Fascinating, look forward to part 2. I mostly don't use such substances myself and have been skeptical of claims about their artistic benefits, as you may address if you're thinking of my piece on Tao Lin's Trip, but the Compact article's typical mix of conservatism (Crowley!) and Marxism (capitalism!) didn't quite convince, as you show. If you're telling me William James and D. H. Lawrence took something seriously, I will also take it seriously.
Yes i thought that Compact article was spectacularly unconvincing. The best case against psychedelics seems to be the same as that against every other drug: they're potentially injurious to your health or mental well being. You've done a great job picking it apart!
We all live in Crowley's world?? I think that's the stupidest thing I have ever heard. He is a significant influence on a minority, but most people outside of occult spheres have never heard of him. I've been around psychedelic circles in numerous countries for decades and his name is seldom if ever mentioned. The only tenuous link most are aware of is his inclusion on the cover of Sgt Peppers. Which rather appears as though the Beatles were mainly just being edgy: They were acolytes of Maharishi at the time, weren't they? Not Crowley. Jimmy Page was a big fan but A.C. flies over the heads of most, completely. I cannot think of a single tripper out of thousands that I know, who references him at all, ever, as a luminary. Occult circles of course, but that is an entirely different subculture to your typical festival-going psychedelic consumer.
This article is mental masturbation masquerading as pseudo-intellectualism.
Thanks for reading! The (tongue-in-cheek) claim is not about Crowley's direct influence, but rather to suggest that the emphasis that secular modernity places on individual self-actualisation is not that far off from Crowley's "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" (Nike: Just do it).
Fascinating, look forward to part 2. I mostly don't use such substances myself and have been skeptical of claims about their artistic benefits, as you may address if you're thinking of my piece on Tao Lin's Trip, but the Compact article's typical mix of conservatism (Crowley!) and Marxism (capitalism!) didn't quite convince, as you show. If you're telling me William James and D. H. Lawrence took something seriously, I will also take it seriously.
Yes i thought that Compact article was spectacularly unconvincing. The best case against psychedelics seems to be the same as that against every other drug: they're potentially injurious to your health or mental well being. You've done a great job picking it apart!
We all live in Crowley's world?? I think that's the stupidest thing I have ever heard. He is a significant influence on a minority, but most people outside of occult spheres have never heard of him. I've been around psychedelic circles in numerous countries for decades and his name is seldom if ever mentioned. The only tenuous link most are aware of is his inclusion on the cover of Sgt Peppers. Which rather appears as though the Beatles were mainly just being edgy: They were acolytes of Maharishi at the time, weren't they? Not Crowley. Jimmy Page was a big fan but A.C. flies over the heads of most, completely. I cannot think of a single tripper out of thousands that I know, who references him at all, ever, as a luminary. Occult circles of course, but that is an entirely different subculture to your typical festival-going psychedelic consumer.
This article is mental masturbation masquerading as pseudo-intellectualism.
Thanks for reading! The (tongue-in-cheek) claim is not about Crowley's direct influence, but rather to suggest that the emphasis that secular modernity places on individual self-actualisation is not that far off from Crowley's "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" (Nike: Just do it).