- howdy rev rob, 93! (rob one: , hal two: or none) ... perhaps -- tho he was quick to take it over (the org which he did not create) from Reuss when the timeMessage 1 of 17 , Jan 3, 2005View Sourcehowdy rev rob, 93!
(rob one: >, hal two: >> or none)
> On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, hal wrote:perhaps -- tho he was quick to take it over (the org which he did not create) from Reuss when the time came, without any election, appointment or other analegalisms
> aside from questions of why AC played that game
> There's no real question. AC did it because he respected both the organization, what he had created, and his oaths.
> It's the latter that most folks seem to poo-poo, but those are the same oaths that got him as far as he did.?? he already knew -- as for 'poo-poo' that is a question of (c)oto anality no?
>> (it does heighten interest in such details and elaboration ;-) -- since the secret ions are long since out of the bag: what would you say is the reason to continue to pretend the pussy is still in the sack?yes, an obligation not held by those of us who already received the dispensation via AC's rather free passing out of said secrets (or persON-al gnowledge), and not via (c)ulterior motives ;-)
> Obligation. It's part of the social contract of receiving said secrets.
> > this is a new aeon, my friend, the old notions of secrecy no longer applyah, u crowley-analist u ;-)
> After looking at the words of the ostensible prophet, he certainly didn't agree.
> In a him v. you scenario, you don't have the credibility in terms of speaking or writing to overcome it without a lot of documentation.say what? r u asking for my academic passport or somesuch here? :-o)
> Hell, I'm still laughing that you weren't aware that Crowley himself edited "The Urn" - it's a mistake in scholarship on par with the howlers you've attributed to HB.oops rob, ur mistake: u r confusing me with Fr FIAOF
>> -- looking ahead, i envisage a time when the practicants of Crowleyanity (c-oto-anality) are the only ones who still ignore the open present of said secrets... :-(ah yet more Crowley-analism :-( -- in point of fact, i think u need to apply a considerably greater understanding of ACand his i-rONies here than u have so far evinced -- he ain't no two headed deer, ya know ;-)
> And in doing so, are the only ones who are upholding his intent.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Monday, January 3, 2005, 3:46:12 PM, you wrote: camlion ...the reference in published works to OTO degree material, camlion while withholding privilegedMessage 2 of 17 , Jan 3, 2005View SourceMonday, January 3, 2005, 3:46:12 PM, you wrote:
camlion> ...the reference in published works to OTO degree material,
camlion> while withholding privileged details and elaboration, is a
camlion> long standing precedent set Crowley. Why should this policy
camlion> change now?
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
As Hal pointed out, times have changed. Crowley is long dead, and the secrets well known. Crowley ridiculed the G.D. for swearing him to secrecy, and then entrusting him with the Hebrew Alphabet...
The question can be approached from other directions as well.
Crowley declared himself, among other things, the "World Teacher." Such exalted claims, if taken seriously, give his writings the same historical/religious significance as the Dead Sea Scrolls.
He claimed to possess special status, said that he was the Word of the Aeon, and ranked himself alongside Moses, Buddha, and Mohammad. He claimed to be a messenger of the Gods, wrote/channeled inspired "Holy Books." Liber AL is to be "a New Law for mankind. It replaces the moral and religious sanctions of the past..."
In light of this, his writings belong to the world. Everyone has the right to fully investigate these claims, and decide for himself how to respond to them. Was Crowley a prophet or a fraud? It matters; we're talking about replacing all moral and religious sanctions.
Every scrap that Crowley produced or wrote is part of the historical record, and should be available at bookstores etc. for everyone's own private research. Even the Comment to Liber AL insists: "All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself."
A small group tried to horde the unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls, explaining that they could only release them in annotated editions. But years went by, and precious little got published. Finally, others made all the material available, everybody was able do his own research, and the world was better off because of it.
Love is the law, love under will.
- Care Hal, 93 ... Not to be boring, but this is exactly the point: I ve never seen a copy of such a book, never had the chance to put my eyes and/or hands onMessage 3 of 17 , Jan 4, 2005View SourceCare Hal, 93
> i also enjoyed the Stephen Skinner "Astrology" put out by Neville Spearman inNot to be boring, but this is exactly the point: I've never seen a copy of
> 1974, when the (c)OTO was just a growing gleam in Grady's eye...
such a book, never had the chance to put my eyes and/or hands on it; should
I have the chance, how much would it cost?
In 1974 I was 10 years old, I'don't live in an English speaking country, I
don't have all those connections with antiquarians worldwide nor I was
around when AC's books were firstly published and/or cheap before he was
HB's Astrology is distributed worldwide at a reasonable price, contains a
lot of stuff and it's hardback...
- 93s ... Symonds and Grant were careless and did not spot the passing reference in MWT where AC identifies Equinox of the Gods as Part IV 8 years after theMessage 4 of 17 , Jan 4, 2005View Source93s
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Massimo Mantovani <masmant@l...>
> 93Symonds and Grant were careless and did not spot the passing
>> I seem to remember a lot of elves working very diligently,
>> without pay and almost no credit, proofing Liber IV; not all of
>> them were OTO (or dues current) by the way. There were still a
>> lot of problems with the first revised edition. If a group works
>> on a project, shouldn't the money generated from it be returned
>> to the group?
> Not if they volunteered for the job, IMHOA
> When I was i OTO, HB approached me asking for the Italian
> translation of a bookelt on AC Tarot. I was offered to be paid for
> the job - but I decided to leave the money to the order as my
> financial means had just turned for the better (and yes, it was
> thanks to OTO magick eh eh eh :-)
>> It should properly be referred
>> to as Liber IV (cOTO version) as the purpose was to dismount
>> other versions of the text in publication (Grant and Dover
> As far as I know, it should be referred to "Liber IV (as AC wanted
> but never had the money to do - notes apart).
> Why didn't Grant et al try to put the four parts together?
reference in MWT where AC identifies Equinox of the Gods as
Part IV 8 years after the event, though they correctly note it
was not so designated on publication. Symonds and Grant rather
believed that their _Magical and Philosophical Commentaries &c._
constituted Part IV.
Kevin aka dancingstar
- Camlion : # 93 Kelly, er, sorry, Hal: E6. hm, you can t tell them apart? or are they using the same acct? : Hal : #Message 5 of 17 , Jan 9, 2005View SourceCamlion <camlion@...>:
# 93 Kelly, er, sorry, Hal:
E6. hm, you can't tell them apart? or are they using the same acct? :>
#> Further to what 'henriebenholt' notes, the reference in published works to
#> OTO degree material, while withholding privileged details and elaboration, is
#> a long standing precedent set Crowley. Why should this policy change now?
someone was arguing that this policy should be changed? I didn't hear that.
perhaps the argument was that such restrictions are Old AEonic in character
and are therefore indications of corruption, imbecility, or sloughed skin.
#> aside from questions of why AC played that game (it does heighten interest
#> in such details and elaboration ;-) --
the incentive to delve further into the cult is very important to understand.
it may prevent unnecessary time and effort wasted in attempts to penetrate
the societal cult when in fact no such penetration is ever really necessary.
#> since the secret ions are long since out of the bag: what would you
#> say is the reason to continue to pretend the pussy is still in the
apparently you believe that "the secrets" are somehow correllate to
"secretions" as with the combination of sexual effluvia and their
consumption or retainment to the roof of the mouth. generally this
notion is not known or presumed about the OTO that I've noticed,
even if it may be "out of the bag" and may indeed be practiced by
its membership as orgia.
#> i do point out also that AC came to the OTO because he already
#> knew and had published the secret(y-on)s --
so goes the story between him and Reuss, yes. Lies chapter 36? 69?
#> hell, he even sold em as pills later in life, no?
I've heard that. it would have been in the fine tradition of
PBRandolph whom Crowley copied but to whom he GAVE NO CREDIT.
#> this is a new aeon, my friend, the old notions of secrecy no
#> longer apply -- looking ahead, i envisage a time when the
#> practicants of Crowleyanity (c-oto-anality) are the only
#> ones who still ignore the open present of said secrets... :-(
why does the New AEon (TM!) require openness, if so? why did the
Old AEon (post-TM?!) require or reward such secrecy?
# Yes, to echo Rev Rob, it is clearly a matter of order membership,
when speaking about internal (c)OTO magical pursuits, assuredly.
# oath and obligation.
the officials of (c)OTO have made clear their interests in
dominating member behaviour through threat of expulsion
for violating what they regard as oaths of secrecy. we ought
consider carefully whether this structure and method is
actually reflective of Thelemic values and principles.
# It is not going to given by OTO in published works,
what "it" refers to here is apparently important to the
contention you are espousing. in fact there are those who
maintain that published works contain even internal order
secrets BUT NOT IDENTIFIED AS SUCH. I've encountered this
sort of half-blind before in covens where traditional and
secret riteforms were demonstrated and "not stipulated as
the traditional riteform of the line" but implication
throughout was that they were legitimate and differed
very little from what they were prohibited by oaths
from revealing unto the vulgar.
# nor by anyone else thereby without due legal challenge.
maybe not as such by such people. however, anybody who
wants to can claim to know them and provide them to us right
here and no (c)OTO will put a stop to it otherwise than by
issuing a threat to the provider to desist or be expelled.
# This is because, were it to be given in this manor,
# it would not confer order membership, oath or obligation.
# What could be simpler than that?
that is irrational, depending again to what "it" refers.
sure, internal incentive items for (c)OTO are private,
and conveying them doesn't convey upon the receiver the
status within the organization. that doesn't mean it can
NOT be conveyed, if it is information, or may be spoken
of by typing or speaking.
# As for the new aeon not being one in which secrets are
# given and kept,
misunderstood. the idea is that they are no longer needed.
fidelity is likely to be of longstanding import.
# this is as foolish as the widespread misunderstanding
# that this is to be an age of peace and not of war. I
# am curious as to where you get this notion about an
# absence of secrecy in this new aeon.
revealed unto the prophets of the New AEon, obviously.
# Certainly not from Liber AL?
that Evul Book was put out of its misery long ago when
the Black Brother edited it to proper proportions,
showing precisely what ought be done with such travesties.
# 93 93/93
E 6 6 6
3 3 3