>>11647236Read only parts of it. He uses a lot of big words just for the sake of it. Things could have been said in a simpler manner.
I don't know if it's correct since I haven't read all of it, but it's not as "revolutionary" as some claim. He took a lot of already existing ideas.
I remember there was one anon here (? it think it was /sci/) who would interpret fragments from CTMU and his interpretations were quite good.
