Normality Revisited

Posted on January 4, 2007 in Bipolar Disorder

I was writing like a Leo Strauss-trained neoconservative last night when I blogged about normality. Rewriting it helped only a little. Here’s another, briefer try for the users of Cliff’s Notes:

I separate the normal/abnormal axes from the sane/insane ones. When I use it, normal and abnormal refer to brain function. As a bipolar, my brain does not function normally. Due to misfires among the neurons, I experience the discharge of weird thoughts and perceptions. These are not normal: people who do not have my biochemistry do not have them to the degree that I do.

Sanity and insanity are terms which have been used in a different way from how I use them here. Usually they refer to an individual’s ability to distinguish between right and wrong. Faulty brain chemistry can contribute to this inability, but I have already designated them as abnormal. Because I can’t think of another term for it, I use sane/insane.

Sanity consists of one’s trained ability to recognize one’s mental states as normal or abnormal. I declared that a person who suffers from hallucinations, for example, can be considered sane if she knows that her hallucinations are not real. Likewise, I held out the likelihood that a person who persisted in believing a false premise against evidence could be called insane.

I cannot think of another pair of words that describe this second pair of conditions well. Suggestions are welcome.