Books

I found it somewhat interesting but ultimately a dud because it felt like every other word was either a Sanskrit deity that I was supposed to already know about or a Sanskrit word that represented an entire doctrine like the word “transubstantiation”. It felt like watching marvel’s avengers end game with a Spanish voice over without any context. Probably similar feeling to someone who has never read the bible reading a book like Hebrews or something. That being said there were some interesting things in there that made me want to dig in a little more.

This is essay was written documenting Huxley’s psychedelic experience while being given Mescaline (the active ingredient in peyote). Huxley’s theory was that the ego acts a “reducer valve” on consciousness and by taking a psychoactive drug he could thereby sidestep this valve and widen his experience of reality. According to the essay this is exactly what happened. He was administered the drug by a psychiatrist who had been studying the drug for some time before this event. This psychiatrist and Huxley’s wife accompanied him for the 8hr trip with a tape recorder and some questions to help document the effects of the drug. While high Huxley looks at some fine art paintings and suddenly understands that the artist could see things the way he currently was seeing things and that he could tell his consciousness had been brought up to the level of “visionary”. Among other things he later makes an argument that the relationship of alcohol and Christianity should be abandoned and replaced with Mescaline. I feel like if you were to have that conversation the response would just be laughter, but to me it was an interesting argument. People/Aldous Huxley

This is the oldest work of fiction in the history of the world. Read it! The oldest copies date around 2100BC. For reference the oldest copies of the Bible we have on hand are from the dead sea scrolls which date to 200-300 BC. That’s not to say that the dead sea scrolls are the first copies of the bible but they are the oldest we have while the rest are probably lost due to the writing material of choice, so we’ll never really know when the first copy of the Bible was written. The reason this survived for so long was that it was inscribed on a clay tablet. Going into this story I expected it to be dull. I was wrong, probably in part thanks to the particular translation I used, but on the whole this book is a must read. I think the most striking and controversial thing is that in the book there is an account of the flood. Now I know what you picture in your head when I say that, but literally when a character in the book started recounting the flood, it was totally shocking. The similarities and details couched in such exotic settings made for an incredible mind-bending experience. I won’t go over the similarities to save them for those who read. The story was then followed by an essay by the translator who explained where the text came from and how it was translated. This too was helpful to get more of an understanding of its place in history. At any rate I’d definitely put this one on your reading list.

I read this book after seeing it tangentially referenced in the “Doors of Perspective”. Written as the forward states in response to the short story by William Blake, C.S Lewis sets out to refute the idea of Hell and Heaven being made of the same stuff. Or put in more general terms this is his refutation of the concept of non-duality. Instead of using arguments he chooses to use story as a device to get his points across. In this story the main character takes a bus ride from what turns out to be hell to a place that turns out to be heaven, or more accurately a place of transition to heaven. Upon arrival he eventually runs into George MacDonald, and MacDonald acts much like Virgil did in Dante’s inferno and guides the main character through this new and foreign place. What unfolds is a series of vignettes where the residents of heaven would interact with old friends from hell and try to convince them in various ways to “see the light”. The main points of these small exchanges are that each person chooses to keep themselves in hell and out of “eternal joy”. Like other C.S Lewis stories I’ve read his strongest talent is his ability to spot and succinctly point out deficiencies in character. Especially of the self-righteous. Every time I read any of his stories, I feel self-conscious of some way in which I am acting selfishly or harming others with my choices. If you ever read any of his works, you’ll know exactly what I mean. This is a weak point in secular philosophy (IMO) because it is difficult to justify telling someone to alter their behavior without the authority of a metaphysic behind you. Lewis continually manages to thread the needle between intellect and faith in a compelling way that is difficult to ignore. That being said I don’t really feel like this book did much in the way of addressing some of the more difficult questions about hell and heaven. It did a fantastic job of shedding a light on how even good things like love and pity can be twisted into bad things. But in the stories people continually chose hell and their own misery over the joy they were created to experience, but the question of whether or not there was actually a “choice” to begin with is a slippery slope which leads to a lot of other complications. That being said this is a short read and does give the reader plenty of things to think about and is definitely worth the read. ...

Not sure what it was, but I wasn’t really taken in by this book. It was well written and not boring per se. But failed to capture my imagination as much as I expected it to. It did give an interesting glimpse into high American society in the 20s which was somewhat interesting, but the plot moved slowly IMO which is impressive seeing at how short this book was. To me it just seemed like a reader’s digest book. I’ll pass no thanks Mr. Fitzgerald.

I was not man enough to take on the full work, which was about 3 times this length, maybe I will come back when I need more instances of cruelty in my life. This book walks through the stages of life in the archipelago. Arrest Interrogation Transport to prison Life in prison Banishment after prison Although this book had unmistakable political undertones it comes more from the point of view of a moralist and not a political scientist. The atrocities in this book are examined at a human level and communism is the backdrop that made the examination possible. The opening dedication sets the tone for the entire book “I dedicate this book to all those who did not live to tell it, and may they please forgive me for not having seen it all, or remembered it all…for not having divined it all” There is a tragedy in human death, but a greater tragedy still is humans that die without profundity or acknowledgement. These camps existed out of sight, and the millions they killed are forgotten… and being forgotten is the worst offense of all.

I put this on the list because I had heard that in this book there was a conversation between Socrates and Diotima about love. The book is set where a group of friends get together and throw a party for a friend that had won an award for a play that he had written. At this party they all decide that they should go around in a circle and give a speech praising the god Eros (God of love). So, they go around in a circle and each character gives their speeches. On the whole speeches were mostly unenlightening although they raised very interesting realizations about homosexual relationships between older men and younger “boys” (re: modern authors believe that they were all over the age of 18 of course crossed fingers). This side of the story I did not expect. Yet another time when history sneaks up on you from “behind”. One of the speeches contained a story about how in the beginning hermaphrodites were running around doing crazy stuff and the gods got mad and split them in half to make male and female. As a result, men and women roam the earth in search of their “other half”. Socrates’ speech was pretty interesting. i.e., Plato) makes the argument that love happens in stages. One first learns to love details about a specific person. Then realizes that these details exist in many people. They then begin to love many people. Then they begin to love the details in and of themselves abstracted from people. In this final stage if they are lucky, they will get a glimpse of beauty (the thing which they have desired all along) un-encumbered by humanity’s “fleshiness”. This fits in with Plato’s idea of a world of “Forms” pretty well. Where basically everything we see and interact with is an imperfect clone of something perfect that exists only in this world of forms. I.E the world in which a perfect triangle exists, which for now can only be accessed by thought. ...

In this book Noam Chomsky tries to answer the question the title poses. Being a linguist, he attempts to answer this question from a linguist’s perspective. Taking a deep dive into the meanings and relationship between language and thought Chomsky tries to summarize years of linguistic research and some conclusions he has come to in his experience. One of the most interesting conclusions is that to him it appears as if instead of the ancient idea that “language is sound with meaning” Chomsky believes that phrase should be reversed to say that “language is meaning with sound”. He attempts to demonstrate how language is actually a couple layers deeper into the structure of the brain than previously thought. In fact, we may in some ways “think” in a language. So perhaps without language we could not “think” at all?? This feels intuitively true to me. The book then addresses a line of thinking that could be called “mysterianism”. Put simply it is that we face two types of problems. The first type are problems we can solve. The second type are problems we will never solve. Otherwise known as mysteries. This second type of problem Chomsky claims we are not the right type of creatures to solve. Similarly, to how rats are not the right kind of creatures to solves for prime numbers. To support this argument, he brings up the story of how Newton not only fundamentally changed physics but changed science entirely when he introduced the concept of “Force”. Newton himself could not wrap his mind around what this force was only, how it worked. From then on strict materialism was out. No one could explain in strictly mechanical terms how the universe worked. This book contains some interesting anecdotes as well as compelling theories. At points the writing can get a little long in the tooth for a non-linguist but over all very interesting. ...

This is a story that takes place entirely inside a hotel in Moscow from just after the Bolshevik revolution to just after World War 2. The main character is a man who was part of the bourgeoisie, a count. He is spared summary execution by the red army because he had penned a poem that helped start the revolution. For this reason, instead of being executed he was sentenced to live the rest of his life inside an iconic hotel that is a block away from the Kremlin. The story is told from his perspective. That is to say from someone that is watching his entire world be turned upside down. Reading this book will make you nostalgic for an Era that can never be recreated. Whereas you could argue that the bourgeoisie still exists the gentlemen that used to occupy it (at least in our imagination) have been replaced with people named Chad who drive their daddy’s BMW. I also had watched a couple episodes of the show “The Great” around the same time (which is very loosely based on Catherine the great) which cemented this idea. The show is set largely in a palace, with fancy ball parties and what not. But it was upsetting me to watch because the language of the show is modern and casual. Littered with penis jokes and modern curse words. Which was in keeping with the shows aesthetic but annoyed me for some reason. I think that reason is after reading this book the main character is an example of best-case scenario of nobility. He is well read, charming, respectful, and honest. So, when those folks are given wealth, it seems natural like fish in water. But when we see people like the characters in “The Great” it reminds one of a pearl necklace on a pig. Of course, the latter is probably more common, but the former is what we like to remember.

Finally checked this one of the list, of course that raises the question of what I mean by “finally”. The word obviously indicates a sequence of events and sequence indicates time and time indicates a required conscious observer. So, in a sense I’ve read this book both before, after and not yet. Jokes aside this book raises a lot of interesting questions, making you think about things a little differently than you had before. And that is the most and best that you can ask from a book. The writing in the book is kind of poor and a little self-aggrandizing at points but the ideas are original enough to make that not too difficult to look past. This book also made me want to read Emerson. While some of his conclusions and observations have in recent years been “proven” wrong (most notably the experiment of being able to read someone’s intentions up to 10 seconds before they actually make a decision) there still seems to be plenty of latitude in the field of consciousness to allow for his ideas to have value. Good suggestion has given me a lot to think about.