Writing about traumatic stress

Illustration photo 

https://marxjatalous.blogspot.com/

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Sometimes there is claiming, that mental disorder doesn't seem from the behavior of the person. But this is actually wrong because the people who have the mental disorder sometimes see things the different way than so-called "normal person". And this is the thing, that we must remember when we are working with the people, who have the mental disorder. The mental problems are sometimes caused by the traumatic experience, what happened in the past. There are many people, who claim that they had good parents, and everything is all right. But that person afraid to walk outside after sunset.



That tells something have happened in some dark evening. The traumatic experiences are storing in the memory in the condition called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD. That mental disorder is caused by traumatic experiences, like being in the war, but this mental disorder can be caused by normal violence or accident. The symptoms of this disorder are the amnesia and violent behavior. This disease causes problems in the normal life years after the traumatic case have been done. PTSD can be caused by the car accident or other traumatic situation, and that means, that it is not connected with deliberated violence.


Sometimes that fear is so dominant, that the person cannot leave from the home in the dark time. There are sometimes cases, where the person tries to convict, that the tough past in the drug gang or something like that is only imagination. But then we are facing the thing, that person fears with cars where sits two people. Above the text is a photograph of the black car. Most of the people including myself would not seem there anything special, except it is black and parked wrong. But some persons afraid those cars very much.


There is a phobia, what is called the "black car fear". That phobia was born in the situation, where some person does bad things to the person who has the phobia in the younghood. The traumatic experiences are born in the childhood and the fear of elevators is caused, that the person has been trapped in the elevator in the childhood. And the fear, what is targeted to cars causes, that the car has made something to that person. If somebody would almost get overdriven by car, that thing causes the flash-backs.


And sometimes the youngsters would not tell about those experiences to their parents, sometimes the reason could be simply, that they afraid the punishments for getting drunk if they are in the parties. But the fear is the mark that something has been done. If the person afraid some commonplace like houses or beaches, that would mean, there have been happened something in the younghood. Those bad experiences could have influenced the rest of that person's life.

I think, therefore I am (René Descartes)

"Thinking is existence"

Kimmo Huosionmaa


http://metsantarinoita.blogspot.com/p/i-think-therefore-i-am-rene-descartes.html

Those very well known words of the famous philosopher René Descartes are also very mysterious, and when we are thinking about the personality of this man, we might ask, what he meant, when he said or wrote those very famous words? Did he mean, that the thinking proved that he was alive or existed? That means Descartes was thought something very deep in his head. And when we are trying to analyze the origin of those words, we might want to know, was Descartes very tired?  Or was he in some bar, or talking with another person? And did this another person wrote those words to paper, because he or she understood the deep philosophy about those words. This is the reason, why this text is actually philosophical writing about those famous words, what are one of the most well-known words, what any philosopher has ever said.


But there is another way to close those words, and this is that Descartes actually was very careful in his private relationships, and avoided to talk deep things with opponents, who might modify or tell those things selectively to the people, who they would not be meant. I think that Descartes meant that writing would save his head sometimes because that allows proving the words to the officials. Of course, Descartes warned other people that the unthinkable talking would sometimes cost his head, but because he spoke too much all the time, would he like to write his thoughts to the paper, because that eliminated the possibility to tell selective parts of those thoughts for other persons.


I think that René as I sometimes call this philosopher was not the very impressive man, and because he wrote his ideas to the paper, would other persons see the things, what he thought. All thought must be seen better than some parts of those thoughts. During his life, there might be millions of words, what this man, who was Frenchman and lived in Sweden have said, and sometimes those persons met the man or woman, who took only two words of this man's work, and then they delivered those words to everybody.


That would have seemed quite interesting in the eyes of Descartes because two words don't make anybody worse than they really are. We have all been children, and in that time, we have said many words, what were not clever. But if somebody says, that I saw two unthinkable words at the age of 12, I would think that person would be some way different than the normal person. Those kinds of persons sometimes come to the table of the men like Descartes. They would not remember anything than those two words, and that seems very nice in their own eyes.


But when people are coming to the age of 43, they would say also something else, than just those two words. This is the thing, what might be interesting in the mind of René Descartes. Those words were not everything, what he said even in those ages, and when we are thinking about the famous words  "I think, therefore I am", we should think, does Descartes say those words to the person, who suspected his right to be in somewhere like University?


Or is he the right person for his duties? Then this person asks, does Descartes think, that he is clever, he might say, that thinking is the way to show the right to be in the place, where thinkers are studying. Maybe this suspicious person has kept the course book all the time in the command, and then this person would ask Descartes, how he could do the exam.  And then Descartes said, that he put the paper his own ideas. This is one way to think about the place in the society.


Because some people have existed, they have right to be in the places, where they have made the pass-test, what has been accepted. When we are thinking about the University, there would be millions of people, whoever writes their own ideas. They just lend the books from the library and then copy those thoughts from the books to their works.  René Descartes is the very interesting person, and he is very good character both fictional and scientific writings. And the words are free, and some writer would write the book, where the main character would be this famous philosopher. This is free land, and people have right to use their own words in the writings. In philosophy is no need to proof the words what have been written, what gives the freedom for making the texts, and tell our opinions for other persons.

The tale about the prime mover and rational rose

http://kimmontaidearvioita.blogspot.com/p/it-is-not-easy-to-be-leader-in-anything.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

It is not easy to be the leader in the anything in the world. Being at the top of the world means, that other persons would use the texts and other works of that person be the thing, what other people would use in their own works. The leading engineers must make every test process for the product, and that’s why everybody should pay them the price, when they use the product, what they are made. If something would get easier, that person must pay the price.


When we are thinking of the leading philosophers in the world, we must say, that it would not be easy to be that kind of person. The leading philosophers would not use other person texts in their work, and when we are thinking about people like Socrates, they would not go to make lectures for reading other people texts.


That makes their job quite difficult because other people would always make comments about their work. But nothing would be easy in the world, and if the person would not make own texts and introduce their own thoughts, they must use sources, and in those cases, we can ask many questions about those things. If somebody uses only other people thoughts, that would tell that this person would not have single own opinions for those things.


And in that case, we can say, that if somebody would not write and publish own ideas and thoughts on the Internet,  we cannot be sure, how intelligent they really are? This text is made for everybody, who would tease other people about the writings, what this teased person have made on the Internet.


One of the principles of the western democracies is, that this is free land, and everybody has right to publish everything, what this person wants. And if the opponent would not make any publishes, would we say, that we cannot be sure, how clever those persons are, or do they have any interesting hobbies in their life. Those people are often delivered other persons diaries and other things on the Internet, but when they would say, that some other people are stupid, I would gladly see some evidence about their wisdom. In the real life the question about, who would believe who is the question, who would make the most confessing session over the jury.


This is the question in the philosophy, the person, who would allow other persons to see the texts, would confess the audience at least one thing, this person would have own opinions, and every people have right for introducing their texts to the audience. That is the thing, what is called the rhetorics. If somebody would say something in some rooms when the other person is alone with the speaker, can this another person claim, that the opponent would not be said those things. But if those texts would be published, that would be confessing by the unselected audience, what has an opportunity to make them own decisions about the writing, what somebody have been made.

What is the difference between Fixed mindset and Growth mindset?

Kimmo Huosionmaa

30 years ago Dr. Carol Dweck and her students thought about the attitude of failure. And during this workshop, they created two kinds of mindsets, what will tell what is the attitude of failure. They created two ways or routes to handle situations, that some work or mission would be some kind failure. Those routes were fixed and growth mindset, what might first look like the same thing, but they are the totally different way to think.


The fixed mindset is the way to think that every affection of the people is stable. When somebody is intelligent, this would continue end of this person’s life. Those persons who have fixed mindset think that when they are graduated from some university or another educational school, they would be like some statues or lighthouses in the sea.


They think that they are only ones, who have those skills, and all the world stands on their shoulder. The problem of that attitude is that those persons think, that everybody is like they are. The skills what they are learned are stable. And this is the wrong way to think. If we are thinking about the skills like programming languages, people might forget them, if they do something else in their career. They would not need to learn anything new, and those people think, that they would not change or they cannot modify their skills or affections.


So for those persons, the attitude of failure is absolutely negative. And that would be stressful for some people. If the people who have fixed mindset has the attitude, that if the person fails, the new one would get to the place immediately. And the person who made the failure must not let to fix their errors. This is, of course, the extreme example of that attitude. At the beginning of next parts of the text, I must say that the grown mindset is not always positive, and if the person is thin, while being young, and stops physical education, would the results be something, what this person doesn’t want.


Grown mindset means that the persons think that failure is meant for growing person. In this way to think the most important thing is that people believe that every affection in the personality can modify by the personal self. If the leading way to think in the person’s head is that if the person fails something, can this person get the needed skills from somewhere, and for that kind of person failures make them stronger.


And here I mean stronger by any means. If the person would kick off the job because this person would not have skills in the job, would the person who has grown mindset ask for courses, where can get needed skills. The term grown mindset would mean also, that the person would be little bit fat, what makes the social problem, but the person would modify the personal body and then get social acceptance. In this case, the person would modify the affection, that he or she would not like.


In the grown mindset would the person realize that everything in the life is the big picture. The good skills are not stable. And the person must update the skills of anything. But if the healthiness of the person is bad, the work would change as hell by other reasons. Even the best programming skills would not make the person productive if that programmer has cardiac problems. Or if the person is unhappy, the work doesn’t advance. The happiness in home and workplace are the best combination, what the employer can imagine. But if the person afraid to go to work, would that cause, that all projects would fail. Also, the pressure at home causes problems in everywhere. Happiness increases productivity.

https://www.mindsetworks.com/science/

http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/p/what-is-difference-between-fixed.html

Writing about sacrifices and the religion

(Picture 1)

Kimmo Huosionmaa

When we are talking about sacrifices, we must consider that many of those rituals are made for the purpose. The leader of the village wanted to see, who will come to take the gift. The sacrificed thing was a trap for the persons, who are collecting taxes from the village And this means that when the chief of the village gives enough important sacrifice, the people of forest would come to take the sacrifice, and they could be ambushed. In some confessions, are spoken, that maybe Jesus was this kind of sacrifice. In this think, the Romans or high priests wanted to give so important gift to the God, who will come and take this sacrifice thing personally.


If this was true, those persons who made that trap believed, that the God was only the human, who has superior technology in his hands. When we are looking at this scenario very careful, we might think that maybe the Hebrew God allowed sacrificing his son for attracting other nations gods to face him on the battlefield. This might seem the little bit too heavy for belief, but I like this theory very much. Why would the crucifixion ever be possible, without God's will?


This is very good idea to talk in some meetings of theologians, who will always think about this kind of thing. When we are thinking about the relationship between Jesus and God, we must know that the man is always beloved by his creators, and if we think those two characters like they would be normal people, we must know that the God taught those skills to Jesus, what made him the “master”. And of course, he was willing to defend his creature or son. The reason for the brutality in the punishment was, that the punishers would want that Jesus uses his skills in that situation. Those persons who wanted to punish and torture innocent man believed that there was something different about this man.


So because Jesus was different, and people believed his power, Romans wanted to see, what kind of powers that man had. Was he Etruscan, or why Romans were so tough about him? Or did Romans thought that this man was Etruscan, who were slaughtered by consul Sulla just before Caesar took power in this empire? Why Lucius Cornelius Sulla made that massacre is not explained, but their very high-level prosthesis will make me think that maybe Sulla was only jealous, and this made him one of the worst persons ever.   And they hoped that the “Father” would come to rescue the son. And results were something else, what they wanted to see. This hypothesis means that the story of crucifixion would be true.

But if that would be not true. Maybe the story of Easter day torture was meant for the warning about this kind of actions. The dark clouds and rain with storm symbolize the anger what people felt when they noticed that the man, who was tortured under their eyes was innocent about crimes what people claimed done by him. The crucifixion might mean for the gift to the people, that some unholy person claimed to be the son of god, but then Romans overreacted that prosecution. They began to brutally torture person under the eyes of ordinary people. And this caused panic and fear, that everybody can be persecuted by those prosecutions. So is this the story, why those things happened in Jerusalem 2000 years ago? We might ever find the final truth, but maybe there were some very big behind those things, what caused the collapse of the Roman empire about 800 years after this day in Jerusalem.

 Sources 

Picture 1

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/First_Church_Dunedin.jpg/1200px-First_Church_Dunedin.jpg

https://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.com/

http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/p/writing-about-sacrifices-and-religion.html

About the writings of the philosopher's texts and the stories, what is told about those people

http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/p/about-writings-of-philosophers-texts.html

http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/p/about-writings-of-philosophers-texts.html