Poison for the Heart - and Women

[skipair]

Actually many dangerous-looking guys are actually very ethical, stand-up kind of guys. Cold and calculating can turn a perfectly fine situation into something dangerous by self-fulfilling prophesy, though. A lot of those really decent but dangerous looking guys can become dangerous if provoked, and especially if wrongly provoked.

Well, I think a lot of bad stuff happens at night, but I guess I shouldn't worry about that because my mom tells me to be home before 10! Momma knows best. :)

More than that, though, most dangerous guys are not dangerous looking. That's part of the cold and calculating part - the more respectable they look, the more they can often get away with. Cold and calculating would be more like you convincing me that you were a safe guy so we would go for a walk in the first place, and as soon as we were in an isolated enough spot, you would attack.

Wow, you totally remind me of the girl in that TV show....trying to remember the name...

Anyway yeah, depending on how people position themselves mentally they may or may not even deserve to get attacked, after all we know how silly people can be.

[Kelly Jones]

I should have let some other thoughts sink in a bit before responding.

I reckon that if Woman isn't in Poison, it'll be hardly distinguishable from any other eccentric philosophical rant on the market. I mean, that is really what it looks like, to the average reader. But with Woman in it, it really sticks out on an entirely different level --- serious, courageous, terrifyingly personal, and perhaps mad.

That, might create the cult that brings it to the attention of an intelligent reader, who may otherwise never hear of it.

It's not gratuitous advertising, because it's not just to shock, but it is advertising.

[Dan Rowden]

Given Kevin's emphasis on the issue in much of his other endeavors, omitting the Woman section would make him look either cowardly or something else the word for which I can't bring to mind......

I think "cynical" is the word the pundits would use.

"A cynical attempt to cover up the fact that he is the author of Misogyny Unlimited."

I wasn't thinking "cynical" but yeah, that's close enough. You have to love those pundits.

[Dave Toast]

I reckon that if Woman isn't in Poison, it'll be hardly distinguishable from any other eccentric philosophical rant on the market. I mean, that is really what it looks like, to the average reader. But with Woman in it, it really sticks out on an entirely different level --- serious, courageous, terrifyingly personal, and perhaps mad.

That, might create the cult that brings it to the attention of an intelligent reader, who may otherwise never hear of it.

It's not gratuitous advertising, because it's not just to shock, but it is advertising.

You're right, that might well be the case. We can only try to navigate the causal web as skillfully as we can.

It's just that it seems to me, being as Kevin has freely admitted that, in his message of wisdom, the words masculine and feminine could just as easily be replaced with consciousness and unconsciousness; and given the probable harm the common interpretation of Woman would do to uptake on a book in today's society, at all levels; and understanding that a larger net will normally yield a greater catch than a smaller one, no matter what the conditions; and given the fact that the very basis of Kevin's ethics are the perpetuation of wisdom, and that Woman need not be expressed in expressing wisdom: it seems to me that the ethical thing to do is go ahead and make that replacement.

[Dan Rowden]

Dave,

Are you saying David's Woman: An Exposition for the Advanced Mind should never see the light of day?

[Dave Toast]

No Dan, sorry for the misunderstanding there.

I was refering to Woman colloquially. That is, to be colloquial, the QRS doctrine of Woman, as seen in the Woman section of Poison for the Heart and in Woman: An Exposition for the Advanced Mind.

[Dan Rowden]

Ok, but I'm still not clear on this. I was thinking in terms of what you said here:

It's just that it seems to me, being as Kevin has freely admitted that, in his message of wisdom, the words masculine and feminine could just as easily be replaced with consciousness and unconsciousness; and given the probable harm the common interpretation of Woman would do to uptake on a book in today's society, at all levels; and understanding that a larger net will normally yield a greater catch than a smaller one, no matter what the conditions; and given the fact that the very basis of Kevin's ethics are the perpetuation of wisdom, and that Woman need not be expressed in expressing wisdom: it seems to me that the ethical thing to do is go ahead and make that replacement.

in the context of David's Exposition. Don't the same concerns and ideas apply? Ought not David rewrite that completely?

[Dave Toast]

Additionally, I realise that my implication that Woman need not be stated in stating wisdom might be cause for your question.

In which case no, it is not a case of whether Woman: An Exposition for the Advanced Mind should see the light of day. Rather it is a case of whether it need see the light of day, if it's going to harm the primary aim of perpetuating wisdom.

[Dan Rowden]

Well, clearly both Kevin and David see such writings as important for that venture. I concur with that view. If one is not ready for Woman one is not ready for Truth at all in my opinion. Indeed, I would say Woman is the ultimate and final test of that readiness. It was certainly that way for me.

[Dave Toast]

Ok, but I'm still not clear on this. I was thinking in terms of what you said here:

It's just that it seems to me, being as Kevin has freely admitted that, in his message of wisdom, the words masculine and feminine could just as easily be replaced with consciousness and unconsciousness; and given the probable harm the common interpretation of Woman would do to uptake on a book in today's society, at all levels; and understanding that a larger net will normally yield a greater catch than a smaller one, no matter what the conditions; and given the fact that the very basis of Kevin's ethics are the perpetuation of wisdom, and that Woman need not be expressed in expressing wisdom: it seems to me that the ethical thing to do is go ahead and make that replacement.

in the context of David's Exposition. Don't the same concerns and ideas apply? Ought not David rewrite that completely?

Not the way I'm seeing it Dan.

David's exposition is not a part of a book, the additional contents of which might suffer due to it's deleterious effect, in terms of conversion rates.

[Dave Toast]

We're so crossed over on the posts here Dan. We should be on IRC. Where's that chat thing that used to be?

[Dan Rowden]

I don't think GF has ever had a chat function, except maybe briefly at Ezboard.

[Dave Toast]

Well, clearly both Kevin and David see such writings as important for that venture. I concur with that view. If one is not ready for Woman one is not ready for Truth at all in my opinion. Indeed, I would say Woman is the ultimate and final test of that readiness. It was certainly that way for me.

I disagree mate.

Can you not envisage situations where people ready for truth, though they don't know it, are put off the scent of something they might find tasteful by something they definitely don't find tasteful?

And in any case, we are working with two different understandings of Woman here, so it's no wonder we disagree. As I have stated before, I believe that the Woman doctrine was formulated in part, and is most especially stated, as a reaction to the early effects of Feminism. As such, I believe that it deviates from impartiality into bias.

[Dave Toast]

I don't think GF has ever had a chat function, except maybe briefly at Ezboard.

Your memory fails Dan.

We've had a fair few chats on it in the past.

[Dan Rowden]

David's exposition is not a part of a book, the additional contents of which might suffer due to it's deleterious effect, in terms of conversion rates.

My main objection to the main objection [to Woman] is that the whole of Poison is really already about consciousness/unconsciousness. The Woman section is simply addressing one very important facet/manifestation of this. If it was to be left out, the omission would attract as much attention as the book thereby making the omission redundant.

[Dan Rowden]

I don't think GF has ever had a chat function, except maybe briefly at Ezboard.

Your memory fails Dan.

We've had a fair few chats on it in the past.

On a dedicated GF chat? I guess memory has failed me. But then, it's the nature of chat to be somewhat forgettable.

What were we talking about?

[Dave Toast]

All sorts of stuff. Marsha was there too a couple of times.

I remember we talked about Bush and his pronunciation of 'nucular' and 'colin'.

Can I go gaming now or what?

[Dan Rowden]

No, not until you disavow yourself of your false interpretation of the Woman issue! Reaction to feminism my cahoonies! It was never about feminism for me, though feminism is a facet of it to be considered, like most things fashionable.

[Dan Rowden]

Well, clearly both Kevin and David see such writings as important for that venture. I concur with that view. If one is not ready for Woman one is not ready for Truth at all in my opinion. Indeed, I would say Woman is the ultimate and final test of that readiness. It was certainly that way for me.

I disagree mate.

Can you not envisage situations where people ready for truth, though they don't know it, are put off the scent of something they might find tasteful by something they definitely don't find tasteful?

Name me a part of Poison that an egotist determined to stay an egoist won't find distasteful?

[Dave Toast]

David's exposition is not a part of a book, the additional contents of which might suffer due to it's deleterious effect, in terms of conversion rates.

My main objection to the main objection [to Woman] is that the whole of Poison is really already about consciousness/unconsciousness. The Woman section is simply addressing one very important facet/manifestation of this. If it was to be left out, the omission would attract as much attention as the book thereby making the omission redundant.

Maybe so Dan.

This whole thing started with talk of Kevin publishing. Since then I think I've made my case obvious. The logic of it is pretty straightforward. I am completely dispassionate about the subject (except perhaps for a passion for truth of the matter I'm raising) and that's the way the logic dictated by the ethics of wisdom perpetuation looks to me concerning the matter at hand.

[Dan Rowden]

Hmm, I think that thing up ahead is the agree to disagree brick wall. Fair enough. The ultimate choice is Kevin's anyway so we're probably only really indulging ourselves here.

[Dave Toast]

Well, clearly both Kevin and David see such writings as important for that venture. I concur with that view. If one is not ready for Woman one is not ready for Truth at all in my opinion. Indeed, I would say Woman is the ultimate and final test of that readiness. It was certainly that way for me.

I disagree mate.

Can you not envisage situations where people ready for truth, though they don't know it, are put off the scent of something they might find tasteful by something they definitely don't find tasteful?

Name me a part of Poison that an egotist determined to stay an egoist won't find distasteful?

That's a good point.

But it's infinitely more simple than that. If your primary aim is to perpetuate wisdom, you don't just go and write a book detailing wisdom in all its gruesome detail. You consider the big picture.

I remember David suggesting that the Buddah may well have encouraged Buddhism, knowing the evils it would produce, with the ulterior aim of perpetuating wisdom.

[Iolaus]

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?

Said Isabelle,

It bothers me that this forum presents this as a good thing, and it is getting accepted as a superiority over women.

Perhaps it is a measure of their desperation.

Kevin saith,

Can you expand on what you mean by "status as a woman". I would have thought that avoiding pain through remaining unconscious would be uppermost in her mind, rather than "status". So I'm not clear about what you mean.

Oops. David goofed. He actually allowed women too much masculinity in saying they desire status. He is being gently reprimanded here. But Kevin, even animals have strong pecking orders, both male and female. So maybe you could relent on this one.

BMcGilly,

Avoiding pain through remaining unconscious cannot be uppermost in anyone's mind, for to do so would require conscious effort and thought (a painful experience). She directs her conscious efforts and thought towards her "status" as the highest status is bestowed on those who lead the most pain-free existence- in the sense that the ego drives status.

Thanks B, but the desire to remain unconscious is not a very conscious one and does not require conscious effort. The subconscious handles it nicely.

However, as I've meantioned before women are experts at relationships and 99% of the time leave men in the dust.

This is actually an oft-repeated propaganda piece that I think, if you take a good hard look at people as they actually live, you will see is false.

David describes the low consciousness of typical women, Sat Oct 06, 2007 9:37 am

Absolutely everything you describe could be equally laid at the door of the average man, only of course he wants different frills and decorations as befits his sex.

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.

Dan,

My main objection to the main objection [to Woman] is that the whole of Poison is really already about consciousness/unconsciousness. The Woman section is simply addressing one very important facet/manifestation of this.

I dunno. In some ways I think our society is beginning to engage in the conversation about the differences between men and women if only because nonsense can only last so long, and because science isn't complying with the notion that they are the same. But at the same time, a little spur in women might not hurt. They need a kick in the ass.

my cahoonies!

Yikes. The word is cahones, pronounced ka-hoe-nase.

[Imadrongo]

Anyone find this funny?:

Rather, bring the entire Universe into yourself: it is not selfish to become infinite.

[Shardrol]

cojones but I think Dan was being humorous with cahoonies