List of books that will induce a mindfuck
everything2.com
everything2.com
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.
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".
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.
That's funny because one of the plots is about fixing up a book in order to win a literary prize
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.
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.
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)
That messed with my head but good.
And not necessarily in a good way.
But I have to mention it.
On Focault's Pendulum, [Spoilers, rot13] Gur jubyr obbx vg'f nobhg znxvat sha ba pbafcvenabvqf
"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/...
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.
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.
- 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
If you could recommend only one of the others, which would it be?
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Based on your posts I guess you're totally fine with whatever oppression of women that Christianity or the bible imposes.
⁽¹⁾ https://www.regnery.com/9781684511525/debunking-howard-zinn/
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!
"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."
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.
After all, it's the anniversary of his Birthday today.
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.
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.
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!
Breaking Open the Head: A Psychedelic Journey into the Heart of Contemporary Shamanism
By Daniel Pinchbeck
Amazing book
Source: was turn of the century developer at Everything2
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
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.
[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
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
Pure nonsense.
https://www.wilsonquarterly.com/quarterly/summer-2008-saving...
https://jacobin.com/2023/09/georg-lukacs-irrationalism-right...
Meanwhile there's not even a whiff of substance behind this statement:
Nietzsche was to Hitler what Marx was to Stalin. 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.
Seems like 'little red book' vibes to me.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...
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?
> 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 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?
Would you be concerned if Trump or Putin said that they are Nietzschean ?
That Nietzsche's worldview was intrinsically fascist (or proto-fascist)?
Well done for seeing the truth
Or because of anything intrinsic to the latter's Weltanschauung.