Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!well!heidrick From: heidrick@well.sf.ca.us (Bill Heidrick) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.magick Subject: Re: Hubbard, Manson, Love, and Life Date: 15 Nov 1995 15:23:24 GMT Organization: The Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA Lines: 49 Message-ID: <48d0lc$e3v@nkosi.well.com> References: <488s9n$q2s@nkosi.well.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: well.com X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #1 (NOV) Xref: shell.portal.com alt.religion.scientology:129238 alt.magick:58055 mouse@network.ucsd.edu (September) writes: >In article <488s9n$q2s@nkosi.well.com>, heidrick@well.sf.ca.us (Bill >Heidrick) wrote: >> >> Why? I've read 'em all and the subject doesn't come up. Crowley does >> remark on social ills in relation to sexual mores, but that's in print. >> >You mean there's no other secret documents beyond what Crowley wrote? >I find that to be unexpected and it might even date the foundation of the OTO. Literal tons of 'em, but most of those are only secret in the sense that they are membership records and correspondence with the membership. Secret documents in the formal sense of containing internal-only OTO instruction or initiation ritual have always been kept to a minimum. Most of the Crowley period material is in public collections. Almost all of the pre- Crowley OTO instructional material has either been displaced by Crowley and post Crowley versions or is in public and private collections. Reuss had Crowley re-write the rituals and re-draft a variety of the informational materials. Membership records from before Crowley's time are largely no longer secret, in view of the lack of need for privacy of deceased members. Also, it was my impression that the question for this point was to what Crowley wrote for secret instruction, not what he had via Reuss without his subsequent comment. The Kelner and Reuss material was mostly published in their respective life-times, except for the actual rituals of initiation and secrets keyed to them -- all re-drafted by Crowley. Example: Under Reuss, a point was made that a woman bearing a child out of wedlock was to be considered an object of devotion and protection by the Order -- in part from the heroism of that choice and in part for symbolic reasons. That was a public stand along the lines of correction of harm from excessive social mores, not a secret one. There's little point in keeping secret a stand that is intended to improve things in the world at large -- except when publication of that stand involves an overwhelming danger of suppression by reaction of public prejudice. Short of that, reasonable risks of ignorant opprobrium must be taken. Methods of individual improvement are more mixed in regard to secrecy. At times those methods are of a nature that can be openly discussed. At other times those methods require a background of knowledge or experience to be understood. In the former case, public discussion is a duty. In the latter case, public discussion is an absurdity. 93 93/93 Bill Heidrick