Law 1
Burroughs, William S..
Junky. Introduction by
Allen Ginsberg, 1953.
Someone gave this to me. Couldn't tell you where they are now. Couldn't tell you where the book is, either.
Williams, Margaret A. Adams. "
'You Don't Know What It's Like': The Lived Experience of Drug Dependence." Massey University, 2002.
A Heideggerian interpretation of the lived experience of drug users. So cool!
Becoming and being drug dependent — the journey; Being with others; and Being with care. These themes point to the nature of drug dependence and the extent to which the experience affects the whole of the participants' Being-in-the-world.
I had been thinking that I really, really wished someone would write something like this. I almost thought I was gonna have to write it myself (DIY forever), but now I don't have to because I can just read this instead. Thanks
Williams, I love it!
Much like Heidegger and his beloved peasants,
Williams understands through analysis what dependent drug users know by way of actively experiencing.
Too bad the nature of the Heideggerian ego-death ("Dasein falling") is that of "practical working knowledge without the conscious realization of understanding"; I figure this may have something to do with why it is that peasants and drug addicts seem to be somewhat alike in that neither group typically writes theory or philosophy. If only it weren't so...
However, I think there is greater inherent value to be obtained from listening to a person share their ideas and lived experience using plain language and in a very direct way—of letting people be the authors of their own narratives—than we may often realize; because, to put it one way, why would one find it necessary to read Heidegger in order to relearn what they had already learned by simply becoming addicted to drugs instead?
What I'm saying is,
Being and Time is undeniably a good and smart book, but although Heidegger's name may be on the front cover, it's the peasants who were the real authors; because without them, Heidegger couldn't have written the book, and he wouldn't have known how to use a hammer, either.
Can't stop thinking about this...
I'm reversing my (mis-)understanding of Heidegger. The nature of Heideggerian Being (and of the knowledge contained within the direct experience of Being) is not that of an ego-death, but of the failure to ever even have an ego-birth in the first place.
Once we have already had an ego-birth, it is impossible to ever achieve a true ego-death; the best we can do is to take a momentary ego-nap, maybe go to ego-sleep for the night.
I wish I had never developed an ego. You can't just keep on hammering forever. Eventually, you'll finish building your house.
(Sometimes you get so lost in the act of hammering that you tear down your house just to build it back up again.)
(Imagine if we used our energy to build houses for other people, too, instead of endlessly tearing down and rebuilding our own house...)
Peasants, in my experience, are the craftiest bastards of them all.
Poetry 1
Brown, Rita Mae.
Rubyfruit Jungle. 1973.
A classic I guess.
Your sexuality is the least interesting thing about you.
Please stop using the word "folk," I'm begging you. We already have a word for that: "people."
Sorry this website is so fucking annoying. I wish I could find this book somewhere else.
Joyce, James.
Finnegans Wake. 1939.
My goal in life is to be able to read this book and to understand it—at least, inasmuch as it's possible to "understand"
Finnegans Wake. One day I'll make it past the first page.
The website linked above has annotations that are very helpful in attempting to make sense of the text. Nonetheless, it is still largely incomprehensible.
This is absolutely my favorite agglomeration of words (and also, of "words") that has ever been written. What else can I say, it's a true masterpiece.
Morrison, Toni.
Song of Solomon. 1977.
I don't want kids, but if I did, this is how I would name them.
He had cooperated as a young father with the blind selection of names from the Bible for every child other than the first male. And abided by whatever the finger pointed to, for he knew every configuration of the naming of his sister.
How his father, confused and melancholy over his wife's death in childbirth, had thumbed through the Bible, and since he could not read a word, chose a group of letters that seemed to him strong and handsome; saw in them a large figure that looked like a tree hanging in some princely but protective way over a row of smaller trees.
How he had copied the group of letters out on a piece of brown paper; copied, as illiterate people do, every curlicue, arch, and bend in the letters, and presented it to the midwife.
"That's the baby's name."
"You want this for the baby's name?"
"I want that for the baby's name. Say it."
"You can't name the baby this."
"Say it."
"It's a man's name."
"Say it."
"Pilate."
This book has a great ending. Magical realism is fun.
My favorite fictional work!
Fictionkin 1
Otherkin 1
Therianthropy 1
Epistemology 1
Ethics 1
Stirner, Max.
The Ego and Its Own (
The Unique and Its Property). Translation by
Steven T. Byington, introduction by
J. L. Walker (
published 1907), 1844.
This guy was kind of a self-centered asshole. Nobody showed up at his funeral; his ego on its own.
Nonetheless, I tolerate the intolerable, and I love them, even. Not that
Stirner would have cared.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. The
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Translation by
Charles Kay Ogden (
published 2010), introduction by
Bertrand Russell, 1921.
Love this book The
Track Cactus, I read it every day.
Love this man
Wittgenstein, my favorite philosopher.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig.
Philosophical Investigations. Translation by
G. E. M. Anscombe (
published 1958), 1953.
Who, other than
Wittgenstein, could be so right while also being so wrong?
Heidegger, Martin.
Being and Time. Translation & preface by
Macquarrie &
Robinson (
published 1962), 1927.
By writing this book,
Heidegger proved that he didn't understand his own idea. Garbage.
He should have taken notes from Wittgenstein.
I have some problems with
Heidegger. It's upsetting. Surely I misunderstand this book, but that doesn't stop me from having ideas about it.
Heidegger may have loved the peasants, but did he not realize that they were human? The peasants are people, too. They have names. They think thoughts and have ideas. You can talk to them.
Heidegger may have loved the peasants, but he did them dirty. He studied them like animals. He didn't let them speak for themselves. They had no idea that a book was being written about them, nor did they know what that book would say about them and their lives, their selves and their Being.
How can we understand anything if to know is to be authentic, and to understand is to let that knowledge slip through our fingers like sand? Gone the very moment we reach out to grasp it—that which we already had in our possession—paradoxical.
Must someone else speak for us? In the moment that we decide to speak for ourselves, do we suddenly have nothing valuable or authentic to say?
Direct lived experience parsed through an outside observer, an unrelated third party which is—and always has been—entirely separated from the experience in question. Where's the authenticity in that?
Heidegger, you may have loved the peasants; you may have come to understand them. But, "you don't know what it's like": to be a peasant, hammering nails into wood every day of your life!
Phenomenology 1
Deleuze &
Guattari.
Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translation by
Hurley,
Seem, &
Lane, preface by
Michel Foucault, 1972.
Why is it called
Anti-Oedipus if
Deleuze and
Guattari agree that Freud was right about a lot of things, and the Oediupus complex was probably one of said things...?
Not that I particularly care, because in my opinion, the Oedipus complex is just one of the many things that Freud was wrong about.
I learned some things from reading
Capitalism and Schizophrenia.
I learned some things from reading, capitalism, and schizophrenia.
Deleuze &
Guattari.
A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translation & foreword by
Brian Massumi, 1980.
A lot of good ideas in this here book, if you ask me. For example, the "rhizome" is probably my favorite idea that anyone has ever had.
Just imagine, if you will, how sexy it must have been for
Deleuze and
Guattari to both be crazy enough to think of that idea, and then, by some stroke of serendipity, to happen to meet someone who also is crazy about tubers in exactly the same way as you...
And then they agreed to write a couple books together, and the rest is history. Incredible stuff!
Psychology & Psychoanalysis 1
Theology 1
Anthropology & Sociology 1
Anti-capitalism 1
Butler, Judith.
Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. 1990.
Well, it may have taken
Butler an entire decade to finally decide whether or not trans women are included in the definition of "woman" (scare quotes obligatory) used within the context of this book, but at least they made the right choice in the end.
Anyways, there sure are some sentences in this book, some of which are truly phenomenal! I can't recommend these sentences enough!
LGBT 1
Race 1
Astronomy 1
Cryptocurrency 1
Cyber Law 1
Sleat, Matt. "
Just Cyber War?: Casus Belli, Information Ethics, and the Human Perspective."
Review of International Studies, vol. 44, no. 2, 2017.
I want to live in an ontologically richer world!
(Less is less, and more is more.)
Dignity: everything which does currently exist has a right to its (continued) existence.
(All existence is equal, but some is more equal than the rest.)
Online Privacy & Surveillance Capitalism 1
Physics 1
Statistics 1