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

Re: Open question to the contenders to the OTO throne

Expand Messages
  • henriebenholt
    ... I received a copy of it from the person who copied it out from the archives of Kenneth Grant. It is not the full letter btw only those parts that deals
    Message 1 of 48 , Feb 3, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Rons" <ianrons@y...> wrote:

      > Thanks for digging out the full quote from this letter. Where did
      > you find it?

      I received a copy of it from the person who copied it out from the
      archives of Kenneth Grant.

      It is not the full letter btw only those parts that deals with the
      change in the Order. The part that follows what I quoted deals with
      the succession of the Order.

      > Well, the Albion O.T.O. is definitely attempting to do so, for
      > better or worse.

      We will see what their attempts amount to in the end, success shall be
      their proof.

      > The phrase "a complete change in the structure of the Order, and its
      > methods are necessary" suggests to me something different, especially
      > when consideration is given to "The other rituals will have to tail
      > along as best they can. I feel doubtful whether the time will ever
      > return when there is either need to use such methods or leisure to
      > cultivate them."


      > I don't think the initiation rituals are necessarily implied as part
      > of the various Libri that he mentions; instead, what I think he's
      > outlining is a plan for the general social structure of the Order,
      > rather than methods of initiation -- he does say "the New Social
      > Order", as distinct from the OTO as it was in Crowley's time.

      A.C. wrote about the new social order numerous times from he started
      revising the system around 1916 e.v., first in his diaries, then in
      his notebooks where he codified what would later become the libri and
      the revised rituals, then again in his correspondence to C.S. Jones
      whom he discussed his revision with, then all through his life until
      his death. The new social order was always referenced as the new
      social order the O.T.O. were supposed to bring about in society (a
      laughable idea considering how miniscule the Order was then and now,
      to be sure, but nevertheless that was his plan).

      It also needs to be read in context to what he wrote to other people
      during that time. He never left the outer revised rituals, but in fact
      insisted (in letters to Jack Parsons, W.B. Crow and others) that they
      had been simplified in such a way that they were possible to be set
      up. What he did not think was possible anymore were the middle triad
      rituals. He certainly seemed to emphasize the minerval ritual to W.B.
      Crow, even going so far as until he had enough followers and could set
      up the other rituals (i.e. tag along as best they could) that ritual
      alone was enough (stressing the good propoganda nature of the ritual).

      > Aside from Mr. Koenig's points about Metzger's OTO, I think it is
      > disingenuous to imply that Crowley's letter was really about putting
      > on the rituals that Crowley wrote, or that it's about financial or
      > other resources.

      The Metzger O.T.O. is nowhere near the developement they once had and
      does not use A.C.'s revised ritual system (instead they use the tedois
      and complicated masonic rituals of Reuss, which A.C. deplored). Their
      system also never demanded complete allegiance to the principles of AL
      (and evne Metzger turned around after Germer's death) as demanded by
      A.C. in that letter, nor did they demand any of the other social
      contracts that is described in those various libri A.C. refered to
      which was included in A.C.'s revised system. Do they even perform the
      gnostic mass regularly anymore? My comment was in present tense in any
      case, and the letter does comment on A.C.'s rituals and system. And it
      does need a large reservoir of financial and other resources, which
      you will realise if you actually read the libri referenced.

      My point remains I can't see any contenders to the throne when it
      comes to closeness in how A.C. described it in that letter.

      > There are many points where I would disagree with you on that, not
      > least that I think you have completely misunderstood what Crowley
      > was getting at

      I think you have misunderstood it and I think this is due in large
      part not having studied the libri in question (and the correspondence
      and diaries which describes their developement and how closely tied
      they are to the revised rituals of A.C.) and the surrounding
      correspondence during that timeto other members of the Order which
      stresses the same points and goes into his plans for the future. This
      is readily available at Warburg (including a microfiche of other
      correspondence that they do not have the originals or ts of) if you
      really are interested in the subject and care to do some original
      research yourself.

      > The key phrase (aside from "the secrecy part of it is
      > purely comic as long as there are any Gerald Yorkes in the world")
      > is "a complete change...[is] necessary".

      I actually agree with you that the secrecy side of it is purely
      comical and have argued for the publication of all the rituals and
      instructions, properly annotated. However the copyrightholder do not
      wish to do this and this I respect.

      But your reading about secrecy and a complete change is highly
      doubtful and misleading.
    • 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.