Status Updates From The Eye in the Triangle: An...

Someone online described Crowley as an edgelord and that's the perfect description.

He'd be a menace with his YT channel & Twitter if he was alive today.

I was going to try to keep an open mind going into this but I'm caving - it's v. difficult to take this seriously.

I accept the reports in his diaries he learned to achieve dhyana (the trance of unity) regularly and easily...he developed and nurtured a hierarchy of separate selves, each with his own functions and levels of awareness.

-I haven't read enough on Crowley yet, but psychologically this is interesting - the trance state, also separate selves implies dissociation

Years ago I was curious about Crowley and watched a documentary, I quickly dnf'd it, he was too much for me.

I'm already starting to get a headache, by simply reading Wilson's descriptions of him.

More endorsement:

Crowley was, in my opinion, one of the most original and important thinkers of this era - right up there with such titans as Einstein and Joyce.

He says in the intro:

I read through all of The Eye in the Triangle in one evening and it passed the Hemingway Test with all flags flying and a band playing on the deck. There was no BS in it, no smog, no greasy rhetoric. It was as lucid as a cookbook.

lol

He is endorsing the book, is a fan of Alan Watts

Intro is by Robert Anton Wilson, my bs detector is personally going off, but I'll read Prometheus Rising by him sometime

the general tapioca-like fog will remain the same - vapid, rhetorical, hollow, but vaguely "inspirational" if you don't think about it.

Most mystical writing contains neither type of clarity. Dip into Gopi Krishna or Ken Wilbur, for instance--or into ten dozen like them--and you will find yourself afloat in semantic mush. Any sentence from such writers could easily be inserted into a political speech; just change "God" or "True Self" to "the government" or "the chief executive."

I wasn't expecting this kind of humorous skepticism in the introduction for this book

A writer may have seen and felt a great deal; with extreme good luck, he may have even understood what he saw and felt; but without the tool Hemingway recommended, he will never communicate effectively.

This is especially true of writers on mysticism, who have produced more bad writing than any other single group on this planet, except for politicians.

I happen to agree with Ernest Hemingway that, of all requirements a writer needs, the most important is a built-in, shock-proof bull-shit detector.

Well, that's a start.