UnSpecified Rant ( Logic Sanity Taboos ) ?

As A Crazy Person ( Myself )
i am particularly Interested in : What is Crazy ?

i have already decided that ‘Logic’ & ‘Reasoning’ are Bunk.
That is; Formal Logical Reasoning is Seriously Dysfunctional.

The Purpose of Using Formal Propositional Logic
Is to be Absolutely Sure or Certain of Some Carefully Constructed Argument.
In Actual Practice, We know that No Such Argument Exists,
Various People may be Absolutely Sure of Some Principle, Hypothesis or Ideology, But The Fact that many ‘Reasonable’ People Vehemently Disagree with them, This Strongly Suggests that this Idea of An Irrefutable Argument is Itself ‘Mistaken’.
There is No Such a Thing.

My own Formal ‘Irrefutable’ Argument that Logic Itself is Bunk;
Proved with Formal Propositional Logic is this :

Let us first allow that there is A Formal Propositional System of Logical Reasoning, Which, When used Properly; Can Produce Irrefutable Arguments.
There are Several very Serious Problems with ‘Properly Using’ This System of Logical Reasoning; The Most Conspicuous is that The Creator of The Argument must first ‘Subjectively’ Assign a Truth Value to Each Propositional Variable.
In Classical Propositional Logic; These Truth Values are Either True or False;
Which is Problematic in The Real World. There are many Variables that you’d like to use in An Argument, Whose Truth Value is Initially in Dispute, or Deeply UnCertain. Even Any Given Culture’s Most Axiomatic Assumptions about The World, Human Nature or Philosophical Assumptions are Amazingly InCalculable, or Irresolute.
Using Fractional Propositional Logic; Which has its Own System of Logical Functions with which to ‘Operate’ on Fractional Values of Truth. This System allows Truth Values to Hold a Value of 0 ≤ p ≤ 1 And The Functions; AND, OR, IFT, XOR and such, Produce Results that Always stay within this Range.
The Result is that your Propositions may be ‘Sort of True’ or ‘Mostly False’ or ‘Who Knows’ and Retain your Logical Structure.
The Final Result holds to This Premise; and May Provide A Solution that is Unsatisfactorily Vague. It will fall short of The Desired Irrefutable Argument, but in Real World Situations; It may provide a Conclusion or Judgment that is Entirely Consistent with All Facts and Stand Up to A Critical Attack of He Said, She Said.

Two :
Along with this ‘Real’ Logical Reasoning System, There Exists a More Familiar System of Jiggery Pokery Logic, which is Routinely used by Ordinary People to ‘Prove’ their Personal Opinions & Religious Views. This system is rife with ‘Logical Fallacies’ in which One or More Steps of The Argument Assert Something that even The Most Superficial Reflection Upon It will Cast a Serious Shadow on its Validity.
Nevertheless; Such ‘Lay’ Arguments are extremely Pervasive, Used Extensively in Advertising, Cultural or Social Indoctrination, Cult Tutelage &/or Any Family Decision that is in Dispute.
A Carefully Established & Well Constructed Jiggery Pokery Argument may appear just as Strong & UnAssailable as A ‘Real’ Logical Argument; But more Importantly; Anything; Anything at All may be ‘Proved’ with A Jiggery Pokery Argument; While Real Logic can only Prove True Things.
If A Particular Section, Premise or Step of The Jiggery Pokery Argument is Attacked Successfully; The Jiggery Pokery Argument may Simply ‘Resolve’ this Weakness with An Additional Jiggery Pokery Argument, Recursively & without Limit.
Although These Jiggery Pokery Arguments are ‘Just Wrong’;
It must be Conceded that They are Often Held to Be ‘Accurate’ or ‘Valid’ by Many People, and while you, or A ‘Professional’ Logician may believe that you would not be swayed or Convinced by such Bogus & Frivolous Rationalizations or Justifications, It is entirely reasonable that you have already fallen pry to these Beliefs and are UnAware that you have Stumbled in this Manner.

The Point is That : If The Purpose of True Logic is provide Certainty in your Decision Making, and Jiggery Pokery Logic Countermands that Functionality, And are Often ( Even Occasionally ) Indistinguishable from Truly Logical Explanations & Assertions;
Then The Functionality of True Logic is Compromised.

Thus: Logic is Bunk.

Ethics is The Examination & Determination of What is Right or Wrong;
And The Tool that is Used to Make these Distinctions in Reason & Logic.

So; By Extension, Ethics are Compromised.

Sanity is The Assumption that there exists a Standard of Behaviour which is Universally ‘Good’ for Both The Individual & The Community, Society or Culture.

Which requires a Logical Approach to Tease Apart The Many Slivers of ‘What is Good’. It is often easy to determine that something is ‘Good’ for ‘Me’ right now, But will it be Good for Me tomorrow? Is it Good for my Neighbors? Is it Good for Strangers Two Blocks Over? Is it Good for ‘Outworlders’?

And since Logic is Broken; All attempts to Use Reason to determine what is ‘Good’ is Deeply Flawed.

The Definition of Sanity is Deeply Flawed.

It is Most Evident when Examining what is Commonly, Or Universally thought of as ‘Good’ or ‘Sane’ or ‘Crazy’.

It should also be Introduced that there exists a Particular Kind of ‘Universal Beliefs’ that are held to be ‘Really, Really True’; And are Not.

These Beliefs have a Very Quirky Functionality, and since they are taught to The children of a Given Society or Culture from their Earliest Moments of Inclusion in their Communities, They are Not subject to The Necessity of Being ‘Reasonable’ or ‘Explained’. They are simply True.
Unambiguously; Inarguably True.

These Beliefs are Called Taboos.

Most Taboos are well entrenched into The Legal & Judicial System of A Society and Carry Very Severe Penalties for Violating them.
It seems very odd to me though; that If these Taboos are So Obviously ‘Wrong’, Then only a Crazy Person would Violate them. Which is -Exactly- How their Violations are Considered. Breaking a Taboo is Not simply Infringing on some Rule; No. Disregarding a Taboo is Proof Positive that The Offender is Clinically Insane. Never mind that each Society has their own Taboos, Most of which are completely different from Culture to Culture. A Taboo in Canada may be perfectly acceptable behaviour in Mexico.
And everyone ( ? ) seems to be aware of this; And doesn’t change anything.
If you Defy a Taboo in your own Community, While it is Well understood that such a Crime is only Wrong ‘Here’, It is Still Very, Very Wrong.

Some people ‘Rationalize’ this as evidence that Everyone Else, In all The Other Countries, are Completely Insane.
Really.
Many People really believe that The People in Other Countries aren’t even ‘Real’ People.

Taboos Do Have real Functionality though. They allow everyone in A Community to Immediately Know if Someone is Crazy, and Potentially Dangerous. If you see someone violating a Taboo; Then they are Obviously Crazy or An Outworlder, and they may pose a Threat to your Safety. Avoid them. Tell your Parents or The Authorities that there is A Crazy Person over there.
You don’t have to be a Clinical Psychiatrist or Lawyer to make an Evaluation like this; You simply have to know What is Allowable and What is Not.

One very kooky aspect of Taboos is that Nearly Every Taboo has a Sister Behaviour that is perfectly OK, Even in The Society that Enforces The Primary Taboo. There are also Certain ‘Contexts’ in which a Taboo can just be Turned Off like Light Switch.
In Contemporary America for Example;
It is Forbidden for A Woman to Display or Allow to be Seen, Her Areola or Nipples.
It is Perfectly OK for A Man to Display Their Nipples.
It is Perfectly OK for Magazines to be Sold that feature Predominant Photographs of Women’s Nipples.
It is Perfectly OK for Animals to Display their Feminine Nipples,
And while it is Considered Very, Very Wrong for An Adult Man or Woman to Suckle On A Human Woman’s Breast, or Drink Bottled Human Milk, It is Perfectly OK to Drink The Milk of A Cow or Goat, But Not A Dog or Cat.
A Grown Man may even openly suckle The Teat of a Cow or Goat on National Television for Comedic Effect, and Such a Man may be thought of as ‘Eccentric’ or ‘Goofy’, But This Behaviour would not be Criminal or Socially Ostracizing.

Murdering People is Considered Very, Very Wrong; But there are Many, Many Exceptions to This Prohibition, and Those that eagerly Adhere to The Proposition that Murder or Killing People is Very, Very Wrong; Often Equally Believe that The Exceptions are Permissible or Appropriate, And they find No Contradiction in These Beliefs.

This should now Establish my Foundation of My Initial Question:
What is Crazy ?

If A Society is going to Allow The Idea of ‘Sanity’ or ‘Insanity’ to hold important positions within The Legal, Educational or Social Services & Systems,
Then They Should have Real ‘Functionality’.

The Idea of What is Crazy should Not be Completely Arbitrary.

Which it is.

In Recent ( Summer 2012 ) News;
How can our Society believe that James E. Holmes could methodically plan & then perpetrate an attack on a theatre full of people, killing a dozen, and wounding far more, and Not be Insane. How can our society believe that he was exercising The Same ‘Logic’ & ‘Reasoning’ that anyone else may choose to make a Baloney Sandwich or Watch an Old Episode of Gilligan’s Island ?

There are people that are ‘Mad-Dog’ Crazy, frothing at The Mouth, Ranting Incoherently, Running around in Circles, Painting with Feces, Using Dead Bodies as Sculptures, Compulsively Masturbating, Enjoying The Company of Children or Violating Victimless Taboos.

But each of these is commonly performed by Artists, Poets & Grade School Teachers.

There doesn’t seem to be a Clear Definition of What is Crazy.

i have this ‘Other’ idea that while The Legal System defines Insanity as A Persons Inability to know The Difference between ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’.
It is my contention that Everyone, or Anyone that Breaks a Law or Taboo can not make this Distinction; Based on The Very Simple Assertion that If you Believe that Something is Wrong, They you won’t do it.
You may ‘Understand’ that other people may believe that wearing mismatched socks is Deeply Wrong, You will wear mismatched socks without any apprehension whatsoever. You clearly do not understand that wearing mismatched socks is ‘Really’ Wrong.

Even The Most Egregiously Evil Necrophiliac Cannibal will certainly have their personal code of conduct, which may include a prohibition against eating pancakes without syrup. Eating Pancakes without Syrup is not simply disagreeable, but deeply, culturally wrong. One may wonder how their personal code came into being which allows for certain behaviours that are widely assumed to be vulgar & abominable and other mildly exasperating situations to be thoroughly forbidden.
Is it really any different for everyone? This Case only presents us with An Extremium Case, but not an Anomalous Case.

What i believe.

i don’t believe that anyone can truly think.
Humanimals are pre-Conscious Entities.

Societies are built upon rules no different than those used by ants &/or bees.
The Rules of Thumb that Humanimal Societies use may be more complex, boarding on Chaotic ( Approaching Randomality ), but Qualitatively; They are Equal.

i also don’t believe in Freewill.
i allow that each ‘Conscious’ Entity is Autonomous in The Sense that our Minds are A Composite ‘Result’ of All The Gravitational & ElectroMagnetic Forces effecting each of our Personal Node Vertices; But These Focus Points have no Control or Influence over their Own Behaviour or Thoughts.

We are Only ‘Aware’ of what is Happening to us.
Each Conscious Entity is an Observer of themselves,
Incapable of Exercising The Tiniest Amount of Directed Intentions.