nyuuzyou/wikis huggingface dataset:
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/468

The art of the playwright is to create types so finely drawn that they are begging for actors to fill their insides. For years I said actors were people without selves in search of Selfs. But the truth is that actors are pure being, pure me’s looking for I’s (that is, types), which to express the passive flowing nature of their sensitivity. Which is why as I continue to write, my characters become more and more elaborated types (my successful characters like Munshin, Teppis, Lulu, and earlier Guinevere and Hollingsworth) and I am drawn more and more to the theatre. But, also, I begin to act more and more. My inner sensitivity, my , demands that I express much I cannot say by entering into others, others who we always see as types. I can imitate Adele less and less, create her personality less and less in writing because she is not a type to me, she is a Being, and to create a Being in a book requires genius, whereas to create or limn a type requires merely talent. I have so far to go as a novelist. Yet, the pleasure of my books is that through my types one feels the beating of hearts, the being of hearts.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/470

German. The Germans are philosophers; the Germans are the rationalists who set out to explore the types. So their monsters in the last war were social monsters, rationalized, mechanized—just as the total of all machinery expresses the total understanding to this date that society has of the functioning of the body. As we learn more about the mind we have IBM machines, calculators, automation, cybernetics. Invention comes from our deep penetration into the understanding of our body.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/471

Anyway, the Germans. They are philosophers, rationalists, societists—even as monsters they insisted upon being all of the above three; even as mystics they wrote as crabbed rationalists—Kant. They are pompous because they feel the great seriousness of life, of what they say. A pompous style is the expression of feelings of deep seriousness with little sense or insight into what one really wishes to say. But great works have to be pompous—they should be. They are like symphonies, they are regal, they are the highest social elevations of the soaring Type. So the Germans always use capitals for their nouns. Indeed, they should. Capitals are the expression that one wished to elevate a noun (which is always implicitly a type) into a Type. This note answers my dilemma about the concentration camp novel. I should place it in the past after the last war and have it a German camp rather than in the future in a Soviet camp. But, still, I wonder.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/472

eeeeeeeeeeeeeee. I feel its meanings more and more. I feel its meanings more and more. It is present in feel, me, rear, be, (also, clue: the soft I in English, the I of give, live, etc. is eeeee in Latin, and the romance languages). I have the feeling and I put it bluntly, the eeeeeeee is the passive sound of continuing existence, the note of the soul, so to speak, when it would enter Nirvana. Eeeeee is what it gives off. But so do radios and electronics. Which opens the wild pseculation (I suppose I was writing pissculation) that the eeeeeeee of static and electronic tubes might well be the sound of the souls who have reached heaven, that is heaven unknown to us is present when we flip the switch on our TV sets. But of course this is sheer wild speculation. Anyway, words with the eeeee sound always have a connotation of being in them, at least Anglo-Saxon words. Latin words may be more complicated for one would have to know whether the ih in them was once eeeee. For example live and leave.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/473

V becomes closer to my understanding. It is violence, vice, virtue, vain, etc. It almost always appears in a word which expresses a deep bodily need, a deep which society looks upon as evil. Thus, evil.
eeeeeee (V) I’ll. One is ready to go from the passive taking pleasure of eeeeeeeee to the forceful creating-larger-space-by-giving of I’ll (I will). But V which is society’s warning (now I have it—the sound and the letter v are societies TNT sign), break the action, the impulse from eeeeee to I’ll. So it is evil. 
And Devil (eh is the masquerade, the submerged echo of eeeeeeeeee) is D(eath) to-and-of evil. That is death kills you for being evil, but in the language of the soul it is the passport to evil (to Hell, or to the Heaven where one can do what one wishes. So virtue. It is half of X which is the death of Christ, the death of H, the death of the impulse, V is half of X because it is merely a warning, it is not the complete scissors, the cutting of death. It is the scissors whose handle is not yet present to be exercised. 
Anyway: virtue: The warning to I (to eeeee passivity and longing) that are (r) active life must be reduced to the t (thing) which is u (you) in order that e (little E—the contentment of strong E) to be possible. Virtue is renunciation. Virtue is thinking of others. Virtue (complete virtue) is a complete renunciation of the growth of the child, who starts as an infant being all of the universe, and by giving locates the you, the it, of the universe—by taking which of course always comes first it is returned to the universe again. 
But the outside of the universe is first a t, a thing. Long before the knowledge of others as people is the knowledge of others as things. So virtue takes one’s own feelings and deposits them in the it, the thing, the other, it makes You more important, more worthy than I. So, in the deepest sense it is a perversion of H, a virtue of society—an aid to society—for virtue is depersonalization and virtue permits society to mechanize man for society’s sake and not for man’s sake. The consonants are beginning to pay off.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/477

Mother. The masculine other. We identify the male element with giving. (Which is why I did my curious little thing with the plugs at the cold water flat. Must tell this to Bob.) So, the woman who first gives to us, the other from who we first take is identified in our minds with Give-Man. So much of homosexuality, and of bisexuality is identified in that first grasping the infant makes of the Give and Take or Give-Take. Or indeed, as for so many including myself, Give versus Take.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/478

Er would be a far better word than id for . But notice what society has done. To err is to be wrong. The state of existence, the passive taking ehhhhh and the active locating changing rrrrrr are denied, called bad. So to change id to er would be to change the bad qualities of id (I-death) (And Freud knew English) to the bad social qualities of er (taking-giving-being, wanting, desire, etc. is to err, to be bad).
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/479

Super. To sup and to er. To be er at a higher level of supping. Super-ego. And I thought that could be called the sup. But we eat in order to deny the er, and yet we must eat. So we are bound to earth and dream of being supermen where what we eat, what we sup upon is immediately converted into making higher er.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/480

I’m getting tired again. Like a clock, letter consonants exhaust me, mainly because they seem so cultish, so ridiculous, so far-fetched, and yet I am drawn to them more and more. For example: rear. Take away the ‘rr’ and one has eeeeeee. To rear is to surround the passive taking state with the rage of having to give. (And at some part of them isn’t that how all parents feel?)
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/481

But I haven’t even begun to scratch the enormous material of the weekend. Before I do, one thought on Bob and myself, and why he was reluctant to analyze me. Deep in him he felt the crook in me. And I as the crook (knowing the destructive and the creative power the crook gives me) was furious at the thought of being analyzed by any old analyst who would take all my marvelous crookery, the permitted me by society, and convert it to pappish , dulling me. What the crook always fears is the honest man because the honest man is static, if the honest man wins the crook’s intense if crippled sense of life will be lost. His life force will be relocated in a higher region of the er, ergo a less sensitive region. Truly, he will be less a man. 
So, I as the crook did not want to be taken, and what I sensed in Bob for what amazed me when I invited him to be my analyst is that much as I liked him, and I liked him tremendously—what-the-fuck loved him—I didn’t trust him one little bit. (I still don’t trust him completely. Good old Bob, he doesn’t even trust himself.) But what I sensed in him was a crook on the grand scale who would give me room to maneuver because he respected the crook in me—as viz his up-to-now perplexing and ambivalent feelings of helping and hindering me in the pursuit of JB. 
So, I invited Bob, it was a challenge to me to con a big crook and do it lying on my back. But Bob sensed that, and the crook in him was scared—Was he going to be taken, he had to wonder. So, our “analysis” continues via the hournal (H journal). (Hour and whore) (H is society’s understanding of mystical concepts, or rather society’s trapping. The our becomes the hour.) Bob knows the hour is crookery—it is a fifty minute hour, but the analyst takes ten minutes himself although he charges for that.
And the journal is the only way we can do it, because in the journal we can express our love for each other and our distrust—we can accept the crook in each other because we know the crook brings life.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/482

Any rationalist reading this would exclaim, “What a diseased mind. What a fantastic and unpleasant imagination. What monstrous and fantastic rationalizations this Mailer sets up to justify himself.” To which I would answer, “simply, dear old friend who is now an enemy, just tell me where the hell all this came from. Tell me why man is on earth, why there is life, why people are not rational when you know reason is most reasonable, why you want and even believe in a good society when you think people are insignificant, stupid, hopeless, cruel, and in need of order.” 
In a sentence: I get these ideas from somewhere, something, be it myself or the universe, but these ideas have a psychological reality which one cannot ignore. For if one does, one enters philosophically into the most untenable position of all for the rational materialist, to wit, something (nonsense) has come out of nothing. And all rationalists believe in the conservation of matter, and the conservation of energy. One cannot be scientific if one does not believe this. So reason demands the mystical explanation. That in the one is found the other. That every Thing contains its Opposite.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/484

In the middle of the cliché—great truth spectrum is the parable and paradox which tells us that one is two, that a thing is its opposite. It combines the consciousness of the first layer of and of , but it is a long way from the kind of Great Truth which involves the total of the sup and the total of the er—the thing present not in the word but in the thought of God, of Life, of Death, etc. Those words are the great clichés and the great truths.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/487

To attempt to go on. So the orgasm, the hard on—The excelsior! of society, Hard and Onward (Excelsior is also waste stuffing) is the sexual benefit given to the healthy unisexual who needs some communion in order to go on socially. And gets it from his delightful orgasm—when he is a healthy unisexual, of whom there aren’t too many either. The healthy bisexual protracts the love-act and explores other parts of life, drama in sex-play, pornography, beautiful love language, dirty love language, lingering, subtle aggressions like controlled spankings, “perversions”—the basic one is always 69 with its great message that mouths are cunts and cunts are mouths, that cocks are tongues and tongues are cocks. 
Corollary—whether a girl or boy is bisexual or unisexual (at that stage) is probably indicated by whether they are drawn or repelled by soul-kissing. I, who can make love for as long as two hours, notice that when I go limber, I can get hard by talking or thinking of something dirty to me, something forbidden that is, I can project myself forward sexually as a rebel against society, and society responds by making me hard, making me hot, good old trying to make me come so I won’t discover too much. 
In this sense, premature ejaculation is the S-defense against discovering too much H; just as impotence is the expression of even greater danger. Impotence implies total absence of er-consciousness; premature ejaculation implies bi-sexual anxiety, bi-sexual and from that er-awareness. Just as the inability to come (which I’ve never had—not at least for the first orgasm) is a stubborn fixation, an H determination not to quit because if one continues, something essential will be discovered. I suspect that clinically inability-to-come is the most unstable of the sexual “impotencies.” One either goes into total impotence, or one is able to come, or one stops sex (I have to check with Bob and other analysts on this.)
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/489

Before I go on with this sexual hypothesis, I think what I’m trying to say would be clarified if I were to underline another difference between the and the . The er is formless matter, the sup is matterless form—so the sup gives form to the material of er. (Sup understood of course as , er as .) (Man’s mind and body engage in a perpetual supper-super.) (Add: stupor—the thingness of supper and super.) 
To understand the orgasm one must realize that the life er is given its shape, duration, intensity, and “quality” by the form in which the sup permits it. Without the sup there would not be an orgasm, there would be merely the state of perpetual waxing and waning tumescence. But the sup as form as society, demands shape, demands that one action cease and another begin for that is the health of society. And indeed the health of man-in-society, that is, S-man. 
Form demands extension, progression; matter is infinitely analyzable—one may always go deeper or farther inward to an understanding of its complexities, as if it were an infinite pyramid with the point at the surface and the widening base in the bottomless depths. (One corollary of all this journal is that there is no such thing possible as to understand any human completely, totally—one can only understand more about them.)
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/490

So, if my premise is granted for the sake of the argument, the essential nature of the human is to be bisexual, unorgiastic (not impotent) but tumescent, and the nature of society is to impose upon the essential being of man and woman’s perpetual limber dick, the social form of the One—one is either potent or impotent—and looked at from the eyes of a Martian, the form of orgiastic potency of the unisexual is one of separate broken states of total erection and potency and total lack-of-erection and impotency. In the simple sheer sexual sense, a man who is capable of sitting at his desk and making decisions while his penis rests comfortably quietly and smally in the pocket of his pants is impotent at that moment. 
Naturally, this is merely society’s view of it, the form from which it dominates and shapes matter and indeed is the only way society can understand it. (A very subtle but important nuance here is that form can only understand matter through the eyes of form—I am bequeathing -intelligence to form.) Matter can only understand form through its emotions. (Matter here stands for mind-and-body, .) Hence, matter’s understanding of form is always as the one who grants and the one who denies. One’s mother implants upon the infant’s sensate matter the first emotional apperception of form. And indeed for the artist, his unconscious sup-conception of form (for as I’ve said before—at every layer of the unconscious the sup exists in its sibling relationship to its appropriate er) directs him to proceed or to desist. 
(Which is why too tight a form strangles the ambitious novelist—so much material he wished to disgorge and leave as his petrifaction, his mark (Reik, piss in one hole) is denied by the sup-form which declares it unassimilable, dangerous, and wasteful. In this sense, work-blocks like impotence are expressions of trench warfare between sup and er—the form simply cannot dispose, allow, or understand the matter which is seeking issue. It demands a lower, cruder, or a higher, more private expression.)
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/491

I keep trying to write about potency, orgasm, frigidity, and castration, and I seem to end up every time today discussing the artist. But I cannot force these things—my mind is deeply dialectical, my understanding of one thing creates its antithesis—beginning to write about A, I end up with an illumination of B. Which if continued would disgorge deep factual matter about C, which in turn would illumine D. This whole journal has been an expression of in-and-out, give-and-take, dialectical illumination and factual or theoretical (did anyone ever say that a fact is always a theory), it is no more than a frozen hypothesis accepted by everyone until a new hypothesis overthrows it and becomes fact in its turn. (Fact—fuck act, the f of act, the “beat” imposed on the continuum) Factual or theoretical discovery. No wonder I buried in the last sentence of The Deer Park—“and nothing is so difficult to discover as a simple fact.” Of course. The fact has no existence—it has merely -intelligence, Other-Life existence.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/492

Which is why I have such difficulty—up till now—writing articles and giving suitable endings to my books. For, beneath my rational desires, was the knowledge that there is no such thing as a fact or an end, but that one can merely “hook on” to the continuum as an artist, and “get out” as best one can. And what wouldn’t the Freudian analyst have to say about “hook on” and “get out.”
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/494

I’ve spent the last half-hour re-reading the journal which seems better than it has on other occasions. In note 424 on the child in the center of the drum (I free-associated on fru du and came up with GOD—Fuck right up—Death up) I realized that in the note on the whisper becoming identified with the reply, there was a basic clue to the business of form and matter. For, I believe that the trick of consciousness which is Sup-dominated although is always side by side with it, just as the unconscious is Er-dominated although is sibling there too—at any rate, the trick of consciousness is that it deludes us to believing that er is form and sup is matter. 
For example, emotions which are never one, but various, contradictory, dialectic, and cloud-like are always understood as one. For instance, we say: I was angry. Or we say, I am in love, I love. In anger and love there is always a total spectrum in all dimensions, but we narrow the feeling to the point of a word. On the other hand, reason, logic, jargon, all the glories of plurality as Riesman might put it, are always ones, facts, understandings so frozen that they retard the succession of man, for our thought is always held back by the fact. 
Only note: what I would say is that “thought”—which in our minds is always so various, so many-faceted, that we suffer in the attempt to narrow and unify it by language, thought is the presence (indeed, the present) of er-consciousness. But we make the incredible sup-enforced error of thinking of thought as reason, and we compound the villainy by the “scientific” attitude—we say implicitly that thought is intuition which satisfies reason. It is not True. Thought is intuition which is crippled by reason.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/495

Following my Clue of yesterday, I am struck by present—the present tense, the present in time, and—the present—as a gift. But isn’t a present-gift our social way of saying our love flows beyond any time-unities, but socially, like the orgasm, we have to get it all in one package, one concretion, and deliver it so. So the present is the instantaneous social concretion permitted of a flowing love.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/496

Back to bisexuals. It would be argued against my theory—I prefer that word to thesis which is far more social--one—that animals have quick orgasms. True. But animals have raw society confronting them—Nature—and so as Kinsey—who is another great comic figure—stated, their nervous responses must be rapid. Their naturostasis which wars with their animalodynamisis demands for preservation instant orgasm or the closest thing to it. But nature is a far more dangerous and yet far more living society than Society and the abstract social contract. So, it permits two forms of sexual life in the same animal, to wit unisexual (preserving in the face of Nature) and bisexual (preserving the state of the animal). So, the same dog who will come in two seconds, or the rabbit in one, will play and fondle and roll and growl and yawn and luxuriate and nibble and stretch for hours upon a time, the dog usually with a limber dick. I cannot speak for rabbits.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/497

So, the bisexual in society is both healthier (in that he expresses the relaxed safe state of the animal) and unhealthier (in that he is inefficient, anxious, nervous, temperamental, saint-psycopathish, inspired-depressed, and restless) in society than the unisexual. But because the bisexual exhibits the anxiety of living in a society of which he is very aware—nothing less in America than a unisexual-bisexual culture—he seems unhealthier. His troubles and discontents are always rippling over him. Yet, as much be remembered, the bisexual somehow endures, always lives longer than one expects, bounces back when one is least prepared—the unisexual caves in sooner or later before an inner crisis. 
Given their respective human and social natures, the unisexual (who is social) is better in action, no Hamlet he, better in war, better generally at succeeding, but he has in his rigidity no capacity to take the shocks of psychic life—so his body rots or breaks or dries up. The bisexual—often so inept in social life—is yet brilliant in it, and I say he lasts, he does not die of cancer nearly so often (not unless he or she is a bisexual who strangled half-consciously their nature, and enforced it into the unisexual mold—but that is the condition of half the Americans alive) and what is most interesting, is that the bisexual is now beginning to be successful in the business world, mainly because America above all countries I know (except Mexico perhaps) is developed and progressively more permissive to bisexuality. (Perhaps that is the secret of its “strength” as Life Magazine will always declare to us radicals.)
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/500

What characterizes the power-mad is that they cannot take, not the sexy but frigid castrating woman, nor the fat police chief with his mustachios—they can only give. And changing sexual gears means to pass through the state of passivity—the take of the dialectic onward—in order to give more, locate more, create-destroy more. So, benevolent tyrants become absolute tyrants as they grow older.
Category:February 7, 1955