Preservation of America's Wildlife

Tag: consciousness

  • Same Letters Different Meaning — Scared & Sacred

    Written by
    John Cox, M.A. C/M

    Interesting that we see “Scared” and “Sacred” having the same letters. This is interesting, and it spurred a few thoughts on the subject of terminology, where it come from, i.e. evolved, and how we use it today – its intent, or how we twisted terms to create excuses for outright corrupt behaviors.

    There is no doubt, when humans evolved, our language started to develop, about 5,000 years ago – grunts and groans, until the alphabet created, Mesopotamia; which, started the development of different countries creating their own rendition of the alphabet, and terminology . . .Terminology, still today, has developed unique traits, per country, rather than communicating in one language. An entirely separate discussion, but will write about it soon. So there can be separate meanings for the same terms, or words, dependent upon our location given. Within the communication field, we run across this problem more so, than many would suppose.

    Theories: A theory is used to explain an ideology, a paradigm, an aspect of the Natural or Formal World we live within – But, not set in stone. A theory can be challenged, may be merely one stage or phase of several other situations that exist, simultaneously, or can be changed, updated for evolution-purpose or new evidence.

    One has to wonder, if words, and their terms, established a foundational beginning, to assist in our Fears, from those situations we did not, and still do not, understand.  To actually find comfort within one another, from those same things, all around us, including other humans, we simply did not, or do not understand.  Words can indeed excuse us from our weaknesses. Coincidentally, words can also create more Fear = Scared, and comfort, Sacred themes that appease our minds.

    Fact is, we are not evolving with Nature, but rather, behind Nature.  Nature, for example, develops naturally, Predator – prey relationships.  Ecological Health develops from their Natural-Selection-Process of Survivability – which enhances their surroundings.

    There Are Worse Things In The Woods, than Bear, Cougar, Wolves, or any other so called dangerous Predators – It is those who hunt and kill for sport, torture wildlife, and abuse their supposed ethical and moral boundaries that comes with having guns or other weapons, as well as obtaining Permits to Kill wildlife, then call it survival and a necessity, for Heritage and Tradition sake. Their weakness and fears out-of-control. Their terms of accepting Sacred, flawed, and destructive.

    When we explore the past, we observe many terms, messages actually, to future generations.  Writing and speaking gave us this venue to communicate.  And, deliver messages of things gone wrong, in hopes to make them better, or resolve the situation, for future survival of life upon this planet.  To keep up with Nature, sustainably.

    Yet, we find many too weak to take action against those who have not evolved knowledgeably. We do have a term for it, those who remain almost dysfunctional, yet very destructive . . . The term is mentally Unevolved or Dysfunctional.

    Emotionally immature: Someone who struggles to regulate emotions, takes constructive feedback personally, or reacts impulsively.

    Low emotional intelligence (EQ): A person who has difficulty recognizing, understanding, or empathizing with their own feelings and the feelings of others.

    Alexithymia: A neuropsychological feature where a person has a hard time identifying, describing, or connecting with emotions (sometimes called “emotional blindness”).

    Emotionally unavailable: Someone who avoids vulnerability, deep connection, or emotional accountability in relationships.

    Emotionally numb (or affected blunting): A state where a person temporarily or chronically feels or expresses very few emotions, often linked to stress, trauma, or depression.

    Interesting how we make-up the terms we use, to explain ourselves, and yet, the issues remain, with no resolutions, despite our evolution of terminology.

    In summation, we can also refer the above, meaningfully, as those who hide their ignorance, their insecurity, their bigotry (unknowledgeable), while lashing out at others; which, all-inclusive of humans and animals alike.  Yes, hurting or killing the things they neither do not understand, nor, care to understand.

    Human’s place themselves above animals, or Wildlife I should say, as, we are all animals upon this planet we call Earth. In truth, We are a part of Nature. The terms we use to Kill Nature and Our Wildlife, based upon theories of superiority, only within our minds, as Nature does not agree, what soever – as simple observation tells us this. Human’s, on this planet are, and remain non-evolved, seriously destructive.” — John Cox, M.A. C/M

  • Understanding Terminology to Correct Management of Our Natural Resources and Wildlife — A Necessity

    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