Notifications
Clear all

Membership : To Be or Not to be (– Do or Die?)  

Page 1 / 2
  RSS

jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
17/01/2013 6:10 pm  

Michael (or Mick – I am not quite clear which name you would like to be addressed by on the site!),

I should like to have had a response to the parenthetical remark in my thread “The Magical Diary”, which you omitted to do & was consequently rather conspicuous by its absence & has now taken on the nature of an elephant in the room in the matter of any further communications.  I am confident you will give it a satisfactory answer for the record without the need for any hedging or evasion of the matter & which will preclude any need for lengthy discussion so that we can immediately move on.  I have known you as a sincere and knowledgeable Thelemite for 25 years, and, although I corresponded with him and found him most helpful, I never met Kenneth Grant personally but believe he had integrity within himself also, even though he never addressed these points further with either myself or Gerald Suster. 

If the matter has already been raised and answered I apologise for having to go over it again but would be delighted to receive a pointer to where the information is.  However the question now having been raised is due and deserves an answer if only because the T.O.T.O. is ultimately not a secret society itself and especially so later in the public domain following publication of Confessions in 1969, and as reflected today by its presence in sections on Lashtal.  Although KG is no longer around to answer you are by his default his spokesperson & can address the matter from the wider perspective of continuing his Order, even though you may not have been present or belonged to the organization at that time.

The matter can be summarised without the need to go through and list all of KG’s writings of casualties and fatalities throughout his Typhonian Trilogies (someone else could do that); for the moment it would be sufficient to simply adhere to the brief cataloguing made by Gerald in his review of “Hecate’s Fountain” in the Skoob Esoterica Anthology Vol. 1 as follows, and to simply just respond to his comments as the late KG signally failed to do… The list of these casualties can surely hardly be considered an ideal enticement or recommendation/ advertisement for any would-be members to join, surely?

“…Grant has made the uncharacteristic gesture of including section after section in the majority of chapters, which describe the practical workings of his Nu-Isis Lodge during the 1950’s so as to exemplify his theoretical points.  These are described with the observational precision of a scientific observer and a surprisingly graceful style of prose.[…] …[T]his book should be read with one’s finest attention by any practising Magician and also by those who are wondering whether or not to take the plunge and if also, of which Path to take.”
“[…]One is … surprised by Grant’s fascination with the Qlipoth, the excrement of the Universe, and by his notion that praeter-human Intelligences habitually manifest as hideous, slime-spread monsters, vampire bats, insectoids, were-spiders, frog spawn, larvae and other repellent beings straight out of H.P. Lovecraft’s tales of horror. […] As Hecate’s Fountain continues, the work becomes increasingly disturbing.  Grant appears to be saying that praeter-human Intelligences look like the sort of earthly creature most sane human beings find to be loathsome. […]He looks at toads, vampire bats, ‘slugs, snails and puppy dogs’ tails’ and discerns not Divinity within, as a Buddhist, Taoist or Thelemite would, but a viscous scum in which one should go spelunking.  After that he seems to declare: ‘Do what
THEY wilt shall be the whole of the Law.’  One can only respond with Lucifer’s words: NON SERVIAM.
“[…]It is fortunate that Grant has been so generous with the records of Nu-Isis Lodge.  He is clearly proud of whatever went on there…[on] page 9 we learn that after an invocation, one woman disciple died at sea whilst another perished in a plane crash.  On page 54, a woman is covered with ‘a seething mass of white slugs’.  On page 65 and after a magical encounter, connected with a talisman, a woman dies before reaching the hospital.  On pages 91-2, an unwitting baboon is utterly annihilated.  Pages 103-7 show the reader the unedifying spectacle of one Sister Nerik being given the experience ‘that finally drove her to madness’.  Page 134 offers one the delightful vision of Fr. Bemmel enveloped in ‘slime-dripping tentacles’. ‘Zoyle and the priest were stripped overnight of their magical powers’ one learns on page 143.  The ceremony described on pages 153-7 was not of great benefit to one Moola for ‘although her body was spewed forth almost immediately in a rain of black fluid, the soul did not return with it.  Moola remained mindless until her death in 1958.’  Another woman was luckier on page 173, getting off lightly with being struck by lightning and receiving merely a deep burn which required first-aid.  On page 182, a woman’s body is taken over by Choronzon: what a lucky lady!  Another woman falls into a coma from an electric shock on page 188.  Entertaining for the reader, obviously, but it would be hard to find a worse record of crass magical incompetence and callousness.
“Perhaps the most incredible feature of this witless catalogue of suffering and ineptitude is that Grant actually boasts about it as some sort of achievement. […]The trouble with Grant is that one detects a certain sincerity.  He really does seem to believe that he can advance human evolution and his own by being taken over by some loathsome larvas.  He wants that to happen to other people too and boasts about the casualty lists.  He is an object lesson in the tragedy of wasted potential.  By his own admission, he is encouraging Magicians, especially women, to jump into a pond of piranha without the slightest protection; and it is rare to encounter such reprehensible irresponsibility in one who purports to teach. 
“An astonishing tale is delivered on pages 217-20.  Here, a woman was apparently eaten alive by some conjured entity and vanished into thin air.  Well, I suppose it serves you right if you’re fool enough to try Grant’s style of Magick: and why is it that most of the victims are women?  Curious too that he quotes scriptures in his book which insist upon the inferiority of women.  Is this guy for real?  Could he be the greatest contemporary piss-artist, greater even than Frank Zappa?[…]” (pp. 187-90.)

As Private Eye so often says, “I think we should be told.”

I do not (necessarily) agree with all of the viewpoints expressed by Gerald myself and unlike him, for instance think his judgement may have been unfair in elements & perhaps a bit too harshly dismissive as a whole, and that the TOTO has done work of value from what I have seen and learnt as a non-member.  However, I definitely share his opinion that these points need to be raised & fully answered.  Also, although GS was not around I am sure he would have appreciated along with everybody else the comparative dignity with which the TOTO comported itself during the “Trademarks” dispute with the COTO.  However, since KG never did adequately address them in response I was wondering whether you Michael, now that you are his lineal successor, will provide a satisfactory answer in turn as they are surely still as relevant and of germane concern to anyone contemplating joining the Typhonian Order as ever, and indeed to certain members if they have not already enquired themselves (and one would hope that they would have, for their own peace of mind if nothing else!)

Incidentally, regarding the nine-month Diary rule were there never any exceptions?  KG was apparently hardline about it, but I would be interested to learn if any exceptions were/ are made under the old/ new dispensation, and under what circumstances if so.  Some form of illiteracy or maybe even dyslexia are two possibilities that spring to mind – somebody with amputated arms unable to write would be a third.

Sincerely yours,
Norma N. Joy Conquest


Quote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1088
17/01/2013 9:33 pm  

A public forum seems like rather the wrong place for a discussion of an organization's private decisions. And I hardly think it appropriate that Michael speak to questions raised by one dead man about the work of second. Perhaps a seance might better provide the answers you require.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
19/01/2013 6:09 am  

woooooooooooooooooooooow

22825414.jpg


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/01/2013 7:16 am  

Hardly "dirty laundry"  😉 .....but yeah, Jamie, it'd been much better form to discuss these things with Mick in an email...


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
19/01/2013 8:09 am  
"N.O.X" wrote:
Hardly "dirty laundry"  😉

Not by definition, but come on, man! lol


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2077
19/01/2013 9:06 am  

Personal correspondence would have been the more civilsed way of dealing with this, I agree, N.O.X.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
19/01/2013 10:41 am  

I'm happy to discuss the incidents recorded in Hecate's Fountain, since they plunge to the heart of Kenneth Grant's work. I have no time at present, but will do so later today or tomorrow.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
20/01/2013 2:54 pm  

I was waiting to see if there were going to be any other responses yet before dealing with your little tit-bit, William Thirteen, but since the other ones seem to be in a similar vein I will respond to yours (as it was the first) in full, which will cover the same ground anyway as theirs:

"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
A public forum seems like rather the wrong place for a discussion of an organization's private decisions.

Please read again:

"jamie barter" wrote:
However the question now having been raised is due and deserves an answer if only because the T.O.T.O. is ultimately not a secret society itself and especially so later in the public domain following publication of Confessions in 1969, and as reflected today by its presence in sections on Lashtal. 

You also remark:

"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
And I hardly think it appropriate that Michael speak

Are you acting as Michael’s spokesperson here?  Are you his deputy or in a particular position of authority within the organization; if not, why not let him speak for himself?  Your contribution has not moved the conversation forward at all and comes over as niggardly in character.  The matter ceased to be 'private' when KG published the matter in Hecate’s Fountain in the public domain; similarly the Typhonian Order has established a public forum in Lashtal which strikes me as very much the “right place” for a discussion of its decisions, history, accountability, consequences, and so on where necessary.

"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
to questions raised by one dead man about the work of second.

Please read again:

Although KG is no longer around to answer you are by his default his spokesperson & can address the matter from the wider perspective of continuing his Order, even though you may not have been present or belonged to the organization at that time.

Then:

However, I definitely share [Gerald's] opinion that these points need to be raised & fully answered [but] since KG never did adequately address them in response I was wondering whether you Michael, now that you are his lineal successor, will provide a satisfactory answer in turn as they are surely still as relevant and of germane concern to anyone contemplating joining the Typhonian Order as ever, and indeed to certain members if they have not already enquired themselves (and one would hope that they would have, for their own peace of mind if nothing else!)

You finish with:

"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
Perhaps a seance might better provide the answers you require.

I get the feeling this is more of a factious remark than a serious suggestion – fair enough, if so.  Otherwise, Gerald was customarily scathing about séances and I don’t think he would “come through” that way.  I cannot speak for KG although that also seems unlikely.
You cannot be suggesting, surely, that with anyone’s death this negates any further line of enquiry which might have been implemented & set in motion while they were alive?

Hopeflly this is a bit clearer now?  I am glad that Michael has made such a positive, sensible & constructive reponse himself and look forward to what he has to say in due course.  I have always found him very straight and direct on a personal basis & would have expected no better from him, and am sure he will also give a reassuring answer.

Per ardua ad astra,
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
20/01/2013 6:25 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
You cannot be suggesting, surely, that with anyone’s death this negates any further line of enquiry which might have been implemented & set in motion while they were alive?

Let me guess... you are the Head Inquisitor in Charge?


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
21/01/2013 5:02 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
You cannot be suggesting, surely, that with anyone’s death this negates any further line of enquiry which might have been implemented & set in motion while they were alive?

Let me guess... you are the Head Inquisitor in Charge?

No – but your choice of language is interesting and emotively charged: ‘Inquisitor’ holds unmistakeable resonances from the Spanish Inquisition, that hotbed of religious intolerance the arrival of which is held to be unexpected & apart from anything else implies a sort of relentless remorselessness.  (Asks coyly) Can that really be me??

Also – “Use of Correct English 101” – Avoid Tautology wherever possible: “Head” and “in Charge” [sic] amounts to the same thing.

Just to prove my own impartiality and lack of bias, I might also be posting queries regarding the COTO and SOTO (etc.) as well, where and if I consider appropriate.  And why not pray?

Meanwhile, further ejaculations aside, Michael can take his time and as long to respond as he wishes - there is no hurry at all, as far as I am concerned.

Per ardua ad astra plus:
“To Infinity and Beyond!”
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
21/01/2013 6:07 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
You cannot be suggesting, surely, that with anyone’s death this negates any further line of enquiry which might have been implemented & set in motion while they were alive?

Let me guess... you are the Head Inquisitor in Charge?

No – but your choice of language is interesting and emotively charged: ‘Inquisitor’ holds unmistakeable resonances from the Spanish Inquisition, that hotbed of religious intolerance the arrival of which is held to be unexpected & apart from anything else implies a sort of relentless remorselessness.  (Asks coyly) Can that really be me??

Also – “Use of Correct English 101” – Avoid Tautology wherever possible: “Head” and “in Charge” [sic] amounts to the same thing.

Just to prove my own impartiality and lack of bias, I might also be posting queries regarding the COTO and SOTO (etc.) as well, where and if I consider appropriate.  And why not pray?

Meanwhile, further ejaculations aside, Michael can take his time and as long to respond as he wishes - there is no hurry at all, as far as I am concerned.

Per ardua ad astra plus:
“To Infinity and Beyond!”
N. Joy

It's probably the gentleman in Mr. Staley that even said he'll answer you at all.

Yes, you are acting as an inquisitor, in this case...

inquisition

in·qui·si·tion
noun
1. an official investigation, especially one of a political or religious nature, characterized by lack of regard for individual rights, prejudice on the part of the examiners, and recklessly cruel punishments.
2. any harsh, difficult, or prolonged questioning.
3. the act of inquiring; inquiry; research.
4. an investigation, or process of inquiry.

5. a judicial or official inquiry.

...and I would not be surprised if Mr. Staley simply doesn't respond further to any of your questions.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
21/01/2013 10:11 pm  

(sorry, couldn't resist--Timo)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
21/01/2013 10:32 pm  

HAHA!  Nice one terra_trema!  I am looking forward to this discussion of the tangential tantrums that occurred during the rituals of N.I.L.  But, Jamie, your inquiry regarding the requirements of the Probationary Period hardly seems appropriate (to me, anyway) to discuss in a public forum.  That said, I think this thread could turn out to be a very interesting one!  In the meantime, I'll get my Hecate's Fountain from my bookshelves and give it another read.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
21/01/2013 10:57 pm  
"terra_trema" wrote:
spanish-inquisition.jpg

(sorry, couldn't resist--Timo)

lol

"Yes, Mick - What did actually happen to all of those women back in the day? The people on lashtal.com have a right to know! We demand da truf!"


ReplyQuote
Obitus
(@obitus)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 44
22/01/2013 7:55 am  

I was gonna refrain from saying this for a bit, but I can't help it. I personally have found this thread highly helpful and illuminating. I mean that in the sense that I have always been aware of Grant and his claims for succession and all that, and have read the Magical Revival and Aleister Crowley and the Hidden God, and wasn't quite sure how to feel about him. After seeing the above mentions of the workings in the Nu-Isis lodge, I was so amused at what I was seeing I thought "surely, this shit can't really be seriously presented in a book by this man." However, sure enough, I went and grabbed a scan of Hecate's Fountain and, uh, well, I'll let you assume what I think about it all. Considering I'm a sensible, rational human being. I'll leave it at that.


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1088
22/01/2013 10:51 am  

NJ - while i cede your point that Herr Staley is able to speak for himself, regarding the remainder of your response to me, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."  🙂


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
22/01/2013 12:40 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Yes, you are acting as an inquisitor, in this case...

inquisition

in·qui·si·tion
noun
1. an official investigation, especially one of a political or religious nature, characterized by lack of regard for individual rights, prejudice on the part of the examiners, and recklessly cruel punishments.
2. any harsh, difficult, or prolonged questioning.
3. the act of inquiring; inquiry; research.
4. an investigation, or process of inquiry.

5. a judicial or official inquiry.

Oh dear god, not your dictionary corner again!!

"Azidonis" wrote:
It's probably the gentleman in Mr. Staley that even said he'll answer you at all. ...and I would not be surprised if Mr. Staley simply doesn't respond further to any of your questions.

And still you are presuming to speak for other people, Azidonis.  Is this Lastal or ventriloquist’s corner?

William Thirteen, you are of course perfectly entitled to your opinion...

Terra_trema: re the Spanish Inquisition (Monty Python version thereof) etc: Yes I was wondering whether anyone would pick up & run with that.  I’ll see if I can just about contain myself from - or what’s the phrase - “lol”?! 😀

However I can’t help but noticing a rather unseemly note of levity appears to have crept into the thread if, as alleged, members may actually have died as a direct or indirect result of TOTO’s magical workings in the past…

N. Joy


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
22/01/2013 3:27 pm  
"Obitus" wrote:
I was gonna refrain from saying this for a bit, but I can't help it. I personally have found this thread highly helpful and illuminating. I mean that in the sense that I have always been aware of Grant and his claims for succession and all that, and have read the Magical Revival and Aleister Crowley and the Hidden God, and wasn't quite sure how to feel about him. After seeing the above mentions of the workings in the Nu-Isis lodge, I was so amused at what I was seeing I thought "surely, this shit can't really be seriously presented in a book by this man." However, sure enough, I went and grabbed a scan of Hecate's Fountain and, uh, well, I'll let you assume what I think about it all. Considering I'm a sensible, rational human being. I'll leave it at that.

What do you think of the Raoul Loveday incident?

"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
NJ - while i cede your point that Herr Staley is able to speak for himself, regarding the remainder of your response to me, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."  🙂

Very unclassy lady, if you ask me.

And is it jamie, or norma? Or norma jamie? Or jamie norma?

William, you know the rule lol

69_there_are_no_woman_on_the_internet_700.jpg


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
22/01/2013 7:33 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
Michael (or Mick – I am not quite clear which name you would like to be addressed by on the site!),

I should like to have had a response to the parenthetical remark in my thread “The Magical Diary”, which you omitted to do & was consequently rather conspicuous by its absence & has now taken on the nature of an elephant in the room in the matter of any further communications.  I am confident you will give it a satisfactory answer for the record without the need for any hedging or evasion of the matter & which will preclude any need for lengthy discussion so that we can immediately move on.  I have known you as a sincere and knowledgeable Thelemite for 25 years, and, although I corresponded with him and found him most helpful, I never met Kenneth Grant personally but believe he had integrity within himself also, even though he never addressed these points further with either myself or Gerald Suster. 

If the matter has already been raised and answered I apologise for having to go over it again but would be delighted to receive a pointer to where the information is.  However the question now having been raised is due and deserves an answer if only because the T.O.T.O. is ultimately not a secret society itself and especially so later in the public domain following publication of Confessions in 1969, and as reflected today by its presence in sections on Lashtal.  Although KG is no longer around to answer you are by his default his spokesperson & can address the matter from the wider perspective of continuing his Order, even though you may not have been present or belonged to the organization at that time.

The matter can be summarised without the need to go through and list all of KG’s writings of casualties and fatalities throughout his Typhonian Trilogies (someone else could do that); for the moment it would be sufficient to simply adhere to the brief cataloguing made by Gerald in his review of “Hecate’s Fountain” in the Skoob Esoterica Anthology Vol. 1 as follows, and to simply just respond to his comments as the late KG signally failed to do… The list of these casualties can surely hardly be considered an ideal enticement or recommendation/ advertisement for any would-be members to join, surely?

“…Grant has made the uncharacteristic gesture of including section after section in the majority of chapters, which describe the practical workings of his Nu-Isis Lodge during the 1950’s so as to exemplify his theoretical points.  These are described with the observational precision of a scientific observer and a surprisingly graceful style of prose.[…] …[T]his book should be read with one’s finest attention by any practising Magician and also by those who are wondering whether or not to take the plunge and if also, of which Path to take.”
“[…]One is … surprised by Grant’s fascination with the Qlipoth, the excrement of the Universe, and by his notion that praeter-human Intelligences habitually manifest as hideous, slime-spread monsters, vampire bats, insectoids, were-spiders, frog spawn, larvae and other repellent beings straight out of H.P. Lovecraft’s tales of horror. […] As Hecate’s Fountain continues, the work becomes increasingly disturbing.  Grant appears to be saying that praeter-human Intelligences look like the sort of earthly creature most sane human beings find to be loathsome. […]He looks at toads, vampire bats, ‘slugs, snails and puppy dogs’ tails’ and discerns not Divinity within, as a Buddhist, Taoist or Thelemite would, but a viscous scum in which one should go spelunking.  After that he seems to declare: ‘Do what
THEY wilt shall be the whole of the Law.’  One can only respond with Lucifer’s words: NON SERVIAM.
“[…]It is fortunate that Grant has been so generous with the records of Nu-Isis Lodge.  He is clearly proud of whatever went on there…[on] page 9 we learn that after an invocation, one woman disciple died at sea whilst another perished in a plane crash.  On page 54, a woman is covered with ‘a seething mass of white slugs’.  On page 65 and after a magical encounter, connected with a talisman, a woman dies before reaching the hospital.  On pages 91-2, an unwitting baboon is utterly annihilated.  Pages 103-7 show the reader the unedifying spectacle of one Sister Nerik being given the experience ‘that finally drove her to madness’.  Page 134 offers one the delightful vision of Fr. Bemmel enveloped in ‘slime-dripping tentacles’. ‘Zoyle and the priest were stripped overnight of their magical powers’ one learns on page 143.  The ceremony described on pages 153-7 was not of great benefit to one Moola for ‘although her body was spewed forth almost immediately in a rain of black fluid, the soul did not return with it.  Moola remained mindless until her death in 1958.’  Another woman was luckier on page 173, getting off lightly with being struck by lightning and receiving merely a deep burn which required first-aid.  On page 182, a woman’s body is taken over by Choronzon: what a lucky lady!  Another woman falls into a coma from an electric shock on page 188.  Entertaining for the reader, obviously, but it would be hard to find a worse record of crass magical incompetence and callousness.
“Perhaps the most incredible feature of this witless catalogue of suffering and ineptitude is that Grant actually boasts about it as some sort of achievement. […]The trouble with Grant is that one detects a certain sincerity.  He really does seem to believe that he can advance human evolution and his own by being taken over by some loathsome larvas.  He wants that to happen to other people too and boasts about the casualty lists.  He is an object lesson in the tragedy of wasted potential.  By his own admission, he is encouraging Magicians, especially women, to jump into a pond of piranha without the slightest protection; and it is rare to encounter such reprehensible irresponsibility in one who purports to teach. 
“An astonishing tale is delivered on pages 217-20.  Here, a woman was apparently eaten alive by some conjured entity and vanished into thin air.  Well, I suppose it serves you right if you’re fool enough to try Grant’s style of Magick: and why is it that most of the victims are women?  Curious too that he quotes scriptures in his book which insist upon the inferiority of women.  Is this guy for real?  Could he be the greatest contemporary piss-artist, greater even than Frank Zappa?[…]” (pp. 187-90.)

As Private Eye so often says, “I think we should be told.”

I do not (necessarily) agree with all of the viewpoints expressed by Gerald myself and unlike him, for instance think his judgement may have been unfair in elements & perhaps a bit too harshly dismissive as a whole, and that the TOTO has done work of value from what I have seen and learnt as a non-member.  However, I definitely share his opinion that these points need to be raised & fully answered.  Also, although GS was not around I am sure he would have appreciated along with everybody else the comparative dignity with which the TOTO comported itself during the “Trademarks” dispute with the COTO.  However, since KG never did adequately address them in response I was wondering whether you Michael, now that you are his lineal successor, will provide a satisfactory answer in turn as they are surely still as relevant and of germane concern to anyone contemplating joining the Typhonian Order as ever, and indeed to certain members if they have not already enquired themselves (and one would hope that they would have, for their own peace of mind if nothing else!)

Incidentally, regarding the nine-month Diary rule were there never any exceptions?  KG was apparently hardline about it, but I would be interested to learn if any exceptions were/ are made under the old/ new dispensation, and under what circumstances if so.  Some form of illiteracy or maybe even dyslexia are two possibilities that spring to mind – somebody with amputated arms unable to write would be a third.

Sincerely yours,
Norma N. Joy Conquest

There was no attempt to avoid discussing anything. The previous thread was about the pros and cons of keeping a magical diary.

I had many fascinating conversations with Kenneth Grant over the years, but we never discussed  the ritual incidents recorded in Hecate's Fountain. I cannot, therefore, tell you what did or did not happen, and thus cannot answer Gerald Suster's questions set out above; it's bizarre that you expect me to. What I will do, though, is set out my views on the matter.

From several references to New Isis Lodge working methods - for instance, in the Introduction to The Ninth Arch - it is clear that group imagination was an important component. This is the case in much magical working, where one does not simply intone words, but visualise images and evoke the corollaries across the other senses. Thus, for instance, as well as visualising the appropriate archangel at the west, one hears the sound of the crashing waves or the foaming surf, feels the spray of water, smells the salt water, etc. When working with others, one co-ordinates these sensory evocations with the other participants, creating what might be experienced as a shared dream, with varying degrees of intensity.

This is, it seems to me, the key to these various "incidents" recorded throughout Hecate's Fountain, which are described in often opulent, highly-evocative language with which the author is attempting to engage the imagination of the reader. This can be illustrated by an incident recorded early in the book, appearing on pp.17-19, relating how a priestess of the Lodge was apparently pleasured by amphibious creatures. Shock, horror! However, it is clear from the account that this is taking place at the level of a shared dream. For instance, describing the tank:

In lieu of the usual altar stood a large tank filled with tinted fluid in which swam several delusively realistic devices suggestive of the Deep Ones or Their minions.

Subsequently, speaking of the priestess:

An almost inaudible crooning proceeded from the hood through the slits of which Li's eyes gleamed from the magical sleep.

And again:

The hypnotic intensity of the gong, combined with the mounting concentration of incense coiling from dragon-shaped censers, evoked an atmosphere redolent of the bizarre, wherein the incident that ensued appeared - to the participants - as a vivid reality.

And later, after describing the effect of Li's multiple orgasm on the other participants:

This transaction occurred only in the depths of the mauve zone, for on the dais Li's figure, still hooded, sat slumped in a heap...

And subsequently:

As the Image gathered intensity in the minds of the acolytes...

It may be that the language in which other, more apparently calamitous accounts are couched doesn't make it so clear as in the working analysed above. However, it is my belief that, like this, the events took place at the level of dream evoked by the working.

New Isis Lodge was a phase of working. Although Grant quotes the time period 1955-62 as its period of work, in fact it's my understanding that the Lodge was being developed earlier in the 1950s, and work continued to the mid 1960s. This work did not continue in the Typhonian O.T.O., and thus entrants into the latter organisation were not required to work along the lines of the incidents recorded in Hecate's Fountain, and thus it was not deemed necessary to issue a health warning.

I won't be discussing your queries about the entry requirements for the Order, since in my view this is not a matter for debate.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4512
22/01/2013 8:14 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
- it is clear that group imagination was an important component. This is the case in much magical working, where one does not simply intone words, but visualise images and evoke the corollaries across the other senses ... creating what might be experienced as a shared dream, with varying degrees of intensity.

This is the way things were often seen and lived in Solar Lodge.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
22/01/2013 9:38 pm  

Thanks, Michael, for your gracious, well-crafted and patient response.

Jamie: Perhaps you (and, by your inference, Gerald) approached Kenneth's writing in a rather literal manner. I've read his works since my mid-teens (I approach my half-century imminently) and never gained the impression that these tales were intended to be treated as 'real'.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Obitus
(@obitus)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 44
23/01/2013 12:06 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
What do you think of the Raoul Loveday incident?

With the Loveday episode, I personally believe Crowley that the cat's blood isn't what did him in. But, even if it had been the cat's blood, in my view it just isn't on the same level as "well, shucks. Sister so-and-so just got eaten alive by a suddenly manifested tentacle monster. See you guys next week, same place, same time!"


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
23/01/2013 12:12 am  
"Obitus" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
What do you think of the Raoul Loveday incident?

With the Loveday episode, I personally believe Crowley that the cat's blood isn't what did him in. But, even if it had been the cat's blood, in my view it just isn't on the same level as "well, shucks. Sister so-and-so just got eaten alive by a suddenly manifested tentacle monster. See you guys next week, same place, same time!"

LOL Reads like a cartoon, albeit one designed by the likes of Kenneth Grant or H.P. Lovecraft.


ReplyQuote
JNSmith
(@jnsmith)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 33
23/01/2013 12:45 am  

Hi all,

I had held off any response until I had seen Micks reply but it had always seemed to me that much of what Grant wrote was symbolic and that he drew from (and acknowledged) fiction as part of that. All those corpses would have attracted some police attention methinks. I doubt we will ever disentangle what 'really' occurred in Nu-Isis unless we get an autobiography from a participant and even then what is true in someones memory anyway?

However re Loveday, I have just read Betty Mays 'Tiger Woman' and even she acknowledges that 'it was the water wot done it'. Its a very curious read as she both hates and respects Crowley often in the same paragraph.

You might be interested to know that there is a substantial precis of 'Tiger Woman' in the fascinating autobiography of Jack Lindsay 'Franfrolico and After'. He was a publisher and bohemian and had an affair with Betty May (who was running a sweet shop in the country at the time) which wrecked his marriage and seemed t precipitate his own semi-meltdown. Lindsays book (quite cheap s/h) is a great overview of the highs and lows of the 20s in London and very well written. I am in the throes of a proper(-ish!) review of it for the Side Real site but this is the essential gist of what it will be.

REGARDS!

J


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
24/01/2013 5:30 pm  

Thank you very much for your response, Michael.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
There was no attempt to avoid discussing anything. The previous thread was about the pros and cons of keeping a magical diary.

I didn’t intend to suggest there was any deliberate attempt to avoid discussing anything: I just observed that since you had so thoroughly dealt with the other points raised in that thread, this one was noticeable by omission.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I had many fascinating conversations with Kenneth Grant over the years, but we never discussed  the ritual incidents recorded in Hecate's Fountain.

In view of the fact that you had as you say many such conversations, I am surprised that you did not even touch upon the ritual incidents recorded in Hecate’s Fountain as they are quite startling reading however interpreted and stand out on that basis alone.  I suppose I am really saying that had I been in your position I would have raised the matter myself if only the once, and can’t imagine I’m the only person who would have acted likewise.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I cannot, therefore, tell you what did or did not happen, and thus cannot answer Gerald Suster's questions set out above; it's bizarre that you expect me to.

I think ‘bizarre’ is a slight over-statement, in view of the fact as I pointed out that you are by default KG’s spokesperson and lineal successor to his Order, & consequently in a better position to know and to answer in his place than anybody else (apart from arguably his widow, Steffi Grant).

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
It may be that the language in which other, more apparently calamitous accounts are couched doesn't make it so clear as in the working analysed above. However, it is my belief that, like this, the events took place at the level of dream evoked by the working.

As GS pointed out, “it is impossible to enjoy this book unless there is Coleridge’s ‘willing suspension of disbelief’, for it makes no sense whatsoever to the rationalist.”
It all seems so much more straightforward now that we know it was all fantasy – or as KG put it himself in his description on page 215 of Hecate’s Fountain in reference to Ojas, that: “All [such] descriptions, therefore, partake of fantasy which, nonetheless, can be quite powerful when enlisted by a competent magician within the framework of certain necessarily limited operations.”  The whole ‘catalogue’ makes a certain sort of sense only if one interprets it as fantasy and unrelated to reality, and although that may be inferred it is never actually spelled out as such - hence any apparent confusion.   

Then again, there is this curious behaviour of appearing to “boast” in what Michael refers to as the “more apparently calamitous accounts” regarding all of these casualties, real or imagined.  There may therefore appear to be some justification to the notion that KG might have been, as GS put it, the greatest modern exemplar of De Arte Regia, the royal art of taking the piss, “greater even than Frank Zappa.”

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
New Isis Lodge was a phase of working. Although Grant quotes the time period 1955-62 as its period of work, in fact it's my understanding that the Lodge was being developed earlier in the 1950s, and work continued to the mid 1960s. This work did not continue in the Typhonian O.T.O., and thus entrants into the latter organisation were not required to work along the lines of the incidents recorded in Hecate's Fountain

It was not clearly spelt out, though, hence the need for inquiry……

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
and thus it was not deemed necessary to issue a health warning.

It is a relief to actually know for sure though that the number of people who came to any particular grief was, in fact, ‘nil’ at N.I.L.  But as I said, while there remained any element of doubt: "The list of these casualties could hardly be considered an ideal enticement or recommendation/ advertisement for any would-be members to join."

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I won't be discussing your queries about the entry requirements for the Order, since in my view this is not a matter for debate.

I wasn’t seeking to ‘debate’ entry requirements – and would certainly not presume to do so, at least on a public forum (shock, horror!) – but was simply enquiring about the hypothetical example (but one which must surely have taken place) of somebody wishing to join the Order but who, for whatever reason, was not able to submit the nine month record required, and asking if there were ever any exceptions made to this & if so, upon what grounds.  I am sure this would be of relevance to all those people who might be thinking of applying to join but, like myself for example, had for whatever reason not managed to maintain the regular diary in question.  Also, it would be useful to know the standard expected – i.e., I’m sure that 9 months of the type of example previously given (e.g. “Friday, LBRP 10.25 p.m.: good”) could not be found acceptable?  I do not think it particularly controversial for me to ask this, as an addendum…

"Shiva" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
- it is clear that group imagination was an important component. This is the case in much magical working, where one does not simply intone words, but visualise images and evoke the corollaries across the other senses ... creating what might be experienced as a shared dream, with varying degrees of intensity.

This is the way things were often seen and lived in Solar Lodge.

This appears to be a slight variation on the otherwise well-known technique of creative visualisation, or as Michael/ KG puts it:

From several references to New Isis Lodge working methods - for instance, in the Introduction to The Ninth Arch - it is clear that group imagination was an important component.

creating what might be experienced as a shared dream

Quote
In lieu of the usual altar stood a large tank filled with tinted fluid in which swam several delusively realistic devices suggestive of the Deep Ones or Their minions.

Quote
The hypnotic intensity of the gong, combined with the mounting concentration of incense coiling from dragon-shaped censers, evoked an atmosphere redolent of the bizarre, wherein the incident that ensued appeared - to the participants - as a vivid reality.]

Quote
This transaction occurred only in the depths of the mauve zone, for on the dais Li's figure, still hooded, sat slumped in a heap...

And subsequently:
Quote
As the Image gathered intensity in the minds of the acolytes...

[My emphasis]

"lashtal" wrote:
Thanks, Michael, for your gracious, well-crafted and patient response.

Yes indeed, seconded!

"lashtal" wrote:
Jamie: Perhaps you (and, by your inference, Gerald) approached Kenneth's writing in a rather literal manner. I've read his works since my mid-teens (I approach my half-century imminently) and never gained the impression that these tales were intended to be treated as 'real'.

I don’t think that I ever thought they could be real either – they were just too fantastic for that – but there was always the possibility that they might have some basis in fact (i.e., reality) and so the actual question was, to what extent?  And since I imagined it to be more unlikely than not, it was this remaining degree of uncertainty as to the basis which gave rise to my initial inquiry.
Also as mentioned by GS, KG does write in the first part of Hecate’s Fountain when dealing with the state of consciousness which he terms ‘The Mauve Zone’, relating to Daath on the Tree of Life in the Qabalah, he did argue that as in the author’s previous works this is a “gateway to the experience of objective realities” [my emphasis].

It also raises the issue that if we are meant to treat the realistic “accuracy” of all of KG’s writings with a certain amount of latitude, where does the dividing line then cease to operate?  I mean, for instance, his particular treatment of the kalas, certain idiosyncratic qabalistic renditions, explanations about the cells/ shells of the Qlipoth, and everything to do with the business of S’lba – the main basis and emphasis of the final Trilogy! – about which he remarks, “It is, purely and simply, a synthesization of emanations received under curious circumstances outside normally accepted magical procedures, and subsequently translated into terrestrial language.” (Introduction to Outer Gateways (1994), pp.1-2 [my emphasis])?  Please correct me if my perception here is wrong, but is the implication that we are expected to accept KG’s writings as “real” in the same sense that one might regard, say, H.P. Lovecraft’s Cthulhu Mythos or Necronomicon as “real”.  Or else fantastic.

"JNSmith" wrote:
it had always seemed to me that much of what Grant wrote was symbolic and that he drew from (and acknowledged) fiction as part of that. All those corpses would have attracted some police attention methinks.

As a matter of fact, Gerald did actually provide for this eventuality in his review in a section which wasn’t featured, where he wrote the following:
“After all, surely the friends and family of the woman who was devoured by some weird magical entity would call the police and report her as a Missing Person?
“Yes, of course I knew her, officer,” Kenneth Grant declared to P.C. Plod, “and it’s always been a matter of grief to me that unfortunately she was devoured on the night we invoked the Great Old Ones, straight out of H.P. Lovecraft.  You should’ve seen it! She was gobbled up before our very eyes.’
“A likely story, sir,’ says P.C. Plod.”

The above amusing excerpt was omitted along with some other paragraphs from the abridged quotation given, but the full review is available to read on pages 187 to 190 of the Skoob Esoterica Anthology Vol. 1 (q.v.), which also contains KG’s rather good atmospheric horror novella The Stellar Lode (which actually was marketed as weird fiction/ fantasy by the way, unlike, and as distinct from, the remainder of the Typhonian Trilogies as a whole), and I think some copies were still available on Amazon about 3 months ago.

It is also undeniable that the main area of engagement of the TOTO – both in the NIL and also today – apart from Lam, seems to be concentrated upon the Qlipoth and the Tunnels of Set, in addition to working with praeter-human Intelligences corresponding with Lovecraftian deities.

Still, I’m glad it has not been an unworthwhile inquiry as indicated by the positive responses of some of the other posters (e.g., “a very interesting [thread]” from N.O.X., and “highly helpful and illuminating” from Obitus), and if it has made anyone interested reading turn to look further at some of KG’s work, then that is no bad result in itself either.

Also, I’m sure Kenneth Grant was not misogynistic but the point was not answered with regard to the fact that, whether fantasy or not, there appeared to be a preponderance of “casualties” of the female persuasion and that reference is made by GS that KG “quotes scriptures in his book which insist upon the inferiority of women” (I must admit, though, that I have not gone through the text to try to locate these myself.)

If only all debates on the forums could end so simply!

Bouncy bouncy,
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
24/01/2013 9:14 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
It all seems so much more straightforward now that we know it was all fantasy... It is a relief to actually know for sure though that the number of people who came to any particular grief was, in fact, ‘nil’ at N.I.L...
My emphasis

In the interests of clarity, it's worth pointing out - just in case anyone were thinking of using extracts from this thread in future - that you've over-stated things.

Mr Staley specifically and very deliberately noted that he didn't know 'the facts', not having raised the matter with Kenneth Grant, but was expressing his 'belief' and interpretation. Several others - myself included - have responded with some surprise that you might have considered the possibility that the events were 'real'. As for the 'facts'? We can't say anything as definitively as you have in your summary.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4512
24/01/2013 9:56 pm  

When one (or especially a group) is working with magickal energies, strange things sometimes happen. They are "strange" because they seem to alter reality (or maybe it's our illusion that is altered). Frater Aquarius said, "A lot of people have died as the result of an initiation." I have known a few who were right there, involved in the sphere of a magickal current, and they died in strange ways. I reported these in Inside Solar Lodge (both versions: - Outside the Law and - Behind the Veil. Here is one example, so that you'll have an idea ...

"Frater Ronan, member of the II°, was asleep one evening in the passenger seat of a Tong truck that was traveling at a moderately high speed. When the car negotiated a long, sweeping curve, Frater Ronan woke up, perceived (incorrectly) that the vehicle was out of control, opened the car door, and stepped out at 50 miles per hour. He was 28 years old. He was not under the influence of any drug."[/align:f4phurf7]

This statement neither supports nor undermines the reality or imagination of any person or what they may have said or written. The point is, strange stuff happens and one (anyone) really needs to be right there at the time in order to know what really happened. I was not in the truck when Ronan made his spectacular exit (from the truck, from the Order, and from Terra Firma), so even my short report is merely hearsay {heresy?}  😉

I believe this applies to any statement by anyone who was not there at the time.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
25/01/2013 5:53 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
It all seems so much more straightforward now that we know it was all fantasy... It is a relief to actually know for sure though that the number of people who came to any particular grief was, in fact, ‘nil’ at N.I.L...
My emphasis

In the interests of clarity, it's worth pointing out - just in case anyone were thinking of using extracts from this thread in future - that you've over-stated things.

Mr Staley specifically and very deliberately noted that he didn't know 'the facts', not having raised the matter with Kenneth Grant, but was expressing his 'belief' and interpretation.

I can see what you’re getting at, and since there seems to have been a little confusion which I may have inadvertently created I will hopefully manage to clear it up. 

If I over-stated the matter when I wrote the above sentences, that was based upon my reading of Michael’s answer that NIL’s “events took place at the level of dream” evoked by the working – i.e. that it was, in effect, all fantasy – and therefore the number of people who came to any actual harm was zero.  The tone of the two sentences you highlighted was of slight incredulity that the conclusion could in fact be so easy (straightforward) as although the explanation given was reasonable in itself, it seemed to discount the notion that there may have been a foundation of some actual accidental misfortune which did actually happen to a person or persons in NIL and was then exaggerated to act as a catalyst for artistic/ magical purposes.

"lashtal" wrote:
Several others - myself included - have responded with some surprise that you might have considered the possibility that the events were 'real'.

I didn’t entertain the possibility that the events described were ‘real’, so much as questioned how much they had any sort of a basis in reality, i.e., maybe as an inspirational starting point (as I remarked):

I don’t think that I ever thought they could be real either – they were just too fantastic for that – but there was always the possibility that they might have some basis in fact (i.e., reality) and so the actual question was, to what extent?

It all comes down to the perennial difficulty of what can be perceived to be ‘real’ when it is not possible to know anything with any certainty since there is always the factor infinite & unknown and any facts themselves have to be treated as non-absolute and relative, what with the observer also affecting the observed on occasion, etc.  This also applies to whoever has ever written about whatever as well, in the sense that anyone reading will have to make their own minds up in the end on the available ‘evidence’, that is, the ‘facts’ such as they are.

"lashtal" wrote:
We can't say anything as definitively as you have in your summary.

This was done as indicated above less in the way of strict factual accuracy and more in the way of poetic licence and extending things to their logical extreme – if we interpret (i.e., know) the circumstances were all fantasy (which Michael acknowledged as much in his “group dream” comments), then it would all seem much more straightforward!

As JNSmith so correctly observed in Reply #23,

"JNSmith" wrote:
I doubt we will ever disentangle what 'really' occurred in Nu-Isis unless we get an autobiography from a participant and even then what is true in someones memory anyway?

"Shiva" wrote:
When one (or especially a group) is working with magickal energies, strange things sometimes happen. They are "strange" because they seem to alter reality (or maybe it's our illusion that is altered). Frater Aquarius said, "A lot of people have died as the result of an initiation." I have known a few who were right there, involved in the sphere of a magickal current, and they died in strange ways.

The Solar Lodge activities have been a much unjustifiably neglected area of OTO history just because they were held to be ‘irregular’& I must read your book one day as it sounds most engaging, but I am not quite clear as to the allusion of Frater Aquarius’ quotation (could it have been to the events of the Equinox of 1904?) or “the sphere of a magickal current” (could that be like the ‘eye of a storm’?)

Also, even if somebody is right there it is no guarantee that they themselves will perceive things correctly, as many deliberately contrived crime re-enactment scenes show when it then comes to interviewing witnesses about what they have seen & what might ‘have happened’ afterwards.

"Azidonis" wrote:
Very unclassy lady, if you ask me.

And is it jamie, or norma? Or norma jamie? Or jamie norma?

As I am “answering post” here, I stated before that I don’t mind what I’m called (within reason!) but mentioned in my first posting you (& anyone else) could simply call me ‘Joy’ on the website.  Or, as I informed manofwycombe, you could call me “Jamie”.  Or “NJ” or “Norma” to be different.

Also I have some feminist acquaintances – the sort of classy ladies who, if a man chivalrously opened a door for them, he would receive in return not so much thanks, as a right earful! - who would quite cheerfully have taken your balls off for your cheek, assuming it is just cheek (& rather weak humour at that) in submitting your picture download accompanying Reply #17 (I will refrain from duplicating it again here).

But there must be a few other female posters on Lashtal I imagine who might also remain unimpressed & rather unamused by your contribution!

I myself presumed you might have got the idea about ‘inquisiting’ from my reference to Private Eye, but then thought if you are American you may not know that it is a well-known investigative/ satirical magazine in the UK which has “I think we should be told” as one of its catchphrases used by its fictional crusading tabloid journalist, Mr Lunchtime O’Booze.  Nevertheless as our esteemed fellow poster Los remarked on another thread, sometimes you don’t appear to tell the difference between connotation and denotation, which I quite agree with him there.  ‘Inquisitor’ can indeed mean someone who inquires or even investigates with regard to the object concerned, but in your context the phrase comes over as slightly pejorative in terms of the connotation you suggested.  Also, since I was making the ‘inquiring’ on my own, it’s rather a mystery how I could therefore have been the ‘Head’ and/ or ‘in Charge’ [sic].

Yours informatively,
N. Joy 


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
25/01/2013 8:00 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
But there must be a few other female posters on Lashtal I imagine who might also remain unimpressed & rather unamused by your contribution!

It's okay if you don't get it.

"jamie barter" wrote:
Nevertheless as our esteemed fellow poster Los remarked on another thread, sometimes you don’t appear to tell the difference between connotation and denotation, which I quite agree with him there.  ‘Inquisitor’ can indeed mean someone who inquires or even investigates with regard to the object concerned, but in your context the phrase comes over as slightly pejorative in terms of the connotation you suggested.  Also, since I was making the ‘inquiring’ on my own, it’s rather a mystery how I could therefore have been the ‘Head’ and/ or ‘in Charge’ [sic].

Yours informatively,
N. Joy 

Again with the "emotionally charged" bit. I really do think we covered that thoroughly in the thread about the ring.

And, if you create and 'inquiry on your own', are you not the head of the inquiry?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
26/01/2013 12:12 am  
"jamie barter" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Very unclassy lady, if you ask me.

And is it jamie, or norma? Or norma jamie? Or jamie norma?

As I am “answering post” here, I stated before that I don’t mind what I’m called (within reason!) but mentioned in my first posting you (& anyone else) could simply call me ‘Joy’ on the website.  Or, as I informed manofwycombe, you could call me “Jamie”.  Or “NJ” or “Norma” to be different.

Also I have some feminist acquaintances – the sort of classy ladies who, if a man chivalrously opened a door for them, he would receive in return not so much thanks, as a right earful! - who would quite cheerfully have taken your balls off for your cheek, assuming it is just cheek (& rather weak humour at that) in submitting your picture download accompanying Reply #17 (I will refrain from duplicating it again here).

But there must be a few other female posters on Lashtal I imagine who might also remain unimpressed & rather unamused by your contribution!

Just one more question. You do say you are female, right? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
26/01/2013 12:45 am  

That is, biologically female, as opposed to biologically male, (as in, born female and still female) lest there be any confusion.

[Sorry for the double post, all.]


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 501
26/01/2013 1:14 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
[Sorry for the double post, all.]

Treble isn't it?

OK


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
26/01/2013 2:08 am  
"OKontrair" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
[Sorry for the double post, all.]

Treble isn't it?

OK

Technically, yes.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4512
26/01/2013 3:29 am  

Both Treble and Terrible.

Gadzooks - just think of the karma!


ReplyQuote
Ariock
(@ariock)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 108
26/01/2013 8:21 pm  

Tremble


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
27/01/2013 2:45 pm  

Trebles all round, I think!  And technically the more terrible & tremorous the better.  Azidonis, you’re buying?... “But seriously”:

"Azidonis" wrote:
if you create and 'inquiry on your own', are you not the head of the inquiry?

No, if one creates an inquiry on one’s own, one is not the “Head” of it in the sense that one is in charge of other people inquiring into the same matter; one is a lone inquirer.  It contradicts the fact that only one person is involved and only someone into rankings would think of saying they are themselves the “Head” of something by virtue of starting it off.  Even if when others participate, there is no reason why that person should therefore become the “Head” any more than any of the other inquirers on an ‘equal’ footing.

"Azidonis" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
But there must be a few other female posters on Lashtal I imagine who might also remain unimpressed & rather unamused by your contribution!

It's okay if you don't get it.

Perhaps you could explain not only for my benefit but also for the ‘sisters’ reading who don’t “get it” either.  Assuming it’s actually worth getting, of course (which I somewhat doubt).  It doesn’t make sense as a statement (“There Are No Women On The Internet”), even less as an injunction (with reference to Norma N.Joy Conquest? among others) which is when it becomes distasteful in its implied exclusivity/ restrictionism.

"Azidonis" wrote:
Just one more question. You do say you are female, right? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.
"Azidonis" wrote:
That is, biologically female, as opposed to biologically male, (as in, born female and still female) lest there be any confusion.

That is for me (and a few other select persons) to know and for you to deduce.  A lot of posters’ genders are unclear from their avatar name but there have been enough clues in my postings for you to establish it (my gender), if it’s that important to you.  Perhaps I should give you a clue by dropping hints such as “I wet myself laughing when I read your last post” – but then that might be a (double) bluff?!? How about if I said I was an alien poster- but that one’s been used before!  I know what – you tell me what you think I am – biologically male or female – and I’ll give you an honest answer back.  How about that, boyo?  You’ve got at least a 50:50 chance of ‘winning’!  (Clue: I am not Rose A Starr: to everyone else - no spoilers!  If you know, don’t tell him!)

{Thinks: is it me or has the quality of postings been declining & taken a dive lately?}

Here comes a candle to light you to bed,
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
27/01/2013 3:12 pm  

C'mon now!  This thread was very interesting until this pointless 3rd page.  James (Spoiler Alert!), I suspect Azi does know your gender and is just messing with you "to get a rise outta you" as we say in my neck of the woods.  I've, effectively, ended all this sillyness now, and respectfully ask that you people return to the main topic of this thread, or move on entirely.  I'm no mod or admin, but as most of you know by now, these thread derailments are a pet peeve of mine.

With that, my fellow Lashtalians, I bid you adieu.  Don't fret my dearies, I (who am NOT), N.O.X, shall return, someday.  Until then my loves, "Love is the law, love under will."  ;D  *Waves Goodbye*

PAUL:  Don't delete my account, I'll just be gone for a little while.  I'm just moving and "getting my ducks in a row" as we say around here.  As The Terminator would say "I'll be back".


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
27/01/2013 3:45 pm  
"N.O.X" wrote:
PAUL:  Don't delete my account, I'll just be gone for a little while.  I'm just moving and "getting my ducks in a row" as we say around here.  As The Terminator would say "I'll be back".

Understood.

Now, less of the squabbling, please, and a return to the thread.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
27/01/2013 7:33 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
That is for me (and a few other select persons) to know and for you to deduce.  A lot of posters’ genders are unclear from their avatar name

I assert that you are, in fact, biologically male.

I also insert that your failure to correct WilliamThirteen on his post, which cals you a 'lady' (ie. female)...

"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
NJ - while i cede your point that Herr Staley is able to speak for himself, regarding the remainder of your response to me, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."  🙂

...was deliberate.

Your evasive answer to the direct question concerning your biological sex is also no surprise. Either you have a willing intent to deceive, or you are just a coward.

"Mystery is the enemy of truth." - 666

"lashtal" wrote:
Now, less of the squabbling, please, and a return to the thread.

With all due respect, I don't recall the last time we had a poster on these forums who actually intended to deceive other members in such a manner.

I do find it interesting that this subject has arisen in the thread concerning Kenneth Grant's words, which seem to have blurred the lines between fact and fantasy, a similar job to what the poster in question is doing, although KG at least appeared honest enough to admit it.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2666
27/01/2013 8:22 pm  

Holy gender panic, Batman!


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
27/01/2013 8:48 pm  
"ignant666" wrote:
Holy gender panic, Batman!

You don't think that someone claiming to be an "Exempt Adept", but willfully deceiving others, is worth discussing on a site dedicated to the legacy of Aleister Crowley?


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1088
28/01/2013 1:21 am  

Just for clarification. The quotation "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." is from Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act III, scene II, and was used to indicate that I thought the OP's protestations of innocent intent were suspect. I wasn't making any statement about gender.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
28/01/2013 1:51 am  
"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
Just for clarification. The quotation "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." is from Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act III, scene II, and was used to indicate that I thought the OP's protestations of innocent intent were suspect. I wasn't making any statement about gender.

Are you saying you would have made the same statement in reply to Paul's, Los', M. Staley's, or any posts by people who are known to be male?

For example, your full post said,

"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
NJ - while i cede your point that Herr Staley is able to speak for himself, regarding the remainder of your response to me, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."  🙂

In other words, you referred to Michael Staley, a known male, as "Herr (Sir) Staley", while you referred to "Jamie barter" as "the lady". This is clearly a gender indication or inference.

This doesn't clear the assertion made toward "jamie barter" by me, by the way. I do understand if you would like to remain neutral though, William.


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 501
28/01/2013 2:34 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
This is clearly a gender indication or inference.

Only to people who don't do Shakespeare at school. Most British people would completely and unambiguously take this in the sense explained by William Thirteen above. I suppose schools these days teach other more relevant stuff.

OK


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
28/01/2013 2:42 am  
"OKontrair" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
This is clearly a gender indication or inference.

Only to people who don't do Shakespeare at school. Most British people would completely and unambiguously take this in the sense explained by William Thirteen above. I suppose schools these days teach other more relevant stuff.

OK

That's nice.

So, "jamie barter" - biologically male or biologically female?


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 501
28/01/2013 3:12 am  

Ah, you didn't do Latin or geomancy either. (just kidding - I didn't do geomancy)

If someone is puerile then they must be puer = Latin for little boy.

No offence Jamie just explaining how to diagnose gender on the internet.

OK


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
28/01/2013 3:47 am  
"OKontrair" wrote:
Ah, you didn't do Latin or geomancy either. (just kidding - I didn't do geomancy)

Actually, I did them both, at various separate times in the past.

None of it has to do with whether or not the person in question (who you call "Jamie") is biologically male or biologically female.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2666
28/01/2013 3:11 pm  

Why is this important to you?
You assert that the poster you excoriate has deceived us by failing to affirmatively announce his/her biological gender in response to a literary quotation that educated people would not assume to have anything to do do with gender, as has been pointed out to you by the person who made the literary allusion in question, and others. I would add that educated persons in the US of A would share William Thirteen's intended understanding of this phrase.
Why is it necessary for you to know jamie barter's biological sex? Why is this even of interest to you, let alone so all-fired important?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
28/01/2013 4:36 pm  
"ignant666" wrote:
Why is it necessary for you to know jamie barter's biological sex? Why is this even of interest to you, let alone so all-fired important?

I know "jamie barter's" biological sex. The only thing I have been asking for, is a written confirmation from "jamie barter" about it. That's it.

Instead of just answering the question, "jamie barter" has attempted to evade this a simple (and admittedly trite) direct question for three pages.

But I get it. Many of you are tired of this going on. The initial point was just to get a confirmation, male or female, and leave it at that.

So here, instead of "jamie barter" evading a simple question, the answer to which is one of the first things taught to a little baby (you are a boy/girl), I'll provide you all with this, which I initially did not care to do.

The member name "Jamie" is a pseudonym for "James". The poster "jamie barter" is one James A. Barter, affiliated with the late Gerald Suster.

References:

Reply #8

"jamie barter" wrote:
The explanation beyond this was that when myself and the late Ian Wilcox & Gerald Suster set up ‘the company of heaven’ thelemic federation in 1993
[NOTE:  The last contact address I received for Gerald Suster's "c.o.h.", c/o Mr. James Barter, was BM Laylah, London WC1N 3XX.  Mr. Suster's home address was deleted from the letter here presented, which I believe would be his wish.]
"[url= http://www.geocities.com/Athens/parthenon/7069/eales1.html":22b256fs]Ray Eales, Paul Joseph Rovelli and H.O.O.R.shit[/url wrote:
A copy of his book was kindly given to me by Suster's friend, James Barter, but, alas, I have not yet had the time to read it and inflict a review upon Newaeon readers.
"[url= http://www.parareligion.ch/dplanet/collect/ok34.htm"]Why they became member of the O.T.O. 34 Ordo Templi Orientis Foundation] wrote:
PRK: what did you not understand?
XXX: I understand it all, I was just unsure of the relevance of my own experiences there regarding dates. I did not know whether my Andrea tale referred to the same time period as the events you described.
PRK: may i add above paragraph into my correspondence-post on the Net (appropriately at the correct place in the communication between Heidrick, nigris and me)?
XXX: Yes, please do, however I would like to put in full names, e.g. Gerald Suster, James Barter, and Arild Stromsvag, also I would like to add the following to the end of the paragraph, ..."I remember it particularly well because I chaired the meeting." Crowley seemed to think that the IXth Degree was potentially VERY dangerous.

Reply #16[/url:22b256fs]

"jamie barter" wrote:
Please find my item on Black and Blue Magick entitled Metaphor & the Buried Crowley as previously mentioned in Reply #6:

http://www.lashtal.com/pub_pdf/Metaphor.PDF

This book is signed, "Conquest". It is a reference to "Frater Conquest".

[Mortimer:] Unfortunately being an absolutely dreadful Qabalist at the time, I saw very little significance in the value 400 (idiot that I was). Informing Gerald several weeks later of my discoveries, his missive to me of May 7th says it all:

[Suster]Now: I really must thank you for your extraordinarily interesting comments on AL, II, 76. It struck
me that you really might have a clue there and so I attacked the second half of the equation,
predicated on d=7. To use contemporary vernacular, the result left me gob-smacked. According to
my maths, it adds up to 400. I’ve asked a good friend and Brother [sup:22b256fs]15[/sup:22b256fs] who is also a good qabalist to
check it out for the result seems to good to be true.

[sup:22b256fs]15[/sup:22b256fs] The brother in question is one James A. Barter (Frater Conquest).

Why does any of this matter? Well, it does give a bit of background concerning the OP's relationship to Gerald Suster, providing some context for this very thread. Other than that, it's anyone's guess. All I asked for was a simple answer of the person's gender. Had the poster simply admitted to being male, that would have quite been the end of it. The above references are presented only as evidence to prove that the poster in question is, in fact, male.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
28/01/2013 5:18 pm  

Thank you, ignant 666, for your wise words which I could not have put better myself.  Holy rats’ nest!  I seem to have caused some controversy and knicker-twisting here, & while I have no wish to prolong the “squabbling” I feel I am entitled to exercise my right to reply to Azidonis’s quadruple further postings here (outdoing a treble, even!) niggling away on this (sub)subject, so that we can all hopefully draw the blinds on it:

"Azidonis" wrote:
I also insert that your failure to correct WilliamThirteen on his post, which cals you a 'lady' (ie. female)...

"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
NJ - while i cede your point that Herr Staley is able to speak for himself, regarding the remainder of your response to me, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."  🙂

...was deliberate.

From my Eng. Lit studies I recall that the reference is to words uttered by Gertrude in Hamlet which William (13) clarified in Reply #31.  The actual context is not that the protestations (of the Player-Queen in the play-within-a-play, The Mousetrap) were “suspect”, or (as is often misconstrued) in the nature of complaining too much, but that they were simply formal statements of fact which were overdone.  This reference was indeed why I did not think he was making any allusion whatsoever to gender & as he quite correctly says, the matter would more likely than not be evident to all British ex-students with a modicum of education. (Education standards are more slack these days & they may well “teach more relevant stuff”[?!] but as I am not a teacher myself I cannot speak for the new intake.  This level of ignorance would make A.C. turn in his metaphorical grave - tut, don’t people actually read Shakespeare anymore?)

"Azidonis" wrote:
Your evasive answer to the direct question concerning your biological sex is also no surprise. Either you have a willing intent to deceive, or you are just a coward.

"Mystery is the enemy of truth." - 666

I have just two choices?  “You spoil me!”  How about: “…or you regard the situation as such a colossal friggin’ laugh that you just can’t help yourself”?

"Azidonis" wrote:
With all due respect, I don't recall the last time we had a poster on these forums who actually intended to deceive other members in such a manner.

(!) if not (!!!) - I don’t call that particularly respectful - in fact, some would say it borders on the slanderous!  But I don’t care & will not be consulting my lawyers on this occasion you’ll be relieved to hear…

"Azidonis" wrote:
I do find it interesting that this subject has arisen in the thread concerning Kenneth Grant's words, which seem to have blurred the lines between fact and fantasy, a similar job to what the poster in question is doing, although KG at least appeared honest enough to admit it.

I am not sure what you can be referring to here, but at least it’s a bit more related to the thread.  Where did KG himself actually “admit” he was “fantasising” all of the events at Nu-Isis Lodge?

"Azidonis" wrote:
You don't think that someone claiming to be an "Exempt Adept", but willfully deceiving others, is worth discussing on a site dedicated to the legacy of Aleister Crowley?

If you are referring to (little) me, I have made no such claim & would be interested to know on what basis you base this baseless claim yourself.  If anything I did the reverse and went out of my way to explain I was fulfilling the conditions of the essay only (q.v.) But just for argument’s sake, if I had been so ‘foolish’ as to make such a claim – just how do you suppose you would set about actually disproving it?  (Incidentally, I’m still waiting for your reply – as an ‘expert’ on the subject of Buddhism - to inform me in connection with this of any aspects/ school of this religion which puts the emphasis on existential joy rather than involves the perception of suffering or sorrow, or that life is other than as exemplified by the Black School, and with which Shiva also appeared to agree with me at the time).
So you think I’m “someone worth discussing”!?  Oh god, oooooh wow, you are stroking and caressing the feathers of my ego & I love it, please do continue…

"Azidonis" wrote:
So, "jamie barter" - biologically male or biologically female?

Oh, we’re back to that again, are we? when I thought you “laid your cards” down in Reply #38:

"Azidonis" wrote:
I assert that you are, in fact, biologically male.

As that game show The Price Is Right would have it, it’s a “come on down” moment. And tempted though I am to prolong the agony to certain quarters I am also conscious I may probably try the patience of others by doing so (Mick, you’re well out of it!) so I now reveal that, as NOX has presciently indicated although I have never made his acquaintance to my knowledge, I am biologically male.  Ta-da!
 
And if it serves to make things any less confusing, I only spell out the full monica “Norma N. Joy Conquest” on the first posting of each new thread or contribution that I make.  The “N. Joy” at the end (En-joy, get it?!) is my adaptation of the standard Thelemic salutation/ benedictions in relation to Liber AL II.9 in particular - among other verses such as I.30, I.53, II.21, II.24, II.42, II.66, II.70, III.46, etc. - as my personal original alternative update of the two line exhortations “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” & “Love is the law, love under will” from the Book of the Law along the lines I mentioned in my first Introduction posting, and also in alignment with the ‘prime directive’ of There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt
The second bye-line is a spontaneous ad lib generated by the posting of the given moment, and can as appropriate either be taken somewhere along the spectrum between nonsensical and deeply profound or sometimes dispensed with altogether (there is no certain test - without wanting to repeat myself, though, I am beginning to run out of available options).  If you want to call me by magical “motto”, you’ve then got a grand choice of three – one for each chapter of the Book of the Law, in fact, appropriate to whatever sort of working is being undertaken – where you have 0r0b0r0s, AvdAstra or Conquest.  Take your pick, choose ye well, but please be consistent.  Does that fully answer all of your queries?  (I’m so glad to be helpful!)

Are ye quite satisfied now?  Since you can’t seem to help yourself presuming again and again, for the time being it seems that I have continue to make charitable allowances for you… Please note though, after that I don’t intend to continue paying any more attention to this or any other allied matters of silliness.  Maybe we can all now get back to some business… (Someone remind me, what was it?  I’ve clear forgotten with all this fuss…!)

Incidentally, regardless of my gender you still did not explain your peculiar and unThelemic posting about there being no women allowed on the internet.  Even if it was a joke, what was so incredibly hilarious about it that made you do it?  I am a man (as I think I have now admitted), but you would appear to be clearly not of the ‘let the women be girt with a sword’ persuasion & part of the patriarchal problem (and therefore not the solution) which faces us all.  With such a fundamentally unbalanced attitude, I’d find it hard to believe you can ever have done any real magical work with either witches or ‘sisters’ at all…

(Help me someone, I am in danger of having a heart attack at the degree of mental and emotional sophistication behind it all.)

…And here comes a “chopper” to chop off your head,
N. Joy

P.S. I see since writing this that Azidonis has actually posted a fifth post.  But I don’t think it says anything new that causes me to revise what I have already written.  Perhaps though I can return the favour and "spill the beans" on you sometime, "Az"?


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 2
Share: