Sorry, I was unclear - I disagree that “only a crazy person wishes for something that they don’t want or does not know what they wish for”, not that you are mad as a hatter. You may be mad as a hatter for all sorts of reasons. 
That is okay OH. I forgive you. 
I do not think that they use the term of insanity in psychiatry these days and so an official diagnosis would not be possible.
Googling the term insane reveals these common symptoms.
- doing the same thing over and over again expecting it to change and getting the same results.
- Aggression
- Emotional lability
- Increased energy
- Elevated mood
- Suspicious mood
- Thoughts of conspiracy
- Hallucination
- Delusions
From Random internet site:
“Grandiose Delusional Disorder: which is delusions of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity, or special relationships.”
How would others define insanity? Whatever the definition — I guarantee I meet the criteria. 
I have a friend that most people would consider to be insane. He often spends many months of the year in a high security psychiatric wards and I visit him when he is in there. I do not find much difference between his “expressions of thought & external behaviour” and my “thoughts & feelings”. He often has many profound insights and is highly intelligent.
Oh reeeealllllyyyy…
A lot of people who think creatively or in a different way think they’re insane. What is your friend incarcerated for? Is it for his style of thinking? His ideas? Or is it for something completely unrelated (or at least different)? Are you sure you think the same way as him, or do you just agree with what he says (assuming you’re interpreting him correctly)?
Thinking differently can fall under the rubric of clinical insanity in some cases, and in others it doesn’t. It usually falls under the rubric when it’s schizophrenia - which is a disorder of dillusional thinking - that is, believing in absurd things for no rational reason, the absurdity clearly being defined by the culture the subject is a part of - but then there’s those who believe absurd things because he’s, well, a philosopher who has used reason (however skillfully or poorly) to come to absurd conclusions - this is not insanity as far as I’m concerned - or he’s been indoctrinated by society at large or a sect or cult to believe in absurd things - and this is not insanity either as far as I’m concerned because most sane people are affected this way most of the time - absurdity in this case being defined by another community whose views contrast sharply with that of the subject.
Do you consider yourself different from the above cases? If so, how?
My friend has been given the diagnosis of schizophrenia and I am not sure if there is such a term as Clinical Insanity in DSM IV (please correct me if I am wrong). DSM IV = APA (2000) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV-TR. (Fourth Edition), Washington: American Psychiatric Association.
Insanity “tends” to be a term that is used by the legal profession and not the clinical profession - hence the term legally insane (or a plea of insanity) and not clinically insane.
A person with the diagnosis of schizophrenia does not necessarily fit the picture that you have painted above. I am sure there are many persons on this forum with a diagnosis of schizophrenia who would not necessarily agree with this description. Refer to DSM IV for detailed diagnostic criteria.
As far as your comment
Yes, I constantly experience this — constantly.
I am constantly amazed when I observe the conversations that I have with myself — in my own mind – totally absurd and irrational by anyones standards.
I don’t think someone who is pretty aware would think in the way “we who are all knowing” as you described.
I think there is a relation between degree of awareness and the awareness of uncertainty.
Also, if we are aware enough, we can be aware of our own perspectives and the backside of the perspectives (focus of awareness). And the backside of the perspectives are mostly in what we might consider as subconscious region.
So, we may become aware of our own subconscious by adopting reverse perspective, but it doesn’t mean subconscious disappear and everything becomes conscious all at once because there are lots of things in subconscious and it can take long long time to dig (or implode).
I think the layers of subconscious are held out of our usual awareness by sticky focuses/perspectives. I mean, we wouldn’t notice something out of focus, and wee would have large area of excluded zone in our mental world if we are limited to certain sets of perspectives.
With the freedom of perspective movement, the conscious/subconscious split becomes less strong, and there can be the rupture/puncture of membrane(s) that divided the layers.
Ego, or our surface consciousness can be seen as the area or our mental world confined by the ego-membrane created by sets of sticky focuses/perspectives
coming from biological and all other conditioning.
Interesting comment Nah but not enough information. Please expand if you wish.
Interesting theories Nah! Are these your theories, anothers, or are they ones that you have come to through experience.
How would I develop this “freedom of perspective movement”.
I am not sure that “my own” definition of ego is one that consists of surface consciousness. Ego “to me” conjures up surface consciousness that is primarily focused on self. It is very easy to develop awareness of objects without focusing on self. For example, In front of me is a computer — in a fraction of a second, I may then focus on self and say “my computer” and then I may think “I will use my computer to type something on a philosophy forum that displays my intelligence, sense of humour or my spontaneous and outgoing personality”. I would say habit is formed when I glance at the computer and immediately type something witty, funny or intelligent - this can be described as me being spontaneous, but I would say that it is not. Often people can see that I am predictably spontaneous and know my spontaneous actions prior to me enacting them. But from my perspective, these actions are genuinely spontaneous with no hidden motives or habitual behaviour. Often, others know me better than I know myself.
I refer to hidden motives as those that are primarily focused on self and have become habitual — in essence I perform selfish actions through the power of ignorance. Ignorance here refers to lack of awareness. Or in a nutshell, ego is simply a selfish-habit that is maintained by a lack of awareness.
How would I develop this “freedom of perspective movement” that you refer to?
I think we would become more aware of uncertainty of everything as the degree of awareness increases.
The sense of certainty is the product of sticky perspective, to me.
I mean, we would feel certain when our perspective is tightly restricted and we can’t see things from other perspectives. In other words, restricted/limited awareness tends generate more sense of certainty. But it’s just because there is no sight/perspective of other possibilities.
I guess there are other people who thought something similar, and I’m sure that I have absorbed similar perspectives of others. But it’s mostly my own way of seeing things I gained by observing myself and others.
If you are interested, this is the thread I talk about these.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=169433
It depends on your motivation and orientation, as well as the inventory of limiting factors.
“Enjoy doing what you like” is a pretty effective method.
Pursuing something, methodically, will lead you to better understanding of different matter, too.
And there are whole a lot of varying method/techniques.
Since there can be lots of things we don’t want to see in ourselves, we wont see them. We are creating subconscious and unnoticeable area because we don’t have enough habit in looking at these or because we’d rather ignore them.
So, the layer of 'negatively perceived thing" prevent us to look into deeper area and confine our awareness in the “superficial” and “positive” zone.
But other people may have different set of “negatives” that things invisible to ourselves can be visible to them.
And the habit is often the product of denial, the desperate attempt to escape from suffering, I’d say.
From the POV of “suffering”, getting used to all sort of suffering can be the key.
Usually, things perceived as “negative” aren’t that scary nor painful, if we stop a bit and reduce the sticky focus. I mean, we tend to perceive “negatives” bigger than they are because our focus is zoomed in on the spot and “the rest of the world” isn’t in our sight.
If we pull back our attention, it’s less annoying.
But the permanent solution is to over focus and maintain it, till the focusing mechanism is broken, I guess. It means to suffer a lot without any issue for relatively long time. But there is a risk that the person may become clinically ill/insane/suicide, before certain brains circuit is burnt. So, it’s not really popular nor recommended for all. 
Although I personally like to have the freedom of perspective movement, there is a price to pay. Subjectively speaking, the change of perspective changes the world/reality. Freedom of perspective movement means freedom to change the world view, but also not having any certitude/certainty, in a way (at the end). And it can be scary for many people, because there is nothing to rely/depend on.
Thanks for that Nah.
I like your reply very much and it is difficult for me to reply to something when I am in agreeance with it.
Very much agree.
The thing of it is that Freud, liek Jung, started from a position of conscious and unconscious thought. It is a logical starting point I think because all of us have thoughts that are part of processe, which we do not notice being present at times. However, we come to a certain point in which we ‘decide’ who we think we are (ego). This is not just comprsed of consciouss thought, so we must conclude that these ‘unconsciouss’ (or subconsciouss which I feel is a better term) thoughts are actually fulfilling a purpose in our minds. They are, in effect, the driving force of our consciouss thoughts, leading to the ego.
So, Freud redefined the terms to ‘Es’ (It, the drives (die Triebe)), Ego (I (das Ich)) and Superego (Wishes (über-ich)). Freud states that the drives are the driving force, which express themselves in the, unattainable, wishes of the superego. The ego uses a ‘censor’ to judge in what way wishes are attainable, hence leading to a ‘realistic’ image of what one is, or can accomplish in the ego.
Anyway, the problem pointed towards in the opening post is something else entirely:
Does anybody know the works of Jacques Lacan?
Next time, I’ll try to put something you can disagree so that you can reply, easily.
Your generosity amazes me!