I can explain when it is true and when it isn’t.
It is not true in the case that the sane person isn’t even threatened by insanity. Then he does not need to try to remain sane to be sane.
It is true in the case where insanity is impending. As long as you try to remain sane you are apparently conscious of a state that you experience as sane, and this state wants to maintain itself and this willing to maintain itself is the sanity… of the sanity.
I now this because I know people who have gone insane and people who have just barely not gone insane. The difference between them was a point in time where the people who went insane just decided to let go and let the mind roll with whatever it wanted to roll with, and the people who did not go insane did their best to hold on to the last shred of sanity.
I don’t know if this is a good explanation, Sanjay. Please if you can explain it better.
i like the movie - a beautiful mind - the border between sanity and insanity is not defined by reason, but by heart. this is also a nice interpretation of the problem of induction. it an expression of perfect rationality to deny any laws of nature, but it’s completly insane
sorry for my bad english, still learning, it’s not my mother tongue as you can see on my website
That explanation is almost perfect. Without going for word by word analysis, i second your intent and understanding of the issue.
Sanity does not entail omniscience or sainthood but It is a journey towards that. Sainthood is its ultimate destination as it refers to the stage of being sane and omniscient at the same time.
Yes obe that is a true exception to the rule and I think that in this planet there there are increasing hordes of people who got insane by trying to be ultrasane.
Seems like it might be best to just give in rather than fighting at the edge like that all the time.
I mean, Think about how hard normal people fight to be sane and to appear sane.