Talk:Personalities in Thelema

(Difference between revisions)

Revision as of 11:39, 28 Sep 2004

Do we really want to put the women into the "Scarlet women" category as distinct from past OTO and AA members? I would be far more comfortable with the latter option.

I second that. There can be a separate listing of the historical "Scarlet Women" in the Scarlet Woman article! --Paradoxosalpha 05:59, 28 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Overlap

Part of the Scarlet Woman problem that Craig notes is the issue of overlap, which is even more true of notable OTO and A.'.A.'. initiates. There's Jane Wolfe, Wilfred Smith, Jack Parsons, C.S. Jones--all in both orders, and those just off the top of my head.

"in" Thelema?

What does it mean to be "in" Thelema as specified in the title of this article? The only initiates of the original Golden Dawn order who considered themselves Thelemites were Crowley and George Cecil Jones, as far as I know.--Paradoxosalpha 06:20, 28 Sep 2004 (EDT)

These are good critiques. I can see this article's list growing quite long, so I think we need some basic categories. By all means, let's work this out and come up with logical ones that can carry new additions without inappropriately holding the current ones.

Retrieved from "http://thelemapedia.org/index.php/Talk:Personalities_in_Thelema"

Revision as of 10:20, 28 Sep 2004 Paradoxosalpha (Talk \| contribs) "in" Thelema?		Revision as of 11:39, 28 Sep 2004 Ash (Talk \| contribs) "in" Thelema?
Line 10:		Line 10:

	What does it mean to be "in" Thelema as specified in the title of this article? The only initiates of the original Golden Dawn order who considered themselves Thelemites were Crowley and George Cecil Jones, as far as I know.--[[User:Paradoxosalpha\|Paradoxosalpha]] 06:20, 28 Sep 2004 (EDT)		What does it mean to be "in" Thelema as specified in the title of this article? The only initiates of the original Golden Dawn order who considered themselves Thelemites were Crowley and George Cecil Jones, as far as I know.--[[User:Paradoxosalpha\|Paradoxosalpha]] 06:20, 28 Sep 2004 (EDT)
		+
		+	:These are good critiques. I can see this article's list growing quite long, so I think we need some basic categories. By all means, let's work this out and come up with logical ones that can carry new additions without inappropriately holding the current ones.