Approved post
No dear Sanjay, I fear you have no knowledge of sex.
I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy. It’s hell.
I am so sorry. I mean that. I hate insanity. I escaped it narrowly and it was terrifying. Big up to you for dealing with it and still being amongst us! You are a hero my friend.
In that case, why do you not explain it for me?
with love,
sanjay
I could “explain”…but only if you are an attractive woman.
Explaining and knowing are different things. And women will generally listen to anything… once.
bbh,
That would be called demonstration, not explanation.
with love,
sanjay
Which is the only real explanation about all livi g aspects.
Sanity, according to Paul is to be content in whatever situation you find yourself.
zinnat 13
Why does one have to be "all knowing’ in order to be sane - unless you’re using the term to mean something less or more than it’s usual meaning.
Why does one have to be a saint in order to be sane?
I wonder how many canonized saints or those thought of as saints were insane or had a touch of insanity about them?
What is your definition of saint or sainthood? People equate the concept of God as having an "omnicent’ characteristic. Would you say that God was sane?
No. Those are examples, not explanation.
with love,
sanjay
Why does one have to be "all knowing’ in order to be sane - unless you’re using the term to mean something less or more than it’s usual meaning.
I am using its simple meaning.
One needs not to be all knowing in order to be sane but his knowledge must be in the harmony of his intention. Knowledge should not overcome intention.
Why does one have to be a saint in order to be sane?
I did not say that. Its opposite is true.
One must be a sane in the first place, in orger to be a saint.
I wonder how many canonized saints or those thought of as saints were insane or had a touch of insanity about them?
That may be true. But, that is not the fault of the definition but the people who are defining those wrongly.
What is your definition of saint or sainthood? People equate the concept of God as having an "omnicent’ characteristic. Would you say that God was sane?
Certainly.
The God must be a sane and a saint also to be a God.
Ordinary person - some knowledge+ some good and some bad intention
Sane - some knowledge+ more good intention and less bad intention
Saint - some knowledge+ maximized good intention but no bad intention at all
God - Maximized knowledge+ maximized good intention
[/quote]
.
with love,
sanjay
That would chime with American English as “mad” also means “angry”.
But in the UK people don’t often use “mad” like that. There are thousands of contented loonies!
I gave up that fight many years ago… it is just a fact of life now.
I just look around and think to myself — “would a sane person live this one and only life in this way?”
I have given up the fight and just accept the shackles I wear.
This takes a lot of courage as the despondency one feels is generally insurmountable.
It is sometimes a lot easier to convince oneself otherwise by constructing an elaborate psyhco-labyrinth.
If our own thoughts could be heard by others then we would most certainly be locked away.
That’s only one way of seeing contentment.
This is a subject that I studied long ago only to find that it was beyond the reach of the world’s intelligentsia.
What I resolved is that being sane is being in pursuit of the balance of one’s actual needs, a part of which is to understand what it actually means.
Of course to be in pursuit of one’s actual needs, one must on some level be aware of one’s actual needs and the state of their balance. And even though homosapian is almost always sane-capable, he is almost never sane. This is primarily due to social interference with his awareness (lack of social transparency - too many significant secrets) that leads to psychological and medical interference with his attention to reality and thus his inability to track his actual needs (in serious cases, “ADHD”).
One of the actual sanity needs seldom realized is the need to constantly pursue improvement of one’s sanity. One is not sane, “insane”, if one is not constantly verifying and updating his state of sanity, the actual balance of his actual needs. This is where a great many fail by presuming themselves to be sane merely because at some point it appeared that they probably were. And is additionally difficult because one must be conscious of one’s self without being “self-conscious”.
The world of psychiatry and psychology had to give up using the word “sane” for four basic reasons;
- They couldn’t actually figure out what it meant
- They didn’t want awareness of the trends concerning sanity in society
- Any one person’s ability to know the actual needs of another
- They wanted to be able to declare the line between sanity and insanity in a socialist friendly way (politically right people on the right side).
Today’s society, as often in the past, is very largely supported by the people’s lack of awareness of their actual needs. Thus today’s society is dependent upon insanity, maintaining blindness. That state poses a serious additional problem concerning sanity because to support the current social structure (presumed to be an important need) is to support the inability of citizens, including governance, to be aware of their actual needs, thus prolonging and guaranteeing the insanity of all people throughout society and society’s certain collapse.
Being sane is being able “to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” with equilibrium.
If the slings and arrows bother you, then you are not sane? That seems extreme.
Of course they bother you; but, the do not have to destroy you.