Jump to content

Talk:A∴A∴

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PedroLamarao (talk | contribs) at 20:03, 22 January 2014 (→Not a Religious Order). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

From Talk A.'. A.'.

Copied from Talk:A.'.A.'.:

Cite please? Or is this simply based on the Illuminatus! books? -- The Anome 20:18, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

    • According to Do What Thou Wilt: A Life of Aleister Crowley by Lawrence Sutin, the A.'.A.'. was formed in 1906 by Crowley and Jones.

--Iscariot 09:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Smerdis of Tlön 11:40, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC))

Some References

The A.'.A.'. is mentioned on the Ordo Templi Orientis's site as an associate of that organization. It also appears to have its own website at www.outcol.org. Although that site's main page initially appears to be for "Outer College Curriculum Resources", the A.'.A.'. is frequently mentioned in the sub-pages and at the bottom of the main page itself.

---Deleted "Motta via J. Daniel Gunther lineage" from the outercol.org link. There is no reference to Motta or Gunther on the site and it is doubtful that it has any connection at all with Motta.-27 Aug 2008

Is there any reason to keep the outcol.org link?jonathon (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
---Why wouldn't it be kept? It is a valid page with contact information for the A.'.A.'. it is simply not through Motta. The OTO page for A.'.A.'. links to it also.-28 August 2008
It makes no representations as having a historical lineage. Your only justification for leaving it in, is the Caliphate OTO connection, despite the previous listing of two other A∴A∴ branches that have Caliphate OTO connections. It'd be slightly different if this had a demonstrable Typhonian OTO connection.jonathon (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link on the OTO website http://www.oto-usa.org/aa.html establishes it as "the" contact "endorsed" by the (Caliphate) OTO and the fact that the outercol.org site states an address for "those who wish to establish contact with the Order" to contact by. The other A.'.A.'. "branches" with "Caliphate OTO connections" are not described as such by the OTO's site. And of course it would be different if there were a demonstrable Typhonian connection, but this lineage has C-OTO connections, not Typhonian, as demonstrated by the link via the OTO Grand Lodge site and the matching address/site information in recent publications (see the contact page in Magick: Book 4 as published by the C-OTO, the current copyright holders for Crowley's Libri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.151.90 (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

Anonymoyus user User:67.48.77.208 placed the disputed template on this article and made the following comment which I am moving here to talk:

According to "The Magick of Thelema: A Handbook of the Rituals of Aleister Crowley," by Lon Milo Duquette (Weiser 1993), A.'.A.'. does NOT stand for Argenteum Astrum. On p. 216, the author states that this is commonly believed, but that he has "been informed in no uncertain terms that this is not the case."

I have looked at the reference you refer to, which appears as a footnote. It would seem to me that Lon Milo Duquette is expressing personal opinion based on the idea that the A.'. A.'. has other secret meanings, which with Crowley is undoubtedly the case. This does however not change the fact that Crowley himself used the Silver Star reference and connected this name to the passage every man and every woman is a star in Liber AL. --Solar 13:53, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The phrase "Argentium Astrum", used to refer to the third Order the "Silver Star", dates to the original Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Crowley's innovation was to translate this phrase into Greek: "Astron Argon". The reason for this was that the phrase has the same numeric value (451) as the phrase "Konx Om Pax", or "Light in Extension". The source of this interpretation is "The Mystical and Magical System of the A.'. A.'." by James Eshelman, an Adept of the Soror Estai lineage of the A.'. A.'. See the third edition, pp. 22-24

All links to major, extant lineages of the A.'.A.'. have been removed. This makes no sense. susan holmes 19:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have restored them (only six month late). Valtyr (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a source for the following statement made above — The phrase "Argentium Astrum", used to refer to the third Order the "Silver Star", dates to the original Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. PedroLamarao (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magickal puncktuation?

What's the significance of the three dots after each letter in these abbreviations? Is there a name for that kind of punctuation? Does it mean anything in particular? Is it used exculsively by Crowley and his followers, or is it a more general occult thing? Any information would be welcome.

Generally ∴ is the mathematical symbol for "therefore". I imagine it had further occult symbolism to Crowley and gang, but what that was may be unknowable at this point. I don't know of any previous groups using that punctuation, though I've seen later groups do it in imitation of the A∴A∴. --DenisMoskowitz 15:55, 2005 July 27 (UTC)
I've seen the latin magical mottos of colleges in original Crowley works abbreviated in such a way; such as Frater "V∴N∴", but also done like "Fra∴ Volo Noscere". Nagelfar 07:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Masons use it as well. It denotes that something was left off, possibly due to secrecy, IIRC.
Test: Magickal puncktuation. Umh, doesn't exist yet. Perhaps a good idea for April 1 2007. --Pjacobi 09:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it would be left off due to secrecy, as it's used as an abbr. in the same context that it is also clearly stated many times. It could be as simple as indicating that it is a non-native-tongue abbreviation. Though it's always used in the context of an abbreviation. Nagelfar 18:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It comes from Freemasonry and suggests the person or institution possesses the secretes of Freemasonry. This is why you see things like O∴S∴M∴ or A∴A∴ or Fra∴ F∴L∴. I don't, however, have a citable source for this, unless I can cite documents that I'm not allowed to show you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.81.214 (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wtf is  ?

there's a bunch of references to  - but that doesn't make any sense, since that corresponds to 'delete' in iso 8859-1 and unicode. what's the deal?

In my browser, it shows up as a little square. Like the shape displayed for an unknown character, only smaller. Is that how it is supposed to look? IPSOS (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is supposed to be a glyph that contains three dots, in the shape of a triangle. Unicode character 0x2234. ∴ jonathon 01:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not the one being discussed. This one is used for the square degree sign in 5=6, etc. IPSOS (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the grades (0°=0??), (1°=10??) ... through (10°=1?) & ...?

I don't know if it is notable enough to warrant a place in the article, but Aleister Crowley gave a grade 'above' Ipsissimus on page 25 of his table of correspondences included with 777 and other qabalistic writings.., though he did not give it a name; he included it in the 3rd order (of the Silver Star) & gave it's grade as (0?=0?°) (as opposed to probationer (0°=0?) and all the rest with "°" before "?", here "°" is after "?". Nagelfar 16:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Crowley nowhere, to my knowledge, discusses such a grade, and as a case could be made for identifying the Probationer within the system with 0 in the key scale, I wouldn't want to discount a strong likelihood that this is simply a typo. There are certainly many others in Liber 777 as published by Crowley. Anlala 00:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a typo because its put alongside the grade of probationer on the opposite end, check it out yourself. Nagelfar 01:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing rules out the possibility of a typo on one, but not the other. The very nature of typos is such. However, assuming for the sake of argument, that he did mean it to signify some sort of degree beyond Ipsissimus linking back to Probationer, it's actual significance is nil, unless some authentic secret tradition exists that has never been published. Until such time as some such tradition is published, it still doesn't warrant mention in the article, though its inclusion on the Talk Page is certainly appropriate. Anlala 05:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which one or other are you referring to? It is clearly added as additional information in the source cited. Nagelfar (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello All, editing of (0=0 Neophyte): I inserted an "y" instead of the "u". Ancient Greek (which I studied for several years ) used the "y" in this instance. The letter looks a bit like the modern "u". Oops, forgot to sign: -- Greek logos 08:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Now I remember! The 15th Aethyr in Liber 418 tells of AC's visionary initiation into the grade of Magister Templi, 8?=3°:

Above the altar is a veiled Figure, whose name is Pan. Those in the outer tier adore him as a Man; and in the next tier they adore him as a Goat; and in the next tier they adore him as a Ram; and in the next tier they adore him as a Crab; and in the next tier they adore him as an Ibis; and in the next tier they adore him as a Golden Hawk; and in the next tier they adore him not7.

And the footnote reads: That is, in the lowest grade of the Second Order 5x = 6{square x}, "God" is worshipped under the form of a man (Tiphareth). In 6x = 5 {squarex}, he seems as a goat (Mendes Kahn). In 7x = 4{square x}, a ram (Amoun). In 8x = 3{square x}, a crab (connected with the star sponge vision). In 9x = 2{square x}, an ibis (Thoth). In 10x = 1 {square x} a golden hawk (Ra Hoor Khuit). Above this (Kether), He is the Negative only.

It reminds me of the later admission into the company of "atheists", 5th Aethyr. Dan (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of known members

What is the criterion for inclusion on this list, a documentation from Crowley of one's membership? a documentation from some other A∴A∴ claimant? or a self-identification? Grady McMurtry is included on the list, though I don't know of any documentation of his membership by Crowley or another, except McMurtry's own claim to be a Magister Templi. Phyllis Seckler said that McMurtry wasn't even a Neophyte of the A∴A∴ (which does leave open the possibility that he was recognized by her as a Probationer). Could anyone include themselves on the list by claiming to be a member? Anlala 05:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't personally trust the "Known Members" list. It definitely needs a citation, or removal. As far as I know, Regardie was never a member of the A.'.A.'. He joined the Stella Matutina around 6 years or so after parting ways with Crowely. What's more, in the "Introduction to the Third Edition" of "The Tree of Life - An Illustrated Study in Magic" (Edited and Annoted by Chic Cicero and Sandra Tabitha Cicero), it is stated that Crowely himself never formally trained Regardie as the latter had wished (I am paraphrasing this). And finally, as far as my research shows, Blavatsky was never a member of the A.'.A.'. either. I'll just remove that portion.71.53.129.111 (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with it needing either reputable citations or deletions. If there isn't some documentation, then that section should be wiped as it can't be proven. (A lot of these people are DEAD. Good luck finding the truth). Also, forgive me if I'm wrong...but I thought the names of A.'.A.'. members weren't supposed to be made public in the first place. FUTURI (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FUTURI, where did you get the idea that the names of A∴A∴ members were not supposed to be made public? In Crowley's Class D publication of the Tasks of every grade from Probationer to Dominus Liminis he clearly states that "He [that is, the A∴A∴ member] shall everywhere proclaim openly his connection with the A∴A∴ and speak of IT and Its principles ..." Anlala (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the A∴A∴

It currently reads "The A∴A∴ (Arcanum Arcanorum)", though this is arguable, which should be put into the article itself. It should have the previously added "Latin: Argenteum Astrum or Greek: Αστρον Αργον, "Astron Argon", literally; "Silver star" in addition also.

Both are, according to wikipedia standards, attestable and note worthy, and all have been used in the literature surrounding the A∴A∴, to omit any well known attestable variation as such is going against the fiber of wikipedia. It seems on articles like this, pseudo-intellectual, secretive and self-interested types edit mercilessly to the detriment of the purpose behind the wikipedia project; to dispense information on the topic rather than instead monopolize or make exclusive some socially engineered view. Nagelfar (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm yet again being bold in this matter before a counter-argument or consensus, but I really do not understand the difficulty besides the demographic here on the subject matter relating to the addition of this information. Nagelfar (talk) 06:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it improper to point out that "astron argon" doesn't mean "silver star" in Greek? Silver would be "arguron." "Argon" means "shining."Antaios632 (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly sounds like a fact we should add. But we'd want a source, perhaps a Greek dictionary of some kind. Google just gives "lazy" or "inactive". Dan (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Angel and Abyss" come from? The citation (8) says "Nowhere in Crowley's writings does it say what A.'.A.'. stands for." The rest are common speculations and have good sources, but I have never heard Angel and Abyss and the citation isn't useful at all. Maybe this should be removed as original research? 70.181.242.86 (talk) 07:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The very-most veritableness

Ipsissimus doesn't quite mean anything to do with "self", which in Latin is rather "Sui-", but is in-fact much more subtle and unqualified in meaning than such, as per how "Ipsissima verba" means "the very words", not the "very identity of the words" or "the very entity of those words" et cetra... (However an Ipsissimus is an Iussuissimus, or law/ius- unto self/sui-, of the utmost possibility to be.) 67.171.248.22 (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seal?

Anyone else think it would make sense to use the seal of A.'.A.'. as the image on this page? 70.181.242.86 (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems logical, Captain. FUTURI (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added it. FUTURI (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lineages

Stealthepiscopalian has been waging a low grade edit war on these pages - removing legitimate external links to A.'.A.'. lineages. I suggest that he immediately cease and try and seek consensus.

The existence of other lineages such as the Bennett lineage or the Charles Stansfeld Jones is factual and common knowledge. The fact that no-one has yet thought to write about them in a book is not relevant as the fact of their existence is not in question nor controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alrah Fraser (talk • contribs) 19:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'common knowledge' is insufficient as a standard for Wikipedia data.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The A.'.A.'. and the Seven Palaces of the Merkabah Mystics.

"The holy book of the order is Liber AL vel Legis (in English, The Book of the Law). This book and many others issued by the A.'.A.'. contains encrypted material derived from the Seven Palaces of Merkabah mysticism, rather than the Kabbalistic Tree of Life used by the O.T.O."

The fact that A.'.A.'. issued texts that are encrypted should not be controversial. Again - it's common knowledge, not in dispute, and therefore not in need of citation although we could cite Crowley umpteen times on this matter.

I am an initiate of the A.'.A.'. and the Golden Dawn. If anyone would like to challenge the factual basis of my claim that the System of the A.'.A.'. is based on the Merkabah Seven Palaces rather than the Kabbalistic Tree of Life, then please provide your reasons for doing so before demanding book citations be produced for initiated and previously secret knowledge. Prove the A.'.A.'. is based on the Tree of Life or be Silent.

If you don't know that .'. means the holder (whether an organisation or an individual) is in possession of the Lost Word - now you do. Ask any Master Mason. In this case it is the A.'.A.'. which is in possession of the Lost Word. The A.'.A.'. has no name other than the two Alephs extracted from the Lost Word since names do not apply above the Abyss.

The Lost Word has always been associated with the Merkabah rather than the Kabbalah. It is the 'secret doctrine' talked of by Waite. If it surprises anyone that the Inner Order system of the A.'.A.'. is based on the Merkabah rather than the Tree of Life then they should read Liber Al vel Legis again - "Thus ye have star & star, system & system; let not one know well the other!"

Think carefully before being pedantic on this issue. Review the matter and look at the page - considering how much I could be pedantic about on this and other pages if I was of the mind...

Thank you. A .'. 93 93/93. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alrah Fraser (talk • contribs) 20:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

original research is insufficient support for data addition to Wikipedia.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Think carefully before being pedantic on this issue. Review the matter and look at the page - considering how much I could be pedantic about on this and other pages if I was of the mind..."

Is this some kind of veiled threat? This user signed up today and began violating Wikipedia policies, without clearly having read them. Most of this: original research, lineages links, numerological justifications, and the lost word have been hashed out before in talk here. If the person calling themselves Alrah had bothered to read the Wikipedia policies and the history of this article she might have known that. These are suspiciously like another batch of edits by another Alrah about six months ago that were similarly motivated by original ideas not supported by secondary or even primary sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Dara+Allarah&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2014&month=-1 

comment added by User:Stealthepiscopalian  —Preceding undated comment added 01:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alrah I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your comments and reactions are quite similar to the Dara Allarah that Stealthepisopalian is referring to. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is therefore necessarily pedantic and conservative by nature, expecting sources and being free from original research as obvious as its conclusions might seem to you. I am curious though how you are labeling this Merkavah and how you are even bringing the Seven Palaces into it. Your conclusions seem completely alien to such common sources for Merkavah like III Enoch, Giktala or Rabbi Akiva. There are no paths for instance and the Seven Palaces are a later cabalistic construct unrelated directly to Merkavah. It is true that the second ascension of the Merkavah begins with aleph aleph followed by aleph bet, aleph gimel etc. but what this could possibly have to do with the initials of the Order A.'.A.'. when Crowley clearly states in numerous places they are the initials for actual words is confusing to me. Likewise your assertion about the Lost Word; it is simply false. For instance The Great Architect of the Universe is commonly rendered in Freemasonry as G.'.A.'.O.'.T.'.U.'. (see Pike and Mackey) and it is a title of God, not an order at all. The Lost Word, in any case, is a Masonic trope, lost in the Master Mason degree so that it can be recovered in the Royal Arch. It really isn't lost at all, and certainly O.T.O. claims to have it, so your comparison is false on its face. Etc. etc. which is why your original research just doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. It's just that: original, not substantiated, not peer reviewed and clearly wrong in some cases about which your aren't an expert. I do invite you to be as pedantic as you will in your own edits though, please cull anything that cannot be substantiated, that is what Wikipedia edits are for and certainly add anything you can back up from secondary, esp. academic source. comment added by User:choronzonclub —Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer all of your enquiries on Crowley's use of the Lost Word and the Merkabah, CC but is this the proper place? I invite you to join the FB A.'.A.'. group to discuss these matters if you will. The Lost Word or true Name of God isn't just a Masonic thing. Actually they have used substitute words for the MM and the Royal Arch for years so this shouldn't affect them. The true name of God was hidden by the Jewish mystics. It appears on the palaces of the Merkabah when you decrypt the Zohar. It's the EL & Hadad pantheon of course, and the Palaces & paths are derived from ancient Babylonia - originally they were the 14 path of Inanna. Hekhalot, is a loan word from Akkadian ekallu, "palace." If you are interested I have a short article on the Zohar & Liber Al decryptions here: http://www.paganspace.net/forum/topics/the-temple-of-solomon-the-lost-word-and-the-key-of-it-all and I've keyed some of Crowley's texts to the Merkabah too on the 'Let it Fill me' FB page. Just scroll down below the Tom Schuler lectures on the Tree of Life for them. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Let-it-fill-me/253134744759426?fref=ts . Crowley took the Merkabah and used it as a basis for his A.'.A.'. system but he's changed it for the New Aeon. Best, Alrah. 93 93/93. Alrah Fraser (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really glad that you all feel so strongly about having good citations in an article, but I'm puzzled by the fact that you've left uncited material on the page since May 2013 and in some cases 2008! With so much work to do citing your own stuff I'm surprised you can be bothered to object to mine and instantly delete it. That smacks of something.... well... :-)

I'll be back in 3 days to delete the rest of the material without citations on the page as by your own pedantic criteria - it's obviously not up to standard. Is it? A .'. 93 93/93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alrah Fraser (talk • contribs) 04:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

clearly Alrah is not only threatening the integrity of Wikipedia but conducting a campaign of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthepiscopalian (talk • contribs) 05:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by Alrah

Can someone please revert to good faith edits before user Alrah Fraser vandalized this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.4.196 (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted material that was uncited since May 2013 and in some cases 2008 as well as someone that presented their own argument (counts as original research). This isn't vandalism. It's a much needed clean up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alrah Fraser (talk • contribs) 05:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalizing this page.

Please Alrah, stop using this page as your personal catbox. Mvmontgomery (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I haven't vandalised the page and I resent the allegation. I've deleted material that has lack citation for years! I've also corrected when I could and placed appropriate refs. I also changed an entry unsupported by the reference.

For instance: " While the A ∴A∴ is not part of Ordo Templi Orientis, O.T.O. does consider the A∴A∴ to be a close ally." - This was cited from 1909 while it spoke in the present tense.

In Ipsissimus section someone started debating the topic and presenting their own original research!

You don't like uncited material and original research so you should all be patting me on the back right now and saying 'well done Alrah' for doing a much needed clean up of the page. I should get a barnstar for this not your complaints. Alrah Fraser (talk)

Alrah is capriciously vandalizing these pages.

This is not the place for your independent "research", nor is it your place to make wholesale changes on the page. You do not speak for everyone in the A A and I find what you are doing extremely offensive, as is your crowing on FB about it. Don't worry, I already saved the thread. Mvmontgomery (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page was largely unsourced for years. I've deleted the uncited material. I'm well within Wiki guidelines on good practise by doing so and I don't give a flying fig if you're offended by that. There isn't one set of rules for you and another set for me you know. You can scream vandalism all you like but it's actually a clean up and an impartial wiki editor would thank me for it. I suggest that you work on adding material to the page that can be cited - and with more than primary sources too - rather than wasting your time complaining about a perfectly good clean up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alrah Fraser (talk • contribs) 06:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


"Aleister Crowley's Secret Temple. Posted by Dara Allarah on October 3, 2012 at 4:30pm in Religious Mysticism" so you are the Dara Allarah that was involved in numerous edit wars. I suspected as much. It claimed to be a he and back in the alt.magick on usenet days Jason Scott Dean. Interesting level of dishonesty you perpetrate. ~~Choronzonclub~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choronzonclub (talk • contribs) 23:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exaggeration and ad hominem attacks? That's a sign of a weak position. I was briefly involved in ONE edit war, but I suspect you are a regularly perp. I have no idea who Jason Scott Dean is; I have never used sock puppets; nor did I ever pretend to be a 'he'. But if all you can do is slander me and pull bizarre fantasies about me out of your ass instead of concentrating on the debate then you're just trolling wiki and you need to retire from this conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alrah Fraser (talk • contribs) 05:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Religious Order

Wikipedia's page on "Religious order" states that: "A religious order is a lineage of communities and organizations of people who live in some way set apart from society in accordance with their specific religious devotion."

The A∴ A∴ and it's members do not conform to this definition.

Wikipedia's page on "Fraternity" states that: "A fraternity (or fraternal organization) is an organized society of men associated together in an environment of companionship and brotherhood; dedicated to the intellectual, physical, and social development of its members."

The A∴ A∴ is clearly a "Fraternal organization".

I intend to change the article to reflect this. PedroLamarao (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps a "Secret society", though it is not meant to be secret. PedroLamarao (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the present phrasing is both imprecise and unfortunate. 'Fraternity' has general implications that don't really apply to A∴ A∴ either. It doesn't meet in groups like say the Odd Fellows, a Martial Arts studio, an Athenian Symposium etc. I like the phrase Teaching Order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_order but it has extremely Roman Catholic overtones. ~~Stealthepiscopalian~~ Stealthepiscopalian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealthepiscopalian (talk • contribs) 20:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's isn't a good 'social first' label for the A.'.A.'. - It's an open access system which is either followed by lineages descending from Crowley and his primary pupils or is worked through by independent persons. Therefore it's not primarily defined by external social organisation but by the internal initiation of individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.197.47 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is no excellent choice. But "Religious organization" is less than good, it is actually bad. I agree also that the expression "Teaching order" has the best literal meaning, but, as pointed, it 's encyclopaedic definition is still religious. "Fraternal organization" is the most neuter name, and the corresponding article makes clear how broad in meaning in the term. One option is to link to the diambiguation page: Fraternity_(disambiguation) Can we change this? PedroLamarao (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A∴A∴&oldid=591917755"