I propose a definition for malicious thought

[m_the0ry]

A thought that prioritizes propagating itself over introspective criticality is always malicious.



I derived this from one of my favorite thought experiments that models some of the most malicious thoughts as virii/bacteria. Discuss.

[jogger08152]

Men statistically harbor malicious thoughts (by this definition) roughly once every 8 seconds. I believe the true figure is about double that.

[J. Stew]

what determines the capacity for introspective criticality? it will be different for different people dependent on the acuteness of one's nervous system.

for example, if someone has gone through life deadening their senses/practicing aversion/covering themselves up instead of openly and matter-of-factly accepting and embracing reality, their introspective criticality will be dulled or 'aged'.

how would you remedy this scale of gradient degrees of mental acuteness into your proposed definition, or would you argue that you are theoretically right and that in order to see it you just need a certain level of mental acuity which if you don't have then you are just screwed and need religious rehabilitation /images/graemlins/smile.gif?

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
what determines the capacity for introspective criticality? it will be different for different people dependent on the acuteness of one's nervous system.

for example, if someone has gone through life deadening their senses/practicing aversion/covering themselves up instead of openly and matter-of-factly accepting and embracing reality, their introspective criticality will be dulled or 'aged'.

how would you remedy this scale of gradient degrees of mental acuteness into your proposed definition, or would you argue that you are theoretically right and that in order to see it you just need a certain level of mental acuity which if you don't have then you are just screwed and need religious rehabilitation /images/graemlins/smile.gif?

[/ QUOTE ]

You raise a really good point that caused a lot of consideration in how I decided to word this definition. I called it 'thought' instead of 'idea' because ideas manifest themselves differently in different people.

This is an important realization because it means we can't make sweeping generalizations like, 'all who harbor x idea are detrimental,' yet we can make a statement like, 'all who harbor x idea while denying y idea are detrimental,' if y is an important introspectively critical concept.

[yukoncpa]

Is this: Viruses of the Mind, by Dawkins, similar to what you are thinking of?

Borodog's link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4307603&page=)

[m_the0ry]

oh. yeah.

I should read that.

[J. Stew]

not sure i understand the diff. between a thought and an idea, what is your line of thinking here if you don't mind?

[ QUOTE ]
This is an important realization because it means we can't make sweeping generalizations like, 'all who harbor x idea are detrimental,' yet we can make a statement like, 'all who harbor x idea while denying y idea are detrimental,' if y is an important introspectively critical concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think some reference to a context here would provide some clarity here. for example, an important introspectively critical concept . . in terms of what? what is the process by which the important is extrapolated? how does one use skillful means to transcend a paradox?

navigating through a situation like say the iraq war, taking in all the details available, drawing out the crux of the issue, then explaining the thought process behind it would be explicative of something like that.

i agree that denying 'y' if 'y' is an important introspectively critical concept is detrimental, but what i'm getting after is how does one go about determining what is important. if you say it is important, how do you justify its importance.

just some thoughts i like where you're going.