Meredith is a hot mess’s Reviews > The Eye in the Triangle: An Interpretation of Aleister Crowley > Status Update

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."