Poison for the Heart - and Women

[Jamesh]

Dream on, Kevin. “Men” did no such thing. Such ideas may have been articulated through a few males, but “men” are no more or less responsible for the creation of this outer world than women are.

Lol, typical and expected insanity from Leyla. Though she is partly right.

It is actually that men, who clearly did such things, were only capable of doing such things, when the herd THROUGH herd feminity could afford such progression. Femininity forms the consistent base from which masculine activity can flourish. Males did it, but women or femininity provided the safety net that would allow such masculinity to be actualised.

[Leyla Shen]

Ha-ha-ha, ho-ho-ho!

Surely that makes me only "partly" insane and you wholly stupid, therefore.

A wank at any expense, eh?

Get your hand off it and you might see a little clearer.

[Leyla Shen]

As truth is not realized,
love is.

Indeed. And with it, hatred on the same order of magnitude.

To love truth first,
and woman second,
can it ever be enough?

Not when woman is posited as the antithesis of truth.

Or should there be but love,
and never truth again?

Dunno about you, but truth doesn't ever disappear for me.

[Jamesh]

Surely that makes me only "partly" insane and you wholly stupid, therefore.

No human can ever not have some degree of insanity. Everything is relative, so therefore everything is always a matter of degrees.

I will say that I kind of find you interesting, mainly because you are a prime (meaning readily identifible) example of how emotions interfere with logical analysis. You've got a good working brain that tends to fuck up rational analysis due to emotions. You have, as yet, not reorganised your memory so that it no longer can feel hatred.

(not that I have either, but as mentioned it is a matter of degrees)

[tooyi]

Indeed. And with it, hatred on the same order of magnitude.

So the ignorant would want us to believe.

Not when woman is posited as the antithesis of truth.

As much as there is ignorance,
there is hatred,
in the absence of love.

Dunno about you, but truth doesn't ever disappear for me.

You just said lack of love equals hatred. In other words, if you do not love somebody, you have no choice but to hate them. Way to go, girl.


I swear to god it must have been the times when people were coming with the seeds of language that there must have been a time of hunger that had lasted too long for a group of people. Last pieces of meat were given to everybody but some just would still complain about their share being too small.

Woman may be love, but woman doesn't understand love.

[Leyla Shen]

You just said lack of love equals hatred. In other words, if you do not love somebody, you have no choice but to hate them. Way to go, girl.

Thanks, but I think it would be beneficial if you didn’t try to make me responsible for your lack of comprehension.

I swear to god it must have been the times when people were coming with the seeds of language that there must have been a time of hunger that had lasted too long for a group of people. Last pieces of meat were given to everybody but some just would still complain about their share being too small.

If you think that was bad, wait to you discover the economics of editing…

Woman may be love, but woman doesn't understand love.

You’ll have to take that up with Her, in your own mind.

~

No human can ever not have some degree of insanity. Everything is relative, so therefore everything is always a matter of degrees.

I will say that I kind of find you interesting, mainly because you are a prime (meaning readily identifible) example of how emotions interfere with logical analysis. You've got a good working brain that tends to fuck up rational analysis due to emotions. You have, as yet, not reorganised your memory so that it no longer can feel hatred.

Alright, so you think that this:

Dream on, Kevin. “Men” did no such thing. Such ideas may have been articulated through a few males, but “men” are no more or less responsible for the creation of this outer world than women are.

…demonstrates such an instance of fucked up rational analysis due to emotions. Yet, when I read your retort:

It is actually that men, who clearly did such things, were only capable of doing such things, when the herd THROUGH herd feminity could afford such progression. Femininity forms the consistent base from which masculine activity can flourish. Males did it, but women or femininity provided the safety net that would allow such masculinity to be actualised.

I don’t see much of a difference, essentially. It shows exactly that what Kevin is pointing to is not a quality inherent in males. Course, given this reasoning, it logically follows that the herd--through “herd femininity” (that is, the politics of men as opposed to truth)--will literally never afford women such progression. Luckily, I don’t give a fag about that, myself. I have never relied on the herd for my identity; not even signs of it in this one.

[tooyi]

If you think that was bad, wait to you discover the economics of editing...

I wonder what editing you might be talking about. If you mean error in writing due editing, there was no such thing. You seem so seething with rage there is hardly any faculty of comprehension left.

[Leyla Shen]

I'm so glad that you and others seem so to be so in touch with my seeming feelings. The one prior to James who did this was Elizabeth. She felt I was bitter. You guys must be so right about me, since there are so many of you saying similar things!

However, I suggest you first get a dictionary and a mind of your own and you eventually might not have to focus so much on whether or not I'm seething with rage, or anything else.

[Leyla Shen]

Fair dinkum. Some of you lot are like a bunch of mouldy vaginal swabs trying to find a purpose for yourselves outside of your usefulness...

[Iolaus]

Kevin,

Into the future we will have more ability to change our own genetics, or chemically alter our brains, and this will make it easier for women to change - if they want to.

But I think it better not to kill something we don't understand. Of course, you think you do understand, and fully grokking it, have the right to hate it (ever read Dune?).

I find this whole idea horrifying. You want the human race to become detached from nature.

You have very little faith in whatever amazing processes lead to we humans. Of course, I know and disagree with your ideas about evolution as well. Humans are far more amazing and have more hidden talents than you suppose IMO.

Then I am a computer, with values, goals, ambitions, and understanding.

All of which require emotion.

When I say that emotion is not my soul, I mean that I will listen to my reason (which, in my case, includes my intuition) ahead of my emotions.

I'm merely trying to keep things accurate and not fall into false aspirations and assertions. Emotions at a low and rational ebb seems right to me. Ideally, there shouldn't really be any conflict between one's reason and one's emotions.

And what is your soul?

My connection to truth - which is my consciousness of truth - which is in turn dependent on reason.

A good enough answer, but I think not the right one. I am also not entirely sure what the soul is but perhaps you know something Rumi and I don't:

What is the soul?
I can't stop asking.
If I could taste one sip of an answer,
I could break out of this prison...

We seem to be composite beings, and perhaps that is why there is the doctrine of no-self. But I'm skeptical of it.

Who is the "My" in the sentence "My conection to truth"?

I think of consciousness as being just awareness.

That's probably why you don't like me saying that men are conscious and women aren't. We have different definitions of "consciousness".

No, that's not why, but it is important to have the same definition. I do use the word colloquially as you do, but it seems inadequate to say that consciousness created science, because science is due to a more specific type or use of consciousness. A gnat has consciousness. As composite beings, we have consciousness but the will or intent varies. Pure consciousness or awareness is context, intent or will to create science is content.

The reason I don't like your saying that is because it is absurd on the face of it.

I mean that women feel the demands of all who are (immediately) around them, whereas a man feels only the call of his own conscience.

Again, I don't even find this a good generalization. I'm not against generalizations since many of them are true in the main. Men have a better sense of direction. Women care more for people than physical objects. But I just don't see men being a whole lot more independent in their thoughts than women. Often enough, a lone woman will stand up to any number of people and disagree, as happened to one lone congresswoman on the eve of WWII and toanother one on another war, which one I forget.

By "God" I mean "the All", or everything, the Totality.

But what has not occurred to you is that the Totality is alive.

Speaking of criminals, the criminal has the ability to "merge" with things, and that is exactly why he is a criminal. For example, he sees the property of others as his own. For him, the boundaries don't exist. In the case of a rapist, he considers the woman's body as his own body.

This line of reasoning doesn't make sense. It would mean that the criminal has achieved a spiritual success. This also is at odds with your teaching. You teach the unity and seamlessness of the All, yet those who are merged are the least conscious. Those who are most separate realize the unity intellectually, but not experientially. (That would be you.) If the thing is a great truth, why not experience it?

But the criminal is not merged in the sense I am talking about; quite the opposite. For if he was he could not inflict hurt upon others. The reason he has no boundaries is precisely because he lacks a clear vision of the reality of other beings. While his understanding that another being is alive rather than inanimate is there, it is rudimentary. If he is cruel, his understanding that the being is alive is just sufficient to allow him to enjoy inflicting suffering. But he most certainly is not merged in the sense of really understanding that suffering. I use the word 'understand' but it isn't what I mean. I mean he should see it. That is different. The criminal is cut off from the reality of the other being. This is true of regular folks too, but to a much lesser extent.

It is really a bit silly to say that the car thief steals cars because he is merged with them.

I am suspecting that you don't actually know what I am trying to convey.

Perhaps the problem is partly due to your being a materialist. Because of that, you don't really believe in consciousness. You only believe in the brain. Now, many people say they are not materialists, and believe in an immaterial soul. I do not. I may be wrong, but I do not think there is such a thing as the nonmaterial. In what sense can the nonmaterial be said to exist? but what I do believe is that our sense perceptions and our meat bodies are set to perceive a certain range within this reality, but that there is much more. And that what people have traditionally assigned to the spiritual realm is simply a very subtle realm beyond the normal functioning of our senses.

The "outer world" is not just the physical world. Men have created the abstract worlds of philosophy, psychology, mathematics, and religion. In addition, most of science is abstract. Even politics and justice are the abstract creations of men.

Yes, very true. Males are far more interested in structure, and their wider view includes more abstract things as well. But lets give the devil his due. They have also created our current totalitarian government and media/medical/financial system based upon lies and exploitation and greed.

I would say the abstract world of thought is more persistent than the chemical world of the emotions.

Well, maybe when you write them down! Thoughts and emotions are very closely tied, and thoughts run willy nilly here and there, so say the Buddhists. Actually, it is the thought systems which need to be dismantled, not the emotions as much. The emotions often follow beliefs about situations.

[Iolaus]

Leyla said,

Indeed. And with it, hatred on the same order of magnitude.

This seems like a belief to me. But duality is an illusion. Take electricity. We have a switch on the wall, and we call it on or off. But there is no such position as off. There is only electricity or not. But the 'not' isn't an actuality. Take hot and cold. Relative to our bodies, very real. But there is no cold. There is only the application of more and more heat. No heat, zero kelvin, is not an actuality, it is only the absence of heat.

Love and hate are not opposites. Fear is the opposite of love, or perhaps indifference.

My own opinion is that love is a fundamental energy of the universe, the Totality, and does not require an opposite.
++++++++++++++++++++++

James,

You have, as yet, not reorganised your memory so that it no longer can feel hatred.

This is an interesting comment. You think the secret is in reorganizing the memory? Wouldn't it be the reorganizing of understanding, or one's opinions? What progress have you made in this endeavor and how do you go about it?

[Kevin Solway]

Into the future we will have more ability to change our own genetics, or chemically alter our brains, and this will make it easier for women to change - if they want to.

But I think it better not to kill something we don't understand. Of course, you think you do understand, and fully grokking it, have the right to hate it (ever read Dune?).

I don't "hate" women. It's just that hatred is the only explanation you can think of to explain my way of thinking.

Yes, I've read Dune. The first book was worth reading.

I find this whole idea horrifying. You want the human race to become detached from nature.

Just the opposite. I want the human race to become fully conscious of its connection to Nature, rather than just blindly stumbling along, like a river over a cliff, so to speak.

Then I am a computer, with values, goals, ambitions, and understanding.

All of which require emotion.

I'm not sure what your definition of "emotion" is, but emotion doesn't play a role in my thinking.

I define an emotion to be a deluded feeling, such as love, hate, sorrow, fear, etc, that is based on a deluded understanding of the nature of "self" and "other".

Emotions at a low and rational ebb seems right to me.

You must do what you can, but according to my definition, there can be no such thing as a rational emotion. They are all irrational, since their foundation is false.

Ideally, there shouldn't really be any conflict between one's reason and one's emotions.

There is no conflict when there are no emotions.

Who is the "My" in the sentence "My connection to truth"?

An abstract creation.

By "God" I mean "the All", or everything, the Totality.

But what has not occurred to you is that the Totality is alive.

"Alive", compared to what?

Speaking of criminals, the criminal has the ability to "merge" with things, and that is exactly why he is a criminal. For example, he sees the property of others as his own. For him, the boundaries don't exist. In the case of a rapist, he considers the woman's body as his own body.

This line of reasoning doesn't make sense. It would mean that the criminal has achieved a spiritual success.

This kind of merging, and this kind of oneness, if you remember, is always unconscious.

Those who are most separate realize the unity intellectually, but not experientially. (That would be you.) If the thing is a great truth, why not experience it?

The sage experiences the unity in full consciousness, and also experiences his separateness in full consciousness (as an abstract creation).

But the criminal is not merged in the sense I am talking about; quite the opposite. For if he was he could not inflict hurt upon others.

When people are merged with the world around them unconsciously, then they have no idea of the harm they are doing.

It is really a bit silly to say that the car thief steals cars because he is merged with them.

Not really. He thinks the car is rightfully his, and he can't live without it.

Likewise, when people are in love they feel a degree of ownership of the other person. That is, they feel they have some rights regarding the other person's life - and that is really a crime, just like car theft.

Thoughts and emotions are very closely tied

Not in wise people they're not.

[Leyla Shen]

This seems like a belief to me. But duality is an illusion. Take electricity. We have a switch on the wall, and we call it on or off. But there is no such position as off. There is only electricity or not. But the 'not' isn't an actuality. Take hot and cold. Relative to our bodies, very real. But there is no cold. There is only the application of more and more heat. No heat, zero kelvin, is not an actuality, it is only the absence of heat.

Love and hate are not opposites. Fear is the opposite of love, or perhaps indifference.

My own opinion is that love is a fundamental energy of the universe, the Totality, and does not require an opposite.

I get the impression that you think there is no such thing as truth--not even relative truths--and that this is the reason you think what I have said is an opinion without being able to offer anything but your own opinion in reply. For instance, when you say “take electricity” it’s utterly meaningless and, therefore, necessarily a thing relegated to the every-arsehole-has-one category of "opinion." There are several forms of “electricity” and, by itself, the word means nothing in particular, therefore. Just some wild, out-there mystical type of thing permeating the universe.

The position off is the position of the switch that facilitates an interruption to the flow/current of that particular electrical phenomenon. I don’t know what else you’re expecting off to mean whilst retaining some nebulous and independently existing notion of on. So, with electricity, we’re talking about the motion of electrons and protons.

Insofar as the heat, cold and temperature proposition, being that it belongs to the field of thermal energy, “cold,” by definition, is a state of molecular and atomic oscillation. Zero Kelvin (or “absolute zero”) is simply the slowest possible rate of oscillation of an object's atoms and molecules. Again, that is what “cold” is in scientific terms. I'm sure we all understand what it is as a sensory phenomenon. Why, then, would you seem to think there can be heat, but no cold?

So, before I address love and hate and your idea of love as a fundamental energy of the universe, the Totality, not requiring an opposite, I need to understand the reasoning behind your assertions above.

[tek0]

"This is an interesting comment. You think the secret is in reorganizing the memory? Wouldn't it be the reorganizing of understanding, or one's opinions? What progress have you made in this endeavor and how do you go about it?"



Unfortunately you could manage to do so and those who are still thinking chaotically and acting so will eventually break down your defenses and draw you into chaos.

[Leyla Shen]

A recent conversation commenced with the following poem (numbered for ease of reference), to which my responses are here provided in italics and tooyi‘s responses to those in bold:

1. As truth is not realized,
love is.

Indeed. And with it, hatred on the same order of magnitude.

So the ignorant would want us to believe.

2. To love truth first,
and woman second,
can it ever be enough?

Not when woman is posited as the antithesis of truth.

As much as there is ignorance,
there is hatred,
in the absence of love.

3. Or should there be but love,
and never truth again?

Dunno about you, but truth doesn't ever disappear for me.

You just said lack of love equals hatred. In other words, if you do not love somebody, you have no choice but to hate them. Way to go, girl.

Re. 1: You poetically stated that love exists in the absence of truth, to which I commented so, too, does hate exist (in the absence of truth, that is) on the same order of magnitude.

Corollary: love is absent in the realisation of truth. However, to this--what actually is and follows logically from your idea--you cast the charge of ignorance somewhere outside of yourself and completely twist it in 3. to make a false allegation against me (not that I’m bothered by it at all beyond it being a purely irrational comment).

Re. 2: Given what was established in 1., it follows then that a love of truth necessarily exists in the absence of truth. To love it first means it has a greater degree of absence than anything else, since love is realised to the degree that truth is not.

You then query whether it can ever be enough to love truth first and woman second. If love is absent in in direct proportion to the realisation of truth, as posited in 1., what order of truth and love is involved in loving woman second?

Re. 3: Again, if “as truth is not realised, love is” is true, how does my stating that truth never disappears for me (and, given 1., therefore neither do love or hate appear) mean lack of love means hatred?

[tooyi]

The poetic statement about loving truth was a statement "First the Kingdom of God" in another form. It states that should there be love, it should be first for the truth, or there can be no truth left. There is nothing wrong aiming for other things, but should it be truth, by definition, it must always come first in everything.

There was no mention to hate there. Nevertheless, you made such a connection immediately and tried to contrast it with a statement that only deals with the truth. It doesn't matter whether you agreed with the original statement or not. You made the connection regardless and you managed to make it poorly.

The second part was questioning the commitment to truth. The test is handling the consequences. What was said didn't contrast woman to truth but it put truth before woman. Surely, should truth never disappear for one, not a thing can remain that goes before it. Not even attachment to woman.

When you affirmed the appearance of opposition of woman to truth, you did it out of that hate that you saw waiting in the absence of love. Your words.

The last part was reiterating the annihilation of truth on the face of putting anything else before it. Those attached will really get their rocks off on that one.

Your statement of truth never disappearing for you was not demonstrated by your efforts. You should not concentrate on trying to build corollaries (and some such) when you make haphazard statements by emotional association alone and therefore your tree is rotting from the root. Should an arrow hit one on the side, there is no time to treat a simple rash but attention must be given to the arrow first. Treat your attachment first.

[Leyla Shen]

Your statement of truth never disappearing for you was not demonstrated by your efforts.

Yes, it is. You are too much in love with yourself to see it, and we're not going to get very far unless you're prepared to confront it. Let me show you again.

As truth is not realized,
love is.

The poetic statement about loving truth was a statement "First the Kingdom of God" in another form. It states that should there be love, it should be first for the truth, or there can be no truth left. There is nothing wrong aiming for other things, but should it be truth, by definition, it must always come first in everything.

Truth: these two ideas are far from being the same thing.

Nevertheless, perhaps you’d care to explain how hate (and its counterpart, ignorance) is realised, if not in the absence of truth.

[tooyi]

Truth: these two ideas are far from being the same thing.

For the moment you don't seem to have the capacity to understand it. There is a remarkable difference between concepts of a necessary and a sufficient cause. Since you are mostly dealing with only your immediate emotions you can not have the necessary grasp of causality required here to get to the meaning. The attachment and resulting emotions cause you to over- and undercompensate your approach of logic; Too tight where slack is needed, too loose when gripped.

Nevertheless, perhaps you'd care to explain how hate (and its counterpart, ignorance) is realised, if not in the absence of truth.

Your interpretation of the absence of truth as a sufficient cause for all those unfortunate states to immediately appear is too rigid. The key is to understand that it doesn't have to be so. Only when truth is absent can attachment flourish without anything being there to obstruct it. The attachment will eventually result in suffering. The only way to rid that suffering is to face the attachment directly, but before that one would have to forgive self having indulged. Since forgiving is hard instead of facing it that hate is turned into hate towards others.

Unlike some others strongly invested in woman and trying to negotiate terms, you are simply trying to use sheer force.

[Leyla Shen]

You, tooyi, not only seem but clearly are suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Your inability to present or understand a coherent argument--positing henids mixed with pop-psych evals on auto--is no reflection of either my emotional state or my understanding.

You should actually attempt to address the content in my posts, instead, rather than justify your ignorance of it.

[Iolaus]

Kevin

I don't "hate" women. It's just that hatred is the only explanation you can think of to explain my way of thinking.

I agree it's not that simple, and you're a congenial guy and from all accounts respectful toward all. Perhaps it is something in yourself you hate, perhaps you hate the feminine in a way that is more symbolic than actually directed toward real women. I'll grant you that.

I don't "hate" women. It's just that hatred is the only explanation you can think of to explain my way of thinking.

I have doubt that there is a state without emotion, if so it might be a thoughtless state as well.

I define an emotion to be a deluded feeling, such as love, hate, sorrow, fear, etc, that is based on a deluded understanding of the nature of "self" and "other".

The normal emotion should be love because all is self.

Ideally, there shouldn't really be any conflict between one's reason and one's emotions.

There is no conflict when there are no emotions.

Well, that's what you think, but at any rate it's a different topic.

Who is the "My" in the sentence "My connection to truth"?

An abstract creation.

I happen to doubt this doctrine, or wonder if modern Americans/Australians are understanding it aright. There's a difference between no self and expanded self.

But what has not occurred to you is that the Totality is alive.

"Alive", compared to what?

Alive as compared to dead, which so far as I know is all you believe in. You believe only in matter, atoms and chemicals, and life is just chemical reactions. But actually, I don't think that's all I really meant. I also meant conscious, aware.

This kind of merging, and this kind of oneness, if you remember, is always unconscious.

I agree that criminals are unconscious, but I do not think they are merged, but rather too separate from other beings. The ability to merge with other consciousnesses at will is a highly conscious one, and has nothing in common with criminality, except for being 180 degrees away from it.

The sage experiences the unity in full consciousness, and also experiences his separateness in full consciousness (as an abstract creation).

I think you mean that he understands it to be a truth. That is not an experience, except of a shallow sort, since it will excite a bit of feeling.

When people are merged with the world around them unconsciously, then they have no idea of the harm they are doing.

But in what way is it necessary to think they are merged at all?

Likewise, when people are in love they feel a degree of ownership of the other person. That is, they feel they have some rights regarding the other person's life - and that is really a crime, just like car theft.

Ha, ha! I would have to agree there. I think most jealousy is strange and odd.

Thoughts and emotions are very closely tied

Not in wise people they're not.

I think a bit differently, that in a wise person there is certainly little angst of any sort, and that he sees thru the whole thought-emotion-reaction process.

But I am not completely sure about this. After all, altho animals think and quite well, yet they are primarily emotional, or unable to reflect on their strong emotions, and have less gray matter, frontal lobes and all that. So there is certainly this progression of freedom from automatic, overwhelming emotion to the addition of more and more reason.

[Laird]

Oh, blessed be the infinite causes of the Totality! For I have had an epiphany! Yes, indeed: whilst reading through the section on women and men in Poison For The Heart I was struck with Truth! And it is exactly as David describes: suddenly and in a single fatal blow one penetrates the dirty secrets of Woman and sees her for the wicked scoundrel that she is! Never again will I be taken in by the lies of our hyper-feminine society! Lies like these:

What are little boys made of?
"Snips and snails, and puppy dogs' tails
That's what little boys are made of!"
What are little girls made of?
"Sugar and spice and all things nice
That's what little girls are made of!"
-- Children's rhyme

Sure, God created man before women, but then you always make a rough draft before the final masterpiece.
-- Fridge magnet.

Women are like, way better than guys, so like, nah nah for nah nah.
-- Some girl in the playground

Yea! how deftly doth a scurrilous woman insert her misandry into the minds of unenlightened souls. Well, I've been hoodwinked for too long! Now it is time to pay homage to the inspired words that lead me to my breakthrough. I present to you below the choice cuts of this much-maligned section of Poison For The Heart. Cut this section out from publication will you!? Nay! I charge you instead: embolden it and read it daily to your children! Especially the little girls: it is vital that we teach women how decrepit and worthless they are from as early an age as possible.

A woman is severely restricted in her thinking. She has no mind for irony, contradictions and paradoxes.

Ah, yes, I know the woman of whom you speak! Her name is Leyla!

But actually, Leyla is something of a puzzle, for whilst she has no appreciation for paradox, she has a fine mind for irony and contradiction. And it confused me a little to notice that Elizabeth can pick irony too. For a while there I also didn't know quite what to make of the writings of Jane Austen - surely, I told myself - surely that ironic wit is accidental. And then the solution came to me! These are not women at all! These so-called "women" are so manly that they don't even have breasts!

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

Right on! Recognising that women have no redeeming virtues and consistently pointing this out isn't sexist, it's just the way that things are, and we can be sure that if we find a woman with a redeeming virtue, then she's half-way towards becoming a man.

Man, however, cannot submit to fear. He cannot share it with himself or others. He keeps it inside, preferring to live with the pain. For him to recognize the hurt means to be a failure as a man. In contrast, woman sees nothing wrong with being fearful; she even deems it a virtue. She does not know "failure" as man does, because she does not compete. The more she submits, the more she can bask in the happiness of carefreeness. She calls it "honest" to recognize and share her fears.

That's so right - I'm almost envious of mothers with careers because they're so carefree! It's a pity that women don't compete, too, or we men could really put them in their place! Yes, imagine a world where women could become prime ministers, presidents and CEOs - for certain no woman would ever rise to such dizzy heights!

A woman cannot resist a man who tells her that his life is a shambles, and that he needs her, and her alone, to pull his life back together and save him from death. For now she has a child, exactly as if she had her very own baby.

Yes, exactly - there's nothing that women like more than childish men - they just love unequal relationships with their lovers. Show me the woman who isn't just dying to pick up a pitiful man and hold his babyish hand as he falters through his maladjusted life and I'll show you that she isn't, after all, a woman.

These are expressed in submissiveness, weakness of will, a childish innocence, spontaneity, and emotionality. In contrast the male personality shows itself as a dominant striving, courage, depth, strength under pressure, and a greater degree of rationality.

Yes, yes - give all of the good ones to the guys! The chicks can pick up the scraps.

To avoid the sin of lustful desire, a man should see women as sisters, or daughters, or mothers, loving whom would be incest.

That's just right - because who wants to procreate? Perpetuating the human race depends on sinful practices, so the human race must die out. That's just the sagely way.

If you are a man, then never let a woman catch you looking at her; for how can you teach her non-attachment when you are attached to physical and emotional beauty yourself?

Also: because it gives her power. And the last thing that we want in this world is powerful women.

Women cannot stand a dialectical redoubling, an intensification of reason. The awesome redoubling is nothing more than a second thought, against the first, and simultaneous with it. Woman is one dimensional in the sense that she can only think the one thing. If she tries to think the second she begins to lose the first - and her mind snaps. She loses her life, because her first thought is her life.

Yes, it's well known that women can only do one thing at a time, and this of course extends to thinking.

As we might expect, early on, the boy comes to think he is the same as his mother, and therefore that he has a right to be a mother when he grows older. Then the time comes when he is told he is not allowed to be a mother . . . because . . . he is a boy.

Oh, and I thought that I was the only boy who had such dreams! It is so satisfying to find that I'm not the only little boy that wanted to be a mother. And I can just tell that as a child you liked to play with dolls and wear dresses too. Happy days indeed, when young boys want to be women. And then grow up to write misogynist propaganda. I don't suppose that there's a link there though.

Man, if man he is, is drawn to the intelligent and self-willed woman. But she must be so only on the surface; for the beauty a woman holds for man is in her weakness.

Yes, we well adjusted men like to be able to point to weaknesses in our partners. It's a beautiful thing to describe the ways in which one's partner is inferior to oneself.

Love is just this: man takes and woman gives.

She does if she knows which side of her bread is buttered, if you catch my drift.

You see, a woman's love is not mere devotedness, but is an unreserved sacrifice of both mind and body. She gives up all she holds dear, especially all she holds dear: her mind and her soul. It must be all or nothing; much as when treating a carpet for fleas one wants to be rid of all the fleas, not merely most of them. There must be no complicating conditions. [...] Thus we get the nauseating reality where a highly intelligent and educated woman will fawn to a moronic lug of a man, who will pontificate to her on any and every matter of life, while she sits with respectful fear, with wide adoring eyes, ears pricked and hungry for every word he utters, every sound he makes, every breath he takes . . . and all this with barely restrained glee.

And when I look at modern women and when I see them holding their centres in their relationships with men - not giving of their all - and not agreeing with every damn sentence that I utter, then I know that modern women are becoming men. And so there is hope after all.

You see, woman does not love the man, nor the goodness or truth in a man, but his lovableness . . . which has scant little to do with goodness and truth

You have a magnificent ability to turn the senseless into the sensible. That sentence is so garbled but ... it just makes so much sense! Women love lovableness - yes, that's just it!

Today her love graces a priest, and tomorrow - a professional hit-man. What knows she? It feels ludicrous to apply ethical standards to her, for she knows nothing of them to begin with.

Indeed, women are completely undiscerning - in effect, to a woman, any man will do. Job, social status, personality, wealth, attractiveness - none of these concerns ever impinge on a woman's decision-making.

Ethics? Women? Jeez Kev, how can you even use those two words in the same sentence? Everyone knows that only men have ethics - men are virtuous; women are nothing.

Woman's purpose in life is to capture and hold a man. Man's purpose in life is to remain free.

Yes, women are in fact like slavedrivers hunting in Africa for their next victim, and men are like the naked black savages, fearing and running from their dominating mistresses.

[By] fools and intellectual insects, I mean women"

[cheers and clapping] Right on!! Women achieve nothing intellectually in our educational institutions and beyond. They just sit there looking pretty and hunting their next slave.

The wise man seeks life, but woman is suicide.

Wise words from a wise man who knows women because as a child he wanted to be one. And there would have been a suicide over that too.

If I felt a woman's hand in mine I would be forced to think: Why do I need this touch? Am I yet an animal?

Hey, yeah, and when I eat a fine meal I'm likewise forced to think: Why do I need this taste? Am I yet an animal? What we should be doing is eating gruel and stale bread and staying a bare minimum of ten feet away from all people at all times.

The simple act of asking a woman out, just to talk, to get to know her, means that you have accepted falsity and inadequacy and rejected Truth. It means you have accepted the word of the ego over the word of God. For if Truth still occupies one's mind, even just a bit, then one would still have some hope for God and would not seek to go into cohorts with the ego, the Devil, in the form of woman and love.

Yes, because Truth is that women are all the bad stuff and men shouldn't be polluting themselves with that, they need to stick to the good stuff, which excludes women by definition. We can't love the bad stuff, we've got to love the good stuff, so we should be loving ourselves. Perhaps you could teach me how to go about that.

If a man achieves too much, no woman would be able to appreciate him. So he aims low, to remain in her sight.

Now I understand why I have never achieved anything of note - it's those damn women tethering me!

[N]o woman appreciates true wisdom.

Yes, the women who post to this forum are imposters, charlatans and fakes! We see you clearly you snake-lovers, you!

Even so, I do not want women to remain feminine. I welcome their becoming more masculine.

Quite right, there's something wrong when a woman is a woman and expects to be appreciated as such. We should be phasing women right out of existence. A genderocide is what's required. My machete is at the ready - just say the word and I'll be out on the streets "masculinising" the women. Where for our purposes "masculine" means "headless" haha. Yes, the time has come for us to be putting these pitiful creatures out of their misery.

To be of any real help to women, man himself needs to become supremely masculine - masculine enough not to need the emotional services of women. The Supreme Masculine needs nothing.

Yes, being emotionless, man sees the pervasive and inescapable sickness that is the emotionalism of a woman, and, man being emotionless, and seeing that there is no other escape for the poor creature, he euthanises her.

Have you noticed that she never really looks worried? She may look puzzled, perplexed, even shocked . . . but never worried.

Yes, women are too happy and carefree to ever worry. Only men worry.

But Oh how much pleasure man receives in this [merging with the essence of woman after falling into her eyes] - for a little while - to be nothing!

Yes, because women are just nothing, so being merged with a woman is to be nothing.

No mother loves her child. To her, a child is a status symbol - to prove she is woman. A child is the ultimate bangle.

That's right, when a woman shows concern for her child she's really acting selfishly. It's like polishing a car - the more love you give it the more other people respect you for it. And that's all that women want from children - the respect of others. Maternal love - phooey. I finally see now that my mother never loved me. When she tucked me into bed at night and read me stories she was just turning me into a status symbol.

She [Woman] would not have a conscience about hanging anyone she did not particularly like.

Damn, I don't know about you but I'm getting pretty sick of women and their nooses. Every time I think a thought that a woman doesn't like she fixes me with her emotional gaze and draws a line across her throat. They're so unconscionable, women!

Woman moves differently. She is consistent, in that she does nothing. She does not strive, so does not fail. Her lack of embarrassing slips is not so much evidence that she is on the right path, as it is proof she is going nowhere.

Yes, yes, I'm almost there! Stick the dagger in even deeper with more filthy rhetoric!

In contrast, woman has nothing to fear from man, as she has no identity to lose.

Oh, so good! Just a little more... oh, do it for me! More!

[F]or it must be said, women (as they are) are barely human.

Yes! I'm there!

[Kevin Solway]

A woman is severely restricted in her thinking. She has no mind for irony, contradictions and paradoxes.

Leyla is something of a puzzle, for whilst she has no appreciation for paradox

As with most of my comments about women, they don't concern ordinary mundane life, but the deeper, spiritual side of life.

There are many very good female comedians who have to use irony in their creation of their humour. But their irony only ever remains on the mundane level.

It's a pity that women don't compete

Count the number of great artists, or scientists, or businesspeople who are women. There are virtually none at the upper end of the spectrum. That is a testimony to the fact that women do not compete (or can't compete).

Of course, a woman will compete for a man, or a cushy job in the store down the street, or at the yearly sales; but all that is on a mundane level.

A woman cannot resist a man who tells her that his life is a shambles, and that he needs her, and her alone, to pull his life back together and save him from death. For now she has a child, exactly as if she had her very own baby.

Show me the woman who isn't just dying to pick up a pitiful man and hold his babyish hand as he falters through his maladjusted life and I'll show you that she isn't, after all, a woman.

Exactly. Of what purpose is a man if he doesn't really need her?

To avoid the sin of lustful desire, a man should see women as sisters, or daughters, or mothers, loving whom would be incest.

That's just right - because who wants to procreate? Perpetuating the human race depends on sinful practices, so the human race must die out. That's just the sagely way.

Modern technology will solve the problem eventually. Sages know the importance of procreation.

If you are a man, then never let a woman catch you looking at her; for how can you teach her non-attachment when you are attached to physical and emotional beauty yourself?

Also: because it gives her power. And the last thing that we want in this world is powerful women.

That's very misogynistic of you Laird.

Women cannot stand a dialectical redoubling, an intensification of reason. The awesome redoubling is nothing more than a second thought, against the first, and simultaneous with it. Woman is one dimensional in the sense that she can only think the one thing. If she tries to think the second she begins to lose the first - and her mind snaps. She loses her life, because her first thought is her life.

Yes, it's well known that women can only do one thing at a time, and this of course extends to thinking.

Women can do many things at once, but it's all on a mundane, superficial level. Dialectical redoubling happens on a deeper plane.

As we might expect, early on, the boy comes to think he is the same as his mother, and therefore that he has a right to be a mother when he grows older. Then the time comes when he is told he is not allowed to be a mother . . . because . . . he is a boy.

Oh, and I thought that I was the only boy who had such dreams! It is so satisfying to find that I'm not the only little boy that wanted to be a mother.

I'm sure it is quite natural, since nearly all boys are reared primarily by women. But it doesn't necessarily lead a man to being a misogynist. Sometimes, having been reared by women means that a man can have a better understanding of women.

Man, if man he is, is drawn to the intelligent and self-willed woman. But she must be so only on the surface; for the beauty a woman holds for man is in her weakness.

Yes, we well adjusted men like to be able to point to weaknesses in our partners. It's a beautiful thing to describe the ways in which one's partner is inferior to oneself.

Quite right. Have you noticed how men rarely like to draw attention to the fact this his wife is bigger, stronger, and fitter than himself, more sturdily dressed and shoed, as well as more intelligent in all regards, and that she earns a lot more money than he does and has no need of him whatsoever.

And when I look at modern women and when I see them holding their centres in their relationships with men - not giving of their all - and not agreeing with every damn sentence that I utter, then I know that modern women are becoming men. And so there is hope after all.

It remains to be seen. When women go deeper than the mundane, we will know they are becoming men.

You see, woman does not love the man, nor the goodness or truth in a man, but his lovableness . . . which has scant little to do with goodness and truth

You have a magnificent ability to turn the senseless into the sensible. That sentence is so garbled but ... it just makes so much sense! Women love lovableness - yes, that's just it!

It wasn't meant to make sense. It was meant to describe the way women think.

Today her love graces a priest, and tomorrow - a professional hit-man. What knows she? It feels ludicrous to apply ethical standards to her, for she knows nothing of them to begin with.

Indeed, women are completely undiscerning - in effect, to a woman, any man will do. Job, social status, personality, wealth, attractiveness - none of these concerns ever impinge on a woman's decision-making.

That's not right. Job and status are important, no matter whether the man has the job and status of a priest, or a hit-man.

Women achieve nothing intellectually in our educational institutions and beyond.

Women can achieve at our educational institutions, because those institutions are exceedingly mundane.

If I felt a woman's hand in mine I would be forced to think: Why do I need this touch? Am I yet an animal?

Hey, yeah, and when I eat a fine meal I'm likewise forced to think: Why do I need this taste? Am I yet an animal? What we should be doing is eating gruel and stale bread and staying a bare minimum of ten feet away from all people at all times.

Are you saying that it is perfectly natural to rape women, for the reason that it is natural to eat food?

If a man achieves too much, no woman would be able to appreciate him. So he aims low, to remain in her sight.

Now I understand why I have never achieved anything of note - it's those damn women tethering me!

Now you're catching on.

I'll be out on the streets "masculinising" the women. Where for our purposes "masculine" means "headless" haha. Yes, the time has come for us to be putting these pitiful creatures out of their misery.

Following that logic you would have to kill all the animals and plants on the earth, since they also lack depth of mind.

when a woman shows concern for her child she's really acting selfishly.

I wouldn't say that. A person has to have a real self to be able to act selfishly.

She [Woman] would not have a conscience about hanging anyone she did not particularly like.

Damn, I don't know about you but I'm getting pretty sick of women and their nooses.

The women wouldn't want to do the hanging themselves. They would tell a man to do it, and reward him with praise when he does it.

Thankfully, men have created a justice system to prevent that kind of thing from happening.

[Faust]

. . . what makes you think we don't have a self and that we aren't selfish?

[Kevin Solway]

[Sorry Faust, I accidentally deleted your post (by hitting the edit button instead of the quote button). You might want to repair it.]

A person has to have a real self to be able to act selfishly.

What makes you think we don't have a self and that we aren't selfish?

A person has to have a proper ego before they can start acting selfishly - like a "bastard", so to speak. Women tend not to have egos that are strongly developed enough for them to act in such a selfish way.

Women hear that, and think it's a good thing. But it really puts them on a par with the other animals. Women are not "selfish" for the very same reason that a cow or a dog is not "selfish". They simply aren't developed enough to be so.

[Laird]

As with most of my comments about women, they don't concern ordinary mundane life, but the deeper, spiritual side of life.

There are many very good female comedians who have to use irony in their creation of their humour. But their irony only ever remains on the mundane level.

That's right - I've never seen a female comedian go beyond bum and tit jokes. Chicks just so don't know how to make serious comedy.

Of course, a woman will compete for a man, or a cushy job in the store down the street, or at the yearly sales; but all that is on a mundane level.

Ah, more breakthroughs in understanding! You truly have a gift for opening my mind to higher levels of misogyny. What it comes down to is that women are blinkered horses plodding their bleary, unimaginative way through the fields of conformity. Whereas men!: men are like brilliant peacocks with their display of individualistic creativity! Except that they're not really like peacocks, because peacocks are all egotistical and such but *real* men: they aren't egotistical at all. More like big bold lions! And chicks are like little tubby fat pussy cats. Pretty little putty. Pretty putty.

Kevin: A woman cannot resist a man who tells her that his life is a shambles, and that he needs her, and her alone, to pull his life back together and save him from death. For now she has a child, exactly as if she had her very own baby.

Laird: Show me the woman who isn't just dying to pick up a pitiful man and hold his babyish hand as he falters through his maladjusted life and I'll show you that she isn't, after all, a woman.

Kevin: Exactly. Of what purpose is a man if he doesn't really need her?

Yes, yes - not only must he need her but he must cling to her desperately. He must be so inept at life that she has to molly-coddle him through it. That's what women really want in a man. Take your past relationship with your partner - you must have had lots of good experience playing the baby there.

Kevin: If you are a man, then never let a woman catch you looking at her; for how can you teach her non-attachment when you are attached to physical and emotional beauty yourself?

Laird: Also: because it gives her power. And the last thing that we want in this world is powerful women.

Kevin: That's very misogynistic of you Laird.

Oh Kev, my chest is swelling with pride. I don't know if I really deserve such a compliment - honestly, I'm just a beginner.

Kevin: Women cannot stand a dialectical redoubling, an intensification of reason. The awesome redoubling is nothing more than a second thought, against the first, and simultaneous with it. Woman is one dimensional in the sense that she can only think the one thing. If she tries to think the second she begins to lose the first - and her mind snaps. She loses her life, because her first thought is her life.

Laird: Yes, it's well known that women can only do one thing at a time, and this of course extends to thinking.

Kevin: Women can do many things at once, but it's all on a mundane, superficial level. Dialectical redoubling happens on a deeper plane.

Yes - men operate on planes that you need a jet superliner to travel to but women only get the little dinky remote-controlled helicopters. Haha, those poor chicks - they so just don't get it, do they?

Kevin: As we might expect, early on, the boy comes to think he is the same as his mother, and therefore that he has a right to be a mother when he grows older. Then the time comes when he is told he is not allowed to be a mother . . . because . . . he is a boy.

Laird: Oh, and I thought that I was the only boy who had such dreams! It is so satisfying to find that I'm not the only little boy that wanted to be a mother.

Kevin: I'm sure it is quite natural, since nearly all boys are reared primarily by women. But it doesn't necessarily lead a man to being a misogynist. Sometimes, having been reared by women means that a man can have a better understanding of women.

But when you find out that your precious dreams of pregnancy, suckling and child-rearing are in vain after all: what a burning disappointment. How I raged against my mother when I realised that she had cheated me out of my feminine heritage! No womb! How could this be? And, what - I would never be granted the satisfaction of my own pair of mammary glands!? "Mother, how could you?" I screamed inwardly. Oh yes, the little boy who can go through that much pain without deeply resenting women is the ultimate spiritual being, wouldn't you agree?

Kevin: Man, if man he is, is drawn to the intelligent and self-willed woman. But she must be so only on the surface; for the beauty a woman holds for man is in her weakness.

Laird: Yes, we well adjusted men like to be able to point to weaknesses in our partners. It's a beautiful thing to describe the ways in which one's partner is inferior to oneself.

Kevin: Quite right. Have you noticed how men rarely like to draw attention to the fact this his wife is bigger, stronger, and fitter than himself, more sturdily dressed and shoed, as well as more intelligent in all regards, and that she earns a lot more money than he does and has no need of him whatsoever.

Oh, a man would never have to do that! Everyone knows that all women are smaller, weaker, lazier, more flimsily dressed, stupider in all regards, less well paid and utterly clingly! Haha, chicks suck big time, don't they?

Laird: And when I look at modern women and when I see them holding their centres in their relationships with men - not giving of their all - and not agreeing with every damn sentence that I utter, then I know that modern women are becoming men. And so there is hope after all.

Kevin: It remains to be seen. When women go deeper than the mundane, we will know they are becoming men.

And oh how I dream of a manly woman! I'm sure you do too. I'm sure you lay there at night fantasising about her deep powerful voice, commanding the secrets of the universe to you, her iron-clad grip on reality leaving you in no doubt as to who's the master. And you, telling her all of your troubles, and her pounding the table and declaring: "I am not like all of the others, wanting to molly-coddle you! Destroy the final remnants of your femininity and become a man like me!"

Kevin: You see, woman does not love the man, nor the goodness or truth in a man, but his lovableness . . . which has scant little to do with goodness and truth

Laird: You have a magnificent ability to turn the senseless into the sensible. That sentence is so garbled but ... it just makes so much sense! Women love lovableness - yes, that's just it!

Kevin: It wasn't meant to make sense. It was meant to describe the way women think.

And what an eloquent demonstration it was! Any woman now reading this can demonstrate to herself how nonsensically she thinks too: ladies, just consider the words "love", "lovable", "goodness" and "truth". Can't tell the difference, can ya? Haha, thought so - you chicks just can't comprehend anything! Suckers!

Kevin: Today her love graces a priest, and tomorrow - a professional hit-man. What knows she? It feels ludicrous to apply ethical standards to her, for she knows nothing of them to begin with.

Laird: Indeed, women are completely undiscerning - in effect, to a woman, any man will do. Job, social status, personality, wealth, attractiveness - none of these concerns ever impinge on a woman's decision-making.

Kevin: That's not right. Job and status are important, no matter whether the man has the job and status of a priest, or a hit-man.

No, no (dare I contradict my teacher? And yet I must!), you've forgotten the first lesson of Woman. She is flowy, she has no consciousness: she merges with her man, be he a dole-bludging hippie or a high-flying CEO. They are indistinguishable to her - she hasn't the character to choose between them.

Laird: Women achieve nothing intellectually in our educational institutions and beyond.

Kevin: Women can achieve at our educational institutions, because those institutions are exceedingly mundane.

And do you know why they're so mundane? I do.

It's because those educational institutions have become so damned feminine, just like everything else in this gosh-darned feminine society. And don't you talk to me about aggression and war and violence: feminine I tell you! And exploitation and cruelty to animals? Feminine too! Remember, the rule is that if it's ignoble it's feminine, and if it's virtuous it's masculine. Haha, boy do chicks suck big time or what huh?

Kevin: If I felt a woman's hand in mine I would be forced to think: Why do I need this touch? Am I yet an animal?

Laird: Hey, yeah, and when I eat a fine meal I'm likewise forced to think: Why do I need this taste? Am I yet an animal? What we should be doing is eating gruel and stale bread and staying a bare minimum of ten feet away from all people at all times.

Kevin: Are you saying that it is perfectly natural to rape women, for the reason that it is natural to eat food?

Oh hey yeah, do you really think? Right, I mean after all, they're pretty much unconscious anyway. It's not like they're actually going to feel anything. Neat thinking Kev.

Kevin: If a man achieves too much, no woman would be able to appreciate him. So he aims low, to remain in her sight.

Laird: Now I understand why I have never achieved anything of note - it's those damn women tethering me!

Kevin: Now you're catching on.

Oh but I can't take any of the credit for it. I owe it all to you and the Totality.

Laird: I'll be out on the streets "masculinising" the women. Where for our purposes "masculine" means "headless" haha. Yes, the time has come for us to be putting these pitiful creatures out of their misery.

Kevin: Following that logic you would have to kill all the animals and plants on the earth, since they also lack depth of mind.

Jeez, it takes a sage to see the obvious! I'll take out all the plants, you can have the animals - they're more fun to slaughter.

Laird: when a woman shows concern for her child she's really acting selfishly.

Kevin: I wouldn't say that. A person has to have a real self to be able to act selfishly.

Oh, I see - it just dawned on me: *none* of us are ever selfish, because *none* of us have real selves!! Thanks Kev, I understand better now.

Kevin: She [Woman] would not have a conscience about hanging anyone she did not particularly like.

Laird: Damn, I don't know about you but I'm getting pretty sick of women and their nooses.

Kevin: The women wouldn't want to do the hanging themselves. They would tell a man to do it, and reward him with praise when he does it.

Thankfully, men have created a justice system to prevent that kind of thing from happening.

Lucky the justice system wasn't left up to women to create, huh? Just think of what a mess that would be! There'd be hardly anyone left alive!

Women are not "selfish" for the very same reason that a cow or a dog is not "selfish". They simply aren't developed enough to be so.

Yeah, evolution really took a wrong turn with that one, didn't it? Haha, stupid, undeveloped chicks. Man you chicks really do suck big time.