unimpressed, but there
has been plenty written on that already by other people.
The thing I want to add is on the definition of insanity. I think that insanity
has an element that goes beyond the mere misfitting of an indivual's value
system to his society. Such social misfits may be eccentrics, criminals or
hermits, but are not necessarily insane. Society's only need is to protect
itself against these people, and only when they pose a problem. IMHO, insanity
has an added dimension. The insane are people whose value system causes
suffering TO THEMSELVES (as Derrick tried to stress).
GEOFFREY:
>I am not forcing my philosophy onto you Derrick. Philosophy does not
>have to be true you now!
This is where I disagree completely. First Geoffrey, please look over some of
the posts from Horse and myself discussing the subject of "Truth". Then think
about the expressions "true aim", "true friend", "true alignment" (in
engineering) and you'll start to grasp what I mean by the word true.
Philosophy MUST be TRUE to everyday experience!
The individual whose philosophy is in conflict with the realities of everyday
life suffers greatly. Psychiatrist Scott Peck's book "The Road Less Travelled
By" is on this exact theme. He says that we all have our personal map
(philosophy) by which we make sense of our world; insanity is when people are
using a false map.
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:42 BST