GENIUS FORUMS

skipair wrote:Men have the ability to step a little more outside the box than women by being a bit more cold and calculating.

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

David Quinn wrote:Her status as a woman is what is uppermost in her mind

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.

that avoiding pain through remaining unconscious would be uppermost in her mind, rather than "status"

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.

/my $0.02

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

skipair wrote:Men have the ability to step a little more outside the box than women by being a bit more cold and calculating.

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

Well, it is clearly a good thing in many situations. If you and I were walking down the street and a some dangerous looking guys approached us and tried to mug me and hurt you, it would be a very good thing for both of us to remain cold and calculating and not emotional. For instance I could grab a metal pipe I might not have seen if I was screaming or crying, or maybe I could employ some super smooth talk and get out of it without violence. On the whole men are usually less emotional than women, and when looking at logic as a tool it does seem men have the upper hand. However, as I've meantioned before women are experts at relationships and 99% of the time leave men in the dust. I don't think men are better than women overall. We are all people and deserve the best. We happen to have different skillsets. I doubt I could express love and nurture to a child as well as a woman. But I also would not trust that woman in battle. Despite what modern brainwashed society has us think, we do have roles.

Kevin Solway wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Her status as a woman is what is uppermost in her mind

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.

I think women are very conscious of social status, which they often define by the relative "rank" of the men in their life. Rank for men is defined by his power over other men, or at least not being overpowered by other men. Once they catch a high ranking male, their status is then defined by being the highest quality mother.

What is happening nowadays is that some women are starting to define their own social status/rank by the same standards as men - power over others and not by her natural sexual and nurturing skill. You will 9 out of 10 times find these women with serious psychological problems and without the ability to be happy in a relationship.

skipair wrote:For instance I could grab a metal pipe I might not have seen if I was screaming or crying, or maybe I could employ some super smooth talk and get out of it without violence.

There is a huge difference between being realistic and practical, as you are trying to describe, and being cold and calculating. Furthermore, "super smooth talk" can never live up to genuinely caring about the other person and reaching a peaceful solution through making a human connection.

skipair wrote:If you and I were walking down the street and a some dangerous looking guys approached us and tried to mug me and hurt you,

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.

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.

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

It is a lifestyle magazine, a lads mag for grown ups. It's also full of tits, both literal and metaphorical.

DT: 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.

DQ: 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.

Their average reader age is 27 apparently.

http://directmag.com/casehistories/b2c/ ... boys_boys/

Is it just gawking at tits though?

What if he was reading Empire?

DT: 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.

DQ: 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.

Ouch, you're appealing to my musical snobbery.

Of course, as a fellow prog fan, you will know as well as I do that hardly any men get into it either. Yes the ones that do get into it and play it are mostly men. But if we're holding up technical, experimental, intellectually stimulating music as a measure of consciousness, then men fail that test almost as miserably as women do. There's not much in it at all. Most men also generally go for safe, conventional tunes which inevitably will centre around partying, sex and love, being as virtually all accessible music does.

Conventional is the operative word. People in general will just go for whatever gets pumped into their heads by the zeitgeist. Whether it has any depth or not is lost on them. Acid Jazz was a good fairly current example of people getting into technical experimental music but it dropped off the map as quickly as it appeared because it was just a phase of fashion.

So yes, I would agree that would be an indicator of a certain quality of masculinity. A quality evidently lacking in men to almost the same degree it is lacking in women. That 8% of men buck the trend whereas only 2% of women do isn't that statistically significant when compared to the whole.

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

To me this represents the differing mentalities of the masculine and feminine mind, as opposed to the sexes. Increasingly, the differences between the sexes represents a poor example of this.

Kevin wrote:

DQ: Her status as a woman is what is uppermost in her mind

KS: 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.

Avoiding pain through unconsciousness is certainly the underlying impulse of her behaviour, but as Skip says, it isn't something that she is consciously aware of. She never thinks, "If I do this, I will be happy and safe, and nothing can hurt me." That would be far too conscious and logical. Rather, she subconsciously seeks her safety by merging in with the crowd, by being accepted and judged favourably by other women.

This is why she is constantly obsessed with her appearance, with being attractive, with clothing, with being fashionable, with hooking up with a successful man, with having nice shiny children, a lovely house, and all the rest of it. The primary purpose is to be thought of as a successful woman, and thus keep her firmly embedded within the world of womanhood.

It is why she is always anxious, prone to envy, acutely aware of body-language, quick to gossip and frequently backstabbing other women. The main purpose of gossip and backstabbing is to merge further into the crowd by placing herself in opposition to those women who are seen to be "failing". It is very similar to the dynamics underlying mob-lynching. One can enjoy the warm embrace of the crowd by pilloring those who are seen to be outside of it. Again, this is all subconscious. These are motivations that she is barely aware of, if at all.

The perfect situation for a woman, her greatest heaven, is to not only be accepted by other women, but to be the envy of them as well. Thus, she is constantly looking for things that will giver her a slight edge over other women. Not too much of an edge, as that will only threaten her position within the crowd, but just enough to make her seem worthwhile and valuable. And so she constantly has an eye on the latest fashions, regularly seeks to change her wardrobe and hairstyle, relentlessly tries to improve her man, lavishes attention upon decorating her home - anything that will keep her one step ahead of the others. And since the situation is always fluid, she is always in a state of vulnerability and knows it. A woman can never rest. She always has to be on the ball.

-

Kevin Solway wrote:

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.

I just wanted to point out that I wasn't talking about appealing to the common man. Rather I was talking about maximising the number open to its wisdom and the potential 'conversion rate' thereby. Many, if not most, of these people are in no way above being put off by what they may initially interpret as bias.

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

KS: 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.

Needless to say, I think you should reconsider. I think some personal bias is creeping into your evaluation as to whether this is conducive or not to getting wisdom (not your message or legacy) out into a domain where as many people as possible that are ready, or potentailly ready, to hear it will do so.

And remember that Einstein was popularly trumpeted for General Relativity. But everyone who knows what they're on about knows that Special Relativity is where it's at.

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.

You are justified in thinking that. The evidence is irrefutable. Think about that in light of my general thrust.

Kevin Solway wrote:

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.

Women don't play computer games, or hardly any do. There's no question that computer gaming appeals to men, whereas it doesn't to women, because of some masculine component. That doesn't make the vast majority of computer gaming anything other than a mindless escape. It's just an escape into something more masculine than escaping into soap operas (which modern men are by no means above) but it's just as mindless. Monging out with a controller in your hand and some objectives to complete is still monging out.

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.

What, you mean, erm, like, erm oh yeah coz, er, that's like, er, so...... ...., err... .. Dude my head!

DT: 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.

KS: 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!

Now-now, that isn't what I originally said. What I said was that it is almost as easy to observe femininity and unconsciousness in modern man as it is in woman. And that it is almost as hard to observe masculinity and consciousness in modern men as it is in women.

If it's just a matter of getting the thing read, certainly leave the Woman stuff in it. The negative press alone will throw it onto the best seller list. The only problem is that it will increase the actual misogyny out there, justifying to many more degenerates that it is okay to treat women abusively - even though that is not what you are actually trying to encourage.

I don't think that type of man will find any solace in the material at all. That type of man is unlikely to read or care about its content. And of course, a fool will always put his own meaning and desire on the words of the wise. Ought the wise remain silent because of this? I don't think so. The truth has to be spoken at some point. That point may as well be now. 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......

Dave toast wrote:

Women don't play computer games, or hardly any do. There's no question that computer gaming appeals to men, whereas it doesn't to women, because of some masculine component.

Actually there is a current raise in women playing computer games, but of course they are encouraged to play by their boyfriends, especially online role-playing games. However, from what I can understand, women in the game will never ever choose a male character, as those types of characters are reserved for the leaders in the game, which women don’t seem all that interested in. They generally prefer side-kick roles, where they help by acting as healers, or decoys from behind the male characters.

One could also make the argument that a woman’s identity is so tied to her body that she is incapable of imagining herself as a male. However, males in the game have no problem choosing female characters, usually to fool other characters, and give some strategic advantage.

This is a major advantage that males have when it comes to spirituality. Generally, males have less identification with their body, which can make it easier for them to transcend their ego. Women believe they are their bodies, and this is a very difficult illusion for her to get over.

I think QRS' ideas on Woman tends to bug people, for two main reasons:

1 - it doesn't fit into the average world-view of philosophy. It doesn't appear loud and clear in lots of literature around the world.

2 - it makes just about everyone out to be inferior compared to a sage. Though this is clearly true, no one likes to hear it.

I think this desire to blend in, and not be different to others (really different, not just superficially shocking), is the hallmark of Woman. And Woman is the voice of Society. The voice says, "If you do not connect with Us, you'll be in misery and coldness forever." It's just a mental voice, a kind of parasitic belief system. It feeds on agitation, worry, fear of unhappiness, and neediness of peace, love, and praise.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Dave toast wrote:

Women don't play computer games, or hardly any do. There's no question that computer gaming appeals to men, whereas it doesn't to women, because of some masculine component.

Actually there is a current raise in women playing computer games, but of course they are encouraged to play by their boyfriends, especially online role-playing games. However, from what I can understand, women in the game will never ever choose a male character, as those types of characters are reserved for the leaders in the game, which women don’t seem all that interested in. They generally prefer side-kick roles, where they help by acting as healers, or decoys from behind the male characters.

One could also make the argument that a woman’s identity is so tied to her body that she is incapable of imagining herself as a male. However, males in the game have no problem choosing female characters, usually to fool other characters, and give some strategic advantage.

Speaking of strategic advantage....

Girl Advertises sex for World of warcraft gold:

http://i13.tinypic.com/42tdfgl.jpg

And scores:

http://whoretriumph.ytmnsfw.com/

Dan Rowden wrote:a fool will always put his own meaning and desire on the words of the wise. Ought the wise remain silent because of this?

No, the wise ought not remain silent - but the wise must speak wisely to minimize unnecessary instances of this.

Elizabeth is not totally right that "Poison + Woman" encourages hatred of women. The hate is already very much there. People deeply hate the thing they are addicted to.

Men bash women and weaker people, because of their hatred and frustration with unconsciousness, and also because they love to force things to suit them. This is really a gross form of misogyny. Still, it has a tiny seed of wisdom.

Those who explore the meaning of Woman, may eventually find out for themselves, that pure misogyny is free of hatred.

So, I hope that Kevin doesn't exclude that section.

Dan Rowden wrote: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......

So?

It doesn't matter what Kevin looks like. It doesn't matter how his words are desecrated. It doesn't matter what his legacy is. What matters is the perpetuation of wisdom. You people do get emotional about this subject of Poison. I think Kevin needs some more dispassionate advice.

Dave T,

Don't you think that wisdom is an absolutely personal matter? So that a wise book ought to remind one of oneself?

If it was purely academic, and didn't get into one's deepest attachments, why would an intelligent person buy it?

Surely, an intelligent person could tell, by what they hear everyone else parrotting on about, what is worth reading and what is garbage.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Dave toast wrote:

Women don't play computer games, or hardly any do. There's no question that computer gaming appeals to men, whereas it doesn't to women, because of some masculine component.

Actually there is a current raise in women playing computer games, but of course they are encouraged to play by their boyfriends, especially online role-playing games. However, from what I can understand, women in the game will never ever choose a male character, as those types of characters are reserved for the leaders in the game, which women don’t seem all that interested in. They generally prefer side-kick roles, where they help by acting as healers, or decoys from behind the male characters.

Of course women are playing video games more and more, it's a natural consequence of them being around the house (games that is). The Nintendo Wii has recently opened up a whole new breed of female 'gamer'. But there are differing degrees of gaming. Most of it, as previously stated, is monging out. At the more hardcore end, there is full on FPS, like Counter-Strike. You will find little to no women playing that, I haven't. RPG and MMORPG is where you'll find them - The Sims and World of Warcraft (Have you ever played WoW? The women are just as egotistical as the men). But there's still hardly any of them compared to males, the difference is statistically significant. Having said that, even the likes of Counter-Strike is, in the final analysis, just as mindless as distracting as RPG, MMORPG, Wii, Soaps or lads mags.

One could also make the argument that a woman’s identity is so tied to her body that she is incapable of imagining herself as a male. However, males in the game have no problem choosing female characters, usually to fool other characters, and give some strategic advantage.

Well, I'm a big gamer and this isn't my experience at all. There are plenty of males masquerading as females who play the game I play but none of them do it for strategical advantage. They do it for purely egotistical reasons, attention being at the top of their list. That is something you would prbably label feminine, right?

This is a major advantage that males have when it comes to spirituality. Generally, males have less identification with their body, which can make it easier for them to transcend their ego. Women believe they are their bodies, and this is a very difficult illusion for her to get over.

I don't know mate, I can see arguments for it and arguments against it. What's for sure is that, with all that advantage afforded them by evolution, men sure make a good fist of pissing it up the wall.

Dan Rowden wrote: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."

Kelly Jones wrote:Dave T,

Don't you think that wisdom is an absolutely personal matter? So that a wise book ought to remind one of oneself?

If it was purely academic, and didn't get into one's deepest attachments, why would an intelligent person buy it?

Surely, an intelligent person could tell, by what they hear everyone else parrotting on about, what is worth reading and what is garbage.

i think everything is an absolutely personal matter Kelly.

A wise book had ought to remind its author of themself, otherwise it wouldn't be a wise book.

It's kind of like the Acid Jazz thing I've mentioned elsewhere. Huge numbers of people get into something with merit because everyone else is doing so, the merit is generally lost on them. But there remains a kernal who recognise the quality and stick with it, who might not otherwise have done so. They also might not have branched out into all sorts of other quality if it wasn't for that original spark that simultaneously lit up their intellect and their passion.

It's an interesting thing, punctuation. I like a long break between sentences. It's a reminder to take time to reflect over the thought a bit, and let it sink in.


[edit: Even with Dave's post deleted, this still makes sense.]

Funny you should say that. Look, I removed my petty post without knowing you'd seen it.

Shall I put it back again?

There was a tiny crystal of venom in it after all.