"Poison for the Heart"

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Kevin Solway wrote in Poison for the Heart

The intelligent woman

The woman who values her intellect is one of the greatest threats to the spiritual man. His music attracts, yet is fatal to her. His melodious rhythms conceal powerful thunder. She is strong enough to be aware of his fire. She even feels its warmth. But instead of using the fire to heat a brew of wisdom - she gets burned.

How so?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

KS also wrote:

Masculine/Feminine

The spiritual man has power like no other. He must be so careful it doesn't run away with him. His wisdom lies in his absolute submission of strength to God. A bird carrying a fish is chased by all the other birds, until he lets go of the fish and becomes free again.

Thus his final action is feminine: but the ultimate feminine is a male.

How is the ultimate feminine a male?

and:

Fault

When someone, wallowing in self-pity, blames their own failure on themselves, you must explain to them how they are blameless. After all, they and everything they do have their causes which stem from beginningless time. No-one can change destiny.

However, when they blame others, then explain how the fault is their own. It is at least their responsibility to get others to take responsibility.

Were you serious when you wrote that?

and:

Man/Woman




To the women in my audience: cause and effect is most definitely real.


To the men in my audience: cause and effect is most definitely not real.

Huh?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

KS wrote:

We people have no choice about what kind of personality we have.

That's incorrect. We can cultivate any of a wide varieties of personality, then we become that personality.

[Kevin Solway]

The woman who values her intellect is one of the greatest threats to the spiritual man. His music attracts, yet is fatal to her. His melodious rhythms conceal powerful thunder. She is strong enough to be aware of his fire. She even feels its warmth. But instead of using the fire to heat a brew of wisdom - she gets burned.

How so?

She doesn't have enough consciousness to learn, so she ends up wasting his time.

Thus his final action is feminine: but the ultimate feminine is a male.

How is the ultimate feminine a male?

To submit to something is "feminine", but to do so consciously and actively is male. To submit to God/Truth is the ultimate male act.

To the women in my audience: cause and effect is most definitely real. To the men in my audience: cause and effect is most definitely not real.

Huh?

Different people have different delusions to overcome.

There is a teaching in Zen: At the beginning of the Path there is a teapot, further along the path there is no teapot, and at the end of the path there is again a teapot.

We people have no choice about what kind of personality we have.

That's incorrect. We can cultivate any of a wide varieties of personality, then we become that personality.

We can only do what the Universe causes us to do.

[Edited spelling]

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

The woman who values her intellect is one of the greatest threats to the spiritual man. His music attracts, yet is fatal to her. His melodious rhythms conceal powerful thunder. She is strong enough to be aware of his fire. She even feels its warmth. But instead of using the fire to heat a brew of wisdom - she gets burned.

How so?

She doesn't have enough consciousness to learn, so she ends up wasting his time.

She gets burned by wasting his time? If that were so, it would be he who got burned, not her.

Overall, I think that the title Poison for the Heart is an apt name. It could just as appropriatly been named Seeds of a Bitter Old Man especially since it includes the progression of your thought process; it says that in 1987 you thought that what was wrong with women was due largely to societal influence on their upbringing, but that you had changed your mind to believe that there was something genetically unenlightenable about females. Here is the road that you appear to be on:

1. Decides there must be something wrong with females.
2. Notes that some men have something wrong with them, too. Decides to attribute their wrongness to femininity.
3. Decides that "female" is a condition of being permanently handicapped.
4. Decides that some males have some degree of this handicap, but many males just act handicapped at times and can be taught to use their full abilities.
5. Decides that although "female" is a condition of permanent handicap, some females can be partially rehabilitated.
(I believe you are at step 5)
6. Notes that many men do not share the view that females are handicapped by being female. Decides that more men are handicapped than he originally thought.
7. Notes that most men do not share the view that females are handicapped by being female. Decides that most men are handicapped.
8. Notes some "femininity" in everyone, and developes disdain for all of humanity. In this way, becomes a bitter old man at an age that most people of his culture are still considered fairly young.
9. Having shortened his lifespan by not enjoying life, either ends up in a hospital, delusional from medication for some life-threatening malady, screaming "you're alll a bunch of unconcious women" - even at the males (this leads to being further medicated) or simply dying at a younger age than others in his geographic region.

Although your book had some good material on enlightenment, I would be surprised if the potential publishers even read far enough into it to find those parts. The first part of the book gives the impression that you were an arrogant young man who thought he already knew all about the entire lifespan, and that you were some kind of crackpot for your views on women. No publishing company would want its name on material like that because its stocks would plummet and many readers would refuse to buy any book published by that company. It wasn't that you are not a good salesman; it's that the product you were trying to sell wasn't just Poison for the Heart, it would have been poison for their bottom line.

[Kevin Solway]

She gets burned by wasting his time? If that were so, it would be he who got burned, not her.

She gets burned, and he wastes his time, so they both get burned.

Decides that "female" is a condition of being permanently handicapped.

I've never decided that it is a permanent condition.

8. Notes some "femininity" in everyone, and developes disdain for all of humanity. In this way, becomes a bitter old man at an age that most people of his culture are still considered fairly young.

I think chimpanzees are pretty stupid too, but I'm not bitter about it. It's simply an observation of fact.

The title "Poison for the heart" indicates the killing of the human heart, so that the immortal soul can take its place. The true heart.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Kevin Solway wrote in Poison for the Heart

The intelligent woman

The woman who values her intellect is one of the greatest threats to the spiritual man. His music attracts, yet is fatal to her. His melodious rhythms conceal powerful thunder. She is strong enough to be aware of his fire. She even feels its warmth. But instead of using the fire to heat a brew of wisdom - she gets burned.

How so?

Kevin Solway wrote:

She doesn't have enough consciousness to learn, so she ends up wasting his time.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
She gets burned by wasting his time? If that were so, it would be he who got burned, not her.

Kevin wrote:
She gets burned, and he wastes his time, so they both get burned.

Okay Kevin, nice circle. Let's try for a direct answer this time - how does she get burned?

[Kevin Solway]

how does she get burned?

She simply can't take the heat. Simple as that.

The truth is too profound.

As a generalization of course.

[Natan]

The search for Truth Kevin is one of reaching conclusions, reaching what you think is the Ultimate Truth, only to realise after an incident/accident/event etc that it is not.
Only when you are humble enough can the soul re-commence its journey (The Tao that is known is not the Tao, return to the simple)
Many of us are on this journey Kevin. Tear up "Poison of the Heart and forget what you think you know . Humbly (as I have ) become the student again.then the journey begins again

[Dan Rowden]

Two things: 1) the only reason Kevin would have for changing his views about the world is if you (or someone) were to demonstrate that his views do not reflect it accurately. That hasn't happened. 2) Kevin's views about the world reflect the world as it is now, but they also take into consideration the evolution of that world. The world is not in stasis and nor are Kevin's empirically based observations. When and if things change so too will his observations about the world.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Dan wrote:

Kevin's views about the world reflect the world as it is now, but they also take into consideration the evolution of that world.

I believe that Kevin is stating his observations about Kevin's world, as opposed to the world overall. "World" actually might more accuratly be stated as "world-view" but I choose to credit Kevin with the capacity to accuratly view what he has seen, and make this merely a matter of the fact that none of us have seen everything.

Because of some of the statements that Kevin has made, I do not trust the accuracy of the statements that he makes to females, especially regarding his opinion of females (although I can recognize bits of ultimate truth as compared to an independant and direct source - direct observation). Kevin speaks to females one way and to males another way out of his perception that females think in strange ways. Anyone who is spoken to in strange ways will respond in strange ways, so I think that Kevin is inadvertantly distorting his own view of females. I do not disagree that some females are as Kevin perceives them. When Kevin puts aside stereotypical roles for both male and female, he hits genderless targets pretty well.

Kevin, I believe that you could get closer to ultimate truth by speaking only unadulterated truth. If someone doesn't "get it" because they are female or feminine of either gender, or because they just are not bright enough yet, then that is too bad for them. Please consider that you should not concern yourself with translating the truth because the translations offend those who know truth by its original form. An infant learns a language long before it has developed the muscles to form the words properly, and baby talk only impedes the child's language development skills. The language of truth is similar.

[Tharan]

"enlightenment" is subjective. Reality is objective. We must strive.

[tooyi]

Elizabeth.

your last message is an example of not being able to generalize. More importantly use them and interpret them. You identify as a female: a person and the whole sex. Both at the same time. When Kevin has used a string of letters 'woman' you find yourself in those letters. Anything that Kevin says after that moment is about you. Not because of Kevin. It is your transgression.

You talk of stereotypes because you haven't reached the spirit of what is being said. That you are still tackling with gender issues and roles is childish.

Your want of understanding doesn't reward you with what you need to understand.

Why?

Women are realists who pretend to be romantics. Men are romantics who pretend to be realists.

Manly passion is to travel far, climb higher and higher, invent, dare, go and see. A woman can never understand this.

Emotions and ability to manage them is usually considered a female quality. Make no mistake: This is only out of necessity. Crediting woman for ability and expertise in managing emotions equals commending drunkards for their grace of using the road.

What can be said to a neurotic? As long as they seek not the Truth the allusion of such a possibility must be instated. Those who do seek should be prepared for the blade being used bare. When you know where to cut that which was in the first place unpleasant and ugly is easily removed.

The problem of woman is not the unwillingness to reach enlightenment. Seek not. You can not. No one can. There is nowhere to reach. The problem is inability to stop and see that you are already there. The other is night, the other day.

To a woman enlightenment equals a spa. Meditation, harmony, and nirvana right out of a catalog. Beggar's spiritual facelift.

It is not that what is said becomes overly pessimistic. On the contrary. It is overly optimistic to believe people can deal with not-bullshit. Expecting a voyage, a trip to neighbours was too uncompelling for the kid. Just because it is so easy doesn't mean it is cheap and worthless. It just makes it hard to accept. How long does it take for one to travel from hell to heaven? It takes only as long as it takes one to forgive oneself. It's not that God's grace wasn't available for everyone. It's that so many are completely unable to accept it.

Bill Hicks had a great piece that well fits here: 'I've learned a lot about women. I think I've learned exactly how the fall of man occured in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, and Adam said one day, "Wow, Eve, here we are, at one with nature, at one with God, we'll never age, we'll never die, and all our dreams come true the instant that we have them." And Eve said, "Yeah... it's just not enough, is it?"'

That one is unable to laugh at the moment of falling out of grace is a reminder of the original sin. To understand the displeasure of such humourless people one can imagine the anguish of Jesus. He said (I fare a guess): "Go and fish me a congregation!" Imagine now that the people went, came back, and nodded their heads. What a cry! It was propably one of the most bitter reminders for him on how most people just can't get a single hint.

To see how much in bad shape mankind is consider first how Eve draws Adam up to the Tree of Knowledge. Where ever, even the outest reaches of the world, mankind has ever gone the Christian church has never been too far behind. So it is now 2000 years since the congregation climbed up that very same trunk. Just as any bread and butter Christian believes that by saying 'Oh, Lord! Oh, Lord!' you automatically get to heaven, only a woman can believe enlightenment is only a discipline in ethics. That you claim to have God's phone number doesn't really sound all that good when you realize that by carrying such an infinite prosperity in your pocket, you are going to have difficulties trying that hole in the needle. A camel can get through. But then again, camels lack pretense.

[Dan Rowden]

Women are realists who pretend to be romantics. Men are romantics who pretend to be realists.

Hmm, Fred Reed. Don't know what to say about that.

[tooyi]

Dan,

was it Fred? I had already forgot where that came from.

It becomes meaningful as long as one considers the intended audience. Proverbial cane.

[Blair]

Who is tooyi, someone Dan ran into in a pub?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Tooyi,

I take into consideration that your response to my post was only your first post here, so I recognize that you probably have not read my 200+ posts previous to this. I generalize when it is appropriate to generalize, and I address specifics when it is appropriate to address specifics. The post you responded to was Kevin-specific, but posted on an open forum because it was not private. Your generalization of me based on the above post reflects your inability to sufficiently differentiate.

I have acknowledged the parts of Kevin’s and David’s observations about females that I believe are true as generalizations and I debate those points that I find erroneously associated with gender, as I find certain points more accurately reflective of other categorizations. One area where clarity of communication is mandatory for the goal is in philosophical discussion, so precise use of terminology on this forum is striven for by the majority of the members. Since much of Kevin’s and David’s philosophical viewpoint is gender-oriented, my responses tend to be in kind.

The QRS philosophy redefines “man” and “woman” to a point that is not recognizable to anyone who has not examined their philosophy (which would represent an even smaller group of people than those who have examined a dictionary). I oppose this redefining due to the potential for misunderstanding that could easily be avoided by using more conventional terms for their precise meaning, and for the prejudicial connotations that using these terms in such a way fosters. Fostering prejudicial connotations, especially covertly and under the defense “you are not using it in the context that I mean” is actually evil. This evil action is furthered by Kevin's frequent jumping between the dictionary definitions had his personal philosphical definitions.

There is enough confusion out there using words as the dictionary prescribes. For example, if a man were to say “My bitch got mad at me for going out without her and tore up the living room. She must have done a couple thousand dollars worth of damage” most people would think his live-in girlfriend is a nut-case. However “bitch” is an appropriate term for a female dog. Few would have suspected he was talking about his pet collie.

Why add to the possibility of misunderstanding when it is not necessary?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

tooyi wrote:

That you claim to have God's phone number

Buddah stated that a person can only reach a state of enlightenment (translation approximates "on their own" but without the connotation of "alone"). In that way, we all have a direct line to God - not just me.

[tooyi]

Elizabeth,

I did realize there was propably a long history of discussion on this forum that you are a part of. The reason why I did comment the discussion was that the nature of the problem was so apparent.

I do agree on the need to use clear communication in philosophical discussion. You seem to be arguing from equality between men and women. What I mean is that it seems as if it was illegal to make any assertions that would put either of the sexes in a perceived disadvantage. It is only offensive if you find yourself in the picture.

Trying to reach enlightenment by defining connotations under the rug is the very thing that makes the dragon in them so strong. Because the ego has not yet let go one is unable to see why the very things one is grasping to are the only objects in the way. There is nothing wrong with philosophy. If one gets really versed in it it may be possible to postpone awakening indefinetly.

You could say QRS is a relaxed pose in a diametric opposition of false perceptions. You approach it by trying to grasp the definitions of "man" and "woman" as a cause when it is just an inevitable consequence. I have yet to see anyone succeed climbing a tree backwards.

You are worried about people misunderstanding and suggest a return to conventions. What you fail to accept is that the convention begins and ends in ignorance. You can not whip up misunderstandings and pile them on top of each other to suddenly make them work. If one requests something to begin with it must be that when you open your mouth you are in error. If that was not enough then there is no longer any hope left. If one feels insulted by this not only did one lose all hope but just also became offensive. (And it was supposed to be a bloody spa!)

It could be said that the closure of symbolic language is the first trap that captures most. The nature of the beast is to conceal the point of perception within a sphere. The point is circling the center and always aims for a higher orbit. What one does is aim outside the sphere and build a device with pieces lying around in the neighbourhood. One then slingshots self only to find that the faster one approaches the edge the more the space curves back to the center. It is a prison and feels like it too. After living there far too long one understandably becomes accustomed to it and plans to make it more comfortable.

When in prison, one becomes corrupted, and whenever anyone talks, assume the worst.

The only way it is possible for the QRS to be about gender issues is if you make it so.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Who is tooyi, someone Dan ran into in a pub?

I wonder if tooyi is either Kevin or David...

[Kevin Solway]

We don't normally refer to ourselves as "the QRS".

As far as we're concerned we're just three individuals.