Jejudo, South Korea
I'll try to keep this short (Yeah right) but really I just want to show why I think this is incoherent:
There are people in this world we dare call mad,
yet the truth of this confusing reality
is that these are the only ones who are sane.
--Who are you talking about? Apparently this 'we' doesn't include you because you are actually calling the mad sane. But what does it mean to be mad or sane? You don't tell me or show me how it's more helpful to see the world as you pose it. There's nothing particularly confusing about reversing terms but I see no evidence or proof to substantiate such a claim, to make it interesting or insightful. I'm stuck either agreeing or disagreeing to an assertion. I disagree and think we should keep these distinctions intact. I argue that the distinction should be kept because one wonders, if the mad are indeed sane, why can't they figure out that their madness can be overcome, altered, adjusted so that they won't be persecuted? One has to ask is the speaker of this statement sane or mad?
They see the world with truthfull eyes
for they cannot lie to themselves
--Again, how do you know this? In the other post, you argue that you, I, we can't know what really goes on in their head but you, here, assert that you do. I'm getting confused.
their reality is limited in their own view.
--I don't understand this. Please tell me about someone who does not have a limited reality view.
This is why they'll never lie,
never holding back on their urges.
--I've already talked about your assertions but you seem to be assuming that the 'mad' have a coherent identity, that they know what they are doing, but a useful definition of madness might be the lack of coherence at all. It is not that they never hold back their urges but that they don't have a choice in holding or not holding back. This has nothing to do with truth or lies (which are defined by intention. If one sees that one does not have intention, then the truth value disappears. If a madman tells me he is Napoleon, it only makes sense to call him a liar if I think he can know the truth and is purposely deceiving me.). It has everything to do with control, with controlling ourselves.
They can hurt others in their reality
and we, who call ourselves healthy of the mind,
the "right" people that should inhabit this world,
decide to encarcelate those we call mad,
on the charge that THEY are hurting others.
--Why is this a bad reason? I think it's a pretty good one. By 'encarcelate', do you mean incarcerate? If you accept my definition of madness, you'll see that I think you're confusing madness with different realities or world views. I think many people hold different world views but I wouldn't define that as madness (only different cultures). Madness means that a person can maintain no coherent identity or world view, this is not a difference in views, it is the difference between a view and no view.
Still I believe we must analize ourselves first,
-- I agree.
because by our singular use of words
we are able to hurt and destroy
more than one called mad, ever would.
-- I doubt this statement is accurate unless you're arguing that we make mistakes with individuals as individuals. I have no doubt of that but this should be pursued on a case by case basis. If you disagree with the current system for the mentally ill, I also think that would be an interesting topic (I don't know much about that) but I don't see how your original assertions can conclude with this statement. Perhaps you mean technology or some such thing? If that is the case, the sane can hurt more than the insane but they can also help more as well.
And the next post:
well ok Brad I'll take your discussion on I wont be online much longer though but I'll answer your questions.....I am no saying all society is wrong so take heed in your generalization, and if you ask me why is a madman misunderstood all I can tell you is that these we do call mad are unplugged and mostly unaffected by this world we live in yet they still exist and are able to affect parts of society in ways we'll not always understand, since we cannot look and experience directly what this so called individual, comprehesion of his reasons to be violent or quiet or even pshycotic are yet beyond our comprehension. After taking the individual through therapy or other such mindless activities we, society, might get to comprehend just a little of what his intetions or purposes really were. So because society does not understand they classify them as mad also beleived to be beyond comprehension. Now about the being mad or genious this is more or less what I've already explained, you could think of anything but you, having a world around you, will be affected be what surrounds you in your deciscions yet if unplugged from the world with only one stream of thinking you will be able to realize much more because you are unaffected by what surrounds you. We make distinctions because we cannot understand, and we cannot understand we fear, society is not ready for something different because of the attachment to a so called nice and pleasant world of theirs were everything is good and right, because this subject integrates deep into society I wished to post this here I hoped I answered your questions. Oh and as for the spelling English is not my first language and I think you are smart enough to interpret correctly whant I'm trying to say so deal with it.
--I think it's clear that this doesn't really address the issues in the first post and contradicts it at times. The fundamental mistake is the assumption that the insane are coherent, that they have intentions. One might argue that sanity is the ability to deal with the differences that you seem to want saved, protected (you can reject, ignore, accept, adapt, adjust to the multiplicities around you). The insane do not have these options.
--Unless you're asserting some kind of mysticism to the insane, I don't really see what you're arguing. This used to be done but that would be a different issue, wouldn't it?
[This message has been edited by Brad (edited 03-09-2001).]