|
|
Post by david on May 7, 2016 1:32:24 GMT
I am a practicing homosexual (still trying to get it right!) but would be interested to know if there are any others in the Typhonian Order (what used to be known as the Typhonian Ordo Templi Orientis), whether homosexuals are allowed in, and if indeed so then what they make of Kenneth Grant's comments on page 21 and 126 (original 1994 Skoob edition) of Outer Gateways regarding the XI° degree working, which Aleister Crowley himself referred to as having a homosexual component:
"It is emphatically not a formula involving homosexuality." (from page 21)
"A similar confusion of types has arisen in connection with the import of the XI° O.T.O., which involves the formula of protoplasmic reversion and which has nothing whatever to do with homosexuality." (from page 126)
I can't believe Mr Grant could actually have been homophobic but what are we queer magicians meant to take from this? Does he have something against our performing sex magick (like Crowley did with Neuberg, for example), or just what is it supposed to mean? Is it excplained elsewhere in O.G. (or anywhere else in the Trilogies) what this "protoplasmic reversion" is in connection with the eleventh degree, as I appear to have missed it?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShB on May 7, 2016 2:12:09 GMT
Nightside of Eden
Chapter Temphioth
Chapter Niantiel
also reread Chapter 2
Magical Revival
~Love Is~
|
|
|
|
Post by david on May 7, 2016 3:27:47 GMT
Nightside of Eden Chapter Temphioth Chapter Niantiel also reread Chapter 2 Magical Revival ~Love Is~ Thanks for replying so quickly, ShB, but I have looked at the references you supplied and couldn't find anything explaining what protoplasmic resurgence means, although there is some more mentioned about the O.T.O. eleventh degree, at variance with Crowley's original interpretation. I would be interested to know if you are queer and in the O.T.O./ Typhonian Order yourself, and what you make of this and whether you think Grant may have been anti-homosexual in his approach. (This remark is addressed to whoever is reading this in general as well, irrespective of whether or not you are homosexual too but hold an opinion.) ~The law, under will~ |
|
|
|
Post by ShB on May 7, 2016 9:44:33 GMT
At Odds and Ends
Protoplasmic Reversion.
explained in chapters 1 & 2 of Outside the Circles of Time
"Man is described as descending through the stages of this reversion until the human tabernacle melts into the amorphous yet sentient slime from which it originally emerged."
the Key is Non-IDentity
(by reconciling this, with the question, the answer will be found)
re-reading the 5 mentioned chapters is encouraged
|
|
|
|
Post by david on May 7, 2016 16:46:23 GMT
At Odds and Ends Protoplasmic Reversion. explained in chapters 1 & 2 of Outside the Circles of Time "Man is described as descending through the stages of this reversion until the human tabernacle melts into the amorphous yet sentient slime from which it originally emerged." the Key is Non-IDentity (by reconciling this, with the question, the answer will be found) re-reading the 5 mentioned chapters is encouraged I don't have OtCoT to hand at present but will check the 2 chaps out at the next available opportunity, ShB. I take it there's no refernce to the XI° there, otherwise you would have mentioned it with your previous 3? Could you please explain a bit more about what you mean by reconciling Non-IDentity with the question, as apart from anything else I am not sure which question you had in mind. There seem to be two very distinct ways of approaching this Eleventh degree, the Crowleyan and the Grantian, with no clear connection that I can see between the two. The main question behind my original queery was, I think, whether anyone else might have had any evidence for the possibility that Kenneth Grant could have been anti-homosexual in his writings, approach and feelings about the existing XI°. He seems to write nothing else directly appertaining to the pratice, (according to the Crowleyan definition) including whether he has undergone any in his own personal experience from either an active or passive role. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalyd Khezr Bey on May 8, 2016 2:19:38 GMT
"Protoplasmic reversion" refers to a concept that Arthur Machen developed (perhaps borrowed from elsewhere) in the stories "Novel of the Black Seal", "The Inmost Light" and The Great God Pan. His "protoplasm" is almost identical to the prima materia; the prime substance from which we have evolved. Grant used Machen's idea in an almost identical way as Spare's "atavistic resurgence"; magically awakening and utilizing atavistic memories (nostalgias), perhaps buried deep in our subconscious or our DNA (junk DNA?). The purpose? Individuation of course; to reintegrate our dissociated fragments into a whole psyche which is itself nothing.
"For I am divided for love’s sake, for the chance of union. This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all."
|
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Peters on May 8, 2016 4:27:21 GMT
I don't get anything anti-homosexual from Grant's writings and don't think that was the intent with his re-interpretation of the sexual nature of the degrees. Rather, it was a deeper understanding of the techniques -- or different way of working with the mechanism if you prefer. Grant's sexual magick works with the kalas or emanations which emanate from the female adept. Crowley's sexual magick was based on the male seed. Different strokes for different folks you might say!
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Staley on May 9, 2016 18:59:08 GMT
I am a practicing homosexual (still trying to get it right!) but would be interested to know if there are any others in the Typhonian Order (what used to be known as the Typhonian Ordo Templi Orientis), whether homosexuals are allowed in, and if indeed so then what they make of Kenneth Grant's comments on page 21 and 126 (original 1994 Skoob edition) of Outer Gateways regarding the XI° degree working, which Aleister Crowley himself referred to as having a homosexual component: "It is emphatically not a formula involving homosexuality." (from page 21) "A similar confusion of types has arisen in connection with the import of the XI° O.T.O., which involves the formula of protoplasmic reversion and which has nothing whatever to do with homosexuality." (from page 126) I can't believe Mr Grant could actually have been homophobic but what are we queer magicians meant to take from this? Does he have something against our performing sex magick (like Crowley did with Neuberg, for example), or just what is it supposed to mean? Is it excplained elsewhere in O.G. (or anywhere else in the Trilogies) what this "protoplasmic reversion" is in connection with the eleventh degree, as I appear to have missed it? Whether a person is heterosexual, homosexual, or both, they are welcome to apply for membership of the Typhonian Order and, if successful, to take up membership. I knew Kenneth Grant personally for over 30 years. He was not homophobic; he just was not interested in homosexual sex-magick. There's nothing to stop other people such as you disagreeing with him, and practicing it. There are doubtless several areas where Grant is "at variance with Crowley's original interpretation", including the subject of homosexual sex-magick. That's not a problem, is it? |
|
|
|
Post by david on May 9, 2016 20:48:38 GMT
May 9, 2016 18:59:08 GMT Michael Staley said:
"I knew Kenneth Grant personally for over 30 years. He was not homophobic; he just was not interested in homosexual sex-magick. There's nothing to stop other people such as you disagreeing with him, and practicing it."Just so - as I remarked in my original post, I could not believe Mr Grant himself could be anti-homosexual, it would just not be in his character. I don't get anything anti-homosexual from Grant's writings and don't think that was the intent with his re-interpretation of the sexual nature of the degrees. Rather, it was a deeper understanding of the techniques -- or different way of working with the mechanism if you prefer. Grant's sexual magick works with the kalas or emanations which emanate from the female adept. Crowley's sexual magick was based on the male seed. Different strokes for different folks you might say! However there do not appear to be any references to strictly lesbian sex magick in any of Grant's writings either, possibly employing the kalas? Also, I do not quite see how "the Key is Non-IDentity", as ShB says, except in the wider sense that this could arguably just as well apply to almost everything else as well...
|
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Peters on May 13, 2016 21:24:30 GMT
However there do not appear to be any references to strictly lesbian sex magick in any of Grant's writings either, possibly employing the kalas? Again I do not recall any such references off hand. I have found that one of the more powerful aspects of Kenneth Grant's work is that he does not necessarily spell things out literally. As Grant himself remarks in more than a few places, the words on the page are a type of catalyst to leap off into new areas of exploration (paraphrasing, but that is the spirit of the letter. With that in mind, is there anything to prevent lesbian sex magick with the kalas? |
|
|
|
Post by horus93 on May 14, 2016 7:18:49 GMT
93,
I am not a member of the Typhonian Order, and so cannot comment on that order, however, I am a homosexual and a practising magician with knowledge of other techniques of sex magick.
I think what must be pointed out is that sex magick is not one core practice with a doctrine, it is a multitude of practices all differing in technique and specifics which are designated under that label. Grant's degrees are different than the (caliph)O.T.O. degrees which were set up to preserve phallicism according to people such as Jerry Cornelius. Hence why Crowley's sex magick emphasised the male seed moreso than the female kalas.
Grant researched Eastern tantric texts and came across the kalas etc. One could argue most of Crowley's developments were learned through experience rather than doctrine. I don't think either are incorrect, I think both techniques (can) result in the same end, the methods are all that differ.
I think I was a little disheartened reading Grant's words because homosexual sex magick is never written about openly or even discussed. Of course, this is because homosexuals and bisexuals are a minority even within the magical community. I have always placed more emphasis on the psychological and energetic principles behind sex magick rather than the physical counterparts. Semen to me isn't filled with potency in and of itself, rather it can act as a vehicle to be charged with potency. Everything else takes place on an energetic and psychological (psychospiritual?) level.
So of course, you could not use Grant's system if you are a male homosexual to attain the same states of consciousness and results, however, it doesn't mean the same results cannot be attained using other methods. It just means you read more Crowley for the technique rather than Grant and just use Grant's ideas as a road map to direct these techniques. Crowley and Grant are not the be all and end all, I disagree with both of them at times. I personally think every individual's path to enlightenment is unique and whilst orders and practices can give a flavour, ultimately the magician has to make their own spice mix and find out what works best for themself.
93, 93/93.
Mark.
|
|
