Aleister Crowley's ...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Aleister Crowley's legacy?  

  RSS

obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
02/07/2013 5:22 am  

  93

It is a long held belief of mine that those claiming and have claimed so called "leadership" in the Way of Thelema  have filled both hands with their collective failures. Aleister Crowley spent his fortune and literally his entire life in the labor of bringing forth a new Way for mankind. His reward at the end is his portrayal as a used up drug addict, bankrupt, financially broke and begging for whatever pittance of money that might be thrown his way. Don't misunderstand me, there is no glossing over the circumstances and facts, but there is seeing & understanding and there is "seeing & understanding". The facts of his life are well documented, the question being is in what light are you viewing them?

I suppose that it has been the recent "fill/kill" debacle which has finally brought it all to a boil for me and proven beyond all doubt that the O.T.O. is more of a hindrance than a help. The first and greatest failure of the past was allowing Thelema to be dragged before the federal court system of the United States. Abomination of Abominations. The participants of that time should have met man to man, face to face and sorted it out properly. So now we have an old aeon organization claiming ownership by copyright to that which Aleister Crowley spent an entire life bringing forth. They have attempted to harness the Great Beast to their yoke and crack their whip across his quivering flanks to pull their plow through their barren, fallow field. The worm has certainly turned, for the vehicle which A.C. viewed as a work horse to bring forth the word has turned the tables it seems. They change and strangle the inspired word. Sure they have put out some books, but only to masturbate their own egos and feed their own accounts. We need only read the mind numbing preface of some of these for proof. It should be left to the individual to interpret and understand AC's writings for themselves without being colored by another. Understand and comprehend to your ability but always strive for more.

Is not Thelema about the individual? Is it not about you, standing up on your own two feet and taking responsibility for your self? To seek within your self your own advancement? Your realization and union with that which is the divinity laying at your very core? Perhaps it’s just me, but I fail to see how feeding all of ones energies into sustaining an old aeon [s:2g0vb11r]monstrousity[/s:2g0vb11r] entity is of any help? If one needs this type of support around them, then maybe it's not too late to repent and beg acceptance crawling back into the christian church, that is their forte after all? There is always the next time around.

Aleister Crowley never sought to place his life’s work into the stranglehold of copyright, nor did he intend for it to be locked away and out of reasonable reach in museum collections and universities. He did everything that he possibly could with the medium of the time to spread the word. This speaks to another great failure of past and current "leadership". If money were to be spent, should it not have been spent in making every written word and doodle of A.C.'s within immediate and easy access to all seekers, no matter who or where they are? Imagine for just one moment what Aleister Crowley would have done had he had access to something like this internet. Think what he would have done with the fortune that he spent in self-publishing, not that I'm saying he wouldn't have published books, for there is nothing which can compare, but what if? Maybe he came back into this world just one lifetime to soon? Or maybe not? Maybe all is as it should be? He opened the gateway and it is up to each and every one of us to individually pick up the lamp and carry it on insuring to those who follow the tools of enlightenment. It is my belief that the current temple should be burned to the ground so that something true and righteous may arise from the ashes.

My intense dislike of any organized religious cult is obvious and I fully realize that my focus here is a little tight, so any input which might enlighten would be welcome. I think it would be most interesting to hear from everyone else...their thoughts, on just what they think concerning Aleister Crowley's legacy. Is this O.T.O. ultimately where Aleister Crowley's legacy will rest?

93/93


Quote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
02/07/2013 5:46 am  

You make some interesting points!  However, this site is "non-partisan" so I'm not sure how well this thread is going to go over.  I don't think that "this O.T.O. is ultimately where Aleister Crowley's legacy will rest" at all.  His legacy, Thelema, does not belong to ANY temporal organization.  Thelema belongs to each and every one of us (the us being everyone in the universe)! 


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
02/07/2013 1:00 pm  

93 N.O.X.

I realize that.
Having spent more than four decades with AC's work, it is just now with the recent release of A Book of Sketches that new insight has been opened for me. I can only wonder what else lays hidden? It is extremely frustrating.
The growing polarity in this world needs no fuel and I did not make the first hammer strike to the wedge that has been driven into Thelema. Isn't open discussion of all views best?

93/93


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
02/07/2013 4:53 pm  

93!

While I perfectly understand that "organised religious cults" are not everyone's cup of tea, I think that most of your arguments are not very strong.

From 1912 on (1919 with the Blue Equinox) all of Crowley's writings were intended to be property of the O.T.O., he even tried to sue other organisations like AMORC because he thought they were in fact part of HIS O.T.O. (somewhat poorly phrased, but you know what I mean, I am in a hurry). While Thelema as a philosophy/religion surely was meant to be for all, the copyrights were meant to belong to the O.T.O.

But what I really don't understand is the following: in the kill/fill debate it was mostly argued that because Crowley never changed the book in print, it shoud stay unchanged and private scribblings are "too weak" as an argument. On the other hand some of his sketches (and nobody knows if he wanted them to be published) bring new revelations and now you want more. I guess all of what Crowley wanted to publish is published by now by the O.T.O. in much better editions. We don't know if he wanted to see his letters, diaries, sketches and what not be published, yet you want it. (Me too, by the way) But a highly significant correction (unpublished and in private hands for very long) is neglectable? Isn't this a little double-standard applied here?

I am sure Crowley would have a hard time in this internet age, because I think he really was very strict about his copyrights.

Anyway, Thelema is not the O.T.O., but the copyrights to Crowley's works (most of them) belong to the O.T.O. - just as he intended. I am also not a member of the O.T.O., but I don't think they should stand back and make available all the Crowley stuff we "fan-boys" want for free. Crowley would have abhorred the idea!

Just a short thought from here

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
02/07/2013 5:16 pm  

93 Lutz

Thank you for your thoughts. I did not really intend for my opening of this thread to be so much of an argument as just a view from the unenlightened muck and mire of my existence. A blowing off of steam.

93/93


ReplyQuote
Philip Harris-Smith
(@philip-harris-smith)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 62
02/07/2013 8:14 pm  

Crowley self published at financial loss to himself much of his writings.  Also although a boarding house in Hastings was modest compared to the lifestyle Crowley led immediately after he inherited.  For the post war 40's it was a fairly affluent situation for an old guy to be in.  Personally I think if Crowley had been around in the current time he would have made sure that any of his out of print works were available as free online pdf's.  Most good authors will allow a pdf of work that has been unavailable in hardcopy form for a few years.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
02/07/2013 8:24 pm  

93!

So he would be quite satisfied since nearly everything is available as PDF. But I don't agree that he usually went far over his budget when publishing a book because he wanted to "spread the word" at any cost. No, he simply adored (and found deeper talismanic meaning in) well-designed and well-crafted books, which usually were quite expensive. His last work, one of his most "main-stream" books, was published in a ridiculously expensive edition, more or less solely for members and affiliates of the order or collectors. He wanted a book to be a "real" book, not a PDF...

That's my humble opinion only, of course.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Philip Harris-Smith
(@philip-harris-smith)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 62
02/07/2013 9:00 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
93!

So he would be quite satisfied since nearly everything is available as PDF. But I don't agree that he usually went far over his budget when publishing a book because he wanted to "spread the word" at any cost. No, he simply adored (and found deeper talismanic meaning in) well-designed and well-crafted books, which usually were quite expensive. His last work, one of his most "main-stream" books, was published in a ridiculously expensive edition, more or less solely for members and affiliates of the order or collectors. He wanted a book to be a "real" book, not a PDF...

That's my humble opinion only, of course.

Love=Law
Lutz

Thank you for your valid point that most material is now available in pdf.  If you are saying that hard-copy is best I agree.  Shame they are so sparse in hard copy when copyright was disputed and resolved so thoroughly.  For reasons unknown perhaps the 'legacy' lies fallow under present stewardship.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
02/07/2013 9:36 pm  

https://www.100thmonkeypress.com/biblio/acrowley/articles/1922_01_10_detroit_times.pdf

I think this story sums up quite a bit about publishing the Equinox in America, and the trouble it brought. A legacy of pain.


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
02/07/2013 11:26 pm  

  93

The best part is never knowing just where these threads might lead.
http://thelema.org/publications/itc/itc202.pdf   Starting page 5.
I had read this before and forgotten about it. It is interesting and worth refreshing the memory every now and again.
Thanks for the lead.

93/93


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4054
03/07/2013 12:08 am  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
But a highly significant correction (unpublished and in private hands for very long) is neglectable? Isn't this a little double-standard applied here?

A pencil strike-through of "f", a "k" in the margin; never carried through in subsequent editions of The Book of the Law. Highly significant? I rather doubt that.

What amazes me is why you deem that "highly significant". I've read your remarks over the last few months, but still it baffles me.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5034
03/07/2013 2:02 am  
"obscuruspaintus" wrote:
The best part is never knowing just where these threads might lead.

Yes. I read your linked doc and found it rather interesting. The overall description given of Solar Lodge and its activities was quite accurate, but (just like in the newspapers) the details were about 50% wrong.

Also, following the library story is an article by Richard Alan Miller, who is still active today in physics and metaphysics, and with whom I occasionally communicate. A goodle search of his name is sure to take anyone to his current website.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
03/07/2013 8:06 am  

93, Michael!

Well, no need to be baffled, the main reason I like the "kill" variant, is that I "like" it better. I always worked with that variant. I memorized the stele paraphrases quite early and usually over-read the part in Liber AL where I inserted the stele paraphrase, just like intended, as I thought.

But anyway, a correction in Crowley's hand to THE Holy Book is quite significant, isn't it? Maybe even highly. Even if the significance lies in the singularity of the correction. Moreover, this correction would resolve the "problem" (if some people feel like it is one) of the difference between stele paraphrase and quoted stele paraphrase. But my motive of course was to point out that since it is perfectly okay for some to gain new insights from some scribbles or sketches AC made somewhere, it should be perfectly understandable that other people gain new insights from some corrections AC made somewhere. As explained, I always felt better with the kill version and don't give too much on the Class A stuff anyway.

Be that as it may, being baffled is a good thing, isn't it?

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
03/07/2013 11:56 am  

93 Sh.'.

My posting of the C.O.T. link was not done with the intent of serving Solar Lodge up for another round as whipping boy. There are the actions of other men and women to consider as well. From a certain elevation mercury in retrograde is a meaningless event. The orbs chart their appointed course through space, we see where they've been and predict where they might go. In that light I read accounts of the actions of those early Thelemites in this country. Soror Meral has given us an account, which I might add, that we may all read freely In The Continuum. Granted it is only one point of view, but one which I feel holds quite a bit of water. I haven't been able to acquire a copy of your book just yet but I will in due course. The only other option will cost an arm and a leg so with that I will choose not to feed the fire.

Like a sharp stick in the eye while walking through the woods at night.  😮 Ouch! It's back.
My gaining insight into Aleister Crowley the man from his sketch book can hardly compare to changing the word of a received, inspired text which is clearly written out for the world to see. Graphite or ink it matters not. It is there and cannot be changed. Thank you for reminding us Lutz, that we are all men and women of free will and may choose our own path and traverse it accordingly. For me the debate is long over. What's more interesting, is with the increased polarity, where are we collectively going?

93/93


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
16/07/2013 3:26 am  

  93

Q. What did one rooster say to the other when the chicken house caught fire?
A. Lets get the flock out of here!

93/93


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
31/07/2013 12:19 am  

  93

So...that's it then?
On a site where there is no shortage of opinions on controversial topics...this is it?
This O.T.O., which has taken the received word of its proclaimed Prophet and altered it on the grounds of marginalia in a book?  Is this it? This O.T.O. is Aleister Crowleys legacy and torch bearer?
Please...someone enlighten me. Give me a new line of sight.
Where are these O.T.O. members? Surely they must have something to say?
Does it really boil down to what side your bread is buttered on?

93/93


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
31/07/2013 12:52 am  

93, obscuruspaintus!

I think there really isn't any "contoversial" topic here. The legacy of Crowley is not the O.T.O. alone. When you think about it, what has happened at all? Nothing. If the O.T.O. would have changed it to "Aum! Let it kiss me!" what would would have happened to Crowley's legacy? Nothing at all. What was changed is one letter in a book that is a very crude transliteration of a hand-written document, which will be with us forever. Maybe it was all for copyright purposes alone. Why not? But nothing of the legacy, the message, of Thelema has changed. Unless of course you are into some cabalistic madness that has shown up here. I guess most people really don't care about "fill" or "kill" like they don't care about "Aiwass" or "Aiwaz" or grids or verse numbers or stains. They might care about copyrights, they might care about blasphemy, but not for too long, it seems. There might have been a little outrage, but really, there isn't really an issue at all. Crowley's legacy is well and alive, and it doesn't rest in the copyrights.

That's my opinion. There is no need to become desperate...

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
31/07/2013 3:28 am  

  93

I hardly think desperate fits the bill.
I can think of a few other words, but....

93/93


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
31/07/2013 3:37 am  

  93

Sorry for the double post, but someone appears to be swimming in butter...

93/93


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4054
31/07/2013 11:53 am  

Although we did not (and still don't) agree on the fill/kill issue, I broadly agree with the remarks by Lutz. In fact, what surprised me about the change was how trifling it was, and why on earth it was considered worth the candle in making. I've never had much time for the "change not so much as the style of a letter" approach, whatever its provenance.

It's my view that the legacy of Crowley is the impact upon us of his body of work, and that impact naturally varies from person to person. For instance, I'm not that interested in the political, ethical and philosophical aspects of his work; on the other hand, the magical and mystical aspects of his work fire me with enthusiasm and aspiration.


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 431
01/08/2013 5:46 pm  

Dwtw

I think it is obvious that the broader legacy of Aleister Crowley is not in the hands of the OTO. However, that organization supposedly owns some of the copyrights to his written works, and therefore has the opportunity (to say nothing of the responsibility) to influence the presentation of those works, and thus affect his written legacy to a certain extent.

This is precisely why the question of fill vs. kill is important, because it is a change made by an Editor and accepted by the head of the OTO, (who - just by coincidence - happens to be the Editor), and will therefore be promulgated by the organization claiming to have Crowley's copyrights. This will result in two different versions of Liber AL, and that most certainly influences the legacy of Aleister Crowley.

I think this marginalia should be explored and documented  fully, like any other Crowley marginalia. But it should not be the basis for changing a book that is not supposed to be changed. No one has suggested, (least of all me), that this 'correction' be ignored. Quite the contrary. But it should be contextualized, not used for the extreme case of changing Liber AL.

I'm not sure how much Thelemites care or don't care about this issue - time will tell. But after a certain point, there is not much else to say, because all the arguments have been made, and there is no point repeating them all ad nauseum.

Nevertheless, the legacy of Crowley is definitely affected by changing the text of his cornerstone document. Let's not pretend otherwise. And this change may ultimately be detrimental to the organization charged with protecting the written works of Crowley. You might argue that this is a trifling correction, of no great significance. Likewise, if I took a marker and drew a small scribble on the corner of the Mona Lisa, it would certainly be a trifling change to the painting, wouldn't it? Nothing to get hung about. Besides, there are plenty of copies of that image in the world, so why worry about it?

The analogy holds in this sense - the greater legacy of Da Vinci would not be affected by drawing on the Mona Lisa anymore than the legacy of Crowley would be affected by changing one letter/word in the text of his document. However, the analogy fails in that no one would mistake my scribble for the work of Leonardo, but the change to Liber AL is presumably by Crowley himself. So it is in fact a deliberate attempt to change his work, and pretend it is not a scribble drawn on afterward. And this might well have unexpected consequences in the future, ala the 'butterfly effect'.

One wonders what Crowley thought of his own legacy? He entrusted his copyrights to an organization that barely existed at his death, with a very uncertain future. Perhaps he wanted the OTO to gain some financial benefit from this gift, as a way of keeping the organization afloat? Had he really been more concerned with his 'legacy', he could have willed his work to the British Library or something, (fortunately the bulk of his papers ended up in institutions that will care for them properly). However, we should keep in mind the state of copyright law at the time of his death. He could not have anticipated that his works would still be under copyright so far into the future. So he may have just considered the copyrights as a chance to provide 'seed money' for the OTO after his death, thinking that they would be the protectors of his 'legacy'.

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5325
01/08/2013 10:45 pm  
"threefold31" wrote:
One wonders what Crowley thought of his own legacy? He entrusted his copyrights to an organization that barely existed at his death, with a very uncertain future. Perhaps he wanted the OTO to gain some financial benefit from this gift, as a way of keeping the organization afloat? Had he really been more concerned with his 'legacy', he could have willed his work to the British Library or something, (fortunately the bulk of his papers ended up in institutions that will care for them properly). However, we should keep in mind the state of copyright law at the time of his death. He could not have anticipated that his works would still be under copyright so far into the future. So he may have just considered the copyrights as a chance to provide 'seed money' for the OTO after his death, thinking that they would be the protectors of his 'legacy'.

My understanding is that, as an undischarged bankrupt, the copyrights did not 'belong' to AC and who he chose to leave them to in his will was irrelevant. The OTO gained the copyrights by discharging his bankruptcy in 1991.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4054
01/08/2013 11:52 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
My understanding is that, as an undischarged bankrupt, the copyrights did not 'belong' to AC and who he chose to leave them to in his will was irrelevant. The OTO gained the copyrights by discharging his bankruptcy in 1991.

I had the impression, from perusing the appropriate Agreement documents, that it was a straightforward purchase of the copyrights, at a price agreed between the Official Receivers' Office and  OTO, rather than a discharge of bankruptcy.

At one time I wondered why it was that Crowley, knowing that he was an undischarged bankrupt, willed his copyrights to the O.T.O. Only later did I realise that Crowley maintained that he had assigned all past and future copyrights to the O.T.O. in, I think, 1913 or so. No documents substantiating this have survived, though.

Best,

Mick.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4054
02/08/2013 12:45 am  
"threefold31" wrote:
Dwtw

I think it is obvious that the broader legacy of Aleister Crowley is not in the hands of the OTO. However, that organization supposedly owns some of the copyrights to his written works, and therefore has the opportunity (to say nothing of the responsibility) to influence the presentation of those works, and thus affect his written legacy to a certain extent.

This is precisely why the question of fill vs. kill is important, because it is a change made by an Editor and accepted by the head of the OTO, (who - just by coincidence - happens to be the Editor), and will therefore be promulgated by the organization claiming to have Crowley's copyrights. This will result in two different versions of Liber AL, and that most certainly influences the legacy of Aleister Crowley.

I think this marginalia should be explored and documented  fully, like any other Crowley marginalia. But it should not be the basis for changing a book that is not supposed to be changed. No one has suggested, (least of all me), that this 'correction' be ignored. Quite the contrary. But it should be contextualized, not used for the extreme case of changing Liber AL.

I'm not sure how much Thelemites care or don't care about this issue - time will tell. But after a certain point, there is not much else to say, because all the arguments have been made, and there is no point repeating them all ad nauseum.

Nevertheless, the legacy of Crowley is definitely affected by changing the text of his cornerstone document. Let's not pretend otherwise. And this change may ultimately be detrimental to the organization charged with protecting the written works of Crowley. You might argue that this is a trifling correction, of no great significance. Likewise, if I took a marker and drew a small scribble on the corner of the Mona Lisa, it would certainly be a trifling change to the painting, wouldn't it? Nothing to get hung about. Besides, there are plenty of copies of that image in the world, so why worry about it?

The analogy holds in this sense - the greater legacy of Da Vinci would not be affected by drawing on the Mona Lisa anymore than the legacy of Crowley would be affected by changing one letter/word in the text of his document. However, the analogy fails in that no one would mistake my scribble for the work of Leonardo, but the change to Liber AL is presumably by Crowley himself. So it is in fact a deliberate attempt to change his work, and pretend it is not a scribble drawn on afterward. And this might well have unexpected consequences in the future, ala the 'butterfly effect'.

One wonders what Crowley thought of his own legacy? He entrusted his copyrights to an organization that barely existed at his death, with a very uncertain future. Perhaps he wanted the OTO to gain some financial benefit from this gift, as a way of keeping the organization afloat? Had he really been more concerned with his 'legacy', he could have willed his work to the British Library or something, (fortunately the bulk of his papers ended up in institutions that will care for them properly). However, we should keep in mind the state of copyright law at the time of his death. He could not have anticipated that his works would still be under copyright so far into the future. So he may have just considered the copyrights as a chance to provide 'seed money' for the OTO after his death, thinking that they would be the protectors of his 'legacy'.

Litlluw
RLG

I disagree with you. Yes, I think the change to Liber AL was banal in the extreme. OMG, there's a discrepancy between Liber AL and the stele paraphrases - we must resolve it! Well, Liber AL is a multitude of conflicting voices - just compare Chapter 1 with Chapters 2 and 3, for instance. Life appears to be a dynamic balance of various forces.

However, in my opinion the legacy of Crowley consists in magical and mystical work. I'm not a scholar or academic, and have no real nterest in such matters. The change to The Book of the Law is trivial; what matters to me above all is the spirit of the Book, not its words.

At the end of the day I'm rather sorry to take issue with you, because we were on the same side in the fill/kill debate. However, the alliance was tactical, and related  to that one issue.


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 431
02/08/2013 9:30 pm  

Dwtw

Michael, I'm not sure what exactly you disagree with? That changing Liber AL affects his legacy? If so, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. But I don't think the broader sense of Crowley's legacy is affected by changing a word in Liber AL; as I said, that affects his written legacy, but to what extent only time will tell. In the narrow sense of just Liber AL, it affects it a lot (otherwise it would not be so contentious); in the broader sense of his volumes of written work - not much at all. If we found a loose leaf from one of Leonardo's notebooks, it would not change his overall legacy too much either, but it might be the subject of scholarly debate. Of course, this is limited to just literature; Crowley's mystical and magickal work are a whole different matter, and that legacy is in the hands of anyone he has influenced. If we all ignored him, there would be no purpose for this site.

Thanks for the correction, Paul. Crowley didn't actually have copyrights to assign after his death. So he either was ignorant of that, or, as Michael suggested, may have thought the issue resolved years earlier. In either case, it was still his intention that the OTO receive them, which is what happened in the end after all.

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
03/08/2013 4:56 am  

  93

RLG, as ever, a thoughtful and contemplative offering. I appreciate it and thank you for it.

Somewhere here I think I related a waking dream/vision of a ship setting out to sea with a crack in its hull. This f/k business, I believe is that crack. It reminds me of driving down the road one hundred and thirty two miles an hour. We cannot be distracted for a single second or we risk leaving the road. That one letter, that changing of that one letter in a received text, is that one second which we cannot afford to loose. I can hear the sickening sound of the crushing metal now as the trees along side the road are hit.

Some people like to shrug it off. I agree that what they do doesn't really affect to me. I just like being aggravated by it. It is beautiful proof that there are still meaningful things to be done.

On a personal note to say I haven't abandoned...after thirteen years of near complete solitude, I have decided to go out and about for a few months.

Good luck & best wishes to everyone.

93/93


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
26/11/2013 6:06 pm  

how foolish


ReplyQuote
ZIN
 ZIN
(@zin)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 82
26/11/2013 6:35 pm  

Welcome back, obscuruspaintus !
93/93


ReplyQuote
arthuremerson
(@arthuremerson)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 157
26/11/2013 6:36 pm  

Yes, welcome back.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
27/11/2013 2:10 am  

Welcome back, obscuruspaintus!  How was your trip?


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
27/11/2013 11:31 am  

Yes, obscuruspaintus – (sings tunelessly) “welcome back, welcome back, welcome back, welcome back, welcome back, welcome baa-aaack!” 

And yes, you must tell us all, how did you get on in your travels along ‘the Way’?  I too have been away for a little while, and break my silence especially just to wish you well come again, but that is only a mere dribble in a coffee cup compared with your own little sojourn.  (Btw, on a personal matter & to save the unnecessary duplication of PMing, I did not receive your painting which you kindly offered to send me through in the post.  Did you mail it?  Please let me know in due course; no rush.  I do hope it hasn’t gone astray.)

"obscuruspaintus" wrote:
how foolish

By foolish, are you referring to your sojourn, or the subsequent debate on A.C.’s legacy?  The nub of your point in Originally Posting seems to be

OP on: July 02, 2013, 05:22:53 am:
This speaks to another great failure of past and current "leadership". If money were to be spent, should it not have been spent in making every written word and doodle of A.C.'s within immediate and easy access to all seekers, no matter who or where they are?

Whilst agreeing with aspects and the good sense of N.O.X.’s, threefold31 & Michael Staley’s comments here – especially regarding the ‘banality’ of evil - and Philip Harris-Smith and Lutz have both made good points too – in the course of clearing through some lumber the other day (the draft of a book I am contemplating revising), I came across the following interesting antique transmission which appears to relate to the core thread subject under discussion of A.C.'s legacy, although here from an A.’. A.’. perspective (the organization A.C. also wanted at one time as well as the O.T.O. to administer his legacy.  It also tangentially relates to the point raised in the OP by obscuruspaintus that: )

OP on: July 02, 2013, 05:22:53 am:
Is this O.T.O. ultimately where Aleister Crowley's legacy will rest?

[sup:1geeo4hg]56[/sup:1geeo4hg] Although modestly “not being in a position to be a spokesman for A.’. A.’.”, Bill Heidrick, the long-serving since its inception Grand Treasurer General of the ‘Caliphornian’ O.T.O. has nonetheless commented in the manner of a spokesman for A.’. A.’. on Compuserve (heidrick@well.com on 13-Jul-1995) that “… The A.’. A.’. has a common law trademark claim on the Star of Babalon; but, until A.’. A.’. becomes a little more unified, its primary order (called the Golden Dawn, but not to be confused with the G D of Mathers etc) will be a little while yet in doing things like filing suit to recover full control of the trademark.  It isn’t safe to use the Star of Babalon in publications without full A.’. A.’. approval, but the A.’. A.’. hasn’t gone to court yet over it.  A.’. A.’. is coming back, much as O.T.O. did from dormancy.” (but What A.’. A.’. ?!  My highlightings here – j.b.)

Would anyone happen to know whether there has been any update or development relating to this in any form?  (It might be useful for people to bear in mind!)

Ave atque vale for now,
Norma N Joy Conquest


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
25/12/2013 1:26 am  

My heart felt apologies.
The trip was grueling, my house thrown in disorder & my garden overrun with weeds.
I have been reminded that humans are at heart pack animals.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
25/12/2013 5:21 pm  

obscuruspaintus,
No need to apologize, friend!  That's too bad that your trip was grueling.  I know that was your first outing in a long time, and I wish it'd have been more fun for you!


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4054
25/12/2013 6:03 pm  

I noticed this in the course of Paul's "festive wishes" announcement:

If the rumours are correct, 2014 will be an extraordinary year for the legacy of Aleister Crowley. You can be confident that LAShTAL.COM will be here to report developments and news!

What are the rumours?


ReplyQuote
ZIN
 ZIN
(@zin)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 82
25/12/2013 9:17 pm  
"obscuruspaintus" wrote:
My heart felt apologies.
The trip was grueling, my house thrown in disorder & my garden overrun with weeds.
I have been reminded that humans are at heart pack animals.

Couldn't have said it better myself... and I took no trip.


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2078
25/12/2013 10:49 pm  

author=MichaelStaley

What are the rumours?

Exactly what I thought as well Michael.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
02/01/2014 4:24 pm  

Rumour is as rumour does, and all the while the mill grinds ever onwards whilst the river - the stream - the brook - babbles on (but ask not for whom the brook babbles – it …)

Dame Little Miss Waggy Tongue and her nimble probing fingers
NJoy


ReplyQuote
Hamal
(@hamal)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 547
02/01/2014 5:54 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
Dame Little Miss Waggy Tongue and her nimble probing fingers

Well you tell Little Miss Waggy Tongue to come out here and tell us what's happening!

93
Hamal


ReplyQuote
Share: