There seems to be controversy about the ‘size’ and ‘matter’ of the brain these days. Here is my view on how does the brain works.
The brain is evolved from millions of years of neural synapses integrating (as said by others much like the processors we create for computers etc), when life was but worms, there were still only a few strands of nerves. A small lump in the ‘seat’. What was (and still is) the ‘brain’ set to? For food. The worm is one long intestine and basically we are a intestine with vertibrates. Our brain has been evolving ever since life became multiple celltypes with specific functions. When complex animals arose, the brain was already a complex neural box. It was so intrinsic that even mice have basically selfawareness options (who says they aren’t?).
But the brain still has the same function over all those millions of years: Making sure the body gains food and survives dangers in doing so. We as mammals have been on lower steps of the food chain for thousands of thousands of years. (imagine that. A life span of about 40 years and so generations every 15 to 20 years….imagine how many ancestral generations have gone before THAT point.). Then the weather changed, climate changed and we got less predators to take care of, but we still needed to find food. We ate what was in trees, bushes, die with failure, live with good food. Those choices are all embedded in the blueprint of our brain. They are the unlearned reflexes. Many of them come to pass each generation, without being triggered. And from that moment on, the brain needs less for certain type of reflexes.
Eventually we are in our current era and we are the top of the food chain and we changed the ability of running from danger, to preparing for danger for many hundreds of thousands of years. Now, we don’t have to run anymore, but some of the reflexes don’t die that easily (hence religion and other fear aspects, causing diversion and anger).
We are in a time where the brain evolves on. It might become smaller, but not ‘lighter’ per se. The density changes, but also its functions ‘narrow’. Who of us still know from instinct what to do with babies? With a wild animal attacking us? With how the weather predicts the effects on crops tomorrow? We are all losing parts that are ‘irrelevant’ to the specific ‘bloodline’.
Those in cities don’t know about carpenting or farming, while in the suburb there will be those that still know. Life still requires it from them to sometimes build something themselves. The same happens for many things, not just ‘job’ related, but also personal. In the country, people are welcoming to new (new blood, information, etc), but also cautious of differences (dangerous behavior, different unknown bloodlines and physical attributes). In the suburbs where all come together, it is a mediate, while in the city it is the same as in the country, but reversed. They are less welcoming (busy lives, close quarters and thus more shortlived interhuman contacts), but also less cautious. In all, the brain grows smaller, but not around the globe. There are likely locations where it grows.
I was going through some collections while cleaning up. Suddenly my eye fell on something that I had not forgotten, but…the attention for it had waned. So? You might ask? Dump it, done, even cleaner.
Yes, cleaning up stuff you haven’t used for some time is a good thing. Nostalgia isn’t really helping in cleaning. But this was a game…or rather more than a game. And even if it had only been a game, it was an integral part of my life.
The I in write
I write, I write since I can write and am a poet since my teens or before. As drawing doesn’t come as easy to me as it does to others, I have to use words to describe a world I picture. It wasn’t until this game, that I turned my yearning for writing into a ..(I hate words connected to superstitious nonsense, but by lack of better) soul-lust. The game was Myst, or rather the whole franchise (The books, the games from Myst, Revelation, Riven, Exile, URU, Myst V and upcomingObduction, but also the web communities, way back in the 90’s). What it did to me, was give me a sort of insight into the process of writing, without going into it actually.
The Y in Myst
In Myst, the story starts on an Island that was created by a writer. He wrote a book, and by writing it in such a way, it became a real world. No doubt Robin and Rand Miller will have thought about it from this perspective. The game is all about solving puzzles in various ways. It was the start of the genre, though I now found Cosmo and Manhole to be the precursors actually. The fact that the game was based on such profound (in my eyes as a teen) wisdom, that writing was an ability to shape a world inside one’s mind, was beyond the game of course. And it clung to me. I was Atrus (like many people at that time), I was a D’ni (I was always joking online that my third name was pronounced the same), like all the other people. Some identified with Catherine, the wife of Atrus, others with yet other characters from the stories devised later (Three books: Myst: book of Atrus, book of Ti’ana and book of D’ni are a must read. Rand and Robyn Miller together with David Wingrove).
But the revelation, or rather making the idea that thrives writers, tangible, caused me to build this dream to be able to really write such type of ages, these worlds. But of course, schools don’t immediately teach you what you dream of, rather than what you need to come by in society and the country you live in (if you are lucky).
In all, I am a writer, more because of the world of Myst. Where worlds were written and words held magical power, which metaphorically is the same way we as humanity look at it.
No, it isn’t about the level of writing, or about ‘illusionists’ writing their stories, but about what to write on: The writing medium.
We live in a digital age. Much of what we do either touches, are is completely stored on digital media, or even bigger: stored online.
Each generation loses a little of the knowledge from the past, but this is all part of evolution. Should we keep all we write? Should we forget things on purpose? But even more, should we forget how things were done before? Like we forgot we forged pots of clay, by baking them in burned ground? Should we forget about how we wrote on paper?
True, paper is a costly way to write. Not just because it costs ink, or paper, but rather because paper comes from nature. Paper is made from trees. Even with recycling it takes effect from oxygen generating life of nature. But why would you then, even consider writing on paper, if you want to be conscious, aware and responsible?
A strong connection, that internet
Well, did you know that the internet is like a computer that is always on? Do you know what computers need? It needs electricity. Not only that, but when too much is done on one computer, the computer becomes hot. If too many computers together get warm, they also get hot. Thus, with the internet, which is build on several skyscrapers of computers stashed together in some rooms all over the world, they need to be cooled. They need airconditioning. This means more electricity required, as supporting appliances to the actual internet. But, of course there are also people checking the computers day and night. They need food, light, and all sorts of stuff, to be able to do so. More electricity. And you know…..electricity is created in several ways: Sunlight, wind, water, coals, burning fossil fuels in general.
Writing on the wall
So….eh….It is all neat and all, but where you store your writing, doesn’t automatically change your impact on nature (if you were interested). But there is more.
While a book of paper might seem oldfashion, there is a reason why humanity first invented those, instead of the internet. They don’t cost energy to preserve. Though the internet is always available, what do you think happens if a major power outage would hit the vicinity of where your data is stored on servers? Well, basically nothing much should happen. The backup power supplies should kick in and all keeps running, but what if the power was off for a longer time. Or off at your location? You would not be able to access any data anymore.
A book remains a book. You can write it and later read it without any power or electricity required. Taken that you have enough light. The book doesn’t need anything but a dry place to be secured. This is one of the reasons I write both on the net, and on paper still.
There is another reason, a more paranoia reason to write on paper: nobody can just access it by hacking into your accounts. As we all learn about IP (Intellectual Property) and how Google, Facebook and Microsoft have prying eyes in everything, it is hard to not be paranoid when you have that idea that you think is totally unique.
But in all, I think both have pro’s and con’s. Online is easier writing or reading together with others. Something humanity will move into, if some religious sect won’t have reverted most of us back a couple of decades first. In which case my children still have some writing to read.
In this article about relational allergies, we will look at it from perspective of Affairs of the State primarily focuses on getting insight on the following 5 fields:
Weather/external natural aspect (Emotional confrontation by self or other)
Terrain/support (time/space obstacles)
Leader/commander (You choose to address something)
Doctrine/discipline (You set way-points and follow them to the letter)
What are relational allergies?
When living, working or simply interacting with other beings (animals or people alike), we process signals and responses from a structure deep inside our decision tree. They are initially (in case we are doing something that we have always done) on Instinctive level, but if we are still not entirely ‘fixed’ with how to handle an event, it is still being filtered sometimes by the emotional layer (this is where ‘allergies’ are noticed. Allergies are not cognitive, nor are they instinctive, though the behavior we portrait often become so, because if our brain does anything, it will see if the recurring of those allergic stimuli should be made automatic, so the brain has more time for other things.
Relational Allergies can range from simple things like someone dropping a candy wrapper on the floor, to more intrinsic structures, where the allergy is about a complex combination of both cognitive responses and instinctive/emotional behaviors. For example: If someone seems very intelligent/rational in conversation, but when there are actual moments where such person abuses such ‘observation’ of intelligence and actually behaves very irrational, this can cause a feeling of dissonance (irritation). As many people behave this way on certain moments (even intelligent rational people are still people and can sometimes feel empty or get stressed and behave irrational), it can become an unobserved response of ourselves to become slowly or even instantly irritated and behave negatively to such person.
Lets see whether you are able to find such person or event in your own life. This is ‘becoming aware’. In AoS, knowing the weather and terrain is most important. Because what we often want/need is feel better ourselves. We can’t do that if too many things influence us (or too little).
1. What do you find important as a personal quality?
(give one quality, and try to make it as concrete as possible.)
2. Why do you find this important for your own actions?
(Assess the quality and see how you rationalize that it is positive for you, others and generally the environment around you/the person having this quality)
3. And for your feelings?
(How do you feel if someone behaves with the quality in a positive way? Or how does it make you feel if a person is not behaving according to this quality?)
4. Do you feel you have this quality?
(Be concrete and honest. Do you think you have this quality and behave to it consistently, or do you think you are trying hard to have this quality?)
5. Do you recognize people around that have this quality and who does no?
(Can you name one person who you have observed behaving according to the quality you named under the first question? Can you name someone who clearly does not? Write these names down. Remember, AoS is about you, not about others. You can’t change others. Writing down their names, makes you aware, nothing more.)
6. How does not holding the quality make you feel? (If someone pretends to have this quality but in actions later doesn’t)
(Do you remember a situation where someone normally seemed to behave according to this quality, but later at a certain point failed this? How did you feel?)
Now, take the answers and write them separate as one piece of text, in the following format:
I like to be <quality from question 1>. I find it important for <scope from question 2> because <arguments from question 2>. I feel <feeling from question 3> when I notice the effects on the world around me. I sense I feel <negative feeling from question 3>. I think I <answer from question 4>. I have examples from my life, where I notice I feel <answer from question 6>.
The question now, is whether you want to improve anything here. Remember, you can’t change others. You for sure shouldn’t make yourself behave negative or different, just to accommodate something that you feel is a positive thing.
Though you have written down a clear introspect on one quality, it doesn’t mean you are right or wrong in it. However, there are three steps left to become seriously aware of the effect and validity of this need/want.
If you have been honest in question 4, you will know how consistent you consider yourself to be. In the coming week, try to observe when this quality pops up, or should pop up and it does or doesn’t and how consistent you yourself behave towards it. If you didn’t, what was the reason? Did you think about why, or did it just happen?
When you get irritated about someone not behaving according to the quality, is this person someone you know will normally behave positive with the quality, or is it someone who normally already doesn’t?
When you yourself notice you have not acted according to the quality, how do you rationalize this? Do you apologize to another openly, or do you conceal it and leave it at that?
If at step 3 you have noticed you concealed it, try to openly ‘announce’ you have not done what you wanted to do.
If you have tried this even once, you will quickly notice that declaring/announcing openly how you feel and how you wanted to act, makes you feel better 1. you have shown to others that even though you missed the opportunity, you are aware (where they might not have been) and you are working on it (if you weren’t you wouldn’t be open about it).
In the previous, you have now addressed all five fields of AoS. Do you recognize them?
If you do, you can be proud of yourself. You have already made a leap in understanding yourself and social interaction.
If you fell you miss some, you can be proud of yourself, because you have already excelled in effort and are on the verge of evolving yourself to a person you want to be.
If you feel you don’t connect to the five, be proud of yourself. You are critically observing and looking at a field of knowledge you might need to research more. Or, perhaps my wording is not connecting. In that case you are welcome to contact me on it through the contact form.
We will look at the cause, effect and possible solutions to rational allergies from the perspective of the Affairs of the State primarily focuses on getting insight on the following 5 fields:
Weather/external natural aspect (Emotional confrontation by self or other)
Terrain/support (time/space obstacles)
Leader/commander (You choose to address something)
Doctrine/discipline (You set way-points and follow them to the letter)
What are Rational allergies?
Consider the following mention:
If there is one you should know, it is that you know nothing. ~ M. de Haan ~
Now, if you consider I said this to you, how does this make you feel? What emotion did you recognize immediately, and what rationalization popped up in your head to solve the emotional conflict?
See, even though I know why I wrote it, when I read it, and it registered,, I felt attacked. I didn’t even consider the fact that I wrote it myself, just that it talked about ‘you’, which is an indication of the person reading it. And it said that (contrasting with my logical reasoning) I knew nothing, which is generally associated with a negative quality: ignorance. I immediately had answers: The writing can not say anything about me. The writing is inconsistent with itself. You can’t know something, if you know nothing.
But is that what it says? Is that the meaning of the text? Is that the intent of the person who wrote it? (in this case me).
How can I decide which answer is right to any of the three questions? Can I deduct or induct any answer to be true in this case?
Lets pick them apart, before we continue.
Is the quote/text saying what I think it says?
What I think it says is both very relevant, and irrelevant at the same time. It is relevant, because when I am aware that I thinkwhat it might mean, I am aware of my own processes. Being aware of yourself improves your ability to change yourself, or at the least understand yourself. This is what AoS is about. However, what I think it says is also totally irrelevant, because I can give it any meaning I want, which only has value as long as I read it, and again, if I am aware of this, the validity of this meaning is corrupted, because this meaning will be drenched in subjective historical decisions.
What could be the actual meaning of the text?
Because the text speaks about me, but inherently we know the text can be written by anyone, about anyone, I can’t take it as a personal matter, unless it was part of a larger text where it was singularly addressing me. In such case I would know the emotional load and rational argumentation behind it. But could the text even then be true? Because I already validly rationalized that the text contained an internal conflicting connection: If you know nothing, you can’t even know the one thing. Because nothing means: no thing, none.
So, the text can’t be about me specific, nor can it be read without the internal conflicting meaning. But is there a philosophical meaning to it? How do I get to such meaning?
First off, philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. This means in broader sense: objective deduction/induction by mind of rational causality within the world we live in.
Now, for the text to be philosophical, we would need to break it apart, but only after we have considered a possible reasoning for the text to exist in the first place and what field of study it would involve.
I think it would be safe to say it is about the knowledge, mind and reason of an individual in general.
So, the text wants to say something about the knowledge, reasoning and mind of an individual.
Now here is the culprit of the further investigation. I wrote the text, so I know what I mean by it. This means my explanation is already tainted with foreknowledge. Be aware of this when reading the rest and validate anything I say with your own logical mind. See where my rationality fails and please let me know.
The text speaks in two pieces:
The first piece says: ‘If there is one thing you should know’
The base here is ‘teaching’. ‘should know’, says that if you don’t know yet, you would require to remember the following. If you already do, you should learn from the following. Besides this, it says: ‘one thing’, indicating it is an important thing (though this is highly subjective).
The second piece: ‘is that you know nothing’
Conflicts with the former, as it would state you would know nothing prior to this text and would have to start with knowing nothing.
That last part of conclusion is important, because is it not true that initially a human knows nothing? Don’t we all start born with no cognitive content? Instinctive, yes, emotional, yes, but cognitive no.
The second part, also means that if you should be aware that you know nothing, you (picking back to the first) should learn from this single point. Every time you think you know something, you should consider you might not actually know.
Is that the intent of the person who wrote it?
Because I wrote the text, which is a free translation of some other quote (from Socrates), I know what I wanted to convey with it (giving it this meaning). My ‘deduction’ is validated by my knowledge of the meaning at forehand, but you might consider whether you could have rationalized to the same meaning.
Allergies in rationale (logical inclinations), or content (information of observation) pretty much always start and end with the limitation of the context (boundaries of knowledge). This isn’t per se wrong. Often we find ourselves in a conversation where someone shows on a rational level to have no content in the matter, though having presented to be knowledgeable within the context. This will be irritating for many different reasons depending on the times and places. Important however, is to know where the irritation comes from. Sometimes it is not the other person, but ourselves who lack the information and this can be just as irritating.
The link will tell you exactly what I would say. You might wonder, whether it would be even productive to go into such a diverse and complex matter. The simple answer is: Yes. Why so? Because knowing brings understanding. Understanding brings knowing. IE. You can learn a great deal from looking into it. Both about yourself and a lot of other things.
A quick resume: Anxiety is a plethora of behaviors that cause emotional and physical stress, either by impulse/stimuli from a certain situation, a certain train of thought/memoryset or an internal chemical imbalance.
Address of fear
Finding the five fields within a specific anxiety, would require first the anxiety to be ‘clearly defined’. This seems logical and simple, but of course it is not. A person responding with heightened heartrate from a view of a street doesn’t automatically falls within the borders of Agorafobia. Nor does one who feels totally drained by a group of people automatically fall within Enochlophobia. Though they are the primary targets to see if the symptoms match, so an initial treatment can be selected, it is very important to often seek beyond the ‘obvious’. If human behavior was ‘obvious’, we would have completed understanding ourselves already centuries ago.
The problem often is, that people will use old ‘medical’ steps to define newly found/understood disorders in human nature (behavioral/experience) or a human being (physical). The DTM takes research done, based on old medical research, but then start from scratch, with rational reduction as base. The human experience is based on the interpretation of sensory input that we inherited from ancestors without the cognitive awareness of them. It is important to realize this, because it explains why human behave in certain ways and why researching how animals behave (taking that they are within the ancestral tree of humans regarding such behavior) is important for understanding ourselves.
In the above figure, you see from left to right, the evolutionary path from single cell organisms to dinosaurs and eventually humans. Though they all seem like either separate species, actually they never were. Slowly over the course of numerous generations, one turned into the other. parts of the organism changed, added, or lost functionality. Some lines went extinct. Some lines diversified. Just like your own family. Your grandma and grandpa had more than one child probably, and each of those got their own family, some with deficiencies, some with increased ‘functionality’. Those with deficiencies are often to have less possibility to survive (though in modern days we have medicine to solve many issues. And create new ones, true). Increased functionality often gets spurred by the environment, but just as likely can be an accidental genetic change.
Each generation is a little different from that before. As far as we know now, before the moment of major diversity in species, there was the great Cambrian phase, where the amount of food and species were in balance and growth was possible without any environmental force to change the species. Likely when a sudden change in environment happened, the limited diversity in species was challenged and caused an explosion of species. This wasn’t like one day there was three species and the next day all three made two thousand. Just in a shorter period of time, different ‘cultures’ of microbes started to mutate to survive shortcomings in either protection from other species, food scarcity or environmental dangers.
How does this help understanding anxieties?
First off, the chemical balance in our body, is one of the oldest systems in organic life. The cells we are made up of, are based on the singular celled lifeforms millions of years ago. These lived solely on the changes in chemical balances. Heck, the even exist because the concentrations within and around proteins caused them to fold into themselves, causing them to become more and more complex processes until they were what we call ‘life’.
Chemical deficiencies cause erratic behavior in cells. They cause deformity and malfunctions. In systems with different combined cell types and changing/dependent concentration regulation, they cause discrepancies between parts of the system, making (again) either each other or within itself on cellular level, deform or malfunction. These malfunctions can be such that change in concentration of minerals or other pH changes, can cause the systempart to overproduce or abundantly attract fluids. This didn’t change anywhere in the evolutionary track. How do we know? Because we recognize the systems that are evolved from earlier systems, and still respond in the same way to altered stimuli or situations.
Secondly, neurological importance. As our nervous system evolved from way before the mammal evolutionary diversion, the way it responds to the most basic needs, fears and changes, are important to understand. The automatic retraction of a worm is no different than the instinctive pull to fetal pose in sense of imminent and lethal danger of a mammal, even a human. Recognizing these cause and effects, can help determine on which level a person is influence by a neurological deficiency or malfunction.
Don’t get emotional
Thirdly, though not the last, it is the last we will address right now, is the emotional influence. As the DTM theory explains, we behave on three levels. Instinctive, emotional and cognitive. The fist two influences/systems mentioned above, are genetically caused instincts. We can’t really change them. The emotional one is a bit of an in between. Where the first two are in basic aimed at the internal structure of the organism, emotions are aimed at the rudimentary well being of the organism within groups. It is a differentiation that alters decisions of the organism, not based on the requirement by the chemical balance, or the neurological stimuli, but by the added value of shortterm and long term memory adaptions (learned instincts/learned behavior).
Read very carefully, emotions are (depending on the importance of the survival of the species) instinctive or learned. Often emotional behavior associated with pain or imminent death are often instinctive, as evolution has caused those who had the ‘liberty’ to experience the fear and pain and survived, over the ones that either did or did not experience it and died.
Feelings, nothing more than feelings
Emotions are, especially for a social species as humans, important in many levels of development throughout a organism’s life. For mammals, awareness of the response of parents to emotional distress of offspring causes the offspring to use such emotion to indicate requirements, until it can fend for itself. Humans, who have a totally different (artificial) native habitat, are still required to ‘teach’ their offspring to adapt to different patterns than previous primates. ‘No, you will not get food whenever you start crying. You will get food on set times, so you will grow strong, but not overweight’. In a sense, humans develop slower because of the need to first break down some of the instinctive habits, and then start teaching the offspring how to behave. Whether this will eventually not be required anymore, is unknown (the fun part of evolution. We can predict, but not ‘know’).
Three tiers of tired
How to address an anxiety, depends heavily on what disorder is observable. See, a person can even act and be perceived as fully normal, yet be subject to several anxieties. So, even if there is nothing observable, one might want to see, if one has an anxiety.
Symptoms of anxiety can range from urges (instinctives), to feelings (emotions), to physical malfunction (chemical/neurological), to a combination. Because one can cause the other, it is imperative to be aware of what layer influence which, before addressing any symptoms.
For instance, if you feel tired at a certain moment, drained of all energy, but you are sure that it is not because of lack of rest, what should you consider?
Don’t get sad, Get even
Taking the above, the following table is a matrix you can use to fill out A. what gives you the reason why this connection could be investigated, B. what symptoms you see, or expect to see. C. What you think could be an actual action to address it.
Be very careful! This exercise is meant to give you insight, it does NOT nor ever can replace professional medical help!
What does that mean, a cultural system, how does it evolve? Culture is “the way of life, especially the general customs and beliefs, of a particular group of people at a particular time.” (Cambridge University) As a defining aspect of what it means to be human, culture is a central concept in anthropology, encompassing the range of phenomena that are transmitted through social learning in human societies. (Wikipedia)
Since social groups evolved in nature, or groups in general in living entities (plants or animals alike), culture has been a general concept of how certain species create a temporary statis or coherency in way of living within the group. This happens within bacterial cultures, insect cultures and all other species that live in groups.
Smart enough or too dumb?
Religion only exists in species that are able to observe causality (but fail to recognize the actual causality due to missing data and technology to determine). This requires some brain functions that humans have, but are lacking in other species (‘key areas of the brain for intelligence were the left prefrontal cortex (behind the forehead), left temporal cortex (behind the ear) and left parietal cortex (at the top rear of the head) and in the areas that connect them.’ – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2128457/New-brain-study-maps-parts-brain-make-intelligent.html)
Now, how does a smack to the bum relate to religion?
We as children are learning to observe causality. We also learn discipline from our parents in very diverse ways. Some parents address the cognitive abilities of a child directly, some use physical signals, others use both. We learn language, trust, dependency and after that how to conceptualize causal connections. When these are not taught properly, we will fail to recognize connections later in life. Where we can’t recognize connections, we will assume. Often we are a following kind and assume what another person tells you the causality is, you can accept. This is partially laziness, but often depending on the way you were raised: Don’t speak up against authority, accept without questioning. This is exactly what religion is: Accept without questioning. IF you question, you are only allowed to question within the boundaries of what supports the religious base.
Within any religion, most often there is a ‘teaching’ that is comprised of three things: Text, music and ‘guidance’. The text contains the following structure: A story representing why the religion exists and a promise to anyone who will follow the rules of this religion. The text most often will show extensive ways how misinterpretted causality shows that what ever happens to the follower of this religion will be for the better. The second part in the text is based on the way evolution has taught every species to survive: Fear. By getting the individual to consider the intangible danger to be connected to acting against the rules for the promise, the individual itself will cause a ‘causality-loop’ between emotion and rationale.
You will go to a community place, or you will not benefit from the promise (good fortune, eternal life, etc). Being a social species, an individual human will want to be surrounded by others. If one has many friends outside of the religion, it is unlikely this ‘disguised threat’ will influence the specific individual. What happens often? An individual of interest is being approached and ‘loosened’ from its friends and family. ‘If you stay with your friends, you will never learn the real secret’, ‘They don’t understand you, but it is written that those…etc’ (especially in time of emotional crisis, for instance loss of a dear one, this is used).
You choose from the options you are given
But, you will say, there are many who step into the religion on their own choice. Yes, correct, however the same threat is evident. However it is not by influence of ‘guidance’, but simply the lack of friends and family that will cause people to turn to the community of faith. Rationalization happens afterwards. Because religion is build on promise (curiousity and longing), and enforced by punishment (superstition and fear), every iteration of the motions, causes a person to make a habit of the motion.
A different kind of soul music
How about the music? The human brain is only half the work. We are still mere biological species that have evolved from ancestral species. All species respond based on instinct/reflex/emotion. Music is the creative way that religion uses to cause the neuro emotional response to accept cognitive concepts easier. Some sound combinations are simply and without scrupules hijack the instinctive responses to them to influence the emotional parts of the individual to accept binding to these emotional responses of illogical concepts. Of course, it all starts with ‘guidance’ of the religion. These people are (sometimes ignorant themselves, but more often very well in the know of how irrational the concept is. They will have a very difficult task to influence the individual to accept the parts that are becoming less and less acceptable due to change of time and culture.
To be short about it, as the smack on the bum is meant for the child’s pain receptors and fear instincts for pain to cause it to not take certain actions again, the religious promise of pain (bad luck in this life or afterlife) or pleasure (good fortune in this life or afterlife) causes an individual raised with these distinct disciplining actions, to follow even on same fear regarding things they don’t understand.
So, using humanity as a principle, how does that work?
Well, as a person who likes to ‘normalise’ things as much as possible, I see things as entities.
What is the prime entity for care?
You can imagine that from my point of view, this is a human being (or living being if you will, taking the level above just humans). A human is the driving force, the central measurement, main subject and actual linchpin concerning his/her health. A human is even a part of the health of humanity. Like a cell is a part of the health of a body. As is the behavior of a human of influence of the health of his environment. But more important, every human, whether they are living their lives, or living to improve other people’s lives, are looking from themselves as a perspective.
How would that be visualised?
Well, for one: The center element is the life of a person (lets keep it to human health care for now). A person, with history, future, current state, body, mind and environment.
Great, so now you have the base of a human life…so…er…how are we going to incorporate that in a system for health care?
Imagine someone goes to a physician or hospital.
In the above image, you can also identify the ‘group’ identity. An individual hardly ever lives entirely alone (or should never). Such group has the same characteristics as a accumulation of the individuals it is comprised of.
A health institute doesn’t really deals with the individual as such, but rather a part of its sympthoms. Institute is a very broad item here: Local doctor, physician, physiotherapist, psychiater, psychologist, pathologist, etc. Especially if you incorporate the connection the group the individual is part of. Imagine pandemics, epidemics, forensics, etc.
Why would you want to change the setup? Can’t you just adjust the existing systems?
I honestly don’t know whether they can, but I think it is important to have an architecture worked out that takes the honest and right approach towards the ownership and entity base of information.
Without the long intro that will get you yawning, here is a list that definitely will help you improve your writing skills:
Write EVERY SINGLE DAY.
Don’t excuse yourself. Write a minimum of one word, but don’t write nothing with the intend of the writing itself. So, no signing a letter doesn’t count. But ONE word can be a poem, a reference to more. It will help you tomorrow if you write even one day today. What is the effect? If you don’t have too much time, you are able to improve your ‘thought condencing’ abilities. Writing down only a couple of words will almost always fuel the brain to write more. The brain must be given little nudges of cookies to continue. When you sit in the train, bus or waiting on someone, write what you see, what you think or what you hear. It will start you thinking and tomorrow you do this again and suddenly after a couple of days, it becomes natural to write down just a little, then more.
Don’t limit yourself to types of writing.
Especially when you are a beginning writer, you will think you have it all laid out, you don’t need to improve your writing: This is what I want to write about…..but that is not the way your writing will develop itself. The creativity or consistency in writing comes from understanding when to write what in what form. Practice everything. Writing is painting with words. You can be an architect, you can be Rembrandt, you can be Picasso. They all had their style and they all took years to perfect it. Don’t think you should write only poems if you like that. Also write a story, if you have trouble doing so, extend your poem in the amount of lines (Check Shakespeare if you don’t know how), or write the poem and use it to write how you envision the subject of the poem lived or moved.
Whatever you write at first, is not good. It is bad. You can always improve your writing. Why? Because it is the initial conversion of mind to word. It is always lacking, it is always a bit too much here, too little there. Look at your story, poem or anything after a week and write it again, from that initial writing but what you would change. Don’t hold back, the digital age gives you the possibility to keep every single version.
As they say in some of the scenes RP/Roleplay. When you start writing, you often write from one perspective. That is great. A diary kind of story can do marvels, but often after several pages a reader might fall into a feeling that all characters are thinking the same thing….because you wrote it from one mind and will at some point write the story through all characters but from your mind only. Doing a roleplay will help you see things from others perspective. A roleplay generally goes like: – writer one: Joe walks into a room, gun holstered. At the far end of the damp place he notices the other guy. – writer two: Greg looks up from his drink. The light falling in from the doorway shows only a silhouette. Was it him? The hairs on the back of his neck rose up. Sweat started to form on his forhead. …etc.
When you finished a story, a poem, even a short or a piece of a scene that you don’t feel will be needed anymore. Put it out there for people to see. Show them what you do. Ask them to respond to it. Let people provide feedback. It will help you. Even the ‘Wow great’, ‘You call that writing?’
Writing words isn’t just making the characters connect, or making a word of a string of characters. Writing means a process of changing non-tanglible ideas into a concept, into a protocol of signs that are understood by another.
A simple word can have a simple meaning, but a simple word can also have a complex meaning. Worse even, a simple word can even be a complexity in itself and the connected emotions. It can build a world or just a short flick of the eye.
Consider the word Word. It is a concept of everything you have read right here. It is simply the defining combination of symbols that should translate in someone’s mind into: A concept of combined characters that has meaning in or outside a context. Here you see, that the simple word Word, already gave more words as an explanation of itself. And even now, as you read this, you are even wondering whether I am right about it. Whether your definition is the same, or more extensive. Perhaps your mind lingered from this text and you started to think of a poem about the word Word, or you have suddenly seen recollections of texts that resembled this. So much happens when you read a word. So much a word can mean.
So when you write, you aren’t just writing words, you are writing ideas.
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.