nyuuzyou/wikis huggingface dataset:
Lipton’s Journal/February 22, 1955/688

I suspect that the frequency of sound has some relation to the depth of one’s unconscious. As frequency is stepped up, so the notes rise. At infinite frequency there would be an infinitely high note. Low notes are progressively more conscious. The lowest note of them all is the single grunt of the bull-ape. In life, the high-pitched voice seems hateful to us, the low-pitched voice draws us forward. Women who are drawn to men with low-pitched voices like Gary Cooper sense a deep tenderness in such a man as well as outer male strength—they are drawn to the combination of inner vulnerability and outer force. Women who are drawn to men like Truman Capote with his high-pitched shrill are drawn by the outer vulnerability and the inner steel, hatred, etc. Bi-sexuals with their inner and outer vulnerability and strength invariably have voices which are alternately high and low pitched. Brando for example. Myself. Adele. Tallulah, Millie, etc.
The high note is a Taking (small symbol giving—point of the universe) however. 
The low note is a Give (large symbol of little). A legitimate swelling up of the ape-principle which is half of our motive power.
Category:February 22, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 22, 1955/689

I still haven’t expressed it at all. The high note (the woman’s voice) is beautiful but expresses hatred—it is the hatred of the soul for all which denies its ascension, for women contain the contradiction of being the soul of humankind in the service of society. The low note supposedly expresses hatred and sadism and lust (it is the aggressive male voice) but actually it communicates love at an earthly level—it is the acceptance of what is. For man contains the contradiction of attacking society while he is earth-bound, denied by his incapacity to conceive life, the deeper intimations of the infinite progression.
The reason Lipton’s gives perceptions is that it slows down voices without altering frequency. Which enables one to capture what would otherwise be transient. I don’t feel ready to get into this yet.
Just one addenda: As America moves from unisexual to bisexual culture, the cult of the villain with the high-pitched voice or the high-pitched laugh begins. Its communications are much more sinister.
Category:February 22, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 22, 1955/691

Laughter. We laugh when we recognize a great thought and immediately conceal it. The longer we laugh the more the thought persists, and helpless laughter is the anxiety that the thought will never go away. Which is why we feel so good after laughing for minutes at a time. We have succeeded in blurring the magnitude of the thought, but the beauty and danger of the insight remain as an echo within us, we have glimpsed a fabulous cavern of being, and it leaves us content that that exists within us. 
People who never laugh are occasionally totally inert, but much more often are people with such a cruel that they dare not laugh—their large but whipped would destroy them if it could appear. A man who does not laugh is either a saint who lives in thought rather than society, or else is a man close to suicide, murder, or death.
But there is the critical passage in laughter from Enter-Take over the fence to Make-Give. And it is hurdling this fence which creates the dialectical antithesis. Thus enter and take swell the thought, but the moment we start to laugh, that is to make and give a sound, we have given antithesis to thesis, we have converted thought into a greatly diminished idea. It is the gap between thought and idea which is enormous in laughter that creates the laughter, the muscular ripple, the release of muscular tension. Which occasions the notion that thought exists in our muscular tension, and idea is the release, the expansion of muscular contraction. 
This seems to be true for me. When I cannot sleep it is because I am churning with thought. As I convert it to idea, as I verbalize silently, the tension diminishes provided each new idea is not good enough to encourage more thought, more muscular tension. I ideate so profusely on Lipton’s because my natural state is one of great muscular tension. Lipton’s in releasing muscular tension demands speech. My yap yap yap is the health of my body.—I ought to learn to dance. But then I wouldn’t ideate as much.
Serious people are serious when they give ideas—the relation between thought which is comparatively small and idea which is comparatively large (almost equal to the thought) make them sober and grave. What they dredge up from themselves has the capacity to be realized as a social artifact. But when I diea (ideate means die?). When I ideate I alternate between intense seriousness and sudden high pitched laughter. The reason is that my thoughts are forever sweeling (swilling?) into something enormous, and so my laugh goes up—it’s a wail of hatred that I’ll never be able to ideate such a beautiful thought.
Thus, in laughter, the laughter is the —expressed making-giving defense against the er-impelled enter-take of an advancing thought.
That is why dirty jokes are invariably funnier than “clean” ones. The sexual truths are the universal truths. Off Lipton’s I roar with laughter at Legman’s Limericks. On Lipton’s I read them seriously, gravely, sadly, wisely, and joyously.
Category:February 22, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 22, 1955/692

The root oom. womb, boom, doom, gloom (god’s loom) groom (god’s room) hoom (whom) loom, broom. I think oom is an instinctive sound for space, body space, space in relation to the body, for m (man and mother) is the outside giver. Thus, womb as the world of oom, boom as the bead of oom, doom as the death of oom, gloom as god’s love of space—we are gloomy when there is no escape into space for us—groom, God’s red rooty oom. Whom (hoom)—which personified embodiment of living space, living volume. Ah, here we are, oom and volume.
Category:February 22, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 22, 1955/693

V contain the opposed meanings of vicious and valuable. Which is why it appears in sex-connotative words like. . . vex. V and H are related as consonants. P and F too. Maybe I can work up two clans of consonants. Anyway, let’s investigate the root ex. It is in chex (checks) dex (decks) flecks, hex, mex, pecks, prex as in prexy, rex, snex (Yiddish snecks) apecks, tex, und zex.
Category:February 22, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 22, 1955/694

More on laughter. A baby walks across a room for the first time and laughs in pleasure when it reaches its mother’s arms. Why does it laugh? Because the discrepancy between thought and idea is immense. The baby may say OOOOOO, but its murky vast thoughts have elaborated a universe of space, of its own changing relationship to its environment because it can now give walking, it can locate, its relation to the world has been drastically and dramatically altered. So it laughs in the relief of repressing such a vast thought. Or it weeps if it cannot repress it. And weeping is often the expression of the throbbing of a thought which cannot be suppressed until the muscular tension is expressed/released through tears. 
Laughter and weeping are very close. If consciousness persists we weep, if sup consciousness takes over we laugh. Often we do both. We laugh until the tears come. But this is always in the condition of sustained laughter, the joke we cannot stop laughing at. Hence, if a substance in tears is an anti-cancer agent, what is suggested about cancer is that like all disease only much more intensely so, it is the product of a frightfully cruel repression, a condition of muscular or tissue tension which cannot be released. Hence, Reich’s cancer biopathy may actually have done a lot.
Category:February 22, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 22, 1955/695

Exhiliaration and depression in writing. (Do I think I’m just a big liar in all this journal?) At any rate: the reason exhilaration is the sign generally of poor writing is that our thoughts are large, so large that the critical estimator of how closely they are embodied in the idea-act is overwhelmed by the happy emotion of the thought. So we think we are uncovering worlds, and the next day, rereading, the thought virtually absent, we find that the idea-act we have made is crude and doesn’t even awake echoes of what we felt yesterday. Often we bounce too far in the direction of disappointment, for what we feel as nothing on the second day may still have enough idea-elaboration in it to arouse some thought in the reader.
On the other hand, writing from depression we feel depressed because there is little thought in us. (There and their mean the same thing.) Very little thought-energy which is not lost in trench-warfare. So what little there is, is ideated very carefully. The result is that the idea-net when reread opens more thought to the writer than when he actually wrote it. His own ideas which often are crude expressions (although carefully worked) of thoughts whose depth in him he does not suspect, become recognizable as such years later.
Therefore, a mild flat mood is best for me in writing. Lipton’s stimulates too much, and it takes at least three or four days for the total effect of the stimulation to wear off. Hence, if I wish to write a novel I had better get off it and go through some dreary plodding months. When I get too depressed to write, I can always take a week or two off, Lipton up, and Lipton off, and start working again.
Category:February 22, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 22, 1955/696

Those periods in history which mark the advance of reason are periods in which great popular artists appear, and there is rough general agreement on what is art. Periods like today where reason has exhausted itself as a valuable mode of perceiving reality are periods where the coterie artist flourishes, and there is rough general disagreement. It has to be this way, and there is no need to complain. 
Reason has produced its opposite, special and often exclusive coteries of sensitivity, private languages. The lingua franca becomes progressively more non-existent. We are in a flourishing decadence, a contractive period. Out of it, if we are not destroyed, will come expansions we can barely glimpse, and new great artists. 
But the trend in history—as a natural law of development—is for artists to become progressively less great in relation to the greatness of their audience. We can hardly have an Aeschylus today, nor next century for that matter. Nor probably ever again. And that is to the good. As Malaquais once said—I quote him haphazardly—“The ultimate aim of art is that man himself become the work of art.”
Category:February 22, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 22, 1955/697

In the course of this journal I have been elaborating a more and more private jargon. It is necessary. For me to understand the phenomena I am trying to understand I must create my own conceptual words. To use the conceptual words of others is to maroon myself in pseudo-rational processes rather than to depend on my intuition. My capacity to do something exceptional comes from the peculiar combination of powerful instincts face to face with my exceptional detachment. I am one of the few people I know who can feel a genuinely powerful emotion, and yet be able to observe it. This is what I must depend on, instead of violating my capacities by trying to make the rational scholarly effort to illumine my understanding of other men’s jargons. Instead of poring (pouring) over all the relevant books, and there are five hundred I “ought” to start studying tomorrow, I do better to “waste” time and discover things for myself. The only things I’ve ever learned have been the things I’ve discovered for myself.
Category:February 22, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 22, 1955/698

Ideas and thought. Where Bob Lindner is wrong about the novel is that he doesn’t understand the peculiar communicating power of the novel. The novel goes from writer’s-thought to reader’s-thought by the use of an oblique (obliging) symbol, expression, or montage. It does not enter the more paralyzing process, more accurately limiting process, of converting thought to idea in order that the receiver can then try to let the idea enter in order that he take thought. 
Which is why I cannot write a novel when I know what I want to say. It comes out too thin, too ideated. My best scenes are the ones where I didn’t know what I was doing when I did it. Few artists have ever been able to work on the thought-idea-thought interchange. And their weakness was often there, as Gide for instance. I must always tackle the novels I do not understand. Which is why Lipton’s has stripped me of my next ten years of books. The ideas here would have come out obliquely in the books I blundered through. Now I have to take an enormous step, and my capacities may not be equal to it.
Still, I don’t regret the too-quick opening, the great take of these past few months. I had to, for my health, and besides one should always try for more, not less. That’s the only real health.
Category:February 22, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 22, 1955/700

Reversals. From Legman.	
Said a lecherous fellow named Shea
When his prick wouldn’t rise for a lay
“You must seize it and squeeze it
And tease it and please it,
For Rome wasn’t built in a day.”
So, I alter it by opposites to:	
Heard the innocent heroine called Ash
Before her cunt could lie for a jazzsh
“I won’t touch it and tweeze it,
nor rough it n disease it,
Since home was lost at a lay.”
I suspect three-quarter of the Limericks in Legman’s collection were written by Legman. Combining the two limericks roughly, I get:
Sherd a inlechercant felloine nalled Shash
Befwhen hes prunt cuddlenot riles for a lash
Yi munt seach tit und squeets titsh
Endor ratoughtit n pladease shlit
Frince Rhome wasn’t bulostilted ina lady.
:::Mazeltov! The gash, you ash!
But written Mailerishly rather than Joycitly, it becomes.
Sherd at the inlechercent felloine nalled Shash
Head thea lechnocerous hero camed Ass-shy
Befwhen hes prunt cuddlenot riles for a lash
Whenfr hir cunck woodled 1 yars effort ‘d lay?
Yi munt seach tit und squeets titsh
I-uh wost tease itty ant tweeks itty
Endor ratoughtit n pladease shlit
N rant tyoffitty indispleaset
Frince Rhome washt bulostilted ina lady
Sinfor er ‘one snotwas lowbilt innerouter daily
This was all done more or less mechanically and with only mild variations, but it has its fun and its incredible fuck feeling I think. Read it aloud. To be called The Drunk’s Jazz-Time Chowder and Marching Sash-holy-lydie.
Category:February 22, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/436

The opening into myself occurred again over the weekend, and I have disgorged such vast masses of material and understanding that to develop them properly would take years, a lifetime. What I notice over and over again in these notes is that every single idea I have started with starts as a cliché. The early pages of this journal are ridden with clichés. 
What excites Bob and makes him believe that I am really “on to something,” (Interesting phrasing—the crook in Bob sees knowledge as manipulation, power—which is why he goes forward, to become a better bigger more powerful crook—the irony is that the crook has the best understanding of honesty because he moves against it, and so in moving against it, in being a giver, he takes honesty—the giver as I have said before is the explorer seeking to locate the world. Once Bob begins to take, as indeed he is taking now—what characterizes him I am willing to bet is that in the old days he was completely, actively, that it is, a giver. Now, as the years go on, he takes more and more—so his dishonesty is converted to honesty.) What a long digression. There are going to be endless parentheses today.
I started to write, “What excites Bob and makes him believe I’m on to something”—that is, dominating it,—is that each cliché opens out. And as it opens I discover more and more. The wisdom of all of mankind is buried in clichés. The common people use them. More dominated, but less -oriented, and quite un-verbal— people usually are—the cliché for them opens them to their souls. 
The banal conversations one has in an elevator or in a restaurant about weather or how the days fly are the most profound conversations. They are truly philosophical if at a very low level. For weather is Nature which man must dominate in order to live like a king, and the calendar is Time, it is Society, which too man must dominate if he is to live like a saint-lover. (Another parenthesis. The perspective of a better future is that the saint-psychopath becomes the saint-lover. Lovers in the sexual act are always—by our growing understanding of the word—psychopathic. When one fucks, one is at the heart of the present. A good fuck suspends Time—it opens it into an enormous present where one is a king, a God, and one’s mate is a Queen, a Goddess.)
AP (Which I use from now on as “another parenthesis”): The reason so many homosexuals are snobs and furnish their places in “period style” is that their relations seem to them in some deep part of them to be the relations of two kings, making concordats, entertaining one another in pomp. Which is why they’re snobs, reactionaries, and aristocrats so often in their attitudes and manners—the fancy homosexual partakes of the monster—he is a throwback to the time when only a king could express the whims (which are the deep desires) of his soul.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/440

To have this make sense, I have to explain what I believe is true of the psyche and of dialectics. The part of Marx I always found least congenial was his dialectical materialism. It seemed an irrational mystical note in his supreme reasoning. And all the engineers of socialism have thrown away the theory for the practice, and converted Marxism to its vulgarization, the practice of socialism rather than the thrust to anarchism. Marx was a genius; he was even partly a saint, but he was both these things because he was not merely a realist and a rationalist, he was also a mystic, and dialectics are no more nor no less than the endless chain of give-and-take and take-and-give. 
Society and history are the projection forward of the projection inward. Man is not simply a conscious and an unconscious. He is many levels of consciousness, each the mirror, the reflection of a state in the unconscious which is more pure, more the thing-in-itself which is nothing other than the polarity, the double—: No thing in itself is a one but a two—the reflection in the conscious mind of an unconscious state. I believe that the unconscious of man is an endless chain inward, inward, inward to the point which is infinity. Put less crudely, put topographically, the conscious and the unconscious are the polarized “thing” of mind-and-body. 
As we plumb nominally, plumb the unconscious, states of consciousness appear—in the conventional analysis what invariably appears is the malice under sweetness, the passivity under aggression, the chaos under order. But that is merely the first level inward of the unconscious, and it is the level most susceptible to socializing because the “moral-ethical” sense is already in the consciousness—therefore we see the unconscious as dirty, evel—evil—what-have-you? But beneath the sweetness of the sweet person, is malice, beneath the malice is real sweetness, beneath the real sweetness is real malice, beneath real malice is real real sweetness, beneath real real sweetness is real malice, beneath real real malice is real real real sweetness—and so forth. On to infinity in every person alive. 
Which suggests that God when we reach him is God-and-Devil not God and Devil. Give-and-Take not give and take. For only through Give-and-Take, dialectics, is the world and nature advanced. Which is why the nature of man is both joyous-and-tragic. It is truly both, not one—the sentimental petrifaction into One of Society when it calls man joyous; nor tragic, also one, which is the social despairing of people who believe that man is one, all bad, all divided. What they sense is Good-and-Evil (Give-and-Take, And Take-and-Give) AP: the comma is the way we indicate a larger AND than “and.” The comma sets up the “and” of equality. So good-and-evil (G-T And T-G) are the nature of progress, they are the nature of GO.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/441

But I go at this in the most outrageous form. All the things I learned over the weekend went into the above notes. I hate exposition. So I detest going back over the ideas I had, they are already real to me, and I wish merely to cast them now into mathematical forms. (How lucky Einstein was! The universe really gave him a loving fuck.) But, to explain how I got here, I have to go back over the exposition, and I hate to waste the time. Nonetheless, for those hours in the week to follow when I am down from this peak, I’d better have less advanced and mystical remarks or I’ll be repelled myself.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/442

Besides I may discover more by going back. Exposition for me when it works always creates new ideas. Which is why I’m a writer. The act of writing is creative for me too whereas for people who are not writers it is merely crude exposition, cliché exposition, which is why the slick writer is usually safe—the exposition of his conception does not carry him further, does not get him into danger.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/443

Anyway, let’s go back to Give-And-Take. This is no mere crank attitude of mine. (A crank is a mystic frozen at a given point. All his energy to go on, to discover more, is blocked, and so his “faith,” his passionate conviction, is the expression of all his energy flowing flowing flowing against the frozen impenetrable which says “Go on, friend-enemy H and you die.” That is why cranks will say or do the same thing for years and years and years. 
The miser, as a form of crank, is worth exploring. He is the man or woman terrified of giving all us away, and so he gives nothing, but invests Giving energy into Taking. He is the parody, the caricature, the intensification of passivity. He invests, he illumines passivity, taking, with all the passion of Giving. Ergo, Lulu is a miser.
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/445

The anarchist as he exists today is also a parody. He is Give-Give-Give in the psychic state of Taking. He is the miser turned inside out. (Which is why certain Bohemians in Adele’s class stay on the same painting for years or the same style. Every bohemian is tortured on the most socially dramatic spectrum of the Give-Take. They are all anarchist-misers in more or less degree. They give furiously in order to take the calm of superiority, of renunciation, of Taking. They take—in their notorious unreliability about debt, loans, feelings of others, etc—in order to give to themselves, be it satisfaction or self-hatred which is the duality of emotion once emotion is completed (Satisfaction—self-hatred.)
Category:February 7, 1955
Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/446

But, again, back to give-and-take. Not yet. : Freud was the genius who like Marx placed most of his thought in the One. Against his enormous desire to be everywhere, do everything, understand everything he set up the enraged dictum of the One. In that sense he was a crank and a miser, husbanding his genius. To Theodore Reik he said, “Reik, you want to be a big man, make your mark, piss in one spot!”
Category:February 7, 1955