mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
I’ve always been transfixed by anyone with the surname Blood, and Benjamin Paul Blood (1832-1919) is no exception. A contemporary of William James, he was similarly obsessed with the spectrum of religious experiences. He was particulary fascinated by the study of consciousness and how it was affected by artificial trances, e.g. nitrous oxide and other analgesic gases. In one of his pamphlets he writes about the revelations one can expect to experience upon awakening from the drugged state:
I think most persons who shall have tested it [i.e. waking up from laughing gas, ether, et al.] will accept this as the central point of the illumination: [i] that sanity is not the basic quality of intelligence, but is a mere condition which is variable, and like the humming of a wheel, goes up or down the musical gamut according to a physical activity; [ii] and that only in sanity is formal or contrasting thought, while the naked life is realized only outside of sanity altogether; [iii] and it is the instant contrast of this ‘tasteless water of souls’ with formal thought as we “come to,” that leaves in the patient an astonishment that the awful mystery of Life is at last but a homely and a common thing, and that aside from mere formality the majestic and the absurd are of equal dignity.
Well, then. This seems a cross section rife with potential dissent. What do you think of Mr. Blood’s musings…Is sanity a “mere condition” or a “basic quality” of intelligence? And what of the equality of the majestic and absurd?
Comments (6)
Comment
Sanity is a relative thing. Social Security has kept me on total disability for 17 years now with severe, severe OCD and yet, I can look at some people, some world leaders, some sports “heroes” and wonder, really, who is more sane? Is it me who wants to be absolutely certain of my every action or is it these guys who just don’t seem to care how many beings are harmed or killed to get their own way.
posted by Sheila on 7-25-2007 at 9:53 pm
I can not lean in any way toward sanity being a basic quality of intelligence. I have seen smart person part ways with sanity and it is disturbing.
posted by Stephanie on 7-26-2007 at 12:33 pm
I agree with Sheila-
Intelligence does not necessitate sanity. One of the most intelligent persons I had ever met was a patient with me in a county psychiatric ward.
Think about the fine line between insanity and genius. Using the definition for insane given my Meriam-Webster’s online dictionary: “mentally disordered”, NAMI lists many individuals we would look at as “intelligent” who have had their rounds with mental illness including Issac Newton, Beethoven, Virgina Woolf, and Chruchill.
posted by Tracy on 7-26-2007 at 3:24 pm
sorry-Churchill!
posted by Tracy on 7-26-2007 at 3:26 pm
I got a kick out of Musician/comedian Oscar Levants description of himself: “There’s a fine line between genius and insanity, I have erased this line.”
Oscar Levants imdb bio:
www.imdb.com/name/nm0505157/bio
I’ve had some psychotherapy, I have a six page report stating that I’m a genius without any mental illness. It actually concludes by stating in a very technical way that I am just weird and not mentally ill.
posted by Tdave on 7-26-2007 at 11:55 pm
I found this article by google ‘n my own name. I found it a little bizarre that both our fathers where named John. And that as I have my forefather had experienced the sanity within insanity . For me and as others may have found, that the reasoning of the masses is foolishness.
posted by Benjamin Blood on 3-17-2008 at 4:30 am