Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Open question to the contenders to the OTO throne

Expand Messages
  • prkoenig2001
    ... OTO. That ... it exists ... That OTO.... ? you speak about the New Caliphate ? it is ONE OTO among others. it is the most bureaucratic version that uses
    Message 1 of 48 , Feb 1, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, camlion@a... wrote:

      > initially, McMurtry referred to "his" OTO as "Aleister Crowley's
      OTO." That
      > is adequate identification for me. It makes the point. That OTO, as
      it exists
      > today,

      "That OTO...."? you speak about the New 'Caliphate'?
      it is ONE OTO among others. it is the most bureaucratic version that
      uses some of crowley's ideas. but the Typhonian is the most magic
      version. as far as i can see. ;-) metzger's version is the most
      serious and old-fashioned one. and there are others :-)

      >attempts to meet the model as Crowley envisioned it.

      this is not for sure as crowley advised Germer to alter the OTO. to
      focus on the secret only.

      > Only time will tell. :)

      oh no :-) the past, the presence already are telling us. the OTO
      phenomenon is not like cheese or wine that gets better the older it is.

      dont you think that you sincerely block your spirituality as soon as
      when you become member of any of the OTO-versions? in a blink you land
      in the chalice. no way out. no way in. and it's not the chalice of
      ecstasy. it's the chalice that contains the bitter tears of the rotten
      place, that is matter. in the gnostic sense ;-)

      prk
    • Frater T.S.
      Dear Ian, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. ... said ... John Tindsley did not respond to message 16018 probably because it was not addressed to
      Message 48 of 48 , Feb 15, 2005
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Ian,

        Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

        --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Rons" <ianrons@y...> wrote:
        > > and since John Tindsley didn't respond to message 16018, I
        >>> suppose you are the only person who doesn't now understand what I
        said
        >>> in message 15996 and wishes to argue about it.

        John Tindsley did not respond to message 16018 probably because it
        was not addressed to him. In general he did not respond to you
        as he saw no point in continuing the argument.

        John Tindsley has since attempted to respond to you but his response
        has not got past the moderators.

        nu_isis@... is not John Tindsley. My post to which your
        message 16018 was a response was posted from that account by
        mistake, as I was logged into that rather than tanzendstern93
        for the purpose of maintaining the NIWG website.

        I have not yet responded to you as I am only online very
        infrequently. Actually I generally agree with the position
        in the last paragraph of your post 16018... the "Bellman's Law"
        remark is probably more applicable to Peter than to you. I am
        quite happy to let this discussion drop before it completely
        disappears up its own arsehole... while I have a limited interest
        in historical questions such as these, I think that limit has
        been not merely reached but exceeded.

        Love is the law, love under will.

        regards,
        Kevin aka dancingstar
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.