nyuuzyou/wikis huggingface dataset:
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/447

Now, give-and-take. It is everywhere, it is the life-process. We eat and excrete, our cells absorb and expel, our rhythm governs the health of our body. We fuck by give-and-take, we breathe by give-and-take, we walk by give-and-take. Tides are give and take, day and night are the reflection of the earth responding to the steady light of the sun. Which opens the wild speculation that day and night are the give-and-take which permit man progress.) That where a planet does not revolve it has achieved unity, absorbed darkness into light.
So, conceivably, the expanding universe is indeed heaven, and the multi-billions of stars (perhaps infinite or close to infinite) are the souls of those who made Heaven-and-Hell. When we die (this is close to the Hindus), we go back to earth to explore another existence, or we go into the Heaven-Hell of being a pure soul, a star. (Which may account for the primitive belief of some tribes that man when he dies goes to the sun. Primitives close to the knowledge of their own bodies but totally un-verbal can express their knowledge, their wisdom, only in superstitions. And a superstition is a folk cliché which has become outmoded because so much of man’s has been converted to . But the interest in anthropology is a clue to the enormous reversal of history, Marx’ swing of the pendulum, which is coming, and of which I feel I am a standard bearer.)
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/449

Marriage, every marriage, is the expression of an enormously deep decision. No one ever marries casually. (Look at the progression. Casual—intensely meaningful—really casual, really intensely-meaningful, really really casual—etc.) For casual is the appreciation of infinity, the knowledge that all men and all women as well as the universe and God are ultimately our mates, our extensions. But intensely meaningful is the social expression we give to invest all of our soul in One. And this we have to do in the Give-and-Take of life in order to discover ourselves Intensely. 
There are two natures in art and in life. We contract and we expand. Or perhaps put better, we expand and we contract, we give and we take. In life, the more we engage in, the less we understand; the less we engage in, the more we understand of a given thing. To take completely is to be drowned—all the things of earth and life become equally meaningful to us. (Drugs open us to extreme giving or extreme taking, assuming the echo from now on of Take beneath Give; Give beneath Take, and so on. 
What I am trying to say is that the general law of man’s successive levels of the unconscious is that on the surface in Consciousness people are essentially a big or little Give or Take with the other implicit beneath it, smaller, less intense, but wider. Thus GIVE 
::t. . . .a. . . .k.. . .e
Or vice-versa. But the next level is REALLY TAKE
::really. . . . give. . . . 
And the next, REALLY REALLY TAKE
::really. . . really. . . give
I can even express it mathematically given G for Give, T for Take and g for g. . i. v. e. 
and t for t. . . a. . . k. . . e.
Here it is: 
If I knew more mathematics, I could express it in one function. In any case to understand the above equation realize that I mean it to progress inward rather than from left to right.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/450

Up and down, in and out, left and right, back and forth, are social expressions of the fundamental movement of give-and-take (even as give-and-take being language is the social expression of) expansion and contraction. For example we see horizontally but the social expression of seeing is painting, and the canvas is always vertical. No wonder it took painters centuries to discover perspective which is so simple to us today. They had to take an out and make it an up.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/451

The world of commerce in the nineteenth century and before (capitalism in other words) being the total commitment to building a society, was built upon barter. But barter evolved into money, and money into credit, and credit into the extension of credit which is interest. But note what credit is: it is the social expression in commerce of the brotherhood of man (which ought to be said as the humanhood of humans (the man-womanhood of men-women). When we give credit, we are placing trust. No matter how abstract, no matter how socialized the process becomes, the loan of money is the social equivalent of trust which is why social people place so much emphasis and so much passion into trust, credit—why they say, “My word is my bond.” What they mean to say is “My bond is my word.” (And my word is my soul.) 
That is why gangsters never forgive a double-cross, for the double-cross is an expression of a soul-need which ruptures the pitiful warped tortured sadistic but nonetheless functioning society gangsters have been able to elaborate. So: Practical advice: Keep your word with a gangster, keep your word when he expects you to break it, and he will be your friend for life. Perhaps there is a clue here for how to reach the homicidal psychopath. Naturally at a deeper level, the gangster will really hate you for life, but it is beneath the sort of consciousness which eventually erupts into action.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/452

Action is one of the enigmas. I believe, very crudely, that we act always as a defense, we act in order to prevent more coming up, we act because the unconscious is about to deliver a knowledge of the self which is dangerous because it pits one against society. So we act to stop the revelation. 
 The car thief steals to prevent the self-understanding which is a clue, a step, to realizing he wished to fuck his mother—and by extension—fuck the whole world. Then he murders—he is close to the immediate, the direct understanding, that yes he does wish to fuck his mother. Society is so absolutely hideous to some people—people generally with intense life energy—that the urge to fuck their mother becomes unbearable. (A clue to understanding the bi-sexual who chooses homosexuality as his expression. The orgy and fuck-your-mother are parts of the same.) So prison is heaven for the criminal at the third level, even the second. (It is either the third or the second for any given criminal.) It prevents him from fucking his mother. Indeed our idea of heaven which society gives us (hell is ours, it is created by our imaginations.) is fuck-less. There, the great conflict is eased—one no longer gets into trouble because nobody in heaven fucks, so you cannot fuck your mother. Thus, the criminal accepts prison as heaven, but to live in it is hell for it is the complete denial of the -needs. So, agony.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/453

Yet to stay alive we must act. We must draw away from total acceptance of the self. We draw an enormous blank check upon the future, for man’s nature is to subdue the hostility of nature, and therefore enable himself to live forever in life. (In that sense Nature is always seen finally as The End, as Death—When an author finishes a book, he writes The End—he wishes to end this social concretion he has elaborated as the defense against discovering himself, and now deliver it to the reader’s sensibilities, to the reader’s self. He wishes the reader to take and to grow beyond him.) So, when we act, we hurt ourselves in order to give to others. We deliver a blank check to the future.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/454

Let me put it another way. Nature was man’s first opposite, completing him, extending him, but destroying him. To rise to a higher state, man had to accept first the direct social contract (primitive communism) and then the abstract social contract which involved more and more the alienation of the producer from his tools and the varieties of his expressions. (Irritation produces the pearl.) 
From the garden of Eden where man was a step above the animals, and no more, Eve bit at the apple of knowledge (no, she gave it to Adam) and so man was expelled from paradise. This folk-tail, this cliché, is the expression of the beginning of the social contract and the abstract social contract. The next highest form of life will have the abstract abstract social contract. So society today, far far beyond nature completes man, extends him, but destroys him. And primitive man, truly primitive man must have fucked his mother and lived in bliss but for the total danger-beauty of Nature. So the incest taboo was begun and man took a higher step—at what cost. 
Yet man finds the dignity of his existence in the hope that his actions, his refusals to recognize his own self, enables the man of the future to realize himself more completely. (The Jews in their persecution have always been intensely aware of this.) So, déjà vu. The future is glimpsed by the depth of our penetration into ourself. When we predict, we are making the greatest bet—we are saying that to truly know oneself is to be able to know the nature of the future. Hence the appeal of the stock-market, the race-course, etc. Even the juggling of currencies. The money-changer is betting that he knows the political nature of the future—that he is an historian projecting into the future.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/456

Just above I wrote 42 instead of 142. By now I’ve learned to trust my errors. So, I pondered. Was I trying to say something about the nature of numbers? Perhaps? But that was far away, and much too misty to be uncovered yet. So, next, I sat there passively waiting for a clue, a moment, and a small one came. It said, “Take a chance, turn back to page 42 in these notes.” I did, and while I did, I was wondering whether there were notes there about psychoanalysis. There weren’t, but there were first crude statements of things close to what I’ve been writing about all morning, to wit, the after-fuck look of Marilyn Monroe, and later today I’m getting into sex, the age of anticipation and the age of accomplishment. (In Naked I had Cummings—the artist turned general—say, “The nature of the twentieth century is anxiety. Society wished to turn man into a machine, and it’s not a process he instinctively enjoys.” Then, a big one on page 42. Memory. And with memory, déjà vu. Then Bob’s joke about the pickle factory and obscenity substitutes. It’s amazing. In those crude (and crude is good (in joy) with the r of rage and frustration added. Frustration is the rage at fucking being halted—without ‘r’s, frustration becomes fustation which is fuck of gestation) in those crude notes were the seeds of what I write about today.
As I wrote the above I thought, Look at page 24 mirror of 42. And that is even richer. Crude quick remarks which are the cliché of what I now make an expansion. Particularly 92 which was the substance expanded of not 456, which I interrupted by miswriting page 142. And in the fantastic complexity in which I now find myself, it is possible that the interruption was a sociostatic defense or more possibly an clue. For instance I think of turning to page 2, page 4, page 124, also the combinations in which 5 is added for note, it was note 456. But this is too contractive, and so I turn away. What I’m afraid of today, I note, is that my radicalism may go, that I may become too tolerant, and so accept the world, but note the peculiar contradiction in me, my radicalism is sociostatic, my conservatism is homeodynamic. My radicalism enables me to hate and to act—which is the demand of society. My conservatism, my H, enables me to love, forgive, and understand everyone, so that I should be born away in inaction.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/457

Perhaps the clue to all this, and the defense of the ultimate - conciliation is that man has not yet conquered nature and nature-substitute-which-is-abstract-society enough to become the lover and the taker. So, in the very horror of modern life may be a deep progression. We are not ready yet to take more, to fuck our mothers, we have to be frustrated in order to go on. That is why I hate the love I feel for people these days, and why when I become close to them distaste is behind it, I see myself as passive, loving, sticky—somewhere in me I sense that to love others and love myself is to deprive myself of further work. To go in and in and in, and never stop, as I am half-stopping today, by bothering to write what I think in the journal. 
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/458

The crook in Bob Lindner. Until one understands this, one cannot understand Bob. The crook in him is what enables him to go forward. Like the journalist he seeks for knowledge in order to tell a lie. But the more truth he discovers the more creative become his lies, because deep within, no doubt because of his parents most directly, he learned early that to be truthful is to be destroyed. So, only by giving his honesty back to the world as dishonesty, can he find peace and safety and yet go on. That is why he always gets more pleasure from turning a dishonest buck than an honest one—why his books give him more pleasure than his patients, and why—what shocked me so deeply is now understandable—he was so drawn to the idea of opening the clinic where they would do lobotomies. It would be such a dishonest buck. He lusted after it like a hot bitch. But yet he could not quite do it. It was dishonesty at too low a level. 
So he had to tell me about it, because he knew I could destroy it. I could plumb it, I could say, “What the fuck do you want to give money to your kids for,” and in saying it, Bob felt that I was right, that wasn’t motive. So I took away his social justification, and he was left with the knowledge that to fuck this particular bitch was too crude a lie. I goose Bob to making his lies more and more finely drawn, until finally—in what horror—and torment he is going to tell the truth, just as Bob has given to me his deep sense of the validity of everything, because only the fine crook, the crook cubed can understand the importance of everything in the social world. “There’s an angle everywhere,” says the master con man.
A small example of this is his fury at the guy who made him give back the $250. Bob had been taken by a superior crook—the fact of the matter is that deeply Bob knew he’d been a crook to take the $250 in the first place. And Freddy Weisgal whose attraction is that he is an amiable healthy vigorous crook (who is only half-ashamed of his crookedness—most good lawyers indeed) was the mid-wife who got out the $250 from the psychopath’s father—undoubtedly a miser. : The deep psychic folk tale of the crook who takes the miser. Bob was enraged. Like all crooks, he wants to give, he cannot bear to be taken from—not with money which is his Open Sesame to society. 
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/460

But why can I understand the crook in Bob? It is because at a deeper level of the unconscious I’m a bigger crook than he is. Why else did I turn down the Pepsi-Cola show which so intrigued Bob. It’s because the crook in me is at a lower level of the unconscious, more rarified, more honest on the surface. It shows in my reading and my ideas. I’m a synthesizer, just as a crook is. I cannot make the original discovery, but I can add the fabulous jewel to it at my best. So I dip into other books and other men’s styles, take the ideas I wish, throw away the others, understand one facet of a person to the exclusion of the rest because what I want is the jewel in the suitcase—fuck the rest, fuck the furs and the bonds. I’ll rip everything apart to come up with what I feel is the nugget. The Deer Park is an enormous lie. It was my crook’s way of finding the truth. And so in my own way I came up with the jewel. 
Analyzers are honest but cannot give. Synthesizers are crooks (hence their scholarly footnotes—at least in the more socialized ones) and so they can only take partially, and that from wealth acquired by someone else. So, with my ideas. I love to give them, I love to steal complacency from my friends, torture them into finer states of being, make them know because I am alive with what they have missed, what they have renunciated, but as Bob said I cannot accept, neither their love nor their approval of my ideas. Let that happen and I am being taken—I have met a bigger crook. 
So, I always love Adele when she is in a rage at me because then I can steal a big thing from her, I can steal her rage—I was never so happy as when she poured the liquor on my head. But when she loves me absolutely then I become uneasy. No wonder. My creation is being improved. So she never gives me the absolute total acceptance. When my ideas really begin to fly and I tell them to her, she glows for a while, but then she deserts me, she goes to sleep, because deep in her she knows with her woman’s wisdom that to give her love absolutely to me at a given moment is to make me withdraw—how afraid I am that she is a bigger crook than me. No wonder I get annoyed when she loses money or buys something that is over-priced. She’s taken me, she’s taken my crook’s money which I stole Naked-wise from the very heart of society.
And that is why bad receptions for my books pain me so much. It means I can’t steal any more, and so I have to go on, and try to be dishonest at an even higher level.
All of this is an explanation of why artists are so fascinated by crooks. And that is why as I get older and come to discover the value of the crook in me, I wish to make more money. It is making money which gives me pleasure. I stole it from the very heart of that world which can’t keep up with me—and indeed what society can keep up with a first-rate crook. So, in that sense, John Huston is a crook which is why we were always so polite and far away from one another although we understood the mutual attraction. Neither one of us could decide who was the bigger crook and we were thus scared stiff. And suspicious.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/462

Crooks are interested in the trip, and that is why their loyalty is to the moment, to the particular idea, cause, person or valuable they are attracted to at the instant. (Some time examine the difference between instant and moment, it has to do with I and me.) Instant—I-and-not-society-take-and-not-take. Moment—Mother of me no take. Mother do not take. We take moments (we feel) we give instants by not taking them. 
For example: In an instant he was off the floor and at me again. (I did not feel the instant in which he was down, I did not go through the eternity of Victory (and defeat) while he was down, I was waiting for him to get up.) But the other example is: (It was one of those moments in which one lives one’s whole life.) We would never dream of saying, It was one of those instants in which etc. So, the instant belongs to society, it is time, it is number. (Why o why do we call the unit of time a second?—Is it Sociostatic—that is to fuck up our primitive understanding of language?) But a moment is a part of being, it is Homeodynamic. The ‘ing’ is always passivity, the state of something, the implication of everlasting life in the transient instant society allows us. That is why the feeling of loving always seems as if it will last forever at the instant we have it. 
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/463

What I started to say is that crooks are adventurers, masculine elements carrying the state of knowledge further, but they are very poor scientists because they have such respect for the , so little capacity to engage it and alter it without S reacting and fighting back. The “good realist” is the man who is very sensitive to the smoothest solution or resolution of any given vs. S which he comes across. Which is why con men are more intelligent than hoodlums. Their understanding of S is less symbolic and polarized and more given to the subtleties, nuances, and infinities that lie in the moment beneath the instant. (I is our word for the conscious. Me is our word for the unconscious). That is why my narrators, Lovett and Sergius were so poor and undernourished in surface personality—I was wrestling with what the hell I really am. What I was trying to say was “me” not “I”.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/464

Japanese: Their word for yes is Hai. Pronounced HIGH. Their word for no is NAY, pronounced NIGH. Their other word here is EEEE-yuh. But I forget whether it’s yes or no. That is, I think it’s one, and then I think it’s the other. I can advance hypotheses for each. And quite rightly, given dialectics.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/466

I’m one of the first novelists who was really a scientist. There were many novelists (like Zola and Norris and Farrell who were behaviorists who became scientists), but very few physicists become novelists and I’m one of them. Styron is a southern minister who became a novelist and that accounts for his strength. And his weakness. He feels such a responsibility. I have the happier irresponsibility of the crook-physicist. If this experiment blows up the lab, well I can always con somebody into giving me another lab. Viz. Rinehart and Putnam. vis. The Man in The White Suit.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/467

There is so much to be said about the type. The type conceals always a great human truth. The French with their enormous rationality even call a guy a “type.” The French know Goddamn well that every human alive is different, so they invent—for they are the great explorers of Category (which is society’s way of admitting variety)—they invent a different type for every person alive. 
Thus society protects itself. From childhood on, as soon as we can talk we are given types of humanity with labels attached, good guys, bad guys, we are told to go toward some, to go away from others or take from others. Thus give-and-take by the aid of Types is turned into a Social advantage for society, and indeed advantage for oneself if one wants to get ahead. A fine sense of types means that one can understand action rather than the inside of the person at a glance. So the good businessman always sees people as types: the dirty artist-type, the neat clerk but you better not trust him too far, the truck driver who’ll give you good work but presents the danger of punching you in the nose. And so forth. 
What is important is that we can only understand people rationally by exploring through words the meaning of each pure type. To understand people intuitively is something else, but intuitive understanding is always inarticulate because it is too vast, we mumble “Go on,” or Stop, or Gee, or Gosh, or Wow, or Golly. (Every one of these words must be explored). The type is a machine, the type is predictable, hence printer’s type. (The clue to the meaning of words is to explore relentlessly those words which sound alike like deer and dear, and so forth. Primitively, we mean them to say the same thing.) And Chinese has one word mean a dozen different things which is why it’s so hard for the Westerner. What American can stand multiplicity of languages.
The type is the world’s understanding of humanity. Pass over the type, pass to the other side, the side which is feeling rather than action, and one has real understanding of others, but it is inarticulate. So to save my articulateness I explore types, I see people as types. Doing that enables me to continue to act. And as my understanding of types becomes more intense—such understanding is the defensive of my advancing —so the advice I give these days is far better, because I’m no longer worried about my own nastiness, pettiness, etc. I feel that I am good and so I can see the good in others.
Category:February 7, 1955