93

The OTO was
> > _originally_ about the 'Gnostic Neo-Christians'.
>
> Was it? Reference please. The only one I can think of is Reuss's
stuff
> around 1920-ish, by which time OTO had already been running for a
decade
> or two.

That's what I'm thinking of here. Once there was no more Reuss, there
was no more 'neo-Christianity'.

> > That changed. The OTO
> > _originally_ contained some wierd Reussian ideas about subtle
anatomy.
> > That changed too.
>
> Did it? Reference again please.

OTO Rituals and Sex Magick, Page 490. Also see page 77, the course of
instruction of the Hermetic Science College, British Section, for the
curriculum of which that essay was a part. (Do you suppose that the
use of the term 'Probationer' for an initial entrant into the
Hermetic Science College got on Crowley's tits?)

> > The OTO was _originally_ not a Thelemic organization
> > at all. Do you see what I'm getting at here?
>
> You're saying that OTO is capable of redefining itself, right?

Absolutely. (Well, _was_ capable, since it no longer exists in a
single simple form, if indeed it ever did.)

Also, that under Crowley, it dropped the idea of teaching either
Magick or Yoga.

> OK, I get your logic. However two points now raise their heads here:
>
> 1. The Crowley quotes you cited in favor of your position are from
his
> personal autobiography and letters, whereas the ones I cited are
from
> official Order documents.

So I quoted from a context which dealt with how it actually was,
while you quoted from a context which dealt with how it once
presented itself.

You appear to assume that because Crowley was
> Head of OTO, anything he said in a personal capacity automatically
> became official OTO policy. I would suggest that this is not the
case.

I observe that he held the same point of view from 1928 to 1943
regarding the absence of Magick from OTO. His letters to Gerald Yorke
and to Sr. Fiat Yod express exactly the same stance. Are you really
trying to maintain that he didn't have his special OHO pointy hat on
when he made those observations, and so therefore they weren't
policy?

Alternatively, are you saying he was lying?

A rescinded manifesto doesn't magickally disappear from the archives
just because it is no longer true.

> 2. You are saying that the OTO can redefine itself at will.
Therefore
> how can you validly argue that "because Crowley said it, it must
still
> be true"? If Crowley could redefine things then, we are perfectly at
> liberty to re- redefine things now.

Only if
a) you possessed the same authority in regard to OTO that Crowley did
(which I don't think you do, but as you know, that's a whole 'nother
thread :) )
b) you actually acknowledged that what you were doing was a
deliberate change from Crowley's perfectly plain standpoint regarding
the Order.

You'd also need to explain why you left the structure exactly as you
think Crowley meant it to be. While you're at it, you'd better
explain why you think you know better than he did what the OTO was
supposed to be for, but you don't want to change any part of his
system.

> Since we've already established that one of the original stated
purposes
> of the Order was to teach magick,

That was before Crowley abandoned the Hermetic Science College within
OTO. Personally, I imagine that he did that because it was too close
to what A.'.A.'. in its lower Grades was supposed to be. With the
passing of the Hermetic Science College, Magick and Yoga left the OTO
altogether, except in the topmost Degrees, where they are present
only implicitly.

I assume what you're saying here is
> that *Crowley* mistook the true purpose when he said that it
*didn't*
> teach magick?

Under Crowley, both the stated purpose and the structure of the OTO
changed. (The A.'.A.'. was for Magick, the O.T.O. was for Political
Change. See MWT.) If you accept that he was OHO, then he certainly
had authority to do that.

And thus the fact that we do now is then a return to the
> original purpose?

Attempting to return to the original purpose without a return to the
original structure is absurd and entirely likely to land you in just
the kind of mess that you are already in. 'Purpose' is a meaningless
concept unless it is related to the machinery which is intended to
achieve said purpose. You could go back to the oceans if you wanted,
but without gills, you'd be a bit screwed.

> However, as discussed exhaustively in this exchange, we have already
> determined that one of the original purposes of OTO *was* to teach
> magick. So your analog, although entertaining, is not particularly
> apposite in this case.

I think it holds perfectly. Crowley demolished the OTO distillery and
concentrated on A.'.A.'. Fine Wines and Spirits Inc, directing all
liquor-related enquiries to said august body. Several decades later,
his would-be OTO descendants have all got home brewing kits in their
monastic cells, and claim that's what the monastery was for all along.

> Or let's look at this another way:
>
> I've learnt magick through work in OTO.
> Therefore, by definition, OTO taught me magick.
> Therefore no matter what you or anyone else argues, I *know* it
teaches magick.

I've learnt psychology through posting to the Internet.
Therefore the Internet teaches psychology.

I've developed muscles through working on a farmstead.
Therefore a farmstead is a type of gymnasium.

> Maybe the teaching methods employed are not to your liking, but
they're there.

Even the term 'method' implies a uniformity of practice which is
totally absent.

At the time in history when the OTO _did_ have an agenda which
involved teaching Magick and Yoga, it had the Hermetic Science
College as the vehicle for those practices. COTO has sought to
reintroduce the magick and the yoga, but without reintroducing the
department of the Order to which they pertained, with the result that
'magick' has been spilled all over the place as if from an
overflowing bathtub, and people try to find it in places where it was
never supposed to be.

The whole situation reminds me most painfully of 'A Canticle for
Liebowitz'.

93 93/93

Cav