On Feb 4, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Mandrake wrote:
> It has been evident for some time now that the different OTO lineages
> interpret this degree in different ways -
> some deny or reinterpret the homosexual component,
> whilst others, such as the Motta Lineage, seem to celebrate it
As I stated to Ben:
OTO is a legal entity.
Others have produced no documentation to support their claims of
"lineage", "current" or "offshoot".
This argument got old in the 1990s. If you wish to speak of
well-researched studies, by all means.
If you need to continue to discuss claims made by people who ceased
making those claims long, long ago, count me out.
Motta was never a member of OTO.
> Are you able to say more about how your lineage interprets it as
> beyond gender -
I never wrote "beyond gender". Please re-read.
> would that be as a form of androgyny??
No.
> For many of us, even those who are not temperamentally into
> homosexuality - its inclusion
> within a magical system of degrees was seen as a very liberated thing
> and a
> corrective to much homophobia and bigotry - its what made Crowley and
> Neuberg
> 'gay icons'
Crowley's sexual relationship with Neuberg spanned years.
The Paris Working was done from 1913-1914. That had nothing to do
with the OTO or OTO's XI*.
In fact, Crowley did not claim OTO XI* until 1919. I have seen no
entries in Crowley's journals
alluding to OTO XI* Workings connected with Neuberg at other times,
either. Have you?
If so, I'd be happy to review the entries.
Felicia Swayne-Heidrick
|