This appendix is taken as an excerpt from the SHOMBook essay entitled
Restore the Trauma-Decimated Core – Essay II (of III) Continuing Phase Two.

Speaking epistem-/method-ologically, which focus directs problem solving to the heart of Western-styled decision making, SHOM, albeit integratable with the following management modalities depending on timeliness of application,  is also at times irreconcilably differently principled from the same: behavioral management¹See Behaviorally-oriented management., spiritual conversion²Since history has been recorded or studied, spiritual conversion — from a thought model perspective — has supplied the preponderance of human effort to understand and remedy trauma’s both etiological and symptomatic effects. ETM TRT SHOM recognizes those thought models’ contribution to the psych during efforts to complete identity-extinction activities following traumatic episodes. Moreover, and as a disclaimer, ETM TRT SHOM engineering does not interfere with the constitution of the spiritual belief and coping model., general analytical³e.g., Freud to Adler to Frankl., and non-strategic Person Centered⁴See general Client Centered also called Rogerian therapies — generalized identification and expression of feelings, and etc. efforts — in some of those cases pharmacologically laced with street⁵Alcohol, marijuana and other illegal drugs. or professionally ordered medications — otherwise created, respectively, over the millennia⁶Beginning at least in the fourth century BCE. For background delineating the SHOM perspective, see “How SHOM Interacts with Behaviorally-Oriented Management, and How it Doesn’t,” “Part IV: Westbury Rebel Management of Really Serious Troublemakers in (and from) the Global.” “Appendix A: The Genghis Khan of Psychotherapy: Behavioral Therapy and its Reformation – Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), and for Behavioral to Systems emphasis “Part III (conclusion) The Good Rebel in Most of us; Distinguishing Good from Bad Rebels; and How to strengthen the former against the latter.” by Western civilization’s managements to address the same subjects. They are trauma’s effects on, and thereafter attempt to control, exploit, mitigate, or in the Etiotropic application extirpate etiology from, any entity’s core. And, not wanting to appear only impolitic when demonstrating those differences, I wrote this summary to assuage some⁷Albeit, SHOM Etiotropic system theory may also create a new ideological competition. of the polemic naturally attending discussions like this one.

When addressing a traumatized system, particularly one going hysterical⁸From the ETM TRT SHOM Glossary. “Within ETM TRT SHOM parlance, ‘hysterical’ refers to the creation or adaptation of a continuum of interrelated abstractions (e.g., philosophies or other like attempts to answer ‘Why’ the imposed change — extinction — is occurring.) that are hosted cerebrally and/or in the cortex, and that are intended to assuage actual and prospective trauma-affected discordance in functioning in compliance with the — as different from the location of trauma induced extinction of stored pre trauma elements of identity — narrative/directive/doctrine otherwise previously guiding the targeted/attacked entity’s ongoing status: i.e., experience of state of continuity. The conscious adaptations may be temporarily beneficial as apparently much needed healing coping mechanisms, and at the same time paradoxically destructive as blockers of extinction’s completion. In this use, ‘hysterical’ doesn’t have to be represented by ostensible loss of management control, which in easily recognizable action attends the culminating manifestation, but can be instead at the beginnings of its development the simple adaptation of cliche or the formation of original thought, philosophical in nature, but that always defends the psychology during survival from the onslaught of change to one’s, to include where applicable a group’s, psycho-basics. I’ve used this consolidating-of-clinical/management-descriptions approach because, as all TRT clinicians/managers inevitably see, the continuum for the beginnings-to-ending of hysteria occur synonymously with the pertinent professions’ ordained culprits of final dissolution: lower level-to-moderate-to-massive denial, confusion-to-disordered-to-chaos of thought, contradiction-to-undermining of conscience, initial shock-to-diminished performance-to-full erosion of the capacity to carry on. They all come from the same start up — intellectual adjustment reaction to trauma etiology — attempts from the first interrogatory to restore the trauma decimated core with loftier philosophical visions promising new, but eventually faux hope: ‘That the extinction is not occurring.'”, or even reaching near mob-/cult-like or other social perpetrator status, why start with the least complex expression, referring here to a system member’s (single individual’s) core? 

1. From a practical perspective, because:
   1. and beginning with the obvious, when going at a traumatized system’s collectively experienced, albeit cognitive identification-restricted trauma etiology and more ubiquitously expressed symptoms head on, some form of catastrophe, e.g., a war or other organized use of force, is required (or at least has often occurred) to intervene on the latter’s almost always accelerating and probably additional pain-inducing presentations. Hence, begin the restorative focus incrementally — with an individual.
   2. restored individual cores act as system stabilizing pylons in an otherwise masses-developing rough sea hallmarked by a) increasing fragmentation, if not disintegration, of otherwise once system-binding rules, b) paper thin fragility of confidence of self — no wonder as the preponderance of decimation⁹“Decimation” is used purposely for emphasis to asseverate that the nature of molecular extinction shows that long-term depression of the synaptic trace housing the pre trauma reality/core/existential elements of identity retains a segment, albeit small of the once and also long-term potentiated molecular storage. See Neurobiology of Psychological Trauma Etiology and Its Reversal with Etiotropic Trauma Management. resides primarily in the unconscious — and c) behaviorally experienced, i.e., presenting for third party observation, as a lack of order: chaos.
   3. while stabilizing a system’s core, system trauma symptoms will attempt to derail or otherwise weaken stabilizing activity; but at the same time, system trauma etiology will gravitate toward the restorative effort on-going in the individual etiology reversal processes. Albeit engaged in a challenging tug-of-war for supremacy of direction, the individual core restorations will likely promote the same recovery for the system whole, assuming SHOM implementation directions are mostly, say as opposed to somewhat, followed.
   4. caring for an individual shattered mind brings a higher percentage of that power’s (caring’s) recuperative energy to bear exactly where most needed, maximizing its efficacy as a helping modality, and as opposed to addressing the disillusion of the same simultaneously in multiple minds (and) with nothing more than the didactically selling to them of trauma replacing abstractions: rhetorically or even declaratively presenting, then mollifying big or at least differing philosophical pictures of one’s substance or no, and circumstance.
2. From a theoretical¹⁰Which is borne out in practice: see Professional Due Diligence for the First Secular Cure of Psychological Trauma – PTSD. perspective . . .
   1. when both individual and systemic core elements have been trauma clobbered, individual restoration supports eventual, if not inevitable system core restoration — continuing to presume, of course, that ETM TRT SHOM is administered in compliance with its directions.  
   2. reversal of individual and systemic trauma etiology is attended by a system of logic that once initiated, called upon or otherwise tapped into, brings all pertinent elements of human ontology congruently to bear upon completing trauma induced extinction of the pre trauma existential elements of both individual and systemic identities — respectively, psychological trauma’s intrapsychic and interactional locuses of etiology.
   3. deeper — some having, prior to restoration, interwoven their locus into unknown labyrinths of the unconscious — Etiotropically restored elements of identity strengthen individual entities against the mob’s or trauma controlled system’s consciously hysterical influences, culminating in a reversal of their most prodigious tool for advancing their pathological expansions. It is the shared projection of systemic trauma etiology applied symptomatically/behaviorally to others for the purpose of avoiding that pain which traditionally attends extinction of existential elements of identity: the experience of continuity/ongoingness which in comprising the human core, also holds it together.
   4. Restoring individual and system cores restores unfettered individual and systemic decision making to pre trauma ontological status; albeit thereafter strengthened with ETM TRT SHOM’s existentially-oriented-model-for-addressing/resolving-loss which is now incorporated into the post trauma restored more complete, that is, to include being steeped into the unconscious, psychology. The trauma’s effects on the individual or system are reversed, expunged, or removed, in the process neutralizing externally applied, thus invasive, controls attending trauma applied by perps for political effect.

Retardantly Entangling, if not Destructively Conflicting Secular-based Management Paradigms/Methods — “Cope versus Cure”¹¹Readers already trained in ETM TRT SHOM will understand the importance of the differences and arguments regarding coping or curing psychological trauma. For those not familiar with the discussion, and particularly the various and opposing views, see ETM TRT SHOM site explanations at “Cope and Cure,” “In ETM’s Lexicon, Cure means . . .”, “Focused Care- and Cure-Based.”

Material difference exists between expected likely strategic outcomes — referring to winning or losing the combatized contest — produced by one secular-based trauma management approach over another: Etiotropic (i.e., the “cure” approach)¹²For your convenience again linking to our definitions of “curing” vs. “coping with” psychological trauma, see ETM TRT SHOM site explanations at “Cope and Cure,” “In ETM’s Lexicon, Cure means . . .”, “Focused Care- and Cure-Based.” vs Nosotropic (the coping method)¹³For your convenience again linking to our definitions of “curing” vs. “coping with” psychological trauma, see ETM TRT SHOM site explanations at “Cope and Cure,” “In ETM’s Lexicon, Cure means . . .”, “Focused Care- and Cure-Based.”. In the former, the strategic outcome is affirmatively linked through expectation that the intervention applied through the target and then on to the perpetrator succeed and that as a direct consequence of that effort the motivation for the use of terror dissipates. In the latter, there is no linkage because the method doesn’t support even prospective, to mean theoretical or otherwise, intervention. Post trauma, targets are treated humanely and thereafter separated within, if not completely from the combatants’ arena, except for the hope that the perpetrator-admonishing/-punishing strategy will impart a sense of justice derived by the action-/force-oriented defensive response-based remedy.    

The Etiotropic or psychological trauma “curing”¹⁴See ETM TRT SHOM site explanations at “Cope and Cure,” “In ETM’s Lexicon, Cure means . . .”, “Focused Care- and Cure-Based.” idea supports the notion that if its secularly foundationed trauma management response* is properly administered, perpetrators will lose both the essence of the value of their modality and subsequently the war where it is being applied. For example, if the Etiotropic approach is applied to survivors of a terrorist attack, then the entity providing that response expects eventually to actively first intercede future applications of the same, and second remove the terrorists’ beliefs in the validity of their approach. Looking to history for an application that wasn’t, had democratic (Menshevik) to Czarist leadership applied the Etiotropic approach to counter the Bolshevik’s use of terror between 1905-1907, and then later through the beginnings of their revolution and civil war in Russia, the destabilizing effect on polity decision making could have, hypothetically, been avoided, likely changing the course of that nation’s and the world’s history for the rest of that century. On the other hand, when the Nosotropic or coping approach to trauma is applied by the targeted’s management — as occurred in the twentieth century Bolshevism reference and is now being duplicated today by the West’s response to anti-Islamic-reform forces; which are pulverizing the part of the global targeted for their conquerings — there is neither theoretical nor (consequently  to mean “thus”) practical linkage between the trauma response application and the prospects for the enemy’s continued use of their fighting model. Hence, if a polity decides to employ the prospective, or hoped for direct intercession method on the perpetrator’s motivation to use the terror modality, it serves that polity well to distinguish between its application and the one not engineered to achieve the desired intervening-on-terrorism-operations outcome.

If aspiring to achieve the counter-terrorism-perpetrator-intervention effect theoretically inherent to SHOM, it isn’t enough to respond to such politically motivated acts of terror by administering general counseling or pharmacological therapies without distinguishing between the cope or cure approaches, and then employing the latter pretty much exclusive of the former. For example, trying to achieve etiology reversal while simultaneously coping with medication of trauma-caused HAPA¹⁵hypothalamic-to-adrenal-pituitary-axis, also called “stress response” activity will absolutely¹⁶For a fairly in-depth or at least more detailed address of the relationship of the HAPA stress response to trauma etiology’s formation and reversal, see Neurobiology of Psychological Trauma Etiology and Its Reversal with Etiotropic Trauma Management; 1991; Jesse W. Collins II; electronic, but not PDF, version. preclude the use of the Etiotropically engineered cure approach to support trauma induced extinction’s completion. Similarly, direct Behavioral attempts to control post traumatic symptoms alter the focus of clinical and management effort from that extinction’s facilitation such that it will likely — most assuredly from this work’s experience — never happen. No completion of extinction means no etiology reversal; and that means continued perpetrator control of targets’ decision making regardless of higher ended, i.e. the most resolute, rational cognitive applications of also most stalwart character.

*Non Secular-based Trauma Management Models’ Differences (from SHOM)

In four decades, I’ve not witnessed a single instance where ETM TRT’s application altered or otherwise interfered with an individual’s parallel use of a non secular theology. ETM TRT SHOM may, or can likely, however, intercede systemic trauma’s influences that are foundationally cultic, or cause the same over time. 

Hinduism, Paganism, Judaism, Stoicism, Buddhism, Islamism, Church of Rome (first millennium European Christianity), Pre Reformation (to include medieval thru ending fifteenth century) Christian (and even non) Humanism, and Post Reformation both Catholic and Protestant developments and theologies have shared commonalities and distinctions over their histories as they were applied to a polity’s or other constituents’ individual and systemic trauma management epistemologies’, strategies, activities and methodologies. Generally said, and still even now following secular-oriented Enlightenment influences occurring over more recent nineteenth, twentieth, and beginning twenty-first centuries, that element of human ontology hosting the Hebraic, other Oriental, or Hellenic interpretations of the soul as it has interacted with psychological trauma, has been the management purview of the referenced and other theologies. And, they have produced over the also hosting millennia methods that will likely function discordantly from SHOM’s administration, unless the app is adapted to address the prospective clashes.

Here are several of the most important elements of the primary principles of those “adaptations.”

1. During implementation, ETM TRT SHOM does not engage in debate or competing rational cognitive instruction regarding the various theological tenets. The management administrative focus directs the reversal process to achieve limited goals: reversing/removing/expunging individual and systemic trauma etiology purposefully implanted by perps to effect political change within the targeted polity.
2. Not for purposes of persuasion, solicitation, or gaining ideological ascendency, rational cognitive interpretations of the differences between ETM TRT SHOM and the hosting theology can be provided, but only with the intent to clarify for the application patient/client inquiries pertaining to prospective clashes that may be felt* as implementation begins to be experienced.
   *Trauma etiology is held together not just with intrapsychic elements of the overall psychology, but with systemic one’s as well. That is, a group’s theo-narrative adapted to advance the person’s interests into the hereafter, give comfort during current hard times, and to even exploit the trauma by strengthening individual allegiance to that narrative and its organizational parent, may experience the prospective resolution/reversal of the etiology (that relied upon the abstract-oriented theological tenet) may vie for expression in a defensive manner that quashes the etiology’s reversal. Emotion stemming from etiology is also connected to the — apparently ecclesiastical doctrine — abstractions that defend against feeling it. And those abstractions become vested in maintaining that defended status quo. TRT clinicians are trained to not push the conflict. Facilitate the individual’s withdrawal from ETM’s strategic approach to etiology reversal if necessary, keeping the coping elements of the theology intact. That person will then process the decision over time, and take the risk of etiology reversal based upon his or her individual character, ontological configuration, and intellectual determination of what is best for the entity, i.e., him or her self, as a whole.
3. ETM TRT SHOM Patient and Professional education¹⁷See the ETM TRT SHOM Patient Education Program. Informational and instructional aids facilitate decision making at every step of clinical experience. integrates its Etiotropic understanding of clinical process in incremental concert with client inquiry, decision making and progress. Defenses against etiology’s reversal, regardless of whether they or primarily secular or non secularly constructed, are respected as to their pertinence to the client.
4. One element of non secular models incorporates curatively in the trauma affected psychology as opposed to intellectually protectively/defensively. The trauma affected psychological host relationally accepts into (conceptually creates for) its damaged core something attending deity level supra personages and Gods. Sample icons studied, now understood and referenced in the West include, and certainly have not been limited to Buddha, Yahweh, Jesus, The Messenger, and the Nordic, Odin. A commonality of the incorporation is epiphany — the experience of oneness in relation to the evolved spiritual agonist. And, its supra state fuses with the damaged elements of the core, therein and after assuaging the condition or otherwise ridding it from the host — in the process mostly existing of forgiveness of the pain and all associated with it — lifting the replenished state of being above the once shattered self. Depending upon pertinent doctrines, remedies that perpetuate the epiphanological startup are equally ontologically, to emphasize existentially focused with prayer, meditation, confession, penance, sacrifice, Communion, love of others and doing good works. Some from within that condition are not candidates for TRT — differing addresses of human ontology would be being administered at the time. When the referenced experience, however, presents as, say for example, something that one is supposed to feel — in order to maintain status as a bona fide member of a particular program, or because other members tell them how to do it, i.e., to forgive all involved — but doesn’t, the effort to comply with the referenced remedies supported by the doctrine may itself become an overwhelmingly difficult defense to overcome, in the end rigidly protecting against the Etiotropic address of the related core’s damage, instead of curing it. That remaining etiology may be reversed with TRT as described in the first three elements of these four application principles.

Synthesizing/summarizing and extrapolating from the immediately above (1-4), the goals betwixt the two approaches, non secular and SHOM, are demonstrably different. The former’s primary interest is the hereafter, and the latter’s herein. The trauma affected entity in the non secular model receives a complete overhaul of all things now being revamped to emulate the program’s leadership and the preparatory path to the fulfilling eternal ideal. In contrast, SHOM strategically (only) restores the entity’s existential identity elements — its core — to its pre trauma existence, leaving those matters regarding any afterlife activity to the non seculars. Even with that fairly ostensible delineation, not much stops the non secular approach convoluting its “how-tos” with SHOM’s. As a matter of posturing policy for the ETM TRT SHOM individual implementation in parallel with most non secular helping models, let the differences be: different. In keeping with the likelihood that non secular ontologically-focused programs will probably attempt to quash ETM TRT SHOM’s resolution efforts — the competitor’s epistemological and methodological biases require that it become and remain all things to all followers — don’t interfere with client theology except, of course, where Western civ law requires intervention in order to prevent death and other personal harm.

Three Principles regarding Conflicts/Clashes between Etiotropic and Nosotropic General Doctrinal — to include Methodological — Differences

Having spoken previously in this part of the essay to specific differences between Etiotropic and Nosotropic approaches to trauma management and its clinical parallels also distinguished by secular and non secular concepts, the subject would not be complete without consideration of general epistemological and methodological differences. Three predominate this discussion. Here is their overview.    

1. If trauma etiology and its reversal/removal/extirpation are NOT the remedy’s both clinical and management primary (first) focus, and the entire treatment/management milieu extending therefrom, systemic symptoms (or also traumatized mob/group behavioral influences), to include perceptions of problem presentation, then the consequent and always prevalent hysteria garnish the helping effort’s attention, which in turn, circuitously, will interfere with individual etiology reversal. The traumatic condition remains in an incurable-looking loop of downwardly spiraling destruction, maybe offset from time to time by temporarily effective behavioral or pharmacological coping applications.
2. Where Nosotropic trauma management relies for its success upon strengthening or otherwise developing client awareness of unacceptable thought/behavioral malady, the Etiotropic method emphasizes focusing caring upon the trauma affected entity in a manner that reverses etiology — completes extinction — regardless of additions incorporated through the referenced cognition. Much of extinction and its Etiotropic facilitation occur in the unconscious and depend upon the skilled application of focused caring by the helper more than cognizant application (teaching/preaching about) of conscious decision making and personal responsibility growth by the patient/client.
3. Medicating¹⁸Referring to both clinical and social drug — alcohol, marijuana, prescription psychotropics, other — use stress from trauma can strengthen additional psych-trauma symptoms for the long-term and will no doubt prevent etiology reversal. Applying TRT in concert with such use¹⁹See TRT’s application module regarding screening for exogenous variables. is not effective. Moreover, although TRT’s administration requires a non toxic CNS, no aspect of ETM TRT SHOM’s clear CNS policy, except where dependency has been established, extends past the TRT application period. Importantly, rather than detox prescription medicated clients for application of TRT, do not administer it and refer them back into the Nosotropic treatment paradigm that initiated that care.

Those overviews, of course, leave off administration details, which are carefully incorporated into ETM TRT SHOM’s implementation information and instruction support materials. They are addressed in the courses of study provided through the ETM TRT SHOM Professional website located here²⁰See the ETM TRT SHOM website. and directly to ETM TRT SHOM publications provided here²¹Go directly to the ETM TRT SHOM Publications where Professional and Patient Education pamphlets and books are available both electronically and in hard copy..