Powell wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote

Lionel" wrote

Just for info the definitions given by my online dictionary
for insanity :

Syn: Syn- Insanity, Lunacy, Madness, Derangement,
Aliention, Aberration, Mania, Delirium,
Frenzy, Monomania, Dementia.


In terms of scientific findings, the above quoted "dictionary
definition" is garbage. Any knowledgable mental health
professional would laugh at it and advise all readers to
disregard it.

Agreed. Ive personally experienced all of these attributes...
in other people, but not in myself )).



Thank you for sharing that with us.

We can barely get our hands around the concept of what
constitutes consciousness. Insanity by comparison is
quantum mechanics (uncertainty principle/theoretical).
Much of the pain and suffering of people around the
world is due to misunderstanding of what constitutes
rational/irrational behavior (other theologies or deeply
held belief systems).

Agreed. Labeling others as "abnormal" is somewhat
culture-dependent, and certainly subject to abuse.

Indeed. Growth often follows abnormal behavior/thinking
and is most often a positive biological mechanism of
human evolution. Certainly feelings of self-image can be
stymied when we perceive our own thought patterns as
abnormal (socially unacceptable/Lionel's list)... when it is
often just the reverse by biological design (mechanism
for growth we dont fully understand/inability to
appropriately relate to).


One of the most dangerous
thinking patterns is to engage in simplistic thinking
(stereotyping, labeling, rationalizations, self-absorption,
bigotry, and cultural norms) All psychological disorders,
insanity for example, are *thinking/thought disorders*.

The very foundation of current, modern cognitive theory
and cognitive-behavioral therapy rests on this premise.
As the ancient Greeks (Epictetus) used to say, "the
thought is father of the deed".

I personally like the psychological precept that there is no
such thing as a bad thought or idea. Its the
externalization with the environment where the snag
sometimes occurs.


As a result you cannot really know George unless you
can first obtain intellectual parity with him... and he is
never so revealing, IME .

Note no retort on subject, George

Oh, I see Bruce, youre content to see me not only go out
on a limb with George but to also saw off the limb, all by
myself




Sheesh!!!! I was basically agreeing with you by remaining silent. How many
explicit strokes do you want? (Note several agreements above).

Although I'm not sure I would have used the words "intellectual parity" re.
getting to know somebody. For example, there are a few poor souls ("them")
posting to RAO wityh whom I would hope to *never* have intellectual parity.
But, your point is well taken inasmuch as means that you can't really evaluate
a person's behavior without knowing what "drives" it so to speak, i.e. the
assumptions (schemas/thoughts) behind it.



Bruce J. Richman