What do you think?
Rate this book
Sadly, Porn
How much do you want to know?
1112 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 28, 2021
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
Read
April 1, 2022Since this is the review the most people will see, I feel a bit of responsibility. The danger of a review, especially a review of a book like this, is that the review can excuse the reader from reading the book.
If you read the review below and think, "thank goodness, something about this book really bothered me, but now I don't have to read it"...well, you might want to look into that.
-----
The long-awaited "porn book" by psychoanalyst/blogger/provocateur The Last Psychiatrist. Well, long-awaited in certain quarters, at least; for me and a few friends who’d read the blog, it was like a band we'd all thought was retired suddenly dropped the album they'd promised a decade ago.
For the fans, it’s everything you’d want. I think this book is the best expression of his ideas. In TLP’s blog, he used narcissism as his central idea, to the point that he became “the narcissism guy,” and all his other (often better, IMO) ideas faded into the background. Not so here.
For newcomers, I’m a little more hesitant to recommend this book. First of all, because he has an ostentatiously aggressive style, addressing (and often insulting) "you" directly, and spicing it up with a bit of edginess. A lot of people react negatively to his style, and honestly, I can’t blame them. I think it’s a mistake to take his writing as a personal attack — the “you” of the text is not exactly you the reader, generally it’s more like a caricature of a mindset he wants to dig into — but his flippancy does sometimes interfere with clarity. Whether you’ll make it through the book depends on whether you find his voice amusing or irritating.
I say “make it through” because boy howdy there is a lot. In this book, he's trying to illustrate a few interrelated ideas. A non-comprehensive list of these: the trap of giving up power for the pretense of knowledge; envy masquerading as jealousy; how we learn how to want things; and, always, how people are being lied to by themselves.
He begins, as promised, with the pornographic story of a wife who cheats with her husband's "rival." But from there, he applies his framework in a wide variety of ways: unorthodox readings of the Oedipus cycle, A Christmas Story, Rebecca, The Giving Tree, and the Bible; reevaluations of American historical events; and reinterpretations of Freud's original case studies.
This journey goes all over the place, but he does (sort of) have a destination. He wants to show that the same dynamics are at play in both the personal and the sociopolitical. His most frequent references are to Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War, and his ultimate fear is that America will end up like Athens: that is, that America will succumb to its own citizens' secret desire to be ruled by a tyrant.
These ideas are compelling, but it will be up to you whether you find them persuasive. When I find him most persuasive, it’s because I can see how his framework explains my own past behavior, or the behavior of people I know. The virtue of his barrage of examples is that you get a practical feeling for how he looks at things, and once you have that, it’s easy to consider everyday life in the same way.
But I’m less sure that his framework applies as neatly or universally as he seems to think. He takes a special contrarian joy in slapping down the Uno Reverse card on traditional interpretations of primary sources, which makes him immensely entertaining to read, and gives me the feeling of being let in on a secret, but leaves me wanting to check his work. He outright says that he wants to drive people to read primary sources, so in that sense I guess he got me. But until the dust settles, it’s hard for me to say which parts are genius and which parts are crankery. For now, I’ll just say he offers an interesting set of interpretive tools.
If you read the review below and think, "thank goodness, something about this book really bothered me, but now I don't have to read it"...well, you might want to look into that.
-----
The long-awaited "porn book" by psychoanalyst/blogger/provocateur The Last Psychiatrist. Well, long-awaited in certain quarters, at least; for me and a few friends who’d read the blog, it was like a band we'd all thought was retired suddenly dropped the album they'd promised a decade ago.
For the fans, it’s everything you’d want. I think this book is the best expression of his ideas. In TLP’s blog, he used narcissism as his central idea, to the point that he became “the narcissism guy,” and all his other (often better, IMO) ideas faded into the background. Not so here.
For newcomers, I’m a little more hesitant to recommend this book. First of all, because he has an ostentatiously aggressive style, addressing (and often insulting) "you" directly, and spicing it up with a bit of edginess. A lot of people react negatively to his style, and honestly, I can’t blame them. I think it’s a mistake to take his writing as a personal attack — the “you” of the text is not exactly you the reader, generally it’s more like a caricature of a mindset he wants to dig into — but his flippancy does sometimes interfere with clarity. Whether you’ll make it through the book depends on whether you find his voice amusing or irritating.
I say “make it through” because boy howdy there is a lot. In this book, he's trying to illustrate a few interrelated ideas. A non-comprehensive list of these: the trap of giving up power for the pretense of knowledge; envy masquerading as jealousy; how we learn how to want things; and, always, how people are being lied to by themselves.
He begins, as promised, with the pornographic story of a wife who cheats with her husband's "rival." But from there, he applies his framework in a wide variety of ways: unorthodox readings of the Oedipus cycle, A Christmas Story, Rebecca, The Giving Tree, and the Bible; reevaluations of American historical events; and reinterpretations of Freud's original case studies.
This journey goes all over the place, but he does (sort of) have a destination. He wants to show that the same dynamics are at play in both the personal and the sociopolitical. His most frequent references are to Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War, and his ultimate fear is that America will end up like Athens: that is, that America will succumb to its own citizens' secret desire to be ruled by a tyrant.
These ideas are compelling, but it will be up to you whether you find them persuasive. When I find him most persuasive, it’s because I can see how his framework explains my own past behavior, or the behavior of people I know. The virtue of his barrage of examples is that you get a practical feeling for how he looks at things, and once you have that, it’s easy to consider everyday life in the same way.
But I’m less sure that his framework applies as neatly or universally as he seems to think. He takes a special contrarian joy in slapping down the Uno Reverse card on traditional interpretations of primary sources, which makes him immensely entertaining to read, and gives me the feeling of being let in on a secret, but leaves me wanting to check his work. He outright says that he wants to drive people to read primary sources, so in that sense I guess he got me. But until the dust settles, it’s hard for me to say which parts are genius and which parts are crankery. For now, I’ll just say he offers an interesting set of interpretive tools.
July 3, 2023
La mitad del tiempo me la he pasado pensando que este tío es un puto genio, la otra mitad del tiempo que es un puto demente. Pero creo que este libro es importante, muy importante.
El libro dice ir sobre porno pero no es verdad, va más allá, va sobre la pornografización de la vida, expresada a través de: no puedes actuar sobre lo que deseas, así que en vez de eso acumulas conocimiento porque así algún día aprenderías, no eres capaz de actuar así que llevas un libro de cuentas y tu satisfacción no viene de hacer y conseguir sino de privar a otros de lo mismo, y para ello empieza con una ficción porno de más de 30 páginas pero luego pasa a analizar tragedias griegas que ha leído en el griego original, el cuento de Navidad de Dickens, Rebecca de Hitchcock (y la novela original), parábolas bíblicas, le enmienda la plana a Freud, comenta el activismo en redes sociales y cómo se ha convertido en un sustituto de la acción real y una herramienta del sistema... y muchas cosas más. Es un libro enorme.
Su idea es que las mismas dinámicas que se dan en nuestras relaciones se dan en la esfera política (y compara la democracia ateniense y su caída con la democracia actual), y lo ilustra de mil maneras, con notas al pie que a menudo son más largas (y parecen capítulos pero no hay capítulos en este libro) que el texto que aclaran. Es intencionadamente oscurantista como lo era Lacan (es psicoanalista lacaniano después de todo), pero me gusta muchísimo (entre otras) una idea que repite una y otra vez: hay que ir a las fuentes primarias, y leerlas literalmente, porque para la mayoría de nosotros nuestro conocimiento no es sobre las cosas, es sobre lo que otros nos cuentan que son las cosas, como si poder citar un texto sin haberlo leído y sin contexto ya sirviera. Y así con todo. La vida a través de fuentes secundarias.
La reseña es como el libro, salvo que no os insulto. Pero en conjunto: los ratos que merece la pena, la merece tanto que compensa de sobra los ratos en los que piensas que te están tomando el pelo de mala manera. Es un libro único, y que tendré que leer varias veces más.
El libro dice ir sobre porno pero no es verdad, va más allá, va sobre la pornografización de la vida, expresada a través de: no puedes actuar sobre lo que deseas, así que en vez de eso acumulas conocimiento porque así algún día aprenderías, no eres capaz de actuar así que llevas un libro de cuentas y tu satisfacción no viene de hacer y conseguir sino de privar a otros de lo mismo, y para ello empieza con una ficción porno de más de 30 páginas pero luego pasa a analizar tragedias griegas que ha leído en el griego original, el cuento de Navidad de Dickens, Rebecca de Hitchcock (y la novela original), parábolas bíblicas, le enmienda la plana a Freud, comenta el activismo en redes sociales y cómo se ha convertido en un sustituto de la acción real y una herramienta del sistema... y muchas cosas más. Es un libro enorme.
Su idea es que las mismas dinámicas que se dan en nuestras relaciones se dan en la esfera política (y compara la democracia ateniense y su caída con la democracia actual), y lo ilustra de mil maneras, con notas al pie que a menudo son más largas (y parecen capítulos pero no hay capítulos en este libro) que el texto que aclaran. Es intencionadamente oscurantista como lo era Lacan (es psicoanalista lacaniano después de todo), pero me gusta muchísimo (entre otras) una idea que repite una y otra vez: hay que ir a las fuentes primarias, y leerlas literalmente, porque para la mayoría de nosotros nuestro conocimiento no es sobre las cosas, es sobre lo que otros nos cuentan que son las cosas, como si poder citar un texto sin haberlo leído y sin contexto ya sirviera. Y así con todo. La vida a través de fuentes secundarias.
La reseña es como el libro, salvo que no os insulto. Pero en conjunto: los ratos que merece la pena, la merece tanto que compensa de sobra los ratos en los que piensas que te están tomando el pelo de mala manera. Es un libro único, y que tendré que leer varias veces más.
May 22, 2022
-Knowledge as an excuse not to act
-Ledger balancing
Should read Thucidides
-Ledger balancing
Should read Thucidides
June 4, 2023
This book was a wild ride for me. I started it during a beach vacation--which probably tells you something about me--and finished it a month later. It's only 500 pages, but the footnoted sections are in 10 point font which means that the entire book is more like 1500 pages and since the book is self-published there are typos and strange formatting throughout the text. If you can't stand these types of imperfections, then Teach's book is not for you. How do I know? He basically says so in the book! The book opens with a porn story that involves a passed out husband, a turned on wife, a male co-worker stud muffin. You get the picture and you're supposed to because it's cliched and meant to be. The point of the porn story? It's meant to turn off readers so that only those who really want to delve into Teach's twisted and luminous prose will make the journey. I don't know if I should feel special or cursed in some way, but there it is.
Forgetting the DFW split between the main text and the footnoted section ( a chore that made reading House of Leaves feel easy in retrospect), the book is all over the place; however, the main point--is there really a main point?--is that Americans are ripe for tyranny because social media/Hollywood. "Ed"- ward "Teach" (not his real name but a sort of play on words) is at his most convincing when re-interpreting The Giving Tree, New Testament writings (mostly) and Gone Girl. He uses these digressions to show how easy it has been for the majority of people to misread these texts and so misread our twisted state of affairs. He is also using these texts--minus the NT-- as examples of our cultural situation which is that we want others to make decisions for us and that our default moral code is tit for tat, which has led us to envy others and wish for their less-than meagre success or outright failure (if it will make us feel better about our own miserable lives). Beyond this, we want someone (anyone) to save us from our lack of desire/ability to choose/act--Teach argues that when we view pornography we are not viewing it to fulfill our own personally constructed sexual desires. We view porn because porn has desired for us. Porn has its categories and they are shape that our desires can take. It's the same with Hollywood films and every other media. We never get to decide anything regarding our desires because the media machine has seen to it that these desires are always already on display for our choosing. Yes, we have choice, but the choices are not ours.
Edward Teach is a pseudonym for a brilliant Lacanian psychoanalyst who had retired from print but decided to launch a comeback of sorts. The attitude of the writer struck me as being on par with Nasim Nicholas Talib's attitude in Skin in the Game, but unlike Talib, who trashed academics who, well, have no "skin in the game," Teach is out for blood and it may be yours that he is after.
I'll end this short review by saying that this was an intriguing, perplexing, laughable, serious book that turned my brain pretzel-like as it considered Teach's claims. I enjoyed it for that reason. It's rare to find a book that touches you in so many different ways and whose scent remains on your clothing long after the affair has ended. There is so much material in this book, I've only touched on what comes to mind months after finishing it.
Update: it's been a year since I read this book and after a couple of major epiphanies I think that I see that the writer is exposing the unreality of what we call reality.
Forgetting the DFW split between the main text and the footnoted section ( a chore that made reading House of Leaves feel easy in retrospect), the book is all over the place; however, the main point--is there really a main point?--is that Americans are ripe for tyranny because social media/Hollywood. "Ed"- ward "Teach" (not his real name but a sort of play on words) is at his most convincing when re-interpreting The Giving Tree, New Testament writings (mostly) and Gone Girl. He uses these digressions to show how easy it has been for the majority of people to misread these texts and so misread our twisted state of affairs. He is also using these texts--minus the NT-- as examples of our cultural situation which is that we want others to make decisions for us and that our default moral code is tit for tat, which has led us to envy others and wish for their less-than meagre success or outright failure (if it will make us feel better about our own miserable lives). Beyond this, we want someone (anyone) to save us from our lack of desire/ability to choose/act--Teach argues that when we view pornography we are not viewing it to fulfill our own personally constructed sexual desires. We view porn because porn has desired for us. Porn has its categories and they are shape that our desires can take. It's the same with Hollywood films and every other media. We never get to decide anything regarding our desires because the media machine has seen to it that these desires are always already on display for our choosing. Yes, we have choice, but the choices are not ours.
Edward Teach is a pseudonym for a brilliant Lacanian psychoanalyst who had retired from print but decided to launch a comeback of sorts. The attitude of the writer struck me as being on par with Nasim Nicholas Talib's attitude in Skin in the Game, but unlike Talib, who trashed academics who, well, have no "skin in the game," Teach is out for blood and it may be yours that he is after.
I'll end this short review by saying that this was an intriguing, perplexing, laughable, serious book that turned my brain pretzel-like as it considered Teach's claims. I enjoyed it for that reason. It's rare to find a book that touches you in so many different ways and whose scent remains on your clothing long after the affair has ended. There is so much material in this book, I've only touched on what comes to mind months after finishing it.
Update: it's been a year since I read this book and after a couple of major epiphanies I think that I see that the writer is exposing the unreality of what we call reality.
June 23, 2022
Teach is intentionally obscurantist in the way that Lacan is- his blunt and abrasive style resists easy distillation as (in the words of Josian Warren) “it is dangerous to understand new things too quickly.” It goes something like this: “ You might not get much out of a week reading Thucydides, but you will only get lies from a semester reading about him. “I really liked that class.” Then it worked and you didn't have to.” Teach’s hope is that by being so prickly, some of his mental models might rattle around in one’s head long enough prior to finding an opinion on them, and then maybe you might get them right.
With that warning, couple key ideas/thoughts/questions/quotes here for me:
Quotes:
“Power imbalances, structural forces; mindfulness, purposeful living; connectedness, loving yourself first. But nowhere: how to love someone else. A collective defense against dependency”
“Fine, I’ll start you off: when you hear the word defense, don’t think “shield”. Think “I never would have done that on purpose”.”
“The debate is not about what to do at all; it's about constructing reasons for what will have already happened, whatever ends up happening. The psychological problem that required this retroactive reframing was the inability to act on a desire-- it had to be impulsive, compelled, or for some other reason. ”
“I’m shocked people care more about a fairy tale afterlife than the reality of dying in massive environmental catastrophe.” You must be very young to imagine being worthy of such a spectacular death, just do yourself a favor and watch your cholesterol anyway. Your system wants hegemony and homogeneity, which means it wants individuality to cede to collective individualism-- ego death for a stronger superego-- because democratic individuals who think they are unique will always follow the herd, each one applauding himself for discovering on his own the narrow ramp that leads to utopia.”
“in order to succeed in life, you don't have to be any good, you just have to be the best. But being the best does not entitle you to believe you are any good.”
“Reframe your understanding of power before it gets us all killed: applauding a person’s non-choices because a type of person made them and they deprive another type of person isn't justice, it is envy. Worse, it is envy that longs for tyranny even as it pretends to hate it.”
Questions:
If you have some concept that’s easy for people to get wrong, might you transmit with higher fidelity if you’re hard to understand?
What sort of ideas are culturally optimized to spread?
Ideas:
Internal Ledgers and their associated psychoanalytic defenses.
Desire itself is an ego defense- we want things because we think they would make us feel more like a coherent self; we fear things because they might make our subjectivity collapse.
I am skeptical of charismatic people with a reputation for misanthropy and harsh judgment, especially when they talk to you and are very nice and complimentary- this is very strong positive reinforcement.
Seeking out knowledge is often a rationalization for inaction- or at the very least, a way for us to convert our internal narrative from active to passive, from opting in to “action” vs opting out of a “grand narrative.” This is definitionally narcissism- and narcissism is the dominant cultural pathology of our time.
With that warning, couple key ideas/thoughts/questions/quotes here for me:
Quotes:
“Power imbalances, structural forces; mindfulness, purposeful living; connectedness, loving yourself first. But nowhere: how to love someone else. A collective defense against dependency”
“Fine, I’ll start you off: when you hear the word defense, don’t think “shield”. Think “I never would have done that on purpose”.”
“The debate is not about what to do at all; it's about constructing reasons for what will have already happened, whatever ends up happening. The psychological problem that required this retroactive reframing was the inability to act on a desire-- it had to be impulsive, compelled, or for some other reason. ”
“I’m shocked people care more about a fairy tale afterlife than the reality of dying in massive environmental catastrophe.” You must be very young to imagine being worthy of such a spectacular death, just do yourself a favor and watch your cholesterol anyway. Your system wants hegemony and homogeneity, which means it wants individuality to cede to collective individualism-- ego death for a stronger superego-- because democratic individuals who think they are unique will always follow the herd, each one applauding himself for discovering on his own the narrow ramp that leads to utopia.”
“in order to succeed in life, you don't have to be any good, you just have to be the best. But being the best does not entitle you to believe you are any good.”
“Reframe your understanding of power before it gets us all killed: applauding a person’s non-choices because a type of person made them and they deprive another type of person isn't justice, it is envy. Worse, it is envy that longs for tyranny even as it pretends to hate it.”
Questions:
If you have some concept that’s easy for people to get wrong, might you transmit with higher fidelity if you’re hard to understand?
What sort of ideas are culturally optimized to spread?
Ideas:
Internal Ledgers and their associated psychoanalytic defenses.
Desire itself is an ego defense- we want things because we think they would make us feel more like a coherent self; we fear things because they might make our subjectivity collapse.
I am skeptical of charismatic people with a reputation for misanthropy and harsh judgment, especially when they talk to you and are very nice and complimentary- this is very strong positive reinforcement.
Seeking out knowledge is often a rationalization for inaction- or at the very least, a way for us to convert our internal narrative from active to passive, from opting in to “action” vs opting out of a “grand narrative.” This is definitionally narcissism- and narcissism is the dominant cultural pathology of our time.
July 6, 2022
Holy shit see võttis kaks kuud aga ott rynkla luges raamatu läbi? mis järgmiseks? ta pissib püksi sest see oli nii hea? pean kahetusega tunnistama, et kõigi nende kysimuste vastus on jah? Kas mu punkti klahv ei tööta niiet ma pean laused lõpetama kysimärkidega? Jah, ka see vastab tõele?
Igatahes mulle meeldis see raamat? kas Sina, kes iganes sa ka poleks mu armas kallis kullatükk lugeja peaksid ka seda raamatut lugema? vastus on kindel JAH????
ma leidsin punkti, see oli väga peidetud mu saksa klaviatuuril. teisetele teadmiseks: punkt on all, paremas nurgas.
miks sa tahad targaks saada? keeruline küsimus aga Autor vastab sellele lihtsalt: selleks, et sa peaks võimalikult vähe tegutsema. mida targem sa oled seda kergem on põhjendada, miks sa midagi teha ei suuda ja miks olukord me ilmas nii kehvas seisus on. Selle asemel et tulla minuga tänavale molotove loopima, sest coop tõstis piima liha ja munade hinna yle viimase piiri, istud sina kodus ja vaatad ylekannet Praegu Olulisest Asjast ja nutad patja. Mul on sust kahju.
Õhtul, kella 21-23 vahel leida end end rahuldamas pesumasinasse kinnijäänud kasuõe porno saatel. Ja kui sul veab ei pea sa kunagi mõtlema, miks ja kelle huvides sa seda teed. See ju meeldib sulle, kuigi mitte täielikult. Mitte kõik selle juures. Aga sa ju ei mõelnud seda välja. See pole sinu unelm. See pornograafiline unelm pole loodud sulle, see on loodud kellelgi teisele. Sina ainult ainult uudistad seda korraks. Iga päev. Kuid su tilluke püüd mõelda välja selle teõline sihtgrupp läheb vett vedama, proverbial teised on üsna hägune, kas pole?
Kui midagi on tasuta ss sa oled produkt, maunik. Sa maksad oma hinges. Kui sa leiad et sulle meeldib vahetada oma kujutlusvõime raisatud aja ja algoritmi poolt disainitud ihade vastu ss anna minna. Minupoolest se on ok. v mdea. oleneb kes sa oled ja kas ma hoolin sust, sest olegem ausad seda review alustab mu suurt karjäär kirjandus ja kõigis sellega sarnanevates valdkondades.
Okei ma hakkan uniseks jääma. See raamat on jube segaselet yles ehitatud, aga räägib peale pornograafia ka muudest väga huvitavatest teemadest. Autoril on imeline võime oma analyysidest rohkem välja pigistada kui kõigil eestikeele eksami "tarbijatel" ("nautejatel?") nendest selle aasta hädisetst teemadest summarselt kokku.
mul oleks tegel veel vb kirjutada siia, kui leian viicimise ss kirjuta juurde yhel ilusal päikselisel kevadpäeval.
BTW! Kui siin on sitasti kirjutatud lauseid ss see on selle pärast et ma ei loe kunagi midagi yle. Mul lihtsalt pole selleks aega! Iga päev pean ma vähemalt 3 tundi aega oma vaibal lamades lakke vahtima ja muusikat kuulama. Muidu ma lähen hulluks. Tegelt peaks ilma muusikata proovima aga ka mina olen väike Micromys minutus kes ei suuda näha seda ratast millel ta edasi lipates kuhugi ei liigu.
Igatahes mulle meeldis see raamat? kas Sina, kes iganes sa ka poleks mu armas kallis kullatükk lugeja peaksid ka seda raamatut lugema? vastus on kindel JAH????
ma leidsin punkti, see oli väga peidetud mu saksa klaviatuuril. teisetele teadmiseks: punkt on all, paremas nurgas.
miks sa tahad targaks saada? keeruline küsimus aga Autor vastab sellele lihtsalt: selleks, et sa peaks võimalikult vähe tegutsema. mida targem sa oled seda kergem on põhjendada, miks sa midagi teha ei suuda ja miks olukord me ilmas nii kehvas seisus on. Selle asemel et tulla minuga tänavale molotove loopima, sest coop tõstis piima liha ja munade hinna yle viimase piiri, istud sina kodus ja vaatad ylekannet Praegu Olulisest Asjast ja nutad patja. Mul on sust kahju.
Õhtul, kella 21-23 vahel leida end end rahuldamas pesumasinasse kinnijäänud kasuõe porno saatel. Ja kui sul veab ei pea sa kunagi mõtlema, miks ja kelle huvides sa seda teed. See ju meeldib sulle, kuigi mitte täielikult. Mitte kõik selle juures. Aga sa ju ei mõelnud seda välja. See pole sinu unelm. See pornograafiline unelm pole loodud sulle, see on loodud kellelgi teisele. Sina ainult ainult uudistad seda korraks. Iga päev. Kuid su tilluke püüd mõelda välja selle teõline sihtgrupp läheb vett vedama, proverbial teised on üsna hägune, kas pole?
Kui midagi on tasuta ss sa oled produkt, maunik. Sa maksad oma hinges. Kui sa leiad et sulle meeldib vahetada oma kujutlusvõime raisatud aja ja algoritmi poolt disainitud ihade vastu ss anna minna. Minupoolest se on ok. v mdea. oleneb kes sa oled ja kas ma hoolin sust, sest olegem ausad seda review alustab mu suurt karjäär kirjandus ja kõigis sellega sarnanevates valdkondades.
Okei ma hakkan uniseks jääma. See raamat on jube segaselet yles ehitatud, aga räägib peale pornograafia ka muudest väga huvitavatest teemadest. Autoril on imeline võime oma analyysidest rohkem välja pigistada kui kõigil eestikeele eksami "tarbijatel" ("nautejatel?") nendest selle aasta hädisetst teemadest summarselt kokku.
mul oleks tegel veel vb kirjutada siia, kui leian viicimise ss kirjuta juurde yhel ilusal päikselisel kevadpäeval.
BTW! Kui siin on sitasti kirjutatud lauseid ss see on selle pärast et ma ei loe kunagi midagi yle. Mul lihtsalt pole selleks aega! Iga päev pean ma vähemalt 3 tundi aega oma vaibal lamades lakke vahtima ja muusikat kuulama. Muidu ma lähen hulluks. Tegelt peaks ilma muusikata proovima aga ka mina olen väike Micromys minutus kes ei suuda näha seda ratast millel ta edasi lipates kuhugi ei liigu.
November 23, 2022
This book has some pretty spicy takes on modern sexuality, pornography, motivation, fantasy, consumerism,and Greek history. The main message of this book is—you are a massive POS who can’t get anything done. I’m still digesting it might take a second reading just to understand what he’s saying. It also has a 30 page erotica mixed in.
Second reading: This might be the most interesting book I have ever read. I write that because the style, the subject matter and this mysterious author mix to being a book that is either full of life changing insight or complete bullshit. After the second reading I’m pretty sure it’s more full of the insight but it keeps you on your toes throughout. He doesn’t hold your hand to make the subject or the style more palatable. Not until I read his blog did I know that this book is largely about Narcissism. He doesn’t say it. I don’t think the word is used once in this book. But also it doesn’t matter, it’s just a word, and knowledge is antithetical to action.
This book might hold the keys to getting your mind out of the matrix. It might take a third reading to really understand though.
Second reading: This might be the most interesting book I have ever read. I write that because the style, the subject matter and this mysterious author mix to being a book that is either full of life changing insight or complete bullshit. After the second reading I’m pretty sure it’s more full of the insight but it keeps you on your toes throughout. He doesn’t hold your hand to make the subject or the style more palatable. Not until I read his blog did I know that this book is largely about Narcissism. He doesn’t say it. I don’t think the word is used once in this book. But also it doesn’t matter, it’s just a word, and knowledge is antithetical to action.
This book might hold the keys to getting your mind out of the matrix. It might take a third reading to really understand though.
November 30, 2022
Porn is an external fantasy that replaces your fantasies (i.e., you stop fantasizing). Hence, all media is porn (and bad).
The causal chain of human behavior fantasy -> desire -> action. Failing to fantasize means that you don't know *how* to desire and hence you do not *act*. The rest of the book is exploring the downstream consequences of this main idea philosophically and in popular literature and really milks the "balancing the ledger" idea. Good book though.
The causal chain of human behavior fantasy -> desire -> action. Failing to fantasize means that you don't know *how* to desire and hence you do not *act*. The rest of the book is exploring the downstream consequences of this main idea philosophically and in popular literature and really milks the "balancing the ledger" idea. Good book though.
April 15, 2022
I thought TLP as a woman for the first 4x through?
He/she pivots the gendered voice … fluidly.
Why did Athens ultimately fail?
You’ll gladly give up your power to know, and take down the modern world with you if it means your ledger is balanced.
2 complaints:
- the footnotes should be reversed with the body of the main text, or read it digitally. I personally loathe the “skipping ahead” feeling to follow where they go.
- for an author obsessed with primary sources there are no references anywhere. Seriously, what version of the Greek bible are you translating? Erasmus? Polyglot? Stephanus? Receptus? Codex? nooooot helpful bro
EDIT: oh my god. That was the point wasn’t it? There *isn’t* a definite primary source. You weren’t there, you don’t know, everything is secondhand. Surprise! The truth isn’t out there. Buy this man a round on me.
He/she pivots the gendered voice … fluidly.
Why did Athens ultimately fail?
You’ll gladly give up your power to know, and take down the modern world with you if it means your ledger is balanced.
2 complaints:
- the footnotes should be reversed with the body of the main text, or read it digitally. I personally loathe the “skipping ahead” feeling to follow where they go.
- for an author obsessed with primary sources there are no references anywhere. Seriously, what version of the Greek bible are you translating? Erasmus? Polyglot? Stephanus? Receptus? Codex? nooooot helpful bro
EDIT: oh my god. That was the point wasn’t it? There *isn’t* a definite primary source. You weren’t there, you don’t know, everything is secondhand. Surprise! The truth isn’t out there. Buy this man a round on me.
March 31, 2022
Sa peaksid seda lugema.
January 25, 2023
This book is insane. It includes:
- Hundreds of pages of psychoanalytic review of the New Testament and Thucydides' History of the History of the Peloponnesian War, some of which is factually incorrect/so obviously wrong that it isn't worth engaging with (he spends ~40 pages trying to reinterpret the "fishers of men" comment from Mark, then admits that no Bible scholar has ever agreed with him)
- An interesting analysis of The Giving Tree
- This quote, which is never explained: "Within days of the U.S. Federal Reserve beginning its gigantic third round of bond purchases-- 5 years after the first and double the amount-- the comedy group Lonely Island released a song called 'YOLO: You Only Live Once.'"
- 30 pages of screenplay for a trailer for a pornographic movie, complete with sheet music
- The most hostile writing style I've ever encountered - the entire book is in the second person and he won't go more than a page without attacking the reader
- A chapter describing the Greek mush that he eats in his car in the woods every day
Great stuff, couldn't put it down.
- Hundreds of pages of psychoanalytic review of the New Testament and Thucydides' History of the History of the Peloponnesian War, some of which is factually incorrect/so obviously wrong that it isn't worth engaging with (he spends ~40 pages trying to reinterpret the "fishers of men" comment from Mark, then admits that no Bible scholar has ever agreed with him)
- An interesting analysis of The Giving Tree
- This quote, which is never explained: "Within days of the U.S. Federal Reserve beginning its gigantic third round of bond purchases-- 5 years after the first and double the amount-- the comedy group Lonely Island released a song called 'YOLO: You Only Live Once.'"
- 30 pages of screenplay for a trailer for a pornographic movie, complete with sheet music
- The most hostile writing style I've ever encountered - the entire book is in the second person and he won't go more than a page without attacking the reader
- A chapter describing the Greek mush that he eats in his car in the woods every day
Great stuff, couldn't put it down.
October 25, 2022
Genius and insane book, mostly on democracy but also on pornography, psychoanalysis, ancient greek tragedies.
September 23, 2022
Sadly porn
The introduction attempts to perform some kind of expectations judo where the author tells you you won't like the book in order to either prove you wrong or make you predictable and therefore stupid or shallow. It's veiled as a preemptive trigger warning for people the author assumes won't like the book but I don't think that's fooling anyone.
The main idea boils down to the concept that pornography is a result of our cultures' repression of love. That the desirability and therefore fantasy of achieving a fulfilling partner is determined not by how compatible you are or your common interests, but by making your partner a "positional good". Something that only has value because other people want it. Essentially, what people fantasize about is achieving the prize of a partner as a trophy or validating symbol. The pornography itself is a fulfillment of this trophy fantasy without the work of a relationship, the hardship of rejection. The possession of the positional good achieving it's value only by depriving ownership to desiring others. In other words "My thing is great because you all want it but I only get it" Replace "thing" with "partner".
Porn, and by extension all culture, teaches us to desire what we're taught to desire in popular media as a way to avoid being unfulfilled in our own fantasies. Our worth being determined by how closely our reality matches the expectation of our fantasy or what popular culture tells us we should be striving for and enjoy. This becomes true not just for sexual fantasies but can be extended to all fantasies. Political, social, personal, absurd. The fantasy not only substitutes true desire but it also is built on a foundation of depriving another or oneself. Possibly, a fantasy is a rebound due to the repression of another , more socially forbidden desire.
The book reads like a giant blog of information with tentative attachments to the major theme of pornography. You can tell the author, during the editing process, decided to keep writing with huge many dozen page long footnote references to earlier texts. This book is in need of an external editor to make the ideas flow better and stick to the major theme. Often times you'll find yourself in nested examples of nested examples of a flimsy point being made. While it's interesting, it's not something you can chug through quickly enough for the final point to have a good impact.
Except it's all speculative bullshit. Could barely get half way before I realized it's not a worthy read. The giving tree? Spartan and Athenian war? What are you even talking about at this point. Get an editor.
The introduction attempts to perform some kind of expectations judo where the author tells you you won't like the book in order to either prove you wrong or make you predictable and therefore stupid or shallow. It's veiled as a preemptive trigger warning for people the author assumes won't like the book but I don't think that's fooling anyone.
The main idea boils down to the concept that pornography is a result of our cultures' repression of love. That the desirability and therefore fantasy of achieving a fulfilling partner is determined not by how compatible you are or your common interests, but by making your partner a "positional good". Something that only has value because other people want it. Essentially, what people fantasize about is achieving the prize of a partner as a trophy or validating symbol. The pornography itself is a fulfillment of this trophy fantasy without the work of a relationship, the hardship of rejection. The possession of the positional good achieving it's value only by depriving ownership to desiring others. In other words "My thing is great because you all want it but I only get it" Replace "thing" with "partner".
Porn, and by extension all culture, teaches us to desire what we're taught to desire in popular media as a way to avoid being unfulfilled in our own fantasies. Our worth being determined by how closely our reality matches the expectation of our fantasy or what popular culture tells us we should be striving for and enjoy. This becomes true not just for sexual fantasies but can be extended to all fantasies. Political, social, personal, absurd. The fantasy not only substitutes true desire but it also is built on a foundation of depriving another or oneself. Possibly, a fantasy is a rebound due to the repression of another , more socially forbidden desire.
The book reads like a giant blog of information with tentative attachments to the major theme of pornography. You can tell the author, during the editing process, decided to keep writing with huge many dozen page long footnote references to earlier texts. This book is in need of an external editor to make the ideas flow better and stick to the major theme. Often times you'll find yourself in nested examples of nested examples of a flimsy point being made. While it's interesting, it's not something you can chug through quickly enough for the final point to have a good impact.
Except it's all speculative bullshit. Could barely get half way before I realized it's not a worthy read. The giving tree? Spartan and Athenian war? What are you even talking about at this point. Get an editor.
Read
July 13, 2022There is no star rating to give for this. If you are the kind of person that needs to read this - and you should pray you are not - it can change your life; more importantly, change the lives of those around you.
If you are not that kind of person, there is nothing of value for you in this book.
I suggest starting with the articles from the blog "The Last Psychiatrist" tagged with "Narcissism", reading through all of them in chronological order. Then, if it clicked, you can tackle this book.
It won't be pretty.
If you are not that kind of person, there is nothing of value for you in this book.
I suggest starting with the articles from the blog "The Last Psychiatrist" tagged with "Narcissism", reading through all of them in chronological order. Then, if it clicked, you can tackle this book.
It won't be pretty.
March 25, 2022
It's a book about everything. Partly summed up with the quote "the thought doesn't count. No one should be counting anything". Also, the only one star review calls it antisemitic and sexist, so that should be enough to convince you it's worth reading.
April 7, 2022
Mind-imploding.
That is all.
That is all.
Want to read
July 2, 2022Gonna be honest, the main reason I haven't read this yet is the intellectual intimidation resulting from the complacency of my years-long assumption that it would never be written
June 24, 2022
The sort of stuff that’s way more interesting to think about than to read about, and the sort of insights that are way more convincing when thought than when read. The former is a plausible connection of unconnected but true facts, the latter is a plausible connection of plausible facts, which is as good as saying nothing: meaningless Everett-interpretation psychology except when viewed from the inside, which I cannot, because brown. That said, the not-infrequent flows of manic lucidity will likely take 9 out of 10 spots on a YT compilation of best rants/monologues this year, and the even-more not-infrequent device of Merkle tree psychologizing is opaque enough to be hypnotic and transparent enough to reveal metastructure, but never laterally complete enough to suggest Skynet has awoken. In its undarkening of the ultimate darkness, it is more lightning bolt than floodlight, more laser pointer than lamp.
Redacted.
Women’s suffrage: movements in N.E, but actual suffrage first in Wyoming and Utah, not to expand the vote but to nullify it - hosts of immigrants working on the railroad. White men in power have more in common with white women (that they control) than over the godless immigrants. Any social crisis sees reins given to women to preserve culture. Why W/Utah and not Colorado? Suffrage in former was enacted by legislative action not democratic assent. In Colorado, it was a referendum, and suffrage lost, with 6000 white men outvoted by 16000 mexicans.
Undoubtedly someone is going to toss the words heteronormative and individualizing the structural at me, and that person should stop reading immediately, not just this book but all books, your mind is broken and it is better suited for TV.
I have written a book, and the only thing I use in this book is words. Everything else that happens is your fault.
An example was the early admiration/infatuation with Pope Francis by America's atheists. Since the world is in such “desperate need of global leadership”, a leader of a religion that has no power over you is the perfect leader to lead-- everybody else.
it wants individuality to cede to collective individualism-- ego death for a stronger superego-- because democratic individuals who think they are unique will always follow the herd, each one applauding himself for discovering on his own the narrow ramp that leads to utopia.
it isn't novelty seeking, it is planned obsolescence, in some cases by the marketers and in all cases by your own psychology: you don't want something novel, you want a status quo that takes you by incremental steps into the future while you hang on tight so you can take credit for the movement.
The poetry and science fiction of the 19th century may seem irrelevant in a world intoxicated with the advances of modern genetic science and late stage capitalism, but you can learn a lot from history, not because history repeats or rhymes, but because when people regress, they choose a place and time in which whatever knowledge they think they have today might have been powerful then; so it’s useful to study their fiction and see how far back we have to go to get them to believe they could act.
Redacted.
Women’s suffrage: movements in N.E, but actual suffrage first in Wyoming and Utah, not to expand the vote but to nullify it - hosts of immigrants working on the railroad. White men in power have more in common with white women (that they control) than over the godless immigrants. Any social crisis sees reins given to women to preserve culture. Why W/Utah and not Colorado? Suffrage in former was enacted by legislative action not democratic assent. In Colorado, it was a referendum, and suffrage lost, with 6000 white men outvoted by 16000 mexicans.
Undoubtedly someone is going to toss the words heteronormative and individualizing the structural at me, and that person should stop reading immediately, not just this book but all books, your mind is broken and it is better suited for TV.
I have written a book, and the only thing I use in this book is words. Everything else that happens is your fault.
An example was the early admiration/infatuation with Pope Francis by America's atheists. Since the world is in such “desperate need of global leadership”, a leader of a religion that has no power over you is the perfect leader to lead-- everybody else.
it wants individuality to cede to collective individualism-- ego death for a stronger superego-- because democratic individuals who think they are unique will always follow the herd, each one applauding himself for discovering on his own the narrow ramp that leads to utopia.
it isn't novelty seeking, it is planned obsolescence, in some cases by the marketers and in all cases by your own psychology: you don't want something novel, you want a status quo that takes you by incremental steps into the future while you hang on tight so you can take credit for the movement.
The poetry and science fiction of the 19th century may seem irrelevant in a world intoxicated with the advances of modern genetic science and late stage capitalism, but you can learn a lot from history, not because history repeats or rhymes, but because when people regress, they choose a place and time in which whatever knowledge they think they have today might have been powerful then; so it’s useful to study their fiction and see how far back we have to go to get them to believe they could act.
Currently reading
January 4, 2022Unquestionably the greatest philosophy book I have ever read (NOTE: chapter one is vividly pornographic, you have been warned).
Read
June 4, 2022"Someone like him uses his fantasies to work out what he will do, while you use someone else's fantasies to get out of work"
"The consequence of a video life is that any inner life that cannot be videoed cannot be lived. It cannot even be imagined."
-------
I don't really have a strong background in Athenian history, or psychoanalysis, or in the nuance around biblical translation & interpretation, but with that being said there's still much to gain from getting beat over the head by TLP. As usual there are a lot of pithy and insightful passages, and as usual, it is genuinely laugh out loud funny. For whatever reason, this book feels more high stakes than his his other work, more urgent, maybe its just to do with the time he put into it, or maybe something more substantial.
I don't have too much insightful to say, so I'll refrain from saying more, but I always come away from TLP with a few genuinely troubling insights to chew on (very slowly and painfully) regarding how good we are at lying about ourselves, to ourselves, and in dialogue with ourselves, whilst everyone else (and ultimately, ourselves too, if we can even get that far in confronting it) has to bear the consequences.
"The consequence of a video life is that any inner life that cannot be videoed cannot be lived. It cannot even be imagined."
-------
I don't really have a strong background in Athenian history, or psychoanalysis, or in the nuance around biblical translation & interpretation, but with that being said there's still much to gain from getting beat over the head by TLP. As usual there are a lot of pithy and insightful passages, and as usual, it is genuinely laugh out loud funny. For whatever reason, this book feels more high stakes than his his other work, more urgent, maybe its just to do with the time he put into it, or maybe something more substantial.
I don't have too much insightful to say, so I'll refrain from saying more, but I always come away from TLP with a few genuinely troubling insights to chew on (very slowly and painfully) regarding how good we are at lying about ourselves, to ourselves, and in dialogue with ourselves, whilst everyone else (and ultimately, ourselves too, if we can even get that far in confronting it) has to bear the consequences.
July 17, 2022
This book has influenced me more than any other. I feel inspired to become a more effective form of myself. I'm constantly impressed by his ability to reframe situations.
That said, this book is an atrocity. I'd like to recommend it to others but it begs to be misinterpreted. Most of themes appear in his blog, The Last Psychiatrist. The ideas are more accessible there, and his style is less acidic.
He explores the consequences of a culture dominated by narcissism, and the way that media is used within that culture. He also makes some extreme claims about the reader. There are too many themes for me to do justice to them here. For instance, he supports his argument by reinterpreting Thucydides. Some part of me is amazed that this book attracts readers.
Little side complaint:
He constantly references repression. That part sucks actually. Maybe repression exists? To talk about it seems impossible though. "Hey you have hidden motivations that I can see but you can't. Let me tell you about yourself". Yikes. It could easily be a way to gain power over the reader, or to have an excuse for reinterpreting any story of your choice. As soon as repression is fair game, we've more than doubled the amount of stories we have. Everything can suddenly be reopened.
That said, this book is an atrocity. I'd like to recommend it to others but it begs to be misinterpreted. Most of themes appear in his blog, The Last Psychiatrist. The ideas are more accessible there, and his style is less acidic.
He explores the consequences of a culture dominated by narcissism, and the way that media is used within that culture. He also makes some extreme claims about the reader. There are too many themes for me to do justice to them here. For instance, he supports his argument by reinterpreting Thucydides. Some part of me is amazed that this book attracts readers.
Little side complaint:
He constantly references repression. That part sucks actually. Maybe repression exists? To talk about it seems impossible though. "Hey you have hidden motivations that I can see but you can't. Let me tell you about yourself". Yikes. It could easily be a way to gain power over the reader, or to have an excuse for reinterpreting any story of your choice. As soon as repression is fair game, we've more than doubled the amount of stories we have. Everything can suddenly be reopened.
March 9, 2022
Scratches a much needed Žižek itch.
The pop culture works analyzed are: Oedepus Rex, the psychopath test, women's suffrage, The Devil Wear Prada, Maleficent, Giving Tree, Daniel before the lions in the bible, Eyes wide shut, Alcibides, Rebecca, Sex and the City, The Christmas Carol, The Boy in Striped Pyjamas, Read Window, Thucydides' Trap, Abstain from beans , Gone Girl , Interpretation of Dreams , Harry Potter EP 3, and Fifty Shades of Grey.
He also claims to analyze a movie called Affirmative Consent that was a porno from the 90s that I am 90% sure does not exist.
You really really need to have read the material he analyzes beforehand.
(ALSO: funeral oration, pulp fiction, Scarlett letter, Rocking horse winter, Faust, Transformers age of extinction)
The pop culture works analyzed are: Oedepus Rex, the psychopath test, women's suffrage, The Devil Wear Prada, Maleficent, Giving Tree, Daniel before the lions in the bible, Eyes wide shut, Alcibides, Rebecca, Sex and the City, The Christmas Carol, The Boy in Striped Pyjamas, Read Window, Thucydides' Trap, Abstain from beans , Gone Girl , Interpretation of Dreams , Harry Potter EP 3, and Fifty Shades of Grey.
He also claims to analyze a movie called Affirmative Consent that was a porno from the 90s that I am 90% sure does not exist.
You really really need to have read the material he analyzes beforehand.
(ALSO: funeral oration, pulp fiction, Scarlett letter, Rocking horse winter, Faust, Transformers age of extinction)
February 17, 2022
Unsure if its anti-semitic, mysognist, racist because the writing is very convoluted in some places , but it sure does seem like it is at several points, and because it's so convoluted at many points it can easily be seen as that out of context anyway. Would not suggest , though the author would suggest that this is simply a mental defense to avoid action , and me writing this is to placate the desires of others. Do not read.
December 20, 2022
SUMMARY NOTES:
The superego (now or cyclically outsourced to god, the state, the corporation, or the audience) is assumed to be omnipotent, and therefore NOT omniscient (and can be tricked), therefore we are omniscient and impotent (or we are such and cause/manifest our superegos to be the reverse).
The correct order of things is that the superego (but here specifically ME, bound to myself only, ideally) is omniscient/not omnipotent, and the ego, I, can therefore be POTENT - act.
But a core problem is that for a very long time, or at least cyclically through history, politically democratized subjects will willingly corrode this ability to act by surrendering our power to an omnipotent superego - a tyrant - and engage in rhetoric about the “issues” as an end in itself; we allow something else (some omnipotent entity) to frame the argument, then we debate the conclusions, thus taking “credit” for what actions MEAN without taking responsibility for the actions themselves, let alone ACTING, EVER, PERIOD.
All media (pop culture, news, films, books etc) are a psychological defense. The defense takes the form of thinking that knowledge will increase our ability to act at all (let alone act well) when in reality not only does it not do that, it actually prevents action on purpose by we who manifested it: it is used to run out the clock on any action because we are “collecting info”. The imperative comes from no one (except the media, which we manifested) and serves no one; it only serves the inaction and preservation of the status quo.
The conditions that lead to impotence in reality is that the subject, the ego, cannot enjoy. His/her only emotions are envy and rage. So, the only joy he gets is from depriving the other from joy.
Hyperefficient capitalism gives us whatever we ask/pay for (nothing more AND notably NOTHING LESS), not what we want and certainly not need. Media (that we have caused to manifest) as the PR campaign of status quo is not, or not only, showing us what to want, but is teaching us how to want.
One outcome of this is that we have “stopped believing love exists” as a “knowledgeable/enlightened” defense against having to be dependable and dependent on the other, on any other.
The solution is to actually love people (recognize them as ends in themselves?). And to prepare the next generation. Not just to act, but to act dependably because we are responsible to the next generation, and all acts should be in service of preparing the next gen to replace us.
We fantasize someone else’s fantasies because we have lost the ability to fantasize anything else - cannot, because we cannot enjoy, which is why fantasies (Gone Girl, porn) feature the hidden (repressed) satisfaction in depriving the other, or as with porn, does in itself deprive the other in real life of satisfaction (the real wife).
Fantasies of getting "the big break" are not just delusions but also defenses - imagining the hard work getting to whatever goal would make the goal itself not count because “I wasn’t special” it just means I got it through effort, through action, like everyone else could (but in the delusion, either everyone else’s goals are reached unfairly, or the goal itself is reframed to be stupid).
Note - the subject can REACT (something compelled me to!) but not act.
Secondary sources are promulgated in education and the media to wall off primary sources. Read the primary sources, they're not as difficult as you think.
So the average joe in this formulation:
Is impotent.
Seeks knowledge, "omniscience", in order to distinguish himself from the other impotents.
Sees some key figures (tyrants, or celebrities, or whatever) as potent, without knowledge - able to act, but undeserving of what they gain, and to be rejoiced over when they fail
The imagined potent other: envy is caused by and causes
The imagined impotent other: rage is caused by and causes
Does not know how to want, and therefore can never be satisfied
Wants to be "the main character in a story written by someone else"
As a result can only want a negation of others' (perceived) wants and satisfactions; depriving the other, and settling the ledger - keeping score
"Revenge above morality and gain above justice"
So - what in my life are hidden defenses?
The cause of desire (or terror) is the mask, not what lies underneath. So whatever is actually under the mask CANNOT cause your anxiety or lust. The mask negates what is underneath.
Inner journeys cannot be made into outward narratives, so they are abandoned (cannot even be imagined). Privacy is actively discouraged by the system we manifested.
Clear desire, clear goals, clear actions - keep this at the forefront of your mind.
Guilt (not shame) is freedom; you bond yourself to yourself and free yourself from everyone else. Modern and po-mo culture is free of guilt, and substitutes shame for guilt.
Envy that longs for tyranny; Freedom vs tyranny has devolved into knowledge vs power.
The superego (now or cyclically outsourced to god, the state, the corporation, or the audience) is assumed to be omnipotent, and therefore NOT omniscient (and can be tricked), therefore we are omniscient and impotent (or we are such and cause/manifest our superegos to be the reverse).
The correct order of things is that the superego (but here specifically ME, bound to myself only, ideally) is omniscient/not omnipotent, and the ego, I, can therefore be POTENT - act.
But a core problem is that for a very long time, or at least cyclically through history, politically democratized subjects will willingly corrode this ability to act by surrendering our power to an omnipotent superego - a tyrant - and engage in rhetoric about the “issues” as an end in itself; we allow something else (some omnipotent entity) to frame the argument, then we debate the conclusions, thus taking “credit” for what actions MEAN without taking responsibility for the actions themselves, let alone ACTING, EVER, PERIOD.
All media (pop culture, news, films, books etc) are a psychological defense. The defense takes the form of thinking that knowledge will increase our ability to act at all (let alone act well) when in reality not only does it not do that, it actually prevents action on purpose by we who manifested it: it is used to run out the clock on any action because we are “collecting info”. The imperative comes from no one (except the media, which we manifested) and serves no one; it only serves the inaction and preservation of the status quo.
The conditions that lead to impotence in reality is that the subject, the ego, cannot enjoy. His/her only emotions are envy and rage. So, the only joy he gets is from depriving the other from joy.
Hyperefficient capitalism gives us whatever we ask/pay for (nothing more AND notably NOTHING LESS), not what we want and certainly not need. Media (that we have caused to manifest) as the PR campaign of status quo is not, or not only, showing us what to want, but is teaching us how to want.
One outcome of this is that we have “stopped believing love exists” as a “knowledgeable/enlightened” defense against having to be dependable and dependent on the other, on any other.
The solution is to actually love people (recognize them as ends in themselves?). And to prepare the next generation. Not just to act, but to act dependably because we are responsible to the next generation, and all acts should be in service of preparing the next gen to replace us.
We fantasize someone else’s fantasies because we have lost the ability to fantasize anything else - cannot, because we cannot enjoy, which is why fantasies (Gone Girl, porn) feature the hidden (repressed) satisfaction in depriving the other, or as with porn, does in itself deprive the other in real life of satisfaction (the real wife).
Fantasies of getting "the big break" are not just delusions but also defenses - imagining the hard work getting to whatever goal would make the goal itself not count because “I wasn’t special” it just means I got it through effort, through action, like everyone else could (but in the delusion, either everyone else’s goals are reached unfairly, or the goal itself is reframed to be stupid).
Note - the subject can REACT (something compelled me to!) but not act.
Secondary sources are promulgated in education and the media to wall off primary sources. Read the primary sources, they're not as difficult as you think.
So the average joe in this formulation:
Is impotent.
Seeks knowledge, "omniscience", in order to distinguish himself from the other impotents.
Sees some key figures (tyrants, or celebrities, or whatever) as potent, without knowledge - able to act, but undeserving of what they gain, and to be rejoiced over when they fail
The imagined potent other: envy is caused by and causes
The imagined impotent other: rage is caused by and causes
Does not know how to want, and therefore can never be satisfied
Wants to be "the main character in a story written by someone else"
As a result can only want a negation of others' (perceived) wants and satisfactions; depriving the other, and settling the ledger - keeping score
"Revenge above morality and gain above justice"
So - what in my life are hidden defenses?
The cause of desire (or terror) is the mask, not what lies underneath. So whatever is actually under the mask CANNOT cause your anxiety or lust. The mask negates what is underneath.
Inner journeys cannot be made into outward narratives, so they are abandoned (cannot even be imagined). Privacy is actively discouraged by the system we manifested.
Clear desire, clear goals, clear actions - keep this at the forefront of your mind.
Guilt (not shame) is freedom; you bond yourself to yourself and free yourself from everyone else. Modern and po-mo culture is free of guilt, and substitutes shame for guilt.
Envy that longs for tyranny; Freedom vs tyranny has devolved into knowledge vs power.
July 6, 2022
Not even done but I'm 90% there and can already tell how this is gonna go. I'm not quite up to the task of the book, nor do I care to be.* It's intermittently fun and makes some good points but it's definitely not "enjoyable" taken as a whole** and I would never recommend it to anyone else. TLP was important to me in blog form but I'm just not that lad anymore.
*essentially it's really hard to be a *book* about how knowledge is used as a crutch by those who lack power. Like, books is knowledge, innit. I often ended up in this sort of feedback loop with the text where it's like "you're such a moron. You love to LEARN THINGS about yourself and not change, don't you, you little whore?" and I'd be like "OK I will put you down and go for a walk then", and then Alone would be like "lmao typical millennial narcissist too afraid to put in the work and READ", and when I was 19 and reading the blog I would've been like "damn, no, I'm Not Like The Other Girls, I'm gonna read the WHOLE THING, that'll show you!" but now I am just like "yep. Going for that walk now." "Noooooo, you're supposed to reading Thucydides and the Gospel of Luke in the original Greek and do your algebra hom-" Alone. Buddy. I am almost twenty-four. The time for such things has passed. What I *need* to do is get a fucking job.
The funny part is that's the lesson of the blog *and* of the book. He was always saying "[the sorts of character deficiencies he railed against] are fine until you're twenty-five or so. Then, it's over. Focus on not fucking up everyone else's life." It's even somewhere in the book, can't tell you where because there aren't any fucking chapters or divisions [see footnote 2]! Tee hee! So, unfortunately, by his own guidance, 'unlocking' Sadly, Porn - reading Thucydides, reading Lacan, even being bothered to finish the book - is drastically low on my list of Shit To Do. For whatever reason, and there are lots, that sort of curiosity, that got me to uni but not through it, no longer exists in me and I have zero interest in getting it back. It's honestly better this way. I got stuff to do. I gotta stop thinking and do it. And stop writing goodreads reviews tbf
**90% of the book is formatted like this, where the footnotes drastically outweigh the actual body of text. The first couples times it happens you're like "lmao classic alone, what a characteristically quirky choice" but it eventually becomes clear that 'making you work harder' is a crutch for 'not being able to put across points clearly'. I know he CAN, because he did it constantly on the blog; that he does not should not be taken as a sign of complexity or a deliberate choice, as I have seen some commentators say, but as a genuine failing. It's okay, I've rushed essays before. I've failed to finish my music - an equivalent 'passion project' rather than any sort of work/school based necessary output - on time. It's just that the overarching theme of the book is "these days, no one puts as much effort into anything as me!". How about some chapters, fam. Would be a start. "That would be too easy, this book is supposed to be impossible to read because-" Because you're a cunt and you don't believe in your point being understood, do you. Otherwise you'd just write it. Or not. Alone need study Kierkegaard. All the spooky "beware of REAL thought, right this way, I promise" shit dotted about is just Porn, Sadly.
*essentially it's really hard to be a *book* about how knowledge is used as a crutch by those who lack power. Like, books is knowledge, innit. I often ended up in this sort of feedback loop with the text where it's like "you're such a moron. You love to LEARN THINGS about yourself and not change, don't you, you little whore?" and I'd be like "OK I will put you down and go for a walk then", and then Alone would be like "lmao typical millennial narcissist too afraid to put in the work and READ", and when I was 19 and reading the blog I would've been like "damn, no, I'm Not Like The Other Girls, I'm gonna read the WHOLE THING, that'll show you!" but now I am just like "yep. Going for that walk now." "Noooooo, you're supposed to reading Thucydides and the Gospel of Luke in the original Greek and do your algebra hom-" Alone. Buddy. I am almost twenty-four. The time for such things has passed. What I *need* to do is get a fucking job.
The funny part is that's the lesson of the blog *and* of the book. He was always saying "[the sorts of character deficiencies he railed against] are fine until you're twenty-five or so. Then, it's over. Focus on not fucking up everyone else's life." It's even somewhere in the book, can't tell you where because there aren't any fucking chapters or divisions [see footnote 2]! Tee hee! So, unfortunately, by his own guidance, 'unlocking' Sadly, Porn - reading Thucydides, reading Lacan, even being bothered to finish the book - is drastically low on my list of Shit To Do. For whatever reason, and there are lots, that sort of curiosity, that got me to uni but not through it, no longer exists in me and I have zero interest in getting it back. It's honestly better this way. I got stuff to do. I gotta stop thinking and do it. And stop writing goodreads reviews tbf
**90% of the book is formatted like this, where the footnotes drastically outweigh the actual body of text. The first couples times it happens you're like "lmao classic alone, what a characteristically quirky choice" but it eventually becomes clear that 'making you work harder' is a crutch for 'not being able to put across points clearly'. I know he CAN, because he did it constantly on the blog; that he does not should not be taken as a sign of complexity or a deliberate choice, as I have seen some commentators say, but as a genuine failing. It's okay, I've rushed essays before. I've failed to finish my music - an equivalent 'passion project' rather than any sort of work/school based necessary output - on time. It's just that the overarching theme of the book is "these days, no one puts as much effort into anything as me!". How about some chapters, fam. Would be a start. "That would be too easy, this book is supposed to be impossible to read because-" Because you're a cunt and you don't believe in your point being understood, do you. Otherwise you'd just write it. Or not. Alone need study Kierkegaard. All the spooky "beware of REAL thought, right this way, I promise" shit dotted about is just Porn, Sadly.
December 22, 2022
Imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever — and you like it. No matter what your politics are or who you vote for, no matter what books you've read or movies you've seen, when the boot comes crashing down upon thee you will get on your knees and lick it and call it daddy.
This is who Alone assumes you are, likewise he assumes that you know who he is, so he does not want to be who you think he is. You thought he was "the narcissism guy" when he was The Last Psychiatrist and so you organized your life to avoid this superego potentially calling out your narcissism from beyond the veil of anonymity. Surprise — God is always watching, and he knows what you did.
Most people who haven't actually read it like to decry its "misanthropic" style. Maybe the style is misanthropic, but it is misanthropic in the way that the Zen master thwacking you with his shit-wiping stick is misanthropic: he is only trying to enlighten you, whatever it takes. And usually it takes a lot.
What is takes is insults, profanity, obscenity, psychoanalysis, logic puzzles, Lacanian thought-loops, Deleuzian obfuscation, Ancient Greek plays, invented primary sources, repetitive demands that you read primary sources, more insults, smut lit, and blackpills. And if you can stomach it, even if you can't digest it all, then there is presumably hope for you.
You are the protagonist of Sadly, Porn. You are a modern creature, seeking knowledge to mask that you have no power, seeking resentment to mask that you have no charisma, and clinging to envy to mask that you are incapable of love. Whether this is broadly true for you or not, there is always that shadow in you, something repressed, for which this is true.
This is the part that Alone is writing for, the part he berates continuously, attempting to get past every defense. Every book and film and play and dream, every Bible passage and porn scenario picked apart in this massive tome is an attempt to come at this shadow from a different angle, to name it in all its shapes and forms. It is not something that can easily be named, even the great Jesus Christ could only allude to it. This is why it takes Alone 1000+ pages.
Are the insults directed at me? says the unintegrated self who is afraid that the master is right. Certainly I seek knowledge but doesn't that knowledge inherently grant me some power, can't my maps of meaning bring about God's Kingdom on Earth? And the master, having switched from rum to 1:4 diluted wine (because he's not a barbarian), says that knowledge is all about you but power is not, because power is the means by which knowledge is shared. The power of one is tyranny, but the power of many, literally, is a democracy.
Alone ends the book with a blackpill because he knows you won't believe him. He knows that you are going to reject the verdict having heard the evidence. And this renders you free — free of the system, of the Ledger, free from impotence and narcissism, from Lysander and Thucydides and Edward Teach, from suffering and ill-will — free from porn.
This is who Alone assumes you are, likewise he assumes that you know who he is, so he does not want to be who you think he is. You thought he was "the narcissism guy" when he was The Last Psychiatrist and so you organized your life to avoid this superego potentially calling out your narcissism from beyond the veil of anonymity. Surprise — God is always watching, and he knows what you did.
Most people who haven't actually read it like to decry its "misanthropic" style. Maybe the style is misanthropic, but it is misanthropic in the way that the Zen master thwacking you with his shit-wiping stick is misanthropic: he is only trying to enlighten you, whatever it takes. And usually it takes a lot.
What is takes is insults, profanity, obscenity, psychoanalysis, logic puzzles, Lacanian thought-loops, Deleuzian obfuscation, Ancient Greek plays, invented primary sources, repetitive demands that you read primary sources, more insults, smut lit, and blackpills. And if you can stomach it, even if you can't digest it all, then there is presumably hope for you.
You are the protagonist of Sadly, Porn. You are a modern creature, seeking knowledge to mask that you have no power, seeking resentment to mask that you have no charisma, and clinging to envy to mask that you are incapable of love. Whether this is broadly true for you or not, there is always that shadow in you, something repressed, for which this is true.
This is the part that Alone is writing for, the part he berates continuously, attempting to get past every defense. Every book and film and play and dream, every Bible passage and porn scenario picked apart in this massive tome is an attempt to come at this shadow from a different angle, to name it in all its shapes and forms. It is not something that can easily be named, even the great Jesus Christ could only allude to it. This is why it takes Alone 1000+ pages.
Are the insults directed at me? says the unintegrated self who is afraid that the master is right. Certainly I seek knowledge but doesn't that knowledge inherently grant me some power, can't my maps of meaning bring about God's Kingdom on Earth? And the master, having switched from rum to 1:4 diluted wine (because he's not a barbarian), says that knowledge is all about you but power is not, because power is the means by which knowledge is shared. The power of one is tyranny, but the power of many, literally, is a democracy.
Alone ends the book with a blackpill because he knows you won't believe him. He knows that you are going to reject the verdict having heard the evidence. And this renders you free — free of the system, of the Ledger, free from impotence and narcissism, from Lysander and Thucydides and Edward Teach, from suffering and ill-will — free from porn.
March 1, 2022
Understanding the full scope of this book doesn't seem to me like something one does in a single reading. The richness of the analysis provided, and how much his interpretations seem one step ahead, even if bordering on mania, warrant at least another read. So it's clear I have really enjoyed the book, but all the insights provided seem to contradict one of it's most central messages: knowledge is a defense against impotence in that it makes you more comfortable with being unable to act - because at least you know; if this is so, isn't the knowledge Alone gives us preventing action?
Somehow, his offensive style could be seen as a push towards action as a reaction to humiliation. But then again, one would be reacting, not acting as a consequence of one's desire. So he couldn't write this book without this difficult problem: how can I inspire action if not by offering knowledge?
Aside from this, I mostly found value in the notion of ledger and how it's balance drives behaviour. It's a very interesting idea that we could behave out of envy for others in an attempt to balance a ledger, according to him by depriving others rather then by gaining something for ourselves. Even if you disagree with how he poses the argument, it's an interesting take on relationships (and in an inability to love).
On the inability to love, there's also great value in his idea that we fundamentally try to escape from dependence, especially from being depended upon. This is connected with our fundamental inability to act (that I was, however, unable to understand fully in regards to its origins), given that to be depended upon would require us to act and be responsible for acting as opposed to simply reacting to an unbalanced ledger.
Some of his ideas are very thought provoking (sadly for him, as he would much rather have them be action provoking), and outright offensive. Still, I kind of feel none of that matters, or at least matters very little, because it allows the discussion of views that don't fit the status quo. You also have to be prepared to deal with the writing of someone who was able to write extensively on narcisism due to probably suffering from it. This means you have to put up with him bragging about deadlifting, about being an overachieving outcast that writes in the woods on his lunch time, but still being able to commit himself to writing a book to not destroy the lives of people around him (how's that for a humble brag about his own power over others?).
I wish I could write more on other ideias he presents, but this review is already longer than I intended. One final note on the "readability" of this book: the footnotes are maybe almost as long as the main text. This makes keeping focus rather difficult, but I found it easier to read the main text first and then the footnotes at the end of each section. Regardless of how you choose to do it, don't skip them as they are central to the ideas presented.
Somehow, his offensive style could be seen as a push towards action as a reaction to humiliation. But then again, one would be reacting, not acting as a consequence of one's desire. So he couldn't write this book without this difficult problem: how can I inspire action if not by offering knowledge?
Aside from this, I mostly found value in the notion of ledger and how it's balance drives behaviour. It's a very interesting idea that we could behave out of envy for others in an attempt to balance a ledger, according to him by depriving others rather then by gaining something for ourselves. Even if you disagree with how he poses the argument, it's an interesting take on relationships (and in an inability to love).
On the inability to love, there's also great value in his idea that we fundamentally try to escape from dependence, especially from being depended upon. This is connected with our fundamental inability to act (that I was, however, unable to understand fully in regards to its origins), given that to be depended upon would require us to act and be responsible for acting as opposed to simply reacting to an unbalanced ledger.
Some of his ideas are very thought provoking (sadly for him, as he would much rather have them be action provoking), and outright offensive. Still, I kind of feel none of that matters, or at least matters very little, because it allows the discussion of views that don't fit the status quo. You also have to be prepared to deal with the writing of someone who was able to write extensively on narcisism due to probably suffering from it. This means you have to put up with him bragging about deadlifting, about being an overachieving outcast that writes in the woods on his lunch time, but still being able to commit himself to writing a book to not destroy the lives of people around him (how's that for a humble brag about his own power over others?).
I wish I could write more on other ideias he presents, but this review is already longer than I intended. One final note on the "readability" of this book: the footnotes are maybe almost as long as the main text. This makes keeping focus rather difficult, but I found it easier to read the main text first and then the footnotes at the end of each section. Regardless of how you choose to do it, don't skip them as they are central to the ideas presented.
February 2, 2024
What did I just read? What did I just read? This book took me around a month and a half to read, maybe two months. I took it slow because of the author's style (no chapters, extremely long footnotes). There is plenty of gold to be found in this book (I do suggest skipping entirely the actual pornographic story that is placed early on), particularly the many discussions of Thucydides (a book I read years ago and clearly did not read closely enough per Mr. Teach). I also found the commentary on several of Jesus's gospel stories welcomed diversion. It is rare to get intelligent, in-depth, linguistically sound exegesis. I felt that I profited from the exposure and it gave me ideas on how to think about text as you read it and reflect on it.
The main takeaway, and I wouldn't be surprised if I misunderstood this point, is that porn is successful, even necessary, because there is no love. No romance, that is. Neither men nor women know how to love. I know the more I have reflected on pornography and relationships and love I realize how little I know about what real romantic love is. Pornography is the imitation of love through sexual activity. But what is it imitating? It can't be merely the act, there are layers to the fantasy, to what is being told to people that expresses what love should be. But you have to read Mr. Teach's commentary on this (one part of the book I will revisit in order to understand his reasoning better, since that was 1000 pages ago and my memory is hardly great).
There are a lot of breakdowns of various TV shows, books, and movies. Some I cared for, some I didn't, but almost each was profitable. Eventually, the author's style exhausted me and gave me better appreciation for professional formatting, the creation of tables of contents, indexes, appendices and leaving footnotes alone. But if you read this book you'll know the author doesn't care about that, or you, so you have to deal with it. My biggest gripe about that is how hard it makes it to go back and reference or reread specific sections, a gripe whose foundation exists because the author's musings are of a high quality and worth revisiting.
The main takeaway, and I wouldn't be surprised if I misunderstood this point, is that porn is successful, even necessary, because there is no love. No romance, that is. Neither men nor women know how to love. I know the more I have reflected on pornography and relationships and love I realize how little I know about what real romantic love is. Pornography is the imitation of love through sexual activity. But what is it imitating? It can't be merely the act, there are layers to the fantasy, to what is being told to people that expresses what love should be. But you have to read Mr. Teach's commentary on this (one part of the book I will revisit in order to understand his reasoning better, since that was 1000 pages ago and my memory is hardly great).
There are a lot of breakdowns of various TV shows, books, and movies. Some I cared for, some I didn't, but almost each was profitable. Eventually, the author's style exhausted me and gave me better appreciation for professional formatting, the creation of tables of contents, indexes, appendices and leaving footnotes alone. But if you read this book you'll know the author doesn't care about that, or you, so you have to deal with it. My biggest gripe about that is how hard it makes it to go back and reference or reread specific sections, a gripe whose foundation exists because the author's musings are of a high quality and worth revisiting.
October 2, 2023
Perhaps most people pick up this book because they're familiar with the author's previous work and they're hoping for more of the same. While the tone is certainly the same, the content and scope is much more than you may have bargained for.
Teach takes us through a deep and far-reaching analysis of psychology, literature, history, religion, pop culture, and yes, pornography. I think the book will go over most people's heads, even the heads of people who loved the author's older work. I found myself re-reading many paragraphs carefully to fully absorb the point. I think I understand the thesis pretty well now, but I still struggle to articulate it to friends. This is a shame, because the message is important.
The book is 1,100 pages long because it's extremely difficult to explain Teach's theory. It involves society's increasing inability to fantasize or to take things figuratively, combined with our uncritical acceptance of media and advertising, combined with our vapidity and narcissism, combined with our emotional fragility, short attention spans, and general lack of knowledge despite our education. All of these things, according to Teach, stem from the same psychological source and are leading us toward tyranny.
He argues very convincingly and it's tough to say that he's wrong. "Sadly, Porn" has inspired me to read more of the classics, so that I can help my kids read more of the classics, so that maybe we all have a fighting chance against the way the social wind is blowing. I think everyone should read this book, but the hopelessness of it all is palpable throughout it, and the thesis is sufficiently complicated that I frankly don't think the majority of people will be able to absorb it.
Please do read it. Please try to understand what he's saying.
Teach takes us through a deep and far-reaching analysis of psychology, literature, history, religion, pop culture, and yes, pornography. I think the book will go over most people's heads, even the heads of people who loved the author's older work. I found myself re-reading many paragraphs carefully to fully absorb the point. I think I understand the thesis pretty well now, but I still struggle to articulate it to friends. This is a shame, because the message is important.
The book is 1,100 pages long because it's extremely difficult to explain Teach's theory. It involves society's increasing inability to fantasize or to take things figuratively, combined with our uncritical acceptance of media and advertising, combined with our vapidity and narcissism, combined with our emotional fragility, short attention spans, and general lack of knowledge despite our education. All of these things, according to Teach, stem from the same psychological source and are leading us toward tyranny.
He argues very convincingly and it's tough to say that he's wrong. "Sadly, Porn" has inspired me to read more of the classics, so that I can help my kids read more of the classics, so that maybe we all have a fighting chance against the way the social wind is blowing. I think everyone should read this book, but the hopelessness of it all is palpable throughout it, and the thesis is sufficiently complicated that I frankly don't think the majority of people will be able to absorb it.
Please do read it. Please try to understand what he's saying.
June 7, 2023
I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in challenging convention and learning an entirely new framework to understand the world. If you can get past the deliberately obtuse writing style, the adversarial tone, and outlandishly non sequitur argumentation, you will uncover a world of brilliantly provocative insights.
The most impactful takeaway is Teach's logical explanation for a certain type of status-chasing elite, whose behaviors confound normal people. Edward Teach offers an addendum to the positive-sum conception of "Girardian" mimetic desire: rather than pursuing status mimetically, to be more like the people they admire, there is a class of people who pursue zero-sum status. That is, they pursue status to deprive others of it. Teach's example is a trophy wife: a trophy wife is not the badge of single victory, but a symbol of ongoing victory over others - a loud message that says "this beautiful woman is mine and you can't have her."
For smaller tastes of his worldview, I recommend his blog The Last Psychiatrist or Scott Alexander's book review. Ultimately, however, I recommend that anyone with an open mind read this once-in-a-generation book.
The most impactful takeaway is Teach's logical explanation for a certain type of status-chasing elite, whose behaviors confound normal people. Edward Teach offers an addendum to the positive-sum conception of "Girardian" mimetic desire: rather than pursuing status mimetically, to be more like the people they admire, there is a class of people who pursue zero-sum status. That is, they pursue status to deprive others of it. Teach's example is a trophy wife: a trophy wife is not the badge of single victory, but a symbol of ongoing victory over others - a loud message that says "this beautiful woman is mine and you can't have her."
For smaller tastes of his worldview, I recommend his blog The Last Psychiatrist or Scott Alexander's book review. Ultimately, however, I recommend that anyone with an open mind read this once-in-a-generation book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews