Yes, it's all entirely possible and it's entirely possible it's all relative up to the ruling consensus of those who call themselves normal, just and good by virtue of an exercise of reason or rule.

Craziness is often a group mediated judgement. The normies point out the abnormality of the abnormies in a way that the descriptor "crazy" sticks.

Laura is just not going to Church and she is dating women. She is "crazy" to throw her immortal future away according to the brunch circle of culturally righteous Karens. But if Laura runs with the Anti-Karen motorcycle club, they might call out the Church Karens for what they are according to their little badass carefree subculture. So relative to group ideals but both, as human, partake in a larger group of standard behaviors by which they could make judgements about others.

Cryptocurrency is insane because it's an energy wasting gambling scheme which relies on the accepted belief in a regulated currency. Everyone is still only thinking about it in terms of dollars and yen and pounds and what not. But maybe I'm "dumb" instead of "crazy" according to the crypto circle jerks. The question is how risky is any action according to whatever the average apprehension of whatever the risk is... to say that losing your money is equivalent to having thrown it all into a blazing fire place (and how crazy would that be given that money is a bitch to earn but like breathing oxygen to spend).

Hannibal Lector has invited the Karens to brunch to see which one he wants to eat. Is Dr. Lector crazy? No. Abnormal with regard to how often genteel cannibalism occurs. He, like the Karens, just wants to have a nice meal.

I think that sanity and madness are culturally constructed. I have read some of the writings of Foucault and even some RD Laing and antipsychiatry. I think that the ideas of antipsychiatry have gone out of fashion now because that school of thought may have missed out on the reality of mental illness and the suffering of those who experience it. However, some of the ideas about labels applied to people and how these can have a negative impact are probably still applicable, because diagnostics are connected to value systems.

Psychiatry assumes a powerful role in defining “right” or “wrong” in terms of “normal” vs “abnormal” behavior. Honestly, "crazy" and "sane" are a false dichotomy. The standardization of a particular, socially expected behavior is essential for creating categories of people defined in terms of their contribution to the collective success of society.

Society tends to confuse functional with meaning sane. and dysfunctional with insanity. But function here usually means functioning by the rules of agreed upon society

Speaking of madness, one of these days I dreamed that Donald Trump was reading a book. They must had put something in my drink.

Well, from my own experience I can say that sanity is a sliding scale. And there was an obvious point where I went from functional to dysfunctional. Eventually I signed myself up to live in a mental institution. I got institutionalized for 6 months. And after that I lived in a sheltered flat with psychiatric support for 4 years. During those years I got off of medication, travelled the world and eventually learned to live on my own without social workers or psychologists. I think the world is unhealthy in many ways, the word sane in Latin literally means healthy. Prolonged stress is unhealthy, all animals try to avoid it. Our performance-oriented culture uses stress for peak performance. Doing that all the time causes so much damage. And I wish humanity will realize this.