Liber Oz interpreta...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Liber Oz interpretation postcards  

  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/02/2010 3:32 am  

Small changes - Man removed from the line I left it by accident, and "ourselves" altered to Humanity, which reads Rather Well to my eye.

I'm afraid I won't be posting a Crowley original Liber Oz here because, well, apparently it's against the rules.

Moderator's Note: Linked file deleted - see final post in this thread.


Quote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/02/2010 1:55 pm  

Oh, and I finally found a pic of the other Liber Oz postcard project - I hadn't heard of that when I did this, it was just an idle moment. Really, really cool work guys, well done!


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
11/02/2010 11:02 pm  

93!

I know it is only a matter of personal preference, but I don't like the typesetting. And moreover, what's with all that politically correct nonsense and then leave "we have the right to kill those..." in it. Shouldn't that read then "... kind of kill those... (but without really hurting them)"? I am sorry, but you did not convince me of your version....

Love=Law
Lutz

P.S. I don't think Parsons would have approved it either....


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 12:53 am  

Correcting the use of "Man" for "Human" isn't political correctness, it's modern English. I intended to make the sentiment clear to a modern audience.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
12/02/2010 1:20 am  

I've renamed this thread from "Liber Oz postcards once again" to something more appropriate to its content.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 2:21 am  
"fratere" wrote:
Correcting the use of "Man" for "Human" isn't political correctness, it's modern English.

This is not fact and is your view of the word. In modern english the word man is still defined and used as it is intended in Liber Oz.

"fratere" wrote:
I intended to make the sentiment clear to a modern audience.

Another issue I see with this (again you are most free to do as you will, only offering my two cents), is that:

"There is no god but humanity"

Does not have the same intent as:

"There is no god but man"

The use of humanity implies a collective. Humanity is defined as:

* the quality or state of being humane
* the human race : the totality of human beings

Neither of these two definitions carry the same possible meanings as "man"

* an individual human

So your interpretation of Liber Oz leaves us with the idea that God only exist as the collection of all humans. Without stepping out on a limb here, my interpretation of Liber Oz is that each of us is perfectly capable of making our own choices, deciding for ourselves how we are to live; that we no longer need to look to some divine guidance to tell us right from wrong. Going with your interpretation it would almost imply that Thelema is wrong, as it is Humanity which will tell us what is right and wrong.

But if you are getting caught up on a word you might be missing the forest for the trees.


ReplyQuote
ozzzz666
(@ozzzz666)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 155
12/02/2010 3:07 am  

93,

Not that I think it needs to be changed one bit, but perhaps if you feel the need to change the word "Man" you could go with simply "You"?

And thanks. I'm glad you like the project...

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
newneubergOuch2
(@newneubergouch2)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 286
12/02/2010 3:12 am  

You could as Ozzzz says change it to `you`, but as the reader needs some connection `I` may be more appropriate.

And Man is meant to be all encompassing anyway.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/02/2010 5:14 am  

"There is no but but you, says I, arrrrrrg"

That's really what I would prefer.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
12/02/2010 10:10 am  
"newneubergOuch2" wrote:
And Man is meant to be all encompassing anyway.

Yes, I agree. I think this modification is an unnecessary one.

What's next? A rewrite of Liber Aleph?

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
12/02/2010 10:33 am  

The document manages to misrepresent itself as being "from Liber LXXVII", introduce some bizarre "interpretations" or edits, and yet still be chiefly the plagiarism of a work by Crowley. Which is quite a feat in such a small piece!

Perhaps someone could let me know whether "Liber OZ" is copyright - if it is then I'd be more than happy to remove the link!

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
thiebes
(@thiebes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 164
12/02/2010 11:55 am  

Gosh, the first definition 1a in my dictionary is "an individual human." What more perfect word could there be?

Paul, I can't offer a definitive answer on copyright, but perhaps awfulness could be a factor in the deliberation process!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/02/2010 1:25 am  

1. Liber Oz is not a class A text.

2. "Man" meaning "the entire human race" is not current English usage. It's not a use of language that would not make it into print in most newspapers, never mind academic discourse.

"There is no god but humanity" is very close in absolute meaning to the archaic "There is no god but Man." One could argue for some other term, but Man in this context makes Liber Oz look like a museum piece.

Which it isn't, is it?

Living document, living tradition. If it's not a class A channeled text there's no reason not to modify the English to the modern use to reach a wider audience, as long as the original meaning is preserved precisely.

Old use: Man. New use varies, but in this context, "humanity" is pretty good. With that framed up front, "We have the right" makes good, strong sense and reads well.

I do not require you to like it, I simply make it available for anybody who wants it. Thelema is a living tradition. Stand in a place populated by the young and hand out something that reads like it was written a hundred years ago, and see how it goes for you. To bring the law to a new generation requires at least basic manners: grind out dumb, archaic sexism (and there's plenty more of it to go in Crowley's work) and perfect the law.

He was a Victorian. It's a long time ago.

E.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
13/02/2010 1:39 am  

Moderator's Note

"fratere" wrote:
Liber Oz is not a class A text… I do not require you to like it, I simply make it available for anybody who wants it… grind out dumb, archaic sexism (and there's plenty more of it to go in Crowley's work) and perfect the law.

And what you're left with is something other than what you're misrepresenting it to be. It's not Liber Oz and it's not by Baphomet; it lacks the poetry and authority of the original and it exists only as an attempt to amplify and legitimise your own interpretation.

As a result, it becomes at best a revision and at worst simple plagiarism.

I have removed the links from your posts and locked this thread.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Share: