List of books that will induce a mindfuck(everything2.com)
everything2.com
List of books that will induce a mindfuck
https://everything2.com/title/Books+that+will+induce+a+mindfuck
107 comments
I can't get interested in a book if I don't get a warm recommendation. Anyone want to recommend one of the books in that list?
Before looking at the list, two of the books that came to my mind as possible candidates were Permutation City by Greg Egan, and Glasshouse by Charles Stross. Permutation City made the list, and I definitely endorse it.
Glasshouse is not on the list, but I definitely think it's worth a read.
Neuromancer is on the list and it may be my personal favorite novel (if not #1 on my list, it's very close).
A couple of Murakami novels were on the list here. I've read several of his novels and would basically make a blanket statement "read anything by Murakami".
Glasshouse is not on the list, but I definitely think it's worth a read.
Neuromancer is on the list and it may be my personal favorite novel (if not #1 on my list, it's very close).
A couple of Murakami novels were on the list here. I've read several of his novels and would basically make a blanket statement "read anything by Murakami".
I'm about 200 pages into 1Q84, and am not really enjoying it. Is it just not for me, or does it just take a while to get into?
1Q84 marked Murakami's "Float On" moment, chosen I felt to allow him to cash out his career in a Western market.
It wasn't especially superior, just a bit less abstract with a hint of "possible movie adaptation". If you enjoyed his other fiction, check out his nonfiction.
It wasn't especially superior, just a bit less abstract with a hint of "possible movie adaptation". If you enjoyed his other fiction, check out his nonfiction.
> cash out his career in a Western market.
That's funny because one of the plots is about fixing up a book in order to win a literary prize
That's funny because one of the plots is about fixing up a book in order to win a literary prize
I was once a huge fan of Murakami, but I did not enjoy 1Q84.
At the time of first reading his novels, the reason I enjoyed them so much was how different they were to anything else I'd read. They felt like a lazy Sunday afternoon, except weird things keep happening. Sometimes those weird things feel sinister, sometimes not. You just sort of drift through the book, never quite grasping the entirety, but it is soothing enough that you don't care.
However, once you've read a few, the forumula becomes more obvious and starts to lose its appeal. I started with Hard Boiled Wonderland, which I recommend, and another that I enjoyed was The Wind-up Bird Chronicle.
But after that, it is probably enough.
At the time of first reading his novels, the reason I enjoyed them so much was how different they were to anything else I'd read. They felt like a lazy Sunday afternoon, except weird things keep happening. Sometimes those weird things feel sinister, sometimes not. You just sort of drift through the book, never quite grasping the entirety, but it is soothing enough that you don't care.
However, once you've read a few, the forumula becomes more obvious and starts to lose its appeal. I started with Hard Boiled Wonderland, which I recommend, and another that I enjoyed was The Wind-up Bird Chronicle.
But after that, it is probably enough.
I liked some of Murakami's work, but I didn't really like 1Q84. I remember e.g. South of the Border, West of the Sun as being better (that's just the first title that springs to mind).
1Q84 is one of the ones I haven't read personally, so it's hard to say. I can just comment that all of the other Murakami works I've read really "hooked" me right from the beginning.
After Dark was my first and that was pretty much a "I sat down to 'read a few pages' to see if I wanted to read the book or not, and when I looked up I was 2/3rds of the way done" experience.
After Dark was my first and that was pretty much a "I sat down to 'read a few pages' to see if I wanted to read the book or not, and when I looked up I was 2/3rds of the way done" experience.
I would put that aside for now and go back to Hard Boiled Wonderland & the End of the World. That was an incredible read, and much more accessible.
Iain M Banks use of weapon is both an incredibly good book and a portal to the culture series , in which almost all books are just as good.
The Culture series permanently changed my perspective on the universe. Earth is just one more of the oddball primitive worlds well off the beaten path.
Same happens to me, and if I am not interested I can not focus on reading it.
Tor Nørretranders' The User Illusion was a great read, hereby warmly recommended. One of the principal ideas was that our senses take in many orders of magnitude more of data than we are able to be conscious of. I believe he estimated something like 10 Mbps taken in and 80? baud being aware of — something like that, I should read it again sometime.
Many are just classics (and not mindfuck in my opinion).
Hesse is good in general.
Kafka is good in a weird fucked up way and to be recommended after one had to deal with the legal system for example.
Castaneda is interesting fantasy, but many took it literal and a real cult evolved around his books (with him included as the Guru).
Peter Caroll is interesting, if you like the occult.
And Robert Anton Wilsons Illuminatus! is the bible of conspiracy theories.
(But a really good book and deserving of the mindfuck category, I think it popularized the term mindfuck)
Hesse is good in general.
Kafka is good in a weird fucked up way and to be recommended after one had to deal with the legal system for example.
Castaneda is interesting fantasy, but many took it literal and a real cult evolved around his books (with him included as the Guru).
Peter Caroll is interesting, if you like the occult.
And Robert Anton Wilsons Illuminatus! is the bible of conspiracy theories.
(But a really good book and deserving of the mindfuck category, I think it popularized the term mindfuck)
The Trial does deserve the term mindfuck, I think, both because of the story and because it upends the notion of what most people expect of a novel. Kafka's other words are weird and wonderful and not nearly as hard to read as some seem to think, but if you've read The Trial, they're not very mindfuck-y, and that's a big problem with a list like this - each book you read that is still a mindfuck will make a lot of the rest seem pretty pedestrian (though often still good).
Neuromancer and Snow Crash are usually recommended here.
Blindsight by Peter Watts.
That messed with my head but good.
And not necessarily in a good way.
But I have to mention it.
That messed with my head but good.
And not necessarily in a good way.
But I have to mention it.
That one definitely fits definition perfectly. Still can't forget that idea, brr. Scary.
One book not on that list that really threw me recently was The Anomaly [0]. The less you know about it going in the better.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anomaly_(novel).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anomaly_(novel).
As a Spaniard, I don't find South American magical realism books 'mindfuckey', but maybe a bit half-unsetting and half-romantic, as if you gave some kind of personality to the environment itself.
On Focault's Pendulum, [Spoilers, rot13] Gur jubyr obbx vg'f nobhg znxvat sha ba pbafcvenabvqf
On Focault's Pendulum, [Spoilers, rot13] Gur jubyr obbx vg'f nobhg znxvat sha ba pbafcvenabvqf
Nietzsche is on the list, but Nick Land's Fanged Noumena is clearly missing. As Mark Fisher has written about Land's work:
"There was a great deal of cyber-theory around in the 1990s but none of it seemed to come from inside the machines – which is to say, outside us – in the way that Land's did." [0]
[0] https://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/10459/1/...
"There was a great deal of cyber-theory around in the 1990s but none of it seemed to come from inside the machines – which is to say, outside us – in the way that Land's did." [0]
[0] https://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/10459/1/...
Ooh thanks for the quote, I'll happily follow up on something Fisher says is worth a look.
Skimmed through the list.
First problem - it is gigantic. Statistically there is no chance that so many books are so revolutionary genius that they are on some other level etc.
Second problem - it is a generic top100/top500 style list, populated by exact same old "classic" fiction books like every other list on the internet.
There are some "above average" books intersperced in this list, but a casual reader will not know how to find them among the books being there simply on the virtue of being good and 50-100 years old. Being old book is not a virtue, unless we are in a history class.
First problem - it is gigantic. Statistically there is no chance that so many books are so revolutionary genius that they are on some other level etc.
Second problem - it is a generic top100/top500 style list, populated by exact same old "classic" fiction books like every other list on the internet.
There are some "above average" books intersperced in this list, but a casual reader will not know how to find them among the books being there simply on the virtue of being good and 50-100 years old. Being old book is not a virtue, unless we are in a history class.
Wow, 50 years, so old.
It strikes me as a pretty decent list. The books on here I've read (maybe 30%) are worthy of recommendation.
People always get offended by lists, I've noticed.
It strikes me as a pretty decent list. The books on here I've read (maybe 30%) are worthy of recommendation.
People always get offended by lists, I've noticed.
Most of them are worthy of recommendation, but few of them are "mindfucks". Very few have ideas that are particularly out there or unusual.
After being indoctrinated to hate everything about the west and Christianity for most of my life — through school, university, news media, entertainment, and the administrative state
— and after coming to hate the west and Christianity as a consequence of this indoctrination, I really found the following books to be the ultimate mindfucks:
- Heretics by GK Chesterton
- Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton
- Debunking Howard Zinn: Exposing the Fake History That Turned a Generation against America by Mary Grabar
- A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell
- Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World by Tom Holland
- Heretics by GK Chesterton
- Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton
- Debunking Howard Zinn: Exposing the Fake History That Turned a Generation against America by Mary Grabar
- A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell
- Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World by Tom Holland
This "the West and Christianity" thing may reinforce dichotomies that we do not need (East vs West), while glossing over essential distinctions (Christianity vs its Abrahamic roots).
Yes, much is good about Christianity, and yes, it caught on in the West -- but it originated in the Near East, and Ethiopians and Keralites had it first (and still do). Moreover, prior to the Islamic conquests, it was widespread in the countries that we now think of as Muslim. So, while it is central to the culture of Europe, it is also a bit of an adopted alien -- and it is not unique to Europe.
Second, many Protestant readings of Christianity embrace the Old Testament, while underemphasizing the break from Old Testament practices and thought that it represented. You would think that Protestant culture would be more immune to this, because it emphasizes literacy and directly reading the book. But somehow that has led to an uncritical understanding of the Old Testament, instead of to a more Gnostic repudiation. Paul is best in this regard.
Because it is precisely Christianity's reformist elements that made it good. Its universalism. Its New Covenant.
Anyway.
I do appreciate your CK Chesterton references. Some of those are also among my favorites. I very much enjoyed The Man Who was Thursday, one of his works of fiction, a sort of novel -- which, I will only say, subverts expectations, and turns out to be more than a bit philosophical!
Yes, much is good about Christianity, and yes, it caught on in the West -- but it originated in the Near East, and Ethiopians and Keralites had it first (and still do). Moreover, prior to the Islamic conquests, it was widespread in the countries that we now think of as Muslim. So, while it is central to the culture of Europe, it is also a bit of an adopted alien -- and it is not unique to Europe.
Second, many Protestant readings of Christianity embrace the Old Testament, while underemphasizing the break from Old Testament practices and thought that it represented. You would think that Protestant culture would be more immune to this, because it emphasizes literacy and directly reading the book. But somehow that has led to an uncritical understanding of the Old Testament, instead of to a more Gnostic repudiation. Paul is best in this regard.
Because it is precisely Christianity's reformist elements that made it good. Its universalism. Its New Covenant.
Anyway.
I do appreciate your CK Chesterton references. Some of those are also among my favorites. I very much enjoyed The Man Who was Thursday, one of his works of fiction, a sort of novel -- which, I will only say, subverts expectations, and turns out to be more than a bit philosophical!
The best response I can give to you is quoting Chesterton's Heretics:
"Mr. Rudyard Kipling has asked in a celebrated epigram what they can know of England who know England only. It is a far deeper and sharper question to ask, “What can they know of England who know only the world?” for the world does not include England any more than it includes the Church. The moment we care for anything deeply, the world—that is, all the other miscellaneous interests—becomes our enemy. Christians showed it when they talked of keeping one’s self “unspotted from the world;” but lovers talk of it just as much when they talk of the “world well lost.” Astronomically speaking, I understand that England is situated on the world; similarly, I suppose that the Church was a part of the world, and even the lovers inhabitants of that orb. But they all felt a certain truth—the truth that the moment you love anything the world becomes your foe. Thus Mr. Kipling does certainly know the world; he is a man of the world, with all the narrowness that belongs to those imprisoned in that planet. He knows England as an intelligent English gentleman knows Venice. He has been to England a great many times; he has stopped there for long visits. But he does not belong to it, or to any place; and the proof of it is this, that he thinks of England as a place. The moment we are rooted in a place, the place vanishes. We live like a tree with the whole strength of the universe."
"Mr. Rudyard Kipling has asked in a celebrated epigram what they can know of England who know England only. It is a far deeper and sharper question to ask, “What can they know of England who know only the world?” for the world does not include England any more than it includes the Church. The moment we care for anything deeply, the world—that is, all the other miscellaneous interests—becomes our enemy. Christians showed it when they talked of keeping one’s self “unspotted from the world;” but lovers talk of it just as much when they talk of the “world well lost.” Astronomically speaking, I understand that England is situated on the world; similarly, I suppose that the Church was a part of the world, and even the lovers inhabitants of that orb. But they all felt a certain truth—the truth that the moment you love anything the world becomes your foe. Thus Mr. Kipling does certainly know the world; he is a man of the world, with all the narrowness that belongs to those imprisoned in that planet. He knows England as an intelligent English gentleman knows Venice. He has been to England a great many times; he has stopped there for long visits. But he does not belong to it, or to any place; and the proof of it is this, that he thinks of England as a place. The moment we are rooted in a place, the place vanishes. We live like a tree with the whole strength of the universe."
So cosmopolitanism is bad because you are somehow less strong because you're not rooted in your homeland? Why is this not just proto-fascism?
Cosmopolitanism is bad because you are rooted in nothing while thinking you are rooted in something that does not exist. Patriotism is not merely proto-fascism because it does not lead to fascism, and it has been a bullwark against it.
Simple patriotism isn't what I read Chesterton to be referring to here. Patriotism leaves space for cosmopolitanism, but this passage sounds an awful lot like the "blood and soil" of fascism. I don't know anything about the Chesterton, just going on what you've quoted which seems to say love England or leave it.
A Conflict of Visions is a good one. Thomas Sowell is a true intellectual. Sure, he has strong biases, but I believe those developed out of his intense study of the facts, rather than being implanted in him before he started thinking for himself, which is sadly the case for many so-called intellectuals nowadays.
If you could recommend only one of the others, which would it be?
If you could recommend only one of the others, which would it be?
Heretics GK Chesterton. By far one of the best books I have ever read, and I have read it about 10 times by now.
One gem from the first chapter:
"When the old Liberals removed the gags from all the heresies, their idea was that religious and philosophical discoveries might thus be made. Their view was that cosmic truth was so important that every one ought to bear independent testimony. The modern idea is that cosmic truth is so unimportant that it cannot matter what any one says. The former freed inquiry as men loose a noble hound; the latter frees inquiry as men fling back into the sea a fish unfit for eating. Never has there been so little discussion about the nature of men as now, when, for the first time, any one can discuss it. The old restriction meant that only the orthodox were allowed to discuss religion. Modern liberty means that nobody is allowed to discuss it. Good taste, the last and vilest of human superstitions, has succeeded in silencing us where all the rest have failed."
One gem from the first chapter:
"When the old Liberals removed the gags from all the heresies, their idea was that religious and philosophical discoveries might thus be made. Their view was that cosmic truth was so important that every one ought to bear independent testimony. The modern idea is that cosmic truth is so unimportant that it cannot matter what any one says. The former freed inquiry as men loose a noble hound; the latter frees inquiry as men fling back into the sea a fish unfit for eating. Never has there been so little discussion about the nature of men as now, when, for the first time, any one can discuss it. The old restriction meant that only the orthodox were allowed to discuss religion. Modern liberty means that nobody is allowed to discuss it. Good taste, the last and vilest of human superstitions, has succeeded in silencing us where all the rest have failed."
I can see English, but I can't actually understand what is being said.
Liberals valued truth's scarcity, freeing debate to meet the market's high demand. Today, truth is cheapened; free speech is abundant but ignored. Once, orthodoxy restricted discussion, preserving its value; now, "good taste" silences it, rendering it worthless.
I've parsed it again a few times and I think you are actually wrong in your interpretation. It says the old liberals thought that by removing barriers to debate, they would uncover more truth. You've said the opposite, they valued the barriers.
And now that anyone is free to debate whatever they want, universal truths, religion, etc, not many people are interested in doing so because it has become considered bad taste.
That seems to be the gist of it.
It is a mystery to me why smart people find it difficult to convey meaning in a form that simpler people can understand.
And now that anyone is free to debate whatever they want, universal truths, religion, etc, not many people are interested in doing so because it has become considered bad taste.
That seems to be the gist of it.
It is a mystery to me why smart people find it difficult to convey meaning in a form that simpler people can understand.
Is this a valid complaint? I hear people talking about "cosmic truth" all the time. I've participated in plenty of dorm room discussions and online debates about religion and the nature of things. The upshot seems to be that we're all free to come to our own conclusions, and given the inconclusive or unpersuasive arguments, we end up with idiosyncratic beliefs rather than orthodoxy. Is Chesterton just nostalgic for a mythical time when most people believed roughly the same things?
> I hear people talking about "cosmic truth" all the time.
If you, as a teacher, make some claims as to cosmic truth in Norway, you get fired. And a college dorm room is not the real world.
If you, as a teacher, make some claims as to cosmic truth in Norway, you get fired. And a college dorm room is not the real world.
Could you give an example of a claim of cosmic truth that would get you fired?
I'm from the opposite world, the US, where religion, education, and the state have been at nontrivial risk of becoming the same things, depending on where in the country you live.
Needless to say, those are all very different reads after experiencing an attempted ethnonationalist theocracy as a member of a non-dominant group. I'm not against religion, but I don't care for Christian apologism or its blindness to its effects; like political centrism, it seems to unify towards incumbent power and authoritarianism, only entrenching factionalization and incompatibility.
Needless to say, those are all very different reads after experiencing an attempted ethnonationalist theocracy as a member of a non-dominant group. I'm not against religion, but I don't care for Christian apologism or its blindness to its effects; like political centrism, it seems to unify towards incumbent power and authoritarianism, only entrenching factionalization and incompatibility.
First I have heard of an attempted ethnonationalist theocracy in the US, mind citing what you are talking about?
Debunking Howard Zinn⁽¹⁾ doesn’t get nearly enough “publicity” (for lack of a better word), especially considering how much A People’s History of the United States is “pushed”.
⁽¹⁾ https://www.regnery.com/9781684511525/debunking-howard-zinn/
⁽¹⁾ https://www.regnery.com/9781684511525/debunking-howard-zinn/
A Regnery citation is to be believed? I’m a Regnery and that side of family is alt-right lol. Now under Eagle, but the name alone makes me think Zinn was right.
Understanding our past and knowing we did some pretty fucked up shit isn't hating the west, its dealing with it and learning from it. I think you would agree that how Germany has dealt with their past is good compared to sweeping it under the rug and saying that while Hitler did some bad stuff he had some good points.
There's understanding and recognizing past errors, and then there's developing an actual negative view on the whole of something. Germany is a good example of that as well. Pride and patriotism became such dirty words that nobody dares use them, even if it's in a balanced way. And as we can see that then leads to extreme counter-movements. The West and its institutions in general definitely went overboard on painting their own countries, religions and institutions in an almost exclusively negative way, which is basically cultural suicide.
The way Germany has "dealt" with its past is by trying to commit suicide, and they are attempting to pull the whole rest of Europe down into hell with it.
After recognizing that they have done evil, they have proclaimed that nobody can do good. After recognizing there are wrong things to do, they have proclaimed that there are no right things to do. After recognizing that patriotic people can do evil things, they have proclaimed that patriotic people can only do evil things. After recognizing their reason for being was evil, they proclaimed that every nation's reason for being is evil.
Germany has not dealt with its past at all, which is why all their conclusions are lies. Their conclusions are designed to erase their own culpability. If all the world is just as evil as them, if everything is a gray and there is no good and evil, then how can they bear any responsibility?
Even discarding their obvious moral failings, just as a practical matter, the recent leadership of Germany has been disastrous for the European continent and has resulted in wars and economic disasters.
After recognizing that they have done evil, they have proclaimed that nobody can do good. After recognizing there are wrong things to do, they have proclaimed that there are no right things to do. After recognizing that patriotic people can do evil things, they have proclaimed that patriotic people can only do evil things. After recognizing their reason for being was evil, they proclaimed that every nation's reason for being is evil.
Germany has not dealt with its past at all, which is why all their conclusions are lies. Their conclusions are designed to erase their own culpability. If all the world is just as evil as them, if everything is a gray and there is no good and evil, then how can they bear any responsibility?
Even discarding their obvious moral failings, just as a practical matter, the recent leadership of Germany has been disastrous for the European continent and has resulted in wars and economic disasters.
"After recognizing that they have done evil, they have proclaimed that nobody can do good."
As a german, I have only heard this from pessimists in general. But not limited to germany.
" the recent leadership of Germany has been disastrous for the European continent and has resulted in wars and economic disasters"
And so because germany is recognizing past misstakes, it is responssible for russias invasion into Ukraine? That is a new one.
As a german, I have only heard this from pessimists in general. But not limited to germany.
" the recent leadership of Germany has been disastrous for the European continent and has resulted in wars and economic disasters"
And so because germany is recognizing past misstakes, it is responssible for russias invasion into Ukraine? That is a new one.
Germany is not recognizing past mistakes, and it is culpable for the war in Ukraine, even if they are not ultimately responsible.
German diplomats were laughing at Trump who warned them about their energy dependence on Russia. Germany decided, instead of nuclear, they will go for the greener option — Russian gas, and that greener option was only greener in the sense that they were funding the "little green men", the Russians soldiers in the Donbas in Ukraine through their new energy policy.
Germany did not care one bit about Russia's actions in Donbas and Crimea, because even after this, their strategy was to give more money to Russia. Germany was upset with Trump sanctioning Nord Stream 2. Once Trump was out and Biden lifted sanctions on Nord Stream 2 and stopped weapons sales, the message was crystal clear to Putin — push because there is mush.
The message may have been wrong, but it's quite understandable that Putin interpreted it that way. Why after not caring about Crimea, Donbas, Georgia and everything else would anyone care about the rest of Ukraine?
It's undeniable that Germany has been one of the most pro-Russian countries in the whole of the EU, and has been one of the most influential and powerful countries in the EU.
German diplomats were laughing at Trump who warned them about their energy dependence on Russia. Germany decided, instead of nuclear, they will go for the greener option — Russian gas, and that greener option was only greener in the sense that they were funding the "little green men", the Russians soldiers in the Donbas in Ukraine through their new energy policy.
Germany did not care one bit about Russia's actions in Donbas and Crimea, because even after this, their strategy was to give more money to Russia. Germany was upset with Trump sanctioning Nord Stream 2. Once Trump was out and Biden lifted sanctions on Nord Stream 2 and stopped weapons sales, the message was crystal clear to Putin — push because there is mush.
The message may have been wrong, but it's quite understandable that Putin interpreted it that way. Why after not caring about Crimea, Donbas, Georgia and everything else would anyone care about the rest of Ukraine?
It's undeniable that Germany has been one of the most pro-Russian countries in the whole of the EU, and has been one of the most influential and powerful countries in the EU.
Are you aware, that also Ukraine bought russian Gas after 2014?
Ukraine's actions were a pragmatic choice, it was that or nothing. Germany could have chosen different and continued to signal clearly that they are were committed to their strategy of dependence on Russian energy up to the point where Russia invaded in 2022.
In fact Germany's energy policy made it even harder for Ukraine. And again it was not like nobody saw it coming, Trump (supposedly Putins catspaw) was warning them clearly.
In fact Germany's energy policy made it even harder for Ukraine. And again it was not like nobody saw it coming, Trump (supposedly Putins catspaw) was warning them clearly.
And you think it took Trump, to tell us stupid europeans, where our energy comes from and what side effects there could be?
Well, we stupid europeans rather suspected, that selfless Trump rather wanted to sell some US fracking gas.
Even today many countries buy russian gas, because it is cheap, not because Putin is nice. Just like no one thinks bin Salman is nice, but buy his oil anyway. And to be honest, I don't think Trump is very nice.
But what has anything of this to do with germany being responsible for russias Invasion - because of criticism of its own empire past?
That is the very reason for germans big public support of Ukraine btw. Not liking empires.
Well, we stupid europeans rather suspected, that selfless Trump rather wanted to sell some US fracking gas.
Even today many countries buy russian gas, because it is cheap, not because Putin is nice. Just like no one thinks bin Salman is nice, but buy his oil anyway. And to be honest, I don't think Trump is very nice.
But what has anything of this to do with germany being responsible for russias Invasion - because of criticism of its own empire past?
That is the very reason for germans big public support of Ukraine btw. Not liking empires.
A single-sided focus on the negative aspects of western society and its actions combined with a Rousseau-inspired 'noble savage' attitude towards non-western societies is hating the west and is most likely what the grandparent poster refers to. All the vices attributable to western society - slavery, colonialism, brutality, sexism and all the other -isms - can also be attributed to other societies but these go mostly unmentioned or are mentioned in passing without leaving a mark while they are portrayed as being essential elements of western cultures.
Fictional accounts of the oppression of women in the western world are so unimaginative and uninteresting that it does not even come close to capturing the real horror of the oppression of women in the non-western world.
"Why are you whining about your own oppression, these other women have it worse"
Based on your posts I guess you're totally fine with whatever oppression of women that Christianity or the bible imposes.
Based on your posts I guess you're totally fine with whatever oppression of women that Christianity or the bible imposes.
You do get that "Fictional accounts" mean that it's not real, right? A Handmaid's Tale is not history, it's fiction, and it's bad fiction.
So you're mad about a fictional story about a theonomoic state where women are raped constantly? Meanwhile there are plenty of Christians in America that still believe that wives cannot be raped by their husbands, something that was legal only 50 years ago. Not to mention the rape perpetrated by Christians on their slaves in America.
Pointing out facts != being mad.
It's not facts, it's your opinion, clearly heavily influenced by your beliefs.
As a teenager (30 years ago), I found this book to be a bit of a mindfuck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Got_His_Gun
I have heard of most on this list for obvious reasons but this book really got me to see war in a different light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Got_His_Gun
I have heard of most on this list for obvious reasons but this book really got me to see war in a different light.
Missing The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. Mind fucked…
Uh, I'd love some recommendations fitting the title, but many of those on the list are definitely not that.
I think I've read about a quarter of the list, and only a couple of the ones I've read fit that title to me. I wish the list contained a line explaining why...
Hard to do that without making at a 'list of books that will induce a mindfuck and their spoilers'
It's hard, but I think not impossible. I was thinking mostly in terms of explaining to people who have already read the book why people believe it belongs there.
E.g. I love all of Douglas Adams' books, but I have no idea what they're doing on this list.
A non-spoilery hint at which concept in those books someone thought was a mindfuck, would be nice.
E.g. I love all of Douglas Adams' books, but I have no idea what they're doing on this list.
A non-spoilery hint at which concept in those books someone thought was a mindfuck, would be nice.
No Gaddis? What a shame. Everyone ITT should check out Gaddis' `The Recognitions' and `J.R.' (and his other books, of course).
"Revolutionary Road", by Richard Yates. Because it uncovers the greatest conspiracy of our time.
Also "The Moviegoer" by Walker Percy, for the same reason.
The real so called "mindfuck" comes when what you read unravels the reality around you, not when it sends you in some utopia with the promise of a metaphor built to solve a great mistery you actually don't give a f... about.
P.S.This is just one of the HN threads which is more valuable than the article it refers to.
Thank you for all the good books mentioned here, HN!
The real so called "mindfuck" comes when what you read unravels the reality around you, not when it sends you in some utopia with the promise of a metaphor built to solve a great mistery you actually don't give a f... about.
P.S.This is just one of the HN threads which is more valuable than the article it refers to.
Thank you for all the good books mentioned here, HN!
I am a big fan of
Breaking Open the Head: A Psychedelic Journey into the Heart of Contemporary Shamanism
By Daniel Pinchbeck
Amazing book
Breaking Open the Head: A Psychedelic Journey into the Heart of Contemporary Shamanism
By Daniel Pinchbeck
Amazing book
I’m surprised that everything2 is still not mobile friendly.
I’m not. Every attempt to fix the site has failed due to the incredibly fucked up use of turn of the century style PHP.
Perl, not PHP.
Source: was turn of the century developer at Everything2
Source: was turn of the century developer at Everything2
Brain fart. Of course, I remember your name :) Hope you enjoy a tasty Butterfinger McFlurry some time.
Missing murakami's 1Q84
I started reading his latest book released in English this month, pretty interesting so far.
I have a copy of Zinn, and one must know that he brings to his alleged task of writing history a deep Communist bias against his subject.
Not that the United States is above criticism; just understand that there is a lack of balance on offer.
Not that the United States is above criticism; just understand that there is a lack of balance on offer.
Zinn is extra credit for people that actually know history. He says it right in the preface, it's one-sided, it's the history that is generally left out of your textbooks. You guys have your panties in a bunch over anything that challenges your hierarchical worldview.
As stated
> Not that the United States is above criticism
I'd be the first to admit that, for all its virtues, the U.S. Constitution (almost) completely blew off foreign policy.
High time to re-think that, instead of letting unelected pencil-necks spread woe globally.
> Not that the United States is above criticism
I'd be the first to admit that, for all its virtues, the U.S. Constitution (almost) completely blew off foreign policy.
High time to re-think that, instead of letting unelected pencil-necks spread woe globally.
I appreciate that Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead is in the same list. It's a sort of balance, expounding on the converse ideology. You can play mindfuck ping pong between the two. Cheers for the author's open mind, without which mindfuckery is at best foreplay.
I've slogged through both "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged". Her model of human nature is soulless, IMO.
What a huge ommision not to include anything from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles. The blokes 'mindfucked' the entire world during the last century
There are other blokes who mindfucked the world and penned down some of their ideas who similarly, and maybe for similar reasons did not make the list. There's Mao Tse-Tung's 'Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung' and other works published in his name [1], countless works 'by' Joseph Stalin [2], Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' and other works in his name [3] just to mention a few. All of these had great impact on the world and inspired countless people just like the collected works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. I suspect this is not the type of inspiration the authors of the list are looking for, hence their omission.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/4797485.Mao_Zedong
[2] https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/138332.Joseph_Stalin
[3] https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/30691.Adolf_Hitler
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/4797485.Mao_Zedong
[2] https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/138332.Joseph_Stalin
[3] https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/30691.Adolf_Hitler
Marx and Engels were philosophers, not statesmen. Nietzsche is there but Hitler took alot of influence from him. Nietzsche was to Hitler what Marx was to Stalin.
Hitler was financed by people who opposed the ideas by Max and Engels. People in Germany largely hate Hitler. Stalin did some horrible things primarily to Russians, but people in Russia to this day love Stalin. Same thing with Mao
Hitler was financed by people who opposed the ideas by Max and Engels. People in Germany largely hate Hitler. Stalin did some horrible things primarily to Russians, but people in Russia to this day love Stalin. Same thing with Mao
There's plenty of people who either (claim to) love Hitler or who - according to the media at least - are ardent followers of his philosophies (for lack of a better term) as well so in that respect he's right up there together with the others.
Not to the extent that Russian people admire Stalin, which for a guy that apparently did so much evil to Russia and Russians and wasnt even Russian himself is pretty strange, right? One would think that Russians would see Stalin like Jews see Hitler. Apparently he killed more innocent Russians than Hitler killed Jews
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47975704
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47975704
Nietzsche is there but Hitler took alot of influence from him. Nietzsche was to Hitler what Marx was to Stalin.
Pure nonsense.
Pure nonsense.
It is actually not. Connection of irrationalism to far right is well documented
https://www.wilsonquarterly.com/quarterly/summer-2008-saving...
https://jacobin.com/2023/09/georg-lukacs-irrationalism-right...
https://www.wilsonquarterly.com/quarterly/summer-2008-saving...
https://jacobin.com/2023/09/georg-lukacs-irrationalism-right...
Even the article you're attempting to draw support from didn't attempt to claim that "Hitler took a lot of influence" from Nietzsche. At most it was second-hand, through another guy whom barely anyone remembers these days, and who who woefully miscontrued him anyway.
Meanwhile there's not even a whiff of substance behind this statement:
Meanwhile there's not even a whiff of substance behind this statement:
Nietzsche was to Hitler what Marx was to Stalin.The article also says,
On the other hand, do you really think Stalin faithfully represented Marx's ideas? There are many parallels between Stalin's approach to Marx and Hitler's to Nietzsche, even regarding obvious misintrepretation.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/nietzsche/ch04...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_and_reception_of_F...
During World War II, Hitler’s soldiers marched off to battle with field-gray editions of Friedrich Nietzsche’s works in their packs, and ordinary Germans were occasionally urged on with the philosopher’s words.
On the other hand, do you really think Stalin faithfully represented Marx's ideas? There are many parallels between Stalin's approach to Marx and Hitler's to Nietzsche, even regarding obvious misintrepretation.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/nietzsche/ch04...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_and_reception_of_F...
Seems like 'little red book' vibes to me.
Except the anecdote is painfully overstretched. Apparently that distribution was limited in scope, and only some 150k soldiers were given the 'little grey book' (Zarathustra) out of some 18 million who served in the Wehrmacht overall.
So not that ubiquitous. Plus they were also given copies of the New Testament apparently, so what's that supposed to prove?
Except the anecdote is painfully overstretched. Apparently that distribution was limited in scope, and only some 150k soldiers were given the 'little grey book' (Zarathustra) out of some 18 million who served in the Wehrmacht overall.
So not that ubiquitous. Plus they were also given copies of the New Testament apparently, so what's that supposed to prove?
I think I said enough to demonstrate that Nietsche's influence on fascism and nazim is quite concerning. Besides, Marxism has had a profound effect on western philosophy, social studies, and economics, and probably continues to this day in many indirect and possibly even direct ways. Not including any of the works by Karl Marx or Friedrich Engels is a huge omission in the ops article.
> Plus they were also given copies of the New Testament apparently, so what's that supposed to prove?
Oh Im definitely not saying that the Church (and religion in general) hasnt mind fucked millions of people accross generations and even gave outright support to fascism nazism and their offsprings. Look at the church's relationship with the ustashe regime in croatia and the estado novo in portugal as most obvious examples.
> Plus they were also given copies of the New Testament apparently, so what's that supposed to prove?
Oh Im definitely not saying that the Church (and religion in general) hasnt mind fucked millions of people accross generations and even gave outright support to fascism nazism and their offsprings. Look at the church's relationship with the ustashe regime in croatia and the estado novo in portugal as most obvious examples.
I think I said enough to demonstrate that Nietsche's influence on fascism and nazim is quite concerning.
I don't think you have actually, but let's give that a rest for now.
But if even if you did -- what would that "concern" be?
I don't think you have actually, but let's give that a rest for now.
But if even if you did -- what would that "concern" be?
[deleted]
[deleted]
There are a lot of books in that list that I liked so I should probably pay some attention to the ones that I haven't yet looked at.