Introducing Hyper-Sanity - A predicative model of enlightenment

[Anton Rogachevski]

We usually think of sanity as binary, either on or off, at most maybe someone is more insane than the other, and never think about what is the positive aspect of gaining more sanity than normal, what we call in the spiritual sphere more enlightened or awoken. The ability to see reality as it is more accurately, to be even more sober than the norm. If this is true, then we can make a predictive model of enlightenment if we find ways to measure higher levels of sanity and so prove that sanity is central to the philosophical pursuit of the understanding of Metaphysics. We don't usually think of philosophy and psychology together but we should. We should first ask how sane and lucid the philosopher was when he declared his metaphysical statements, and even better to find a way to quantify and to measure his levels so we can know who to trust.

[Breakingthewall]

Agree with that. To begin serious spiritual work, you need to be consistent, focused, and have great clarity in your worldly life. But usually, the opposite happens: since your worldly life is a mess, you throw yourself into spirituality, and then, well, you know how it goes.

[Anton Rogachevski]

@Breakingthewall
People naively believe spiritual ideas, doing spiritual bypass instead of actual personal development, and get stuck in armchair philosophy thinking they are clever.

[Breakingthewall]

11 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

@Breakingthewall
People naively believe spiritual ideas, doing spiritual bypass instead of actual personal development, and get stuck in armchair philosophy thinking they are clever.

Yes, People turn to spirituality because things have been difficult for them; they haven't been able to adapt, succeed in relationships and careers, they're depressed, and they see spirituality and enlightenment as a way to overcome all that with an affordable work. Then they convince themselves that they are consciousness ,enlightened, whatever that implies "better than the normies", and thus their ego is at ease.

Edited 7 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[LastThursday]

That begs the question: what is sanity?

[Anton Rogachevski]

2 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

That begs the question: what is sanity?

Wise of you to play the skeptic. I define it as the ability to perceive reality in the most accurate way. So losing sanity means losing touch with reality, and being sane means staying in as much contact with reality as possible.

[LastThursday]

I'll continue in sceptic mode: how would one know how accurately one is perceiving reality? If people can become insane isn't that evidence that it's not possible to know if you're insane or not?

[Anton Rogachevski]

12 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

I'll continue in sceptic mode: how would one know how accurately one is perceiving reality? If people can become insane isn't that evidence that it's not possible to know if you're insane or not?

I'm not offering answers but asking questions. I would love to know how to assess sanity and how to measure it correctly. I'm sure that we can find a very wise psychiatrist or a psychologist that can make a specialized quiz for this. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Anton Rogachevski

[LastThursday]

Fair enough.

[gettoefl]

3 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

I'm not offering answers but asking questions. I would love to know how to assess sanity and how to measure it correctly. I'm sure that we can find a very wise psychiatrist or a psychologist that can make a specialized quiz for this. 

I think you’re pointing at something important, but I frame it a bit differently.

What we usually call “sanity” is already defined inside a massively distorted framework. By that measure, most people agree with one another and function, but that doesn’t mean they’re close to seeing reality clearly. In that sense, what passes for normal is already deeply muddled. Indeed, the world we collectively navigate is unstable, contradictory, and oriented around threat, competition, and death; and we take all this as given rather than questionable.

Sanity, as you suggest, really is about seeing reality accurately. But I'd say it doesn't come in degrees the way intelligence or emotional regulation does. It’s not a matter of being more or less sane than the average. It’s a radical shift in orientation: either perception is filtered through fear, defense, and assumption, or it isn’t. Mixing clarity and distortion cannot produce partial truth; it just produces similar distortion that feels a bit convincing.

That’s why I don’t think sanity is something that can be meaningfully quantified or measured on a continuum. Any measurement system is itself being built from the same assumptions it’s trying to evaluate! The problem isn’t lack of data; the issue is the lens through which data is interpreted.

What is required then is willingness, which means a readiness to question one’s own interpretations rather than reinforce them, and to allow a different way of seeing to replace the familiar one. That shift doesn’t add information; it removes interference. And when that happens, clarity will not be incremental; rather it is immediate!

So I agree that sanity is central to metaphysics, but I’d say it’s less about ranking minds and more about whether the mind is defending its story or willing to let it all go.

 

[Anton Rogachevski]

@gettoefl

I do envision a continuum of sanity where you can see more and more clearly through illusion and to stay in a non dual state for longer. Of course there are degrees of enlightenment, and many aspects of truth to be revealed. It's not so binary and simply as you are trying to make it.

Let's just try to stay open minded about it, and not just say "it's impossible" which is an unfalsifiable claim.

It will surely have to redefine what we mean by sane, making a new paradigm that shows that sanity is not so simple and normal as we thought.

Edited 1 hour ago by Anton Rogachevski

[gettoefl]

4 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

@gettoefl

I do envision a continuum of sanity where you can see more and more clearly through illusion and to stay in a non dual state for longer. Of course there are degrees of enlightenment, and many aspects of truth to be revealed. It's not so binary and simply as you are trying to make it.

What you’re describing is clarity within a unreal framework, not sanity itself.

Seeing more clearly through illusion is still seeing illusion. Staying longer in a non-dual state within experience is still a state, and states come and go. You’re describing refinement of perception inside a hallucination, not the end of mistaking it for reality.

Sanity can't be a continuum within insanity. That will be like saying there are degrees of sobriety while still drunk. You can be less confused, more functional, more insightful etc. but as long as perception is still structured around presumed separation, vulnerability, and time, the underlying premise hasn’t changed.

What does admit degrees is stability in clarity, but not clarity itself. The recognition of truth is wholly binary: either the false premise is operating or it isn’t. What varies is how consistently that recognition is not interfered with afterward.

So yes, there can be many experiences, insights, and refinements, but sanity itself is nothing to do with progressive accumulation. It’s the absence of an underlying mistake. Don’t approach it asymptotically; you either stop making the same error, or you don’t.

Sanity within insanity is still insanity, just better lit.

[Anton Rogachevski]

@gettoefl

One cannot talk about clarity as separate from sanity. can one have clarity within insanity or sanity and a lack of clarity? sounds like clarity would be an important part of sanity. 

Your definition of sanity is too far from the usual way it's used, you are moving the goal post too far, and basically saying that it's a quantum leap into sanity. Basically you say it's a miracle, because one insane person somehow stumbles into sanity by mistake. There is a process and there is a degree of increasing sanity in the very process of getting there.

Edited 49 minutes ago by Anton Rogachevski