Thanks to those I visited in the US and Canada

[Kelly Jones]

I don't think I've misled anyone about you, Rhett. For all intents and purposes, I'm not engaging in the forum, but thought you should know this. I'm generally more supportive of your own pluck than anyone I know, which has surprised me a lot, but given much thought. You tend to be a bit self-obsessed about becoming a guru or something. Let's leave it there, shall we?

More on topic, I've written a Wikipedia article on Poison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_for_the_Heart. It may need tidying-up. Anyone interested in furthering the cause might like to contribute to the discussion page on Wiki. Is this blatant advertising, or encyclopedic information?

[Dan Rowden]

Both, probably, but a good idea in my opinion. Mind you, the article needs a lot more to survive being deemed more than advertising. Might be hard to achieve that.

[Kelly Jones]

Out of interest, how would you have written it, Dan?

Also, it was deleted:

08:34, 26 October 2007 Pedro (Talk | contribs) deleted "Poison for the Heart" ? (A7 / G11 non notable un-published book - article clearly being used to promot it. content was: '{{db-spam}}{{hangon}}''Poison for the Heart'' is a book by Kevin Solway. Its efficient, aphoristic style gets quickly to the core of spiritual matt...')

[Kelly Jones]

Following is the first, rough copy of the article, before it was deleted, for those interested. I lost the polished version.

Poison for the Heart

''Poison for the Heart'' is "the greatest book ever written" (author's testimony) . Its efficient, aphoristic style gets quickly to the core of spiritual matters.

History

Kevin Solway (b. 1961, Guernsey) created Poison for the Heart in 1990, from notes written in his twenties. Footnote 1 links to http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/letters.pdf) The title refers to how wisdom "poisons" the false self, with all its warm feelings, love, attachments, and so forth.

Although the entire book has little popular appeal, it's arguably the misogynistic topic, "Woman/Man", that places it soundly out of mainstream publication criteria. Solway holds two main misogynistic views: (1) that the sexes are easily differentiable in terms of character and intellect, such that "Woman", or feminine psychology, is wholly unfit for a person seeking enlightenment; and (2) "Woman", embodied in every female, and almost every male, is the greatest attachment of human-kind. A forthcoming edition by Joel Thornton is in the works, as of 2007. Poison for the Heart is available for free online (Footnote 2 link).

Contents

Topics are listed alphabetically, from Ageing to Writing/Reading. There is also a Glossary. List of topics:

Ageing, Attachment, Buddhism, Cause and effect, Christianity, Concentration, Consciousness, Death, Delusion, Enlightenment, Evolution, Faith, God, Imagination, Individual, Infinite, Joy, Learning, Love, Machines, Meaning, Music/Art, Nature, Politics, Purpose, Quality, Reality, Reason, Reincarnation, Religion, Samsara, Science/Philosophy, Self, Sleep, Spiritual Man, Stages of the Way, Submission, Suffering, Truth, Violence, Way, Wisdom, Woman/Man, Worldly wisdom, Writing/Reading.

What it's about

Poison for the Heart aims to "extract a toll from the false heart". Solway writes "You should regard these writings not so much as dogmatic scriptural injunctions, but as a children's class in the use of the brain. It is all about making the brain a teacher, in order to distinguish between the true and the false, the wise and the foolish."

The introduction goes on to say:

Let no one ever say that what I present in these writings is a new religion, or that it reveals profound truths that have been hidden from all who have gone before. The truths I speak of are not new. Many have been aware of them before me, and experienced them more deeply. All the essential truths I point to can be found in the teachings of Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity. And in some respects the teachings of these religions far outweigh the power and effectiveness of what I offer here.

The appalling thing is of course, that these religions have become corrupted and their meaning lost. Their teachings have been misinterpreted and have spread through society in a highly damaging form. The physical words of the teachings may have remained relatively unchanged through time, but the ''interpretation'' and thus the ''truth'' of them has changed radically. Truth is certainly present within some religions, but is absent from them as they exist in all their diverse forms today. The truth can indeed be found within many religious scriptures, but only when you ''understand'' them correctly.

Connection to Otto Weininger
[Lost the bit here explaining the connection to Weininger.]

References ----
External Links ----

It's a bit rough, in draft form.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Such article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, period. It's one of the most clear but misunderstood rules of the whole project: you have to bring some notability to the table, established by citing notable sources.

This might be seen as a limitation but it's the only way to prevent a flood of irrelevant submissions and discussions about what should be in it or not. It's already hard sometimes to agree on notability.

There's currently no remotely notable source at all on the Internet that mentions the book in a good or bad way. Unless there are some paper books or magazines that mention it with some detail, it should be excluded from Wikipedia by its own definition. It's not a value judgment. An article on Kevin Solway himself would have more chance to remain if some mainstream reviews could be listed of his software products or his translations etc. Tough still, but marginally doable.

I'm curious however about something else while I'm at it: why in the world did Rhett bring up the topic of a possible Kelly Jones 'gossip', out of left field, almost seeming to fear some rumor? If Kevin was challenged here for a bloody trip, certainly someone should question this mess.

And Kelly: not 'engaging' in the forum while you were quick enough to post after Rhett's sudden appearance. Sounds too much like Marsha to me: as if lurking is some special type of uninvolvement . Why publicly hinting at a 'guru' complex and then 'leaving it there'. Is that all you learned over the years? Are you still communicating in subtexts, winks and moods? Operating out of shame, manipulating with subtle suggestions?

[Kelly Jones]

I'm curious however about something else while I'm at it: why in the world did Rhett bring up the topic of a possible Kelly Jones 'gossip', out of left field, almost seeming to fear some rumor? If Kevin was challenged here for a bloody trip, certainly someone should question this mess.

I don't know why he brought it up.

And Kelly: not 'engaging' in the forum while you were quick enough to post after Rhett's sudden appearance. Sounds too much like Marsha to me: as if lurking is some special type of uninvolvement .

It was a coincidence. I'm also the only one to rebut Rhett's claim.

I wished to write a Wikipedia article about Poison for the Heart. Then after posting it, I realised it might interest some of the members of the Genius Forum. I emailed a few, and then thought, why not post it to the forum?

Now I see the Wikipedia topic is closed. So, I learnt something about Wikipedia, and that it is not yet time to write that article.

Why publicly hinting at a 'guru' complex and then 'leaving it there'. Is that all you learned over the years? Are you still communicating in subtexts, winks and moods? Operating out of shame, manipulating with subtle suggestions?

No, it's simpler than that.

I'm the only one to rebut Rhett's claim, but I don't wish to distract others' attention from higher matters with trivia.

Rhett's welcome to discuss it privately. My email is kljones at netspace dot com dot au.

[Rhett]

I'm curious however about something else while I'm at it: why in the world did Rhett bring up the topic of a possible Kelly Jones 'gossip', out of left field, almost seeming to fear some rumor? If Kevin was challenged here for a bloody trip, certainly someone should question this mess.

I am sure i saw evidence of the rumour in this thread, but i can't find it right now. I don't imagine i skimmed so fast as to make that degree of error.

And Kelly: not 'engaging' in the forum while you were quick enough to post after Rhett's sudden appearance. Sounds too much like Marsha to me: as if lurking is some special type of uninvolvement . Why publicly hinting at a 'guru' complex and then 'leaving it there'. Is that all you learned over the years? Are you still communicating in subtexts, winks and moods? Operating out of shame, manipulating with subtle suggestions?

You're on the ball Diebert.

A problem is that Kelly has been privvy to snippets of information directly from me outside of this forum, and for those that know this, they will be affected by what Kelly says.

Kelly has given up going all the way, and is furthermore too weak to acknowledge this. The former is fair enough, it's bloody difficult, and we can hope she will regain strength and try again later. The latter is a problem, but can sort out over time. Another problem for Kelly is that i know her too well and can see through claims and am not tolerate of false claims. Plus, i have been so far with truth it deeply scares her and brings to the fore in her her weaknesses, making her feel inadequate to the point of possibly being near useless. Kelly's truth side has fragmented and compartmentalised, leaving her ego at the core. Unfortunately her reaction to this is to rewrite our history and the snippets i have given her, and that's not to say she ever understood or fully understood them in the first place, and use it to attack the truth.

Regarding the claim of guru aspiration, the onus is on Kelly to provide evidence or retract the claim. This forum is hopefully not interested in vague somethings. I have never met a guru. I have very little knowledge of guru's of the past and present and how they became guru's. I have always found them completely separate to true spirituality. I find the association of the term with myself so completely inappropriate that i have seen no reason in the past to bother addressing Kelly's lie. Perhaps if i was to completely turn around my path and head in a different direction i could become a guru, just like i could become so many other things if i wanted to. I don't see this happenning.

Kelly picked up on the culture of lying about me contained within information i gave her, and found succour in the theme. Deep down it is actually a projection, Kelly herself is in a position of making claims, at least implicitly, very often, and as i state has in actuality given up. What Kelly is doing is damaging to all of us and for that reason i am addressing it.

I note that Kelly's email is the first time i have heard her say she refutes my claim. It comes somewhat unexpectantly, whilst being an obvious continuation of the theme of denial.

There are many other issues tied up with this. For example, Kevin et all may understandably find it hard to believe that i have changed so much from the focused but anxious person Kelly knew when we were interacting in person. I am not claiming perfection, but i am a far cry from the person i was back in 2002/3.

[Rhett]

I'm the only one to rebut Rhett's claim, but I don't wish to distract others' attention from higher matters with trivia.

Can you please explain to me Kelly why one minute you state your opinions on such crucial matters as enlightenment as trivial, the next you have a website about yourself? On one page of your website you place a picture of yourself along with giants of thinking such as Weininger, Socrates, Lao Tzu, etc.

I note to everyone else that i created my own website back in 2004, which i am yet to release but Kelly has been privvy to. Copying is the best form of flattery, as they say.

[Rhett]

I hereby renounce all teaching to women. I am so disgusted.

[Rhett]

I'm generally more supportive of your own pluck than anyone I know, which has surprised me a lot, but given much thought.

This is the first i have heard this. My guess for this is as follows. QRSH did not want to encourage your sexual attachment to me. QRSH did not want you to idealise me to the point of adopting my errors. QRSH did not want to seem 'too keen' on me and have you pass that on to me, in case it had a limiting effect on my development.

[Dan Rowden]

For the record: I haven't given such matters any thought whatever. I have only somewhat recently learned that you and Kelly know each other fairly well.

[Jamesh]

This thread is all about -
Delusions of Granduer meeting Reality.

[Dan Rowden]

Where's the reality part?

[Jamesh]

I was going to change it to The Reality of Living, but didn't bother. The thread shows the difference between having some "head in the clouds" philosophical knowledge and being able to rationally apply such knowledge within the constrainst and requiements of the everyday world.

[Shardrol]

I have only somewhat recently learned that you and Kelly know each other fairly well.

Oh Dan Dan Dan. Have you no appreciation for the really important things in life, like the intricacies of past relationships among the contributors to Genius Forum? How can you have forgotten that Kelly & Rhett used to work together & that in previous versions of Kelly's bio - perhaps in happier times - she described him as something of a mentor?

What's going on down there in Australia or wherever y'all live? First there was Laird & Kelly having a bust-up, then you & David & Sue getting bent out of shape about Kevin's 'conduct unbecoming a sage', & now this 'gossip' scandal with Rhett & Kelly. I expect to see you all on Oprah next week.

[Carl G]

I just checked out Kelly's website. I think it's pretty cool.

[Steven Coyle]

Where's it located?

[Carl G]

http://www.naturalthinker.net

[Steven Coyle]

Enjoyed it.

[Dan Rowden]

I have only somewhat recently learned that you and Kelly know each other fairly well.

Oh Dan Dan Dan. Have you no appreciation for the really important things in life, like the intricacies of past relationships among the contributors to Genius Forum?

Sadly, no.

How can you have forgotten that Kelly & Rhett used to work together & that in previous versions of Kelly's bio - perhaps in happier times - she described him as something of a mentor?

Oh, yeah, I think I sort of remember now. You retain all this stuff? <looks askance>

What's going on down there in Australia or wherever y'all live? First there was Laird & Kelly having a bust-up, then you & David & Sue getting bent out of shape about Kevin's 'conduct unbecoming a sage', & now this 'gossip' scandal with Rhett & Kelly. I expect to see you all on Oprah next week.

It's Kangaroo pheromones.

[Shahrazad]

An Oprah show on QRS relationships would not just make my day; it would make my year.

[Rhett]

Kelly is presenting the image of having elevated herself above my knowledge, which untrue and damaging to her and others.

My disgust was a moment of imperfection, i offer no excuse for it. It wasn't a rash decision, as i had already given up talking to women about philosophy anyway. Thankfully, it was an expression of what could be described as a noble attachment. Plus, not withholding it from the forum gives validation of my authenticity. To label someone a guru is to label them false. Yet the very thing i represent is authenticity. Kelly's lie is 100%.

Regarding the accusation of self-obsession, again this is a 100% lie, that Kelly does not believe. As we all know i spend a lot of time, rather a lot of time indeed, focused on others, as i am doing now. I also see a vein of jealousy in the accusation. It is truly a wondrous gift to be able to learn about genius by studying myself, and reveal genius by revealing myself. Other times of course i may be out for a walk, or doing the many other things i do.

It is Kelly that is self-obsessed. Kelly is throwing mud at a great sage because it suits her purpose of trying to squash perceptions of her lack of enlightenment. Her website is all about her, securing her ego in a new identity. It won't enlighten even the best of students with it soulless lists, word repetition and word 'organisation', but Kelly's photo is up there with great philosophers, and that's what counts to her. It's all about her.

Kelly remains attached to notions of beauty, and the many other attachments women have. It will be a long while yet before a masculine female will approach enlightenment, for at the very least a man will be required to have fully studied women's attachments and revealed them to her, which has not yet been done.

[Rhett]

I'm generally more supportive of your own pluck than anyone I know, which has surprised me a lot, but given much thought.

This is the first i have heard this. My guess for this is as follows. QRSH did not want to encourage your sexual attachment to me. QRSH did not want you to idealise me to the point of adopting my errors. QRSH did not want to seem 'too keen' on me and have you pass that on to me, in case it had a limiting effect on my development.

It may also have been important to prevent you from trying to emulate my path in recent times, because it would have seen you fried. It was important for you to keep focused on your own development. Plus, they would have preferred to keep seeing you writing to the forum, which i was doing little of.

[Dan Rowden]

Firstly, I think Kelly's website is looking rather good. When finished it should be a very nice project.

Secondly, this thread has become beyond surreal to me. It has outlived its value in my opinion so I'm locking it. The other admins can unlock it as they see fit should they disagree with this decision.