3 ms·

I don't entirely understand. What truth are you suggesting that Watts and McKenna are hiding?

hello_computer 3y ago
To hide a truth would imply having one to hide in the first place. Watts and McKenna were just hangers-on--people who saw an opportunity (spinning yarns for money and attention) and latched-on to it. L. Ron was of a similar sort, but was far better at it. The motive force, the spark, was Esalen. 60s counterculture gurus are all one degree of separation from it. Esalen (Huxley) being one of the later institutions of the syncretic religion project--which has a clear genealogy through the Traditionalist School (Guenon), Anthroposophy (Steiner), Theosophy (Blavatsky), Masonry (founded shortly after Rome shut down the Templars), Knights Templar, early Church Gnosticism, Neoplatonism... probably going back to pre-history. There are many organizations I'm leaving out here, but these are the ones that occupy the most real estate in Western minds. The Masons already had the Greco-Roman and Egyptian content. Theosophy (Blavatsky was just the front-woman, the handlers were Leadbeater and Olcott) was to retcon the newly discovered (to Westerners) Vedic and Buddhist content into the project. Steiner did much the same with the Zoroastrian and scientific content. Then Guenon, being a mathematician and a better thinker, chooses to operate in the opposite direction. That is, rather than try to justify the hypothesis (all religions as corrupted expressions of the same primordial truth) with a number of creative writing projects, Guenon suggested that "going deep" into one's own traditions--regardless of which--was a faster route to the destination. What was Esalen's contribution to the syncretic religion project? A syncretic religion isn't very syncretic if it's leaving material on the table. What was left on the table? Shamanism and entheogens. Where would a brilliant Englishman go to research this? The Americas, of course.
- hbchbc556556 3y ago
  To be clear, are you suggesting that these were successive generations of opportunistic grifters, working with the material left behind from the previous generation, or a deliberate project to develop a maximally syncretic religion? My confusion is that I detect a conspiratorial tone that I'm nonplussed by.
  - hello_computer 3y ago
    No. I'm saying that Watts and McKenna (specifically Watts and McKenna) are bullshitters, floating along a much deeper and powerful current. As for the actual currents (as partially enumerated), some were true believers, some weren't. Until proven otherwise, I think Guenon was legit--that his ideas were his own, he took both the credit and the blame for them, and gave credit where it was due--as opposed to someone like Blavatsky who was a mascot, or someone like Huxley who was really more of an engineer, but delivering his blueprints in a wrapper of plausible deniability. Whereas the characters and schisms within Masonry are so broad that a hundred books could be written, and we still wouldn't have scratched the surface. Conspiracy or not, I have outlined a genealogy which is easy enough to verify--at the touch of your fingertips.

To hide a truth would imply having one to hide in the first place. Watts and McKenna were just hangers-on--people who saw an opportunity (spinning yarns for money and attention) and latched-on to it. L. Ron was of a similar sort, but was far better at it. The motive force, the spark, was Esalen. 60s counterculture gurus are all one degree of separation from it. Esalen (Huxley) being one of the later institutions of the syncretic religion project--which has a clear genealogy through the Traditionalist School (Guenon), Anthroposophy (Steiner), Theosophy (Blavatsky), Masonry (founded shortly after Rome shut down the Templars), Knights Templar, early Church Gnosticism, Neoplatonism... probably going back to pre-history. There are many organizations I'm leaving out here, but these are the ones that occupy the most real estate in Western minds. The Masons already had the Greco-Roman and Egyptian content. Theosophy (Blavatsky was just the front-woman, the handlers were Leadbeater and Olcott) was to retcon the newly discovered (to Westerners) Vedic and Buddhist content into the project. Steiner did much the same with the Zoroastrian and scientific content. Then Guenon, being a mathematician and a better thinker, chooses to operate in the opposite direction. That is, rather than try to justify the hypothesis (all religions as corrupted expressions of the same primordial truth) with a number of creative writing projects, Guenon suggested that "going deep" into one's own traditions--regardless of which--was a faster route to the destination. What was Esalen's contribution to the syncretic religion project? A syncretic religion isn't very syncretic if it's leaving material on the table. What was left on the table? Shamanism and entheogens. Where would a brilliant Englishman go to research this? The Americas, of course.

hbchbc556556 3y ago
To be clear, are you suggesting that these were successive generations of opportunistic grifters, working with the material left behind from the previous generation, or a deliberate project to develop a maximally syncretic religion? My confusion is that I detect a conspiratorial tone that I'm nonplussed by.
- hello_computer 3y ago
  No. I'm saying that Watts and McKenna (specifically Watts and McKenna) are bullshitters, floating along a much deeper and powerful current. As for the actual currents (as partially enumerated), some were true believers, some weren't. Until proven otherwise, I think Guenon was legit--that his ideas were his own, he took both the credit and the blame for them, and gave credit where it was due--as opposed to someone like Blavatsky who was a mascot, or someone like Huxley who was really more of an engineer, but delivering his blueprints in a wrapper of plausible deniability. Whereas the characters and schisms within Masonry are so broad that a hundred books could be written, and we still wouldn't have scratched the surface. Conspiracy or not, I have outlined a genealogy which is easy enough to verify--at the touch of your fingertips.