Re: Open question to the contenders to the OTO throne
- View Source--- In email@example.com, camlion@a... wrote:
> initially, McMurtry referred to "his" OTO as "Aleister Crowley'sOTO." That
> is adequate identification for me. It makes the point. That OTO, asit 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 ;-)
- View SourceDear Ian,
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "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
>>> 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.
Kevin aka dancingstar