Assimilated and Written by
John Cox, M.A. C/M
“In the communication field, we have several direct-connections to psychology. After all, communication, you and I discussing things, is derived from several psychological-patterns. And, as we know, psychology pertinent to understand our Universe within the complex of survivability, sustainability, comforts, respect for life, respect for Nature, among other things, as well as all the attributes that form psychological, and what we refer to as, Dysfunction.
When we place theses situations into terminology, we find deductive reasoning to be refined to a point of understand dysfunctional attributes, especially toward decision making.
Often, the more we know, the more we experience life and the things we are interested in knowing about, knowledgeably:
1. One must be open-enough to accept all the positive and negative nuances of the subject. Our minds need this constant flow, to make knowledgeable decisions — separating the affirmed values being significant, and usable, or insignificant, and experience has shown us to be hurtful, or non-usable.
2. Bias, ignorance, and bigotry, is when we shove-aside, what we suppose is irrelevant, as if nonexistent, for an excuse, in this example or scenario, to abuse, kill, profit from, or debate an issue we know nothing about.
We infuse these patterns into our own knowledge-base. When we have psychological problems, whether physical or within a mind-set only circumstance, many classifications of terms come to mind. . .
We then interpret, how we understood this knowledge of Nature, for example, and wildlife. We interpret this information into our knowledge-base. We then communicate it orally, or within written form . . . But what are we communicating? What are the definitions to describe awkward or troubling interpretations of our Nature that surrounds us, or the Wildlife that lives within it? To understand this, we ask the questions.
Perhaps classifying these interpretations into terms; which, we can then understand how those with little to no knowledge, or those with mental disoriented knowledge, due to bias, bigotry, or plain old ignorance, develop their idiotic behaviors and flawed, disagreeable decision making processes, especially toward Nature and our Wildlife. Exempt from this discussion are psychopathic behaviors as well as sociopathic behaviors, alongside schizophrenic behavior, or manic depression behavior, et al.
Now we isolate this circumstance, more so, to answer the question how many interpret correctly, or within a manageable level of truth, Nature within Nature and the Wildlife that lives within Nature, correctly? This is where we can then accept or deny whether a mind-set, and the knowledge they display, orally for example, to us when discussing things, is functional or dysfunctional within that individuals’ interpretation of Nature and Wildlife.
Here we ask the appropriate questions, to search for the answer, whether or not within research, or, just daily communication, with others. We see first hand, opinion generated, or books read but not fully understood, and those with no experience, debate and argue points with experienced people, needlessly. Most want to learn no more, because they assume they already know it all.
There is no single term for those who deny that nature exists
in nature. However, several philosophical concepts are relevant, depending on the specific argument being made:
Solipsism: An extreme form of skepticism in which an individual believes that only their own mind is certain to exist. In this view, the external world, including nature, is merely a product of one’s consciousness.
Metaphysical Nihilism: The philosophical position that a world entirely empty of concrete objects (i.e., nothing at all) is possible. The more radical version of this view suggests that the universe itself is an illusion, and thus, nothing is real.
Idealism: The belief that the physical world is not as fundamental as mental reality. Certain forms of idealism argue that objects only exist as long as they are perceived. In this context, the existence of nature would be dependent on its being thought or perceived by a mind.
Antinaturalism / Supernaturalism: While not directly denying the existence of the natural world, this view holds that something beyond the natural order is real. It rejects the idea that nature is the only or ultimate reality and can be a stepping stone to dismissing nature’s importance.
Linguistic Confusion: In many cases, denying that “nature exists in nature” can be a philosophical riddle or a thought experiment about the nature of reality and our perception of it. The statement itself can be interpreted as a logical puzzle rather than a firm philosophical or an in-reality stance . . . ?” — John Cox, M.A. C/M — Preservation of America’s Wildlife
Photojournalist - Journalist 