GENIUS FORUMS

It has been suggested that I remove pretty much the entire section entitled "Women" so as to make the book more easily acceptable to a wide audience.

Yeah, publishers/book stores will already be annoyed by the rest of the book, and giving them an opportunity to latch on to whatever you may say about Women in Poison will give them an opportunity to reject it outright. The Woman issue needs to be treated in depth in a separate book.

To be honest though, I doubt the QRS will ever publish a widely read book, simply because they are too fundamentalist, too one-sided, too distant from the common man - which makes them strategically naive. To me being strategically naive can only mean two things, that either one is "partly irrational or unconscious", or one is ego driven and pride in one's beliefs is interferring from reaching the desired goal.

With editing and more topics, Wisdom for the Infinite would seem to offer the best chance. Dan is a more interesting writer though, but he might never get around to writing such a book. Kevin does not cut the mustard as writer - the content of Poison leaves too many "but, but" or "what the fuck" loose ends. As a critic, I could probably find a reason to question every paragraph.

Poison has too much crap in it, like the following for instance.

Silence is Golden
More words count for less. When you use words, make them silent!

Music
"To do is to be" - a philosopher
"To be is to do" - another philosopher
"Do be do be do be do" - Frank Sinatra

I'm not saying there are not gems or originality in Poison, but unlike somelike known like Nietzsche - people won't be inclined to think that deeply about what is written, they will pass over it with irritation, which is why I suggested some version of "Wisdom of the Infinite" would need to proceed Kevins stuff.

Neil Melnyk wrote:Watering it down is probably a good idea. I imagine there are probably a lot more dumb blond chicks down there in Australia and it seems like your generalization only applies well to these women. At least change it to "Feminine" and note that emasculated women don't fit here and many effeminate males do.

There are some women with a masculine core, but I have never met ONE that still did not play by the rules of her womanhood, no matter how long she managed to stay logical, and I think this is the overriding point. Sue, for example, is unbelievably impressive. But I'm guessing the only reason she really subscribes to these views are because of her love for David. (I think I read somewhere they were together for a bit, right?) Most of the time a woman with a masculine core will fight these ideas to the death. A feminine woman would just forget and move on.

Fighting these ideas doesn't make someone a woman. Or am I a woman now?

I'm talking about the phrases about women lacking consciousness and being incapable of thinking and dialectics and stuff.

Neil Melnyk wrote:Fighting these ideas doesn't make someone a woman. Or am I a woman now?

Clearly not.

I'm talking about the phrases about women lacking consciousness and being incapable of thinking and dialectics and stuff.

I know, but what I meant was that like you a masculine as supposed to feminine woman would fight as its in her nature. However, even these women are not exempt from their conditioned womanhood, and will inevitably fall short in the logical realm at some point. There are probably a few rare exceptions, though I don't know of any, so maybe not.

Neil,

And...? You haven't convinced anyone other than those who, like you, are afraid to fall and therefore won't climb. I see life as resistance, hard boundaries, and structure. I see the greatest degree of "freedom" as coming with power, not with impotence. You have an aversion to life and to power.

Would you run that one by again, in a little more detail?

David said,

Children tend to come a distant third in comparison to their relationships with men and their status in the world of womanhood.

One of many statements made by the three of you that make me wonder what planet you live on. Women care far more for their children than they do for men. A famous quote: "Men are slaves to women and women are slaves to children."

Kevin,

That's exactly right. Consciousness is hellish and women are a holiday to men - a holiday from the pain of consciousness.

This is pure baloney meant to aggrandize your valor and bravery in the tough battle toward consciousness. Increased consciousness is the greatest of rewards, albeit perhaps an acquired taste, and were it not so, no one would pursue it.

Yes, my life would probably would have taken a different course - I would probably now be married and working for a start - but all my ideas can't be dismissed just because I'm not God's gift to women.

My point was that you would have different opinions than you now hold, and the movtive you seem to have for obtuseness would not be there.

since we already have men, why we should want women to be men also is odd.

I am in agreement with you. I am keen to help women if they want to become more masculine, or what I would call "more conscious", but I'm not going to force the issue any more than I would try to force goldfish to be more than what they are.

No, you are not in agreement with me. I am exploring the possibility that there might be value and wisdom in having two genders. Like my father at the age of five, you are scandalized. The only good woman is not a woman. What I am wondering is whether the only measure of a woman is how much like a man she is. I find your attitude both juvenile, and cruel. You have admitted that you have not matured emotionally since the age of ten, and that strikes me as correct. (Although Jed McKenna says that is true of most of us.)

Of course, I acknowledge this whole thing is a strange puzzle. Men certainly DO more with the intelligence that they have. And men are possessed of more genius. Structure fascinates them. Women are all but indifferent to it. The tendency is so pronounced that I have to wonder whether it is fitting for women to interact with the world differently than men do. Thomas Kneirim once said something interesting, that the nature of the masculine, like all things yang, is open and easily given over to analysis, whereas the feminine will tend to defy analysis.

Perhaps it is true that women flow into the spaces that men create, and perhaps that is fine. That the sexes might be highly interdependent goes against all modern emotional paralysis. Perhaps what women are for is to provide the detail to life. Structures without detail aren't very satisfying. They don't remain interesting for long. Perhaps women really do require a certain spark to awaken their interest, a spark that comes from man. Since, unlike you, I think our modern society is extremely masaculine, women are more lost now than they have ever been.

My thoughts are only henids of course, but I think that women are supposed to achieve something different from wisdom than men. There isn't much point in exploring such ideas if you are already sure of the consclusions. It is always sad, tragically sad to see, but I have the impression that you cannot think any new thoughts.

What a maze. How few reach the end. Yes, there are many dead ends, but unlike in the puzzle books, in this one the key out of the dead end is available if you want it - sincerity.

I disagree with this. Women feel "merged" with everything in their environment but have no real understanding of their environment - which includes other people.

This is just pure idiocy. A man can kick a dog because he is unaware of the effect he has on others (i.e., it isn't very real to him that the dog FEELS, and SUFFERS). But the woman knows the dog suffers because she is 'merged' with the dog! That's actually correct, Kevin. Increased concsiousness must include awareness of others. Otherwise, one is locked into a self absorbed hell. Certain things, spiritual things, are always a dichotomy. Samsara and Nirvana, the Tao and the ten thousand things, self and totality, individuality and unity. They are always simultaneously both true.

This is why I say you are cruel, and being cruel you must be immature. Because your cruelty constantly reminds me of boys. Men certainly get 98% of the glory in this world, and you can easily demolish women when you compare them. Yet if the faint possibility arises that a woman might, even if due to her more emotional nature, or her brain structure that discourages certain accomplishments, might actually give her a small advantage in any area whatsoever, you smack it down with the most transparently ridiculous arguments.

And actually, our gender-free society has decreased the natural respect due to men, because of the very pretense that women aren't differently talented.

Importantly, it's not for a conscious and rational reason that women are concerned about the suffering of others.

True, Kevin, it does not require almost any rational thought. It requires sight. And I do not mean visual acuity.

Perhaps women never believe certain delusions to the same degree that men tend to.

This is true, but the same can be said of goldfish.

Not for the same reason. Don't you think comparing women to animals constantly is a bit over the top?
Women are less vulnerable to belief in nonsense because it is not the area in which their egos are vulnerable. Goldfish cannot consider ideas at all. They are not in the running. What I am talking about is an opinion that women come to, perhaps with a lot of thought and perhaps with little, an intution that tells them that the thing is much, much bigger and more complicated than the men who have confidently decided to tackle it want to believe.

Skipair,

but I have never met ONE that still did not play by the rules of her womanhood, no matter how long she managed to stay logical,

What does that really mean?

Sue, for example, is unbelievably impressive. But I'm guessing the only reason she really subscribes to these views are because of her love for David.

I actually regard her as essentially mindless, as a person without her own judgement. I don't think she is in love with David, but with the "ideal of sagehood". She, like David, ROMANTISIZES "ENLIGHTENMENT-WISDOM".

Enlightenment-wisdom is just one kind of wisdom. It's the top dog, the most cherished, but like fame, when one has it it aint all it is cracked up to be, though it has its moments. Lol, take away the "moments" one has writing on this forum, or when letting the mind drift in philsophical thought when prompted by something external, and it leaves fuck all.

In that recent podcast, I could hardly tell the difference between her and a typical university feminist - nothing she said sounded real, it just sounded made up to meet the expectations of those she knows and respects.

Dave Toast wrote:

DQ: As for a man leafing through FHM .... well, I personally have never met any men who make a habit of reading FHM. But I have to assume that some men do, otherwise the magazine wouldn't be selling. It could be that there is a high turn-over rate, with some men reading a few editions before growing bored and moving on. I doubt very much that anyone over 25 would be reading it regularly. Whereas women of all ages leaf through women's magazines religiously, I have the impression that it is only young men looking for tips in becoming more attractive to women who read FHM.

DT: And looking at tits.

Okay, fair enough. I'm not really familiar with FHM. I was under the assumption that it was a lifestyle magazine.

There are plenty over 25 who subscribe to FHM, over 40 in fact. After that they might move on to GQ or something like that. It's still the same mindless pastime I was invoking.

It would be interesting if we had some statistics.

I agree that gawking at tits and so on is a pretty passive, mindless activity. It embodies the feminine desire to lose oneself in a sea of pleasure.

Hows about analysing the processes going on in a male and female mind while they compile their playlists for their respective iPods. That is a genuine comparison, offering a chance to make a genuine argument.

In my experience, women generally go for safe, conventional tunes which centre around partying, sex and love. Very few women get into more difficult, more intellectual kinds of music. When it comes to prog rock, experimental jazz, fusion, etc, female fans are very much in the minority and there are even fewer female musicians.

To me, this reflects the differing mentalities between the sexes. Whenever something starts moving away from sex and relationships, women quickly lose interest.

-

Iolaus,

DQ: Children tend to come a distant third in comparison to their relationships with men and their status in the world of womanhood.

Iolaus: One of many statements made by the three of you that make me wonder what planet you live on. Women care far more for their children than they do for men. A famous quote: "Men are slaves to women and women are slaves to children."

If children can provide a woman with increased status in the world of womanhood, then her children will be more precious to her. As with everything else, children are essentially adornments which cater to her needs as a woman.

Having said that, it should also be kept in mind that a woman's mind is pretty fluid, and so the situation can change from moment to moment. One moment, her husband can be the most important thing on earth; the next moment, her children, and the moment after that, neither of them. Her status as a woman is what is uppermost in her mind, and everything else tends to become expendable in light of this.

-

Neil Melnyk wrote:Watering it down is probably a good idea. I imagine there are probably a lot more dumb blond chicks down there in Australia and it seems like your generalization only applies well to these women. At least change it to "Feminine" and note that emasculated women don't fit here and many effeminate males do.

There are no masculine females that I am aware of. If it was common, or even rare for women to be masculine, we should see history peppered with genius women making great philosophies, and invention after invention.

Jamesh wrote:To be honest though, I doubt the QRS will ever publish a widely read book, simply because they are too fundamentalist, too one-sided, too distant from the common man - which makes them strategically naive.

It depends on what the strategy is. Personally, I aimed "Poison for the Heart" at people who are mentally in the "human realm", to use the Buddhist parlance. These people are relatively rare, but they desperately need something to stimulate their minds in the right direction, and that is not laden with jargon.

There's something in my book for everybody, but people in the animal or hell realms will have to look hard to find it.

With editing and more topics, Wisdom for the Infinite would seem to offer the best chance.

Yes, I would say that David was aiming his work at a wider audience.

the content of Poison leaves too many "but, but" or "what the fuck" loose ends.

"Poison" is a spiritual book, so can't be judged in the same category as a normal book that is expected to spell out justifications for what it is saying.

It contains a good deal of Zen-like koans, which no publisher could be expected to understand.

Silence is Golden
More words count for less. When you use words, make them silent!

I think that is quite challenging. How do you use words without making any noise? That is the secret to enlightenment.

Music
"To do is to be" - a philosopher
"To be is to do" - another philosopher
"Do be do be do be do" - Frank Sinatra

Yeah. I hate puns. But it does accurately reflect what I think about music and musicians. That is, I regard music and musicians to be unconscious when compared to philosophy and philosophers.

I don't expect everyone - even people who understand my stuff - to like or understand everything in the book. But there's enough in there that you can just skip over what you don't like and find something that you do.

Dave Toast wrote:I'm simply suggesting ways to stave off the possible tragedy of only a handful of people reading your 'greatest book in history'.

Yes, I hear what you're saying.

I just think that the writings on women are some of the most important stuff in there, for people who are at a level where they need to hear that stuff.

I don't think hardly anyone on the forum really understands or appreciates the depth of the truths about women and unconsciousness that we go on about, despite having read hundreds of thousands of words about it. But once you see it, it strikes you as such a fantastic realization that you can't forget it, and can only try share it. It makes sense of so much that was mysterious before (woman herself, for one thing), and of countless serious problems you never even knew existed.

Dave Toast wrote:The only interest I see modern men taking in machines these days is dreaming about their car and, again, how cool it will make them look and feel

Modern men are still technically and competitively minded. You can see this in the kind of computer games men prefer as against those preferred by women.

And if I try to have a rational discussion with a modern man I will almost certainly be able to make much more progress than I could with just about any woman.

That is not to say there are no differences whatsoever. Of course there are but modern men have become so feminised that it becomes harder and harder to use them as an obvious example of masculine thought. These are very different times to when your book was written. Feminism has already had its effect - this is a new epoch. Though the wisdom in Poison may be timeless, its initial acceptance by a readership (and crucially for uptake, its reputation thereby) is very much epoch-specific.

You make some good points there. Consciousness is seriously in decline, no doubt.

But when men start going around everywhere in floral dresses, with long flowing silken hair, and heels, and when their most enjoyable activities are shopping, and chatting with friends on the phone for hours, and judging literally everything by how it makes them feel, then I will agree that men are just as obviously unconscious as are women!

The only fault I can find with Poison is a typo I stumbled upon recently. Sadly I didn't bother noting where (but it's there!). I love its notebook, aphoristic style. I love its Zennish nodding to ideas you have to think about for yourself. I personally think that its actual genius lies in that it makes arguments/perspectives that it forces you to decide. And that's the point, right? I think Kevin has struck a really brilliant balance between formal argument and insightful, insighting, directional speech in Poison. I cannot think of any other work I would point a person to for a distillation of wise ideas, even though I could point them to many books for inspiration in general. I think Poison is for the "Nietzsche-like" reader. Distilled, aphoristic, challenging, disturbing - truth.

It fails any test that might be applied to any formal, academic philosophical work, and thank God it does.

Dan Rowden wrote:The only fault I can find with Poison is a typo I stumbled upon recently.

You mean where he typed "Star Treck" instead of "Star Trek" - under something like escapism, and the "Beam me up.." quote?

No, it was another one, but yes, I've long noted that one but for some reason ignored it.

This insight from Sue Hindmarsh fits right in here - with the discussion about what is the meaning of Woman in relation to consciousness, and why is it important to understand Woman at all ? I missed the icing on the cake the first time I heard it. Namely, that the whole emotional aspect to uncertainty is a huge legacy of Woman, acting on one's thoughts much like a parasite:

We all know that children are extremely important for the future of mankind. Chucking them into childcare for long periods of time, and for years on end, isn't a positive thing, because those childcare centres are full of women, so the chidlren hardly ever meet any men in their young lives. And also, these are women like their mums: as equally inconsistent, shallow-minded, and spontaneous in their thought patterns - if you can call them that - who will stil be injecting into these little children's brains these same inconsistencies, so the children will grow up to be feeling anxious, despairing, and not sure of themselves, because they're basically not sure of the ground they walk on. These women have created a world for them that is not solid, it's not driven. When young men get to around the age of fifteen, as Rich was talking about, it's important to give young men the opportunity to test themselves and push themselves. I think it is important because they don't often get the opportunity to do that. I see that as a very important stepping-stone, to learn about their own weaknesses and strengths. But then it's up to that young man to take it upon himself to step out of society. I know, we were talking before about how it's very hard to leave society behind. But, there is a mental way you can do this: you can actually start to judge the world. On everything. Don't take anything for granted. Actually look, at absolutely everything. And judge it, by what you start to know to be true. That is, you figure it out for yourself. So, trusting your own mind, really being rigorous about your own individuality. And stepping out, away from behind the anxiety and the woman's world. So, it's a tough one, but I think men have that potential. Young men have the potential to do that. I think that the older you get, that potential dies, because you get set in your ways. So, the younger the bloke, early to late teens, if he can start to feel confident enough to trust his own mind, then we can really hope for something in the future.

.

My flatmate has worked in childcare for 15 years and I get a lot of my practical insight from her and her co-workers regarding the child care "world" (and it is a world now). I should, in all honesty, credit her with much of my insight into that area.

It's not individual women I'm talking about, such as childcare workers. I don't care if it's childcare workers or mothers or whoever, that Sue uses as an example of this Woman-Mind. I'm talking about the inconsistency, forgetfulness, blankness, and psychological vertigo of the Woman-Mind. I just can't express clearly enough how deep my gratitude that Sue has equated this idea of Woman as Unconsciousness, with the resulting uncertainty and lack of groundedness of the young man trying to branch off on his own.

It's wonderful stuff. I think many men struggle with the anxiety to leave women, the anxiety about trusting their own mind to be able to stand alone. That's the "icing on the cake": that anxiety over one's rationality is a legacy of Woman-Mind.

To make it as clear as I can: Mental affliction is a product of the parasite, Woman-Mind, which is a bundle of thoughts, values, moods, and attitudes. And, the best part: it can be switched off, like a light-switch, completely.

Sue has helped switch off the "current" for me. Thank you. I hope lots of other brains can benefit from this, too. I know this all sounds quite emotional, ironically enough. It is. But it's joy. I'm released from a prison sentence that was for the term of my natural life.

A picture of a rotten heart seems to be most appropriate, as a cover. Very graphic, attention grabbing, people won't forget it!

Kevin wrote:

Yes, I would say that David was aiming his work at a wider audience.

It is still aimed at those in the human realm. I see my work as being a leg-up for beginners. It helps them navigate the intellectual pathways so that they can begin to think more spiritually. They will then be more open and receptive to a book like Poison, which I freely acknowledge to be a far greater work.

Your work is really for those who already have some insight. If that insight is not there to begin with, then your work goes over the reader's head. So James's suggestion does have some merit.

-

Dave, you'll never get a book published if you add an " 's " to a possessive "s". And I don't think anything Jimbo said is meaningful. To add to the controversy, such that it is, I think adding Venom Crystals to Poison is totally foolish.

David,

If children can provide a woman with increased status in the world of womanhood, then her children will be more precious to her. As with everything else, children are essentially adornments which cater to her needs as a woman.

Having said that, it should also be kept in mind that a woman's mind is pretty fluid, and so the situation can change from moment to moment. One moment, her husband can be the most important thing on earth; the next moment, her children, and the moment after that, neither of them. Her status as a woman is what is uppermost in her mind, and everything else tends to become expendable in light of this.

These sorts of statements are why you lose me. In every case, you tiresomely twist thins to make the women appear in the worst possible light, and for their behavior to conform at all times to your stereotypes. This is the giveaway that you have inner motivations.

As if men are unconcerned with status! A child is far more than an adornment for most women. In stark contrast, one can see women in which that is true, which proves their opposite.

Also, these are not either/or things. It's not as if a particular woman is either fully awake or absolutely unconscious. Instead, there are elements of unconsciousness that infect one's experience of life, and at the same time, one also has experiences that are more fully awake and rational, such as the way one feels about one's children, how one raises them, or has them in the first place.

Of course, it is true that children fulfill women as women. As if that were somehow shameful!

Dan Rowden wrote:I think adding Venom Crystals to Poison is totally foolish.

Why? I figured that if I want all the best writings in the one book I would be remiss to exclude Venom Crystals.

Also, I don't want people to think that I have a monopoly on the truth.

But I'm willing to consider leaving it out, as it would cut down on the cost of the book.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:I think adding Venom Crystals to Poison is totally foolish.

Why? I figured that if I want all the best writings in the one book I would be remiss to exclude Venom Crystals.

Then why not include Evil Wisdom? Why not include any of the compilations? It just doesn't make sense to me. Why not strive to get them done as a compilation on their own? Much of Evil is better than Venom anyway.

Also, I don't want people to think that I have a monopoly on the truth.

I think the content of Poison illustrates that well enough already. Do you want to add material to your opus that you describe as the best book ever? Why? It's a bizarre juxtaposition to my mind.

But I'm willing to consider leaving it out, as it would cut down on the cost of the book.

That's another reason. Poison will be over 300 pages as far as I can tell; adding Venom would be redundant, philosophically, and impractical fiscally. Adding Venom will only decrease the likelihood of publication of Poison in my view.

Iolaus wrote:Skipair,

but I have never met ONE that still did not play by the rules of her womanhood, no matter how long she managed to stay logical,

What does that really mean?

It means that even those women whose natural tendency is to fight and have things submit to her is a trait still only surface deep, and what ultimtely rules her mind is the subconscious drive to fulfill her emotional habits and to make a baby. You'd be right if you're thinking that men operate in much the same way, but the degree and manner in which they do is considerably different. Men have the ability to step a little more outside the box than women by being a bit more cold and calculating. The ridiculous notion that men and women are equal is the cause of much confusion and suffering on both ends. Its blatantly obvious men and women are different, yet people continue to ignore what those differences are, and continue to preach equality. Big mistake.