My Relationship Line in the Sand aka I No Longer Do Crazy

(Four paragraphs, ten one-liners, and four endnotes, copyleft July 2, 2016 by Peter Voluntaryistic Walker)

In order to be true to myself, I need to have a personal, i.e., not belonging to others for other than objective reasons, definition* of insanity.human4

There’s a medical definition and a legal definition; the main difference being medical professionals in most cases have the luxury of including shades of gray in their’s and legal professionals don’t — with the caveat that in law, the consequences for a crime can be mitigated. That said, I in relationship to myself have the luxury of my chosen/wordsmithed medical version, and I in self-discipline towards others choose to be bound by my chosen/wordsmithed legal definition. These two are my personal blending of what I found through and Psychology Today:

– Medical: Consistent unreason with severe consequences.

– Legal: Mental illness/uncontrollable impulsive behavior so severe the person can’t differ fantasy from reality or competently/morally conduct his or her life.

Technical Notes:

– I consider the legal version to be more severe than the medical version*.

– My personal legal definition applies to, in the words of several legends, my “line in the sand” for the two-way street of what I’ll permit to occur in my relationships.

– I consider a person willing to coerce his/her subjective beliefs/conclusions on another to be legally insane according to my personal set of laws; law in the context of behavior standards I choose for myself and those I relate to.

– There’s a difference between circular illogic and one definition* depending on another definition. An example of circular illogic from a children’s dictionary is calling a rope a “thick string” and calling a string a “thin rope”. By contrast, a valid and verifiable definition leads to related definitions in ways adding more knowledge ad infinitum for the same reason every answer/hypothesis/theory to questions such as “Where did I come from?” raises new questions.

– My medical and legal definitions of insane particularly depend on the contextual meaning of these key words:

— Competent: Able to reliably complete a duty*; e.g., a commercial airline pilot has a duty to fly a commercial aircraft to professional standards and a non-vegetative human has a duty to live independently if relying on him/herself alone and cooperatively if not.

— Moral: Having and following a win-win standard of behavior when participating in human relationships.

— Reason: Able to balance intuition and logic in order to be competent; i.e., competent beyond psychomotor-only skills.

— Reality: The ability to differ between the subjective and the objective; a textbook example being the Roman citizen Saul who later became the Christian Apostle/Saint Paul: Walking on the road to Damascus, he allegedly had a spiritual experience, but in such cases there is no way for one person prove it to another person. Maybe he did have a spiritual experience, maybe he had some kind of a psychological experience like a stroke, or maybe he just made up a story to scam people with. Thus it’s an objective fact the story was documented, but it’s only a subjective interpretation that a miracle occurred.

— Severe: Repeatedly placing the self or others in physical, mental, or economic harms way when there are less harmful options.


* “definition” – aka

* “medical version” – The term “clinically insane” is more slang than formal; in formal cases it refers to legalities based the testimony of medical professionals.

* “duty” – The above description applies to verbal behavior as much a physical; e.g., a person voluntarily entering an intellectual debate/discussion has a duty to remain reasonable as opposed to being blatantly emotional or sophist.

Also posted at

This entry was posted in essays-mini-essays, fam-friends. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *