Notifications
Clear all

O.T.O XI  

  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/12/2006 1:25 am  

I've been studying sex magick in it's various forms for the better part of 10 years now. A point of ongoing controversy is of course the 11th degree of the O.T.O. To be roughly general about it there would seem to be two different "camps", anal and menstrual.

I realize that members of various Orders will be reluctant to offer any "official" commentary on this topic but I'm curious as to Lashtal's over all perspective on this topic. Crowley seems to acknowledge the utter necessity of womans role in high magick in some places and yet in others he seems to regard her as something of a prop to be used by the male magician to serve HIS own magical agenda, no concern of HER possible agenda.
I think this is an important angle to consider with regards to recent words pertaining to the Scarlet woman. Did Crowley, whatever his actual experiences were, feel that there was a "superior" sexual working which would bring about the most powerful result? When he wrote of his preference for the "eye of Horus" over the "mouth of Isis" did he feel that this was an expressly homosexual statement or did it apply to either sex and why?

Thanks for any comments.

93 93/93
Kym


Quote
daopig
(@daopig)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 68
15/12/2006 12:06 pm  

Since there is no possibility of physical issue from XI union, then the product must perforce be transmuted to the magickal plane. For this reason I don't reckon he was necessarily making an homosexual statement of preference.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/12/2006 4:05 am  

[Moderator note: post deleted due to this guy being repeatedly banned.]


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/12/2006 3:19 pm  

Since there was no reliable form of contreception in Crowleys time his preference for sodomy could have been purely practical.
Best Wishes Robert.
He seems to have used sodomy with non magical partners too. If you think of the number of women Crowley had sex with if he had used vaginal intercourse he would have been knee deep in children.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1856
16/12/2006 3:28 pm  

Any port in a storm...?

Well, there was obviously more impetus than contraception for Crowley's sodomy. He enjoyed it as a "variation on a theme" and he furthermore distinguishes its fundemental energy MAGICKALLY from other types of intercourse. His is one perspective on the topic (Adonia refers above to the XI "Menstrual School"). So I think the question is what specifically is Crowley drawing distinction between with regards to non-conceptive Menstrual Sex and non-conceptive Anal Sex? The seed moves in an atmosphere where it cannot "conceive" and yet he identifies both paths as having a magickal potential unique unto themselves and differentiated by Degree. He also seems to elevate the role of the Anal above the Vaginal, not just in Degree Sequence but in his statement of the Eye being superior to the Mouth. No one has addressed this yet.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/12/2006 4:55 pm  

So I think the question is what specifically is Crowley drawing distinction between with regards to non-conceptive Menstrual Sex and non-conceptive Anal Sex? The seed moves in an atmosphere where it cannot "conceive" and yet he identifies both paths as having a magickal potential unique unto themselves and differentiated by Degree. He also seems to elevate the role of the Anal above the Vaginal, not just in Degree Sequence but in his statement of the Eye being superior to the Mouth.

Yes. This is more of what I was trying to get at, Kidneyhawk just said it better than me I guess. What I'm interested in knowing from other members here at Lashtal is do you all agree with Crowley in that anal intercourse is more powerful magickally than say menstrum sex or even other forms?

I just had a very interesting conversation with a well respected colleague of mine who indicated that the desired results of such "high workings" may just as well be attained by "non sexual" means in terms of the act itself. VERY curious as to what people think of this angle.

93 93/93
Kym


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 686
16/12/2006 5:51 pm  

Greetings (brief return)
Fascinating question. Very keen to hear/see what answers are forthcoming.
Your first post touches on what I have always thought was a real problem - the ambivalent and often contradictory position AC puts women in in his systems. 'Phallocentric' in all senses?
I feel that in some places, not all, AC allowed his personal pathologies to influence his work/revelation to a larger degree than perhaps he ought. (Of course as we are all now perfect we can judge! 😆 )

The Tantric methodology of breaking out of the 'comfort zone' by behaviour you find unpleasant/deviant/etc. can't really apply here as he fairly clearly was not repulsed by the activities. That society might have been would only be relevant if he was trying to 'shock' everyone else 'awake'....hang on...... (Bit like what Jaz has said about Killing Joke).

Wry aside: as for ACs preferences (I'm thinking about the Paris Working to start with) I'm surprised he didn't claim the 'Lance of Khnum' as his favourite! In 777 (Column XXI) the buttocks and anus are referred to as 'The Eye of Hoor'. Some ambivalence or perhaps a wee Scottish joke?!!

Also - I would LOVE to know what Horus' take on that comment would be!


ReplyQuote
RuneLogIX
(@runelogix)
Magister
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 372
27/03/2007 7:16 pm  
"adonia444" wrote:
I've been studying sex magick in it's various forms for the better part of 10 years now. A point of ongoing controversy is of course the 11th degree of the O.T.O. To be roughly general about it there would seem to be two different "camps", anal and menstrual.

I realize that members of various Orders will be reluctant to offer any "official" commentary on this topic but I'm curious as to Lashtal's over all perspective on this topic. Crowley seems to acknowledge the utter necessity of womans role in high magick in some places and yet in others he seems to regard her as something of a prop to be used by the male magician to serve HIS own magical agenda, no concern of HER possible agenda.
I think this is an important angle to consider with regards to recent words pertaining to the Scarlet woman. Did Crowley, whatever his actual experiences were, feel that there was a "superior" sexual working which would bring about the most powerful result? When he wrote of his preference for the "eye of Horus" over the "mouth of Isis" did he feel that this was an expressly homosexual statement or did it apply to either sex and why?

Well, thats a complicated question. Something worth considering is that it was against the law in Crowley's time to write openly about many sexual processes that could be deemed indecent. However, on the subject of Crowley's sex magick preferences it's clear that he only wrote about his own preferences and that those preferences changed throughout his lifetime. This would explain Crowleys lack of available writings about XI Isis workings. I think its clear that Crowley preferred XI workings later in life, especially after the first Scarlet Women, Rose Crowley.

IMO, the most powerful sexual working is what works best for you. Crowley, much like the pagans, were not afraid of taboo sexual congress. Compare this to Austin Osman Spares preference for sexual partners that disgusted him. The element of revulsion, taboo, and the revolt against societal morals all aids in creating the atmosphere of magickal potency. Crowley wrote somewhere to the effect that the "joys of marriage is the ecstasy of adultery." As always, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Force and Fire is not metaphorical. In Prophetes Veritas Venit.


ReplyQuote
James
(@james)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 251
27/03/2007 10:24 pm  

Just picking up on Runelogix' comment that AOS had a preference for sexual partners that disgusted him. This isn't strictly true, he LOVED older fat women, the more the better! His ugly ecstacy was more a poke in the skinny rump on the mores of society and it's infatuation with a narrow definition of beauty. He wanted to show, in life and in his art, that those things ordinarily called disgusting and repulsive have a strange beauty of their own. This is slightly different from say wilfully going out to do something that one finds disgusting for some curious obsession with Will to Power.

There is one other, to my mind, very important difference. If one despises the act or the sight of ones sexual partner it is a common defence mechanism to make some psychological distance by fantasising a belief that I will be superior in some way, as a result. To see the beautiful in what one usually would find repulsive means a letting-go of ones judgements and an opening out of consciousness to join with it. It is this samadhi which produces the ugly ecstacy as samadhi does.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
27/03/2007 11:08 pm  

There are actually THREE schools of thought on the XI*, not just the anal and the menstrual. In reviewing Crowley's diaries you find that he also practiced the XI* with women, which rules out homosexual as being the XI*.

The formula is that of reversal and in that I believe it is a reference to ROLE reversal as far as what Crowley was writing about and I also think at times Crowley did not really know what he wanted the XI* to really be and never formulated final ideas on the matter.

In the tradition I work within thought the XI* represents the contact with the inner planes, a high grade A.'.A.'. initiate or representative thereof (8=3). In this way the XI* exists without the boundaries of the OTO as the OTO is PURELY a plane of disks order, expressed as such by Crowley. The OTO degrees etc are not initiatic degrees in the sense of the A.'.A.'. or even the Golden Dawn. Crowley's statement is actually that using the OTO system one can attain to the equivalent of 6=5 or thereabouts but the system and the IX* does not equate to the 6=5 grade.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4087
27/03/2007 11:49 pm  
"uranus" wrote:
. . . Crowley's statement is actually that using the OTO system one can attain to the equivalent of 6=5 or thereabouts but the system and the IX* does not equate to the 6=5 grade.

I'd be interested to learn where that statement is, since up until now I have come across nothing by Crowley which attempts to draw a parallel between 6 = 5 "or thereabouts" and the IXth Degree.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
28/03/2007 12:19 am  

I believe it was Magick Without Tears, admittedly it has been awhile since i read the statement. It was pointed out to me about 8 or 9 years ago when I first came upon Motta's interpretation of the XI*. I should clarify though, he didn't say they were equivalent but that using the system of the OTO that one could become a 6=5 not that they are the same. It wasn't a drawing of a parallel.

Then again, the Typhonian OTO operates on a totally different level than the Crowley OTO, something I admire greatly about the system as Grant implemented it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
28/03/2007 4:21 am  

There is a note about XI workings(using symbolism) in Liber ABA. The working, apparently, contains no 'feminine' component. Interpret that how you will.

However, I have always found it somewhat humorously curious that only the male physiology is capable of two simultaneous sexual acts of opposite character.

Ever see that old woodblock of a circle of men 'knowing' each other?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
28/03/2007 4:27 am  

Well, Magick in Theory & Practice was written through the 20s and even then, the period doesn't seem consistent with XI*=anal sex. In fact, even Grant's menstrual interpretation fits in with the formula of ALIM because the egg is being flushed from the body in the bloodflow, so in that sense there isn't a feminine component outside of the physical form. Given that Crowley had an aversion to coprophagia and some elements of the IX* being taken into the XI*. Still one just can't be 100% clear in what Crowley meant by the XI*, be it anal, menstrual, role reversal etc.


ReplyQuote
RuneLogIX
(@runelogix)
Magister
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 372
28/03/2007 4:41 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"uranus" wrote:
. . . Crowley's statement is actually that using the OTO system one can attain to the equivalent of 6=5 or thereabouts but the system and the IX* does not equate to the 6=5 grade.

I'd be interested to learn where that statement is, since up until now I have come across nothing by Crowley which attempts to draw a parallel between 6 = 5 "or thereabouts" and the IXth Degree.

I have a short document by a person that goes on to say at one point that, "AC said that when a Ninth Degree was performing on behalf of the Order, and
that Ninth Degree had already taken the PI Degree, (and that Degree had
"worked") then there was no difference in Power between the Ninth Degree and a Master of the Temple in AA." Now just where the references for that in the Crowley corpus I couldn't tell you, but the thesis makes logical sense to me.

Force and Fire is not metaphorical. In Prophetes Veritas Venit.


ReplyQuote
RuneLogIX
(@runelogix)
Magister
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 372
28/03/2007 4:45 am  
"uranus" wrote:
Well, Magick in Theory & Practice was written through the 20s and even then, the period doesn't seem consistent with XI*=anal sex. In fact, even Grant's menstrual interpretation fits in with the formula of ALIM because the egg is being flushed from the body in the bloodflow, so in that sense there isn't a feminine component outside of the physical form. Given that Crowley had an aversion to coprophagia and some elements of the IX* being taken into the XI*. Still one just can't be 100% clear in what Crowley meant by the XI*, be it anal, menstrual, role reversal etc.

Good points. However, I always thought the XII work was what Leah Hirsig was "involved" in 😉

Force and Fire is not metaphorical. In Prophetes Veritas Venit.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
28/03/2007 4:22 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I'd be interested to learn where that statement is, since up until now I have come across nothing by Crowley which attempts to draw a parallel between 6 = 5 "or thereabouts" and the IXth Degree.

I think what Jason is refering to here is the quote from a letter by Crowley to Charles S. Jones that were published in the new and official "OTO Curricullum" compiled by H.B. (there is no such reference in Magick Without Tears):

"Re[garding] O.T.O. as the means in the outer. Observe O.T.O. = 540 plus A.'.A.'. = 542 = [(418 +666)/2], therefore the number harmonizing these two. But of course you understand that the A.'.A.'. is the serious Order for individual progress. With O.T.O. you only become a magician, and a priest of the Holy One - a very fine and balanced 6*=5-, but no more."
-Aleister Crowley to Charles S. Jones, July 10, 1916 e.v.

Moreover an Adeptus Major is supposed to be the Master of all Magick, and Crowley regarded the secret of the O.T.O. as the secret behind all Magick (as he notes in another letter to Jones, Magick is merely a means to raise the kundalini), which is also why the Adeptus Major is asked to seek out the ninth degree of the O.T.O. I believe.

As for the eleventh degree under Crowley, if you go over his diaries (be they the early or older ones) you will find that no matter what nomenclature you use for the eleventh degree (be it eleventh degree, P.V.N., Tau etc. etc.), taken together or individually, Crowley used mostly females for it, which indicates that homosexuality is not the key facet here but rather the anus. As far as I know this is the only semi straight forward thing Crowley wrote regarding the eleventh degree:

"Notes on XI.

The Magus is YH providing the Energy & the Substance of the Pantacle.

The Virgin is HV receiving & interpreting & also expressing it intellectually & impressing that idea upon the Coin.

Aiwass is of curse Sh harmonizing all four, & inspiring the whole conception & execution." -Crowley's diary, July 27., 1923 e.v.

Other than that I edited along with Joseph Thiebes, also of this forum, an excerpt from one of the unpublished letters to Jones that dealt with the eleventh degree in Agape VII:3, On the Four Major Operations of hte Microcosmic Star: http://lib.oto-usa.org/agape/agape.7.3.pdf


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
28/03/2007 7:26 pm  

homosexuality is not the key facet here but rather the anus.

I really appreciate everyones responces and this has become quite an interesting thread.

It seems that the quote above from Patriarch156 sums up the general concensus on the XI degree. Aside from addressing the issue of the impossibility of physical conception with regards to XI I haven't heard a significant explanation as to the difference between IX and XI aside from spectulations as to the experience of the act as opposed to the magickal technology unique to each degree. In other words the biological elements present in either degree differ, obviously, hence how

The Virgin

"receives and interprets" will be biologically different and thus a much different "atomosphere" in which magickal energy will funtion. If this were not the case there would be no difference between the degrees.
My questions are, are these degrees two methods aiming at the same result, simply two methods for the same magickal goal? OR as would be seem to be indicated is the desired end of each act unique to the specific biological dynamics of each degree? Crowley seemed to indicate this himself when he claimed one was superior to the other.

Agape,
Kym


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
28/03/2007 8:41 pm  

Just a few points.
Hello James. Love the films.
Spare's favourite sexual position was the Tiger position from the Karma Sutra. He told Kenneth Grant
that it had been published in The Golden Hind ( an arts journal in eight volumes with Spare and Clifford Bax as editors). The print print shows a woman leaning over a table for vaginal rear entry, she has very large buttocks and breasts. There is no male figure in the print for obvious legal reasons this being 1924, but Spare confirms this as the right print by including a tigers head in the bottom left hand corner.
As for ugly ecstacy its the love of the old. You can be attracted to a young woman or a shiny new house or an old ruined house because it has character. Ugly ecsacy is seeing the lines on a womans face as marks of victory over all the nonsense and pain life throws at us, they are lines triumph. The appeal to Spare -a stoic- is obvious.
Note to Uranus . Crowley did not have an aversion to coprophagia. Crowley loved eating shit it was his favourite perversion. Read Leah Sublime , or Crowleys diary. Its even in his first poem.
As for sensory inversion Grant is writing about the Tantric tradition and the filthy things are those which an orthodox Hindu would find revolting such as alchohol or sex with a person of a lower caste.
The whole cast system is holding India back because its just so repelent to anyone brought up in a meritocracy. Grant picked up on this decades ago when he wrote that "paradoxically the Tantrics are the most advanced of the Hindus"
Best Wishes Robert.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1026
28/03/2007 8:55 pm  

93 Robert,

"rabrazier" wrote:
Just a few points.

(...)

Crowley did not have an aversion to coprophagia. Crowley loved eating shit it was his favourite perversion. Read Leah Sublime , or Crowleys diary. Its even in his first poem.

Best Wishes Robert.

Just playing the skeptic, I think it takes at least some imagination to find coprophagia in Crowley's "first poem".

In "Olla: Sixty Years of Song", there is a poem which he titles "My First Poem". It appears like this -

"MY FIRST POEM

I am a blind man on a helmless ship,
Without a compass on a stormy sea;
I cannot sink, for God doth hold me up;
I cannot stray (err?); 'tis God that guideth me.
Etc.
_Cambridge, England_

(i.e. with imagination, you might take "blind man" to be a reference to the unseeing "Eye", and "I cannot sink... 'tis God that guideth me" to refer to going down on something in the dark.)

In a footnote to this poem, Crowley puts your thesis on safer ground however -

"A still earlier fragment, 1885...

'Tussy is an ass,
Tussy is a fool;
Tussy is the biggest ass
At Collier Witney School.'"

No comment needed on how that relates to the subject of this thread. However, for those less discerning, the means to the Crown by the path of Aleph is clearly indicated.

LITLLUW

Bel Murru


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
28/03/2007 9:04 pm  

Kjetil? That you? LOL, thanks, I could not remember where that quote was from but I knew you pointed it out lo so many years ago, you and DJ that is...


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1026
28/03/2007 9:05 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
"'Tussy is an ass,
Tussy is a fool;
Tussy is the biggest ass
At Collier Witney School.'"

I just realized that the last line does indeed refer directly to coprophagia -

"Collier Witney School" = CWS = "Crowley Wants Supper!"

No doubt about it.

BM


ReplyQuote
RuneLogIX
(@runelogix)
Magister
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 372
29/03/2007 3:47 am  

Is it just me or are Crowleys sexual habits one of the most overly analyzed in history?

(And yes, I find this thread very interesting, lol)

Force and Fire is not metaphorical. In Prophetes Veritas Venit.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2007 4:15 pm  

Crowleys first published poem was Aceldama a place to bury strangers in. It includes the line "All dung of worthless women thou shalt desire.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1026
29/03/2007 4:23 pm  
"rabrazier" wrote:
Crowleys first published poem was Aceldama a place to bury strangers in. It includes the line "All dung of worthless women thou shalt desire.

I knew that, I was just being pedantic. The addition of the word "published" makes a big difference.

I remember having the same reaction as you when I read that line in Aceldama - "Wow, how prophetic!"

However, while I'm sure it's true Crowley made himself taste shit at least once (for initiatory reasons), I believe all the rest of coprophilic references in his works, including Leah Sublime, were in his imagination.

To say "Crowley loved eating shit it was his favourite perversion" is utterly wrong. To say he loved to *write* about eating shit would be correct, however.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2007 8:40 pm  

There are plenty of people who remember Crowley eating shit human and animal for fun, for sexual pleasure , and sacramental reasons. I could list all of them but I'm not that pedantic. I just read the books.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2007 8:43 pm  

By the way if you are really pedantic about Crowley could you look up the date when he stops thinking of the true will as being the same thing as the subconscious. Because I think the TW = Subconscious or maybe superconscious is the right idea.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1026
29/03/2007 9:16 pm  
"rabrazier" wrote:
There are plenty of people who remember Crowley eating shit human and animal for fun, for sexual pleasure , and sacramental reasons. I could list all of them but I'm not that pedantic. I just read the books.

This is a non-starter. If you "could" list them all, you should. Otherwise I, and most of the people on this list, will not be convinced.

Or you could stop wasting your time and just admit you don't know what you're talking about.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1026
29/03/2007 9:19 pm  
"rabrazier" wrote:
By the way if you are really pedantic about Crowley could you look up the date when he stops thinking of the true will as being the same thing as the subconscious. Because I think the TW = Subconscious or maybe superconscious is the right idea.

Given your former posturing, I don't really care what you personally think "TW" is equivalent to.

I might have more esteem for you if you would bother to look up the passage you allude to yourself.

BM


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2007 9:25 pm  

Well, you really can not know or understand True Will until you attain to K&C of the HGA so to discuss True Will and its nature beyond the superficial understanding that Crowley has provided us is simply idle speculation at best and Ego Building at worse.

As far as Crow eating a plate full of dung? Yes, he actually did and did not like it in the least little bit. It was a challenge from Leah Hirsig during the Cefalu period. Crowley always ranted on an on about how he had no limits and no perversion was to sick for him to perform (or some such matter), even the consumption of feces. Leah challenged him and took a dump on a plate and Crowley ate a spoonful in an attempt at bravery only to be utterly disgusted. In his diary he would write about the texture and taste in a detached manner but it is obvious that he would be doing no such thing in the future or ever again. LOL.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2007 10:21 pm  

Okey dokey. Let's steer this back on track.
The TOPIC at hand is the XI degree, not Crowleys erm eatting habits, be that whatever they were. I think Paolo tried to start a thread on recipies Crowley used or something like that. We could resurrect that thread and discuss what he liked to eat there if we're all so passionate about it. 🙂
Might we discuss this more using these questions as a point of interest?

My questions are, are these degrees two methods aiming at the same result, simply two methods for the same magickal goal? OR as would be seem to be indicated is the desired end of each act unique to the specific biological dynamics of each degree? Crowley seemed to indicate this himself when he claimed one was superior to the other.

In Agape,
Kym


ReplyQuote
Share: