Missing Canadian man found 10k km from home in the Amazon jungle(nzherald.co.nz)
nzherald.co.nz
Missing Canadian man found 10k km from home in the Amazon jungle
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11797657
45 comments
The World's Most Dangerous Journey:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Nv5QWTZyDw
Interesting - I did nit know that and always assumed it was straightforward to go from North to South America.
> "I've never felt alone,' he said. "It's been a lot of thinking for years, sleeping in the open. It's very simple to live, we do not need many things."
I'm getting this positive feeling that nature must have cured him off schizophrenia.
I'm getting this positive feeling that nature must have cured him off schizophrenia.
Really? What about that quote indicates an absence of schizophrenia to you?
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
"If a person lives in a forest and no one is around to label them as a 'schizophrenic', can that person be claimed to have a disorder?"
When you're alone, you can't be compared against society's bullshit definition of "normal". You are just you. Imagine how freeing that is, to extract oneself from the judging glare and arbitrary definitions of your peers who think themselves better than you.
"If a person lives in a forest and no one is around to label them as a 'schizophrenic', can that person be claimed to have a disorder?"
When you're alone, you can't be compared against society's bullshit definition of "normal". You are just you. Imagine how freeing that is, to extract oneself from the judging glare and arbitrary definitions of your peers who think themselves better than you.
One of the more important changes in psychology in recent years is that conditions are not labeled a "disorder" unless and until they adversely impact the ability of the person to function happily without harming others. In short, if you are happy with the way your mind works, and you aren't hurting anyone else, you may be Just Fine(tm), according to modern psychology.
A situation like this perhaps tests the bounds of that idea. Even if he says, "I feel fine about all of this", it may be necessary for loved ones to step in and say, "OK, but you're endangering your health."
I travel full-time, often in some pretty odd places, and I have several friends and passing acquaintances who aren't all that far off from this guy. I know folks who ride trains with nothing but a backpack, people who hitchhike cross-country on a regular basis, people who've ridden bikes through multiple countries, people who live/travel in a van or car, etc. I worry about their mental state in some cases, and many have addiction issues, but many choose to live lightly, and I don't know that it would be ethical to insist they do otherwise.
Schizophrenia is more common than most folks realize, and people can suffer in a wide variety of ways because of it. It may be worse to be trapped in an apartment or a mental hospital, or to be suicidal, or to become violent, because of the condition than to be roaming around South America, at least for some folks. It isn't always treatable (anti-psychotics sometimes help, anti-depressants sometimes help, Lithium sometimes helps if schizophrenia is paired with bipolar disorder; my father was schizophrenic and was, at times, prescribed all of those), so maybe being happy (or content) and not hurting anyone is as good an outcome as one can achieve.
So, yeah, he may have schizophrenia, and I hope he's able to get treatment that works effectively. It sounds like he's happy to be back with his family, and they're happy to have him back. That's an awesome outcome.
A situation like this perhaps tests the bounds of that idea. Even if he says, "I feel fine about all of this", it may be necessary for loved ones to step in and say, "OK, but you're endangering your health."
I travel full-time, often in some pretty odd places, and I have several friends and passing acquaintances who aren't all that far off from this guy. I know folks who ride trains with nothing but a backpack, people who hitchhike cross-country on a regular basis, people who've ridden bikes through multiple countries, people who live/travel in a van or car, etc. I worry about their mental state in some cases, and many have addiction issues, but many choose to live lightly, and I don't know that it would be ethical to insist they do otherwise.
Schizophrenia is more common than most folks realize, and people can suffer in a wide variety of ways because of it. It may be worse to be trapped in an apartment or a mental hospital, or to be suicidal, or to become violent, because of the condition than to be roaming around South America, at least for some folks. It isn't always treatable (anti-psychotics sometimes help, anti-depressants sometimes help, Lithium sometimes helps if schizophrenia is paired with bipolar disorder; my father was schizophrenic and was, at times, prescribed all of those), so maybe being happy (or content) and not hurting anyone is as good an outcome as one can achieve.
So, yeah, he may have schizophrenia, and I hope he's able to get treatment that works effectively. It sounds like he's happy to be back with his family, and they're happy to have him back. That's an awesome outcome.
Perhaps he was looking for an entryway to "The Library of Babel" to find the "The Man of the Book".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel
My first thought that his obession was somehow conencted to Borges. Borges being the former director of the National Public Library of Argentina.
This mans story has Borgesque qualities to it in itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel
My first thought that his obession was somehow conencted to Borges. Borges being the former director of the National Public Library of Argentina.
This mans story has Borgesque qualities to it in itself.
is it possible for someone to walk that much distance while being malnourished? the article said that he scraped berries and remnants of food in trash, but 4-5 years like that? the article also mentions that he walked most of it, only occasionally getting a ride as a stowaway. this guy must have had incredible health, walking barefoot, without major sickness (infection, virus, etc), no money, no food, hardly any shelter, in shorts. i imagine the fact that he was in and around warm climate areas helped, he would not have survived if he went north or east.
> the article said that he scraped berries and remnants of food in trash, but 4-5 years like that?
When it comes to real-world experiences, most details fail to get documented.
When it comes to real-world experiences, most details fail to get documented.
Over 5 years - its less then 6km a day average.
6 through untouched land is nothing like 6km on a paved road.
The majority of the 10k miles would have been on roads though, and although he may have spent the majority of the time on foot, a significant chunk of the distance may have been in/on vehicles.
+1. They're totally different.
[deleted]
Guy walks across two continents to go to the library only to realize once he gets there that he forgot his wallet.
I wonder how this started. It said his goal was to visit a library in Argentina. Is that what he wanted to do when he left, or did he pick that up on the way?
I know I've gone out for a drive or a walk to clear my head and found myself 90 minutes from home. Maybe this guy took it to a whole new level
I know I've gone out for a drive or a walk to clear my head and found myself 90 minutes from home. Maybe this guy took it to a whole new level
I certainly don't know, but the implication seems to be that due to his schizophrenia, he became fixated on that destination, likely ascribing some importance to it that would not have otherwise been rational.
One day that whole new level is going out to the outer planets to have a think.
This is originally from the Daily Mail it seems? Who knows the level of fact then.
Looks like the original article may be from here?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/anton-pilipa-found-1.3...
CBC date is: Feb 07, 2017 15:31 ET
Daily Mail: Feb 08, 2017 16:38 ET
CBC date is: Feb 07, 2017 15:31 ET
Daily Mail: Feb 08, 2017 16:38 ET
This post should r updated to link to the CBC post. The DailyMail is unreliable to the point that it is banned from being used as a citation from Wikipedia: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/money/2017/02/09/me...
>>police reached out on Twitter
Sigh! four-tops-itis reaches New Zealand
Sigh! four-tops-itis reaches New Zealand
I think I will be really heartbroken if I later learn this story to be fake or made up! Simply incredible.
how was he able to cross so many borders without any ID?
About 10 years ago I knew another Canadian who crossed China-Laos-Thailand-Malaysia without a valid passport or visa (or pretty much any money whatsoever). This was after about 3-4 years in China with an expired visa. When you consider how short the Thai/Malay land border is in particular, if it's possible there, then it would appear that most borders are not very well controlled. This accords with my own experience visiting land borders in remote areas and speaking to local inhabitants (mostly China-Burma-Laos-Vietnam but also Algeria-Tunisia). Allegedly he turned himself in at the Canadian consulate and was flown home.
I am curious, do you mean he by some means simply managed to get border control to let him pass through, or he crossed the border without being controlled? E.g. crossing through sparsely populated areas / nature?
Crossed the border without being controlled.
There aren't many borders in the world that can't be trivially crossed without ID. Especially on foot.
Mental illnesses are as real as physical illnesses. While we have a long way to go in understanding and treating them (as we do with understanding of the brain and the body in general), most people suffering from mental illness can still benefit significantly from proper diagnosis and treatment. Writing off mental illness (or at least schizophrenia) as bullshit, as you appear to be doing, doesn't help anyone.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13627356 and marked it off-topic.
>> we have a long way to go in understanding and treating them
Who is this "we" at the beginning of your sentence, and who is the "them" at the end? Are "we" and "them" the same collective, subjecting themselves to their own analysis? Or is the "we" the collective of those who are apparently not mentally ill, with "them" being the group being targeted for labelling? If the latter, what is your justification for assessing a group of people you do not belong to? Your own manmade "science", with no basis in factual laws of nature required?
What is mental illness, as defined by our society? It's being affected by an "abnormal" state of mind, as proclaimed by those who self-label themselves as not being affected. For the most part, "being mentally ill" is simply "being different". At its very core, every mental illness requires a second individual to "diagnose" the first.
Aside: I believe that "mental illness" is born in an individual by having been forced to cohabitate in tight quarters with millions of individuals they have no personal relationship with and who don't give a damn about them, while having no choice but to slave away at a job they despise, performing menial tasks that feed corporate greed while not providing a single meaningful contribution to their community... and for what purpose? To perpetuate the meaningless existence we have created for ourselves? Society did not have to work out this way, but somehow this is where we have ended up. It's depressing beyond belief, and it's no wonder so many people are fucked up.
Who is this "we" at the beginning of your sentence, and who is the "them" at the end? Are "we" and "them" the same collective, subjecting themselves to their own analysis? Or is the "we" the collective of those who are apparently not mentally ill, with "them" being the group being targeted for labelling? If the latter, what is your justification for assessing a group of people you do not belong to? Your own manmade "science", with no basis in factual laws of nature required?
What is mental illness, as defined by our society? It's being affected by an "abnormal" state of mind, as proclaimed by those who self-label themselves as not being affected. For the most part, "being mentally ill" is simply "being different". At its very core, every mental illness requires a second individual to "diagnose" the first.
Aside: I believe that "mental illness" is born in an individual by having been forced to cohabitate in tight quarters with millions of individuals they have no personal relationship with and who don't give a damn about them, while having no choice but to slave away at a job they despise, performing menial tasks that feed corporate greed while not providing a single meaningful contribution to their community... and for what purpose? To perpetuate the meaningless existence we have created for ourselves? Society did not have to work out this way, but somehow this is where we have ended up. It's depressing beyond belief, and it's no wonder so many people are fucked up.
> Who is this "we" at the beginning of your sentence, and who is the "them" at the end?
Read more carefully. "We" is all of mankind, and "them" is mental illnesses.
> It's being affected by an "abnormal" state of mind, as proclaimed by those who self-label themselves as not being affected. For the most part, "being mentally ill" is simply "being different". At its very core, every mental illness requires a second individual to "diagnose" the first.
No. Not all things are subject to relativism. If you believe you're indestructible and do something that gets you hurt or killed, then your cognitive functions have objectively malfunctioned. It doesn't matter if you realize it or not.
> I believe that "mental illness" is born in an individual by having been forced to cohabitate in tight quarters with millions of individuals they have no personal relationship with and who don't give a damn about them
What about, say, some European monarchs who went crazy due to generations of inbreeding?
Read more carefully. "We" is all of mankind, and "them" is mental illnesses.
> It's being affected by an "abnormal" state of mind, as proclaimed by those who self-label themselves as not being affected. For the most part, "being mentally ill" is simply "being different". At its very core, every mental illness requires a second individual to "diagnose" the first.
No. Not all things are subject to relativism. If you believe you're indestructible and do something that gets you hurt or killed, then your cognitive functions have objectively malfunctioned. It doesn't matter if you realize it or not.
> I believe that "mental illness" is born in an individual by having been forced to cohabitate in tight quarters with millions of individuals they have no personal relationship with and who don't give a damn about them
What about, say, some European monarchs who went crazy due to generations of inbreeding?
>> Read more carefully. "We" is all of mankind, and "them" is mental illnesses.
You're likely right about the parent's intention. It's somewhat ambiguous with their sentence structure as that second sentence reads fine without the first, with the "them" referring to the "most people" after the comma. Upon second reading, I can see it makes more sense for "them" to refer to the previous sentence's "mental illnesses". There should have been a semicolon between and some restructuring. :)
However, I am still not satisfied with that distinction. The "we", even without an intentionally spliced "them", is still being used to try and say "we as a whole", when the reality of the statement is "we as a subset of the whole". Specifically because almost no "mentally ill" person will self-identify as such without having been subjected to years of subjugation to do so. Please find me the group of people, with a statistically significant size, who are both mentally ill and working to define the term "mental illness". They will be few and far between.
This reminds me so much of Jane Elliott's lifetime spent trying to teach people who claim not to be racist that they are in fact flat out racist. It's not a perfect analogy, but the root of the problem is very similar.
You're likely right about the parent's intention. It's somewhat ambiguous with their sentence structure as that second sentence reads fine without the first, with the "them" referring to the "most people" after the comma. Upon second reading, I can see it makes more sense for "them" to refer to the previous sentence's "mental illnesses". There should have been a semicolon between and some restructuring. :)
However, I am still not satisfied with that distinction. The "we", even without an intentionally spliced "them", is still being used to try and say "we as a whole", when the reality of the statement is "we as a subset of the whole". Specifically because almost no "mentally ill" person will self-identify as such without having been subjected to years of subjugation to do so. Please find me the group of people, with a statistically significant size, who are both mentally ill and working to define the term "mental illness". They will be few and far between.
This reminds me so much of Jane Elliott's lifetime spent trying to teach people who claim not to be racist that they are in fact flat out racist. It's not a perfect analogy, but the root of the problem is very similar.
I don't get your point. Cats also don't refer to themselves as cats, and yet they're still cats. They're cats even if there's no one around to call them cats.
Also, this:
> the mentally ill only wind up labelling themselves as that after years of pressure into conforming to that label by those around them
is not true. For example, a chronic depressive is perfectly capable of seeing that something is wrong with them, because their illness doesn't impair their cognition.
Also, this:
> the mentally ill only wind up labelling themselves as that after years of pressure into conforming to that label by those around them
is not true. For example, a chronic depressive is perfectly capable of seeing that something is wrong with them, because their illness doesn't impair their cognition.
With chronic depressives believing "something is wrong with them", why do you think they believe so? Because they are innately aware of that fact, or is it nothing more than a conditioned response? There is a __MASSIVE__ difference between "I know I'm not normal" and "Others say I'm not normal, ergo I must not be normal".
As for your analogy regarding cats... give me a break. Cats see you solely as a giver of food and oft unwanted affection. That doesn't mean that's all you are. Or... maybe that's exactly all you are, a dumb moving object whose only purpose is to dispense food. Perspective is everything.
As for your analogy regarding cats... give me a break. Cats see you solely as a giver of food and oft unwanted affection. That doesn't mean that's all you are. Or... maybe that's exactly all you are, a dumb moving object whose only purpose is to dispense food. Perspective is everything.
> As for chronic depressives believing "something is wrong with them", why do you think they believe so? Because they are innately aware of that fact, or is it nothing more than a conditioned response? There is a __MASSIVE__ difference between "I know I'm not normal" and "Others say I'm not normal, ergo I must not be normal".
Just so we're clear, you're asking why I said something I didn't say. What I said was that a chronic depressive is capable of being aware of their illness, not necessarily that they are aware.
With that out of the way, let's consider a hypothetical conversation between a depressive A and two healthy people B and C.
A: Man, it's really difficult to get out of bed every morning, isn't it?
B: Yeah, getting up early is tough.
A: I don't mean just that, I mean just getting motivated to even get up.
C: Uh, not really. There's stuff that needs to get done.
A: So you don't have any problems getting motivated to get up?
C: Not generally, no.
B: Yeah, me neither.
A: Next you're gonna tell me that you've never considered killing yourselves.
B and C: No, never.
A: Huh. Must be just me, then.
Likewise, a colorblind person can realize that other people are experiencing light differently without being directly told.
> As for your analogy regarding cats... give me a break. Cats see you solely as a giver of food and oft unwanted affection. That doesn't mean that's all you are. Or... maybe that's exactly all you are, a dumb moving object whose only purpose is to dispense food. Perspective is everything.
That analogy was in response to your point that "no mentally ill person calls themselves that". Now you're changing the subject to how other people view mentally ill people.
But anyway, basically your only argument is that reality is subjective, and there's no way to judge whose delusion is the illness, and that's BS. If you believe that the world is ruled an all-powerful Jesuit organization when there's no reason to believe this, and this belief causes you to endanger yourself or others, then that's an illness. The criterion is based on the effects of the belief, not on the belief itself.
Just so we're clear, you're asking why I said something I didn't say. What I said was that a chronic depressive is capable of being aware of their illness, not necessarily that they are aware.
With that out of the way, let's consider a hypothetical conversation between a depressive A and two healthy people B and C.
A: Man, it's really difficult to get out of bed every morning, isn't it?
B: Yeah, getting up early is tough.
A: I don't mean just that, I mean just getting motivated to even get up.
C: Uh, not really. There's stuff that needs to get done.
A: So you don't have any problems getting motivated to get up?
C: Not generally, no.
B: Yeah, me neither.
A: Next you're gonna tell me that you've never considered killing yourselves.
B and C: No, never.
A: Huh. Must be just me, then.
Likewise, a colorblind person can realize that other people are experiencing light differently without being directly told.
> As for your analogy regarding cats... give me a break. Cats see you solely as a giver of food and oft unwanted affection. That doesn't mean that's all you are. Or... maybe that's exactly all you are, a dumb moving object whose only purpose is to dispense food. Perspective is everything.
That analogy was in response to your point that "no mentally ill person calls themselves that". Now you're changing the subject to how other people view mentally ill people.
But anyway, basically your only argument is that reality is subjective, and there's no way to judge whose delusion is the illness, and that's BS. If you believe that the world is ruled an all-powerful Jesuit organization when there's no reason to believe this, and this belief causes you to endanger yourself or others, then that's an illness. The criterion is based on the effects of the belief, not on the belief itself.
>> capable of being aware of their illness, not necessarily that they are aware
Now you're splitting hairs to try and prove that your perspective is superior to that of those you're labelling. This is exactly the characterization of someone who is being (perhaps ignorantly) oppressive. In such a situation, one has no business trying to argue that they have a bloody clue talking about a subject matter that does not directly affect them; and no, having a friend or family member who is "affected" is not "direct". You cannot claim to understand racism simply because you are a white person who happens to have a black friend.
>> let's consider a hypothetical conversation between a depressive A and two healthy people B and C
That whole discussion is one-sided. You're assuming that a majority consensus from B and C completely nullifies the possibility that A's perspective is valid and normal. The very fact that the word "normal" is used to indicate a majority consensus against the behaviour of a minority stinks of exclusivity and is outrageously abhorrent. 1,000 people saying that "situation A is normal" does not mean that 3 people saying "situation B is normal for me" is somehow abnormal. They are both normal scenarios, each having a different section of the pie chart. Who the fuck is so high and mighty as to decide that Slice B of the pie is not normal because Slice A is larger? When the sophistication of the statistical analysis you are using to generate your world view requires a grade 5 level of mathematical comprehension, you're using the most selfish of non-analytical thinking to justify your personal bias.
>> Now you're changing the subject to how other people view mentally ill people
Exactly. Those who label themselves as "non mentally ill" have no valid perspective of what it means to be "mentally ill". Seeing oneself as "normal" while comparing oneself against others who "must clearly not be normal because I say so" is the entire problem. You have no frame of reference, because you can't put yourself in their shoes - end of discussion.
Now you're splitting hairs to try and prove that your perspective is superior to that of those you're labelling. This is exactly the characterization of someone who is being (perhaps ignorantly) oppressive. In such a situation, one has no business trying to argue that they have a bloody clue talking about a subject matter that does not directly affect them; and no, having a friend or family member who is "affected" is not "direct". You cannot claim to understand racism simply because you are a white person who happens to have a black friend.
>> let's consider a hypothetical conversation between a depressive A and two healthy people B and C
That whole discussion is one-sided. You're assuming that a majority consensus from B and C completely nullifies the possibility that A's perspective is valid and normal. The very fact that the word "normal" is used to indicate a majority consensus against the behaviour of a minority stinks of exclusivity and is outrageously abhorrent. 1,000 people saying that "situation A is normal" does not mean that 3 people saying "situation B is normal for me" is somehow abnormal. They are both normal scenarios, each having a different section of the pie chart. Who the fuck is so high and mighty as to decide that Slice B of the pie is not normal because Slice A is larger? When the sophistication of the statistical analysis you are using to generate your world view requires a grade 5 level of mathematical comprehension, you're using the most selfish of non-analytical thinking to justify your personal bias.
>> Now you're changing the subject to how other people view mentally ill people
Exactly. Those who label themselves as "non mentally ill" have no valid perspective of what it means to be "mentally ill". Seeing oneself as "normal" while comparing oneself against others who "must clearly not be normal because I say so" is the entire problem. You have no frame of reference, because you can't put yourself in their shoes - end of discussion.
> This is exactly the characterization of someone who is being (perhaps ignorantly) oppressive. In such a situation, one has no business trying to argue that they have a bloody clue talking about a subject matter that does not directly affect them
> Those who label themselves as "non mentally ill" have no valid perspective of what it means to be "mentally ill".
This is what I call an argument from experience. "You've never experienced it yourself, so you have no business discussing it." This is equivalent to saying that someone who's never ridden a plane can't be an aeronautical engineer. How about something a bit more compelling?
Look, you're the only one since tempestn's comment (inclusive) that's used the words "normal" and "abnormal". If you want to argue that the pattern of emotions experienced by a depressive is normal, or that a delusion is normal, then that's fine. I don't agree but I don't particularly care either way. But are you at least capable of seeing that a depressive who neglects their responsibilities, or even kills themselves, has an illness? That if someone has a delusion that causes them to murder someone, then that delusion is an illness? Or are you going to argue that murder and suicide are good things?
> Those who label themselves as "non mentally ill" have no valid perspective of what it means to be "mentally ill".
This is what I call an argument from experience. "You've never experienced it yourself, so you have no business discussing it." This is equivalent to saying that someone who's never ridden a plane can't be an aeronautical engineer. How about something a bit more compelling?
Look, you're the only one since tempestn's comment (inclusive) that's used the words "normal" and "abnormal". If you want to argue that the pattern of emotions experienced by a depressive is normal, or that a delusion is normal, then that's fine. I don't agree but I don't particularly care either way. But are you at least capable of seeing that a depressive who neglects their responsibilities, or even kills themselves, has an illness? That if someone has a delusion that causes them to murder someone, then that delusion is an illness? Or are you going to argue that murder and suicide are good things?
"Aside: I believe that "mental illness" is born in an individual by having been forced to cohabitate in tight quarters with millions of individuals ..."
The great thing about facts is that they're true whether you believe them or not. Schizophrenia has been documented (not by that name but by description) more than 2,000 years ago. You can't blame modern capitalism or the industrial revolution or modern cities or whatever for schizophrenia.
The great thing about facts is that they're true whether you believe them or not. Schizophrenia has been documented (not by that name but by description) more than 2,000 years ago. You can't blame modern capitalism or the industrial revolution or modern cities or whatever for schizophrenia.
Documentation is recorded by fallible and biased human beings. Much of history is not accurately recorded, whether due to a) not having all the facts, b) trusting the word of third-party sources who may be lying or themselves not be in possession of all the facts, and/or c) being biased to record the history from one's preferred one-sided perspective rather than including both sides of the story verbatim.
Any piece of documentation that was not witnessed first-hand by many individuals, with none of them disagreeing on the totality of the facts, is unreliable and forever suspect. The moment someone writes down a fact that was witnessed by someone other than themselves... that "fact" is no longer actual fact.
Please tell me about the facts of Jesus's time on Earth. Too far in the past? Fine, tell me exactly why the US occupied Iraq. No, not what you were told or what you read - the information you obtained in person during the decision-making process. Can you?
Any piece of documentation that was not witnessed first-hand by many individuals, with none of them disagreeing on the totality of the facts, is unreliable and forever suspect. The moment someone writes down a fact that was witnessed by someone other than themselves... that "fact" is no longer actual fact.
Please tell me about the facts of Jesus's time on Earth. Too far in the past? Fine, tell me exactly why the US occupied Iraq. No, not what you were told or what you read - the information you obtained in person during the decision-making process. Can you?
So, it sounds like you would dismiss all historic knowledge, including written history, even from multiple sources? That doesn't seem like a very good approach to learning about the past. Skepticism is fine, but, really, we have to work with the data we've got. We can put modern interpretations on that data, based on new knowledge and understanding of science, but disregarding all of it it seems rash.
He forgot to return that book.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dari%C3%A9n_Gap