93 Bishop, ... No offense taken, and there s a hair split needed. Definitely, a fairly detailed explanation is needed. I think this may be useful as anMessage 1 of 145 , Jan 10, 2008View Source93 Bishop,
>--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Bill Heidrick wrote:No offense taken, and there's a hair split needed. Definitely, a fairly
>>>Given the recent comments by our X*, this
>>>corporate entity seems to regard itself as
>>>the sole arbiter of what is 'thelemic'.
>Really? I mean no personal offense here, but I think a good case
>could be made otherwise. In fact, I think several solid cases have
>been made (outside the hype of just noisy detractors) that David's
>little speech put a few serious nails in the coffin of any kind of
>relevant Thelema as expressed through the O.T.O.
detailed explanation is needed.
I think this may be useful as an illustration of the point about not
"pontificating" as much before my retirement from the office of
international Treasurer General of OTO. Several years of being advised that
my personal opinions were likely to be confused with OTO official opinions
made it obvious to me that I needed to "put a cap on it for the duration".
When a major OTO officer states his or her (tip of hat to Motta on that
bi-genderal) personal opinion, trouble can often follow. I do not believe
in UFO's (agnostic on the alein part), English Qabalah (no faith in any
particular system extant), Chaos Magick (looks to me like attempts to
re-invent the wheel) and a lot of other popular things. Normally, all that
comes to "live and let live" or "not my business". Sometimes people have
asked me about such things or asserted "OTO doctrine" where I knew it was
not an OTO policy or general belief. When I answered or interjected during
my tenure as OTO TG, my personal opinion often became confused with
statement of OTO policy and vice versa. Frankly, sometimes that personal
view was close to OTO policy in the "not endorsed by either OTO or myself"
sense. That's different from a "condemned" or "rejected" sense. In the
years BI (Before Internet), I expressed such personal views most often in
the classes I taught for OTO. I also expressed the "not endorsed" and "not
OTO business" formally for OTO at times throughout my tenure.
Sometimes it was necessary to tell subbordinate OTO officers and even
individual OTO members who teach classes to members or the general public
to "can it!" on particular subjects at OTO venues. Oddly enough,
considering the present concern, this had to do with protecting freedom of
thought as much as the profile of OTO teaching. Not only should freedom of
speech be protected for those who espouse a view, but also those who hear
speech must be informed of what is and what is not appropriate in a
particular school or order.
That's pretty complex. An example may serve: OTO does have a policy of
not endorsing definitive interpretation of Liber AL as such. Each
individual is held by OTO to read The Book of the Law according to their
own, individual understanding. That means disclaimers must be used when
OTO officers make a public or OTO-only-audience interpretation of Liber AL.
Such public statements by officers are discouraged, even with disclaimers.
As it happened, I learned many years ago (in Grady's time) that one
particular OTO Camp or Oasis master in Germany was teaching Michael
Aquino's Temple of Set interpretation of Liber AL in his OTO body. I
learned of the problem from a complimentary copy of the Temple of Set
newsletter that I was receiving at the time. We (OTO Supreme Council)
formally directed that OTO local body master in Germany to stop teaching
ToS doctrine at OTO venues, since it violated two simple rules required of
such OTO officers and local bodies: "no definitive Liber AL interp taught"
and "no advocation of other membership organizations". The confusion for
local OTO members cleared up, but the downside was resignation of the local
officer and cancelation of my free Temple of Set newsletter subscription.
As I've said before, I don't know exactly what Fr. Sabazius said. I do
know that versions have been published or shared about the Net. I also
know that he said whatever he said in an OTO-only venue. I strongly
suspect that he was instructing officers and individual OTO members of high
public profile that OTO does not endorse "English Qabala" as presently
expressed. Considering all that, I too would tell OTO officers and high
public profile members that great care must be taken to avoid the
impression that OTO endorses EQ. There is a particular problem with EQ and
OTO rules. EQ is a means of, often strongly biased toward, interpretation
of Liber AL. To that extent, there is a hazy distinction between teaching
a particular system of EQ with examples from Liber AL and formally teaching
a definitive interpretation of Liber AL. Back in the _OTO Newsletter_ days
(up to early 1980's e.v.), we (OTO HQ) published articles on several
systems of English Gematria that also advocated its use in study of Liber
AL. That policy changed later, to an extent.
That's pretty complex for an explanation of why David seemed to speak in
suppression of EQ, and I don't know if it helps at all. I think he should
have spoken where and when he did to require exclusion of EQ from OTO
venues in circumstances where it appeared to be a promulgation of both a
doctrine of OTO and an approved means of definitive interp of Liber AL. I
don't, in fact, know if that was what he intended to do. I just think that
I also think that hair can't take much more splitting. :-)
>>>As I also understood it, adapted massesSome of that was and is local variation. In particular, the regular mass
>>>were in wide practice all the way up until
>>>the early nineties when Breeze enacted the
>> You are wrong on that one.
>I recall Masses up until mid-1993 that still went on in various modes
>that would now be considered unorthodoxor whatever one might call it
>both in various interpretations of the script and in the use of
>initiates (or initiate's "significant others") as officers of the
>Mass regardless of individual degree.
"partner" or "significant other" practices do go on at some OTO locations
and not at others. I understand that US OTO, not IHQ OTO, did recommend
such a practice at one time between the mid '90's and now. Personally, I
think it was a mistake. It's not a rule. Some people still advocate it.
I don't think it even stands as a guideline in USOTO, but I could be wrong
on that. The rule about KEW and particular lower OTO degree standing for
various Mass Officers at OTO venues is OTO policy now. Because of training
and "informal Mass" distinctions, along with lack of degree qualified
members in particular areas, that rule is waved more often than enforced.
Frankly, that bugs me. I like clearly distinguished rules (no exceptions,
or only rare exceptions to some) and guidelines (recommended or ideal goals
for operation). That's either Virgo rising or North Californian v. South
Californian ethnic divide in me, not necessarily a valid criticism of Fr. S.
As I said, I feel free to pontificate more, now that my views are far less
likely to be blamed on OTO. I commiserate with Fr. S., who's present
service does not allow such freedom.
93 Tom, Pardon my delay in replying to your post. I was unavoidably distracted. In a message dated 2/23/2008 8:05:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, ... My ownMessage 145 of 145 , Feb 27, 2008View Source93 Tom,
Pardon my delay in replying to your post. I was unavoidably distracted.
In a message dated 2/23/2008 8:05:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> 93 Cam,My own experience has included involvement in the early 70s with two 'Abbeys
> camlion@... wrote:
> >Thelemic organizational experiments have always fascinated me, both the
> >successes and the failures will provide valuable insight for future
> >How does such a Thelemic 'dis'-organization work, and in what ways is it
> >preferable to, say, the A.'.A.'. and OTO models?
> Well obviously. there would probably be no general approach to such an org.
> It would be worth exploring the various alternatives. For our purposes I will
> discuss my experience with the QBLH and its applied format.
of Thelema' in the Los Angeles area. These started on a very small scale, in a
three bedroom house, but grew to occupy an eight bedroom house. I mention
these because they were so non-org oriented that they never even considered
themselves an org at all.
>Certainly, true 'initiation by Ordeal' cannot very well be staged by design,
> The basic premise of such an org is 'initiation b y Ordeal' meaning, that
> ritual initiation has a secondary, ancillary function to the greater process of
> magickal ordeal. Therefore, a 'ritual hierarchy' with its attendant admins
> and officers, is largely superfluous. Such a group has little or no
> organizational policy whatsoever, other than the propensity for its members to convene
> and work together in various ways. The focus of an org like QBLH is magickal
> work of all kinds. In Thelemic terms, that focus is sex magick. In QBLH,
> similar formula for the OTO's upper degree rites are given, again without oaths
> or vows of fealty to the order itself or its leaders. These are not rendered
> upon entry, but are given to those members who can 'ask the right question'.
> Therefore the process of initiation becomes a process of individually
> motivated deductive inquiry limited not by the constraints of org policy and the
> arbitrary, exclusionary judgment of leadership who may not be
> qualified to make such judgment. In this format, the only limitation is the
> volitional boundaries of each individual practitioner. therefore rituals are
> applied by dint of individual will and each member may openly experiment with
> any and all materials at hand at their whim. Thus there are no set rituals
> in such an org. Ritualism's secondary function in such orgs renders such
> centralism unnecessary. In fact, a central rite or rites would be
> counterproductive to the experimental basis and inquiry that is part and parcel of a group
> like QBLH or NOT.
and oaths or vows of fealty are to be regarded with the utmost caution, and
judged in relation to the individual's fealty to his or her own Will. Also, the
interests of the group need not include magick, or and other common subject at
all. The like-mindedness of a group can be limited to as little as the
furtherance of the Wills of the individuals involved. Of course, Wills of a feather
do tend to flock together, and group working sometimes has advantages that
outweigh its disadvantages. When this is the case, it is commendable.
>Not to poo-poo business in general, of course. Such groups certainly benefit
> Also, such an open inquiry will inevitably lead to further innovation and
> new data being incorporated into what is already a very loose set of precepts,
> beliefs and practices. Things like ALW and other 'new systems' are not
> criticized or defamed as a matter of militant competition. Unlike the OTO we are
> not in business. Such an open format for an org provides a much more level
> playing field in which occult arts can be reviewed in a far more empirical
by generating an income but, yes, I follow you.
>Yes, in the cases of the 'Abbeys' that I mentioned above, developments in
> Although such groups never try to create a formal orthodoxy, it is
> inevitable that
> some practitioners will achieve similar results and begin working together
> on a similar precept. Such has been the case in the QBLH with the use of
> 'astrologically timed sex magick'. The application of IX* sex magick in congress
> with the conjunction of the Sun and Venus and other planetary aspects has been
> a powerful tool of initiatory ordeal for many of us. Therefore the practice
> of this type of ritual has become something like an orthodoxy for QBLH
> members by virtue of their agreement and mutual use. However, other ideologies or
> applications are never knee-jerk rejected, they are seriously examined and
> possibly incorporated. Every orthodox precept is examined and for a time
> discarded. What you get is a 'crisis and observation' situation. Thus it seems
> inevitable that more and more structure will be enacted the longer the org endures
> as an institution.
areas of common practice evolved as you say. There were what I would consider
monumental breakthroughs in sex magick, to be sure.
>I consider both OTO and A.'.A.'. to be experimental. The results of the
> The downside of these orgs is that they almost never are able to build
> momentum beyond a small membership. Persons seeking to build the profile of such
> an anarchistic org into something like the OTO might find themselves
> frustrated. The lack of organization itself is a barrier to greater coverage and
> promotion of one's ideas. Plus, such orgs do not have recruitment as an intended
> goal, so as a non-priority, it is very difficult for the org to have a shelf
> life beyond the lifetimes of the original founders. The best the members of
> such orgs can hope for is that their deconstructive influence will shine light
> on the more orthodox, entrenched institutions.
> We may be a 'living laboratory' of sorts, from which the 'regulars' can draw
> data and incorporate in small amounts. Any constructive innovations that we
> devise may be assimilated into the collective at large. This too would serve
> Damon's agenda of '4th Way Transmission' in the QBLH. Orders like QBLH and
> NOT surely are not intended to survive as religious institutions, therefore
> they may not be in active existence for more than a few decades. However, others
> of like mind may take up this format in their own expressions of a similar
> organizational ideal. Hopefully, the ongoing process of 'cross-pollination' of
> things like QBLH with OTO and A*A* will continue.
latter system are very encouraging to me, on an individual level, while with the
former seems not yet to be fully developed along the lines of its model. Too
early to tell, in other words. OTO is a long range project, I think.
If there are 'cross-pollinations' of things like QBLH with things like OTO,
that would be natural and very interesting.
>I'm afraid that there is very little for us to argue about at the moment. ;)
> As long as we have some semblance of a true free speech system, folks will
> be able to express themselves in this manner. A neo-fascistic future could
> prevent this type of inquiry, with a government similar to the 'secret society'
> oligarchical format holding the gag.
> Revolutio Aldo Neccessitudo,
Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]