nyuuzyou/wikis huggingface dataset:
Lipton’s Journal/February 14, 1955/593

My throat is sore again. (I don’t know why I wrote again.) It became sore about an hour after my nose stopped running. For a while I was fighting it—I think I used to get sick so much because I was always fighting my body needs, fighting my sickness, loathing it. This time I will accept my sore throat, feel its soreness, relax in the very soreness, and I have the hunch (a sudden warping of the body-mind which is why hunches are forcings, premature predictions, lacks of patience) that my sore throat will go away if only I give myself truly to it.
Category:February 14, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 14, 1955/594

Patience and impatience. They are the polar expressions of society-and-man, man-and-society. Our impatience comes from our desire to fuse with the universe, our patience is our recognition that society impedes the way and one cannot do it instantly.
But the two become reversed. The person -oriented is impatient, impatient with delay, broken appointments, the inability to communicate, etc. (Etc. is the word symbol for infinity.) Etc. could be the title of a novel which ran a million pages out of trying to capture the total of a moment. 
The person who is -oriented like Ivan Von Auw has patience. They can wait. They know that everybody and everything comes to its fulfillment (if it will—which is what gives them their sadness. Sadness and Gladness) comes to its fulfillment if one accepts, if one takes. So, what happens is that the S gives its essential nervous quality which is time—patience to the , and the H gives its impatience—fusing to the S. The two people within us affect one another. Every man is a marriage within himself.
Category:February 14, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 14, 1955/595

The reason this journal goes is that I do not force it. I accept it. I give to it when I feel like giving, and leave it when I feel barren toward it. (A barren, a baron, a bar on—a barrier is a bar-wielder. Language personifies the outer environment. This all started with the and he. The is the thinginfication of he. It is the definite article. If I am right, all nouns are personifications of human s. Again s. At the beginning of a word it is society generally—at the end it is plurals which are continuations. And English is rich, is bi-polared because English draws deeply and directly from two streams, the Druid blood sacrifices which gave Anglo-Saxon and the rationality of Latin.)
Category:February 14, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 14, 1955/596

To understand a neurotic one would approach it better if one saw neurotic symptoms as malfunctions of Taking, Making, Giving, or Entering processes, or in the Rests between each. Entering for example is enormously important—it is communication whether we discuss productive techniques, sports, music, the universe or the person. But to grasp it we must not ignore the echo. So:
::Take—Rest—Make—Rest—Give—Rest—Enter—Rest—Take—etc.
::give—activation—Destroy—activ—take—acti—leave—acti—give—etc.
In other words, as we give with a part of ourselves, we take with another part; as we make with a part of ourselves, we destroy with another part, as we rest, so we are active, as we allow the outside to enter, so we allow something inside to leave.
Category:February 14, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 14, 1955/597

ENTERING and LEAVING is as important as any of the other processes. It is cognition and acceptance of one’s state of awareness and ability to use, and if we use a new thing we must reject an old. 
In commerce this is readily apparent. All the procedures of inventory, buying new articles, remaindering old is the attempt to express in social commerce the bio-chemical commerce of the body which we call homeostasis. With people, there is always the moment when we can communicate with another, and the entering-leaving faculty of both people is brought into play at that instant. 
Compulsives for example suffer most obviously from entering-leaving malfunctions. Compulsives can give, they can take, they can make, but their pain is to change an idea, an address, a relationship, a piece of cash. Their sociostasis has attacked the entering-leaving faculties. Which is why misers are compulsives—they cannot bear to give up anything—so nothing new except acquisitions can enter their souls.
Category:February 14, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 14, 1955/598

Impatience—patience. This, too, revolves respectively around the Entering-Giving liaison, and the Take-Make liaison. Givers are invariably “insensitive” to people’s receptivity that is patience-resistance. As viz myself and my mother. Takers are invariably insensitive to people’s impatience. What may be said is that neither patience nor impatience are virtues in themselves. A man who is healthy on the patience-impatience spectrum is capable of waiting and capable of hurrying. His entering-leaving faculties are highly developed (what we mean by strong “sensitivity”) and so he or she can be patient or pressing as they sense the relative activity or inertness (interness—unwillingness to accept) of the person, audience, whatever which surrounds them. 
What I must develop is patience and the entering—taking aspects of my personality for I have always been able to make and to give. The others are what screw me up. I need never worry about losing my energetic impatience (I have so much of it) if I take on patience. It is just that I must stop forcing my personality into a One—I must accept the two—and when I do I’ll really be able to go. I must stop being dogmatic, but be a dogmatic and eager follower as each demands me.
Category:February 14, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 14, 1955/600

The malfunction of entering-leaving is the health of the State. This is where Sociostasis attacks the for pure er is capable of instantaneous entering and leaving. The pillars of society like Stalin, Chamberlain, the D.A.R.s, my Aunt Nan, Larry, etc. have their anxiety over letting something new enter to be taken. They also cannot let go. Stalinism’s strength and weakness is that they have attacked the entering-leaving (birth-dying) synapses (what is the word I want? It’s not liaisons, nor synapses—patience, m’boy). Stalinism’s strength and weakness is that they have attacked the entering-leaving conduits of their people. The frustration produces their unilinear strength, their weaknesses before flexings. 
Category:February 14, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 14, 1955/601

The phallic-narcissist (Jim Jones) cannot take. The hysteric cannot make. The dependent cannot give. This is vastly oversimplified, and each category bears its relation not only to how the R-act of (Enter-Take—Make-Give from now on called the Etemege or its echo (Leave—Give—Destroy—Take) the Legedete. (Etemeges and Legedetes Unite and Separate) but the R-act also bears its relation to the L-act which is the rest, the passivity-activation of the self. The image of the movie is most adequate. I’ll expand later—it’s gobbledygook as it now stands. But to expand the beginning of this:
The phallic-narcissist (Jim Jones) tends to go directly from something entering him to making something. He does not “take” or digest it long enough. The hysteric goes from taking (which is strong in the hysteric) to giving (which is also strong) without making the product rich and various enough. Hence the “vulgarity” of the hysteric. The dependent goes from making to entering the other without giving. Hence they seem passive. Or sullen, or remote. Schizophrenics for example. The mystic cannot give—which is why his remarks are too cryptic for any audience. The compulsive cannot allow new things to enter, old things to go away which is why they are “constipated,” academic, pillars-of-society, rigid, driven in their actions. Give and Take are signals to them rather than intervals for entrance and exit with appropriate rests.
Category:February 14, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 14, 1955/602

Back from lunch. I thought I was tired, and while I ate I let my mind rest. The result is that I now have an improvement on 601. There was a contradiction I kept worrying at in 601. Which is that compulsive people, (to take one example) often have acute sensitivity in limited ways. (One could indeed say that acute limited sensitivity satisfies society best because it allows excellent understanding within a category but prevents the wider understanding which is at the heart of concerted confident rebellion. (Understanding concerted confident rebellion as having its horrible under-echo which bursts through at times of chaotic insecure sentiments of crappiness.) But that too is necessary in order to have ventilation and to be able to express one of the two sides of the eternal opposite.) 
So, to return to the compulsive with his acute limited sensitivity—of course the compulsive is the society builder, and in his vein he builds, builds builds, improves, modifies and adapts, but it is a very narrow vein and it is at the cost of his own life and . But if he is sensitive it means that he can accept, he can allow certain things to enter, more than that his reflexes and reactions to acceptable material are very “enterable.” 
So that when I speak of the compulsive suffering from a malfunction of the entering faculties what I mean is not an overall dimming, but rather a “hunching,” a location of too much in too little. So the rest of the compulsive remains comparatively rigid and constipated. But the compulsive expresses a noble faculty of man in his very crippling—it is “sensitivity.” Just as the hysteric in his or her inability to make (except partially and intensely) expresses sensuality and creativity by inference. So the phallic narcissist implies the mystic and mighty taker, the dependent the giver and locator (for a dependent person always gives in his or her deeply restricted but intense way, be it loyalty, love, submission, whatever). 
So to restate it, the compulsive cannot enter or be entered except narrowly and intensely (his expertization); the hysteric cannot make except narrowly and intensely (his “scene”); the warrior-entertainer cannot take except narrowly and intensely (egotistically); the mystic-and/or-dependent cannot give except narrowly and intensely (vision) and or (faith).
Category:February 14, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 14, 1955/603

But another revelatory contradiction in my communicative chain appears: From the outside something Enters (We’ll skip the Rests) and is Taken and is Made and is Given. And in giving, in the act of giving something is lost which must be replaced which is where the faculty of entrance asserts itself again, for if something new does not enter (something other than the previous material available in the compulsive for entrance) then the compulsive must use some of his own material
				
some of his vital body substance in order to keep the chain of life within himself functioning. (One cannot remain the same; one must either continue to grow or else carry more for the same trip). Which is why compulsives shrink and harden as they grow older until they crack, their very sensitivity (the entrance, the hole) narrowing unless they are capable of widening it. 
So it is with all the others. If the malfunction in the chain with its special crippled sensitivity is not widened, relaxed, stimulated, or controlled (Enter, Take, Make, Give) the phallic narcissist becomes wilder, less imaginative, less healthy, more destructive until he erupts into a dangerous accident, uncontrollable power urges, lack of compassion, ruthlessness sadism, etc. The hysteric becomes able to make less and less, drinks, “scenes,” destroys self-destructively (rather than sadistically) that it is dynamically masochistic, plays with violent suicide, enters it, deteriorates. (Every hysteric is an artist manqué.) So the dependent-mystic if they are able to give less and less become more and more private, more cryptic, more “paranoid,” more hostile, more misunderstood, more despised and isolated until insanity welcomes them.
Category:February 14, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 14, 1955/604

“Freedom is the recognition of necessity.” Marx? Engels? I come to believe more and more that this is true, and that the freedom involved is far greater than is understood. For our necessity is always a gamble, an either/or. The decider, the arbiter, the gambler within us poised on the irreconcilables of vs. makes the decision to let one predominate, thrive, and die in order to allow the other rest, recuperation, and new strength. 
So the decision to express one’s hatred allows love to generate. The decision to repress one’s hatred creates depression, neither hatred nor love can thrive, neither can die. (This is as true for a minute as for a lifetime.) The very heart of “function” rests on the ability to decide the conflict, to allow the alternation, the rhythm to grow. It is the attempt to suppress rhythm (also a decision) which allows temporary security in return for subsequent damage. 
The future in its details is not foreseeable, although the contour of one’s personality makes it partially locatable—the totally rigid man is depressed because he knows well that no matter who he meets nor what “happens” to him, he will react to it only by the narrow lens of his “entering” faculties. 
The decision of how to reconcile the irreconcilable H vs. S is always made in terms of time. We “Choose” for a near benefit or a lone one. In cowardice we make the easy decision to take the immediate benefit and deal with its inherent disadvantage at leisure, or we elect to choose the immediate disadvantage (like an artist changing his style) for the hope, the confidence-despair that more will emerge. 
In this sense I believe in freedom of will. Given the fact that the body is not a simple machine, is not Other-Life, but is Life, All is not knowable—even if we know ourselves to the All of infinity, we still cannot know others to the All of infinity (a most difficult mystic notion on which mystics would divide into mystical mystics and rational mystics) and so the future which is “Open” must be estimated by the deep knowledge of the Self. There is free will. It is the courage or cowardice with which we estimate the future and so decide.
Category:February 14, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 14, 1955/605

I don’t know if I agree with the above. It is also possible that to go to the heart of oneself, to penetrate the infinite levels of the unconscious, would open one “telepathically” to the All in every man, every insect, every machine, so that we would even know that the car we neither see nor hear around the corner is driven by a potential murderer whose seconds are running out, and that he or she will strike us as we step off the pavement and into the street. This, really, is where I see the mystery now. Which or what do I believe?
Category:February 14, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 14, 1955/606

Let me make as assumption. Every human is born with the same , the same soul or self which is capable of understanding All. But the second nervous system, the sociostatic nervous system gives us our warp, our “identity,” and in the collaboration of the irreconcilables our capacity to enter the pool of knowledge which exists in all of us, is different for everyone. 
So, everyone apprehends Reality in his own way, through the filter of his own . And therefore no matter how deeply we dip into our er, our collective wisdom, the “particular” insights we return to the world with, are colored by our S. So, we can never know All, never that is until all men reach God which is the point of infinity. 
Therefore, we cannot “know” the murderer driver around the corner, although we can come very close to knowing him, and so, total knowledge of the totality is impossible for us—at least while we live—we can only guess and gamble, exercise our free-will. Free-will is the manly substitute-attribute of Man who has not reached God. So we have Choice which is indispensable if we are to reach God. To postulate a rational world is to postulate a totally determined world. To postulate God is to postulate free-will. This is one of the most fascinating of the philosophical opposites. 
And I find that as I believe in free-will, so I am terrified. I was much more comfortable with determinism for it gave the solace that one could not make a mistake—that, so to speak, if one had not fucked-up the way one did, one would have fucked-up worse.
Category:February 14, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 14, 1955/608

Which is where an understanding of habit comes in. Habit is the suspension of the gambling-faculty—— is given his sleep. To live in society demands habits. Otherwise, the Juggler would be overworked. (The Juggler works while we sleep, rest—generally—while we act and move. Each night the Juggler lays out the choices for tomorrow, makes the Great Debates, and judges them by his lights.) 
But the Juggler to conserve his energy frequently makes the decision to take the most irreconcilable, the most difficult-to-decide of the choices and freeze it, make it a habit, a habit which will not be broken until he decides that the health of the body-mind (homeostasis) radically demands it. Which could account for the over-determination of neurotic symptoms. Choice-energy must not be wasted. In order for Life to function amidst Other-Life in the Body-Mind, a day to day altering of habit will exhaust the —Symbolically, a habit is to brain as a shell-fragment is to the flesh—to disgorge it is a surgeon’s decision. Each “destructive” habit becomes more difficult to disgorge as one grows older and the lerve wanes—which is why we cannot carry the impediments of youth in middle-age. 
So, the over-determination of the neurotic symptom-habit is not really “over-determination.” A habit must be placed beyond day-to-day questioning, for if it is not, lerve is wasted in considering it, debating, coming close to decision, and then retreating, and the waste of lerve (that is the continual expenditure of more lerve than is recreated) encourages bankruptcy and death. So the over-determination of habit reflects the need of the Juggler to conserve lerve.
Category:February 14, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 14, 1955/609

I lost weight all last summer and fall because I was generating the necessary to change a good many old habits, habits which had grown to the point of strangling me. When I married Adele, I made the decision to change my habits. If I had remained as I was, I would have drowned in depression. 
So, I am still capable of adapting, and the knowledge that I can adapt gives me optimism again as well as a sense of greater fear, but fear with dignity attached, for I recognize that my old neurotic fears were disgusting to me because I could not understand the validity of them. My new fears I take on as a gambler. Which is why I “romanticize” myself, ergo infuriating all my rationally-determined friends. Every gambler is a romantic, he knows that life and death ride on every ball on every wheel.
But how much harder this would have been without Lipton’s.
Category:February 14, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 14, 1955/610

I wonder if once smoking tobacco did not give a similar feeling like Lipton’s. Especially when tobacco first introduced into Europe was regarded as a serious vice. It is only when we take on a serious vice that we are ready to explore. Our sense of vice, of danger and retribution generate the over-determination of paranoia which throws its searchlight into ourselves in order to understand the enemy society, and also casts its searchlight on the world in order again to understand oneself. Danger develops the extremes of one’s personality. If I had not considered Lipton’s such a gamble, I would have been left relatively unmoved by it. So it is not merely that physical action of a depressant or stimulant which causes new states, but rather the over-determination of paranoid which creates the subjective effect.
Category:February 14, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 14, 1955/611

The rationalist says: We can only trust objective data, for the subjective is a mal-proportioned exaggeration of the essential material phenomena.
The mystic says: We can only trust subjective “thoughts” for the objective data, the facts, are merely frozen theories, agglomerated habits of ideas which are mistaken for a Reality which may not even be Material.
And I shuttle back and forth, making a hundred trips these days. No wonder my thoughts race like a madman, and my ideas stumble in incoherent spasmodic brilliance.
Category:February 14, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 14, 1955/612

What I suspect about Lipton’s is that a great deal of its effect may be due to the concentration upon breathing, and the unaccustomed breathing we do. Our lives, our bodies, our existences “corporeally” rather than cellularly depend and exist upon our breathing habits. To learn to breathe “better” is probably the fastest way to improve one’s health.
Category:February 14, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 14, 1955/613

My sore throat seems gone. Now, my chest aches. From cigarette inhaling? Sigh-of-regret inhaling? Is a cigarette cough the bark of anger which is the echo of the sigh of regret? Vance Bourjaily once wrote that a penis was that “slippery bridge from which one of us tries to reach another.” It’s the best line he ever wrote. I wonder if a cigarette is not indeed the bridge of sighs which goes nowhere.
Category:February 14, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 14, 1955/614

One healthy thing I am doing these days. I am worrying less. Worrying less about my habits instead of fighting them. So I accept Lipton’s and Seconal and cigarettes with less guilt and-or shame (I don’t know quite which) than I used to. I give myself to them and find in the case of Lipton’s and Seconal that I can relinquish them partially too. It is the business of extremes. To attack a habit properly one must let it alone for a time. Constant guilt nagging at the habit merely strengthens it, makes it more wary and resourceful—which is why compulsives have such incredible habits. Incredibly strong that is. So, to break a habit one must first “enjoy” it.
Category:February 14, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 14, 1955/615

The part and the whole. Which is where dialectics comes in. For each part is a phase of a continuous spectrum which is wavelike. So skin gives way to fat which gives way to muscle which gives way to whatever it is between muscle and bone. But the parts are not separate. Our merely emphasizes the wave into a separate. Muscle and bone seen ideationally are very different (19th century medicine). Seen by the latest ‘discoveries’ of the last fifty or a hundred years, muscle cells congregate and dissipate as in turn bone cells extended retreat into congregations of bone cells. If I knew more medicine I could express this far more accurately and I believe far more “mystically.”
Category:February 14, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 14, 1955/616

As I said to Bob, “Faith is an argument over perception.” Whatever we do not perceive consciously ourselves we ascribe to the warp of “faith” or subjective “projection” of needs on the part of the other person. The person with relative “faith” in the given debate sees the other’s arguments as willful or hopeless “blindness.” 
Yet, the rationalist must admit this: that of the two debaters one or the other is more correct—is closer to the material reality in which the rationalist has faith. And the scientific rationalist—the socialist—believes that history—objective scientific evidence—will give the proof to one or the other. So, there will be times when the one with “faith” will be more correct. What has been assumed to be a warped subjective projection turns out to be a closer objective estimate. Therefore, the rationalist must admit that faith in and of itself does not disqualify one of the debaters, nor by extension does paranoia, nor “projection.”
Category:February 14, 1955