I only read one book of his
It was quite good — up to a point
And then he crossed that point
Once he crossed that point he kept going
And I couldn’t follow across the same river as he.
I wanted to: I liked the other things he wrote when building his case.
But he jumped over something very important and kept going. I wrote down what it was and where someplace.
It explains for me why I often find he shows up as a thinker that’s in the same family of thought that I seem to be in yet different enough that I can’t recommend without some caveats