From: Bill Heidrick To: personal email/Usenet Subject: AA/OTO Excerpt (Was Re: EXAMPLE OF CENSORSHIP-repost edit) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 10:50:54 -0700 (PDT) 93 Mu, [much removed] |How about 'esoteric' (A.'.A.'.) and 'exoteric' (O.T.O.)? Still a problem in the identification of the critters. I think of them as two overlapping sheets of rubber. O.T.O. is stretched thin at the top and bulges at the bottom. A.'.A.'. is the other way round. "esoteric" and "exoteric" have become as fluffy as "metaphysical", so I have a rash to deal with on those terms. Damn'd itchy stuff, makes me sneeze too. |In that the first is less populated and less often open to approach |by the public sector, whereas OTO responds to direct inquiry (the most |exoteric being advertizing sects), maybe these terms would suffice. Probably more A.'.A.'. than O.T.O. folks out there, taking it as loosely as people do. A.'.A.'. also responds to direct inquiry, so that doesn't help. OTO is easier to find in some ways. The present want of a simple term of distinction is what bugs me now. A.'.A.'. is more secretive, but that's hardly adequate. A.'.A.'. lets dead people retain their membership, but O.T.O. doesn't. Aside from the other fiddly bits, that is one of the major distinctions. A.'.A.'. comes out of a Masonic sidecar with Qabalistic structure. O.T.O. comes from a similar thing with Kundalini and more traditionally Masonic structure. A.'.A.'.(G.'.D.'.) never claimed to make or raise Masons, but O.T.O. did at one time. A.'.A.'. is from a single predecessor and O.T.O. has many. A.'.A.'. is spiritual but not social or mundane. O.T.O. is spiritual, social and mundane. OTO has a pontificate standard, while A.'.A.'. has an absolute standard. (The old Roman pre-Xtian pontiffs were priests not required to do more than humanly possible, in contrast to other priests who were required to perform more narrowly circumscribed acts exactly or not at all). 93 93/93 Bill