Trusted

“I would like to thank all of you for coming tonight... today. You’ll have to excuse me; I’m somewhat disoriented by the latest events to descend on our community. Professor Brown, although a man of few words, did utter some memorable ones. “Insane Sanity,” if you remember any of his lectures, was a topic he enjoyed, I believe more than any of the other topics he explored. He never however actually explained what the term, or expression, “Insane Sanity” actually meant. He was of course adept at using that technique to make us think for ourselves, questions our facts. If there ever was a person who prided themselves on not indoctrinating people with theories of his own, no matter how well reasoned, it was he.”

Our newly installed University President carried on like that for forty-five minutes about how Professor Brown, our renowned head of the psychology department, made every effort to not influence a students ability to come to their own conclusions based upon their own facts and feelings. Which is a nice sentiment, but not true, as it cannot be. 

A teacher, whether their intent is to, or not to imply an attitude or direction to something they are imparting to us as knowledge, is biased by the mere fact they are presenting it as knowledge. Knowledge is supposed to challenge us to accept or disregard its premise, not make excuses for it. 

That in my opinion is the reason societal problems have grown to the monsters they have become. They demand we chose a side without evaluating all the facts. It has gotten to the point we have begun to distrust the facts, as alternatives have been offered in their place. Once you start down that hill it only gets steeper, slipperier.

Take professor Brown’s theory, Sane Sanity; can such a premise even exist? It implies a separation of what is considered sane, within norms, and a diversity that interrupts our premise of saneness. It follows the logic of win, win. For something to be a win, win situation, it has to meet criteria that allows both outcomes to be of equal value, and acceptable by all concerned as legitimately factual.

I do not believe in the concept of win, win, because it implies equality and acceptance based upon that assumed common value. Equality is, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. To be equal, given all things are considered, is impossible as no two people can have experienced life in the same manner and therefore that fact alone influences understanding. It is similar to interpretation of words from differing languages. They do not translate equally because they can’t be. Culture, societal norms, all enter into the equation making the outcome or interpretation of the word or words, commensurate with the experience of not only the speaker of the word, but the one interpreting it. 

Looking at Professor Brown’s stated euphemistic example of word play, “Sane Sanity,” what can we imagine was his interpretation of his words. Because he failed to leave us with a representation of his understanding, we are left to devise our own. I will not presume to know your possible interpretation, so am left to express only my own.

"Sane," a word meaning sensible, wise, and "sanity" meaning good sense, common sense, which brings us back to the conundrum presented by win, win. For something to be considered common sense it has to be the accepted interpretation of the majority of people expected to experience the outcome of whatever is being considered. Therefore not everyone is affected by the interpretation, only the majority. So, what is considered a majority? Is one more than fifty percent a majority, or should it be interpreted as three-fourths or four-fifths of those participating?

At face value we have the interpretation meaning wise and common. We all could probably agree that the majority, whether it be three-fourths, or four-fifths, would not be considered wise necessarily by the those not included in that group, or by some that are. Interpreting meaning is personal, and dependent upon our own experiences.

We are left with the problem of determining normalcy and commonality as it pertains to numerous and varied groups of people. I would conclude based on the evidence, facts presented to this point, by me, that an equitable outcome can be interpreted to mean different things to a varied array of people. Therefore the term fulfills Professor Brown’s theory that being sane and possessing sanity, are not necessarily symbiotic.

If we accept my conclusion, we will have to agree that when the number of those attempting to interpret exceeds two, we have begun to step onto the hill of slipperiness from which there is no outcome but to get to the bottom in one way or another. Given the athletic prowess and diversity of the general population it can be quite entertaining, while also possessing the ability to become quite dangerous.

If I believe it is sane to believe one thing, and your interpretation differs from mine, does that make it insane or not sane, depending of course on whose interpretation we incorporate into our facts.

How far do we go to prove our sense of sanity is preferable to the majority? When another’s interpretation of saneness is flawed, the facts are assumed conjured from inferred information or distorted observation. 

How do we come to an equitable solution given that facts are no longer facts, but interpretations of observations or inferred data presented as truth?        

Once we have reached a plateau where facts are debatable they are no longer of any value. We may as well flip a coin to determine whether to go to war, or declare peace. We may as well replace the notion of land of the free with our new mantra of "Sane Sanity."  It provides all the escape clauses any ordained document demands. If we do not endorse the outcome, we invent our own. If the facts do not agree with truth, we change the facts and Voila, new truth.

When truth becomes a commodity we can manipulate to obtain a preconceived result, we have lost the ability to trust. Once trust has been abandoned in favor of Sane Sanity, we are left with only interpretations that are stained with the experiences of individuals who may differ from our own and therefore cannot be trusted, and therefore not believed. We are then left with chaos, or the alternative to it, or the replica of it, Sane Sanity!