The Pathological Controversy of Super Sanity

It has been a challenge to define sanity. The reasons arise out of the impulse to be guided by a range of what the prevailing era considers normal. While the range is broad it may still not be broad enough. The question then arises as to how much is broad enough. This question is answered conveniently on many occasions. The convenience in contention is largely determined by certain accepted norms so that the definition of sanity becomes somewhat truncated. At this point a circle is drawn which acts almost like a forcefield preventing strong deviations from accepted patterns of behavior from entering the designation of acceptance and hence they are not considered sane.

Although sanity is a drawn range, it seems to grow depending on a notion of collective- acceptance. When one talks about sanity one cannot help delving into the realm of perspectivism. This means that we may have different perspectives and act according to those perspectives but they are accepted as long as they do not cross the circle of normalcy or the broad range of sanity. It would then imply that what was not normal at one point may become normal if the circle expands and the range broadens. While this is convenient and makes life simple for the ones who fit into the circle, it can be limiting as collective acceptance is still subject to evolution. You cannot determine with convenience clearly if the range has fully evolved or not. As far as evolution is concerned, convenience is not a matter of relevance.

One then embarks on the possibility of super sanity which is a layer where there are only visual fields and no sensational impacts on the person who is super-sane. One often discovers that there is nothing more cured and one is dropped in the well of motivational despair. When this happens one becomes a subject of what is called the pathological controversy of super-sanity. It becomes impossible to 'cure' or 'correct' any thought-process that is considered to be incorrect purely because it is only a matter of consideration. Remember, from the blurring of the judgement abnormal, we have been made to suspend our judgement of what is correct and incorrect. You may start coining jargons, labels and phrases that may have a medical significance but they may not necessarily have absolute significance. If this is the case, then the whole circle is blown outside its field of relevance absorbing even the labeller into the well of 'motivational despair'. Just imagine, when there are only visual fields or perspectives that have no absolute relevance, what would happen to your inbuilt schema of what you consider as normal? Then the therapist is cured by his client on account of his condition or state of super sanity.