Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!well!heidrick From: heidrick@well.sf.ca.us (Bill Heidrick) Newsgroups: alt.magick Subject: Re: Typhonian vs. Caliphate OTO Date: 15 Nov 1995 16:16:27 GMT Organization: The Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA Lines: 81 Message-ID: <48d3or$evd@nkosi.well.com> References: <48akjo$jit$1@mhafm.production.compuserve.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: well.com X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #1 (NOV) ... <75214.150@CompuServe.COM> writes: >93 All! >Re: TOTO vs OTO and the trademark issues. >Bill -- I understand the details, as explained by you, of the trademark >issue. But what about the rights to Crowley's literary estate? Isn't >that the real bottom line issue. OTO can publish (and profit) from Crowley's >writings -- as well as control their dissemination, editing, etcetera. For example, do Grant/Symonds no longer have the right to publish and profit from >their edition of Magick In Theory and Practice because of these issues? In >that regard, this raises Mogg's question about an "official" Thelemic inter- >pretation of Crowley's work. The Grant/Symonds edition is a radically dif- >ferent book and interpretation than the Hymenaeus Beta edition. Could you >clarify? This can be a very complex matter to discuss, if we get into the history of litigation and the various international states of the Crowley copyrights. I've already touched on it. As to the matter of editing and dissemination, compare the copies of _Magick_ yourself. Grant and Symonds footnoted one version. We footnoted and expanded another version. Anyone can write a book about the matter or the derivation. Our main emphasis on this is to get the most complete and definitive editions of Crowley's stuff out that we can. I think you will find on examination that the differences in "interpretation" between the two editions are mainly quantity and inclusion of as much of Crowley's material and usage as possible in the OTO edition, over some useful notes and mostly personal slant in the Grant/Symonds edition. >Lastly, Bill, you did not address Mogg's concern that the Caliphate/Toto >conflict would result in an "official" interpretation of Thelema -- would >you care to address that? I did address that, but it went by quickly. My response was that this is a manifest absurdity. OTO does not and shall not try to define or dogmatize Thelema, as Grant appears to do. OTO has a limited venue for living Thelema and propagating it, as well as providing Crowley's stuff. In itself, OTO isn't everything to everybody. Some aspects of Thelema will work in other venues better than in OTO, by the nature of OTO being only one particular kind of thing. This is markedly true of something like Liber OZ -- OTO can do a great deal with it, but can't behave like there's no limit in regard to people's choices while they are attending OTO events, since a gathering and membership necessarily involves a balance between peoples' rights and continued existence requires some limits on extremism. The same is true for Cakes of Light -- OTO public Gnostic Masses must not endanger the health of the public, so we calcine any biologicals. Neither of those illustrations says anything about what others may do, only that different places and situations have necessarily the expression of Thelema that suits what they are. Read Crowley's Book of the Balance. >For myself, incidentally, I've seen no indication >that Grant's IDEAS are unacceptable to the "Caliphates" -- merely the >specific claim that the Order which he heads is the OTO which Crowley headed. However, Grant's ideas are certainly not disseminated in the "Caliphate" edi- >tions of Crowley's work which would tend to be interpreted as "official" >understandings. Pretty much so, but Grant's tendency to give very limited discussions of Thelema and Crowley ideas, mostly isolated from practical application, is a bit disturbing. Ideas he finds of special interest are often also discussed in OTO editions, but our emphasis is not so much on the particular Astral travels and such of Kenneth Grant. Why would it be? He is quite the better man to describe his own ideas. As a living author, it's his work to do so. We take exception to his describing what Crowley "really meant" and what "OTO really means" -- since that is not Grant's particular skill, as far as I can see; neither is it his business in the latter. I take great exception to someone telling me what Thelema is, aside from discussion of what they do as Thelemites and open sharing of non-dogmatic ideas. These things are indeed discussed, as they should be, for others to react to in whatever way they please. >So perhaps there's SOME truth to Mogg's concerns? I lost you on this conclusion. There's always some truth to anything. Some of Mogg's concerns are not factually founded, in my opinion. Some are. Some may be, but my blinders may miss 'em. Some are and I can easily agree with 'em. 93 93/93 Bill Heidrick