Talk:Kenneth Grant

Copyright of photograph

I don't know who incorrectly attributed the photograph of Kenneth Grant to me. Jan Magee (jan.magee@btinternet.com) took the snap and so should be correctly attributed. It would also be nice if her copyright is acknowledged and maybe it would have been even nicer if someone had bothered to ask her permission first. Mike Magee 86.7.39.32 (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the information contained in the photograph to reflect that Jan Magee was the author; the error arose because the photograph was originally uploaded onto the net via Mike Magee's blog, where no mention was made of Jan. Apologies for any offense caused! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

The claim that Grant has an abundance of evidence to support his claim to being Crowley's true successor appears out of context. This is clearly controversial, and in United States court it has been ruled repeatedly that Grady McMurty was the legitimate heir to Crowley, thus making the so-called "Caliphate" OTO the genuine one. If this were true, then Grant's order would be schismatic, not the other way around. Neutrality would imply that the author(s) of the article, if they are to bring up Grant's claim of leadership, also bring up the side of the OTO and thereby also reference the legal decisions in McMurty's favor. Theli 93

Heading towards neutrality.....

Changed the first line to at least start the movement to neutrality. I must admit that I'm conflicted on this entry. It seems disingenuous to characterize the (C)OTO as holding Crowley's writings up as scripture, and I'd like to remove that statement. Discussing the differences between the way the (C)OTO and the TOTO view Crowley's writings takes a deep understanding of both organizations that I don't possess, nor do I think that a Wikipedia entry is where those differences should be hashed out. I am inclined to delete the part of the entry that talks about the differences in interpretation of Crowley's work and just devote Grant's entry to biographical and bibliographic information. At the same time, I'd love to see someone with a greater understanding of the doctrinal differences between the (C)OTO and TOTO write an entry - perhaps on the TOTO - that would lay the issues out clearly. Henchperson 02:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If we are talking about work rate or presentation of new diverse Thelemic material and occult exploration ,then the Typhonian OTO can claim magickal/occult legitimacy. The "Caliphate" OTO has failed to present any new insight into Thelema and its magickal current over the last 30 years and has become merely a publisher and editor of Crowley's books. The Caliphate OTO cannot be faulted in republishing Crowleys books and maintaining his back catalogue but beyond that , the Caliphate OTO is little more than a historical re-enactment society living in the past , and not contributing anything new Thelemic or Occult. So in that context Mr Grant is evolving Crowleys magickal work in new directions. Mr Grants work really speaks for itself .If it wasnt for Kenneth Grant then the Thelemic current wouldnt be has dynamic and innovative has it is becoming now.

So Mr. Grant is making up new nonsense to add to the old nonsense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.253 (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the issues have been all laid out in fine form for years on Mr. Koenig's site. Leave them there- this is an article about Kenneth Grant. The statements in question are qualified in the text and as such seem perfectly acceptable. It is impossible to view Mr. Grant's life and work without acknowledging his position as head of the OTO - a claim which has no place inside a secular court of law, much less an American one, as neither he, Crowley, nor the O.T.O., are American (or secular, for that matter). "By their fruits shall ye know them".

Crowley was all about religious controversy. His own claim to the O.T.O. was tenuous though deserved. To advance the provocative science of information theory as expressed in 777 requires a changing perspective. I'm thankful there is an apparent renegade. REPtile

You prove the point I made. Whether or not you personally feel as though U.S. courts have no basis to determine ownership of the organization, the fact that it is not even mentioned in the article, let alone the fact that Grant's claim is controversial on that and other grounds, is clear evidence of POV. If you write about Grant's claim to ownership, somewhere you need also to write about the counterclaims and the other viewpoints. If you refuse to do that, you need to remove the statement altogether. Theli 93

Further Issues with Neutrality

Umm, am I the only one who thinks the section entitles "Typhonian Trologies" is a little over the top, melodramatic and, uh, hokey? Considering all of Grant's original work is printed in limited edition they are rare the moment they are released making them collector's items from their moment of release and selling for 10 times their original price only months after release. Considering you can't even find a Grant book but at only the most hardcore of occult bookstores (i.e. def. not at a barnes and noble or borders, etc), can any of Grant's works actually be considered "some of the most important occult books of the 20th century?" I don't think anything with such a limited reader base could ever be considered the "most important" of anything, but maybe I'm wrong. Worlock93 15:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

To give an alternative view on this issue , it should be noted that the Caliphate OTO has failed to give any new insight into Thelema and it has been left to Grant to publish new innovative, fresh material that has taken the magickal current forward. Anyone who complains about the trilogies obviously hasnt read them or understood what is trying to be conveyed in them.

I deleted this entire section because it doesn't actually convey any information about the books. Let me stress that I'd like to see someone knowledgable rewrite this information so I don't expect the section to stay out. I should think it ought not to be very difficult to give a basic idea of what the books contain minus the hero worship of the person. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a hagiography - I request that someone include a neutral POV section on the books if they feel it's important. I put the disputation up to begin with and after reading the article as it was changed, I found that to be the only remaining offending section, so since it's not there currently I also took down the dispute tag since the rest of it seems to no longer be so one-sided. Theli 93

Both Sides Must Be More Objective

TOTOers and COTOers need to be much more objective when discussing K. Grant. Being a member of the COTO and a fan of Grant I do think I have pretty fair view of the issue. It appears both sides are coming from a defensive postion.

to TOTOers: -whether Germer had the authority or just cause to expel Grant is a moot point. whether or not Crowley named Grant the OHO on his death bed, at the last min. (which i think he prob. did) is a moot ponit. my point being: the COTO has become the de facto OTO and legal OTO.

to COTOers: -grant had a legitmate claim to feel he wasnt kicked out of the order properly and thus still apart of the oto and he had a legitmate claim to assume leadership of the order after Germer's death. however, his assumption of leadership didn't lead to his OTO becoming the de facto OTO and legal OTO and i dont think he cares that much per se. also, his books are some of the most important books in the 20th cent., to suggest they are not and turn your nose up at them is just plain silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Username22 (talk • contribs)

Both points are legitimate but... how can someone claim that an organisation of magickal or occult means is legal or not. True occult/magickal legitimacy is claimed in the work and intentions of the order , not in a sterile court room. The Caliphate need to use legal bullying to render control of the name OTO is pointless. The true order is a magickal creation and is not subject to any human judgement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.217.153 (talk • contribs)

In any case, the article has been completely rewritten since this section of the discussion was started, so the points may be moot. (P.S. Please sign your posts by appending ~~~~ to the end of your messages). -999 (Talk) 22:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources are lacking

First off, P.R. Koenig being the only source for this article (someone who is highly controversial and who strikes me as having dubious objectivity) doesn't help this article's credibility. Isn't there someone, anyone who writes about Grant besides him? Besides COTO members who want to slander Grant?

When it's claimed definitively that Crowley was expelled by Reuss, the source barely addresses this, other than passing along a couple of highly ambiguous letters of Reuss's. And the much more well-trodden (and more heavily revised) entries on Aleister Crowley and OTO don't even mention this. So why should this entry disagree with that entry?

And when it's claimed that the expulsion of Grant was unconstitutional, what's the source for that? The linked reference doesn't even mention the word "constitution". Jackhorkheimer 04:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

IMO, Koenig is a perfectly good source and has the advantage of being online. How is he controversial? Of course, there is a lot of autobiographical material in Grant's own books. Beyond that, I am not aware of anyone writing about him. —Hanuman Das 13:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Granted, Koenig is "controversial" only in a very limited sense, since I don't know of many people who know about Koenig outside of those involved or with an interest in Ordo Templi Orientis. Of course he's more controversial to members of the Caliphate, altho that doesn't seem to be the sole quarter where his criticism comes from. It just seems to me that Koenig is more than willing to make claims beyond the facts he presents, which is why I think he's frequently charged with being biased. Jackhorkheimer 03:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV etc.

The page looks better but there are still a few problems in my view

NPOV

Following this potentially unconstitutional expulsion, Grant assumed the position of OHO (Outer Head of the Order) of Ordo Templi Orientis, much as Aleister Crowley had done in 1921 when he had wrested the title from Theodor Reuss after having been similarly expelled by Reuss, while Reuss was unwell and recovering from a stroke.[3]

This paragraph, for one thing comes across as a best-case argument for the legitimacy of Grant claiming OHO. While the argument deserves to be made, it shouldn't be made in the main body of the entry which should be neutral in tone. Now, for two parts specifically of the paragraph: "Grant assumed the position of OHO of Ordo Templi Orientis" should not be left in as-is, as it leaves the impression that Grant should be viewed as the sole OHO of Ordo Templi Orientis, which is only one interpretation, which was why I changed the text from "assumed the position" to "assumed the title".

Crowley's expulsion

For another thing, the claim that Crowley was expelled before Crowley designating himself OHO is problematic. The document which Koenig liberally describes as "First publication of Crowley being expelled by Reuss" doesn't support that claim at all as far as I can tell. The only paragraph mentioning Crowley reads thus (computer translation so not entirely accurate but gives a good sense I think):

Theodor Reuss letters contains fairly weird facts , frequently unknown by they that has tried that track that author's biographies back and OTO's veritable business. His letter from 25, october 1921, is interesting from beyond a utterly. That specifying his position regarding A Crowley , catching he pronouncing. " i've truncating the compound there existed between us regarding OTO , and what crowley so than be at liberty to carry out themselves to America , is actually his the own question and no longer OTO's. " This particularly letter treats too a lot of information about Rosenkors the origin from OTO , about Frimureri , and they compound notices Theodor Reuss had by Papus John Yarker and a lot of others from the initiatoriske universe personalities. Theodor Reuss had granted H Spencer Lewis charter and ærestitler to conclude broderlige relations between AMORC and OTO. Such relations abide however at planlægningssladiet. After 1921 went moreover the letters between they two men fewer and fewer.

The letter from Reuss to Spencer Lewis quoted being just what Koenig translates as: "I have cut off the connection that existed between us [Reuss und Crowley] regarding O.T.O., and whatever Crowley would happen to do about in the USA, it is now his own business, and not anymore a concern for the O.T.O." While this implies Reuss removing Crowley's authority, describing this letter as Reuss saying he'd expelled Crowley seems to be stretching it. If you read The Unknown God by Martin Starr, it includes two testy letters between Crowley and Reuss (pp. 111-112). Reuss's letter from Nov. 9th basically states that he wants nothing to do with Crowley and that the A.'.A.'. is to be kept separate from the OTO--with no mention of expulsion. This was the letter to which Crowley responded on November 23rd by saying that he was declaring himself OHO.

So, basically, Crowley expelled himself by presuming to usurp the authority of the actual OHO. -999 (Talk) 16:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This material should really be in the Crowley page. I dont see the reason to eleaborate this on the page for Grant. Can we keep to Grants career and work? Is that possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.68.228 (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Constitutionality

The text in the body is fine, but two things should be added to the note: that Grant recognized Crowley's authority as head of the order by joining it and being initiated by Crowley, and that Crowley certainly did name Germer as his successor in a couple of his letters, quoted on the COTO website and on P.R. Koenig's site. While Germer most likely didn't have the authority of the 1917 constitution, it could easily be argued that he had de facto authority over Grant. --Jackhorkheimer 01:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

H.D., I think Jack is correct about this. However, I agree that Crowley's OTO is not a valid continuation of OTO b/c Crowley was never appointed OHO, and betrayed Reuss and the OTO by usurping the power of the valid OHO by declaring himself OHO. Even if there is no extant letter of expulsion, this is the act of a traitor: expulsion would be swift and automatic. 999 (Talk) 16:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont think this sub heading is relevant to this post. It is getting off topic with regard to Grants occult career. It really should be in the OTO posting dealing with Caliphate issues. This is not the post for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.217.253 (talk)

Grant made Spare famous?!

Grant was only 20 when met Spare. Beside this according to contemporary magazine articles of around 1940, Spare had all his famousness according to his art and magic and he had already published Earth Inferno and The Book of Pleasure. (Check [1] for articles.) --Sepand (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kenneth Grant/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I would be happy to give this a push ahead. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• with his wife Steffi Grant he founded his own Thelemite organisation I think "he founded his own Thelemite organisation with his wife Steffi Grant" flows better (you can omit "Grant")

• Done; although I've kept "Grant" in "Steffi Grant" as not all women take their husband's surname. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Wikilink esoteric

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• "O.T.O." should be mentioned alongside "Ordo Templi Orientis" only in the 2nd line, try to use "O.T.O." everywhere afterward.

• At present the full name of "Ordo Templi Orientis" is used only twice, only in the lede and then at the first mention of it in the article body. I was of the view that this was permissible, akin to the repeat of a link in both in the lede and the main body? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• I meant you should put the abbreviation say first mention (here in the first para of the lead, not the second) and use the abbreviation for the rest of the lead, and then repeat this for the Main article (which you have done). Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Ah, I see what you mean. However, in the lede we mention both the Typhonian Ordo Templi Orientis (which was the Grants' organisation) and then the Ordo Templi Orientis (which was the older organisation that Crowley led in Britain). Accordingly I don't think it appropriate to use "O.T.O." after "Typhonian Ordo Templi Orientis" and then use it as a shorthand for the older Ordo Templi Orientis. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Early life and Aleister Crowley

• Don't we know the names of his parents?

• Unfortunately I haven't seen the names in any of the reliable sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• He had made use of a personal magical symbol How did the symbol look?

• I'm not sure, to be honest. I can't recall it appearing in the reliable sources that I consulted. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• It would be helpful to add "occultist" before the first mention of Crowley.

• Good idea. Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The New Isis Lodge and Austin Osman Spare

• After both Crowley and Spare's death May be say only Spare, as it has been a while since Crowley's death?

• Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• During the 1950s and 1960s Spare also authored a number of novels, although these would only be published by Starfire Publishing between 1997 and 2012 Why mention this?

• It gives a better impression of his actions; he was writing novels in this period alongside his other works, but could not (presumably) get them published till much later. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Typhonian O.T.O. and growing fame

• he examined Crowley's sex magick Is "magick" different from "magic"?

• Yes, Crowley specifically used the spelling of "magick" to refer to his practices. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Just to make sure, have you stated this point explicitly anywhere? The reader shouldn't treat this as a typo. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Good point. However, on second thought it might be better to simply change the spelling to "magic" because I cannot find an appropriate juncture in the article in which to embark on a discussion of Crowley's specific spellings. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Sure, go ahead. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Legacy

• Who is Michael Aquino?

• He was the founder of the Temple of Set, however there is probably no real need to mention him here (particularly as we don't have an article devoted to him), so I shall remove him from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Bibliography

• What are the sources for the table entries? Is each point sourced?

• They all come from the Bogdan sources that are mentioned just before the table itself. Do you think that I should make this more explicit? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• It would be safe to add a line stating that all the information of the table comes from this bibliography. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

That should be it. No dablinks, no copyvio spotted. Images are properly licensed. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Sainsf! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Great, three points remaining. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for reading the article and undertaking the review, Sainsf. Was there anything else impeding the article's progression to GA status? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, did you fix the magick issue? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed I did. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Two more things. "When Crowley died in 1947, Grant was seen as his heir apparent in Britain" is this the island or the country? If so, United Kingdom would be better for clarity. Secondly, in the early life section, Autumn 1944 should be reworded per MOS:SEASON. Valenciano (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Valenciano: Thanks for your comment. I promoted this just now, before I read your comment. I'm sure Midnightblueowl would fix these soon. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kenneth Grant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070831165146/http://www.fulgur.co.uk/authors/grant/ to http://www.fulgur.co.uk/authors/grant/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thelema navbar

The Thelema article has been expanded to include Grant as a key figure. The corresponding series navbar has also been expanded to include Grant. Thus the navbar was added to this article, which seems perfectly reasonable and I haven't seen any convincing arguments on the talk page otherwise. @Scyrme: @Randy Kryn: what do you think? Skyerise (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you should revert your bold additions given that they have been challenged and then seek consensus. We already had a bottom-bar on Thelema; why do we need to remove that in favor of a side-bar that generally gets in the way of things and looks a bit clunky? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I moved the navbar. That's a new bold edit. I'm sorry you're aesthetically opposed to the appearance of navbars, but most editors and readers find them useful. Skyerise (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)