There's gotta be at least a dozen "What Crowley's all about" books, all deficient in one way or another. I've been always of opinion that if you wanna understand what Crowley taught, you gotta, you know, read the man himself.
However, I have no damn clue what A.O. Spare was all about. I've read the Book of Pleasure many times during different times and while I can understand and appreciate certain ideas in it, I don't really understand the overarching metaphysics implied in it at all. Kenneth Grant is supposed to have elaborated on his ideas, but given how far Grant's Thelema is from Thelema (as a certain Frater I read a while ago summarized it Grant's Thelema relates to Thelema more so how Satanism relates to Christianity), I wouldn't rely on his commentary on Spare and expect it to reflect his authentic teachings. Others have suggested that to understand Spare I must practice Spare's practical techniques, but descriptions of practical techniques in his works are extremely scarce and I consider the view, as it's called in the Eastern traditions, to be an important aspect of practice.
The chaos magical usage of the word Kia seems to have been reinterpreted to refer to something akin to the Yechidah. In Liber Null a bunch of terms from diverse mystical traditions seem to be purposefully "misused" to refer to something else, e.g. gnosis becomes more so magical trance, etc.
I want to understand Spare's "theology" or metaphysics, insofar as it can be understood, in detail and with a sense of nuance. The vague suggestion that Kia is "like Brahman or Tao, bro, non-duality and stuff" is not enough, because even various interpretations of Brahman according to various systems within Hinduism aren't remotely the same idea and unlike many people into mysticism, occultism, etc. I reject the idea that Advaita is end all be all Hinduism or even the pinnacle of it, let alone the fact that even Advaita of Shankara is different from, say, Advaita of Abhinavagupta. And that's only Brahman. How much further Tao is from Brahman. Besides the lazy perennialist interpretations go against the spirit of Spare's work itself, he writes:
Some do much to show the similarity of different religions; certainly by it I prove the possibility of a fundamental illusion, but that they never realise-or this Ukase they are the mockery, for how much they regret! They suffer more conflict than the unenlightened. With what they can identify their own delusion of fear they call truth. They never see this similarity and the quintessence of religions, their own poverty of imagination and religion's palliation. Better is it to show the essential difference of religions. It is as well to know that various means; is not their object to deceive and govern? Surely then, for the attainment of the transcendental, God and religion should have no place.
Certainly one can read it in a very narrow way as just a condemnation of theistic personalism (boring! I like that stuff too) but I think it's a rejection of lazy perennialism characterizing the likes of Aldous Huxley in general.
One of the most attractive things about Spare is his aloofness, so to speak, he didn't produce yet another synthesis of various spiritual doctrines and prop up his own with their age and authority, but made his own system, called things his own words, etc. Barely has anybody else done this and that's why I am interested in him.
Did anybody study and explain his system in detail?