hegemo 

Cope with the demands of everyday life: - This effectively rules out any person who does not subscribe to an hegemony of social media and the promulgation of personal details between individuals and organisations, and business to business communication. Such a person might not own a device that connects to the modern global internet connection, and so may struggle to cope with the demands of everyday life, such as only online banking is available to this person. This hypothesis that good mental health is shown by an individual who can cope with the demands of everyday life, requires a learned person to submit to an existing hegemony, which may or not be, ultimately beneficial to wide-spread mental health; and so far, remains unproven. Consequently, this hypothesis, tested in the negative form, or null hypothesis, fails and lacks credibility.

 

Make relationships and participate in society: Of course, this is most helpful when it is used as an heuristic by the general public to ostracise individuals as being 'weird', 'crazy', or just 'mentally unwell'. Usually, this is within the bounds of checking oneself against a scale of social relevance; or where one stands in a nebulous societal hierarchy. Indeed, any person who postulates that it is safe to assume that someone, or a group of people, are mentally ill or unwell based on this premise must be considered, with only very little scepticism, to be victims of a latent and lazily-visited concept that serves to validate prejudice and hatred of people who prefer their own company and thoughts. It is normal for people to be unique and varied in the extent of their social interactions, and any consequent activities; and the perception of individuals who are outliers on a scale of sociability must be considered to be normal in the everyday demand of life; OR a demand of everyday life. It must therefore be crass to include this premise in a course that is intended to educate the unwary and therefore, if we evoke the first premise above (Cope with the demands of everyday life) the proponents of these two premises must be confused. So, is being confused a premise in an argument for mental good-health; and consequently cannot be a premise in an argument for mental ill-health? In other words, individuals with poor mental health are never confused.

 

Make sense of life and the world around you: - Plainly, in its simplest form this means that all babies are mentally unwell, or febrile; and jet-lagged people arriving in a country of which they know little about and do not understand the local languages; road-usage; and mores and traditions (culture-shock) are mentally unwell. People with a fever are sometimes febrile (and right there we might smugly smile and think, "Yes, clearly someone in a fever and babbling is mentally unwell"). Then what do we make of someone who is dreaming or having a nightmare, and shouting or wriggling? Do we seek medical advice when someone dreams? If we are safe in our beds yet think for a while, within that period, that we are being chased by aliens from outer-space, this must be a sign of psychosis. Do we otherwise consider that all dreams are the mind making sense of the world, processing it, and creating heuristics to apply to life and the world about us? These dream-made heuristics are formed in a febrile mind; a mind that is populated by entities with the ability to fly (including oneself), monsters, attackers, harp music and fairies, time travel, and so much more; because if we do then we must accept that we must have been febrile at some recent time to make sense of life. Can we really say that anyone can make sense of life and the world around them if we cannot separate periods of mental aberration, including fevers and dreams, from conscious and lucid perceptions of life and the world around us? Isn't this an acceptance of psychotic perception as being a valid constant for mental health?

Experience, understand, and express emotions and feelings: - The prime directive in Star Trek provides that any entity that exhibits these qualities is a sentient being and should not be destroyed. And, fundamentally, that is all that these qualities apply to, in their truest sense for a test of sentience. Any person who is able to be mildly offended and demonstrates a reaction that results in wide-spread and rampant killing of other people is sane if we apply this facet to be indicative of mental health. Clearly, if this scenario is considered to be indicative of mental health, then we should consider the human race to be normal when it accepts mass-killing as normal when genocide is ordered or carried out. We can no longer use autocratic genocide to be a representation of a madman. Using this premise of mental health, Hitler, Stalin, and Putin are all mentally well. They experience(d), understand/understood, and express(ed) emotions and feelings albeit through delegated channels of action. Is this premise nuanced in that if one, who can experience, understand, and express emotions and feelings, and does not kill, yet orders killing, we can perceive, or describe this individual as in good mental health? A bit strong for some, perhaps? Well, what if we consider that mental health is tested by the current hegemony, cultures, societies, and law-markers? When France and England spent hundreds of years at war with each other we must consider that if any nationals of those countries were in agreement with those wars, or maybe just the monarchies and lawmakers were (and had to be) then we should believe that they were mentally unwell. Any laws that were made or existed during those times, and historic social understandings in those times, that were not completely permanently eradicated and rejected means we are still in the asylum – we have just made it more comfortable to live in. However, would we really readily accept a complete regime change, that is run by only a few persons and recognise those people as being mentally correct security officers? In two or three hundreds years we will, likely, realise we were all mostly mentally unwell during these modern times.

Think clearly, solve problems, and make sound decisions: - Working backwards - Of course, sound decisions are considered valid in the absence of superior knowledge and experience. In business, a forecast is made based on past results - as in how much should be spent on marketing, publicity, etc. Mistakes are made in business because decision-makers are not prescient.

Manipulative abusers in the home and more widely as narcissistic individuals 'in the wild' are commonly considered to be good problem solvers. If these people are liable to arrest by security services, the police, etc. they almost inevitably demonstrate an ability to think clearly. Unless, that is, it is normal for the general public to be completely 'au fait' with current conditions and have had training in 'Logical Thinking' - It is NOT normal for the general public to have these attributes and aptitude, so any comparison with the general public is invalid. In logical thinking, one should consider facts, and emotions are left out of an argument: It takes at least two premises to make an argument. ‘Because I want to.”, simply is not an argument. So, loosely, in order to think clearly, one must dispense with emotion (anger, prejudice, jealousy, etc.), which means that, experiencing, and understanding emotions and feelings becomes a consideration only as a secondary contribution to ascertaining mental health when this premise is used in an argument for mental health. Indeed, full acceptance of this premise to be used in an argument for ascertaining mental health requires the subject person to exhibit 'detached emotions' - a sign of mental unrest, ill-health, disturbance, or aberration.

Clearly, then, it can be seen that The WHO cannot pinpoint exactly what mental health is - yet 'The Who' probably alleviated or released a lot of mental tension with their loud music.