From tyagi@bjt.net Fri Jan 24 09:29:39 1997 Return-Path: tyagi@bjt.net Received: from kudonet.com (kudonet.com [165.227.52.1]) by bitsy.hollyfeld.org (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA32049 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 09:29:36 -0500 Received: from kudo20.kudonet.com by kudonet.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA14991; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 05:22:57 -0800 Received: by kudo20.kudonet.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA21085; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 05:14:00 -0800 From: tyagi@bjt.net (Tyagi Nagasiva) Message-Id: <199701241314.FAA21085@kudo20.kudonet.com> Subject: Thelema/9701.oto--aa.bh To: tyagi@hollyfeld.org Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 05:13:59 -0800 (PST) Orientation: House of Kaos, St. Joseph, Kali Fornika, US -- Kali Yuga X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8b] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Status: Status: O ----- Forwarded message from Bill Heidrick ----- >From thelema93-l-owner@hollyfeld.org Thu Jan 23 09:49:50 1997 X-Authentication-Warning: bitsy.hollyfeld.org: majordom set sender to owner-thelema93-l using -f Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 08:33:21 -0800 (PST) From: Bill Heidrick Subject: Re: 'The OTO and the Future of Thelema' (JS-K) To: Goat of Mendes cc: thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org In-Reply-To: <19970122210532.22582.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org Precedence: bulk content-length: 4117 93, On 22 Jan 1997, Goat of Mendes wrote: > Bill, this whole letter was meant to make a point, that who the true OTO is > does not matter and we should all concentrate on the work, as Don pointed out > (hi Don, tell Maggie Hello) Is the work being done is all I ask, if so, that is > all that matters. To the lay men, OTO= Thelema, we know differently as there > are non-Thelemic OTOs out there. The 93 Current is important to all and we > should quit worrying about the True OTO and start expanding the current. I AM > Pro Caliphate after all. Understood, although I have my itchy-rash now and then on things like "93 current" -- too simple and too prone to fluff. The difficulty with some usage on "OTO" has to do with mundane legality. What does sex and trademark have in common? If you don't use it, you loose it. -- and for trademark, that means you have to preserve identity of the term or symbol to a particular. Similar problems for legal entity organizations -- if you can't be precise about who's on or off the bus, it doesn't roll as far as mundane law is concerned. > As all churches are. The OTO taps into a current, magickal in Nature via > Ritual. The initiation rituals are the best examples of this. It implies that > the OTO owns the 93 curret, which it does not, "the law is for all" Mystical water rights confused with rites for elemental water? OTO has never claimed exclusivity to Thelema or even a brand of it. "Tap in" isn't accurate either for OTO. OTO "accepted" Thelema. That is a very different idea. The former indicates utility while the latter affirms duty. > As Barry pointed out, it is structured on the old scale, not in print. Motta > was not a member but in name, no legal documents or such. You and I have > discussed this issue extensively. I am saying that wether SOTo was or was not > an OTO it is a successor as Motta and his Successors in HOOR tapped into the > current as much as the "true" OTO. Here, we enter into a question of opinion, not only definition of terms. Motta stated under oath in court that he only considered his OTO claims after he learned of Crowley's Last Will and intent to give copyright to OTO. How one interprets that is a matter of many complex things. Also, "successor" is a loaded word. What Motta did is significant, part worthy of respect and part a warning of the pit falls and dangers of being drawn to fulfillment of one's will, consciously or not. It is consequent, but "Successor" is not the same thing. The term implies "one-true-and-only". > I agree, but does ownership matter. No one owns the Rites of Freemasonry and > it's secrets. True OTO does have mild meaning. Egregore, which some have said > can not be created, is vitally important to initiation. This is where the > Secret Chiefs come in from Motta's perspective. The Rites of Freemasonry are owned. Lawsuits have been won and lost in that question. "True OTO" signifies many things, from the equivalent to rightly labeled on down to artificially flavored. Egregores are always created, although there is a philosophical distinction regarding the nature and possibility of that creation/Creation. > the Motta A.'.A.'. so i see the need for a link between the two orders. There is. Has been since the 1970's, even though Motta didn't like it and fought it to the last breath. The link is external, but real. > A question, if the OTO does not claim a link to the A.'.A.'. and the Secret > Chiefs, why does The OTO publish the Equinox, the official organ of the > A.'.A.'.? Why is volume III number 10 dedicated to the OTO, not the A.'.A.'.? > Some one please ELUCIDATE! The _Equinox_ has also been an official organ of OTO, since the latter part of Volume I. OTO, under Crowley and more completely since Crowley became OHO of OTO, has supported A.'.A.'. and enjoyed a fraternal relation with that Order. However, A.'.A.'. does not direct OTO or vice versa. Members in common are not noted, and the internal work of each is separate from the other. I sometimes act as a spokesman for OTO, but I cannot do that for A.'.A.'. 93 93/93 Bill ----- End of forwarded message from Bill Heidrick -----