John is saying professionals in the field do NOT use the term "mad,;" Scottie is saying the opposite. Scottie, I agree, on basis of my limited contact with those who have been "clinically diagnosed" that madness--at least certain acute forms--cannot be mistaken, but re John's notion of "center" and its relation to Tao, I'm not quite sure where I stand. Here, in Japanese context, Tao (as teaching of "the way") often takes on certain disciplining and self-disciplining forms, and--as in the various "ways" (the way of tea, the way of the warrior) actually implies hierarchies, steps to be followed, complex rituals and the "self" is in fact "subordinate" to teachers (sensei), masters, and those possessed of a knowledge which is (in some abstract sense) "external" to the self. "Self" is conceived, I feel, somewhat differently from Western/American view of self as source of itself, as arbiter, constructor of reality. This just a very sketchy first response (I am not expert on Eastern religions/philosophies) on use of notions like "center" as criterion for determining madness (or degrees of madness). Denis Jonnes