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,alt.thelema,alt.pagan.magick
From: 333 
Subject: Re: Objectively Studying the GD
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:46:33 GMT

50030225 VII 

Re O'Stat:
>> Nope. It's not begging the question. It's focusing on fact.... 

vaguely at times. I'd appreciate some honing and tried to provide
it in another thread.


"Fr. A.o.C." :
> ...He hasn't offered any rational reason to change my mind. 

he did in brief, and I provided the basis for a more extensive
analysis (from an admitted position of ignorance) that takes
some of his objections and runs with them. if you don't agree 
that is fine. :> I'm not sure that *I* agree with them, but I
do think that they are rational (however convincing).

I'm more interested in talking about the entirety of the 
subject than merely upon what you two disagree, however. 
this is what makes the Oh So GooD so good!

these are the two regions of dispute I've seen thusfar:

	1
	form (lineage connections)

	2
	character (thelemic rather than whatever the GD is)

they both seem pertinent, so I'm asking followup questions.
my aim is not to take sides, just to see how authority is
viewed in GD and GD-affiliating trads.

please at least read my longer post on the matter 
elsewhere in this very thread.

> ...If only Re would try "rationalizing" HIS position we 
> could take it from there. 

I did it for the both of you. please respond to my analysis
if you have time/inclination.

> Re still won't describe his criteria for judgment of what is 
> or is not "Golden Dawn". 

briefly, he focusses on "order" in the title HOGD, but I'm seeing
that he has much to explain if he wants to make that one stick.

> But now the argument shifts, 

this is no shift, it is a consistent assertion on his part,
having prefaced it with a more detailed analysis to bolster
this assertions (interesting! inconclusive!). 

> and the basis for "Golden Dawn-ness" turns on the circumstances 
> of our Chief Adept's departure from his initiating lodge. 

his assertions are:

	1
	DIScontinuity of lineage, 

which you have disassembled very well so far,

built atop his previous mention of

	2
	ritual form contextual differences 
	(Thelemic rather than whatever the GD should be called;
	 Osirian? Old Aeon? :>).

note that I'm not supporting either side of this debate, 
but I think it is a very interesting one, I'm attempting
to facilitate and thereby come to a better understanding
of the GD today.

>- Now here's a 1993 reference from the Tyaginator, about Sam and the
>first GD lodge he founded: "It may be I'll never get into formal CM. 
>I've met an edge-oid from the Heretical Order of the Golden Dawn (Sam
>Webster, specifically, a very interesting and coherent individual) who
>has me convinced that CM and shamanism are not at all separate..."
>Edge-oid indeed, nagasiva!

neat-o.

> So what "posts" is Re referring to where it details the 
> circumstances of Sam's expulsion from the Golden Dawn 
> that "everybody knows about"?

didn't he say 'files'? perhaps he meant online but not usenet?
both are 'on the net somewhere'. maybe I'll google and see.

> ...Sam served a full six months as the Hierophant of his 
> original lodge. It was almost a year between his 5=6 and 
> his expulsion....

relevant questions (you generate some too, Fr. AoC! ;>):

	what status (the X=Y thing ;>) does it take, 
	traditionally, to carry on a tradition if one 
	is *still interior to it*? 

	if one is expelled, what is the traditional view 
	as to the nature of one's connection from said 
	lineage? is one who perpetuates something from 
	which one is expelled viewed with distrust and 
	hostility by the original trad? just in some cases?

> ...I don't see how that qualifies as "immediately quit". 
> Even if he did quit. Which he didn't.

being expelled signifies a disruption of community which
may be utilized to assert another's discontinuity with the
lineage which formed the basis of that community (especially
if falling in line with masonic standards). you do obviously 
see this point, just not why your situation is unusual or 
unique in comparison to other GD expulsees, to which Re has
not yet responded.
 
>>> ...The bottom line is that he was expelled.
>
> ...by more than one strict definition, Fr. IO's lineage 
> in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn is as bogus as 
> the proverbial three-dollar bill. And he has a lot of 
> famous company.
>
> He was expelled from his lodge. Yes indeed. And the lodge 
> he was expelled from got its "lineage" from Israel Regardie. 
> There are quite a few greybeards who would argue that 
> Regardie had no lineage to pass on to anyone, because he was 
> expelled from HIS lodge. And that lodge came from a schism 
> of the old Hermetic Order, that had rebelled against and
> been subsequently expelled by Macgregor-Mathers from HIS 
> lodge! So our Order comes from a long line of proud hermetic 
> miscreants. 

this defense on your part only goes so far, though.

'the bottom line is that he was expelled' seems misguided,
when in fact the weakness lies in the entire lineage, 
by continuity-standards (say, masonic, and the GD was
attempting to be quasi-masonic at least).

> Maybe we should call ourselves the Order of Getting The 
> Boot From The Golden Dawn. Re would probably like that.

that's a good one! ;>

> So Chic Cicero definitely shouldn't be calling his 
> group "Golden Dawn" either, right? ....

by the same reason, if he derives from the same lineage,
then yes, that is correct.

> ...Cris Monnastre, Christopher Hyatt and David Griffin....
> ...Thelemic Golden Dawn and, ...New Reformed Orthodox Order 
> of the Golden Dawn!

do all these derive from the same lineage, or different
expulsions from the original, or? one might compare their 
relative placement at the time of the expulsion, if one is 
to focus on the lineage (as Re apparently wants to do here).

>>> ...I don't know [SWebster]. I just know what I read on the net.

where 'bouts, Re?

> ...for a long while, the whole debate was that the
> OSOGD doesn't fulfill Re's 'criteria' -- which he refuses 
> to define -- which meant we had no right to take the name 
> "Golden Dawn" to describe ourselves. 

previously his main analysis was structural/ritual. now he
appears to wish to additionally criticize lineage. that he
made his point as regards rite was sufficient reason to move
on to a critique of lineage. you're doing better against
this objection to his critique than I thought you did in
response to his bit about changing Guardian Gods. further
discussion on the first point should include changes that
other expulsees that Re thinks qualify made to their rites.

in the former discussion the issue was whether you were doing
the "work" of the GD (as compared to something else). a further
critique on lineage serves to add additional substance to the
criticism of rite-form, but not without additional details,
now that you've provided a spectrum comparable to your own. 

> ...even if we DID fit all of these amorphous criteria, 

he didn't critique your system point by point, but he did
bring up an interesting example. it wasn't amorphous, 
it was just brief and with a single example. perhaps with
your inspired defense here he'll buckle down and give it
the old O'Stat try.

> we'd still fail his 'lineage test', 

I look forward to seeing who Re O'Stat *does* think
qualifies (if anyone). this would tell us more about
what his assessment methods and motivations may be.

> and STILL wouldn't be able to call ourselves "Golden Dawn". 

he'd argued that you aren't doing GD work and that in order
to avoid misunderstandings and accusations of deception,
you should change your name to something less directly
related to the GD. I'm not sure I understand what differences
there are, traditionally, in GD comparables such as you have
described with expulsion-names above, but I hope someone
who knows will do us the favour and fill in the blanks. 
maybe someone helpful from the Oh So GooD!

> ...is there ANY group currently in operation that you [Re]
> believe fits all of your criteria of being "genuine Golden 
> Dawn"?

that's a very good question. thanks for asking it.

> As to why Sam was expelled -- frankly, it's none of 
> anyone's business, because it came down to a personal 
> dispute....

by this I take it you mean that it had absolutely nothing
to do with his capacity, performance, or fidelity with
respect to his membership. that seems pertinent enough to
ignore the fact of his expulsion and focus on its timing
(i.e. his status and subsequent ability to convincingly
carry on the lineage of which he was previously part).

> Out of respect for the privacy of everyone involved, 
> it's not proper to discuss the details in public....

fine, how about conventional lineage-perpetuation and
status typically necessary to convincingly perpetuate it?

> ...Re's way of thinking the reason doesn't MATTER, 
> there's really no point in discussing it anyway. 

agreed, not unless he somehow changes his mind about that.
perhaps he didn't know about all the expulsion history of
the GD. I'm certainly not aware of all the rifts, but I'm
curious about them. has someone written up a lineage-
chart and posted it online somewhere of all the folks 
who maintain that they are somehow a GD? 

there is an alt.magick GDFAQ that SCranmer put together
in 1995 at

     http://www.luckymojo.com/altmagickfaq/gdref

but are there better analyses of the GD family tree?

>(with apologies to Mel Brooks)
>The Inquisition (Re O'Stat!)
>The Inquisition (knows where it's at!)
>We know you're wishin' that he'd go away.
>But the Inquisition's here and it's here to stay!



WOW! that was FABULOUS! hilarious too! thanks. :>

333

Path: typhoon.sonic.net!feed.news.sonic.net!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.frii.net!newsfeed.frii.net!140.99.99.194.MISMATCH!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!post-03.news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Return-Path: 
X-envelope-info: 
Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick.order,alt.magick,alt.thelema,alt.pagan.magick,alt.occult.kabbalah.golden-dawn
Subject: Re: Objectively Studying the GD
References:  <3E412F6D.6020707@cox.net>   <3E53E68C.15C31A6E@slip.net>  <3E579DF8.2020205@cox.net> <3E582D32.AFB46C5D@slip.net> 
From: 333 
Reply-To: spam@luckymojo.com
User-Agent: nn/6.6.0
Lines: 99
Approved: choronzon@bigfoot.com
Message-ID: 
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! - Test our service with our FREE trial at https://www.easynews.com/trial/trial.phtml
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:00:59 GMT
Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:37251 alt.magick.order:7255 alt.magick:338369 alt.pagan.magick:36295 alt.occult.kabbalah.golden-dawn:3516

50030223 VII Kaos Day! perfect day for a discussion of orders!

"Fr. A.o.C." Max555!! : :
>> [Re O'Stat, saying more about his criteria] could argue...:
>>
>> "I think that the redaction of Westcott and Mathers
>>  is the canonical Golden Dawn system because...", 
>>
>> and proceed to describe the line of reasoning (or intuition) 
>> that brought him to that conclusion....

Re O'Stat :
> 10+20 still =30 in this space-time continuum.

upon mathematics it is often easy to reach agreement 
because the principles of it are axiomatic. Fr AoC 
is attempting to discern the axioms you use to 
support your contention of your claim's self-evidence.

your comparison between number-base systems and esoteric
systems is interesting, but I'm not sure I really understand 
the correlations you're arguing given the axiomatic differential.

> ...Your group was founded by a person who accepted 
> adeptship in a GD tradition 

this speaks to Prerequisite 2 in my recent, analyzing post 
(i.e. order association) but serves to bring up subsequent 
qualifying factors of continued identity (lineage), based
on motivation and purpose in separating affiliation.

> and then immediately quit, saying that he was now 
> "sovereign" and could do whatever he wanted to do.
> He broke his ties to the GD because he wasn't 
> satisfied with what they were doing.

if agreed, this logically may lead to your conclusion.
discernment of identity and authority can indeed involve
a determination of motivation and overall aims (upon the
requirement of honesty I'll watch for elaboration).

> ...the speed with which he broke his ties to the 
> GD makes one wonder, how long was he planning this? 

it is not established that it was in fact planned.
if it was planned, does the length of time planning
it really affect the connection established? these
are the issues which immediately come to my mind.

your analysis apparently depends upon an assessment
of motivation and relation to what he was studying.
it pertains to a single individual who founded the
system being compared with that of which you have 
agreed he "accepted adeptship in the GD".

> How long did he plan to get initiated and then 
> quit the order? 

why should any such plan influence continuation of
lineage or authority? how will you distinguish the
motivation other than to examine appearances?

> And if that was the plan, how honest was that?

is honesty a prerequisite of continuity of the HOGD?
why, if so? weren't Mathers and Westcott both 
dishonest in some respects (Mathers as regards some
of his translations, Westcott as regards Fr. Sprengel)?
perhaps honesty only with respect to what you are
calling "accepting adeptship in the GD" is relevant?
please elaborate if so. thanks.

> ...The founder broke from the GD in order to do 
> something else. 

if agreed, then you seem to be arguing that this 
disqualifies connections of authority and continuity 
of lineage sufficient to warrant a change of 
identification.

> Now you are claiming that this "something else" is the GD. 

therefore this conclusion rests upon agreement with 
the previous claim. where there is not agreement that 
the purpose or result of breaking with the GD was 
'to do something else', there will be disagreement
with your conclusion.

where there is not agreement that motivations in separating
from an order such as the GD after "accepting adeptship"
within it can affect authority or connection, there will 
be disagreement with your conclusion.

where it is not agreed that honesty in such involvement or 
posterior separation determines lineage continuation or 
relations of purpose and system sufficient to affiliate
in name, there will be disagreement with your conclusion.

333