What is /lit/s opinion on his books "the doors of perception" and "heaven and hell"?
im just finishing the latter and i am enjoying it but am curious how others have interpreted it and what they took away from it.
i found that some of the ideas were fairly interesting. i agree that from a writing perspective this book is a piece of shit. its hard to follow because of his way or wording things and punctuation (also in context with the time and his background) but the material he tried to get out is still sound in my opinion. why didnt you like it if you could explain more?
op here as well as the other reply, i havent read it but i know it is an actual novel and this book is two essays, the first re hashing his experience while on mescaline, the second, heaven and hell, he philosophises through many historical contexts how the human processes the visionary experience. and how the mystic/visionary experience can be looked at with two polarities much resembling heaven and hell as described through time. if i picked it up right at least.
I'm not saying I didn't "like" it. It's just very dated. Discussion on the subject has moved forward. I think Robert Anton Wilson's non-fiction covers a lot of the same ground in a more entertaining (and more contemporary) way.
It's pretty good so far; the physiology part resonated but he's a little too simplistic to think this is 'expanding' his mind
Meanwhile I think Robert Anton Wilson's Angel Tech is fucking terrible
which is pretty good so far? the doors of perception? i wouldnt say it expanded his mind at all. but it put him in a headspace where one would be more likely to learn and gain higher understanding of things menial or not.