Liking Paulo Coelho

I just saw an interview with Paulo Coelho,  in Rede TV!, with Kennedy Alencar.

Well, maybe I even do not like something in his books, but I like him, definitely.

Actually, I'm being unfair.

I read only one book of his, "The Alchemist", and thinking well, is not a bad story. In fact, by the time I read it, around 1996, I did not like especially his literary style, which was not as rich as a Victor Hugo or a Proust. I did not know that he actually does not care for literary styles. At the time I thought that I could easily write by myself the same book in a much more elegant way. But to think something is one task, but to do this something is another task, very different.

The truth is that, well or poorly written, with elegance or not, Paulo Coelho has conquered the world and it is worthy of all credit. Seeing him, I think the great work that he did to become the writer who is in a country that read books very little. But he did more than this: his books are read worldwide. I always say that if I had a basket to put only five or six Brazilians living and worthy of being admired for his achievements, I would include Paulo Coelho in the group. Who else? No matter now. Paulo Coelho has the right place among Brazilians who I like and admire. Of course, in the basket is not always necessary to get people that I necessarily have to like it, but it does not matter. I like Paulo Coelho.

 

But Paulo Coelho himself explains this change in my taste.

Actually, the thing has more to do with Raul Seixas, who with Paulo Coelho.

Everyone in Brazil who likes rock'n'roll and spent his adolescence in the 80s knows that Raul Seixas was a controversial guy. But I wonder if this whole legion of ex-teens knew at the time that Raul Seixas, a man already established in the '70s, was our dear Paulo Coelho as a partner of letters.

 

So I had a certain dislike for Raul Seixas and his fans, but what annoyed me were the letters of Paulo Coelho, wish in that time I did not know they were write by Paulo Coelho.

When Paulo Coelho has emerged as a writer of fiction novels with spiritual feature, I was in other places, learning to write my own stuff. I disdained his simple way of writing.

Now, I admire him, the man, although I admit I never read anything about him other than "The Alchemist".

But he, the man, has also changed. Talking about drugs in this same interview, he did it with a transparent honesty. And he surprised me to say that under current conditions, he was against the liberation of drugs such as cocaine. He deemed himself as having conservative opinions. Now, my dear Paulo Coelho, there's nothing wrong with being conservative. Not that thou are conservative: is that you are a ambulant metamorphosis.

If so, then I am also this ambulant metamorphosis. Maybe I will read his books, maybe not. We have common interests. Although we are of places and of different generations. I also love writing. I love books. I admire sincerity and believe in almost everything that I can not see, from Aleph to Christ. There are truths that do not require evidence. And it seemed to me at some point thou were speaking of something different in a different language, it was a slight mistake, excusable to young men, naturaly arrogant. We speak the same language and about the same signs, just it. Things tend to converge to a center where everything makes sense.

So I wish long life and success to this brave, who armed only with his enormous willpower and hard work, could prove to himself that he can make the rain fall on the desert.

And wasn't there someone before us that said that faith could move mountains?

I'd rather be ... I prefer ... I choose ... I decide ... like Paulo Coelho!

Now, faith!

The learning process

This was the tenth and last post in Defend Yourself!

In time: the counter never showed more than a few dozen visits, all mine, and no one has posted any comments.

April 24, 2008

The learning process

Living safely means learning certain habits and unlearn some others.

Is the learning process in safely possible or feasible?

Yes, the process is possible. We can learn rules and safety procedures as we learn a lot of other things. It may be a little slow for some people, or even difficult for others, but there is nothing in the process itself that makes it different from any other learning process.

Is the learning process in safety feasible?

It is feasible only to the extent that has been encoded. I mean, like any learning process, a rule or safety procedure should be studied and organized in order to attend the basic principles of learning.

But in this feature our modern culture fails painfully.

Think in computers and how difficult is to operate them for someone who never approached one of them. However, it seems commonplace for experienced users. The difference between a beginner and an experienced user is simply that the experienced user has gone through a learning process that made him able to understand the use of a computer.

The same is true with any kind of knowledge.

 

In terms of safety, perhaps the best prepared people to use safety procedures are the people who work with the hypothesis of violence. They are the military and civilian police, the military armed forces, private bodyguards, the federal police, security bank, the night watchmen, employees of companies wich transport high values​​ objects and money, firefighters, among others.

These professionals are trained to be able to adopt effective security procedures, and use weapons and security equipment, but initially, they are people who know nothing about it until you receive the proper training.

 

What training is that?

In fact, there is not only a single workout, but a set of them.

So what learn these professionals wich that in fact become professionals, not amateurs with uniforms, batons and guns?

What learn they that we, ordinary citizens, can also learn?

What can they teach us?

Who can teach us?

Is feasible a mass learning process that makes people so familiar with security actions that the process will really make a difference in quality of life for its users?

These are important questions that deserve an appropriate response.

Written by Rosenvaldo Simoes de Souza at 13h57

The circle of reciprocal protection

This was the ninth post in blog Defend Yourself!:

April 23, 2008

The circle of reciprocal protection

It would be great if we could limit to care of our own personal safety. This, by itself, is not an easy task.

But in real life, we must care for more people besides us. In addition to we keeping us alert against all kinds of dangers, we have to look for others yet.

We can deny this truth?

We can.

But it is a right attitude? Every man for himself and God to look for others?

No. We simply can not.

We live in the community and the vigilance task is a task in two-way. We care for us and for people around us and people around us care for them and for us, even we do not realize this kind of surveillance.

Selfishness in safety is a serious problem and must be fought with great severity and diligence. It is a cultural heritage that must be unlearned.

It is not just a matter of caring for the weak. It is not just a matter of protecting women, seniors and children. The concept of circle of protection goes beyond that.

We look for us, but when we are on alert, we see potential risk involving other people. These other people in general are people from our midst. They are relatives, neighbors, co-workers. But without realizing it, we do more than simply protecting known people.

Someone alert can protect a unknown person and may in turn be protected by someone who does not know him.

The concept of circle of reciprocal protection involves a maturing of our selfish and individualistic personality. We have a natural tendency to think that we can not change the world and therefore do not act when we could act.

Overcome the barrier of individualism in security is a fundamental step in improving our quality of life and the people around us. If well implemented, the concept can even improve the quality of security of people who we will never cross again in the remains of our lives.

Who does not know at least one story of an anonymous hero who appears from nowhere and tells us to take care, stay alert, advising us to avoid a certain place, or we take some action, or to protect ourselves to some risk ?

We can be this anonymous hero for someone who, for a moment of distraction, can be in danger.

We choose, however, cowardice and failure, selfishness and laziness.

What do you choose?

Written by Rosenvaldo Simoes de Souza at 20h29

Rules and more rules

This was the eighth post in blog Defend Yourself!:

April 22, 2008

Rules and more rules

It is true that we already live in a society where there are too many rules. Consult a lawyer and will know that there are millions of legal articles prohibiting or allowing almost everything. After all, we still have social rules and work rules, rules at home and in institutions. Simply we not live without rules.

Rules imply learning. You can not talk about rules without proper implementation. They exist to be fulfilled. So, if we not fulfilled them, we must learn to obey them. Failure usually involves punishment.

A security rule is something subtle and almost transparent. Disobeys them implies something almost pleasurable, because when we disobey them, we get rid of the burden that is respect them day after day, hour after hour, minute after minute. However, we must not forget that they bit hard when we overlook them.

A security rule, a survival rule, does not require a written law to enforce. No one is prohibit to walk at dawn in a bad neighborhood using expensive jewelry and lots of money in your pocket. But almost everyone knows the risks. You break a safety rule and the chance you go punished by error is very large.

 

Because they are hard, the punishments are of course educational. A person who neglects a security rule and suffers some kind of problem for this neglect will be going through an experience almost always painful, violent, traumatic and frightening. This experience will serve as a learning. A normal person who learn a lesson by this method difficult to commit a second mistake.

This is not a widely recommended method, we must admit.

 

If safety rules are even relentless, follow them implies a constant monitoring. This state of constant attention inevitably generates a high level of stress. There is no doubt: much of modern chaos is due to this high level of stress coming from the constant state of alert in which people live. Surviving in a large urban center is not an easy task. Hence, people living in cities are much more nervous and stressed that those who live in quiet and less violent places.

So we live a dilemma: if we observe the safety rules we live under stress. If we do not observe them, sooner or later we will be victims of accidents, violence, aggression or crimes. The condition of the victim will end up generating a burst of stress, and trauma of a bad event will take anyone to a situation of near-paranoia, seeking not to suffer again another bad event.

But there is no doubt. The stress from observing rules is far less than the stress from pick up the pieces after being victimized by a bad experience. So we can only be conformed to this reality and make the task of observing safety rules experience less stressful as possible.

But how?

The answer lies in learning.

 

For now, it is enough to know that a well-learned rule is a rule easier to follow.

If by chance you do not agree with this understanding, talk to any person who has suffered from violence of any kind, whether accidental or criminal. Ask about the trauma and the time this person took to overcome the crisis, if he really overcome in fact.

Learn by pain will always be the worst way of learning.

Written by Rosenvaldo Simoes de Souza at 16h51

Adherence to rules: your personality help you?

This was the seventh post in blog Defend Yourself!:

April 10, 2008

Adherence to rules: your personality help you?

Living safely means that you and your family should act according to certain rules that really provide security. However, the adhesion of people in general rules often not very large.

A security rule is not a statutory requirement. There is no law requiring a person to follow it, except in some cases, such as traffic laws, possession of weapons, consumption of certain substances and the protection the State and adults should provide to other people, like children, women, elderly and physically handicapped people.

Therefore, a security rule, however obvious and simple that it, can not be imposed. Try, for example, require any person to look at both sides of the street. It is simply not possible.

Even the legal security are not realistic in relation to consequences of their violations. I mean, there are certain rules that exist by law, but which are not fulfilled. However, make it be fulfilled is a task almost impossible to be accomplished. Violations of these rules are difficult to prove and therefore hardly punishes the breach.

Are rules without punishment only innocuous rules? Many of them are, but the safety rules are often more to serve as a warning then exactly something to be strictly followed. People, after learning about them, come to realize that there is a concern or a real risk with a certain subject. We all realize that probably we will not be punished if we do not comply them, but we come to know that there is some risk involved in breaches them.
 

For example, there in our Traffic Code a restriction on the occupants of a vehicle to flow with the arms out of windows. This is a rule wich is clearly difficult to control. So many people do not give a damn about her. Some people know they will not be punished for any monitoring. On the other hand, many people came to realize that there is indeed a real risk of letting one arm out. What is this risk?

Only after hearing some sad stories of broken arms by motorcycles at high speed is that some people start to worry about it.

So, we went to the point that interests us.

 

The vast majority of safety rules are not written, or codified, nor are in laws, nor take the offenders to be fined. But all, without exception, point to a potential risk if  we violate them.

Respecting or violating safety rules is a matter of how willing a person is to remain alive and safe. A person may violate many rules and survive without a scratch. But sometimes a single violation of an ordinary simple rule can mean instantaneous death. Trampling is a clear sign that even a simple rule like "look both ways before crossing a street" is neglected.

 

Is adherence to rules a matter of personality?

Yes.

What turns a certain person to be methodical, disciplined and hardworking in relation to rules in general?

What leads another person to be lazy, sarcastic and cynical, indolent and procrastinator, irresponsible and insensitive when the matter is preservation of human life?

This is a disturbing question.

 

You, in your intimate, you know how you feel about rules in general and about the security rules in particular. How are you?

Admit that you are exactly what you are maybe is a good start.
If you do not like to be like you are, then it is time to change.

Written by Rosenvaldo Simoes de Souza at 12:43

Dangerous times

This is the sixth post in blog Defend Yourself!:

April 09, 2008

Dangerous times

Are older people right when they say they lived in much more secure and peaceful past?

This is not an easy question to answer because on the one hand it seems obvious that many problems we face today are the result of a lifestyle, a culture and a technology that did not exist a few decades ago, on the other, an optimist person might argue that we are being partial.

In fact, this same technology has done wonders in terms of security.

We can not deny these advances, but can we restrict the advances only to technology?

Also would we been partial?

In part, yes. There have been advances in education that have improved our culture and lifestyle. Before people had less access to better quality education.

There is a link between education and safety?

Apparently yes.

Although the culture itself can not be considered a pure form of formal education, safety culture does not seem a reality. Rather. What we see is a culture of violence.

So on the one hand today we have more formal education accessible, but we have an indirect form of cultural learning that points to a contrary direction.

 

And there is something behind this culture that we call lifestyle. Are theremore risks in current lifestyle?

No doubt, yes.

The lifestyle is now much more based in large groups, mobility, daring, risk-controlled and almost dangerous adventures. There is an early maturing youth and a sexualization of behaviors that is not necessarily a bad thing, but anticipates risks to an age group that is not yet prepared to face it.

So, are our grandparents correct?

We can say that in part, yes. They no had an advanced medicine to protect them, but did not have so many thugs in the streets, so many human contact that provides a friction is not always healthy. They no had the news in first hand from internet and television, but they were not forced to watch terrible scenes between a range and other of the newscast.

On second thought, each time brings his challenges, and this discussion will not make our world better just because we are discussing the subject.

On the one hand we can not go back in time, on the other, we can try to recreate what was lost, but it was good. This is a sensible effort.

We can not never do certain things, but we can do others.

Anyway, we survived from the past.

The risk is now.

Can we at least learn something about the risks of the past?

Can we really learn to live safely?

This is the real issue.

Written by Rosenvaldo Simoes de Souza at 12h56