I have recommended the movie, "The Unknown", because of its excellent direction. The movie keeps one spellbound. It captures the audience's attention and emotion, when "Martin"s memory is partially impaired.
Humans live from memory. We learn our language and remember the right words to even communicate with others when we grow up. What if we couldn't remember our words? This was not the case in "The Unknown", as his memory of important emotional facts was intact, but some of the other facts were forgotten due to an accident. Due to the "missing links", he is living in "limbo" land, not able to understand many things happening to him. How does he interpret them?
Whenever humans don't have a grasp on reality, such that they can find security, they find themselves anxious. Anxiety is the state of "not knowing", or fearing that which "might come". Why would this anxiety have any hold on a human being? When experiences continue to confound and there is no rationale for what is happening, humans become anxious about their futures. A "state of peace" or psychologial security is the result of learning about "cause and effects". Behaviors are conditioned by "causes and effects". But, "sometimes the "causes and effects" are not straightforward "laws of nature". These have damaging effects on the psyche. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder could be the result and might have a disorienting effect on the personality.
Humans must have some sense of control about thier life to maintain a sense of dignity and personal orientation about "reality" itself. "The Unknown" brought to light what it is like to experience a dis-orienting experience where 'life doesn't make sense. The Unknown gave a sense of what life would be like if one lost partial memory and had to "live with it".
Memory or the brain's recording or experience is not the "whole story". Memories have to be itnerpreted to be meaningful, but when some information is "lost" and one is left to interpret without all the 'facts", then what? This made for a great movie.
Go see it. You won't be disappointed!
Showing posts with label Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Show all posts
Monday, March 14, 2011
Friday, March 5, 2010
Brain, Mind, Emotions, and Memory Response and Living in the Real World
Last night my husband and I watched a movie with Morgan Freeman. His moives usually have some meaning or message, and they are usually good. We thought we might be "headed to see" some B rated movie, as we'd gotten several movies from Sam's Club for under $5. But, we were delightfully surprised!
The movie was about two serial killers. Morgan Freeman was a forensic psychologist from D.C. who travelled to the Triangle Park, N. C. area to help the police there find the suspected killer. He had a "dog in the fight", as his neice had been missing for several weeks.
To make a long story short and to get to my point, the movie was intensely suspenseful and just when you thought that the movie was solved, there was another "crook in the road"..This led to an emotional connection with the movie unlike most. And the post traumatic stress that the main escapee suffered was experienced alongside her.
In my sleep, I kept having dreams as if the situations had happened to me; whispering in my ear from the murderer, running away from the killer, etc. This led to a fitful night and waking up several times to realize "it was only a dream".
I had not eaten anything out of the ordinary last night and had gone to bed as usual. So, there should've been nothing that would have made my sleep different, except for the movie.
My unprofessional and "scientific" suspicion is that my emotional connectedness to the movie led me to an emphathetic response. I had experienced the situation personally.
Is this not what we experience with those we feel connected to when they suffer? Our emotional connection leads us to justify their misfortunes, reach out to help, and understand their weaknesses.
I think that our reason is useful to help us function in the world without collapsing into a "pool of emotion". What good would that do? So, our reason help us rationalize our lives so that we live reasonably, not emphathetically. We cannot "love humanity", as that is an 'ideal" and ideals have to be defined and practically understood for there to be real meaning and purpose.
This is where we play out our lives committed to certain values which are prioritized accordingly. We live rationally, according to our values.
And I believe that values are a culmalative conglomoration of different experiences, individual personality and interests. Therefore, universals do not exist in the real world, only "ideals" that are manifested differently.
The movie was about two serial killers. Morgan Freeman was a forensic psychologist from D.C. who travelled to the Triangle Park, N. C. area to help the police there find the suspected killer. He had a "dog in the fight", as his neice had been missing for several weeks.
To make a long story short and to get to my point, the movie was intensely suspenseful and just when you thought that the movie was solved, there was another "crook in the road"..This led to an emotional connection with the movie unlike most. And the post traumatic stress that the main escapee suffered was experienced alongside her.
In my sleep, I kept having dreams as if the situations had happened to me; whispering in my ear from the murderer, running away from the killer, etc. This led to a fitful night and waking up several times to realize "it was only a dream".
I had not eaten anything out of the ordinary last night and had gone to bed as usual. So, there should've been nothing that would have made my sleep different, except for the movie.
My unprofessional and "scientific" suspicion is that my emotional connectedness to the movie led me to an emphathetic response. I had experienced the situation personally.
Is this not what we experience with those we feel connected to when they suffer? Our emotional connection leads us to justify their misfortunes, reach out to help, and understand their weaknesses.
I think that our reason is useful to help us function in the world without collapsing into a "pool of emotion". What good would that do? So, our reason help us rationalize our lives so that we live reasonably, not emphathetically. We cannot "love humanity", as that is an 'ideal" and ideals have to be defined and practically understood for there to be real meaning and purpose.
This is where we play out our lives committed to certain values which are prioritized accordingly. We live rationally, according to our values.
And I believe that values are a culmalative conglomoration of different experiences, individual personality and interests. Therefore, universals do not exist in the real world, only "ideals" that are manifested differently.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
On Character....
Character is described by one's attitudes, as well as one's actions, as character reflects conviction and commitment. This is a simplistic view that doesn't take into account any dimension of psychological science. It is as if humans are two demensional beings, while the world is know to be multi-deminsional. It could be termed the "human" "flat-landers.
This is where I believe that Christians are amiss.
Character is not one definitive way of being in the world, otherwise, there would not be various commitments and convictions. One's values do not necessarily determine how one will behave within their value system. Free societies allow individual the liberty, in fact, protect the right of the individual , as this is the classical definition of liberalism.
Authoritarian structures were never meant to be sanctioned within our form of government, as coercion is not the terminology of liberty or justice. All of us are equal under law, as the law in no respector of persons. And Christians, as well as non-Christians, are "not above the law".
Today, we have those in places of power who take advantage of their power for their own purposes, while diminishing their responsibility and accountability to 'we, the people". This is the formula for depotism. And it was not what the Founder's intended when they sought to make a "more perfect union".
A person of character chooses his course of action based upon his highest ideals, or principles. This cannot be defined by religious texts, unless one wants to limit religious freedom and conscience.
Politics does not allow principle when needs are immanant. Politics is a pragmatic science. Is a senator to 'vote no" on legislation that will be the death knell to his particular state, while understanding that the needs in his state are not as immanant as another? Survival of the fittest defines appropriately the political realm. Politics demands attention and decisions to be made with compromise and negotiation, so that something can get accomplished. Politics is "dirty business". Those who hold high ideals will be sorely disappointed if they think that anyone can survive in a climate of partisanship and individual competition, where money and power speak.
Sometimes it is the 'little guy" who can maintain his character, without compromising his principle, because he doesn't have to represent many and diverse voices in our country. He is held up to be the "ideal in virtuous character". This is the traditional "position" of the Christian, the peasant class, where they submitted unto death for the sake of the principle of peace.
The principle of peace should never further tyrannical means, to peaceful ends. Tyranny demands resistance, because otherwise, tyranny will win over all, until there is only one standing. Egoism is necessary for a balance of power and the little guy must not give in to tyranny in any shape or form.
Character is as much about the strength of resolve, as it is about the quiet and submissive. Christians tend to define their terms on the anceint texts that had ancient social situations that are not to be promoted today.
Sometimes character cannot be willed, as there are other intervening factors that must be considered. Last night I watched a program on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and depression. These are psychological illnesses that impact a person's ability to have control over their emotions or behavior. No one should fault another for a "lack of character" when stressors or illness is the real culprit.
Christians so often have a two dimensional view on the world. And those that don't see in "black and white" are doomed to be labelled as a "liberal", a "heretic", "not a Christian", "unbeliever", "reprobate", "morally stupid", "unrighteouss", "an infidel", etc.
Character is much more about how one handles oneself in a civil society, than it is about a definitive way of believing or behaving. Is one kind, considerate, polite, etc. These are qualities that are applauded across the spectrum of belief systems. One wonders, then what is the importance of the belief system?
This is where I believe that Christians are amiss.
Character is not one definitive way of being in the world, otherwise, there would not be various commitments and convictions. One's values do not necessarily determine how one will behave within their value system. Free societies allow individual the liberty, in fact, protect the right of the individual , as this is the classical definition of liberalism.
Authoritarian structures were never meant to be sanctioned within our form of government, as coercion is not the terminology of liberty or justice. All of us are equal under law, as the law in no respector of persons. And Christians, as well as non-Christians, are "not above the law".
Today, we have those in places of power who take advantage of their power for their own purposes, while diminishing their responsibility and accountability to 'we, the people". This is the formula for depotism. And it was not what the Founder's intended when they sought to make a "more perfect union".
A person of character chooses his course of action based upon his highest ideals, or principles. This cannot be defined by religious texts, unless one wants to limit religious freedom and conscience.
Politics does not allow principle when needs are immanant. Politics is a pragmatic science. Is a senator to 'vote no" on legislation that will be the death knell to his particular state, while understanding that the needs in his state are not as immanant as another? Survival of the fittest defines appropriately the political realm. Politics demands attention and decisions to be made with compromise and negotiation, so that something can get accomplished. Politics is "dirty business". Those who hold high ideals will be sorely disappointed if they think that anyone can survive in a climate of partisanship and individual competition, where money and power speak.
Sometimes it is the 'little guy" who can maintain his character, without compromising his principle, because he doesn't have to represent many and diverse voices in our country. He is held up to be the "ideal in virtuous character". This is the traditional "position" of the Christian, the peasant class, where they submitted unto death for the sake of the principle of peace.
The principle of peace should never further tyrannical means, to peaceful ends. Tyranny demands resistance, because otherwise, tyranny will win over all, until there is only one standing. Egoism is necessary for a balance of power and the little guy must not give in to tyranny in any shape or form.
Character is as much about the strength of resolve, as it is about the quiet and submissive. Christians tend to define their terms on the anceint texts that had ancient social situations that are not to be promoted today.
Sometimes character cannot be willed, as there are other intervening factors that must be considered. Last night I watched a program on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and depression. These are psychological illnesses that impact a person's ability to have control over their emotions or behavior. No one should fault another for a "lack of character" when stressors or illness is the real culprit.
Christians so often have a two dimensional view on the world. And those that don't see in "black and white" are doomed to be labelled as a "liberal", a "heretic", "not a Christian", "unbeliever", "reprobate", "morally stupid", "unrighteouss", "an infidel", etc.
Character is much more about how one handles oneself in a civil society, than it is about a definitive way of believing or behaving. Is one kind, considerate, polite, etc. These are qualities that are applauded across the spectrum of belief systems. One wonders, then what is the importance of the belief system?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
