Mogg,
mandrake wrote:
> granted a license to republish. If you _know_ different then please
> say - (For example - there are plenty who would prefer the Symonds /
> Grant edition of Liber ABA)
I don't know of this being any different--but I don't see it as much
different then any copyright holder that issues critical editions not
allowing republishing of earlier editions. The copyright holder of any
edition is unlikely to allow earlier versions to be reprinted, purely
with respect to the market. And it is harder for a holder to convince a
publisher to put the cost of producing and distributing an edition when
competing editions are on the market.
I'm not suggesting that there is no ground for criticism of OTO here.
What I contest is that there is evidence of any type of coordinated
effort to suppress other views of Thelema. There does seem to be an
effort to hold certain copyrights and trademarks, but that is different.
As for releasing new critical editions being an attempt to somehow
mediate conflicting views, such an argument would be better with a clear
discussion of how a newer edition suppresses particular takes on
Thelema. I'd love to know why people prefer the Symonds/Grant edition,
and how it would produce a different take on Thelema; but those aren't
the types of arguments I am seeing here.
> I know the COTO, perhaps the majority, is full of very nice people,
> such as yourself - but in the end - they either have no influence or
> choose not to exercise any.
I don't think this is about I or other people being "nice," but rather
about a specific claim, one that I'm willing to entertain, but which I
have yet to see evidence for, that OTO is holding its copyrights and
trademarks in an attempt to suppress alternative strains of Thelema. As
I've suggested, there are potentially many grounds to critique OTO's
moves here, but I don't see the accusation of suppression as holding
much water, based on my own observation of members and officers, and
where I do see that argument it seems rooted primarily in insinuation or
speculation--neither of which have much weight in reasoned discourse.
I'm not seeking to defend the order's actions here, by the way. My own
personal take on that is a different matter, and probably not really
that important to this list. What I am suggesting is that particular
claims put out on this list don't seem to have substance, and that my
own experience both as a member and as a researcher seem to run contrary
to the general strain of these claims. As a researcher, I'm certainly
interested in other interpretations, though I don't find ones primarily
rooted in insinuation, speculation, or hypothetical scenarios particular
significant for an academic understanding of the situation.
Regards,
Grant
|