Poison for the Heart - and Women

[Dan Rowden]

Well, in my defense I'd say I like to be different, but a Google search denies me that avenue.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

So, am I then sexist? No, I am not sexist: I am against women of both sexes.

This part makes it clear enough what he is talking about, but there are many points preceding it where he should be clearer about whether he is talking about biological women or unconsciousness. Furthermore, if this was stated closer to the beginning, perhaps right after this, or even after the paragraph following this:

Is it "sexist" to be realistic about the immense psychological differences between man and woman?

Is it "sexist" to recognize that some qualities of personality are superior to others, and that these qualities are not equally distributed between the sexes? If so, then I am proud to be known as sexist, for my aim is to be honest and not popular.

That might make it clearer. At the very least, it should be said before this:

Kierkegaard, the great Christian philosopher, says that "Woman is personified egotism," but that she can never know it because of her lack of penetrating thought. Nietzsche observes that "woman is first and foremost an actress.", and describes an actor as "a person who is skilled at combining falseness with a good conscience." Schopenhauer, in his renowned essay "On Woman" states that women . . . "are their whole life - grown-up children . . . She is an intellectual myope whose intuitive understanding sees distinctly what is near, but has a narrow range of vision, which does not embrace the distant." Schopenhauer finds that her basic tools of trade are a subconscious and automatic tendency towards "cunning and deception," and that the woman's basic failing lies in her injustice. Others agree on this point. Freud says that "the poor sense of justice in women is connected to the preponderance of envy in their mental life." And Plato makes his view clearly known when he says that "Woman's nature is inferior to that of men in capacity for virtue."

Otherwise, many of the statements turn the word "woman" into an ad hominem rather than a tool to point out what you really mean.

Just that one change would be enough to make a great deal of difference. There would still be plenty of room for misinterpretation - but clarifying what you mean by "woman" earlier would help.




Oh - I may have found the typo Dan was talking about. In the woman section - "Unfortunat- ely"

[Dave Toast]

Dave Toast,

You confuse me. On one hand you say the evidence is irrefutable that women are as unconscious as Kevin says, and on the other you often refute their arguments.

That's not what I was saying Bird, though I was wondering whether my phraseology would be misinterpreted there.

What I was saying was irrefutable was the evidence supporting Kevin's statement "I don't think hardly anyone on the forum really understands or appreciates the depth of the truths about women and unconsciousness that we go on about, despite having read hundreds of thousands of words about it."

[David Quinn]

Iolaus,

Oops. David goofed. He actually allowed women too much masculinity in saying they desire status.

Their desire for status is more instinctive, than conscious. The biggest fear for a woman is being rejected and exposed, and this is what drives her to seek the safety of the crowd.

Consciously, she is only thinking of what dress she should buy, or what colour her hair should be - in other words, how to make herself more attractive.

-

[Kelly Jones]

Personally I became interested in Genius only because David related enlightenment to a masculine mind. I already accepted the inferiority of feminine traits, in the zone of strength of character and rationality, generally speaking. Because of David's explanation, I realised he was an honest, aware, and courageous person.

If David had instead backed down, and claimed that women have the same character and intellect as men, I would have thought, "You fughing weak coward." I think most people, men and women, know deep down this is simply not true.

Yes, people will hate Poison, and whinge their heads off about it being misogynistic, but that's a natural response. People have tantrums when they don't have the skills or knowledge to deal with inadequacies. But people have to face problems, if they wish to improve.

[Leyla Shen]

ZOMBIE

The idea that a collection of written philosophical works is evidence for a greater degree of consciousness in males and none in females is preposterous, Kevin. Such a proposition is nothing more than an egoistic fancy. Did the Buddha write? Did Jesus? And these represent the men whom you consider to be the most enlightened of men in all of history.

Woman is a social construct. An a priori abstraction belonging to the conscious individual. “She” literally cannot be experienced, being unconsciousness itself, not even as a female. You do not arrive at an understanding of unconsciousness by experiencing it, because to experience it is to be it.

So, spare us the “do-be-do’s” on the matter!

[Leyla Shen]

Consciously, she is only thinking of what dress she should buy, or what colour her hair should be - in other words, how to make herself more attractive.

That is not what I call conscious thinking.

[Dave Toast]

Personally I became interested in Genius only because David related enlightenment to a masculine mind. I already accepted the inferiority of feminine traits, in the zone of strength of character and rationality, generally speaking. Because of David's explanation, I realised he was an honest, aware, and courageous person.

If David had instead backed down, and claimed that women have the same character and intellect as men, I would have thought, "You fughing weak coward." I think most people, men and women, know deep down this is simply not true.

Yes, people will hate Poison, and whinge their heads off about it being misogynistic, but that's a natural response. People have tantrums when they don't have the skills or knowledge to deal with inadequacies. But people have to face problems, if they wish to improve.

You're not wrong.

But do you see the passion this has elicited in you? It seems evident.

It is this very same passion I think is getting in the way of comprehensively considering the bigger picture, with regard to the primary directive, as I'm going to call it from now on.

[Dave Toast]

And don't forget you could use three spaces between your sentences, just to be different.

[Kelly Jones]

Dave T,

I agree. There is passion evident in my views on misogyny. But I don't think your lack of passion is a result of having seen that pretty much everything in society on sale is a crock. If it were, then you'd be quite delighted that the primary directive for publishing a book includes pointing out the crock.

[Kelly Jones]

Maybe Kevin can insert three blank pages after the Woman section, to leave room for a bit of extra contemplation.

[skipair]

Skipair,

I found your answer confusing. You are glorifying the ability to fight and demand submission? You find this superior?

You are denigrating the desire to have a baby? So you're antilife too?

Pink

[Dave Toast]

Dave T,

I agree. There is passion evident in my views on misogyny. But I don't think your lack of passion is a result of having seen that pretty much everything in society on sale is a crock. If it were, then you'd be quite delighted that the primary directive for publishing a book includes pointing out the crock.

But Kevin has clearly stated that the book could comply with the primary directive without including the pointing out of said crock.

Your passion is clouding your judgement. The two matters are wholly unrelated. I am dispassionate because I am attached neither to the book itself nor the outcome of its publication.

[Dave Toast]

Maybe Kevin can insert three blank pages after the Woman section, to leave room for a bit of extra contemplation.

I don't think you've understood my meaning Kelly. No matter.

[Kelly Jones]

Dave,

Right, I think I understand where you're coming from, now.

You're saying that the Woman/Man section is a beginner-level description of unconsciousness, but that just about every man has such attachment to Woman that they aren't even at a beginner-level. Right?

I think that this is a good reason to include Woman in a book about consciousness, for the general public. It's because the general public don't get such food, that they're ignorant.

Yes, I agree that conventional behaviour can help a reformer to appear a friend, but it can go too far.

[tooyi]

I think the book could be titled "Pimp Up My Heart - Poison For The Pimp Generation". It would draw in appropriate fame, then infamy, and finally sweep in those with genuine potential.

The natural obsession with women to pimp up and dress everything from themselves to cars to computers to houses is a good indication of how much the world is enveloped in woman.

[Gretchen]

Also, I'm looking for some interesting descriptive text to go on the back cover. I'm not sure that what's on there now will go down too well.

If you would like to have a woman's opinion, here it is:

In a forum where egos are bashed, I find it interesting that placing anywhere on this book the fact that it is "the greatest book ever" or any words to the effect severely diminishes what you are trying to accomplish by publishing in the first place. It flies in the face of everything you posit...or perhaps I have misunderstood you from the beginning.

As a woman, if you take anything out, you are being foolish. If a woman reads this book and takes offense at what is written, she is not facing who she is. I still believe you guys to be completely over the top in your thinking, especially by categorizing young nubile women into the "all women" category. You are limiting your universe if all you view are those under thirty years of age. You deserve what you get. Further, the audience of women to which your book will appeal are those that are older. However, your credibility in the area of woman is somewhat tarnished by the fact that you have no first hand experience living with them. Woman should never be man, nor should man be woman, but there stands a measure of vast improvement that is required on both sides to achieve what you "say" exists. In other words, no one is quite perfect...yet.

As to the design of the book, I offer this humble suggestion - that is, make it a soft cover journal of letter size (it will also cut down on costs). A journal because its very nature is to generate introspection into a person's innermost being to find that part in them that needs mending. It is where your words speak volumes and, only speaking for myself, a reader may feel compelled to write. Spend most of the money on the cover getting top quality paper stock. Your avatar should be the only image on the cover for it bespeaks what you invoke. The title, of course, but the sub-title should read: A Journal for Dangerous Thinkers...it is what this forum is all about and truly invokes a warning but also a teaser for those who are curious. On the back should be simply the mission of Genius Forums but in simple English, something akin to what Dan Rowden wrote. I think it says enough.

As to Venom Crystals, I have been away too long to know what that is. If you post the link, I will read it. I wish you every bit of success in the publishing of your book as it was definitely worth the time to read.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

If a woman reads this book and takes offense at what is written, she is not facing who she is.

Ummm,

I still believe you guys to be completely over the top in your thinking, especially by categorizing young nubile women into the "all women" category.

These two statements do not match up. In the first you imply that all women are like what is described, then in the second statement you state that you do not believe that all women are the same. You've been gone too long, passthrough - you've gotten rusty.

Look, I don't think it's beneficial to wisdom to use the word "woman" when "unconscious" is what is meant, and I agree that they go over the top - but as long as feminism is waving a flag, we have to make room for masculinism to counter-balance that. I don't think that masculinism is any more right than feminism, and they both need to be archived, but so long as there is a need for the masculinism movement, Kevin's probably the most ethical guy for the job.

Actually both Poison and Woman as literary pieces are less dangerous than what gets placed on the pillar in the forum from time to time - but as long as Kevin's hanging around to straighten out the ones that are misunderstanding (and Cory, and Ryan, and other guys), I'd far rather this stuff come from him and people can have a place to go and really discuss it and not be so dangerous as they might if someone else who actually is hateful published something like this.

Kelly's right that the hatred of women isn't being built by this book. I am not contradicting myself when I say that affirming the misogyny already in men out there will make it worse - I still say that it will - but I am seeing it more like a comfrey poultice that draws the infection out of a wound. At least the infection will be out where it can be seen, and done here it will be more likely to come out where it can be dealt with, rather than just festering unseen, growing to unknown proportions until one guy after another snaps and starts raping women, etc., to "get even" with women for being women.

We still have to fight the wrong, but our place to fight it is here. This is a case where some "wrong" is appropriate to be done in order to get the right results. I don't like the masculinism, just like I don't like raw bread dough - but I recognize it as a stage that has to be gone through to get the right final product. I trust Kevin to make enough polishing touches on the woman section to get a good enough effect.

That does not mean that I am going to endorse masculinism though. Just as he has to put that out there, we still have to fight the bad parts. That's how this dough is going to get cooked.

[Steven Coyle]

To those (truly) interested in the spiritual path, I think 'Poison' carries with it tremendous potential to guide the remainder of unconsciousness in an individual. Once an understanding of the dynamics between man and woman are uprooted and embedded, one may find that it is the unconsciousness in others that acts as a spiritual guide.

As far as marketing, it should be noted to a potential publisher that the wisdom contained in 'Poison' is mostly a wide ranging collection of ancient wisdom, including the sections unraveling the feminine psyche. If the audience was aware of the parallels between Kevin's thought and those of the great philosopher's of the past, a market would be that much more apparent.

[Gretchen]

PT:

If a woman reads this book and takes offense at what is written, she is not facing who she is.

I still believe you guys to be completely over the top in your thinking, especially by categorizing young nubile women into the "all women" category.

EI

These two statements do not match up. In the first you imply that all women are like what is described, then in the second statement you state that you do not believe that all women are the same. You've been gone too long, passthrough - you've gotten rusty.

In all fairness to Kevin Solway, just because he observes rather than experiences directly does not negate the fact that he has recognized certain weaknesses in women that cannot be denied. If a woman takes offense, perhaps she "doth protest too much." However, the focus being made here is that there is a special section on "women," while if one looks at the book as a whole, he chastises man even moreso.

Given his penchant for disliking women, he really doesn't rag on them as bad as he does men for not behaving as men. However, I think he sells women a bit short, and for that matter himself, if his observation is only that of women under thirty...they are still thinking of rebelling against their parents or having babies...certainly they have not had the chance to think whilst doing such things. Whose fault is this? The woman's? Should there be intervention at college level? Would anyone take it seriously if they did? Then, once they do have children, they have to raise them because, at least in my generation, the husband sure isn't doing so, and most women are working at the same time.

No, the only time when a woman can have the luxury of thinking, in this fashion, is when she is old and wrinkled and wears sensible clothing...although, I'd like to know what this means to him, just out of curiosity. For example, I was taking my daughter to do something and dropping a friend off at his house, she replied, "Do I need to change?" Giving her the look, she replied to her friend, " She thinks I look too naked." She did and was.

EI:

Look, I don't think it's beneficial to wisdom to use the word "woman" when "unconscious" is what is meant,

But is it truly? It may be what you mean, but is this necessarily true of all here?

EI:

and I agree that they go over the top - but as long as feminism is waving a flag, we have to make room for masculinism to counter-balance that.

Feminism is an evil ideology, and quite dangerous. I can barely read the stuff without being completely repulsed by most of it.

EI:

I don't think that masculinism is any more right than feminism, and they both need to be archived, but so long as there is a need for the masculinism movement, Kevin's probably the most ethical guy for the job.

Perhaps, but do you not think it more healthy to hit what is right versus offsetting something that is wrong with more wrong? I agree that Kevin is very adept at pointing to the truth, but it seems some of these notions of women are outdated. For instance, the young people today are androgynous, the women are masculine and the men are feminine to where there is no definition of what is what...but should there be? Now, before anyone jumps up, think about it...what is it in both that should be used to raise them up rather than take them down, which is where it seems to be headed. The apathy and darkness is so prevalent because it seems there is nothing for them to identify with that is good and righteous. God is dead to them.

You mention "Woman," as in the Exposition of a Woman's Mind? I have not read that yet...frankly, I should but almost dread what may be written there.

EI:

At least the infection will be out where it can be seen, and done here it will be more likely to come out where it can be dealt with, rather than just festering unseen, growing to unknown proportions until one guy after another snaps and starts raping women, etc., to "get even" with women for being women.

Yes you and Iaolus are very good at arguing rationally against this sort of mindset, but unfortunately, the type of men that do these things do not seem to be the sort that would frequent a Genius Forum. More than likely they are out trying to hit on women wherever one does such things and when they are rebuffed, they strike. My daughter experienced such an incident the other day that was astounding, which resulted in her giving a jerk a black eye, but this did not stop him until some guy came out of nowhere, stated she was his girlfriend, and threw him up against a wall. She had no idea who he was. Now, is the fact that she was wearing clothing of the sort she wears imply she was seeking this type of treatment or is it the guy's fault for being a hormone-driven clod? I was told that she was minding her own business text messaging a friend who had just gotten pulled over for speeding. She had made it very clear she was not interested in him, when he continued, she socked him in the eye. He still continued this pursuit. Is this the same "woman" Kevin speaks of who wears scanty clothing and flowers in her hair?

Again, women are not men and men are not women, but there is room for awareness and improvement in both. I think Kevin does a really good job, except in a few situations where he blurs the lines between unconsciousness and women...but even those situations are good because it makes one think about where one stands, even if it is on the opposite side of the fence from him.

[Tomas]

.


In the printing of the book:

Please use hemp paper.

Please use hemp ink.


It'll last a lot longer


Tomas


.

[daybrown]

In the original Aryan, aka "Proto-Indo-European" or "PIE", the only word for authority is "raj". As in Region, Regina, Aregon, Raja (eng, lat, grk, skt), and in each of these languages there are whole sets of derivative terms. In English we have arrange, manage, garage, regulate, reign, etc.

JP Mallory, for one, "In Search of the Indo-Europeans" reports that raj means a "Female tribal leader of great wisdom and mana." This has something to do with why the great Byzantine cathedral built in Constantinople was dedicated to "Saint Sophia". Sophia is the *goddess* of wisdom. There in no male god of wisdom in the Native European pantheon.

When you look past the documents composed to pander to the sensibilities of the warrior class, you find out that a 'raj' was a 'witch', which you can hear if you speak the words. And from the beginning of the rise of the warrior class in the late bronze age, we see the wise smart girls have been sent to the nunnies taking them out of the gene pool. Since we now know that intelligence is handed down on the mtDNA, we see why it is that the most misogynistic cultures are the least innovative with the most violent men, unable to control their passions.

Reading the biographies of Einstein, we can tell that he spent time between the sheets with some hot numbers hoping for more like him. I have not seen any. They should have looked for his mother and any daughters from that line. The number of dissolute sons of great men is clearly due to the fact that they regarded the womb simply as the room in which their seed could grow.

However, now smart career women have read the scientific studies and realized the problem. They have also noted that the successful men in their profession that they mite consider as sperm donors are already married to sexy younger bimbos. The result is that they are now going to fertility clinics to select among thousands of superior Y chromosome lines.

The early adapters now have kids entering college, and we all know they will do really well. These women do not post on forums like this, altho I'm sure the derogatory comments posted are fully consistent with their own view of *most* women. But most is not all.

Since I was crippled by polio in childhood, the sexy bimbos never even gave me the time of day. The only women I got to spend time, or bedtime, with- had a greater appreciation for what was between my ears rather than between my legs. So my personal experience of women has not been as represented here. For which I am eternally grateful.

The history is obscure, but early Taoist texts go on at length about the spiritual enlightenment to be had from the transdermal penile absorbtion of "the waters of life", which we now know have estrogen that did a lot to balance the yin/yang which is seen so often lacking here.

Vatsyayana and Saint Ramprasad were both well aware of similar enlightenment to be had with a Shakti, who may also have employed sacred potions to facilitate the necessary altered state of consciousness, which also seems to be an unfamiliar experience here.

But in time, the daughters mentioned above, the Uberwench, will re-discover these ancient techniques, and employ them to get the cooperation of men of genius and imagination. Sophia would understand. I am sorry you have to put up with so many stupid bitches in the meantime, but no doubt the Uberwench will use those same airheads to accept in vitro egg donation to dramatically ramp up the production of smart trophy blondes.

Many of the girls now who are trying to recover "The Craft" will succeed and aid in your education.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

pt-

If a woman reads this book and takes offense at what is written, she is not facing who she is.
...
If a woman takes offense, perhaps she "doth protest too much."

Do you see the difference between these two sentiments? I agree with the second, but disagree with the first. The difference is...



In the first, you said "she is not facing who she is" - which implies that she necessarily is offended because she is just like that. In the second, you said "perhaps" which leaves the possibility open that she protests for other reasons. For example, I protest vehemently not because I am like that, but because I have first hand felt and second hand seen the effects of words like that on truly misogynistic, abusive men. I equally protest the false accusation against anyone who had a legitimate complaint that is not just trying to hide her own weaknesses.

ei-

In the first you imply that all women are like what is described, then in the second statement you state that you do not believe that all women are the same.

pt-

In all fairness to Kevin Solway, just because he observes rather than experiences directly does not negate the fact that he has recognized certain weaknesses in women that cannot be denied.

Yes, he has pointed out certain weaknesses common in women that can't be denied - just like feminism has pointed out certain weaknesses common to men that can not be denied. One must be careful to differentiate between constructive criticism and destructive fault-finding, though.

However, the focus being made here is that there is a special section on "women," while if one looks at the book as a whole, he chastises man even moreso.

I guess that's because no one has a major objection to the rest of the book. But chastising is not necessarily as degrading as the ways Kevin and David say to forgive women for being women - that we are too unconscious to ever be wise. That is just as damaging to easily influenced women - like Sue Hindmarsh and Kelly Jones - as it is to both genders through stirring up the disgust of men against women. I would if it were effective to chastise women just the same, but when I tried that, it blew up in my face - even with women who considered themselves "men" on the inside. Thre are too many different kinds of people for the same technique to work on everyone.

the only time when a woman can have the luxury of thinking, in this fashion, is when she is old and wrinkled and wears sensible clothing

I disagree. In fact, if she were to be shown how to think better younger, many other things would go much more smoothly in her life. Perhaps when youths are in their late teens/early 20's, they should just procreate while their bodies are up to it, and turn the children over to more mature people to do most of the raising of the children. The bodies are most fit for healthiest offspring before the mind is even fully developed yet. Kevin seems to think that philosophy must be contemplated before 30 in order for it to be absorbed. Maybe that is so with the male mind (or maybe not), but female minds, being more complex than male minds, may take longer to even prepare for philosophy. What's more, and I don't feel like looking the study up again right now - so feel free to disbelieve if you don't want to fish it out, but I did read about a study discovering that women who have been pregnant have more brain capacity than women who have not. Perhaps pregnancy can even increase a woman's ability to absorb philosophy. I'm certainly not suggesting that pregnancy is a cure for a-dolt-ry (erhem...) but just pointing to another reason that we may not be progressing our species through the stages of life in the wisest manner.

ei-

Look, I don't think it's beneficial to wisdom to use the word "woman" when "unconscious" is what is meant,

pt-

But is it truly? It may be what you mean, but is this necessarily true of all here?

Well that is my point exactly. How can we know exactly what they mean unless they clearly say what they mean?

but do you not think it more healthy to hit what is right versus offsetting something that is wrong with more wrong?

I agree that just stating the truth truthfully is the healthiest way to go, which is why that is the path I'm taking. I am acknowledging that some people are just too unhealthy to hear the truth directly. You could tell them the truth all day, and they would never hear it. Of course grabbing their ear this way is dangerous too, which is why this must be worded extremely carefully from the outset, and follow-up training here included. (Kevin, I expect that you are going to include the web address in your book).

unfortunately, the type of men that do these things do not seem to be the sort that would frequent a Genius Forum.

As you said, times and people are changing. Point being though, that it is better that someone with a responsible follow-up plan like Kevin publish something like this than someone much worse than Kevin publish something like this.

My daughter experienced such an incident the other day

and I have experienced many instances where a guy would not take "go away" for an answer - and once even while in a work uniform, trying to return to my car which had broken down (yep - returning. My car had broken down a few blocks away from work - this was before most people had cell phones - so I walked back to work (in Florida August heat after working from 6 a.m. to 3 p.m.) to call for a tow truck. My male boss reminded me that the phone was not for employee use, so I had to just stand next to my car and wait for a cop to drive by - and meanwhile deal with a couple of horny teenage males. Sweaty and in a maroon and tan bakery uniform, I was hardly tantalizingly dressed. It's ugly, and does need to be corrected, and such people do not listen to direct reason. Kevin's method won't work on all of them, but it may work on some of them, and won't be any worse of an influence than the regular "guy talk" that is already out there.

Is this the same "woman" Kevin speaks of who wears scanty clothing and flowers in her hair?

No, Kevin is not siding with the guys who won't take a black eye and the word "no" as a legitimate refusal of advances - but maybe he can get their attention long enough to help matters a little.

[Dan Rowden]

Look, I don't think it's beneficial to wisdom to use the word "woman" when "unconscious" is what is meant, and I agree that they go over the top - but as long as feminism is waving a flag, we have to make room for masculinism to counter-balance that. I don't think that masculinism is any more right than feminism, and they both need to be archived, but so long as there is a need for the masculinism movement, Kevin's probably the most ethical guy for the job.

Woman has all but zero relationship to any conventional "masculinist" movement. It is not, repeat not a reaction or attempted "counter-balance" to feminism. If you think so, then you are proving that you don't really understand it. Or, maybe you simply have an agenda to try and discredit it and disinformation is part of that agenda. Either way it's wrong.

[skipair]

Pointless to engage. Only fuels the fire.