I think that individual sanity can only be encouraged but not brought about to any sort of schedule or by any kind of manipulation of educational or social institutions. What is sanity? We will formulate this in different ways. One way, influenced by contemplative traditions, is to say that each of us is not a separate self (isolated, vulnerable, defensive, aggressive-defensive, assertive etc) but a member of the universal self, i.e., the universe conscious of itself in each psychophysical organism. If we acted on this realization, then we would cooperate to preserve life instead of contending to destroy it. However, not everyone is going to realize their oneness simultaneously, to say the least. Education and culture can encourage contemplation but that is all that they can do in this respect. (I received an upbringing that intensified the feeling of separate selfhood instead of pointing towards transcendence of it.)
Apart from encouraging contemplative practices, the Institute can work on social and political arrangements and, since we all know how contentious an issue that is, I will end this discussion here.
7 comments:
Sanity is an objective fact only in very strict terms. Hearing voices in your head and believing them, or seeing monsters floating above other people's heads -- those are definitely not sane.
OTOH, other things are mere matters of taste. For example, ancient Romans evinced overt sadism rather frequently. Modern Western society would see this as signs of mental illness, but I think that's purely subjective. I happen to (subjectively) -agree- with that... but that's just me.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
One notorious way many Romans "evinced sadism" was that grotesque passion for gladiatorial games. You reminded me of how Jeremey McCladden, one of the Americans stranded in Antonine Rome, was intrigued by gladiatorial shows and wanted to watch one. But he was restrained by fear of the disapproval the other time exiled Americans would have shown.
Gladiatorial games were finally abolished/banned by Emperor Honorius in, I think, AD 406.
Ad astra! Sean
As the very knowledgeable historical novelist Mary Renault pointed out, Christianity and Islam changed the moral reflexes of mankind.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
You reminded me of Pope Benedict XVI's commentary on Christ's teaching about the Beatitudes in the first of his JESUS OF NAZARETH books. However imperfectly Christians live up to the Lord's message, His words would eventually have some effect on their actions.
Ad astra! Sean
"Christianity and Islam changed the moral reflexes of mankind."
I would be interested in more details on that, especially to what extent the two religions changed those reflexes in the same or different directions.
Can you give a link to such a discussion?
Jim: oh, sure. For example, for Christians (and Jews) vengeance is a 'guilty pleasure'. It's a sin, a stealing from God; "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord". For pre-Christian populations, this simply wasn't true: vengeance was a -duty- as well as a pleasure. It was righteous.
The -urge- to exact revenge is inherent; the way you -feel- about it, not so much, it's learned.
You can see how this interacts with pre-Christian imperatives in many ways -- for example, on the Anglo-Scots border in the pre-Stuart period, the Kerr clan used to baptize their children... but the male children would have their sword-hand kept out of the water, so it could do "unhallowed deeds".
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
You reminded me of how the laws of the ancient Jews, as seen in the books of Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus, did allow for the private avenging or punishing of crime. But those laws set limits on how far the "avenger of blood" could go. As centuries passed Jewish tradition, as codified in rabbinic teaching, softened and ameliorated such penalties still more.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment