Infuriation
-
To preface, I know that James will not speak of other lineages or the O.T.O. and this thread is not meant to be a discussion of other bodies, but instead a cry for clarification of what the "truth" is. If Crowley appointed Germer as his successor, who did Germer truly appoint?
The more I read, the more I feel negative feelings of irritation, confusion, and other such base emotions. I imagine hiding in the nooks and crannies are all sorts of lineages that state they are "The One" and correct lineage to A.C. I read about The "Caliphate O.T.O." founded by Grady Louis McMurtry with assistance from other corrupt individuals is nothing less than a tale of egomaniacal subversion. Grady McMurtry failed to accept the Will of Aleister Crowley in his appointment of Karl Johannes Germer as His Successor as Outer Head of the O.T.O., and subsequently took it upon himself to contest the rights of the true Heir to the Crown in a secular court of law.
I read about Karl Germer introducing this Marcelo Motta to Grady McMurtry, Phyllis Seckler, Helen Parsons Smith, Jane Wolfe, Ray and Mildred Burlingame, Gabriel Montenegro Vargas, Jean and Ero Sivohnen, Louis Culling and I read references to him as Germer's "star pupil" n the A.·.A.·. And later alledgedly on his death bed appointing Motta as his successor.
Would Germer knowingly establish multiple lineages? Or is that as long as one was initiated by a legitimate member of the A.·.A.·. that they were free to create their own bodies?
How is one supposed to know the truth? Now that I've calmed down about it, I suppose that the truth isn't so much important as looking at the individual lineages, and meditating upon them until you feel right about it. Still though, the truth feels ellusive. In Motto's case, much like Frater Achad, there seems to be a gap in the time line wherein at one moment, they are in the Ordo GD and then next mention in the Third Order. It just doesn't settle well with my intuition.
I sincerely appreciate any clarification on these issues. Again though, I'm not trying to get into a discussion about other lineages or what not, just more so what the policy was/is on how lineages are/were legitimately established.
-
@h3fall3n777 said
"To preface, I know that James will not speak of other lineages or the O.T.O. and this thread is not meant to be a discussion of other bodies, but instead a cry for clarification of what the "truth" is. If Crowley appointed Germer as his successor, who did Germer truly appoint?"
For O.T.O.? No one. That's why Grady McMurtry's "emergency powers" document kicked into gear. - Crowley not only appointed his own successor, he appointed a backup to that successor.
"I imagine hiding in the nooks and crannies are all sorts of lineages that state they are "The One" and correct lineage to A.C."
May I suggest that this phrasing is the kind of thinking that gets people in trouble. That is, Crowley didn't appoint a single successor to all things. He appointed Germer as his successor as head of O.T.O. and a couple of other things, but not to everything. It's not a matter of finding a successor for "all things Crowley."
"I read about The "Caliphate O.T.O." founded by Grady Louis McMurtry with assistance from other corrupt individuals is nothing less than a tale of egomaniacal subversion."
OTOH, don't trust much that Peter has to say. Even when his facts are correct, he has them in such a twisted and slanted context that their effect usually is error.
"Grady McMurtry failed to accept the Will of Aleister Crowley in his appointment of Karl Johannes Germer as His Successor as Outer Head of the O.T.O., and subsequently took it upon himself to contest the rights of the true Heir to the Crown in a secular court of law."
Not true. Not true at all. Yes, Grady expressed an opinion about Germer's status, but never challenged his title. Only after Germer died did Grady activate the emergency powers document Crowley gave him. And (much later) he was required to prove his position in court.
"I read about Karl Germer introducing this Marcelo Motta to Grady McMurtry, Phyllis Seckler, Helen Parsons Smith, Jane Wolfe, Ray and Mildred Burlingame, Gabriel Montenegro Vargas, Jean and Ero Sivohnen, Louis Culling and I read references to him as Germer's "star pupil" n the A.·.A.·. And later alledgedly on his death bed appointing Motta as his successor. "
Your "allegedly" is correct. There's no evidence Germer appointed Motta successor of anything. Motta, for example, was never even a member of O.T.O. He was no more than a 1=10 in A.'.A.'. (we have the letters). And so forth.
"How is one supposed to know the truth?"
Most of this has been well documented over the years. (When Motta sued Weiser, starting the reciprocal law suit ping pong going, his actions pretty much demanded everyone else get their informational act together.)
-
There is one fly in the ointment. W B Crow was appointed world head of the OTO before Germer, not as Crowley's post-mortem successor but there and then (AC was very ill I imagine). Crowley later apparently "rescinded" this. However, by definition, he had no power to do so, and Crow later claimed headship after Crowley died, but was unable to find anyone who would support him. However, his lineages (he collected them) continue....
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
a few points on this...
Motta did successfully cross the abyss. Germer did recognize that attainment. Yes, there is a letter in which Germer is ALL pissed off that Motta did it - against his direct instructions, no less, but there are other letters that follow that one. as motta's "heirs," jim, i'd guess we have a few documents that you do not. that's only natural.
of course, this threadn isn't really about A.'.A.'. stuff, it's just kind of interesting.
the only evidence for Motta being named O.H.O. for O.T.O. was from sascha, karl germer's wife - anectodal, nothing in writing, and Motta didn't even know about it for a little over a decade. that's what you get for not keeping "business way."
one point of possible interest on the lawsuit frenzy of the e.v. eighties (abased before me inDeed!) - it should come as no surprise to anybody that a reagan-appointed federal judge would rule in favor of a native-born american citizen over a brazilian national in terms of copyrights and whatnot. those lawsuits never determined who had the right to call themselves "the Real O.T.O." - and rightly so. those matters can't really be determined in any meaningful way by a profane court.
one phrase that gets tossed about a lot in thelemic circles is "by their fruits shall ye know them." the author of that phrase seems to have neglected to mention that one person's fruit is another's poison. i've had experience with a number of thelemic organizations over the course of my life; for me, motta's A.'.A.'. lineage and the version of SOTO resurrected by david bersson, a.k.a. frater sphinx, is The One. it clearly is not The One for others.
what i've never liked is all the restrictive nonsense surrounding the argument. i don't understand how any thelemite in their right mind could attempt to copyright the Book of the Law. i don't understand how any thelemite in their right mind would attempt to say "we are THE ONE TRUE WAY." just do the work! if it's in harmony with your will to do group work, then find the right group FOR YOU, and don't pretend that your group is the only group with "The Link" or "The Charter" or (gawds forbid) "The Truth" or whatever.
down that path lies the mouldering corpse of the Romish dogma. let's not have that happen to us.
Love is the law, love under will
-
@luxinhominefactum said
"i don't understand how any thelemite in their right mind could attempt to copyright the Book of the Law."
Agreed.
"i don't understand how any thelemite in their right mind would attempt to say "we are THE ONE TRUE WAY." just do the work!"
Agreed also.
Where I think many of these arguments/disputes get tossled up is (as usual) in definitions and valuations of the things involved. Specifically, I've had many people write me over the years essentially come from a place of feeling there is some divine universal right to the O.T.O. per se. The point of view seems to rest on accepting that O.T.O. = Thelema = O.T.O (as an identity rather than a simple equation), or that there is something final and ultimately holy about the one specific organization.
Now, just because people like to jump on (and take out of context) almost anything I say about the O.T.O., I'm not saying the O.T.O. isn't Thelemic and I'm not saying there isn't any holiness in it. I'm only saying that there is no inherent identity between the O.T.O. and Thelema per se, etc. etc. and so forth.
But what it is, ultimately, is a club. It's an organization. It's a legal entity and property. It can be owned in precisely the same way that Bob's Corner Deli can be owned (both the name and the business). As such, it's completely subject to a court of law saying who owns the club, the right to its name, any surviving trademarks or service marks or any other distinctive property. Think of it as kinda like Bob's Corner Deli or the Westside Chess Club and most of the commotion around the whole thing evaporates.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
...all arguments about whether the O.T.O. is just a club aside...
" there is no inherent identity between the O.T.O. and Thelema per se"
this is absolutely, unquestionably, perfectly...
...TRUE!!!
the O.T.O. as it stood under Theodor Reuss was founded before the Aeon of Horus even started. this is a matter of historical record. i think the confusion comes in with the claims of Certain Parties who really want people to think that their O.T.O. is the Only Thelemic Order.
that's not what them initials stand for, doncha know.
Love is the law, love under will
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"For O.T.O.? No one. That's why Grady McMurtry's "emergency powers" document kicked into gear. - Crowley not only appointed his own successor, he appointed a backup to that successor."
I realise that this forum is not really the place to discuss OTO matters. However, you have made a statement here which I do not regard as entirely representative of the facts. In my opinion there's more to it than that.
Crowley’s last letter to McMurtry is dated 17th June 1947. In it he says “It seems a long while since I heard from you. This is a great mistake: I shall tell you why in strict confidence. In the event of my death, Frater Saturnus [Karl Germer] is of course my successor, but after his death the terrible burden of responsibility might very easily fall upon your shoulders . . .”
Note Crowley's use of the conditional. There is a huge difference between "might very easily fall upon your shoulders" and "will fall on your shoulders". These remarks indicate that Crowley considered McMurtry a potential successor, but nothing more; he is certainly not appointed as a successor, backup or otherwise.
As a matter of interest, Crowley wrote to Frederic Mellinger on 15th July 1947 - barely a month later - in strikingly similar terms:
“I am very anxious indeed that you should keep in close touch with me, if only because I think it quite possible that after Frater Saturnus and myself have moved on into the next stage, you may find yourself saddled with the whole responsibility of carrying on the work of the Order”.
Crowley's correspondence with McMurtry over a number of years makes it plain that Crowley thought highly of him as potentially a future head of the O.T.O. I doubt very much that in the space of a few weeks in 1947 he had given up on McMurtry and switched his focus to Mellinger. Clearly, in the cases of both McMurtry and Mellinger, Crowley was simply encouraging what he regarded as potential which might or might not actualise.
Best wishes,
Michael.
-
@sethur said
"There is one fly in the ointment. W B Crow was appointed world head of the OTO before Germer, not as Crowley's post-mortem successor but there and then (AC was very ill I imagine). Crowley later apparently "rescinded" this. However, by definition, he had no power to do so, and Crow later claimed headship after Crowley died, but was unable to find anyone who would support him. However, his lineages (he collected them) continue...."
Where did you happen to read about this part of history? I haven't heard much about these events.
-
@luxinhominefactum said
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ...all arguments about whether the O.T.O. is just a club aside... " there is no inherent identity between the O.T.O. and Thelema per se" this is absolutely, unquestionably, perfectly......TRUE!!!
the O.T.O. as it stood under Theodor Reuss was founded before the Aeon of Horus even started. this is a matter of historical record. i think the confusion comes in with the claims of Certain Parties who really want people to think that their O.T.O. is the Only Thelemic Order.
that's not what them initials stand for, doncha know.
Love is the law, love under will"The Supreme Secret that is kept by the O.T.O. isn't about Thelema -- as you point out it pre-dates it.
The O.T.O. accepted Thelema into its system and worked to spread the law of Thelema to the world. For many years there was no other public body doing this work. It isn't hard to imagine why many people identify the O.T.O. with Thelema.
The O.T.O. also owns the rights to all of Crowley's written material. This makes them a powerful force in spreading the word of Thelema to the world today. I would think that every Thelemite would want the O.T.O. to thrive if for no other reason than they want to see unreleased Crowley material published, or rare material reprinted for their reading pleasure.
I wish all the people spreading the law of Thelema well. There are so few of us that it sometimes seems silly when we start feuding between ourselves. Sometimes there is strife about ideas or concepts but all too often the strife is about personality and taking sides. Now to make it more strange we don't even have Motta or McMurtry alive so people are taking sides with their successors. The successor’s students then spend time arguing about which line of succession is correct and fighting about minor differences of opinion. I have seen this before in the history of Moslems where the successors of Mohammed label themselves followers of the rightly guided Caliph. They label themselves Sunni and Shiite and kill each other over succession. They have been doing it for years. Frankly it seems stupid to me that the Moslems do this, and that Thelemites attack each other and try to "assassinate" each others teachers (the teacher’s characters, the teacher’s right and proper succession, etc.). Isn't there something more important Thelemites can do? Something more important to fight for? Freedom maybe? -
Frater Pantha,
I agree very largely with what you are saying. Thelema is transmitted more powerfully, in my opinion, through the work that each of us does, and this work has to be rooted in magical and mystical experience. A parallel example might be the contention of Transcendental Meditation practitioners, whereby a large enough number of TM practitioners in a geographical location start to influence the thinking and behaviour of the non-TM community.
I think that there's another aspect to succession, however. It's easy to think of succession passing down from one illustrious person to another illustrious person; up to a point, that's true of course. However, the real succession is at a more individual level. We are influenced by the work of others, and via the catalyst of our own magical and mystical experience we distil our own body of work, which is in turn taken up by others who assimilate it and transform it yet again via their own experience.
Best wishes,
Michael.
-
I look forward to the day where petty notions are set aside and we may come together under one roof.
The current state of affairs is to be expected ; the new Hierophant has taken his seat in the East.
Initiation into the New Aeon has occurred, the parts separated and cast into the Wind.
It is a matter of time before they fall back into place.
Then may The Dialogue between God and his children truly begin! -
What is interesting is that these notions of lineages and whatnot are only of interest to those outside the temple, once you get a foot in the door and begin the work it seems a bit irrelevant really.
In my limited experience, the A.'.A.'. crowns the work, whether it be the Joe Bloggs lineage or whatever makes little difference, after a while the paper chase which seemed so important becomes nothing more than an academic exercise.
I believe that this is actually part of the screening process, until this has been assimilated all people do is procrastinate at the temple doors wondering if it really is a temple!
Sincerity is what matters.
-
That's very interesting, but I don't think that it holds true that ascribing to any particular system means that one becomes cultish and insular. It could be said by non-thelemites that we in this forum, having identified with what we call the 93 current, are equally as cultish. More than one of my family, and quite a few of my friends think I'm in a cult, even though they don't necessarily know whether or not I belong to one or another Order within the 93 current.
You could say the same about any group, the Army, the boyscouts, political affiliations, your local knitting circle...
I think one of the great dangers of Thelema is the tendency to view those who have not accepted the Law as somehow inferior, and such comments as 'the slaves shall serve' can become a sort of derogatory phrase used in this context.
I do agree though that we must be careful not to cultivate an 'us and them' mentality. When I first began formal work within my chosen 'Lineage' (I use this term with great reluctance, because it can serve to strengthen the very cultishness that we don't want to cultivate), a friend of mine who happened to belong to another 'lineage' of the same Order went crazy over this and even went to the extent of spreading lies about the lineage that I had joined, saying it was a fake, and all that that their's was the only 'true lineage'. I think that this was an expression of this individuals insecurities about their chosen group.
I can only talk for sure about my own experience, but within the Order that I chose, cult behaviour is seriously discouraged, to be honest it feels like a solitary practice, I rarely if ever meet any other members of the Order, and only communicate when necessary, for testing or whatnot, so that actually the group mentality of more social orders doesn't really take hold much. I actually prefer it like this, I don't have anyone breathing down my neck, I work at my own pace within a firm but elastic framework, and I am very much responsible for my self.
As they say, the AA crowns the work.(not any particular AA, but the order that has no name, to which we all aspire)
-
@Dar es Allarah said
"
I was responding to your statement that "What is interesting is that these notions of lineages and whatnot are only of interest to those outside the temple" - as I thought it doesn't hold true when properly examined. As you have just illustrated, whether these notions are of interest to others is either true or not on a case by case basis and not determined by membership or otherwise to an A.'.A.'. group.
"Ok, I'll go into more detail about it, again from my own experience, (maybe a lesson not to judge others by my own standards
)In the beginning I was obsessed with the idea of lineage, and I noticed that this seemed to be a common trait amongst those who were waiting on the doorstep as it were, and even those of the preliminary grades. The questions of whether or not they had joined the 'real' AA was all important at that time; I asked all sorts of questions that in retrospect were completely besides the point, and in hindsight they seem like the sort of questions that I could only have asked at that point in time, because now I don't trouble to think about it except in a spirit of amusement at my own attachment to clubs and badges, paperwork and all that guff.
I remembered being horrified at the thought that I might have joined the 'wrong lineage', and my acquaintance aforementioned was in the same position with their own 'lineage' (Which goes to prove the old rule about Probationers conferring being a bar to progress, so these days we communicate sparingly and don't discuss the work at all; lesson learned the hard way, or maybethe only way).
When all's said and done the various groups operating could all be said to have broken links, depending on your pov, but in practice they all seem to get on with the work quite happily without worrying over-much about that kind of thing.
These days I'm more inclined to put the whole experience down to the trial's of that Grade, where the aspirant is given the chance to betray the Order. It all seems like a dream now, and hopefully will serve as a warning to those who follow.
-
Dar, have you completed the Aethyrs?
If so, how was ZAX?
-
@Dar es Allarah said
":D I'm sure those insights will be valuable to some folks too.
I wonder how that this 'chance to betray the order' works out when it directly conflicts with the exhortation: "To thine own Self be true"?
"Interesting question. I've only ever known that Ordeal to manifest in a form where the person was, in fact, betraying themselves. (I tend to think that's the essence of the Ordeal: the Order jut provides the context. Relationships are useful that way <g>.)
-
@Dar es Allarah said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Dar es Allarah said
":D I'm sure those insights will be valuable to some folks too.I wonder how that this 'chance to betray the order' works out when it directly conflicts with the exhortation: "To thine own Self be true"?
"Interesting question. I've only ever known that Ordeal to manifest in a form where the person was, in fact, betraying themselves. (I tend to think that's the essence of the Ordeal: the Order jut provides the context. Relationships are useful that way <g>.)"
I see. Maybe, you think, by agreeing to join an order when it wasn't their true will to do so? 
"It's certainly possible (a certainty) that some people take such a step when it's not right for them. The real eruptive pressure cooker effect is that the nature of an authentic magical oath creates a binding, inescapable path that puts one's deep integrity on the line. (That's one of the several ways that such an oath is a formidable tool for the aspirant's Work.) If someone makes that kind of commitment and it's at odds with their nature, then there will be an eruption.
But that's not what I was talking about. The above is an example of the best (in the sense of truest, most authentic) side fighting its way to freedom. I'm talking more about cases where the smaller side of a person sells out their own genuine ideals. This, of course, leads to betrayal of anything that anchors their better side. (It's not just a magical order that can do this, of course. Surely you have noticed that, for many people, nothing so ruins a long-successful relationship like marriage. It 'works' until they solemnly swear to keep it working! Not true for everyone, of course.)
-
That's a brilliant way of putting it, I have found that in this the betrayal of myself and the betrayal of the Order would indeed be the same thing, I spent several years doing just that before I broke away from all that and decided to commit myself to the work, and at the appointed time the Ordeal came about in classic style, sowing doubt on the path and causing me to spend considerable time and effort to discover the facts of my 'lineage', as well as several others, so I learned a lot about the history of the Order, from several perspectives, until at a given point I realized that they all contradicted each other on some point or other, and all of there claims could be refuted if one had a mind to.
So I was left with a simple choice, either Get on with the work, or fall into the pit of because and spend the rest of my life regretting it, naturally I chose the former.
I have since seen this and other ordeals of a similar type in others at the same stage, so I feel that I can attest that it certainly is something to be taken into account when dealing with Probationers.
-
That's part of why it's called "probation" - i.e., "trying it out, testing it," etc. One of the main things that is happening at that stage is that one is "selecting oneself in or out" before taking full initiation. This choice is not always a conscious one.
-
@Dar es Allarah said
"Being a probationer was interesting but I would never have been allowed to go any further than that, because you can't make a genuine commitment to redo stuff you've already done. That's just impossible, so although I was honest about my motivations - I still think I placed myself in a false position. "
I'm not sure we actually disagree about anything here, though I'm prompted to say something about that topic.
You can make a genuine commitment to retravel a road you've already walked down. In fact, it's basic to the recapitulaton that occurs lifetime after lifetime for those who have already moved far along the path.
The soul (for lack of a better word) owns the wholeness of its experience, but the process starts all over again with each new body. The physical body has to go through each step. The difference is that, for one who has travelled the road before, this is a recapitulation that usually happens very swiftly.
It's much harder to retrace (as a formality) within a given lifetime. The body has already grown past that point. (And I suspect that's what you meant.) Forgetting has its value! <g>