Talk:Kenneth Grant

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Copyright of photograph

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Heading towards neutrality..... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Further Issues with Neutrality 

message: 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)
thread_title: Both Sides Must Be More Objective

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sources are lacking 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV etc. 

message: 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)
thread_title: Crowley's expulsion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Constitutionality

message: 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  for articles.) --Sepand (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Grant made Spare famous?!

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.   what do you think? Skyerise (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Thelema navbar