Let’s assume point blank that I read carelessly, and that I’m a megalomaniac who believes i am a superior being to all the underlings of religion.
Could you please let me know what terms I did not define so that I can define them.
-Justhink
Let me know where I use terms which contradict general usage as well… if you’re so inclined. I’m a pathetically lazy megalomaniac, and completely understand if I’m making this too one-sided. You are certainly justified in not continuing this clear case of mental masturbation, as it’s all just straw-men and red herrings and meaningless garble. If you want to continue however, my ego would certainly be stroked, and I would appreciate the servitude.
-Justhink
You don’t seem to require my assistance to stroke your ego. Out of my own sense of preversion, however, please enjoy a brief list of term which you use in a non-standard manner:
religion
pacifism
nihilism
cognitive stage
logic
“empathetic compassion”
“reproductive cognition”
slavery
prove
transparent
statistics
suicide? (possibly, I am not clear whether you always use this word in the straightforward sense, since it often appears as an implied “consequence” of some tortuous justhink “argument”)
Justhink, leaving aside the question of masturbation – mental or otherwise – your posts do give you the appearance of a person who aspires to a postion of master baiter. Now, given your self-acknowledged superiority to us poor, stunted minds who have been posting in this thread, how does this reflect upon your maturity?
And what is the self-imposed definition of religious under which you are labouring?
What is the self-imposed definition of pacifism under which you are labouring? Is all violence physical? Can we agree that it is not? Are you a pacifist, sir? If you claim to be so, this thread has put the lie to that claim, for your verbal (and, therefore, mental and emotional) violence, although often masked, has been evident.
If you don’t claim to be a pacifist, you are then, according to your own posts in this thread, either a nihilist or a religious.
If you are a nihilist you deny any objective ground of truth (unless, of course, you are labouring under a self-imposed defintion of nihilism), yet I could swear you asked Spiritus to concede that such a thing as “cognitive age” exists. Is that not an attempt at to claim an objective ground of truth? If so, you are a hypocrite.
If you are neither a pacifist nor a nihilist then you are, by your own reasoning, a religious. And, hence, by your own claims and reasoning, both immature and a hypocrite.
religion - structure of meaning which holds a monism because it is witholding the technology which dissolves the need for the monism. Using undefined terms for the purpose of non-transparency with which to embezzle energy and maintain either a delusional state or plausible deniability.
Basically, religion is the witholding of technology to allow equality. The act of this witholding creates an unnecessary resource from which slave labor is procured.
In the Bible, God witholds the technology of eternal life.
In capitalism, the technology for certain painless suicide machines is witheld as a public option.
Those are the two largest religions in the world right now.
pacifism - Not using coersion.
nihilism - Not believing anything.
cognitive stage - structure which is stable enough to be recognized by humans as allowing an entirely new tool of abstraction to a stage which preceeded it.
logic - The process of detecting and determining contradictions, or whether they even exist.
“empathetic compassion” - here i was referring to a sense of “If you really believe that there is no difference in stages of maturity, or that one is ‘better’ than another, then why don’t you destroy the part of you which that maturity symbolizes? Why don’t you then give it to those who are looking for that maturity?”
“reproductive cognition” - here I was contrasting it to reproductive physicality, cognition being the abstraction of physicality in general. If you haven’t undergone physical adolescence, you aren’t going to reproduce. In that sense you do not have a reproductive physicality. Reproductive physicality being a stage of maturation, and the only stage of maturation which defines maturity as the continuation of life. In a cognitive sense, if you do not posess a reproductive cognition, your cognition has not matured to the point of being able to reproduce.
(remeber the person who was eating the plastic bag instead of the groceries in the last post).
slavery - the process of an individual or individuals holding the key to freeing other individuals who express that you are violating their consent to procure your wealth and ego. If you were truly as worthy as you claim to be, then open the gates and see how selection treats you… The witholding of peer relationships with regards to the perception of ones value or influence. (this is all more of a conceptual mapping than a definition per se)
prove - Difference, lack of hypocrisy, lack of contradiction, demonstrable, replicable using the same exact tools with or without the other person present… on your whim. To produce a result whenever you want and whenever you have the tools to produce it… so long as it doesn’t depend on the persons ‘magical’ powers, who is supposedly showing you the proof.
transparent - Able to see through, not covered or tainted with optical trickery; informed consent.
statistics - I anthropromorphised this word. Apologies.
-Justhink
Mods, should I have placed that last post in the Pit? My rationale for posting it here was that it is an attempt to point out to justhink the self-contradictory nature of his? arguments. If I have erred in judgement, I apologize for the incorrect posting.
I appreciated the post Fatwater, I think it was very articulate and to the point regarding my arguments regarding the OP. I’m thinking of how to respond to it, because it boils right down to the core of what allows religious people to claim logical reasoning for killing other beings, while rendering those who do not as hypocrites. The complexity here gets slightly more subtle. I think one should take caution in immediately pointing out that this is a contradiction.
-Justhink
I warn of that caution, because if the contradiction is believed to be absolute, it argues suicide as the only rational response to leading a purposeful life.
-Justhink
Watching Spiritus debate Justhink is like watching Nemo fight Agent Smith with one hand at the end of The Matrix. The mind of Spiritus Mundi is truly a thing of beauty.
I’m using it in a straight-forward sense. I DO sometimes substitute the word suicide for catatonia stasis for the sake of brevity when the topic is not focused directly on catatonia, because then I need to begin explaining the complexities of nihilistic ‘logic’, and how such a thing is differentiated from a coma patient or a liar… and on and on.
-Justhink
I’m waiting to see if Spiritus will surrender his feast of my personal contradictions and actually answer the question about cognitive age and maturity. Spiritus has stated that there is no link between the two accept for my wish for there to be one.
I’m stating that if maturity is not considered against cognitive age with regards to reproduction that the whole thread is pointless because he’s arguing for the logical reduction of suicide.
Were you baiting that reply, waiting to see if i wouldn’t take the bait, or is the argument truly that far removed from your observation skills?
-Justhink
The way I’m looking at this right now (besides the ideas that emerge if I’m looking at it wrong) is that Spiritus does not want to admit that maturity can be measured physiologically, and that there is a physiological correlation with logical structure.
I think it disturbs Spiritus because he knows that my very next line is going to delve into the cognitive stages that can be tested as missing in individuals who believe in religion. I think he wants to stop the discussion before it even starts.
-Justhink
Addendum:
monism
energy
non-transparency (does not seem to follow in context from the definitions offered for “transparent”)
resource
technology
capitalism
majority (fails in context given the definition of “cognitive stage” – though perhaps it is “recognition” which is the ambiguous symbol)
tool of abstraction (as used in the definition of “cognitive state” and is applicable ot the definition of “religion” as necessarily implying a specific cognitive state)
coersion (in negation this is apparently a “process for determining contradictions”, though not in English)
abstraction of physicality
reproductive cognition (a definition which is not trivially circular would be nice)
cognitive reproduction (offered as an alternative to the above, in case it is easier to parse in justhink)
slavery (again – perhaps something not phrased in the second person, simply as a matter of courtesy)
conceptual mapping (since the one offered for “slavery” seems a poor substitute for “definition”)
difference (offered as synonym for “prove”, which has done nothing to mitigate my confusion)
And, to deal briefly with one of your proferred definitions which I might now understand:
[ol][li]Please find someplace in this thread where I (not the strawmen in your imagination) have asserted that I do not recognize stages of maturity or value all stages of maturity equally.[/li][li]After you fail to do (1), please give some consideration to the idea that even if one did find 2 states to be equally valuable that does not imply that one must find the transition between those stages either desireable or neutral.[/li][li]If you manage (2), please give some thought to the idea that destroying a capacity in one’s self does not imply that one can then grant that capacity to someone else.[/li][li]Finally, after al of the above please see if your “logic” can form a proposition such as: “‘Spiritus recognizes value in X’ does not imply that ‘Spiritus values X above Y’”?[/ol][/li]Or, to be perfectly frank, you might stretch your prejudices around the concept that one can empathize with another human being without wishing to duplicate the misfortunes of that human being in one’s own life.
I repeat, you read poorly. I have often found a correlation betweem reading comprehension and reasoning skills. This can be contrasted, for example, to my claiming a correlation between reading comprehension and “reading age level”.
As an assist for the semiotically challenged, I shall reitterate: Directly correlated? No. They are related through definition.
I repeat, you read poorly.
I also repeat, you seem incapable of discerning the difference between the positions I assert and the positions you imagine I am asserting.
Mistakes like this are easy to make in a complicated debate – once, twice, perhaps even thrice. Repeated and unapologetic misattributions of another’s position, though, lead to a strong suspicion that someone is simply not engaging in honest debate.
Pending a meaningful definition for “cognitive reproduction” I will simply add the following to the list of irregular usage:
“pointless”
“logical reduction of suicide”
For my part, the only point worth making in this thread, initially, was that the OP was both unfounded and offensive. Currently, I still see some value in perpetuating this examination of justhink speak. That value was initiated from a presumption that the confusionin your posts reflected primarily your passionate convictions and unfamiliarity with the standard terminology of logic and philosophy. It is diminishing rapidly in direct correlation to my evaluation of your honesty.
It is getting tiresome to repeat: Please find someplace in this thread where I (not the strawmen in your imagination) have asserted ______
If “maturity” in the above is supposed to indicate only cognitive maturity, then I think I will also note that nowhere in this thread has anyone introduced the proposition that cognitive maturity can be measured physiologically, so in imagining that I must have asserted a strong position on that question justhink is at least two stages removed my words and involved with his own onanistic fantasy debate.
Sorry, make that three stages. Somebody pass him a tissue.
It seems to me that the most interesting thoughts on this subject are Freud’s, in Future of an Illusion, Totem and Taboo, Civilization and its Discontents and Moses and Monotheism.
Freud’s study of cultural pre-history was based on his study of individual sexual development and his facinating, speculative and sometimes bizarre theories of civilization posit that religion constitutes an effort of an immature humanity to resolve the castration complex, by memorializing the story of murdering a symbolic father and assuming the guilt for that founding act by sublimating the father in the form of God.
Freud hoped that civilized humanity would one day not need this sort of myth, but his pessimism seems justified by current events in global politics which – dominated by violence justified by religious fundamentalism – suggest that mankind may well destroy the earth before growing up.
Justhink wrote:
Discussion? That’s what you call your monologues? 
From the OP:
"Religion is like an appendix to humanity. At one point in our evolution, the appendix served a function. But now it is not only useless, but may burst and kill you."
Who knows? Maybe it is like the appendix:
"Rather than being an industrial-scale “drain” for toxins, it would be more correct to think of the specialized structures of the appendix as a micro-scale sampling port for the immune system. "
and further:
“The general idea of vestigial organs is to me a measure of ignorance, arrogance and lack of imagination. Ignorance in that we label it as such because we do not know its function; arrogance in that we declare it of no value since we can see none; and lacking in imagination in so far as when we cannot see its function cannot imagine one.”
Ask A Scientist-Molecular Biology Archive
Seems to fit in well with this argument too, 
Addendum:
monism - Oh my! That’s the whole point of my argument. Monisms are abused by religious individuals. They are only seen by people who have not mapped permanence as a cognitive stage very well. This will take some discussion.
energy - It’d require pages for me to narrow down my veiws on energy, what I can’t solve and what I can. What I think can be solved and what cannot. One thing I can state with brevity is that energy is NOT ‘nothing at all’. This is like asking me why incompleteness exists… it’s a very difficult question.
non-transparency (does not seem to follow in context from the definitions offered for “transparent”) - misdirection, corruption, lack of clarity in an area vital to ones attention or access.
resource - something metabolized to maintain a state.
technology - energy devoted to the efficiency of a specified metabolism.
capitalism - hording commodity far above survival means for possible emergency use (conservatism) – I’m actually using ‘capitalism’ also as shorthand when I’m critisizing a system designed to maintain the state of hording rather than devoting resource towards collapsing the need for this process.
majority (fails in context given the definition of “cognitive stage” – though perhaps it is “recognition” which is the ambiguous symbol)
I don’t see how I’ve contradicted here. Cognitive age is not dependant upon physical age. There are strong ‘majority’ norms which cause us to be decieved or taken by suprise or deluded about this. I’ll state right now that it wouldn’t suprise me a bit if there were 5 year olds living on this earth right now who have a higher cognitive age than me. Mentally, in every respect possible, they would be transcendant of me and necessarily more mature then me, as they can abstract layers which I am still bound in - while I have none which they don’t posess.
tool of abstraction (as used in the definition of “cognitive state” and is applicable ot the definition of “religion” as necessarily implying a specific cognitive state) -
When a metabolic process for abstraction production has been observed, we make models of it which don’t require the same degree of complexity ‘as a living organism which reproduces itself without us’ would have. Often times we can’t even replicate it as is, so we build a model which translates mathematically… this model is the tool. First we observe the metabolic process… then we attempt to copy it… take a phonograph from studying the ear as an example. Now we have abstracted a sense used for the process of abstraction into our world. The phonograph then becomes a tool of abstraction… a simulated process of that which helps us abstract the world around us. A tool of abstraction could equally be an algorithm which seeks self-organizing systems within a data field. I’m going to be religious about this for short cut sake: It’s like having access to a whole new dimension. There is a huge difference between a human being who has mapped the concept of permanence and one who has not. The one that has mapped permanence has actual control over the one who has not, should they choose to exersize that control. They can veiw the sphere as opposed to the circle, they can see the other beings limitations and can veiw the other being as nothing except a limitation, and experiment will prove them correct over and over and over again. They have absolute control over this being should they choose to exersize it. That’s what I mean by a new tool of abstraction being given to someone. They literally transcend all the beings which occupy the space below… but not quite. It’s not the same as dimension, because we’re all still dependant upon very similar things, we all still go for pretty much the same stuff… so it makes it slightly more integrated than the typical concept of dimension, where there is no interaction of effect between differing ones.
coersion (in negation this is apparently a “process for determining contradictions”, though not in English) Violation of consent - if you violate the consent of another, you are contradicting your belief that the other person is worth the violation of consent. Someone must fundamentally understand that someone is like them in order to control them… however, if they truly are like you as is the reason which allows you to control them, then you know that they are not consenting to the control, likewise, none of us consented to being born - but by violating this persons consent, you are proving your acceptance of your consent violation for being born in a circular means - the validation is meaningless and makes not doing anything a more logical act to actually achieve the goal which the consent violation is seeking to fulfill. Coersion detects contradictions within self-awareness (thought, belief, opinion, behavior).
abstraction of physicality
reproductive cognition (a definition which is not trivially circular would be nice)
I was using it as shorthand for a cognition which cannot support reproduction. A drooling brain mush cannot survive, let alone reproduce. There is a bare minimum cognitive stage which allows for reproduction. This would be the ‘reproductive cognition’. I’ve never used it before… I just didn’t know how else to describe the concept at the time. It seemed to explain it well enough.
Conversely, there is a bare minimum physical stage which allows for reproduction; namely adolesence. A human being who does not progress to the stage of adolescence will not reproduce. These human being exist. They look like 12 year olds, except they are 30, 40, 50… None of their reproductive functions kicked in, their voices haven’t changed… they cannot reproduce.
Reproductive physicality refers to a stage of development which allows a species to reproduce. It’s not circular, because it is actually a stage which one can either go through or not go through that nobody is born with. I’m setting the stage for some common sense stages that we can agree do actually exist. By attaching maturity to cognition to reproduction, we can actually see that there are states of cognition which will not allow our species to reproduce; and that these states can be labelled as immature process with regards to that species (unless you argue that life has no point in general).
cognitive reproduction (offered as an alternative to the above, in case it is easier to parse in justhink) - hopefully addressed or made clear above.
slavery (again – perhaps something not phrased in the second person, simply as a matter of courtesy) - it’s a complex topic!
Holding someone against their consent? No, because consent can be virtualized. So it’s holding someone against their informed consent. But that’s just kidnapping or jailing someone… slavery also uses this person to work for anothers living against the slaves consent to work for anothers living or are doing this against their will to even be alive or to have ever been born.
conceptual mapping (since the one offered for “slavery” seems a poor substitute for “definition”)
How the concepts map in my brain… what does slavery mean, what do I think when I think ‘slavery’, how am I using that word?
difference (offered as synonym for “prove”, which has done nothing to mitigate my confusion)
This gets back to the monism thing… I’m working on it.
-Justhink
This response that you kept providing me:
Your defense of what I see as offensive generalization is that human beings do show developmental stages in cognition and perception, thus you are justified in calling those who disagree with you childish, cowardly, or delusional.
Cowardly is irrelevant.
How would it be unjustified to call a human being childish which does not possess a bare minimum cognition to perpetuate the survival of the species unless you are declaring that maturity is relative and not dependant upon whether or not the species survives?
-Justhink
One of these things is not like the other . . .