A much better synopsis, yes.

The more I look at it, the less great this bill looks for climate. I'd like to think it's still a win, but if it is it's a small one. The provisions about oil and gas leasing on public lands are just absolutely horrific and morally repugnant.

It's about the only good news I see anymore — Moliere

And barely gets reported. Very encouraging signs. A healthy labor movement, starting with strong (strike-ready) unions, is crucial to any positive change were gonna make. Historically this is true as well.

If B is sound then C validates A and advanced chess playing could not have been achieved without A. — praxis

I see what you mean now. But I know many people who desperately want to change and can’t do it, despite all kinds of plans and support. Diets are one example, addictions are another. I don’t always attribute failure as a problem with A, or B. Although I see how one could argue that.

If I’m following it right, in Xtrix’s framework A & B are validated by C. If C (practice) is ineffective then something must be amiss in A and/or B. — praxis

You could look at it as validation, I suppose. I don't say that myself, but I can see that.

Taking the time to figure out what's important to you, who you want to be, how you want to treat others, etc., is important -- but may not lead to anything in particular. Doesn't mean it's not worth doing anyway, even if you don't act on it. In fact many people don't even get that far, and that's OK. It's when people are very unhappy or depressed that it becomes especially relevant to meditate on: what, exactly, is the problem? What is the source of your anxiety or unhappiness? Etc.

So formulating goals and making plans to achieve those goals -- A and B -- are important. How often do they lead to real action -- which is what I emphasize? I'd say it depends on how hard B is. Take losing weight. Plenty of diet plans one can follow, and most will give results -- *IF* one follows them. The fact that some people don't follow the plan doesn't necessarily invalidate the plan itself, right?

My objection was an internal critique of A (goals-forming/setting). — 180 Proof

I'm still not clear as to what the objection is, to be honest. What you've been saying sounds a lot like a solution in search of a problem. People want things and make goals and plans all the time. Nothing controversial about that. Not sure what's objectionable about it.

That was an interesting post, and I didn't get a chance to finish reading it. I particularly like the example of chess. Why did you delete?

At least Germany is working hard to increase climate change in a big way. — ssu

This legitimately had me laughing. Well done. :lol:

But of course nuclear energy won't do, it's evil... — ssu

It really is ridiculous, isn't it? We need nuclear now more than ever. I understand the concerns, but they've vastly overblown. What a pity.

Actually it's more of a reversal of a reversal (since Manchin blocked his very own bill two weeks ago), but whatever, I'll take it. — Mr Bee

Yes. It's funny -- the thread was created a year ago and its title is incredibly obsolete, but it goes to show how far this has come.

To recap for those who aren't following this story: the reconciliation bill (reconciliation being the budgetary process that avoids a senate filibuster -- meaning the Democrats can pass it without any Republican support) was initially $3.5 trillion; it was whittled down to $1.1 trillion or so, then CEPP provision was removed to please Manchin, then Manchin sunk the entire bill right before Christmas of '21. There was talk about rescuing parts of it throughout 2022, and they appeared to be going well -- and then he sunk that too two weeks ago. Shouldn't have been a huge shock, given that he's a coal magnate.

But this reversal really is a shock. I was not expecting this at all. Will it pass? Depends on (a) whether it meets the requirements of reconciliation, which is determined by the senate parliamentarian, (b) if all other Democrats, especially Sinema, agree to vote for it, and (c) if the House has the votes to pass it (there could be some Democratic holdouts over state tax deduction rules).

If I were a betting man, I'd give it a 70% chance of passing. Whether in its current form, I'm not so sure.

What's sad is that you feel, despite near unanimous feedback from both other moderators and other posters, that the comment "We are in an ice age guys. Get yourself up to speed" was anything other than a non-sequitur. But you're free to play the victim and waste everyone's time. I suppose that's a sign of "character" in your view. So be it.

If you have a concern, how about throwing it to another moderator to look at? — Tate

That was done.

Don't moderate a thread you're engaged in, especially after you're getting insulting and aggressive. — Tate

If necessary, I will continue to do so. Especially when one makes off-topic remarks and continues to after being asked not to. I'd gladly hand it over to others, as is my usual protocol; none happen to be around at the time -- as was already explained to you. Also, I didn't once insult you.

Next time, don't make off-topic remarks.

You were "simply saying" it after you were told that it was off topic. Furthermore, the fact that "information about ice ages can be shocking" says nothing whatsoever about why that comment was made to begin with, and is therefore just as irrelevant and off topic as stating, out of the blue, that "we're in an ice age guys."

The issue is that you disagreed with what I said and subsequently deleted my posts. — Tate

I deleted your posts because they were irrelevant, and explained why. Nothing to do with "disagreement."

The post deleted in this feedback thread was because you posted private correspondence in public, for no good reason. I've since found out that, since I'm a moderator, this is generally OK. If you wish to post them publicly again, feel free. I personally think it's tacky, but that's your business.

The following post:

We are in an ice age guys. Get yourself up to speed. — Tate

Is irrelevant and off topic. Not to mention rather snarky. Easy to go back and look up.

Apparently you were responding to -- without quoting or mentioning -- Olivier5, who did not once mention ice ages. No one could possibly know that from your post, and I'm only now assuming it because of what Olivier5 has said in that thread.

You can make anything a goal, if you make it your goal it is a goal. — unenlightened

Exactly.

Nevertheless, your psychology as described is highly individualist as distinct from social in emphasis — unenlightened

It does appear that way, yes. I should have emphasized the social aspect -- alas, I left quite a bit out to keep it as brief as possible. But I don't think major changes can usually take place without the help of others.

materiallist and pragmatic and entirely directed to an endless succession of wants and needs, which is exactly the focus that capitalism demands of a consumer. — unenlightened

There's really nothing materialist about the OP. This is your projection, really -- read it again and you'll see it, I think.

As for being pragmatic -- yeah, I guess so? It's practical. Whether or not it's directed at "endless succession of wants and needs," I don't see that either. If you're content, so be it. It's not recommending we constantly strive for improvement -- even though I see no issue with that -- it's saying that if you do indeed want to change something about yourself or your life, then here's a way to talk about that change. Maybe it's silly and useless to you -- that's fine. But it says nothing about what you should or shouldn't want/need/aim for.

If your goal is to get away from capitalism, this is not a good basis for doing so. That is my criticism, nothing personal. — unenlightened

I really don't take this personally because I'm not attached to it. I was reluctant to even post something so formulaic and simplistic -- it reeks of self-help, quick-fix, pop psychology bullshit I really don't like. I'm just not seeing your point. I don't see anything materialist or capitalist about it. Individualist, yes -- I see that one. That was my fault for not incorporating the importance of one's milieu. But the jump from that to capitalism is a stretch.

Here is a nice little piece on Gregory Bateson, that might hint at other ways of looking at things. — unenlightened

:up:

Thus, insofar as "having goals" requires applying "the ABC framework" to goal-formation itself, this infinite regress – problem of the criterion – tends to invalidate "having goals". — 180 Proof

It doesn't invalidate having goals any more than it invalidates wanting. It simply acknowledges that sometimes what we want, or what we prioritize, isn't always wise. Fairly common occurrence.

Rather, practice aligning one's expectations with reality by reflectively unlearning maladaptive habits (vide Laozi, Buddha, Epicurus, Epictetus, Montaigne, Spinoza, Peirce-Dewey, Wittgenstein, Zapffe-Camus, ... Beck ... Yalom ... Achenbach-Schuster). — 180 Proof

Sure.

I don't see where the "rather" fits in, but no matter. The framework I lay out is by no means meant to be exhaustive. Won't appeal to everyone and that's fine.

All good points. Having goals based on faulty assumptions or poor values is a big obstacle.

I think you should check in with another mod before you proceed. — Tate

Appreciate the feedback.

As I've explained several times, the comments on the climate change thread are off-topic and will be deleted if continued. You're free to take it up with anyone else you like, including the administrators, if you feel this is unfair.

Absolutely. This reversal really stunned me.

No, you said the following:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/722391

Very easy to look it up.

Making this comment:

We are in an ice age guys. Get yourself up to speed.
— Tate

Without quoting anyone or referencing anything, in the climate change thread, is irrelevant. When asked about it, you stated the following:
— Xtrix

No, I said this:

"A poster had suggested that climate change is simple and easily understood by referencing the laws of thermodynamics. That's not true. Factors as far flung as the present shape of the Earth's orbit are involved in predictions. The fact that the onset of another glacial period is due in the next few centuries is another issue compounding the complexity." — Tate

No, you said exactly what I quoted -- without context, without the quote function, without the mention function. It was irrelevant and off topic.

Models show that at present levels of CO2, reglaciation will begin somewhere between 500 and 3000 years. If we burn all the available coal, it becomes a near miss. In other words, we don't know for sure, but it looks like we would miss this trigger, and it would be around 40,000 years before another trigger arrives. — Tate

I’ll say it once more: not only is this inaccurate, it’s also completely irrelevant and off topic.

I don't know what you're talking about. — Tate

Okay, then I'll gladly explain.

Making this comment:

We are in an ice age guys. Get yourself up to speed. — Tate

Without quoting anyone or referencing anything, in the climate change thread, is irrelevant. When asked about it, you stated the following:

Stating "we're in an ice age" in this context is still odd to me, and I fail to see the relevance.
— Xtrix

It's a fact about the climate. We're talking about the climate. Problem? — Tate

You then go on to talk about how we don't know whether CO2 levels will affect whether nor not we hit another ice age.

So, to recap:

(1) You made a statement out of the blue about being in an ice age, without explanation.
(2) Declared that it's relevant simply because it's a "fact about the climate."
(3) Speculated about future ice ages.

You're disrupting the thread with irrelevancies.

Apologies for resurrecting this thread, but this is big and surprising news:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/manchin-schumer-climate-deal_n_62e1a677e4b07f83766bafbb

Fingers crossed that this reconciliation bill finally, at long last, passes. We desperately need some legislation on climate.

If you want to discuss ice ages, and how climate change may impact the next ice age, fine -- that's a different topic.
— Xtrix

I think it's very much on topic. — Tate

Randomly stating facts about ice ages in a climate change thread is irrelevant. Stay on topic or start another thread about ice ages.

Some possibly VERY good news:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/manchin-schumer-climate-deal_n_62e1a677e4b07f83766bafbb

A complete reversal.

Completely irrelevant, as was the initial comment.

The fact remains: climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions, and is happening at a rapid rate. Very simple indeed.

If you want to discuss ice ages, and how climate change may impact the next ice age, fine -- that's a different topic.

The problem is that it's as irrelevant as stating any random fact about the climate.

CO2 levels have increased, not denying that. — Agent Smith

Then the following...

Fact: CO2 levels didn't change despite increased emissions since the 1800s. — Agent Smith

...is meaningless.

However, the spike in CO2 levels has been slower and less than expected for the rate and quantity of CO2 emissions. — Agent Smith

According to whom? Where are you getting this from?

The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are not going to correspond exactly to emissions. No one has ever claimed that. Why? Because the oceans absorb a great deal of CO2, and plants increase their CO2 uptake -- to name two factors.

A poster had suggested that climate change is simple and easily understood by referencing the laws of thermodynamics. That's not true. Factors as far flung as the present shape of the Earth's orbit are involved in predictions. The fact that the onset of another glacial period is due in the next few centuries is another issue compounding the complexity. — Tate

The global average temperature is rising at an alarming rate because of greenhouse gas emissions. That's not difficult to understand. I have no idea why the laws of thermodynamics are being invoked, but it's irrelevant.

There are complex variables involved, most of which have been accounted for by climate scientists -- including natural variation. Stating "we're in an ice age" in this context is still odd to me, and I fail to see the relevance. If it was in response to what someone else said, fine -- but you didn't quote them and didn't reference them.

Worth remembering:

Which one? — Tate

The one I linked to. Just click it on and it'll take you there. Are you truly unaware of how this forum works?

If that's too difficult, I'm referring to the following:

We are in an ice age guys. Get yourself up to speed. — Tate

What is the relevance of this remark?

Fact: CO2 levels didn't change despite increased emissions since the 1800s. — Agent Smith

CO2 levels have increased dramatically since the 1800s. What are you talking about?

What’s the relevance of this remark?

Transformation and healing seems to come through connection to country and mob. (In other words, place based and through interactions with culture and others, especially elders.) — Tom Storm

Hmm, interesting. As I mentioned to Isaac, I regret not including more of the social component to all of this. Seems very individualistic, although I don’t at all mean it that way. Collaboration with others is essential.



Just the thought of that frightens me — but yes, a good example, albeit extraordinary.

Substantive as always. :roll: :snicker:

Always more, always strife, always heading for a goal somewhere else, never content, forever becoming what one is not. — unenlightened

Being content is also a goal. Sounds like you’re objecting to a state of affairs yourself— namely, that people are constantly striving and are never contented. In which case, becoming content is also striving to be something one is not.

More repeating of Buddhist doctrine. Which is fine — but has nothing to do with negating goals. Enlightenment itself is a goal.

It is a capitalist psychology par excellence — unenlightened

This is simply wrong. You can read even a fraction of my 3000+ posts to see why. Has nothing to do with capitalism— nothing. In fact the entire post is an attempt to frame personal change in the direction away from capitalism.

After a lot of talk on the Forum about politics, climate change, capitalism, unions, collective action, etc., I find that so many of our problems are largely due to the fact that public pressure isn't there to change them. There's a multitude of reasons -- we're polarized, heavily propagandized, poorly educated, misinformed, warped by media, etc. But whatever the reason, in order to change this scenario we need to change ourselves and how we relate to others.

No easy task. But perhaps a way of talking about such change is helpful.

you'll be no doubt aware of the overlaps with something like REBT — Isaac

I've always liked Ellis. Beyond the "ABC" I'm not aware of many other connections, at least consciously. It's been a long time since I've looked into it. I'm sure I've stolen from him somewhere in my post though.

We're often not aware of goals which are, nonetheless important to us. Eating is one example. It's really important that we eat enough, but when you get people to list their goals in your therapy sessions, how many list eating? — Isaac

True. Not many people will list breathing, either, but it's also vital for survival and often goes completely unnoticed. I've had a lot of discussions about diet and exercise, of course, but I take your point. However, my goal here is raising awareness of what one truly wants in life and, especially, in prioritizing those wants, with a view towards change. Simply living and being healthy is usually a big one, which would include eating -- which, it's true, is often taken for granted, especially in more affluent countries -- and especially eating well with the goal of having more energy, losing weight, etc. If there is no identifiable problem, then there's no need to formulate a goal -- you're already living it.

So getting people to focus on goals not being achieved is a great idea, but it would be good to include reference, in that process, to goals which one might simply think of as background, yet are not being achieved nonetheless. — Isaac

Sure, and I'd argue they're all in the background, in a sense, if one isn't aware of them. Here we can talk about habits of mind and body, for example -- mostly unconscious, but can be good or bad depending on what you want. Eating excessive amounts of sugar every day without really thinking about it, for example, may go completely unnoticed until there's a health crisis. How one relates to others -- perhaps never making eye contact or constantly interrupting -- can likewise create problems in one's life that one is completely unaware of.

For most people I talk to, it's not that they have no ideas about what they'd like to improve about themselves or their lives -- it's the lack of awareness about their actions and how these actions create the situation they want to improve in the first place. "I have no friends -- I want more friends," for example. In this case they've identified a problem, something they'd like to change. How aware are they of WHY they have no friends to begin with and how they contribute to it? Predictably, not very.

I could go on, but you see my point I think. It's very important to really stop and look at what you think, feel, and do. To formulate a plan for how to achieve what you want to change, it really helps to understand why the problem exists in the first place. In order to do so, you almost always need the help of others -- family, friends, teachers, religious leaders, therapists, anyone. So there's a social aspect to (A) as well. It's not simply a matter of meditating, for example. The blind spots we all have, that you rightfully point out, can only be illuminated with the aid of others. That's something I left out. But I digress.

Too often goal-oriented people neglect their role in helping others achieve their goals, and so miss an important (but perhaps, unexamined) goal of their own. — Isaac

Yes indeed.

Planning can often be dominated by the easy-to-predict and neglect the difficult-to-predict, simply because it's hard work and we tend to avoid hard work. — Isaac

Yes -- we certainly shouldn't be dogmatic or rigid with our plans. We don't want to become computers, running on algorithms. This is also something I neglected in my post. I only briefly mentioned Aristotle, but the ultimate goal should be to create habits -- i.e., to act in ways that are both desirable and unconscious. I think this can be achieved through theory and practice, at least at first, but in the end it should become second-nature. If it doesn't, it's unlikely to last. Imagine if we went through the same effort to drive, ride a bike, swim, tie our shoes, or type as we did when we were first learning every time we performed these activities? We'd be exhausted indeed.

Finally, lest my reply get longer than your OP, I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly?) that this is a form of CBT - you work out what behaviours are required to achieve your goals and then carry them out. But there's no mention of challenging the beliefs that are currently in the way. I'm not going to explain what it means because I know you already know. I'm just interested if there's a reason you didn't mention it. — Isaac

Again, I'm sure I've stolen from some aspects of CBT. As a system of psychotherapy, it can be very effective with phobias and has a decent success rate with anxiety and depression. It's also the preferred method (or was 20 years ago) of insurance providers.

But in full disclosure, I've been far more influenced by -- and am (at least consciously) drawing more from -- three sources: Carl Rogers, MBSR (Jon Kabat Zinn) and Vipassana meditation, and existential psychotherapy (particularly Irvin Yalom). Otherwise, as I'm sure most people familiar with me on this forum knows, my philosophical thinking as been influenced very much by Aristotle and Heidegger.

I do think however that setting goals is a specific worldview and approach which not everyone relates to as the pragmatic common sense it is often understood to be. When I've worked with Aboriginal Australian clients, for instance, this seems to be the case. — Tom Storm

Sure -- this is just one framework. I'm by no means married to it.

What do Aboriginal clients have to say about personal growth/change?

you can't fail, you simply can't! — Agent Smith

Well I definitely don't want to give the impression that any of this is fool-proof or guarantees anything. I'm not a self-help guru. This is just one way of talking about change -- one of many.

self-criticism, criticism of your own path, should be an important part of a spiritual path. Without self-criticism there is no growth, no opening to different horizons and perspectives. — Angelo Cannata

Sure. I'd put it a little differently, using "awareness" rather than criticism. But yes, self-criticism and assessment is crucial.

As a former "Queen of Planning", I’ll just say be careful what you plan for. — ArielAssante

Surely. That's why what I label "A" is so important. We should make sure we have our priorities in order. Not an easy task.

Those who advocate for fascism and corporatocracy not wanting to vote is a great thing. Hopefully it starts a trend.

For someone like the OP author who openly wants fascism and corporatocracy, and defends the likes of Donald Trump to the bitter end -- all why pretending to denounce the state -- should most certainly not vote. Their non-voting is a deliverance.

By all means, don't vote. One less vote for fascism.