lashtal.com
Magick - MIT&P ?
piscean93 - Jan 31, 2008 - 02:56 AM
Post subject: MIT&P ?
93,
Greetings! I have a question: Has anyone heard if there is going to be a release of Magick in Theory & Practice by itself any time soon, possibly from a non-OTO source? I ask because it is only available in the Big Blue Brick, and even then it is edited and censored by the OTO; sometimes with footnotes, and sometimes not.
Namaste,
93,
newneubergOuch - Jan 31, 2008 - 03:40 AM
Post subject:
Censored?, I have an old MagickT&P and the Blue Brick(liberABA) and alot was left out in the earlier editions that has been restored by HB and COTO................................,If yr looking for secret/special stuff your looking in the wrong place, and not everything is avaliable in print/online either.
kuniggety - Jan 31, 2008 - 04:48 AM
Post subject:
What in it is censored?
Anywho, the Caliphate OTO holds the copyrights... so I wouldn't hold my breath for publications from anyone else.
childrenofptah - Jan 31, 2008 - 06:18 AM
Post subject:
By censored do you mean the Israel Regardie edit? I remember hearing on TCTC that Regardie really hacked the thing to pieces (I'm not really sure, because I've only read the edit).
kuniggety - Jan 31, 2008 - 06:33 AM
Post subject:
Isn't it Magick Without Tears that people complain about Regardie's edition? Not MIT&P.
lashtal - Jan 31, 2008 - 07:59 AM
Post subject: Re: MIT&P ?
piscean93 wrote: › Greetings! I have a question: Has anyone heard if there is going to be a release of Magick in Theory & Practice by itself any time soon, possibly from a non-OTO source? I ask because it is only available in the Big Blue Brick, and even then it is edited and censored by the OTO; sometimes with footnotes, and sometimes not.
There have been several non-OTO editions of Magick.
Yours is the first communication I've read suggesting that the OTO edition is in any way 'censored'. Quite the reverse, in fact.
Presumably you're saying this in an attempt to be controversial with your first post?
MichaelStaley - Jan 31, 2008 - 08:16 AM
Post subject: Re: MIT&P ?
piscean93 wrote: › Has anyone heard if there is going to be a release of Magick in Theory & Practice by itself any time soon, possibly from a non-OTO source? I ask because it is only available in the Big Blue Brick
As Paul says, it is available in several other editions. The Castle edition, which looks like a facsimile of the 1929 edition, turns up on ebay frequently enough, and does not exactly cost an arm, a leg and a dingly-dangly bit. Also turning up frequently on the second-hand market is the Grant/Symonds edition of Magick, comprising Book Four Parts 1 and 2 as well as Magick in Theory and Practice.
I've never before heard suggestions that Breeze "censored" any of the text. Given the ready availability of other editions on the second-hand market, it would be an odd thing to do.
childrenofptah - Jan 31, 2008 - 05:38 PM
Post subject:
kuniggety wrote: › Isn't it Magick Without Tears that people complain about Regardie's edition? Not MIT&P.
I believe you're correct. I apologize.
piscean93 - Feb 01, 2008 - 04:47 AM
Post subject: Clarification to further stimulate MIT&P discussion
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law,
93,
Paul, you are correct to a certain degree. This is meant to be a controversial post to get people thinking about what the law of Thelema truly is in a practical sense.
A friend of mine and I compared three editions of MIT&P, and came up with some insight. The first edition was the Castle edition (I think Castle did it) from the 60s era. The second edition was the IHO reprint from 1999, and the third was Liber ABA (in slang, the Big Blue Brick). The first thing we did was compare the Castle version to the IHO edition. The IHO edition was exactly like the Castle version. After we went through both thoroughly and randomly, we then put the IHO (due to availability. The Castle edition was only available for a short time) edition against Liber ABA (the Big Blue Brick). The results were interesting.
The first thing of note is that HB and the other editors were very thorough in their annotation of the texts involved. However, magickally speaking, things were different. In a lot of places, whenever wording was changed between IHO and the Brick, it wasn't always clarified as to why. Most of the times, more often than not, it was from letters and texts that Uncle AL wrote during different stages in his life, and that were used in the Brick as an update as well as clarification.
For brevity, I'm not going to go into all of the instances. I did select one to use as an example. On PP. 130 in the Brick, it is the introduction in which the theorems are given. In the middle of the paragraph beginning illustration:
This is printed (towards the middle of that paragraph): "He might also devote his whole energies to some one particular object, by resolving to do nothing at variance therewith, and to make every act turn somehow or other to the advantage of that object."
It differs from the IHO/Castle edition in that, in the Brick, the phrase somehow or other is not present. This discrepancy is not footnoted, where many, many others are.
The challenge is that Uncle Al did not right that. If he did later in life, it would be in a footnote. at the bottom of the page or in the back. This is a troublesome statement that it is not explained. Somehow or other implies that what the magician does, he may not know how something came to be. And that is okay. What this does to the reader, if the reader is not careful, is that it invokes a doubt of where[/i] manifestation comes from, or an incomplete understanding of the art.
Fear is a result of the doubt. And, to quote Uncle Al, Fear is failure.
Therefore, the Brick, in some instances, paints a very different picture of Uncle Al and his teachings as World Teacher. It is much more fear based.
We must never forget that this is, after all, The method of science, the aim of religion. That's not a very scientific idea to not know how something works. The goal is reproduceable results after all.
The above example was found 11 pages into the book. Only 11 pages in and already something alien to Al and his work has been introduced. Trust is eroded.
I was asking about a smaller version because it is easier to introduce students of the magickal arts to a $19.95 book than it is the $80 book. Plus, more bookstores will tend to stay away from tying up their inventory on an $80 Hardback magick book, but would give a $19.95 book a shot. Thus I asked the community here if anyone had heard anything. There's a lot of potential people out there that can become Thelemites.
93,
Love is the law, love under will
Meritocracy - Feb 01, 2008 - 05:31 AM
Post subject: A thought on the matter
93/418,
Is it totally out of the realm of possibility that perhaps there are some intentional edits? While I am not one to try and claim any degree of authority (and in my opinion, no Thelemite should claim authority on the subject of Magick) I have to admit that there seems to be at least some red tape between books by Crowley depending on who is responsible for editing them.
I'm not a member of the C.O.T.O. so I won't presume to understand the aim they had in that disparity. However it seems that some times the methods used imply an philisophical ownership (copyrights not withstanding) of Magick, Crowley, and Thelema. Perhaps Piscean93 is on to something, and in my opinion, deserves a closer look.
Love Is The Law, Love Under Will.
kuniggety - Feb 01, 2008 - 05:42 AM
Post subject: RE: A thought on the matter
You pointed out some grammatical edits... but where is the censorship? And what does reading MIT&P have to do with becoming a Thelemite? It's a book on magick, not how to be a Thelemite.
piscean93 - Feb 01, 2008 - 06:21 AM
Post subject: RE: A thought on the matter
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law
93,
Thanks for all the feedback on this topic. The use of the word censorship is slight and arguable. What is being censored here is that Uncle Al did not believe the way things manifest is ambiguous. He believed that through scientific inquiry into the study of magick one could reproduce results. "Somehow or other" implies something Uncle Al would consider a halfway statement. And, as all of us know, Uncle Al was not a halfway do anything kind of man.
93,
Love is the law, love under Will.
enjoy93 - Feb 01, 2008 - 07:45 AM
Post subject: Re: Clarification to further stimulate MIT&P discussion
Sorry, unintentional doubling, please delete
enjoy93 - Feb 01, 2008 - 07:49 AM
Post subject: Re: Clarification to further stimulate MIT&P discussion
piscean93 wrote: › The first thing of note is that HB and the other editors were very thorough in their annotation of the texts involved. However, magickally speaking, things were different. In a lot of places, whenever wording was changed between IHO and the Brick, it wasn't always clarified as to why. [/b]
93
1. It may be not their malicious intent. But I must admit I have a strong impression that most if not all COTO officers are versed in general knowledge, but incompetent in magick. It's quite obvious to me, especially by reading their own "comments", their own books and articles on more specific technical questions of magick, mysticism and practices - evidently they never did them really. Also I know certain cases of experience with Caliphate A.'.A.'. lineage that only confirm me in my opinion, maybe too pretentious, but valid to me.
2. In my experience as a translator and an editor I meet "strange corrections" in my published works very often - and most of them usually made by secondary technical editors or even clickers without any notifying. You wonder how many people on inferior jobs see themselves very intelligent to do so. The only way to avoid this thing - to explain them personally that such anonymous corrections are unacceptable, in coarse language if needed. So it's also may be the answer to your matter.
3. The last (but the first in value) related problem in my opinion (I'm not a native English speaker, so i'm biassed here) is that Crowley's grammar is odd and ambiguous, sometimes intentionally, and the books are full of misprints. There's nothing to do with them at all without some critical review while reading (I mean not "redaction" - one should be a Crowley's reincarnation to do this job well). Evidently, it requires some basic understanding - and in my opinion understanding in magick is not a question of any education at all, but a kind of mystical "karmic" issue. Personally I don't know how and where one can get it, and with time I see my own poor ability more clearly.
Te23 - Feb 01, 2008 - 08:21 AM
Post subject: Re: Clarification to further stimulate MIT&P discussion
enjoy93 wrote: ›
1. It may be not their malicious intent. But I must admit I have a strong impression that most if not all COTO officers are versed in general knowledge, but incompetent in magick. It's quite obvious to me, especially by reading their own "comments", their own books and articles on more specific technical questions of magick, mysticism and practices - evidently they never did them really. Also I know certain cases of experience with Caliphate A.'.A.'. lineage that only confirm me in my opinion, maybe too pretentious, but valid to me.
93.
Hmmmm... I am wondering what situation you found yourself in where you met almost all the officers of the OTO and they decided to tell you everything they know or don't know about magick?
Back to the topic at hand, I personally like the revised MTP. I think it is a better edition, more clear, easier to read and one can easily follow up on any number of references to the hearts content.
Before I had the small Dover copy and I always found it hard to sit down and read it. I found the print difficult to read for some reason and putting something so vast in such a small book made it very aesthetically unpleasing (the lack of index or table of contents was also problematic).
93 93/93
-Te23
Boris - Feb 01, 2008 - 09:34 AM
Post subject: RE: Re: Clarification to further stimulate MIT&P discuss
I don`t get your fear point. It seems extremely far fetched.
The two sentences reads in exactly the same way, the only difference is that one of the two is 3 words shorter than the other, i.e. more economical.
Perhaps you have better examples of what you call censorship available?
enjoy93 - Feb 01, 2008 - 08:34 PM
Post subject: Re: Clarification to further stimulate MIT&P discussion
Te23 wrote: › Hmmmm... I am wondering what situation you found yourself in where you met almost all the officers of the OTO and they decided to tell you everything they know or don't know about magick?
I have to apologize. 
My thread was really irrelevant. I simply don't know any COTO officer or any member of Caliphate A.'.A.'. lineage whom I can call competent in my humble opinion.
piscean93 - Feb 08, 2008 - 06:25 AM
Post subject: RE: Re: Clarification to further stimulate MIT&P discuss
Do what thou Wilt shall be the whole of the law
93,
Yes I do have another example: On pp. 215 of Liber ABA, in the paragraph under the roman numeral two (the final paragraph on the page): The sentence reads"I refer to Christian Science, absurdly so-called, and the cognate doctrine......" The phrase "absurdly so-called" is not in the Castle/IHO edition. It has been added in Liber ABA. Once again, we do not have any footnotes explaining why. While it may be the viewpoint of the editor of Liber ABA, it certainly is NOT what uncle Al thought. Otherwise he would've put it in there. This is coloration of uncle Al by someone. If I am reading uncle Al's thoughts on magick, I really want what he had to say, and not someone else's intentional deception. If it was a change from uncle Al, it would be in the footnotes as to the source, as was demonstrated many detailed times.
93
Love is the law, love under Will.
Te23 - Feb 08, 2008 - 07:44 AM
Post subject: RE: Re: Clarification to further stimulate MIT&P discuss
93.
Your nit-picking. The addition or subtracting of such a small amount of text is hardly a worthwhile criticism, nor is adequate proof to show your point. Plus because there is not a footnote included for this one instance doesn't prove anything. The only way that this would have any relevance would be if you had access to the original manuscript, even then it's very plausible (and probable) that the OTO has access to information you do not.
If you really that concerned about it, instead of making this comments on lashtal why don't you email the OTO and ask them about it.
93 93/93
-Te23
lashtal - Feb 08, 2008 - 08:24 AM
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: Clarification to further stimulate MIT&P dis
piscean93 wrote: › While it may be the viewpoint of the editor of Liber ABA, it certainly is NOT what uncle Al thought. Otherwise he would've put it in there. This is coloration of uncle Al by someone. If I am reading uncle Al's thoughts on magick, I really want what he had to say, and not someone else's intentional deception.
"Intentional deception"?
For someone so obsessed with detail and so ready to jump to criticism and judgement, you appear to have overlooked the simple explanation in 'Liber ABA' itself: "The first edition of Part III of Book 4 ... was seriously corrupted, as dozens of lines of text were dropped in successive retypings... In the first revised edition (1994) they were demarcated in the text by a system of markers, but in this edition they have been silently restored... The transitional 1994 edition with its markers remains useful as a scholarly reference..." (See 'Editor's Notes'.)
piscean93 - Feb 10, 2008 - 01:20 AM
Post subject: MIT&P ?
Do what thou Wilt shall be the whole of the law
93,
Paul, thanks for the clarification on that. However, then the question becomes: Why isn't it marked that a restoration of corrupted text has occurred? That screams hiding things to me.
I am being very critical and nit-picking and I freely admit it. This is a hold over from karmic law: Make sure everything, no matter how small or incosequential it may seem gets done correctly. Crowley was familiar with the laws of karma, so when he wrote, those were some of the tools he was working with (along with the QBL, etc.). My criticalness is also a product of being a magician.
I will also freely admit that I have not e-mailed the Caliphate OTO about these things because when I've tried to contact them in the past about other questions, etc, they were ignored, so there's no reason to pursue correspondences.
I thank everyone for the input and I will especially send people to ebay and other web companies for copies of MIT&P.
On a side tangent, doesn't Uncle Al's work come up into public domain in a few years? I'm not clear on the current copyright laws, but I believe it does. Thanks once again for the clarification on MIT&P, and I would appreciate input on the public domain of Uncle Al's work.
93
Love is the law, love under Will.
lashtal - Feb 10, 2008 - 02:30 AM
Post subject: RE: MIT&P ?
The status of the Crowley copyrights has been discussed in enormous detail on LAShTAL.COM on many occasions and the facts are available by a simple search of this site: the essential details are clear and, I think it's safe to say, are not seriously disputed these days; at least not in the UK and US.
OKontrair - Feb 10, 2008 - 02:49 AM
Post subject: RE: MIT&P ?
MTP was not written straight out all in one go. I was probably revised, improved, refined and tidied up over and over again. As well as getting other people to suggest clarifications Gerald Yorke, who was putting up the money, made some recommendations.
The Castle Books, Dover Press, IHO, Gordon Press and Peter Smith editions reproduce what was arrived at by 1930. They are plentiful, portable and relatively cheap. The same goes for the Weiser and Sangreal ('72 but not '69) editions of 'Book 4' ie parts 1 & 2 only. The 1975 edition of 'The Law is for All' edited by Regardie is a decent version of AC's commentary to AL. As is the (vastly overpriced these days) Magical and Philosophical Commentaries ed. Symonds and Grant. Skip the Motta.
As noted above, in the 1994 ABA the editor explains what has gone on. For later editions he obviously decided not to. What has gone on is mainly restoring what has previously been removed, I don't think there have been unwarranted additions. The only point I would make on this is that some of the (formerly) deleted material would have been by decision of AC.
The remark about Christian Science for example is a well known view of AC expressed in several other places. His objection to the name of Christian Science is that it is a.) Not Christian and b.) not Scientific.) As the subject of the remarks is Christian Science itself AC may have chosen on that instance not weaken his point by a witty jibe at their name. Well, out it came and now someone has put it back. It's not the end of the world but why would anybody prefer a first draft to the finished work? It wouldn't do for poetry.
There must be people who have excellent eyesight, do all their research at a desk and have the opinion that if some is good then more must be better. ABA is for them. Personally, I see it as the tomb wherein lies the corpse of MTP, lovingly embalmed and lipsticked but somehow dead nonetheless.
Copyright in the UK lasts for 70 years beyond the death of the author. Substantial changes reset the clock and goalposts. So ABA, and other revised works, will be in copyright for at least that long beyond the death (heaven forbid) of their present editor.
OK
BlueKephra - Feb 10, 2008 - 05:03 AM
Post subject: RE: MIT&P ?
No idea if it's of any relevance, but there was much discussion in the past about IHO and their publishing of AO Spare material, because the person behind the imprint is some kind of christian. Can't remember the details, but they are here on Lashtal somewhere.
lashtal - Feb 10, 2008 - 01:51 PM
Post subject: RE: MIT&P ?
IHO is an imprint of Mandrake Press (run by Tony Naylor, not "Mandrake of Oxford", which is run by Mogg Morgan). Tony - who was charming and polite when I met him and in subsequent correspondence - was behind all those First Impressions volumes of Crowleyana, including those wonderful reprints of the Goetia and The Giant's Thumb.
uranus - Feb 10, 2008 - 06:03 PM
Post subject: Re: RE: MIT&P ?
OKontrair wrote: › Magical and Philosophical Commentaries ed. Symonds and Grant. Skip the Motta.
I'd beg to differ on that. Motta's own comments can be very valuable to the new student if one understands to take it with a grain of salt as Class C commentary is to be understood. Worth checking out and then making a decision but to many people are being asked to make a decision without first looking into Motta. he's the Thelemic bogeyman.
Walterfive - May 15, 2008 - 04:45 PM
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: MIT&P ?
Mottas comments can be of interest, I don't know I'd call many (if not most) of them "valuable", and I certainly wouldn't throw his edition of the commentaries into the hands of a new student-- they're not differentiated in a competent enough manner from Crowley's different comments, IMHO, and lead one to all sorts of confusion, as Motta appearantly believed himself to be Crowley's spiritual manifestation (if not reincarnation) at this point, and used a lot of the "Royal 'We'" in referring to Crowley's other comments.
His commentaries on the unexpurgated "Magick Without Tears" Vol. 1, on the other hand, especially those speculations of why certain passages were edited by Dr. Regardie, are quite interesting, and give insights of an appearantly rather hostile opinion of the good doctor. As insightful for those trying to understand Mr. Motta as those trying to discern why Regardie might have actually edited the letters and comments themselves. I suspect this is true with Vol. 2 as well, if it was actually published; I've never seen a copy of it available anywhere.
I just wish that Magical and Philosophical Commentaries were as available and as inexpensive as Motta's Equinox Vol. V No. 1. (We're talking $100-130 a copy for Motta's, and up to $450 for the other, depending on condition). The newest revision of "The Law Is For All" is good as far as its content is concerned, but it's not as nice an edition, not available in hardback, and isn't comprehensive, there's a couple of commentaries floating about that are not included, as I'm sure we're all aware.
uranus - May 16, 2008 - 03:26 AM
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: MIT&P ?
I have had no problem differentiating Motta's comments from Crowley's considering they are in different fonts and this is called out in the introduction. As far as his hostility to Dr. Regardie, of course he was very hostile to Regardie considering the state of Regardie in the eyes of Crowley and in the eyes of Germer. Regardie was under no delusions about how Crowley felt about him, and it wasn't good and Doc was quite candid on his feelings about Crowley and his inability to reconcile those feelings into late life. Regardie was considered the "worst kind of Jew" by all three men, that being a Jew that allows themselves to fall into some sort of negative stereotype as opposed to some anti-semitic agenda, similar to some of Chris Rock's comments on black people.