Path: Supernews70!Supernews73!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.172.150.11!news1.bellglobal.com!nntp.texas.net!typhoon.texas.net!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3505A2F1.2C9C7989@texas.net> From: "J. Karlin" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 (Macintosh; U; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.tarot Subject: Re: Thoth's Devil & Sex (was: The Devil) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <35013E66.1123BCFC@texas.net> <19980309184801.NAA23611@ladder03.news.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 155 Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 20:31:53 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.207.2.154 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:31:53 CST Xref: Supernews70 alt.tarot:27176 Bill Heidrick wrote: > Reactionary, maybe, but not otherwise founded. There is no need to > make misleading statements, Sure there is, you want to appear to 'protect' your 'trade secrets'. > certainly I have not deliberately made > false statements. Ever? On only in this thread? > I have hinted where I am bound by oath not to state > in clear terms. Why do you need to 'hint' about where you are 'bound'? If you intent was to be clear about such things, you would not need to hint about anything. Indeed, you would spend a lot more time being silent. > I have denied missinformation, You've simply denied what you don't wish to discuss. You've not offered ANY explanation for how or why your admission (that was posted here) to the effect that OTO must lie about the nature of its 'trade secrets', was not exactly what it appears to be. In the same way, you've offered no explanation for how and why you can't or won't explain the myth OTO has fostered and maintained about the Stele of Revealing. > such as the error > regarding passwords. There was no error regarding 'passwords'. 'Thelema' is the word of the IXth degree and 'Agape' is the reply. Aleister Crowley wrote this. I simply quoted him. Your argument for how it could not be so was ridiculous, by the way. There are numerous terms, in common usage all the way through a person's initiation in OTO, which DO appear later as passwords or words of special importance in initiations and instructions. That, in fact, was one of the things I noticed when I acquired the 'secrets'---that the truth of the thing was explicitly described in many ways throughout Crowley's writing. There was indeed nothing much surprising about the nature of the 'secrets'. They are mostly affirmations, not revelations. > Otherwise, I simply stop, saying that I neither > confirm or deny. That's not true Bill, you go much further than this, and you've admitted to why you feel the need to do so. > >The fact is that both you and Grady McMurtry (in 1985) have > >affirmed that 'Secret Rituals of the OTO' is a facsimile (meaning > >accurate) reproduction of Crowley's OTO rituals. > > No. It's a book based on out-dated OTO rituals, found in collections. > It is not a facsimile in any sense. In any sense, Bill? Here, Bill advises me on the value of the very same book, 'Secret Rituals of the OTO', in reference to its rendition of the Minerval initiation--- "If you have access to a copy of Francis King's "Secret Rituals of the O.T.O.", you can read a reasonable facsimile of the thing." Reasonable=Not excessive or extreme; fair. Facsimile= An exact copy or reproduction, as of a document. 'Reasonable facsimile'? Or 'outdated and incomplete'? Also, in the transcript of the 1985 OTO-SOTO trial, we have a record of several OTO members (and Motta himself) affirming the accuracy of "Secret Rituals of the OTO". The book was used in the trial to validate the accuracy of claims made by both sides. This was in 1985, long after the book was published. Certainly, if it had become, in the interim, 'outdated', it would not have been used in the manner it was in this trial, nor would the comments about it (affirming its accuracy) have been made. > The rituals were incomplete, Bill, when shall 'the rituals' EVER be 'complete'? Having reviewed copies of Crowley's drafts of these rituals, in two languages, I know that, while King himself admits to certain variations and omissions ('Emblems and Mode of Use' is not included for example) they form, as you yourself admit, a 'reasonable facsimile' of what Aleister Crowley wrote and intended as a corpus of OTO ritual and instruction. > not > accurately reported and sometimes false conjectures were added to > flesh them out. 'false' according to what standard of truth? What draft of what ritual, written when and by whom establishes the one and only TRUE form of the ritual in question? There IS no such thing and never was. King offered 'Secret Rituals' as an aid to the reconstitution of the order, providing, as Regardie did with the rituals and instructions of Golden Dawn, a 'reasonable facsimile' of OTO rituals, and that's exactly how you all have used it---while at the same time cursing Francis King for actually doing you a big favor. > Where it is right and where wrong is something I may > not say, Nor can you even admit that it is substantially right---except that you all have, and have done so in a public record. > >According to your own statements re: the danger of making > >any such admission, you've lost the right to claim > >the rituals AS trade secrets. > > Inaccurate. Such as these are, they were not provided by OTO. They were provided by officers and members of the order, and some of the statements were made under threat of penalty of perjury for giving a false account, so if they were 'inaccurate', that raises other questions. > >What 'damage' can you suffer from having your own statements > >concerning your veracity revealed to the public? > > Like this present post, a waste of time, off topic for this newsgroup. Entirely ON-topic, since the argument (between us in this thread) condenses to the question of whether you, or anyone else in OTO, can be trusted to provide truthful statements regarding linkages between Thoth tarot symbolism and the rituals and teachings of OTO. To the degree you are prepared to misrepresent the truth of the accuracy of published accounts of OTO teachings and rituals, I don't see how you CAN be trusted to be truthful in respect to these questions. > >> Jess and I have in the past agreed to > >> occasionally heated argument here. > > >It's not a question of 'agreement' Bill. I'm not in the > >OTO, and I don't have to 'agree' with you about what I > >can and can not discuss here or anywhere. > > You don't remember the email, do you? No. Please produce whatever you think constitutes an 'agreement' about the content of my posts between myself and OTO. (jk) Path: Supernews70!Supernews73!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!ais.net!nntp.texas.net!typhoon.texas.net!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3505AF77.C5DFA594@texas.net> From: "J. Karlin" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 (Macintosh; U; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.tarot Subject: Re: Thoth's Devil & Sex (was: The Devil) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <19980307073901.CAA11799@ladder03.news.aol.com> <19980307171300.MAA02216@ladder03.news.aol.com> <6e17gh$13mo$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 57 Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:25:14 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.207.2.154 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:25:14 CST Xref: Supernews70 alt.tarot:27181 R. Brzustowicz wrote: > In article , > Gary Achenbach wrote: > >Some distance back, in one of the post-OTO-introduction branches, one > >of Bill's more inadvertantly hilarious points was something akin to, > >"but without secrets, grade initiations would be nothing more than > >plays." Nothing really to add to it, the statement just still makes > >me giggle. > > I'm not sure why. He's suggesting that if that's all they are, unless they are kept secret, maybe that's all they are, period. Here is something very interesting with respect to this question--- I'm sure it's only part of Bill's reason for being so high on secrecy (after all, there's the ever-important 'BUSINESS' concern) and it's kind of amusing that he would assert that a big problem for him with people being informed about the rituals is that his own initiation went so poorly (although it sounds like it was much more a problem of people NOT having learned the bloody rituals well enough instead of their having had TOO MUCH foreknowledge of them). In light of what I've learned about Bill, and what we've seen of him in this thread, it's just kind of perfect that he would find the need to instruct the supposed head of the order in how to properly initiate him. Bill relates: "When I was scheduled for IVth degree, the initiation had not been held for over 30 years. I had to set up the temple, photocopy the scripts and help with the staging. At one point, Grady couldn't make one of the properties work, and I, the candidate, had to go over with my eyes closed to fix it. At the height of the ritual, there was another mix up, and I told him to try again. Since I was in the first wave of most of the resumption of OTO initiations and an officer, I and a few others were necessarily privi to the initiation rituals and involved in setting up. It all worked, but the unpleasantness of the experience has more than a little to do with my support for no advance knowledge of the rituals." My guess is that stories like this are more the norm than that the candidate is vivified by some transcendent experience. (jk)