THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.magick,alt.magick.order,alt.magick.tyagi
From: Re O'Stat 
Subject: Re: The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 18:05:20 GMT

In article <3D99F2A7.4020304@cox.net>,
 aethyr augoeides  wrote:

> Fr. A.o.C. wrote:
> 
> >Re O'Stat wrote:
> >  

> >
> >In the first place, it's not a question, it's a accusation. One
> >presented with no facts in evidence to support it, except a poorly
> >crafted baseball analogy.
> >
> Point #1. Well stated. To the point. Undramatic and purposeful.


It's still a question.
Why not choose a legitimate name instead of taking on the fame of 
another group? That IS what's being done. Like it or not.




> >>You've come up with a new system yet insist on grabbing the GD name in
> >>order to give you an appearance of tradition and authority. Why?
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Repetition! Some people think that can make an otherwise weak position
> >seem stronger. Reminds me of something my lawyer once told me about
> >legal arguments: When you can't argue the facts, argue the law. When you
> >can't argue the facts or the law, pound on the table.
> >
> Excellent! I can hear my dad even now, saying something similar.


And when people don't answer a question, ask it again until they do give 
an answer. Sorry if you don't like that, AA.



> >
> >I know this must be terribly frustrating for you, but we really can't
> >get anywhere until you declare your terms:  What *IS* the "Golden Dawn
> >System" as you define it, and what are it's identifying aspects? Not
> >"lineage", not charters, not old books, not personalities -- what is the
> >SYSTEM? What is it's NATURE? How can you TELL?
> >
> When these get seriously answered, I hope to be there.


Well, let's see. There are, I think, two answers.

First, there is what is commonly called the "Golden Dawn" current. 
Certainly anyone can tap into this. Many people have written down the 
practices and ideas which are involved with this current. Anyone is free 
to tap into sections or all of that current.

Second, there is the physical manifestation of the Golden Dawn. Many 
people have gone through working with the various manifestations, but as 
soon as they changed it, they changed the name of what they were doing: 
Case: BOTA; Crowley: AA; Fortune: Society (nee: Fraternity nee: 
Community) of the Inner Light.




> >Now look who's dodging questions! You present yourself as being able to
> >determine, without possiblity of error, what is "Golden Dawn' and what
> >is not. But when called on to lay out these definitions by which you
> >make these conclusions, you refuse to elaborate. 
> >  
> >
> Getting caught in sneaky obfuscation can be worse than saying what you mean.



Nope. I don't contend that I can determine what is GD and what isn't.
But when somebody says I started with the GD and then changed it, they, 
themselves are saying they aren't GD.

If you start out playing checkers but then switch to chess, do you still 
call it checkers simply because the board is the same? Of course not.



> 
> >  
> >
> >>>Third: how do you measure "success"? Is this a popularity contest? Are
> >>>we keeping score? Counting noses? Hoarding assets? Fattening bank
> >>>accounts? What is your definition of "success"? Seems we're having a
> >>>problem with nomenclature, and this is always a barrier to communication.
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>Any way you like.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Dodged again! And *you* want *me* to answer *your* questions, even the
> >'wife-beating' ones!
> >
> Dogde noted.
> 

And, as I had written earlier, by accepting YOUR definition of success I 
was not dodging anything. Rather, I was letting you determine your own 
definition and saying I'd agree.



> >
> You are both Very pointy. I'll read Flatland.


I'm still waiting for somebody to do Flatland II: Adventures in the 4th, 
5th and 6th dimensions.

Maybe you'll do it?
;-)


> Right, us Discordians gotta stick apart!

psst: if nothing sticks to teflon, how DO you get it to stick to the pan?



> >>>
> >>You start the web page you gave out with a quote from him!
> >>If you're only taking "very little" from him, why start with it?
> >
> >Dramatic impact? *grin*


Exactly.

And that's the same reason you're referring to what you do as the G.D. 
rather than as something new (which it is): dramatic impact and the hope 
that people will become interested. Obviously, they won't be interested 
if you call it Joe's House of Spatulas and Occult Secrets.



> >>You can call it whatever you like, but you'll always know that you're
> >>being dishonest for some unknown issue.
> >
> >You seem to be very good at telling what other people are thinking, and
> >very bad at letting anyone know what you are thinking. 



That's because this discussion is about your assuming the name GD. I 
note that I haven't started a group. I'm not going to. If you want to 
start a new thead about what I'm thinking, fine. This is about the name 
of your group.




> >
> >  
> >
> >>I don't know anyone in your group.
> >>I don't care what you do.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >You seem to care a great deal.


LOL!

It seems that you DO have your "Super-k00l l33+ P0w3Rz." I mean, you can 
tell what I'm thinking, right? "Do you need to wear a big gold lame' 
turban when you exercise your clairvoyance? Do you wave your hands 
around and scrunch up your eyesreally tight?"

I repeat.
I don't know anyone in your group.
I don't care what you do.
I DO respect honesty, something which you are not expressing in your 
choice of name.

Why not call the Temple of Set the G.D.?
Why not call the Church of Satan the G.D.?



> >If we did not base our system carefully and deliberately on the Cipher
> >Manuscript and the core traditions of the Order, I would say that your
> >above description is adequate. But as it happens, we do, and that is
> >what makes ANYTHING "Golden Dawn".


I see.
So what you're saying is that YOU can decide what should be followed and 
YOU can decide what is and what is not the G.D. Forget tradition. Forget 
history. Forget legitimacy. Whatever YOU decide is the G.D. is now, and 
forevermore, officially, the G.D.




> >
> >And that's where you are wrong. Sorry, but you have not made your case.
> >You've not made ANY case, except to ask trick questions and assume that
> >everybody thinks like you do, freeing you from any need to explain
> >yourself. At least we *made* a case, with our Manifesto, and more
> >importantly, by DOING THE WORK.


Ooooh! You have a Manifesto.
So did the Communist party.
BFD.

Point 1. Your head, admittedly, was expelled from the G.D.
Point 2. Your group, started with the G.D. work but changed aspects of 
it.
Point 3. Unlike those who would be honest (Crowley, Fortune, Case, 
etc.), you have chosen to use the G.D. name in order to grab the fame of 
that group.
Point 4. Since you admit on your web site that you have changed 
attributions, you may be DOING WORK, but it is not the Golden Dawn work.




> >
> >You're entire case is, "You're wrong because I say so, and I can read
> >your mind." Is this really where you rest your case?



And your entire case is "It's the Golden Dawn. Why? Because we say so. 
Sure, We've changed things (we know better). Sure, it's not the 
tradition (we're smart enough to ignore over 100 years of people working 
that tradition and come up with the "real" work). So EVERYONE ELSE is 
wrong and only we are the G.D."


> >
> Without good definitions, time binding and space binding are muddled. 
> Gullible witnesses are amazed at the fireworks.



Very true, AA.



> >You know, Re, if you wanted to actually ASK questions about who we are,
> >what we're doing, and why, I'd be more than happy to answer. But you
> >don't. You have it all figured out, and you never lie, and you're always
> >right. So what is there to talk about?
> >
> >
> >- Fr. A.o.C.


You've already SHOWN who you are.
You're the group that takes the G.D., changes it, and still claims to be 
the G.D.

Re