Hello, not Goodbye.

[mark black]

I want you to know that I've arrived at these ideas as the result of a desire to understand, a search for truth I didn't know would bring me here when I set out. Before I proceed to state the probelm with which I'm concerned you should know that I've got answers - or I wouldn't presume to talk about it. But the question and the answers are difficult, both in the sense that they're complex and in that it's an emotionally jarring topic.

The problem is that humankind is headed for extinction. It's a subject that's easier to ignore than to tackle, one that asks fundamental questions about who we are, and what our beliefs and purposes are. All our skeletons come crashing out of the closet and our fears hang heavy in the air - but if i can adequately communicate my ideas you'll see a plausible and bright future for the species is within our grasp.

I make my fisrt and last apology here for any offence caused. It's really not my intention to hurt anyone but I can't tiptoe around people's sensibilities and say what needs to be said. You can hate me if you want but please listen - this is important.

[Richard Baron]

Hello Mark, and welcome.

Please give your answers, neat and unadorned. Most people are robust enough not to take offence. We had someone on this forum recently who promised, but would not state, his answers. That was very frustrating.

[mark black]

Thanks Richard, I'll do my best. Please see Rawls and Survival in Politics section. Mark.

[Psychonaut]

We're all doomed to die, but this is no unhappy fearful fact.
Let us look to a brighter present, rather than a brighter future.

[mark black]

Psychonaut,

I wondered at the time why you posted this. I thought it strange that if you didn't share my concerns you would take the time to tell me so. Even then I never imagined you'd tell me so on every avilable occasion. This is why I wanted to get to the bottom of this 'bullshit agenda' remark in Thoughts on Discussing thread, in General Discussion forum, because you've been saying, essentially, 'It doesn matter' over and over again whenever I raise the question of the impending extinction of humankind.
I've been quite patient about this - I've tried to explain why it matters, but all I get back is the same refrain. It's inevitable...it' doesn't matter...
When I challenged you on this you said:

I do disagree with your agenda

when I asked on what point do you disagree you said:

I do not think it matters if the world dies, and whether it dies tomorrow or in 300 years or in 10 billion. I am not against saving the planet, but I am not for it either.

To which I replied:

you say you disagree with my agenda, not that you are indifferent to it.

and you said:

The fact that I disagree with something does not mean that I oppose it.

That's some thin logic. But there's a tension between disagreement with my agenda and your contention that you don't care if the world ends tomorrow. If you don't care when the world ends, what do you disagree with?
The fact is that you disagree with ME - and have done since I put this welcome message up. And you've been telling me that what I care about doesn't matter, over and over again just to piss me off. This is what I wanted you to know about yourself. This is the kind of person you are - and it's how you come across. Do you think you're so subtle you're outwitting everyone? You're not - I see you for who you are Psychonaut, and it's not a pretty sight.

mark.

[Psychonaut]

Mark, I never accused you of having a bullshit agenda, I quite specifically said that I would not apply a pejorative to your agenda.

I only mentioned that I disagree with your agenda in passing, because you had raised it in response to something which I had said. Can you not handle the fact that people think you are mistaken, in much the same way as you think they are mistaken?

You accuse me of having mocked you, when I asked for quotes demonstrating this you gave none. Why? Because there are none; I have not mocked you, you are fighting your own shadow.

You say that I have harassed you, responding to everything you say with 'It doesn't matter', but this is because all you have bothered to see in what I am saying is 'It doesn't matter'.

My position is somewhat more nuanced, and I believed we had been developing a more nuanced understanding of one another's position, but apparently not. We come from very different starting points, and it is foolish to expect a dialogue to produce immediate understanding, you actually have to talk for some time first.

Now, regarding my 'disagreement' with your agenda. It seems quite clear that we mean different things by the term 'disagree', since I consider it a relatively neutral term. When I say that I disagree with a notion I mean that I consider it to be mistaken, flawed or wrong. That is to say, it is when I do not agree with something.

A specific explication of what I disagree with and why is this. So far as I understand your line of reasoning it is as follows:
1. The basic motivating factor of human ethics is the continuation of the species
2. The best means for the continuation of the species lies in a rigorous epistomology; i.e. science
3. Individual disagreement with scientific consensus cannot be allowed to lead to harm of the overall continuation of the species (i.e. Such individual actions constitute an imposition, and it is justified to impose on those who impose)

While I agree with a rigorous epistomology, and that such a rigorous epistomology will inevitably include/produce science, I do not agree with either your ethical basis or the notion that deviation from a scientific consensus constitutes an imposition sufficient to justify a responsive imposition.

My ethical basis resides in the individual desire for a 'good life', or as the greeks would call it eudaimonia. I believe that the best way to reduce impositions is to foster growth in individuals and to encourage eudaimonia, but also that it is sometimes necessary to make impositions, where someone is directly imposing upon another person.
Regarding the environment, I think that it is best to follow a concept of 'reduced impact' in all of our actions. Whenever we are achieving a particular thing, we should seek to reduce any side-effects this may have, regardless of whether it is clear that these side-effects are causing harm.
The point is they may cause harm, and we are responsible for them, and that it is best to reduce that which we are responsible for.

I believe that a healthier environment can be achieved by producing good reasons and arguments that will convince any reasonable individual to alter their own behaviour. I do not believe in producing 'good reasons' for imposing on individuals to make them change their behaviour, in part because I do not even believe that such impositions will work to alter people's behaviour, in any fundamental way.

So, anyway, apparently my attempts to discuss your notions with you are pissing you off, since this is the case, if it remains to be the case, I suggest you simply stop responding to me.

[mark black]

Coming into this forum, expressing openly my concerns I made myself vulnerable - and you've exploited that on an ongoing basis.

We're all doomed to die, but this is no unhappy fearful fact.
Let us look to a brighter present, rather than a brighter future.

I do not think it matters if the world dies, and whether it dies tomorrow or in 300 years or in 10 billion.

What these two quotes have in common is that they are an absolute rejection of the object of my concern. Not the ethics, epistemology or proposals - but the reason for them.

Remeber this:

This is what you got for your time and effort?

I agree that the whole species is headed for extinction, but why does it matter?

If our extinction is inevitable, then what does it matter if we are extinguished two generations down the line or a billion generations down the line?

I wouldn't see the answers.

It's snide and abusive. I dread seeing them two little monkeys, whenever I post something - there they are. Stop trying to shut me down. If you don't think it matters - don't comment. On the other hand, if you've got a constructive comment/challanege feel free. Just don't tell me that what I care about doesn't matter. It does. It's unnecessary human suffereing, it's the future of our intellectual and genetic legacy, it's our awaremenss in the universe, it's our potential forgone, it's the inferrence that who we are and all we do here is meaningless and futile. It matters...

mark.

[Psychonaut]

I made myself vulnerable - and you've exploited that on an ongoing basis.

absolute rejection of the object of my concern.

It's snide and abusive. I dread seeing them two little monkeys, whenever I post something - there they are. Stop trying to shut me down.

The above is what is commonly termed 'histrionics'.

When someone speaks of using emotions to try and browbeat others the image that usually comes to mind is that of anger, but it is far from the case that anger is the only emotion used in such a manner.

You wish to paint yourself as a victim, and pretend that I have sustained some kind of consistent attack against you; I have not. I post a lot on here and had barely noticed you within my responses to all and sundry. It is quite possible that you even sincerely believe yourself to be the victim of such a sustained attack.

I have done nothing but be reasonable and attempt to discuss with you your ideas, but you absolutely reject this as a possibility. I earlier listed my disagreement with your notions, on the basis of the ethical motivation and your only response is:

they are an absolute rejection of the object of my concern. Not the ethics, epistemology or proposals - but the reason for them.

I should point out that the ethics is the reason for them, as within philosophy ethics is the reason for our behaviours, including our philosophical behaviour.

Make no mistake, your histrionics are as anathema to philosophy as anger and abuse are.

In many circumstances your histrionics would work to gain you the favor of a crowd, but any reasonable person is able to see it for the nonsense it is, and thankfully there are plenty of reasonable people here.

[mark black]

The issue here isn't my ethics, but your behaviour. I bet you would like a discussion on ethics about now - which is funny, because you didn't want one before. You can't say you weren't warned:

But again, and it's rather frustrating for me, you ignore the intended meaning of my words and find some other basis to debate them. Nothing could more clearly demonstrate man's relationship to knowledge.

That so, please tell me why do you do this?

Remember this:

And yes, I can see how my style was misleading, it looked like I had a mark and a koy puppet and was getting them to argue...

"Ello I'm a bear"
"Ooo environment!"
"That's the way to do it!"

[Sometimes I pick up the nearest two inanimate objects..
"Hello, I am Mr.Cup"
"Hello, I am Miss Phone"
"How do you do?"
etc.]

That's what you wanted to talk about rather than God the designer against religious division as an obstacle to addressing the energy crisis and climate change. That's the fucking graffitti you posted on my thread.

And now, rather than acknowledge that I might actually be upset about it, you impart some dishonest motive to avoid addressing your own behaviours. You say my histrionics are as anathema to philosophy as anger and abuse are...ooh, i'm a cup, i'm a phone...is that the philosophy you're talking about?

You accuse me of playing to the crowd:

It's really not my intention to hurt anyone but I can't tiptoe around people's sensibilities and say what needs to be said. You can hate me if you want but please listen - this is important.

I don't give a fuck what the crowd think of me, but I care about these ideas and am genuinely upset with your deliberate and sustained frustration of my attempts to discuss them.

mark.

[artisticsolution]

I don't give a fuck what the crowd think of me, but I care about these ideas and am genuinely upset with your deliberate and sustained frustration of my attempts to discuss them.

mark.

You have complete control over your posts, Mark. I don't see how anyone can upset you or stop any attempts you make to discuss them, unless Rick bans you, which is highly unlikely. Do what I do....if I start reading something that bores me I stop reading and go on to the next post. No harm done...no wasted energy trying to do the impossible (which is to control ideas.)

Focus on your own ideas, they are the only ones you can control. I happen to like your ideas and think they are a worthwhile read,
and believe it or not, a person like Psy can actually widen your audience. Because he has proved himself as an exciting and thought provoking read in this forum, people will tune into your posts if only to read his replies.
This in turn will make them sit up and take notice of your ideas as well, IMO.

[Psychonaut]

The issue here isn't my ethics, but your behaviour. I bet you would like a discussion on ethics about now - which is funny, because you didn't want one before. You can't say you weren't warned:

At the moment all I want is for you to calm down

That's what you wanted to talk about rather than God the designer against religious division as an obstacle to addressing the energy crisis and climate change. That's the fucking graffitti you posted on my thread.

I do remember it, and the full context can be found HERE.

As you can observe the post which you have pulled out of context was part of a response to Arising_UK, in which I was explaining a misunderstanding he had about whether my posts were referring to private messages or something else within the thread. Before my response to Arising, and indeed his comments, I had responded to you taking you entirely seriously.

What, exactly, do you have to be upset about?

I have already acknowledged that you may be upset about it

It is quite possible that you even sincerely believe yourself to be the victim of such a sustained attack.

---------

You say my histrionics are as anathema to philosophy as anger and abuse are...ooh, i'm a cup, i'm a phone...is that the philosophy you're talking about?

I meant to say that your histrionics are as anathema to the quality of your philosophy as anger and abuse would be.
A bit of silliness does no harm to philosophy, and it is quite obvious that I did not intend that to be part of any philosophical point, but rather a friendly remark to Arising about a misunderstanding he had made.

It is quite obvious that it was not philosophical, but to suggest that anything else within my comments is not philosophical, or that the whole of my comments are not philosophical, because some single component is not philosophical, is called the Fallacy of Composition.

I don't give a fuck what the crowd think of me, but I care about these ideas and am genuinely upset with your deliberate and sustained frustration of my attempts to discuss them.

I can understand why you may be frustrated, you have some seriously flawed notions which I doubt have been properly questioned before, especially if you have a tendency to throw histrionics whenever someone begins to question them. I'm sure your friends probably just switch off during your rants and politely take any literature you pass their way. That, or you selectively hang out only with fellow environmentalists.
You are now receiving a rational critique of your notions and, surprise surprise, you have no answers except to shout loudly of a non-existant victimisation.

[Psychonaut]

Psy can actually widen your audience. Because he has proved himself as an exciting and thought provoking read in this forum, people will tune into your posts if only to read his replies.

Ha! I doubt that.

[mark black]

artisticsolution,

You're right of course...

mark.

[Psychonaut]

As I have already said:

It is quite possible that you even sincerely believe yourself to be the victim of such a sustained attack.

I have already conceded the possibility, you will not get a definite decision either way on your motives and feelings, I do not make claims to knowledge of other people's mental states.

[Psychonaut]

I will willingly concede that this is not deliberate

That what is not deliberate?