
Missing Canadian man found 10k km from home in the Amazon jungle - avenoir
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11797657
======
mynegation
While doing that journey on foot is no small feat, the most impressive is the
fact that (to the best of my understanding) he crossed Darien Gap[1] on foot.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dari%C3%A9n_Gap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dari%C3%A9n_Gap)

~~~
happy-go-lucky
The World's Most Dangerous Journey:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Nv5QWTZyDw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Nv5QWTZyDw)

------
happy-go-lucky
> "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.

~~~
lazyasciiart
Really? What about that quote indicates an absence of schizophrenia to you?

~~~
developer2
"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.

------
aMayn
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](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.

------
epynonymous
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.

~~~
bigiain
Over 5 years - its less then 6km a day average.

~~~
aisofteng
6 through untouched land is nothing like 6km on a paved road.

~~~
tempestn
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.

------
pmcollins
Guy walks across two continents to go to the library only to realize once he
gets there that he forgot his wallet.

------
StClaire
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

~~~
tempestn
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.

------
bruceb
This is originally from the Daily Mail it seems? Who knows the level of fact
then.

~~~
someone13
Looks like the original article may be from here?
[http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/anton-pilipa-
found-1.3...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/anton-pilipa-
found-1.3968958)

CBC date is: Feb 07, 2017 15:31 ET

Daily Mail: Feb 08, 2017 16:38 ET

~~~
aisofteng
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...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/money/2017/02/09/media/wikipedia-
the-daily-mail/index.html)

------
LordWinstanley
>>police reached out on Twitter

Sigh! four-tops-itis reaches New Zealand

------
alacombe
Another Christopher Mccandless, it would seem.

------
tn13
I think I will be really heartbroken if I later learn this story to be fake or
made up! Simply incredible.

------
Markoff
how was he able to cross so many borders without any ID?

~~~
contingencies
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.

~~~
narutouzumaki
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?

~~~
contingencies
Crossed the border without being controlled.

------
tempestn
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.

~~~
developer2
>> 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.

~~~
E6300
> 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?

~~~
developer2
>> 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.

~~~
E6300
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.

~~~
developer2
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.

~~~
E6300
> 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.

~~~
developer2
>> 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.

~~~
E6300
> 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?

------
westmeal
He forgot to return that book.

