On Being Well-Adjusted, part I

Jiddu Krishnamurti famously said: It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

What is "society"?  What does it mean to be "well-adjusted"?  In what sense is society "profoundly sick"?  What kind of "health" are we talking about here?

If we take Krishnamurti's statement to be true, what is the recommendation for a modern human being?

Society is the structure of human interaction.  Whether it be financial, educational, religious, political, ethical, historical, legal, kinship, sexual, habitual, pertaining to manners, ...  The various kinds of interactions between human beings, and the burdens and benefits thereof, is society.  The structure is a behemoth of rules, implicit and explicit.  You are born in a family, you spend the first twenty odd years getting educated as per the norms of your society, you form friendships and relationships, you earn and spend money, try to be on the right side of law, and so on.

Nobody, anywhere, claims that their society is ideal.  But one can evaluate the health of a society in many ways.  Does it show signs of "low-trust"?  Is there a lot of hypocrisy (people asking you to follow certain rules but flouting those rules themselves)?  Is there a general sense of well-being and safety?  Is the environment healthy and clean?  Is there beauty?  Are people able to have a comfortable, dignified life?  Is there freedom of expression?  Are the institutions overburdened and inefficient?  Are hard work and ethical living rewarded or punished?  Do people feel empowered, or powerless?  Is there disease, or good health in the majority of the population?

But even in the best societies, as per our metrics, an individual faces a certain burden of socialization.  He cannot just do as he pleases.  There are rules and responsibilities, rewards and punishments, those who like and love oneself and those who are strange or hostile.

Spiritual people like Krishnamurti advise that the only true goal is salvation, and earthly and social goals are quite secondary.  Their focus is not on material conditions, but on inner growth.  To them, a man who is poor or one who is jail but elevated in his consciousness is far better than a cunning man who is comfortable and powerful, but otherwise commonplace in his thinking.

We can all agree that the former man is maladjusted, the latter is well-adjusted.  The former man has not adjusted to the rules of society and is suffering materially, while the latter has mastered the rules of his society and is prospering.

Is it possible for a happy and wise man to be materially well-adjusted?  Or is maladjustment the inevitable fate of wisdom?

Was Krishnamurti himself well-adjusted?

(to be continued)