Liber Oz postcard P...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Liber Oz postcard PDF (big type, hexagram, clear)  

  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
09/02/2010 10:09 pm  

6" x 4", black and white, suitable for printing at cheap postcard places.

[…]

The PDF is attached to this post. Enjoy, let me know if you find it useful, can do more things like this if you like.

Moderator's Note: Links removed from this thread - see http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=43870#43870


Quote
thiebes
(@thiebes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 164
09/02/2010 10:29 pm  

How about one without revision?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
09/02/2010 10:45 pm  
"thiebes" wrote:
How about one without revision?

Good catch, took me a few minutes to see it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 1:32 am  

If I do you one with the original Man stuff, will you print them and use them?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 1:37 am  
"fratere" wrote:
If I do you one with the original Man stuff, will you print them and use them?

If you make one that is the version Crowley wrote I can use for COTO.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 1:46 am  

You want a lodge URL or something on there?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 1:56 am  
"fratere" wrote:
You want a lodge URL or something on there?

No, its not that official. We have been encouraged to spread awareness to Thelema by HB, but I don't want to do anything like that with out approval.

Just Liber Oz as exactly as Crowley wrote it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 1:58 am  

Yeah, but Oz as Crowley wrote it, fwiw, is Unclassified. Which means we can change it to modernize it.

Do think about the card as it stands. All that Man stuff is going to put people of, and it's not a Class A text.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 2:08 am  
"fratere" wrote:
Yeah, but Oz as Crowley wrote it, fwiw, is Unclassified. Which means we can change it to modernize it.

Do think about the card as it stands. All that Man stuff is going to put people of, and it's not a Class A text.

I personally think the masculine pronoun adds fiery force to the declaration. Besides, I live in a Republican state.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 2:10 am  

Hahahahah. So I sort you out the PDF with the verbatim Oz text, and you'll do a print run and show us pix? I don't like the original Oz text, but if you're going to use it...


ReplyQuote
newneubergOuch2
(@newneubergouch2)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 286
10/02/2010 2:18 am  

Sorry, now matter how you try to paint it, that is not Liber Oz. If your intention is create a new some what post-modern version of your own design I would suggest adding a statement such as `Liber Oz as re-imagined in the 21st Century by Fratere` or something along those lines, as it stands now it is a misrepresentation of the original authors intent/design. Not to mention Crowley intended it to be The Rights of Man in One syllable.
I read the other day a Frater Oz just printed 16,000 Liber Oz postcards (money raised through donations) that he is sending out. A quick google search should bring up details of that project.
If anyone wants to make a postcard with the original design, a quick google search for Liber Oz will do it.


ReplyQuote
thiebes
(@thiebes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 164
10/02/2010 2:20 am  

Yeah create all the PC versions you want but don't attribute them to AC, or expect anyone to use them.

"Man" doesn't put that many people off. It's still widely used as gender neutral despite the protestations of a few academics.

Anyway I've got my own design and distribute cards all the time -- you might have heard elsewhere about Fr. Oz's project which is sending out 16000 cards of my design. I do appreciate the offer to customize. I was just making the suggestion because I think you'll find more people will actually print and use it if you stick to Crowley's original.


ReplyQuote
thiebes
(@thiebes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 164
10/02/2010 2:22 am  

Btw if anyone wants to get the design like the one Fr. Oz has, contact me.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 2:25 am  

What's a URL for Frater Oz's effort? The card design. Quite interested in that, 16k cards is *scale*.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 2:25 am  
"fratere" wrote:
Do think about the card as it stands. All that Man stuff is going to put people of, and it's not a Class A text.

It's nicely designed and typeset, but I agree with the others about the changes. I don't think as many people are put off by the masculine pronoun as you may think; maybe it depends on where you are.

The word "ourselves" seems to be the wrong choice for a few reasons: (1) The word "Man" is ambiguous enough to mean both a single person, and "mankind" as a whole. I think the whole "Deus est Homo" thing is meant to take on different meanings at different stages of attainment. "Ourselves" may not translate as well. (2) The use of plural to create a gender-neutral singular pronoun never sounds all that natural or poetic, IMHO. (3) An important point of OZ is to keep it to words of one syllable! 🙂

Why was "Man" retained for the 5th section? Women can kick ass, too! 😆


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 2:39 am  
"fratere" wrote:
All that Man stuff is going to put people of, and it's not a Class A text.

Not to sound harsh, cold or uncaring but so what if it does?

I would put forth that the point of any effort is to allow people to make their own decisions about it. If someone is turned off by the use of a single word on a single page document so much so that they refuse to consider the actual message...

1) that's their choice and...
2) probably means they are not ready and...
3) are going to have even bigger problems later on reading Crowley's other works and...
4) is ok, it shouldn't be about converting anyone but about informing them, which we have.

If the message has to be changed to get people to read it, is it a function of the message or the people?


ReplyQuote
thiebes
(@thiebes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 164
10/02/2010 5:27 am  
"fratere" wrote:
What's a URL for Frater Oz's effort? The card design. Quite interested in that, 16k cards is *scale*.

Google it. I'd provide a link but I've been cautioned against promoting projects I'm involved with here.

For the card design, contact me privately and let me know your email address and we can go from there.

16k cards is a start. I'd like to see that many cards in a single city rather than spread around the country, but it is a start.


ReplyQuote
ozzzz666
(@ozzzz666)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 155
10/02/2010 6:21 am  

93 fratere,

"fratere" wrote:
What's a URL for Frater Oz's effort? The card design. Quite interested in that, 16k cards is *scale*.

There is a video about the project on my youtube channel at:

http://www.youtube.com/ozzzz156

The project was done through my site "The Island", and is to be completed by Feb. 14th.

You should think about picking up the design Joseph did. It is a beautiful design... very visually stunning, IMO.

93 93/93,
Oz


ReplyQuote
ozzzz666
(@ozzzz666)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 155
10/02/2010 6:39 am  

93 SSS,

"SSS" wrote:
No, its not that official. We have been encouraged to spread awareness to Thelema by HB, but I don't want to do anything like that with out approval.

Just Liber Oz as exactly as Crowley wrote it.

Thiebes' design is "approved"...

However, if you are at Theortke Ekstasis Camp, you are about to get 418 of them anyway... 😀

93 93/93,
Oz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 8:11 am  
"ozzzz666" wrote:
93 SSS,

However, if you are at Theortke Ekstasis Camp, you are about to get 418 of them anyway... 😀

93 93/93,
Oz

Well, yes I am at Theortke Ekstasis Camp! Fancy you knowing that!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 8:35 am  

Hang on a sec. Why *not* modernize the language on Oz? Like, what possible harm can it do? It's not a class A text, so what's the reflexive desire to keep outdated Victorian language which, frankly, reads as sexist?

Not class A. That means you can change it. What's the perceived advantage of using the old wording rather than the gender-neutral wording?


ReplyQuote
thiebes
(@thiebes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 164
10/02/2010 8:44 am  

Because the language doesn't need to be modernized, it doesn't actually read as sexist since it is obviously not excluding women, the single-syllable feature makes a rhetorical point, and if you revise it you would need to not call it Liber Oz or attribute it to Baphomet. For a start.

Where's the Mark of the Beast by the way? In hoc signo vinces.

Why the insistence on revising something that is perfectly fine as-is?


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
10/02/2010 10:29 am  
"thiebes" wrote:
I'd provide a link but I've been cautioned against promoting projects I'm involved with here.

Just for the record, that's somewhat over-stating the situation. I have no problem with you "promoting projects" - I acknowledge that they are well-intentioned if, in my personal opinion, on occasions misguided in terms of technique. The "cautioning" related to the attempts by you and at least two others to promote shared activities as if impartial. A kind of "sock-puppetry", if you like.

And also just for the record, fratere, the central conceit of this thread - the suggested circulation of a work purporting to be Crowley's 'Liber Oz' but actually a rather poor politically correct rewrite - is nothing short of bizarre. The assertion that something can be bastardized in this way just because it's not in Class A is frankly ridiculous: it's either a new interpretation by you of what AC meant to say (in which case it's not 'Liber Oz' and it's certainly not by Crowley) or it's plagiarism. 'Liber Oz' might not be the most politically correct document that AC ever produced but it is at least beautifully - and very carefully - written.

"There is no god but ourselves"?! Unbelievable...

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
thiebes
(@thiebes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 164
10/02/2010 10:57 am  

"to promote shared activities as if impartial"

I am not, nor have I ever pretended to be, impartial about anything I have ever posted here.

As you claim to have no problem with my promoting my projects, I assume that means I can continue posting about projects that I find worthwhile and interesting, as well as projects that I am personally involved in?

Sock puppetry now? Why would I need to have sock puppets when you have always, prior to a few weeks ago, welcomed my posts promoting the various projects in which I am involved?

And if you have no problem with me promoting projects, why have you hidden the thread that I used to promote the Sekhet-Maat Lodge Cafepress store for years? Is that suddenly suspect of being a promotion of something that I was personally involved in? Because it is exactly that and you have always known it, though my name appears nowhere on the site. What gives?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 12:05 pm  
"fratere" wrote:
Hahahahah. So I sort you out the PDF with the verbatim Oz text, and you'll do a print run and show us pix? I don't like the original Oz text, but if you're going to use it...

Sure, why not.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
10/02/2010 12:07 pm  
"thiebes" wrote:
What gives?

Happy to continue to discuss this via email or PM, but not on this thread.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
ozzzz666
(@ozzzz666)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 155
10/02/2010 3:11 pm  

[Moderator's Note: Off topic post deleted.]


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 3:58 pm  

All hail and worship the most High and Glorious, One and Only One God, OURSELVES!!!!!!!!
HAIL!!! HAIL!!!!!! HAIL!!!!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 4:07 pm  
"fratere" wrote:
Hang on a sec. Why *not* modernize the language on Oz? Like, what possible harm can it do? It's not a class A text, so what's the reflexive desire to keep outdated Victorian language which, frankly, reads as sexist?

Because we see no problem with the language. We are not hung up on words and can interpret things based on what they ARE saying and not what we infer them to be saying.

I feel that sometimes the words themselves serve more than just to deliver a particular message. Take for instance, the "sexist" nature of the word used here (although I disagree)...

Liber Oz serves to show us the rights of man. But the "sexist" language can serve it's own purpose. Again, if we get hung up on this word and miss the message itself, we have other issues to work on and are not ready for these rights. To me I see this as no different than "sacrificing babies". The point is to get beyond hurt feelings and view the message so that you might learn and grow.

But beyond that, MAN is not an outdated Victorian word. It is still in current use to refer to mankind, males of the human species, and people in a vague general sense.

"fratere" wrote:
Not class A. That means you can change it. What's the perceived advantage of using the old wording rather than the gender-neutral wording?

True. However, there is a difference between the capacity to do so and the necessity to do so. 🙂

Also, please understand I stand by your RIGHTS to modify this document as you WILL, I just don't think it needs it.


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1264
10/02/2010 7:39 pm  

I quite like what you have done, but I prefer Crolwey's version.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 11:22 pm  

In my opinion, Man stopped being a generally acceptable way of referring to The Human Race in print about 20 years ago. I think that most newspaper editors would correct a piece which talked that way without a very, very good reason, and in literature and academic discourse, I believe that editors would simply not publish a piece that insisted on it. The modern usage has changed significantly.

English has changed since Crowley's time, and to communicate the meaning accurately for non Class A texts requires a continual effort to keep material current.

If anybody can suggest a better phrase than "ourselves" (I have considered Humanity as a modern equivalent of Man) I'm open to suggestions.

Will post two new versions with the modern and the Victorian phrasing tomorrow.

E.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
11/02/2010 1:11 am  

I'm assuming you've checked on the copyright status of Crowley's original, before you post it here?

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/02/2010 1:22 am  

Actually, I was considering my Will to be all that mattered. Its a habit I have.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
11/02/2010 1:27 am  
"fratere" wrote:
Actually, I was considering my Will to be all that mattered. Its a habit I have.

I kind of guessed that to be the case.

Don't bother posting OZ here, thanks.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/02/2010 1:35 am  

I'll post a link to a file hosted elsewhere, in that case.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
11/02/2010 1:50 am  
"fratere" wrote:
I'll post a link to a file hosted elsewhere, in that case.

From the Guidelines:

Material – or links to material - breaching or appearing to breach copyright must not be submitted.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Share: