Path: typhoon.sonic.net!feed.news.sonic.net!sjc70.webusenet.com!c03.atl99!news.webusenet.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: Al Billings Newsgroups: alt.magick,alt.magick.order,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.thelema,alt.pagan.magick Subject: Re: The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn (LONG response to 333) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 22:49:50 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <3DA64F4F.C1EC119B@address.com> <3E223074.6D020E17@slip.net> <3E2DC59A.740295A6@slip.net> <3E36F43F.21D72F1E@slip.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) trialware MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 49 Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick:334439 alt.magick.order:7198 alt.magick.tyagi:36154 alt.pagan.magick:35680 On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:21:08 GMT, "Fr. A.o.C." wrote: >The Arum Solis case is an interesting one. Using your measure of >remaining "true" to an established tradition to determine 'naming >rights', it's Osbourne Phillips and his new partner who should be >changing *their* name. After all, they're the ones changing the focus of >the original Order (as described by the "Magical Philosophy" series), >while Mr. Billings and others in the US wish to carry on the tradition >as before (I think -- Al is welcome to correct me on this.) So who >should be calling themselves "Arum Solis"? The Ordo Astrum Sophiae is, indeed, planning on continuing the work of the Aurum Solis as set forth in the Magical Philosophy and other materials. We aren't plannning on changing the nature of things in any particilar way/ >People who might have been somewhat familiar with the core of the >tradition may well be shocked to find how much the name-bearers have >altered things. Those people would be far more comfortable with what Al >Billings and others are doing, but if they change *their* name, doesn't >that lead to more confusion, not less? > >My suggestion would be to use an alternate variation on "Ordo Arum >Solis", which is the original name; the "Arum Solis Society" or some >such. By retaining the identifier of "Arum Solis" somewhere in the name, >it conveys accurate information by use of a specific meme -- which is >the whole purpose of labeling. A label is a symbol for what's behind the >label when it's unpacked. The other body (the Aurum Solis) exists and has continuity. We are our own organization now and make our origins clear. I don't think that there was a need to fight over the name. >But if instead they follow your kind of advice and they change the name >to "Occult Al's Club", all the information packing is gone from the >label, for there is no reference in the common lexicon as to the meaning >of "Al", and "occult" is too vague, as is "club". It's useless as a >label. A knowledgeable person who looked at their course of study or >attended a ritual might say, "hey, you guys are doing the Arum Solis >work. Why didn't you just say so in the first place?" Point of Clarification: I'm a member of the Ordo Astrum Sophia but I'm not an officer of it or even an adept within the order. I and a few others founded our Seattle citadel but that's about it so I don't claim to speak for the order in any way. LVX, Al