"Maturity" -- What does it mean?

[yelyos]

I have often seen the word "maturity" thrown around as an argument for justifying restrictions currently placed on youth by this society. Unfortunately, nobody has actually given this word a clear definition. Without a clear definition, debates get bogged down in misunderstandings and misinterpretations. (One very clear example of this phenomenon is when someone trys to argue about "God" without a clear definition of that concept; chaos and flamewars tend to ensue.) I tend to avoid this word, but I have noticed many people using it often here. What is your definition of "maturity"?

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by yelyos
I have often seen the word "maturity" thrown around as an argument for justifying restrictions currently placed on youth by this society. Unfortunately, nobody has actually given this word a clear definition. Without a clear definition, debates get bogged down in misunderstandings and misinterpretations. (One very clear example of this phenomenon is when someone trys to argue about "God" without a clear definition of that concept; chaos and flamewars tend to ensue.) I tend to avoid this word, but I have noticed many people using it often here. What is your definition of "maturity"?

Someone who is mature takes into consideration the consequences of their actions, not merely the short-term effects.

Note that this means there's a lot of adults out there I don't consider mature.

[yelyos]

So can you show how children would be less "mature", by this definition?

Also, if anyone disagrees with the above definition, I'd like to hear that too.

[xorbie]

yelyos:

Well, first for a specific. Someone who starts a thread on maturity because they want to make sure everyone realizes how mature they are even though they are young (you're what.. 13? 14?) would be immature.

Maturity, IMO, is a small subset of wisdom. It comes when you have had certain experiences, and understand life more fully. It is not a very concrete thing, and there are many aspects. For instance, it is considered immature to crack jokes during a serious event. I suppose the definition Loren gave is pretty close to what I consider maturity to be, but I do regard it as somewhat more nebulous. It's like they say "I know it when I see it."

As a side note: there is nothing wrong with being young, and people who are "agists" are usually rather immature themselves. But you do have to realize that respect for your elders is not just some antiquated Victorian mindset. It took me a while too, hell by the time I will fully understand it, I will probably be an elder myself.

[yelyos]

I am NOT trying to show that I am anything. I started this thread to get a working definition of "maturity", one that can be used during discussions and debated properly, without flamewars and such. Also, I want to discuss different definitions of "maturity".

xorbie, the "I know it when I see it" feeling is exactly where the potential for word abuse arises. If it has no specific, clear meaning, then it cannot be used in debate without problems arising.

[xorbie]

Well I am not being completely vague. I gave a rough definition. Like I said, it is a type of wisdom, something along the lines of building up an (un)common sense about the world.

I suppose the easiest definition I can give you is in terms of a metaphore. In HS (not so recently), I threw javelin on track and field. Throwing a jav is a lot harder than you might think at first, especially for someone as weak as I am. It takes a lot of conditioning. You need to condition your body into doing certain things without thinking; running, planting your leg, rotating, moving your arms, pushing out your chest... well I can't explain it all here. The point is that is too much, and happens too fast, just to think about it. You really do need to train your body to make it second nature.

This is what maturity is, to me. When it naturally comes to you to behave politely, to think of others. It is a type of conditioning that comes with living, experiencing, and thinking. And as Loren said, I know a lot of adults that totally lack it.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by yelyos
So can you show how children would be less "mature", by this definition?


Few children look to the future instead of the now.

[Calzaer]

So can you show how children would be less "mature", by this definition?

Children don't have the requisite life experience to be able to consider the consequences of their actions in a long-term mindset. If you've never dropped a rubber ball on concrete before, how can you expect to know it'll bounce, much less how can you expect to know which WAY it will bounce?

Most crime committed by youths and most injuries sustained by youths are related in that they are caused by a complete lack of foresight.

Ever seen a kid doing something strange or dangerous, and asked "What are you doing??" only to have them answer "Uh... I don't know..." I have. Routinely.

[viscousmemories]

Hi yelyos,

I think this is a very good topic and of particular interest to me lately, so I've been thinking and reading about it quite a bit.

It's way past my bedtime, though, so don't expect this to be very profound or even make much sense.

I think the word 'maturity' on its own is virtually useless by itself, so I think you're right that it has limited value in debate. I would guess that most often people use it as a kind of shorthand for "physical maturity", "emotional maturity", or "intellectual maturity".

Physical maturity is obvious. Emotional and intellectual maturity are a little more ambiguous. Today I would probably define them in accordance with Piaget's theory of cognitive development (http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.html).

Hopefully I'll be able to contribute something more comprehensive (or at least coherent) after I get some sleep. ;)

vm

[Albert Cipriani]

Dear Yelos,
That which is mature is that which has fulfilled it's nature. Hence an acorn is an immature oak tree and you are phsycially an immature man while a fool is an immature wise man.

Of course, this begs the question of what is our nature, the standard by which we may measure our lack of maturity. It is quantitative as opposed to qualitative. That is, like knowledge, it is infinite. Ergo, we finite beings can never obtain all of it. Consequently, no man ever reaches full maturity... ESPECIALLY YOU AND XORBIE!

Just joking. -- Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Calzaer]

Well paint me pink and call me Rose. I can't believe I'm agreeing wholeheartedly with a traditional Catholic. :)

[Albert Cipriani]

Dear Calzaer,
"Not till when box cars are flying around and when blue truns to brown" will the secular and sacred worlds kiss. In the meantime, it's nice for us to smooch a little.;) -- Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[sweep]

In the meantime, it's nice for us to smooch a little

are you gay?

This is what maturity is, to me. When it naturally comes to you to behave politely, to think of others. It is a type of conditioning that comes with living, experiencing, and thinking. And as Loren said, I know a lot of adults that totally lack it.

cool! Leets. rofl!

*but seriously, when I realised that someone could come and kick my sorry ass, for little other reason than the fact that they liked marshmallows, I decided that that values had a vital role in determining maturity.*

gorgonzola smells, but instead of getting upset,
I think: 'why do you smell? Do I have an attitude problem, or do you have some creases that need ironing out? If you are unhappy, killing me with your stench won't help matters*

[Albert Cipriani]

Sweep asks:
Are you gay?

Only my hairdresser knows.

[sweep]

rofl

[yelyos]

Do you think a person with a well developed sense of morals is mature? Is that the definition that you use?

[XtrueOloveX]

I also agree that the word "maturity" has been thrown around a lot too. As I can best define it, I think maturity is the ability to see other people and situations in life in a different perspective other than your own.

[Llyricist]

I find that people possess maturity in inverse relationship to how often they cite maturity.

[Albert Cipriani]

Xtrue says:
I think maturity is the ability to see other people and situations in life in a different perspective other than your own.

Nah. That’s empathy. Like a prerequisite class, it’s the necessary precursor of morality but is not morality itself. Morality is a function of the will, whereas, empathy is merely an emotional sentiment.

Yelyos asks:
Do you think a person with a well developed sense of morals is mature?

Your question turns on the ambiguity of the term “well-developed.” No doubt, Hitler considered his moral principles well-developed. On the other hand, a heretic like Martin Luther was compulsively neurotically scrupulous. So overly-fine-tuned was his sense of morals that he abandoned them all and urged his followers to sin boldly while just as boldly having faith and faith alone in their salvation.

In short, the devil is in the details. Being able to empathize is more mature than being a sociopath who is unable to. And having some sort of morals predicated by those empathetic sentiments is more mature than not having any morals at all. But that’s about as far as I would take it. Humans can dodge any single silver bullet of maturity. That is, maturity is more like a skill set than a single screw driver. – Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[sweep]

Do you think a person with a well developed sense of morals is mature? Is that the definition that you use?

no. most adults don't like watching cartoons all day. most adults don't get a thrill out of throwing eggs at people on mischief night. most adults don't hang out at bus stops, or malls *snicker*. Many people hide less, and become more open, emotionally, as they get older.

Of course, I offer no clear definition other than to say that people of different ages behave differently, and like doing different things. This isn't to say that 'mature' adults won't start acting like children after a few alcoholic drinks.

I think the way we respond, and the emotions we exhibit, in any given situation indicates the maturity of an individual.

[Autonemesis]

Originally posted by yelyos
I have often seen the word "maturity" thrown around as an argument for justifying restrictions currently placed on youth by this society. Unfortunately, nobody has actually given this word a clear definition. ... What is your definition of "maturity"?

Maturity is having the capacity to bear the adverse consequences as well as to receive the rewards and benefits of a person's decisions and actions, and also recognizing in some way the necessity of this and incorporating that insight into one's decision-making process.

[Albert Cipriani]

Auto says:
Maturity involves, recognizing in some way the necessity of this and incorporating that insight into one's decision-making process.

Yes. :notworthy

The “in some way” is via the grace of God. Whenever we recognize something that, tho not illogical cannot, nevertheless, be proved, we can be assured that we are exercising our spiritual muscle through the grace of faith.

Auto’s inclusion of the concept of “necessity” is also a constituent component of the spiritually mature. Conversely, the secular materialistic world would have us believe that absolutely all things are negotiable, even our own sex. Through the power of technology, we can become whatever we like, like a bankrolled kid in a candy store with no adult supervision. That’s the lie first presented to our original parents in the garden, “You will become as gods.”

As Homer said, again and again in his Iliad, all of his heroes put on the “harness of necessity.” Or more recently, as Dirty Harry said,
A man’s gotta know his limitations.

Or as the bible says,
The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord.

All these expressions express the notion that one's recognition of necessity is inextricably bound up in the acquisition of maturity. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[xorbie]

Like I said, I think it has a lot to do with conditioning yourself (and for the right reasons) to behave in whichever way is expected. But this is just the generic "maturity." It depends on the context. Intellectual maturity is conditioning yourself to question things the right way, to seek answers the right way, etc

Emotional maturity would be conditioning yourself to see the POV of others, open up more, etc

Maturity in sports would be conditioning yourself to do certain things in certain situations.

Simply put: a mature person has conditioned themselves to act in the "right" way at the "right" time. It does, however, leave the question: What is right?

The "right" also obviously de[ends on the context. There will always be some questioning here: Should the basketball player really have shot and not passed? Should the husband really give the one remaining seat on the lifeboat to his wife? Should he really believe in this without questioning it?

So basically, what I give you is perhaps a more correct, but rather cumbersome definition of maturity. Take from it what you will.

[sweep]

Auto’s inclusion of the concept of “necessity” is also a constituent component of the spiritually mature. Conversely, the secular materialistic world would have us believe that absolutely all things are negotiable, even our own sex. Through the power of technology, we can become whatever we like, like a bankrolled kid in a candy store with no adult supervision. That’s the lie first presented to our original parents in the garden, “You will become as gods.”

And there was I, at the age of eight, thinking I was king, with my quarter ounce of gelatine bears. That must be what happens when I incorporate god into my decision making processes.

All these expressions express the notion that one's recognition of necessity is inextricably bound up in the acquisition of maturity.

by that admission, would you ponder on the need for anaesthetic treatment before having one of your legs amputated? Or would you concur that modern medical science is one giant lie and, furthermore, a sign of immaturity?

'Look Daddy! I made a tower!'

'foolish mortal!' *kicks tower*

'WAAAAHH!'

[Autonemesis]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
The “in some way” is via the grace of God. Whenever we recognize something that, tho not illogical cannot, nevertheless, be proved, we can be assured that we are exercising our spiritual muscle through the grace of faith.

But as soon as I make a persuasive argument for why it is rational to recognize the necessity of bearing the consequences and enjoying the fruits of one's actions, without invoking the grace of any god, the point of your sermon evaporates into a puff of smoke.

Or as the bible says,

The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord.

Fear is one of the ways in which people are encouraged to incorporate some awareness of the consequences of their actions into their decision-making process. Jail is unpleasant because society wants to use fear of it as a negative inducement to civilized behavior.

No grace of any god is required for this fear to have its effect. On a side note, avoidance of pain is arguably the lowest form of moral behavior, and any animal with a nervous system can "understand" it, but for whatever reasons, the "fear God" crowd seems to place it in high regard. I wonder if you could tell me why self-preservation is such a high holy concept in your theology.

[xsquid]

Maturity is not biting a cat even when you really, really want to.

(Thank you, Snoopy)
:D

[fishbulb]

Maturity is essentially an appreciation for or mastery of the subtle complexities of things. Immaturity is generally marked by short-term, opportunistic thinking and a lack of appreciation for the difference between how one might act if things were as they ought to be and how one should act because real life isn't ideal. As someone matures, their thought process becomes more sophisticated, reflective, and realistic.

At some point, probably in your teens, you will think that you are as mature and savvy as any adult, and you won't believe anyone who tells you otherwise. Some years later, you will look back on that time and realize how foolish and short-sighted you were. Still later, you will come to realize that you are still not fully mature and that your perspective will change even more as you grow older. Finally, I suspect, you will become a curmudgeon, set in your ways and unwilling to change the way you think, dagnabit. At that point, I suspect you are fully mature. I can't speak from personal experience on the last point, but I do look forward to becoming a crotchety old geezer and complaining about things non-stop.

Maturation is more or less a lifelong process. People do mature at somewhat different rates, but younger people seem to almost always overestimate how far along they have come; accurately evaluating your own level of maturity is something that can seemingly only be done with hindsight.

[sweep]

but I do look forward to becoming a crotchety old geezer and complaining about things non-stop.

no! you'll be wise and happy, and surrounded by cheering grandchildren. You'll be fully in control of your faculties, go on plenty of walks with your old dear, have a bright red nose and whistle a happy tune while clearing out 'the attic'.

[Donnmathan]

My twin pennies - maturity is the acceptance and complete understanding of the virtue called "duty" or "responsibility". Until you can fully grasp those two concepts, you are immature.

[Albert Cipriani]

In response to my argument that maturity is developed by wearing the harness of necessity, Sweep says:
Would you ponder on the need for anaesthetic treatment before having one of your legs amputated? Or would you concur that modern medical science is one giant lie and, furthermore, a sign of immaturity?

Science dissects Creation, and Creation is a reflection of God’s image. So how can science lie? And the harnesses it removes from us, such as the pain of amputation, does not leave us any less mature. For there is no limit to the number of harnesses reality has in store for us to wear.

Auto asks:
I wonder if you could tell me why self-preservation is such a high holy concept in your theology.

Gold is highly valued because it is rare. Self-preservation is likewise one of our highest values because it is more than rare, it is unique. Ourselves are all we’ve got. How can we not value something that rare?

The real question is why, in spite of how much we value ourselves, do we value what is real more than ourselves? Thus, like a string of bread crumbs leading out of the Platonic cave, we notice that from the beginning of recorded history a string of people have been sacrificing their lives for ideas. This points to our instinct that God, the ultimate reality, is the highest value. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[sweep]

Science dissects Creation, and Creation is a reflection of God’s image. So how can science lie?

by making mutant babies? sorry, I don't follow

And the harnesses it removes from us, such as the pain of amputation, does not leave us any less mature. For there is no limit to the number of harnesses reality has in store for us to wear.

I don't think that the human mind has many harnesses in store. For if they were, they would be useless, since people use 'harnesses' to fuel superfluous needs. To see this you have to examine power relationships- at the heart of those relationships you will find wants, which can be productive, but are often costly, to those who have no power for themselves.

In an ultimate reality, I see no need to reflect what Is not in my power (god), but to reflect the necessity of what is in my power with due consideration to the constraints I impose on my relatives.

[Albert Cipriani]

Sweep,
I can't understand what you're saying. I notice your occupation is "writer." That's probably the problem. If you would write like how you would talk, you might be more comprehensible.

In short, you say that science lies by: "making mutant babies."

If science made mutant babies, the processes it used would be rational and a reflection of God's intelligent design perverted by science to our immoral ends. No lie in that. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[sweep]

Science dissects Creation, and Creation is a reflection of God’s image. So how can science lie?

I don't know. What (practical) questions can I raise from this statement?

*is that better?*

anyhoo. what are we on about? ah, yes. I was agreeing that needs do play a role in maturity. Some needs are costly, and many are questionable. People have a tendency to question their needs as they get older, and their behaviours change.

anyway, most of this has already been addressed.

please carry on, Albert (if you want)

[xsquid]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani


The real question is why, in spite of how much we value ourselves, do we value what is real more than ourselves? Thus, like a string of bread crumbs leading out of the Platonic cave, we notice that from the beginning of recorded history a string of people have been sacrificing their lives for ideas. This points to our instinct that God, the ultimate reality, is the highest value. ? Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

I'm somewhat of a realist, Albert. When I see a glass of water, I do not ponder the questions of whether it's half-full or half-empty; I drink it.

You're not being clear at all. Just what IS "more real" than ourselves? Please don't give me some BS about a Hairy Thunderer in some supernatural realm, because we both know that could also extend to Santa Claus. As for a long string of people who have sacrificed their lives for ideals, well...something isn't true just because someone dies for it. That someone must also be right. In Roman history, probably a couple million legionnaires died; nearly all of them believed their Emperor was God. Did that make it real?

Finally, could you PLEASE explain this "ultimate reality" and "highest value" you're so on about? Without worshippers, a god is not a god--hardly anyone worships Marduk any more.
That would seem to indicate that, contrary to traditional teaching, we have more value than God. We were born--He wasn't. He never had teething problems, or wet the bed, or was given a wedgie, or had a "first crush", or tried out for the basketball team, or had the flu, or argued with his dad, or was grounded for staying out late, or had a panic attack on His wedding day, or had to dodge an arrow/bullet, or any of a million other things He's sentenced His so-called children to. God hasn't done these things because He doesn't exist, and that, if anything, is the ultimate reality.

Oh sure, things like love exist, but so does hate. If your God is responsible for both (and He says He is), that makes Him nothing more than a supremely powerful human--not a deity.

[Albert Cipriani]

Xsquid says:
When I see a glass of water, I do not ponder the questions of whether it's half-full or half-empty; I drink it.

That makes you what Socrates called “a happy pig.” You’re in bad company, as most people today (and most people are fools) would rather be a happy pig than a dead Socrates. But his point was that “an unexamined life is not worth living.” If you care more about drinking up life than examining it, I’d agree with him that your life isn’t worth the price of bacon.

Just what IS "more real" than ourselves?

Why, most everything. But this begs the question of what we mean by real. I’m sure that is our issue.

I conceive of reality as both quantitative and qualitative. The longer something really lasts, the more real it is. For example, a diamond “that’s forever” is more real than say, a quark, whose existence is measured in femtoseconds and can only be detected by what it did after the fact of its demise.

If this quantitative temporal aspect of reality is a valid measurement of how real something is, then on that basis alone a brick is more real (and no doubt not nearly as thick) as you. I pass buildings made of brick in during the 1800’s every morning on my way to work in downtown L.A. You’ll be worm poop in half that time.

Now qualitatively, reality can be measured by how extensive it is, that is, in relation to how many other things it relates to. For example almost everything can be described in terms of numbers. Ergo, numbers -- like all other spiritual verities -- relate to almost everything (including the Catholic Triune God – three Gods in One) and are very very real.

Likewise to the degree you relate to, say, your relatives and to the degree other people and things are dependent upon and related to you, you are more real. Compared to the Uni-bomber, for example, who lived alone and whose life was not even related to the electrical grid or sewer system, you would be qualitatively more real.

Still, you are far less real than Socrates whom people have been relating to for thousands of years. So, to answer your question, it depends. Almost everything is quantitatively more real than ourselves and almost everything may be qualitatively more real than yourself if you give yourself over to a lifetime of trying to be a happy pig. A happy pig, by definition, relates most to its pleasure centers and not to other more real things. Oink Oink, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[abe smith]

.... flung around here at this thread = "maturity", "creation", et tutti cuanti, do not have any real meaning(s); they are manmade generalizations which do not refer to any real entity/ entities. Hence it is not feasible to try to talk about what they "mean".

[Yangja Isuko]

true maturity is allowing yourself to be childlike in your approach to reality.

[sweep]

That makes you what Socrates called “a happy pig.” You’re in bad company, as most people today (and most people are fools) would rather be a happy pig than a dead Socrates. But his point was that “an unexamined life is not worth living.” If you care more about drinking up life than examining it, I’d agree with him that your life isn’t worth the price of bacon.

what makes your life so worthwhile, and more so than the 'happy pigs' Albert?

Still, you are far less real than Socrates whom people have been relating to for thousands of years. So, to answer your question, it depends. Almost everything is quantitatively more real than ourselves and almost everything may be qualitatively more real than yourself if you give yourself over to a lifetime of trying to be a happy pig. A happy pig, by definition, relates most to its pleasure centers and not to other more real things. Oink Oink, Albert the Traditional Catholic

1. we have been relating to 'infamous' role models such as Jack the Ripper, Genghis Khan & Alfred the great for equally impressive measures, yet our relative influence does not make people more or less real.

2. our pleasure centres are there for our pleasure. It is unhealthy to deny your feelings.

3. while being a pig can lead to illness and emptiness, our reality is changeable. Many pigs do have others to look after, and many do make sacrifices for a greater good.

[xsquid]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Xsquid says:


That makes you what Socrates called ?a happy pig.? You?re in bad company, as most people today (and most people are fools) would rather be a happy pig than a dead Socrates. But his point was that ?an unexamined life is not worth living.? If you care more about drinking up life than examining it, I?d agree with him that your life isn?t worth the price of bacon.

I'd counter that with "an unlived life is not worth examining". Nice ad hominem, BTW, but incorrect. It's "rather a LIVE pig than a dead Socrates".

Why, most everything. But this begs the question of what we mean by real. I?m sure that is our issue.

No, the question is what you meant by real. You're the one flinging this "ultimate reality" term around.

I conceive of reality as both quantitative and qualitative. The longer something really lasts, the more real it is. For example, a diamond ?that?s forever? is more real than say, a quark, whose existence is measured in femtoseconds and can only be detected by what it did after the fact of its demise.

If this quantitative temporal aspect of reality is a valid measurement of how real something is, then on that basis alone a brick is more real (and no doubt not nearly as thick) as you. I pass buildings made of brick in during the 1800?s every morning on my way to work in downtown L.A. You?ll be worm poop in half that time.

And that makes the building more "real" than the men who built it because...?

Now qualitatively, reality can be measured by how extensive it is, that is, in relation to how many other things it relates to. For example almost everything can be described in terms of numbers. Ergo, numbers -- like all other spiritual verities -- relate to almost everything (including the Catholic Triune God ? three Gods in One) and are very very real.

Hmm...the Ten Commandments, the Seven Deadly Sins, the Four Spiritual Laws, the Seven Dwarves, the Three-In-One God, the One Ring... hey, you might be on to something here, Albert...

Likewise to the degree you relate to, say, your relatives and to the degree other people and things are dependent upon and related to you, you are more real. Compared to the Uni-bomber, for example, who lived alone and whose life was not even related to the electrical grid or sewer system, you would be qualitatively more real.

But he's more real than I am to his brother, who turned him in. Or to the people his bombs maimed and killed over the years. I never met his victims, and he never did either, but they sure know who HE is, while I'll always be unknown to them. He's in prison now, and I can reasonably expect to outlive him by 25 years or so. But I'm no more--and no less--real than he is.

Still, you are far less real than Socrates whom people have been relating to for thousands of years.

Bullshit. I'm less real TO Socrates, who's been dead three millennia or so, but the fact that I can access his writing still makes him real to me.

So, to answer your question, it depends. Almost everything is quantitatively more real than ourselves and almost everything may be qualitatively more real than yourself if you give yourself over to a lifetime of trying to be a happy pig. A happy pig, by definition, relates most to its pleasure centers and not to other more real things. Oink Oink, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Substitute "more" with "as", and your argument would make more sense. BTW, what does a happy sheep do...by definition?
Booga booga!

[Albert Cipriani]

Monkey says:
maturity, creation, et tutti cuanti, do not have any real meaning(s)…

You see, the custodians of the English language have all died and appointed Monkey the keeper of the keys to the real word and meanings which Monkey keeps safely stashed in his coconut tree.

they are manmade generalizations…

All words are manmade generalizations, “God, and dog” included. But of course, not Monkey.

which do not refer to any real entity/ entities.

At least I defined the meaning of reality. Monkey is far above and beyond that (in his coconut tree). He simply tells us which words don’t refer to reality.

How does he know what is a real entity? I hope he deigns to tell us next time. Then we can start only using the non-manmade words that refer to those real entities. Incredulously Breathlessly Awaiting Monkey’s Response, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[abe smith]

Gosh, Our All-But is hard put to it for material. I'll insert standard starting-line :" Assertion is not demonstration." (Not quite the way Macaulay worded it, but what he meant. (sic, *meant*).)

The simple response to attempted insult is to ignore it.
True, all words are manmade. Not all of them are generalizations tho; *Albert Cipriani" is a relatively? specific label picking-out a singular ;) entity.....

Beyond all this piffle, I follow E Roosevelt's advice: accept insult only from my peers.

[abe smith]

In faulting my earlier post, Cipriani (in quoting me) carelessly neglected to put my used words "Maturity" and "creation" in quote marks; changes MY meaning considerably.! "I expect a Bright Person".. to be more careful. Unless his purpose is to misquote me to look foolish.

[Albert Cipriani]

My apologies Abe,
I got you mixed up with “Groovy Cosmic Monkey” I’d been crossing swords with in another thread. No insult intended. Tho I honestly don’t mind us sharing a few.

I kinda like to roughhouse now and then. Especially in a thread that’s supposed to be all about maturity. The irony is delicious. Now if you could manage to keep your foot out of your mouth for a while, you just might be able to taste it too. – Cheers, Al-butt

[abe smith]

If I keep my foot out of my mouth , Allbutt, how am I to bite my toenails? Abe :confused:

[Albert Cipriani]

Xsquid tries to counter the master chess player Socrates by moving a back-row pawn as follows:
An unlived life is not worth examining.

Aside from the self-refuting fact that a life, by definition, cannot NOT be lived, his hidden assumption is, like, blatant.

His pawn move implies that the more interesting lives are more worthy of examination. But history and biography teach us that the most banal lives and weakest minds tend to induce the most outwardly exciting and drama-filled lives. For example, Hitler.

A function of stupidity and spiritual malaise is an exciting life. How else can a stupid spiritually dead person juice things up? Ergo, the boring tend to screw up and swirl an externally dramatic existence around the lacuna of their stagnation.

And that makes the building more "real" than the men who built it because...?

Like I said, because the brick building is more lasting than the men who laid the bricks. In terms of a quantitative analysis, what lasts longer is real longer, hence the term “more real.” Deal with it. Stop feigning to be as thick as a brick.

But he's [the Uni-Bomber] more real than I am to his brother, who turned him in. Or to the people his bombs maimed and killed over the years.

Not at all. The Uni-Bomber’s relationship to his blood relatives and his victims is zero. They reject all the abstractions he espouses. The fact that his bombs disrupted their lives does not a relationship make. Just because they were made victims by his bombs does not make them his people. This is not a game of touch tag… you’re it!

I never met his victims, and he never did either, but they sure know who HE is, while I'll always be unknown to them… I'm no more--and no less--real than he is.

If you could have pull yourself away from the Penthouse pictures long enough to have read his manifesto and agree with any of it, you’d be qualitatively more related to the Uni-Bomber than his own relatives. And he’d be more real to you and you to him than his victims.

Knowing you has nothing to do with it. Relating to you has everything to do with it. Being real is relative in that way. The more ways in which two people relate to each other, the more real the two people are to each other, whether or not they ever even meet.

Bullshit. I'm less real TO Socrates, who's been dead three millennia or so, but the fact that I can access his writing still makes him real to me.

Once again, your presumptions are showing. Just because you can’t see Socrates doesn’t mean that Socrates can’t see you. Infants learn this lesson by the age of 6 months. That’s why at around that age peek-a-boo is a perennial favorite with them.

You must have been peek-a-boo deprived. How else can we explain your unwillingness to entertain the notion that tho Socrates is dead to you, you may not be dead to Socrates?

You remind me of the denizens of “Flatland,” the sci-fi story about people that occupied the second dimension like a piece of paper on my desk. They could no more see my desk lamp or conceive of an up or a down than you seem able to conceive of the possibility of life after death. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[xsquid]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
... history and biography teach us that the most banal lives and weakest minds tend to induce the most outwardly exciting and drama-filled lives. For example, Hitler.

And Albert Cipriani too, apparently.

If you could have pull yourself away from the Penthouse pictures long enough to have read his manifesto and agree with any of it,

You presume a helluva lot, don't you?

you?d be qualitatively more related to the Uni-Bomber than his own relatives. And he?d be more real to you and you to him than his victims.

I have read it. And I don't agree with it, as I don't agree with you. BTW, what were YOU doing with a copy of Penthouse? Just "reading it for the articles", hm?

Once again, your presumptions are showing.

See your comment, above.
I think I see where you're coming from; another sanctimonious godbot (although an articulate one) who no more merits attention on these boards than the more rabid variety.
Poison laced with honey is still poison, Albert, and you've got plenty, but I won't have any. Now declare victory and go home.

[Albert Cipriani]

Xsquid says:
I have read it. [Uni-Bomber’s manifesto in Penthouse].

Well, that makes one of us.

BTW, what were YOU doing with a copy of Penthouse? Just "reading it for the articles", hm?

You’re a presumption junkie. It’s enough for me to know that that rag published the madman’s ravings. Why would I bother to read it situated in the middle of a pornographic gauntlet of imagery when I have a bookcase of intelligent books to read.

I think I see where you're coming from; another sanctimonious godbot (although an articulate one) who no more merits attention on these boards than the more rabid variety.

But I don’t want attention. I’d much rather draw your attention to your own inconsistencies.

Poison laced with honey is still poison, Albert, and you've got plenty, but I won't have any.

All I have are reasons for you guys to try on like new suits so that you can think more sharply. If that’s poison, “paint me pink and call me a rose.”

Now declare victory and go home.

I’ll declare victory when one of you improves my world view or changes one of my values. But as long as I can only “win” my arguments with you, it’s you that are victoriously improving yourselves whilst I am merely treading water as my same old curmudgeon self. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[xsquid]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Albert Cipriani

In reply to "I have read it" (the Unabomber Manifesto), Albert Cipriani seeks to prove his cleverness by answering:

Well, that makes one of us.

Actually that makes neither of us; I read it in The New York Times.

You?re a presumption junkie. It?s enough for me to know that that rag published the madman?s ravings. Why would I bother to read it situated in the middle of a pornographic gauntlet of imagery when I have a bookcase of intelligent books to read.

And they're gathering dust, as you type away here. The fact remains that I didn't read it in Penthouse either, despite your insinuation. Umm, you were saying something about ME being a presumption junkie?

But I don?t want attention. I?d much rather draw your attention to your own inconsistencies.

No, YOU don't want attention. You just descend upon us with some mystical claptrap like "the possibility of life after death". Either you're dead or you're not. There's no in-between. As for drawing my attention to my inconsistencies, just remove the beam from your own eye first. Then we'll talk.

All I have are reasons for you guys to try on like new suits so that you can think more sharply.

Why should I try on the suit you sugggest, when I can plainly see that you have no clothes on?

I?ll declare victory when one of you improves my world view or changes one of my values. But as long as I can only ?win? my arguments with you, it?s you that are victoriously improving yourselves whilst I am merely treading water as my same old curmudgeon self.

Why, Albert, this isn't an argument; it's a discussion. Discussions are what mature people do, and "maturity" is supposed to be the subject of this thread, remember?
Tread water all you like. I already know how to swim.
Fair winds and following seas.

[abe smith]

Tacky invective is non-U (= is low-class non-argument), All-but.

I'm a little puzzled about Why you're here? If your purpose here is to persuade EyeEye members to accept your religious positions and to "turn from their wickedness & live", I don't think your low-grade name-calling and ad hominems are going to effect your purposes.

If your purpose is to call us-here silly & derogatory names, I don't think most of us grown-up teeps are going to bother taking-notice. ( = "MY ego is bigger than yours.")

If your purpose here is to flaunt your wonderful Ego & its many colours and borrowed peacock plumes, there are others brighter & wittier than you, whose emissions I consider more entertaining and informative. Guess I'll stop wasting time here at this thread, & go commune w/ those Others.

[Theli]

Maturity?
I would go with a definition alike Loren's. The ability to assess outcomes from any given action or inaction based on the situation at hand. I would also say it's the ability to function, either socially or by your own. In short, to be an independent adult.
Although I think "immature" is a bullshit word, with no more objective value than "idiot". Just some word we chose to fling at people who disagree.


Llyricist...
I find that people possess maturity in inverse relationship to how often they cite maturity.
Interesting theory. :D

[Haylow]

Maturity is an ideal, its not something anyone becomes because we are constanly maturing so therefore we are allways in a constant state of immaturity

The most classic sign of immaturity is the person/peoples who claim/belive they are mature (and there a lot of them around), because thats just not possiable,there still driven by there eggotistical tendences that they are something better than you and you should aspierer to be just like them, the mature pinnicals of society.

Keep on dreaming eggo heads i have you guys/girls figuered out :D

[Theli]

I think one mistaken sign of maturity is lack of enthusiasm. Something wich is a part of this ideal.

[Albert Cipriani]

Dear Theli,
When the moonrise can no longer thrill me
I will know that I’ve lived long enough.

-- Albert the Traditional Catholic

[sweep]

dear albert, when I know the moon rise can no longer thrill me, I will know that jupiter is more interesting.

does that have any impact on your impactive view?

[Albert Cipriani]

Naw,
Anyone who finds Jupiter more interesting than the moon deserves to die.:p -- Cheers, Albert