'Kill me!' or 'Fill...
 
Notifications
Clear all

'Kill me!' or 'Fill me!' - Merged threads  

Page 10 / 12
  RSS

Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
14/05/2013 10:55 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Are you saying that, after viewing the same material that we have viewed, you think that the argument in favor of "fill" is a matter of people wanting to maintain the status quo? As in, it's not really a valid argument, the "fill" supporters just don't want to accept change?

No, of course that's not what I'm saying. There is evidence to support both 'change' and 'not change'. I find the evidence supporting the former to be more compelling - on balance - than the evidence supporting that latter. Is that okay with you, Azidonis?

Just getting clarity on the context of your word choice, is all. Seeing if you intended the term "status quo" in the literal sense, or the political one. For the simple reason that, as belmurru said,

"belmurru" wrote:
The status quo, with a footnote, would not be divisive at all. It would not be bringing all the old political squabbles to the foreground.

Either way is "okay" with me. They are your words, not mine.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5329
14/05/2013 10:58 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
The status quo, with a footnote, would not be divisive at all. It would not be bringing all the old political squabbles to the foreground.

HB's position isn't a million miles from your proposal: 'Future editions incorporating the change will have a note at the end of the book explaining the change. Those who reject Crowley’s correction can, of course, make an anti-correction in their copy—thus duplicating Crowley’s correction but in reverse.' --- http://oto-usa.org/static/legis/legis1.pdf

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/05/2013 11:13 pm  

Paul,

93

In my opinion you are right when it comes to the new editions prepared by HB and I think that the endnote will be an elegant solution.

I'm wondering what impact that change would have on other publications not edited by HB. For example, we've seen a silent change made on hermetic.com in The Equinox of the Gods that gives 1936 not 2013 as a year of publication  😉 (Yet another example of how material available online can be badly edited or manipulated). I was also told that forthcoming French edition of Liber ABA won't include any explanation and "fill" will be silently replaced by "kill".

93 93/93
Krzysztof


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5329
14/05/2013 11:26 pm  
"krzysztof" wrote:
I'm wondering what impact that change would have on other publications not edited by HB. For example, we've seen a silent change made on hermetic.com in The Equinox of the Gods that gives 1936 not 2013 as a year of publication  😉 (Yet another example of how material available online can be badly edited or manipulated). I was also told that forthcoming French edition of Liber ABA won't include any explanation and "fill" will be silently replaced by "kill".

I share your concern about 'silent changes' made by editors. The very extensive cuts inflicted by Symonds & Grant on The Confessions, for example.

I'm hoping that there will be clarity on the 'status' on the AC works on hermetic.com. Specifically, did the OTO approve the 'silent change' to EOTG there? If so, it needs to be sorted!

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
14/05/2013 11:28 pm  
Future editions incorporating the change will have a note at the end of the book explaining the change. Those who reject Crowley’s correction can, of course, make an anti-correction in their copy—thus duplicating Crowley’s correction but in reverse.

This basically says, "I'm making the change based on what I believe to be true. If you believe it to be false, then simply change what I have changed back to the way it was before in your own book, if you decide to buy one with the change in it."

The keyword is "believe", since the evidence does not establish HB's position beyond reasonable doubt.

If the evidence proved HB's position beyond reasonable doubt, this whole thing would not even be an issue.

Thelema will end up with two different official versions of it's most sacred text.

"There is division hither homeward; there is a word not known. Spelling is defunct; all is not aught. Beware! Hold! Raise the spell of Ra-Hoor-Khuit!"

Welcome to the Shia-Sunni version of Thelema.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5349
15/05/2013 2:18 am  

Theosophy had a similar split. When Blavatsky died, it turned into the Besant-Judge factions.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
15/05/2013 11:37 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Thelema will end up with two different official versions of it's most sacred text.

"There is division hither homeward; there is a word not known. Spelling is defunct; all is not aught. Beware! Hold! Raise the spell of Ra-Hoor-Khuit!"

Welcome to the Shia-Sunni version of Thelema.

This is undoubtedly true.  And “mark my words” this will, in time, be the thin end of the wedge…

But in the meantime---
N. Joy!


ReplyQuote
Frater_HPK
(@frater_hpk)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 104
15/05/2013 8:30 pm  

Just forwarding statement from one of the A.'.A.'. lines ...

Dear all,

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

As for these matters mentioned in speculations, the handwriting of Master Therion clearly shows the word "fill" - you do not have to be expert in graphology.

Any further "reasoning" is pointless and condemned by the Book of the Law itself.

Case closed.

Love is the law, love under will.

Fr.L. 7=4 A.'.A.'.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4094
15/05/2013 10:23 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Thelema will end up with two different official versions of its most sacred text.

Not all people who call themselves "Thelemites" go in for this "sacred text" approach. I consider The Book of the Law to be a powerful, inspiring book with a number of profound layers, but I don't consider it a "sacred text", any more than I regard, say, The Diamond Sutra or the Tao Teh Ching as "sacred texts".


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
15/05/2013 11:47 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Thelema will end up with two different official versions of its most sacred text.

Not all people who call themselves "Thelemites" go in for this "sacred text" approach. I consider The Book of the Law to be a powerful, inspiring book with a number of profound layers, but I don't consider it a "sacred text", any more than I regard, say, The Diamond Sutra or the Tao Teh Ching as "sacred texts".

"These terms can also be used in a non-spiritual or semi-spiritual context ("sacred truths" in a constitution)." The U.S. Constitution is not a religious text, but counts as a sacred American document, for instance. (The Constitution of the U.K.?)

In my opinion, sacred has more to do with the degree of respect that the document itself is held in, not whether or not it has any religious bearings. To a die-hard fan of William Shakespeare, Hamlet might be considered sacred. Many Star Wars fans might actually consider the Star Wars books to be sacred, regardless of whether or not they mark "Jedi" as their religion.

Regardless, The Book of the Law will have two separate versions, and whether or not one agrees on its "sacredness", the Book is the foundational document for Thelema, and its most essential. It is the cornerstone of Crowley's entire system.

H.B.'s statement of, 'Oh, you can just change it back if you want,' is a way of telling any would-be "filler" that happens to buy a "kill" version to just go ahead and change the Book, reverting it back to "fill", which puts those people in the position of changing a letter of a Class A document, if the "kill" versions are going to be considered Class A. In other words, he pretty much invited everyone in future generations to mimic his actions, only in reverse.

This "fill/kill jihad" (ie. jihad: struggle) may not matter much in the present time, as the "fillers" can basically boycott any versions with "kill" in them, but the scenario has a much larger potential to effect "Thelemites" many generations into the future.

As an addendum, members of the A:.A:., "must accept the Book of the Law as the Word and the Letter of Truth, and the sole Rule of Life." aka, sacred. This is not applicable to non-members or anything, as far as I know, but I do wonder how anyone can consider themselves a Thelemite without also considering the very cornerstone document of Thelema to be an extremely important text, important enough for them to label themselves as the Book says to do, in 1:40, aka sacred.


ReplyQuote
arthuremerson
(@arthuremerson)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 157
15/05/2013 11:51 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Thelema will end up with two different official versions of its most sacred text.

Not all people who call themselves "Thelemites" go in for this "sacred text" approach. I consider The Book of the Law to be a powerful, inspiring book with a number of profound layers, but I don't consider it a "sacred text", any more than I regard, say, The Diamond Sutra or the Tao Teh Ching as "sacred texts".

Agreed.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4094
16/05/2013 12:28 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
This "fill/kill jihad" (ie. jihad: struggle) may not matter much in the present time, as the "fillers" can basically boycott any versions with "kill" in them, but the scenario has a much larger potential to effect "Thelemites" many generations into the future.

Yes, I do understand and indeed sympathise with this point. Personally I think that the change that has been made will always be a controversial one, the more so perhaps for it being propounded as "Crowley's correction" in the face of the fact that over the course of several decades he never implemented it despite numerous opportunities; some may therefore consider this use of language "Alice in Wonderland".

Personally I don't go along with the idea that any change to The Book of the Law is sacrilege, though I respect the views of those who do. In this case, though, I'm struck by the sheer banality of the change; I can't see that it adds anything to our understanding of The Book of the Law.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/05/2013 1:18 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
This "fill/kill jihad" (ie. jihad: struggle) may not matter much in the present time, as the "fillers" can basically boycott any versions with "kill" in them, but the scenario has a much larger potential to effect "Thelemites" many generations into the future.

Yes, I do understand and indeed sympathise with this point. Personally I think that the change that has been made will always be a controversial one, the more so perhaps for it being propounded as "Crowley's correction" in the face of the fact that over the course of several decades he never implemented it despite numerous opportunities; some may therefore consider this use of language "Alice in Wonderland".

Personally I don't go along with the idea that any change to The Book of the Law is sacrilege, though I respect the views of those who do. In this case, though, I'm struck by the sheer banality of the change; I can't see that it adds anything to our understanding of The Book of the Law.

I agree with the exception of sacrilege, on the conventional level*. It's okay to disagree on this, but I honestly do not understand how anyone who identifies themselves as a Thelemite does not consider the foundational document upon which Thelema sits to be anything but sacred. Just as I would not expect a Muslim to dismiss the Quran, or a Daoist to dismiss the Daodejing, failing to consider either of those texts anything but sacred.

People identify themselves with Thelema because of The Book of the Law. And I do not understand how, if someone chooses to identify themselves with a text (The Book of the Law) or ideal (Thelema), that text or ideal is not exalted to a point in which it is considered sacred. (Perhaps I am witnessing the birth of "Sunday Thelema"?)

I like Shakespeare's works, but, I do not elevate his works to the point where I call myself a Shakespearean, though some do. Likewise, some people like George Lucas' Star Wars so much that they elevate his works to the point where they actually identify themselves as Jedi.

This doesn't just sit at a superficial level. It goes all the way to the identity level. And, in my opinion, something that someone finds so worthy of their devotion (be it Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, America, Britain, Thelema, etc.) so as to actually identify themselves with it (by calling themselves Christian, Hindu, Buddist, America, British, Thelemite, etc.), is by definition sacred to that person.

Or hell, even to those who just collect Crowley books. If you have more than 100 books, and you could only leave 10 of them to prosperity, would you leave a copy of The Book of the Law? If you have 50 books, and could only leave 5, would The Book of the Law be one of them? If you only could leave one book for prosperity, would The Book of the Law be it? If so, The Book of the Law may actually have some "sacredness" even to someone who is just an avid collector.

* I did say conventional level. Since this response is to you, Mr. Staley, I purposefully did not go into a "Two Truths" situation. Ultimately, the Book is just another text. And if that's the level that you are referring to, then we are in agreement.


ReplyQuote
ZIN
 ZIN
(@zin)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 82
16/05/2013 3:14 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
…I'm struck by the sheer banality of the change; I can't see that it adds anything to our understanding of The Book of the Law.

In my opinion, Crowley did not correct the editions of BOTL to reflect the correct change “K”, because the Book was now public and “Kill or Fill” adds nothing to the book or our understanding of it.  He could have changed it, but why bother… He probably didn’t want a controversy like we have here that’s much to do about nothing.  (Alright, now you can tear me apart.  😉


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/05/2013 4:04 am  
"ZIN" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
…I'm struck by the sheer banality of the change; I can't see that it adds anything to our understanding of The Book of the Law.

In my opinion, Crowley did not correct the editions of BOTL to reflect the correct change “K”, because the Book was now public and “Kill or Fill” adds nothing to the book or our understanding of it.  He could have changed it, but why bother… He probably didn’t want a controversy like we have here that’s much to do about nothing.  (Alright, now you can tear me apart.  😉

Had he thought a change necessary and wanted to avoid a controversy, he would have most probably changed it himself.

I'm boggled how some proponents of "kill" are completely short-changing Crowley's competency and acumen.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3350
16/05/2013 4:31 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
[snipped for clarity] Personally I think that the change that has been made will always be a controversial one, the more so perhaps for it being propounded as "Crowley's correction" in the face of the fact that over the course of several decades he never implemented it despite numerous opportunities; some may therefore consider this use of language "Alice in Wonderland".

Personally I don't go along with the idea that any change to The Book of the Law is sacrilege, though I respect the views of those who do. In this case, though, I'm struck by the sheer banality of the change; I can't see that it adds anything to our understanding of The Book of the Law.

Could not agree more re both Alice and banality points.
I think, however, the intended reference may be to Through the Looking-glass, rather than ...In Wonderland:

But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.' [emphasis added]

Through the Looking-glass & What Alice Found There, ch. 6, "Humpty Dumpty"
*******
No one (not Nemo but no person) has responded as yet to my offer to replace all now-known-to-be-erratum "fill" copies of AL published in AC's lifetime with newly-printed "kill" copies as soon as the copyright-holders make them available- I am frankly puzzled, as I had expected a rush of responses & would like to renew the offer that all interested persons PM me to take advantage of this still-open offer.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3350
16/05/2013 4:56 am  

With apologies for double-posting:
Cynical parties might note that WB/HB has talked himself into believing AL is eligible for a very substantial extension of the copyright term thereto, what with the new not-revised-but-corrected edition being eligible for a fresh new copyright.
Again, as I have said above, I do not doubt for a moment that WB/HB is sincere (nor do I waver in my belief that, as far as Thelema goes, he is misguided), but it is a very convenient position to talk oneself into, as the OHO of an organization whose main source of revenue is those soon-to-expire copyrights they bought a few years back, isn't it?


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
16/05/2013 8:15 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
I'm boggled how some proponents of "kill" are completely short-changing Crowley's competency and acumen.

93!

What now? The most sacred text or AC's property? You can't have both. Do not change it because it so sacred or because Crowley never did so he probably didn't want to? Maybe he wanted to change it (I think most of the evidence shows that "kill" would be correct in the poem) but the book was too sacred for him? And maybe people today might consider CCXX not really as Class A as XXXI? It really doesn't change anything about Thelema, but some people here are becoming quite hysterical about the sacredness of the book. Are the stele paraphrases being part of the inspired text or not? I guess this is a debatable question, but many arguments just hide behind "Do not change one letter! It is forbidden!" completely ignoring that XXXI isn't subject to change and CCXX already was and is a totally different text from the holograph.

So a short "case closed" is really quite a disappointing view. (imho)

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4094
16/05/2013 11:25 am  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
It really doesn't change anything about Thelema, but some people here are becoming quite hysterical about the sacredness of the book. Are the stele paraphrases being part of the inspired text or not? I guess this is a debatable question, but many arguments just hide behind "Do not change one letter! It is forbidden!" completely ignoring that XXXI isn't subject to change and CCXX already was and is a totally different text from the holograph.

Most of the posts demurring from the change have been anything but hysterical. Few have raised the "change not..." argument; most take issue with the assertion that this is "Crowley's correction".

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
So a short "case closed" is really quite a disappointing view. (imho)

In my opinion the issue has been debated fully and, in most cases, reasonably.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
16/05/2013 11:33 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"These terms can also be used in a non-spiritual or semi-spiritual context ("sacred truths" in a constitution)." The U.S. Constitution is not a religious text, but counts as a sacred American document, for instance. (The Constitution of the U.K.?)

Sorry, Azidonis, but I have to inform you that us Brits (UKs doesn’t seem appropriate somehow) famously do not have a written Constitution. I like to think we take it “as read”, but the history of Civil Liberties infractions over the years tells me this is not quite so.  The danger of having anything written down though will be that it will end up being the usual committee job (you now the joke about an elephant described by a committee as being like a very big horse with a big nose, maybe?)

"Azidonis" wrote:
H.B.'s statement of, 'Oh, you can just change it back if you want,' is a way of telling any would-be "filler" that happens to buy a "kill" version to just go ahead and change the Book, reverting it back to "fill", which puts those people in the position of changing a letter of a Class A document, if the "kill" versions are going to be considered Class A. In other words, he pretty much invited everyone in future generations to mimic his actions, only in reverse.

This "fill/kill jihad" (ie. jihad: struggle) may not matter much in the present time, as the "fillers" can basically boycott any versions with "kill" in them, but the scenario has a much larger potential to effect "Thelemites" many generations into the future.

Yes, this is exactly what I have been saying all along, amidst all the semi-jocular references to the Third Reich coming for those poor saps who never put up a resistance to them nor even questioned what might be their motives.  Not that Bill is on a par with Adolf Hitler of course (of course!  That goes without saying) – but he must be on a par at least with Martin Luther, say?!

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
In this case, though, I'm struck by the sheer banality of the change; I can't see that it adds anything to our understanding of The Book of the Law.

This is certainly true, Michael, and the end result is that it doesn't add anything.  Speaking just for myself, I can quite easily swap between fill and kill according to my own interpretation/s of the context.  I don't need someone else "correcting" me or the books that I study (I use the word intentionally here) to do that.  But "still" - didn’t someone once say something about “the banality of evil”?  (I believe the reference was about Adolf Eichmann, if I’m not wrong.  Not that I’m saying H.B. is like Adolf Eichmann, of course!…)

"ignant666" wrote:
Could not agree more re both Alice and banality points.
I think, however, the intended reference may be to Through the Looking-glass, rather than ...In Wonderland:

But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.' [emphasis added]

Through the Looking-glass & What Alice Found There, ch. 6, "Humpty Dumpty"
*******
No one (not Nemo but no person) has responded as yet to my offer to replace all now-known-to-be-erratum "fill" copies of AL published in AC's lifetime with newly-printed "kill" copies as soon as the copyright-holders make them available- I am frankly puzzled, as I had expected a rush of responses & would like to renew the offer that all interested persons PM me to take advantage of this still-open offer.

Liked the 'Humpty Dumpty' quote, which seeemd most apposite.  Regarding your offer of replacement - Too kind, sir, too kind – but I must abjure your generous proposal.  Maybe some other readers would like to take you up though?  There must be some to whom it doesn’t matter a fart in a jig…

"ignant666" wrote:
Cynical parties might note that WB/HB has talked himself into believing AL is eligible for a very substantial extension of the copyright term thereto, what with the new not-revised-but-corrected edition being eligible for a fresh new copyright.
Again, as I have said above, I do not doubt for a moment that WB/HB is sincere (nor do I waver in my belief that, as far as Thelema goes, he is misguided), but it is a very convenient position to talk oneself into, as the OHO of an organization whose main source of revenue is those soon-to-expire copyrights they bought a few years back, isn't it?

Ha!  Now there’s a story…  Too long for this thread, though.  I may go into it in detail on these boards though one of these fine days…. (God, I mean Paul willing)

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
So a short "case closed" is really quite a disappointing view. (imho)
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
In my opinion the issue has been debated fully and, in most cases, reasonably.

I suspect however it is very much not “case closed”, and that this one will run and run….

Already seemingly on that treadmill (& trying to get off – & will we ever??!),
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
16/05/2013 11:59 am  

93, Michael!

Well, maybe "hysterical" is a little strong, but as I see it the notions of "a rift in Thelema" and "future generations being effected" or "the kill/fill jihad" sounds quite over the top to me (maybe I am following this controversy on too many places also), especially - as you so nicely commented - while the change is so banal. I hope nobody feels offended by "hysterical".

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
In my opinion the issue has been debated fully and, in most cases, reasonably.

So far I am not very convinced. There's a lot of "reverse argueing" involved, all about what Crowley could have done or did not do. The only documented "action" he seems to have taken is the correction in the Holy Books. I still think it is worth thinking about how to treat a possible "error" he made in regards of CCXX.

Anyway, to say it's "fill" in XXXI so it has to be "fill" in CCXX seems quite evasive to me, because obviously they are not the same books.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
16/05/2013 2:29 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Well, maybe "hysterical" is a little strong, but as I see it the notions of "a rift in Thelema" and "future generations being effected" or "the kill/fill jihad" sounds quite over the top to me (maybe I am following this controversy on too many places also), especially - as you so nicely commented - while the change is so banal. I hope nobody feels offended by "hysterical".

Didn't you mean to *wink* there after hysterical, real?  😉

"My guitar want to fkill yo' mama", (after F. Zappa)
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/05/2013 2:42 pm  
"ignant666" wrote:
With apologies for double-posting:
Cynical parties might note that WB/HB has talked himself into believing AL is eligible for a very substantial extension of the copyright term thereto, what with the new not-revised-but-corrected edition being eligible for a fresh new copyright.
Again, as I have said above, I do not doubt for a moment that WB/HB is sincere (nor do I waver in my belief that, as far as Thelema goes, he is misguided), but it is a very convenient position to talk oneself into, as the OHO of an organization whose main source of revenue is those soon-to-expire copyrights they bought a few years back, isn't it?

An astute observation.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
I'm boggled how some proponents of "kill" are completely short-changing Crowley's competency and acumen.

What now? The most sacred text or AC's property? You can't have both. Do not change it because it so sacred or because Crowley never did so he probably didn't want to? Maybe he wanted to change it (I think most of the evidence shows that "kill" would be correct in the poem) but the book was too sacred for him?

Gone over this before. If Crowley wanted it changed, he would have undoubtedly invoked his right as "Prophet" and changed it. You know good and well that he liked to distinguish between Crowley the man and 666 the Office.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
And maybe people today might consider CCXX not really as Class A as XXXI?

Is 220 printed as Class A, or is it not?

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
It really doesn't change anything about Thelema, but some people here are becoming quite hysterical about the sacredness of the book.

Are you going to argue that Crowley did not consider the book to be sacred?

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Are the stele paraphrases being part of the inspired text or not? I guess this is a debatable question, but many arguments just hide behind "Do not change one letter! It is forbidden!" completely ignoring that XXXI isn't subject to change and CCXX already was and is a totally different text from the holograph.

The stele paraphrases were to be inserted later, due to time constraints. You know this. And, the earliest mention of its inclusion into The Book of the Law contains the word "fill". Also, the earliest version extant of the poem in full contains the word "fill".

One can argue until the cows come home for a change to "kill", but it does not change these two facts.

And again, I assert that Crowley had over 30 years to change Liber 220 had he saw fit, and he did not do it. Therefore, it is my contention that those supporting a change to "kill" are inadvertently asserting that Crowley was either negligent or incompetent (meaning he was either too lazy or too stupid to make the change), and Crowley's history supports neither negligence nor incompetence.

The evidence we have publicly at this time does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that a change should be made from "fill" to "kill". And since it does not do so, no change should be made.

I should clarify something. In the other thread I made some remarks about making personal corrections. It would be proper to state that, as meticulous as I am, had I written a "k" on a margin, then yes it is feasible for one to think whether or not I really intended a change. However, I would have made certain to have that changed in the very next publication of the Book. This did not happen with Crowley in any further publication of the Book. As such, it gives credence to the margin letter "k" as being nothing more than a side note, some sort of personal note, either to him or to someone else, not as an actual change to XXCC.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
93, Michael!

Well, maybe "hysterical" is a little strong, but as I see it the notions of "a rift in Thelema" and "future generations being effected" or "the kill/fill jihad" sounds quite over the top to me (maybe I am following this controversy on too many places also), especially - as you so nicely commented - while the change is so banal. I hope nobody feels offended by "hysterical".

You don't think this will only serve to further increase the divisions in Thelema? Have you not already seen it?

There are at least two lineages of A:.A:. who have publicly asserted that they remain with "fill". Undoubtedly there are more. Thus far, the only lineages of A:.A:. who appear to have accepted a change to "kill" is Gunther's, as anyone might guess.

As for future generations, we've gone over this before. The amount of editions of Liber 220 that are in circulation today, if this change goes through, will be a finite amount. Unless private publishers create more "fill" versions, eventually versions of the Book containing "fill" will be extremely scarce. No, this won't happen overnight, but over time.

Add to that, we are talking about two versions of a Book that is not supposed to be changed even a style of a letter. So the "fillers" and the "killers" directly oppose one another. This is not merely a difference of opinion. This is a doctrinal difference that is much more glaring than any type of lineage interpretation of the text, due to the fact that there will be two different texts of the same book. How do you not see this as causing many problems in the future?

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
In my opinion the issue has been debated fully and, in most cases, reasonably.

So far I am not very convinced. There's a lot of "reverse argueing" involved, all about what Crowley could have done or did not do. The only documented "action" he seems to have taken is the correction in the Holy Books. I still think it is worth thinking about how to treat a possible "error" he made in regards of CCXX.

You are seeing his inaction in changing the letter as in indication that he was negligent in the issue. The evidence we have refutes that claim.

This is the Crowley we are talking about. Here's how he felt prior to the re-discovery of the MS:

"Confessions wrote:
Apart from short trips to Paris, I was in England till autumn, when I thought it best to keep well out of the way during the actual time of the trial. I took Neuburg to be my chela and we left London on November 10th. In the meanwhile I was doing comparatively little personal magical work and my lyrics were all of lesser importance. The fact of the matter was that I had got to the end of my tether. The gods had put their foot down --- thus far and no farther! I felt myself my life had become broken up into a succession of insignificant adventures. But I did not know why. The reason was that one cannot work beyond a certain point in a New Aeon on a formula of the Old, and I had sealed my stubborn refusal to make The Book of the Law the basis of my work by taking advantage of the technical excuse that I could do nothing in the absence of the manuscript. And that had been lost for years.

You haven't been doing this, but others have inadvertently attempted to downplay the importance of The Book of the Law in Crowley's life and work. The above passage alone shows that not only was it important to him, he felt that he honestly could not "progress" without it. Said "progression" was, to Crowley, of paramount importance!

He made the statement many times about how his work stands or falls on its own. The Book of the Law is the cornerstone of the entire system. Without it, his Great Work falls.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Anyway, to say it's "fill" in XXXI so it has to be "fill" in CCXX seems quite evasive to me, because obviously they are not the same books.

Love=Law
Lutz

They are not the same books... but is CCXX not supposed to be a faithful printed replication of XXXI? Is it not supposed to mirror it?

As for the "all the other corrections", had Crowley not made them himself (along with Rose, under their "Offices of Beast and Scarlet Woman"), I would be arguing that they all be placed into XXCC in order to make XXCC mirror XXXI as accurately as possible.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
16/05/2013 3:25 pm  

An excellent posting, Azidonis.  A minor typo, which affects your whole meaning, though, was as follows:

"Azidonis" wrote:
As for the "all the other corrections", had Crowley not made them himself (along with Rose, under their "Offices of Beast and Scarlet Woman"), I would not be arguing that they all be placed into XXCC in order to make XXCC mirror XXXI as accurately as possible. [my bold insertion - jb]

The usual trouble with double (or even treble) negatives, I find!  I always slip up there myself!

"Azidonis" wrote:
There are at least two lineages of A:.A:. who have publicly asserted that they remain with "fill". Undoubtedly there are more. Thus far, the only lineages of A:.A:. who appear to have accepted a change to "kill" is Gunther's, as anyone might guess.

The A.'. A.'. lineage with which I am most closely involved (Crowley-Yorke-King thence to Suster and myself) does not accept this change and would remain with “fill”, if that’s any more use/ comfort (not that I would wish to discuss this particular aspect any further) …

Wishing for peace, expecting war
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/05/2013 3:36 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
An excellent posting, Azidonis.  A minor typo, which affects your whole meaning, though, was as follows:

"Azidonis" wrote:
As for the "all the other corrections", had Crowley not made them himself (along with Rose, under their "Offices of Beast and Scarlet Woman"), I would not be arguing that they all be placed into XXCC in order to make XXCC mirror XXXI as accurately as possible. [my bold insertion - jb]

The usual trouble with double (or even treble) negatives, I find!  I always slip up there myself!

Thanks, but it's not a typo. Maybe a grammatical error or something. Sorry. Double negatives are a symptom of my "southern heritage", and something I must be constantly mindful of in writing.

If all of the cross-outs and changes made to the manuscript were done, but Crowley had printed into CCXX what was present before they were changed (and we would be having a similar issue), then I would be arguing to not change the text in favor of the write-overs.

In other words, and I'm short on time at the moment, but here. I would argue in favor of keeping the writing that had been crossed out, had Crowley decided to print it that way.

Basically, in my opinion, the only two people able to change/edit the Book were/are Crowley and Rose. And I stand by the decision that what Crowley wanted CCXX to be is what he printed it to be, barring typographical errors, which he said were fixed. In every publication of CCXX it was "fill", and so it should remain.

"jamie barter" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
There are at least two lineages of A:.A:. who have publicly asserted that they remain with "fill". Undoubtedly there are more. Thus far, the only lineages of A:.A:. who appear to have accepted a change to "kill" is Gunther's, as anyone might guess.

The A.'. A.'. lineage with which I am most closely involved (Crowley-Yorke-King thence to Suster and myself) does not accept this change and would remain with “fill”, if that’s any more use/ comfort (not that I would wish to discuss this particular aspect any further) …

Wishing for peace, expecting war
N. Joy

Noted.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
16/05/2013 3:58 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
In other words, and I'm short on time at the moment, but here. I would argue in favor of keeping the writing that had been crossed out, had Crowley decided to print it that way.

Just an aside: it’s a funny thing, but I personally have always preferred the original and rather disliked the “whiter words” version of this verse (Liber AL I.26).  It rather seemed to me like it was saying, in effect: oh, that’s too much for the ordinary folks reading to take, or else too advanced for their present understanding of physics - let’s put it more in terms that they can understand better.  Which is true in a way.  But it detracts from the full meaning.

Please do carry on!
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5329
16/05/2013 9:39 pm  

Moderator's Note

I'm merging this thread with the other 'Kill' or 'Fill' thread for clarity.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 436
17/05/2013 4:16 am  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
So far I am not very convinced. There's a lot of "reverse argueing" involved, all about what Crowley could have done or did not do. The only documented "action" he seems to have taken is the correction in the Holy Books.

Love=Law
Lutz

Dwtw

Lutz - I would argue that one documented action was to make a marginal K in Thelema 1909, but there were numerous undocumented actions - namely, leaving the text alone for over 30 years. AC also documented a correction in EQ1(10) for proofreading in advance of the EOTG; by leaving fill as it was in that edition, we have evidence that he did not want it changed. There was no need to take 'documented' action; leaving it alone was action enough.

Nevertheless, despite the semantics, I take your meaning. But what weakens this one documented action on the part of AC is that there are no further proof marks, no note of explanation, and no other action taken about it. Except for giving away the very book that had the notation in it.

At this stage, the most crucial points on both sides have been made by interested parties. In my view, the logical arguments and evidence favor the Fill camp, though it also seems reasonable to suspend judgment, so I have no real beef with those who would be neutral. But I don't see a lot of compelling evidence from the Kill side, and interestingly enough, not a lot of defense of their position on this and other forums. If the change is so compellingly necessary, then it would seem easy to defend it, now wouldn't it? But so far, HB is the main proponent, with a handful of people supporting the position but not saying much in its defense; at least not nearly as much as those of us who have decided against it.

I would think that if my argument was so full of holes, someone could easily refute my essay point by point. Time will tell if that ever happens.

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
17/05/2013 7:59 am  

Bel Murru et al

I think Hermetic.com initially changed verse III,37 in versions of the text hosted on their site in conformity with latest O.T.O. correction of the text.They quickly changed it back to fill.I haven't seen those changes but I remember the matter being commented on O.T.O. Face Book group.

Re Rose's handwriting - examples of it ,other then those in Liber XXXI ,can be found in Yorke collection.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
17/05/2013 2:02 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
  I guess this is a debatable question, but many arguments just hide behind "Do not change one letter! It is forbidden!" completely ignoring that XXXI isn't subject to change and CCXX already was and is a totally different text from the holograph.... to say it's "fill" in XXXI so it has to be "fill" in CCXX seems quite evasive to me, because obviously they are not the same books.

Greetings/DWTW,

I have to admit -  the announcement that the OHO of the OTO was changing out a letter in The Book of the Law was so jaw-dropping for me that it actually shocked me into paying attention to the latest Thelemic controversy again (I started ignoring them sometime after the Rabelaisian Heresy of '07.)  To be clear, it doesn't affect me personally in the least - I follow my Will, and I no longer have any affiliations or obligations to trip that up. 

But from my perspective, this is a surprising change of attitude towards how the Book of the Law is to be treated. Bill Heidrick's words here sum up what was the dominant attitude in the culture where I was "raised": http://hermetic.com/heidrick/salutes.html.  The Book of the Law - the talismanic base and "Light" of modern Thelemic ritual life, at least where I come from - consisted of both Liber CCXX and Liber XXXI, since the handwritten MS is required per the instructions to be published with any typed transcripts, and CCXX serves to make the MS clear, since deciphering the handwriting is messy business.  The "correct form" was considered to be whatever was in the MS, as attested by Heidrick's essay.  I cannot recall anyone in my decade of heavy participation ever raising the possibility that the MS itself could be in error. The inconsistency with the paraphrase of the Stele and its use elsewhere was occasionally noted, but it simply wasn't important - the MS *was* the Book of the Law, and as close to the actual transmission as one could get.  Whatever has happened in the past several years has apparently changed things considerably. It could be that people are looking more critically at the text (which could be a good thing, in my opinion) or it may represent a shift in the life cycle of the religion away from the traditional "only by appeal to my writings, each for himself."

In any case, a century-old taboo has been broken - one that evidently Crowley himself observed when it came to publishing The Book of the Law. From what has been found so far, it cannot be conclusively determined that Crowley intended to disregard that taboo. A marginal notation isn't strong enough evidence for me, personally, given the intimate nature of marginalia.  There would need to be some other evidence showing the intention for it to result in a change to CCXX, as it would make the two texts that make up the "The Book of the Law" in publication inconsistent with each other.  That could raise considerable problems, and require a good bit of explanation to keep the talismanic meaning of The Book coherent.  Crowley appears to become more invested over time in the idea of the book as the new Gospel which he was specially chosen to evangelize, and to promote the literal application of the text as a prophecy of world events (thinking of Henrik Bogdan's work here, in particular.)  So I have a hard time believing that he was prepared to insist on his earlier paraphrase as the "correct" wording when it could potentially cast doubt on the text's credibility and weaken its function. I agree with RLG et al. that a "documented inaction" is in this case stronger than the "documented action" of a marginal notation that was not mentioned elsewhere.

As for future impact:  HB has expressed  his firm belief in the intention expressed by the marginal note, and thus, his conviction that in breaking the taboo, he is fulfilling his obligation to "obey the prophet" even when it means overriding his personal choice or opinion (pages 6-7 of the first essay.) That is, of course, entirely his call to make, though it does, to my mind, place his personal will/calling/interpretation between the text and future individual readers, particularly for those who would be swearing oaths regarding it as a talismanic device. But since it's all between consenting adults, that's their business. For the rest of us, I can't see that it would really affect things other than possibly to further solidify the divide between those who see Crowley as their prophet and head of a religious hierarchy, and those for whom Crowley is something else - historical figure, initiatic teacher, interesting dude, whatever.  Unless it does impact the copyright issue (and I'll leave that for the legally adept folks to speculate about.)

The breaking of a taboo can either lead to atrocity or liberation, depending on whether the taboo reflects a necessary truth or mere superstition.  We'll just have to see what all it unleashes. I personally feel there is as just as much potential for positive effects, as the challenges and opportunities for new investigations that this dispute presents could be very beneficial to the legacy overall.  I have been very impressed and am very grateful for the diligent work done by all of those who have help to dig out the historical path of the publications....that kind of effort is essential to keep things straight, whatever comes of it. 

LLLL,
M


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1022
18/05/2013 12:43 am  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
What now? The most sacred text or AC's property? You can't have both. Do not change it because it so sacred or because Crowley never did so he probably didn't want to? Maybe he wanted to change it (I think most of the evidence shows that "kill" would be correct in the poem) but the book was too sacred for him? And maybe people today might consider CCXX not really as Class A as XXXI? It really doesn't change anything about Thelema, but some people here are becoming quite hysterical about the sacredness of the book. Are the stele paraphrases being part of the inspired text or not?

In the quote above it is argued that the evidence shows that "kill" would be correct in the poem or stele paraphrases, and that it is a debatable question if the poem or the stele paraphrases are part of The Book of the Law understood as an inspired text.

AC claimed that the inspired text The Book of the Law replaces the formula of the Dying and Resurrected God (Osiris), with the formula of the Crowned and Conquering Child (Horus), and that the poem or the stele paraphrases were written before receiving said book which replaces the formula of the Dying and Resurrected God (Osiris).

My point is that AC never correcting the word fill to kill, can be understood in the context of the word fill to AC being in line with the new formula of the Crowned and Conquering Child (Horus) introduced by The Book of the Law, more than the word kill in a poem that according to AC was written before the replacement of the old formula of the Dying and Resurrected God (Osiris).   


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
18/05/2013 4:48 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"ignant666" wrote:
With apologies for double-posting:
Cynical parties might note that WB/HB has talked himself into believing AL is eligible for a very substantial extension of the copyright term thereto, what with the new not-revised-but-corrected edition being eligible for a fresh new copyright.
Again, as I have said above, I do not doubt for a moment that WB/HB is sincere (nor do I waver in my belief that, as far as Thelema goes, he is misguided), but it is a very convenient position to talk oneself into, as the OHO of an organization whose main source of revenue is those soon-to-expire copyrights they bought a few years back, isn't it?

An astute observation.

Ah. As we say down south, "*There's* the dead elephant in the room that nobody is talking about."

This exact thought has crossed from my right cortex to my left cortex, but in my heart, I don't think that the Frater Superior would do this merely for some filthy lucre. And, in the end, Liber XXXI remains unchanged, and pre-change copies of Liber CCXX will still be available for the student through used books, and from the very .txt and .pdf files that the O.T.O. itself has made publicly available on the Internet. Come to think of it, all the pre-change copies of Liber CCXX and "The Law Is For All" will now become even *more* collectable!


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3350
18/05/2013 4:56 pm  
"Walterfive" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
"ignant666" wrote:
With apologies for double-posting:
Cynical parties might note that WB/HB has talked himself into believing AL is eligible for a very substantial extension of the copyright term thereto, what with the new not-revised-but-corrected edition being eligible for a fresh new copyright.
Again, as I have said above, I do not doubt for a moment that WB/HB is sincere (nor do I waver in my belief that, as far as Thelema goes, he is misguided), but it is a very convenient position to talk oneself into, as the OHO of an organization whose main source of revenue is those soon-to-expire copyrights they bought a few years back, isn't it?

An astute observation.

Ah. As we say down south, "*There's* the dead elephant in the room that nobody is talking about."

This exact thought has crossed from my right cortex to my left cortex, but in my heart, I don't think that the Frater Superior would do this merely for some filthy lucre. And, in the end, Liber XXXI remains unchanged, and pre-change copies of Liber CCXX will still be available for the student through used books, and from the very .txt and .pdf files that the O.T.O. itself has made publicly available on the Internet. Come to think of it, all the pre-change copies of Liber CCXX and "The Law Is For All" will now become even *more* collectable!

As I tried to make clear, I don't myself believe that HB/WB is doing this "merely for some filthy lucre" or doubt his sincerity here. I was merely pointing out that his sincere position just happens to be one that coincides with self- and institutional interest in prolonging the period during which OTO will derive revenues from the AC copyrights.
As some terrible cynic once observed, "it is difficult to get a man to understand a thing when his livelihood depends on not understanding it."
As to your comments on the possible effect of the "correction" on the future value of now-known-to-be-erratum copies of AL issued during AC's lifetime: Perhaps this is why my offer to replace all such with fresh new corrected copies has found no takers? The offer remains open until further notice to the contrary.


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 535
18/05/2013 9:06 pm  

I voted for "fill". To me the current head of the OTO is a man who is infested with lawsuits & keeping "control" over AC's legacy. Under his leadership they have not been able to bring to completion any major endevour. He paints this long story over their failure to produce due to technological glitches, & then informs us that they are suing, that he wants our money, & Oh yeah: he is changing "The Book Of The Law".


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
19/05/2013 5:23 pm  
"Horemakhet" wrote:
Under his leadership they have not been able to bring to completion any major endevour.

Exsqueeze me? What is "Astrology"? "Book 4/Liber ABA/Magick?" "The Equinox Vol. IV, Nos. 1 & 2?" The new editions of "Gems" and the Crowley-supervised Wilkinson edit of "The Law Is For All"? Chopped liver?

Bullsh!t on that.


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 450
19/05/2013 9:18 pm  

Exactly, WalterFive, and please add to the above: Equinox, III: 10; Liber Aleph; The Heart of the Master; Eight Lectures on Yoga; Tao Teh Ching; Little Essays Toward Truth; Oriflamme 1 and 2; The Drug and Other Stories; and Simon Iff and Other Stories: all of these come with introductions, notes, bibliographies, etc.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5329
19/05/2013 9:45 pm  
"Horemakhet" wrote:
I voted for "fill". To me the current head of the OTO is a man who is infested with lawsuits & keeping "control" over AC's legacy. Under his leadership they have not been able to bring to completion any major endevour.

As WalterFive and Palamedes have pointed out, the statement that the OTO has 'not been able to bring to completion any major endevour [sic.]' is clearly nonsense. However, of more interest is your linking of this misrepresentation with a decision to reject the 'kill' amendment. I respect both perspectives on the 'kill' or 'fill' debate but am baffled as to what this has to do with your perception that the OTO hasn't 'completed' other work to your personal satisfaction!

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
19/05/2013 11:03 pm  

Surely all of those books sold because Breeze edited and published them, not because they were written by Aleister Crowley.  ::)


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5329
19/05/2013 11:28 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Surely all of those books sold because Breeze edited and published them, not because they were written by Aleister Crowley.  ::)

I realise, Azidonis, that you find it difficult to leave any post untouched without a sarcastic response, but what on earth does this have to do with anything?

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
20/05/2013 1:52 am  
"lashtal" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Surely all of those books sold because Breeze edited and published them, not because they were written by Aleister Crowley.  ::)

I realise, Azidonis, that you find it difficult to leave any post untouched without a sarcastic response, but what on earth does this have to do with anything?

I'm willing to bet that Horemakhet was aware of the long list of Crowley books that H.B. edited, when s/he said:

"Horemakhet" wrote:
I voted for "fill". To me the current head of the OTO is a man who is infested with lawsuits & keeping "control" over AC's legacy. Under his leadership they have not been able to bring to completion any major endevour. He paints this long story over their failure to produce due to technological glitches, & then informs us that they are suing, that he wants our money, & Oh yeah: he is changing "The Book Of The Law".

ReplyQuote
SatansAdvocaat
(@satansadvocaat)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 351
20/05/2013 5:13 pm  

34 pages to this thread and still going strong ?  Must admit to not having read everyone of them although the subject is a matter of significance.  If that sounds like understatement, forgive me, but some people do appear to have been losing a sense of perspective about it.  I think its fair to state that William Breeze appears to have a penchant for the academic minutiae of Thelema, but textual cross-referencing and an obsession with scholarly footnotes has surely gone awry this time.  As stated, I've not sifted through every page of the thread and someone may have mentioned this, but as well as the evidence of the MS, surely context has relevance:

Appear on the throne of Ra!
Open the ways of the Khu!
Lighten the ways of the Ka!
The ways of the Khabs run through
To stir me or still me!
Aum! let it fill me!

38. So that thy light is in me; & its red flame is as a sword in my hand to push thy order…

"Aum! let it fill me!  So that thy light is in me" - no matter how 'esoterically' you interpret "kill me!", its a nonsense.  And now an officially sanctioned piece of nonsense.

Not surprisingly, I was one of those 44 people - wow! an whole 44 of LAShTAL.COM's members - who voted in the poll and was to be counted in the majority, not that I'm especially advocating democracy, you understand.

Love is the law, love under will.

S.A.


ReplyQuote
Candide
(@candide)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 49
20/05/2013 5:52 pm  
"Satan'sAdvocaat" wrote:
34 pages to this thread and still going strong ?  Must admit to not having read everyone of them although the subject is a matter of significance.  If that sounds like understatement, forgive me, but some people do appear to have been losing a sense of perspective about it.  I think its fair to state that William Breeze appears to have a penchant for the academic minutiae of Thelema, but textual cross-referencing and an obsession with scholarly footnotes has surely gone awry this time.  As stated, I've not sifted through every page of the thread and someone may have mentioned this, but as well as the evidence of the MS, surely context has relevance:

Appear on the throne of Ra!
Open the ways of the Khu!
Lighten the ways of the Ka!
The ways of the Khabs run through
To stir me or still me!
Aum! let it fill me!

38. So that thy light is in me; & its red flame is as a sword in my hand to push thy order…

"Aum! let it fill me!  So that thy light is in me" - no matter how 'esoterically' you interpret "kill me!", its a nonsense.  And now an officially sanctioned piece of nonsense.

Not surprisingly, I was one of those 44 people - wow! an whole 44 of LAShTAL.COM's members - who voted in the poll and was to be counted in the majority, not that I'm especially advocating democracy, you understand.

Love is the law, love under will.

S.A.

What an astute observation; well noted. I have purposely taken a week away from interweb land to get my own perspective uncluttered and on returning I find this, as if I needed further clarification. Might I add something that resonated strongly with me during my time away:

"May because be accursed forever!" (Liber legis II:30)

COMMENTARY: Distrust any explanation whatsoever. Disreali said: Never ask anyone to dinner who has to be explained. All explanations are intended to cover up lies, injustices, or shames. The Truth is radiantly simple.


ReplyQuote
Markus
(@markus)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 259
20/05/2013 8:52 pm  
"Satan'sAdvocaat" wrote:
Appear on the throne of Ra!
Open the ways of the Khu!
Lighten the ways of the Ka!
The ways of the Khabs run through
To stir me or still me!
Aum! let it fill me!

38. So that thy light is in me; & its red flame is as a sword in my hand to push thy order…

"Aum! let it fill me!  So that thy light is in me" - no matter how 'esoterically' you interpret "kill me!", its a nonsense.  [...]

S.A.

S.A., you're being overly emphatic in my opinion. It must be remembered that Crowley himself used, and came up with, the K-version. It is therefore unlikely to be complete nonsense. Furthermore, if we continue reading AL III:38 we find: The light is mine; its rays consume Me, suggesting that "kill" is undoubtedly an option. Additionally, let us not forget that the poetry in AL III suggests an identification of the poet with Ankh-af-na-khonsu, who is described as self-slain (AL III:37). Therefore, KILL can indeed make sense. To describe this as "nonsense" is going a little far - though I admire your enthusiasm 🙂
The evidence, as far as I am able to evaluate it, allows for both K and F. I too prefer F, but I'm willing to live with K - so long as the original F is retained as a textual variant!

Markus


ReplyQuote
⛄
 
(@jg)
Frosty the Snowman
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 144
21/05/2013 8:03 pm  
"threefold31" wrote:
For the record, the Trigrammton Gematria, derived from Crowley's own letter-attributions to Liber Trigrammaton, provide a grand total for Liber CCXX of 267696 = 11 x 156 x 156. This grand total has numerous factors, all of which sum to 884,988. That sum of the factors is itself the product of 61 x 93 x 156 - a product that includes two numbers specifically mentioned in the text, and the value of the name Babalon, which AC presumed was the 'secret name' of Nuit.

As usual Leo, you never cease to astonish in regards to the exquisite gematria Aleister Crowley embodied in Liber AL through the various techniques he employed.  Babbage is alive and well!  Thank you, for the above, it is great to see 61 appear so prominently in the Trigram Class A/B assignation of values.  The only work I know which begins to compare to his "literal Qabalah" is the Hebrew of the opening of Genesis through the Tower of Babel.  Of course the authors of Genesis had a couple of hundred years to work out their literal Kabbalah, and Crowley worked out his in around a decade.  I do not want to go into detail into this particular post, I will start a new post in response to ABN53, however, I will remark that your sum above, which I verified, equals using the minimum "unchanging" values of "chaos" of the the "old letters" of Nuit - which you are familiar with and once characterized as deriving from the Golden Dawn of AC ( asterisk signifies multiplication )

894,988 = Had! the manifestation of Nuit * Ra-Hoor-Khuit = 1891 * 468 =  Sum 61 * G * 156 = 31 * 61 * 468 = 93 * 61 * 156

The two great global sum solutions of AL using the "old letters" one of which you know and the other I only discovered last year are

AL = Prime 203 * Prime 718

AL 220 = Prime 13 * Prime 5907

Observe that the first equation is the finals sum of the names of the 23092 letters and the 13 numbers, and the second sum is the non-finals sum of the names of the 23092 letters, and the 433 number characters of the 13 numbers and 220 verse numbers, and it equals through the prime indices of its product, the number of numbers - 13, and the number of words & numbers of Liber AL vel Legis sub figura CCXX - 5907.  The canonical edition of CCXX at the OTO site prior to the recent change is used.   

John


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 436
22/05/2013 6:37 am  

Dwtw

That kind of high level gematria may not interest the average Thelemite, but it is spot on. The odds of the 5907th prime showing up, when there are 5907 words in Liber CCXX, is far beyond the realm of chance occurrence.

Now whether someone agrees with the Trigrammaton English gematria or not (as in my example), or whether they indulge in the use of the traditional Hebrew gematria (as in yours), it is precisely this kind of esoteric qabalah that one would expect from a book that is obviously encoded, and enjoins us to 'change not as much as the style of a letter'. Because every single component is vital to the workings of the whole.

The book is to be 'translated into all tongues', and that includes mathematics, the language of science.

Note has been made of the 220 K's in CCXX, (first brought to our attention by our old friend Fr. AMO on Holycram some 15 years ago), but not much has been said about the F's as well. Of course the change will make the total of K's become 221, and simultaneously reduce the number of F's from 620 to 619. Well, 221 = 13x17, which could be interesting; but 619 is prime and not terribly significant.

On the other hand, 220 and 620 are major cabalistic numbers:

220 is the sum of the 10 'mystic numbers' of the sefirot, (AKA the first 10 triangular numbers) as well as being part of the name of the Book, CCXX.

620 is the value of the word Keter - the name of the first Sefira on the Tree of Life - and is a multiple of 31 (Alef-Lamed), which is also part of the name of the Book: Liber AL vel Legis sub figura CCXX.

So in the very name of the Book we find two important numbers that are corrupted by this so-called 'correction'.

Let's take a very traditional gematria approach to see what happens:

If K = Kaph = 20, and F = Vav = 6, then the original totals in Liber CCXX are 4400 for K and 3720 for F.
Grand total of the two letters involved in this change is 8120 = 20 x 406:

20 is the letter Yod spelled in full as Yod-Vav-Dalet,
406 is the letter Tau spelled in full as Tau-Vav.

Now, what is the significance of the letters Yod and Tau?
Well, they're the 10th and 22nd letters of the Alef-bet, and 10 x 22 = 220, which is the number of our Book.

Change one letter to another, and none of this happens.

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
SatansAdvocaat
(@satansadvocaat)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 351
23/05/2013 11:35 am  
"Markus" wrote:
"Satan'sAdvocaat" wrote:
Appear on the throne of Ra!
Open the ways of the Khu!
Lighten the ways of the Ka!
The ways of the Khabs run through
To stir me or still me!
Aum! let it fill me!

38. So that thy light is in me; & its red flame is as a sword in my hand to push thy order…

"Aum! let it fill me!  So that thy light is in me" - no matter how 'esoterically' you interpret "kill me!", its a nonsense.  [...]

S.A.

S.A., you're being overly emphatic in my opinion. It must be remembered that Crowley himself used, and came up with, the K-version. It is therefore unlikely to be complete nonsense. Furthermore, if we continue reading AL III:38 we find: The light is mine; its rays consume Me, suggesting that "kill" is undoubtedly an option. Additionally, let us not forget that the poetry in AL III suggests an identification of the poet with Ankh-af-na-khonsu, who is described as self-slain (AL III:37). Therefore, KILL can indeed make sense. To describe this as "nonsense" is going a little far - though I admire your enthusiasm 🙂
The evidence, as far as I am able to evaluate it, allows for both K and F. I too prefer F, but I'm willing to live with K - so long as the original F is retained as a textual variant!

Markus

What, me ? When was I ever over-emphatic ?  ::)  Actually, I'd prefer to see it as being simply decisive/clear-sighted/Thelemic.  To paraphrase Candide's commentary:  "The True Will is radiantly simple".  Or it should be.

Having said that, Markus, I'm happy to take your comments on board.  They relate of course, to AC's poetical paraphrasing of the Stele verses and not to the words of Aiwass, although as AC states the inclusion of the verses was sanctioned by Aiwass.  Being 'consumed by the light' is not the same as being 'killed by the light' and this business about being 'self-slain' is rather dubious too.

Did go back to my books on the evening of my posting and consulted my copy of 'The Holy Books of Thelema', the one introduced by Grady McMurtry and examined the various translations of the hieroglyphic verses on the Stele.  None of them supported any idea of 'killing'.  I should have taken notes, but all of the verses are from "The Book of the Dead" identifying the dead man as an Osiris/Asar/wsur, whatever.  Even consulted them in Wallis Budge.  Where AC derived the idea of Ankh-af-na-khonsu being 'self-slain' from, I do not know; it has no basis in the Egyptian texts.

Also looked at my copy of Motta's 'The Commentaries of AL' - a beautifully produced volume, no matter what you make of Motta's own commentary.  It reproduces the colour plates of the Stele of Revealing with the versifications on the back that were in 'The Equinox of the Gods' and there we find 'Aum! let it kill me!', so I've been living with the concept for some time, (acquired the book in 1979).  Quite appropriate that in the title of the plate, the stele is called: 'The Stele of Revelling'.

93.  S.A.


ReplyQuote
⛄
 
(@jg)
Frosty the Snowman
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 144
23/05/2013 4:13 pm  
"threefold31" wrote:
That kind of high level gematria may not interest the average Thelemite, but it is spot on. The odds of the 5907th prime showing up, when there are 5907 words in Liber CCXX, is far beyond the realm of chance occurrence.

Now whether someone agrees with the Trigrammaton English gematria or not (as in my example), or whether they indulge in the use of the traditional Hebrew gematria (as in yours), it is precisely this kind of esoteric qabalah that one would expect from a book that is obviously encoded, and enjoins us to 'change not as much as the style of a letter'. Because every single component is vital to the workings of the whole.

Agreed.  Although in good humor I would characterize my use of the "old letters" more of a passing obsession, rather than an indulgence.  You get an idea in your head as kid, in this case, to solve a specific literal Qabalistic puzzle of a book, sometimes you never get it out of your head until you achieve your end, which thank God, I finally did achieve.  Whether anyone else thinks it worth anything is besides the point.  I endeavored to solve a puzzle in the spirit it was articulated, and I accomplished the end using the criteria I adopted.    It goes without saying that each component will be vital in an isopsephic sense only if indeed the worked is ciphered in such a manner.  In truth it was not until the leading posters of the “old crew” of Holycram directed my attention to the possibility of a global cipher of the work, that I began to explore in that direction. 

The book is to be 'translated into all tongues', and that includes mathematics, the language of science.

There is nothing wrong with taking an isopsephic approach to the work, Crowley appeared to place alot of value on it, as embodying proof of his beyond human authorship – although in the Equinox of the Gods he writes that “supreme human scholarship” is sufficient to unravel it.  It is true that much of what has been written on the subject is utter nonsense, and I will not even exclude my own work from that judgment!  But then most of what Crowley wrote is utter nonsense!  I do not think that anything either I or anyone else has discovered proves any beyond human authorship, however, I do think your work outside of any faith-based views to be solid scholarship.  Contemporary Thelemic internet criticism is fairly credulous taking almost any assertion or claim of Crowley as fact.  It should be categorized as Thelemic Theology, and not Thelemic Criticism.  As for the science in AL it appears to be little more than the science of his time, what little he knew.  His claims in regards to the math and science of AL are ludicrous.  That is not to say that it is not possible to employ a set of values which discloses a decently rich structure.  However, even the fairly rich structure my own research has disclosed, which will be summarized and forthcoming at some point, is not as rich as one might expect given all the grand claims the author made in respect to the work.  But then maybe I barked up the wrong tree!

Note has been made of the 220 K's in CCXX, (first brought to our attention by our old friend Fr. AMO on Holycram some 15 years ago), but not much has been said about the F's as well.

Yes, the inestimable lexicological work of AMO provided one base for my own work, although it was necessary later to replicate it so as to verify it.  There is something to be said for having one stratum of any literal Qabalah grounded on the actual lexicology of the work, although in the judgement of the writer that in itself is not sufficient.

In regards to the 'F' it is to be noted that traditionally in Hebrew, an undotted Pe sounds like an 'F', and an interiorly dotted Pe, sounds like a 'P', hence I transliterate both 'F' and 'P' by Pe, as the basis of my transcription into the "Assyrian alphabet" ( the name the Rabbis give to the alphabet they adopted ), is phonetically and historically transliterative, as well as invariant - one English letter is invariantly transliterated by one Assyrian letter - no exceptions.  Below you use the sound of the ‘V’ of ‘Vau’ to transliterate ‘F’ – as its sound in the word ‘of’ which appears 257 times in AL, a valid choice, which yields “Manifestation of Nuit = 418” when the ‘F’s’ are read phonetically, the first as ‘P(h)e’ and the second as ‘Vau’, and all these ‘T’s’ are read as ‘Teth’ actual sounds of them aside.  The criteria I used to determine which Assyrian letter to assign to which English letter although guided by phonemics, history, alphabetics, and Crowley and Golden Dawn usage, did face the choice of choosing one letter only, so for example, C had to have either the hard or soft sound as in “circle” - I chose the hard Kaph/Caph sound as the most common.

Ironically it was serendipity which resolved the initial choice of values, it was only after the fact that I could also say that the sounds chosen are those most common to the letter as we are taught in either kindergarten, or first grade, and that it is the minimum valued set of values possible to transliterate English into Assyrian characters.  Crowley had a habit of varying the values to suit his purpose, which is fine as far as I am concerned, however, it is helpful when initially analyzing a work to have a set of unchanging values to see if the set adopted unitarily discloses deep and surface structure whether local and global – if not – into the dumpster of history it goes. 

If it does disclose structure, and solves whatever outstanding conundrums one may have conceived the work to possess, then one is at leisure to vary the values and see if anything else of note arises.  As there gradually developed on the Internet Boards devoted to the subject, a Thelemic Qabalistic consensus on the puzzles to be solved, and general ideas on what their solution might possibly encompass and entail, it became possible to derive what might loosely be characterized as objective solutions.  Of course all these results beg the question of authorship, degree of intelligence, and even scientific validity, a can of worms I do not want to open here. 

Using the variables of stress-energy, gravity, motion, and space, a structure quite complex yet possessing the highest simplicity and unity, is disclosed in the equations of the General Theory of Relativity.  These equations are infinitely beyond any structure disclosed to date through any literal Qabalah in Liber AL, yet no one ( or very few ) takes the equations of Relativity or the structure of the “Real” from which they are derived, as proof of the divine authorship of either the former or that latter. 

The isopsephic analysis of AL is essentially non-repeatable, it is a static structure, the only change or repeatable experiment able to be introduced is that of varying the values, and then try through the very thorny question of the probability of x equaling x to determine the likelihood of a given set of words equaling another given set or a specific number.  Generally, I have avoided the latter approach, and taken the old “watch on the seashore” approach, in which the art or design of the object ought to be so sufficiently obvious as to be immediately transparent to the eye of an intelligent observer.  Static objects are of course in a different category that moving objects of art, like a watch.

Of course the change will make the total of K's become 221, and simultaneously reduce the number of F's from 620 to 619. Well, 221 = 13x17, which could be interesting; but 619 is prime and not terribly significant.

On the other hand, 220 and 620 are major cabalistic numbers:

220 is the sum of the 10 'mystic numbers' of the sefirot, (AKA the first 10 triangular numbers) as well as being part of the name of the Book, CCXX.

620 is the value of the word Keter - the name of the first Sefira on the Tree of Life - and is a multiple of 31 (Alef-Lamed), which is also part of the name of the Book: Liber AL vel Legis sub figura CCXX.

So in the very name of the Book we find two important numbers that are corrupted by this so-called 'correction'.

Yes.  The fact that Crowley numbered the book so that there be 220 verses does suggest he intended there to be a "Tree of Life" and "Hebrew Alphabet" basis to its "literal Qabalah" whatever "theoretical Qabalah" - say Trigrammaton - he may also have designed.  The fact is there is no Class A assignation of values.  The Trigram values may be Class A, but the letters he assigned are at best Class B.  Similarly, even if the Assyrian letters I have chosen to transcript the English by are the best and most likely fit, e.g., Abrahadabra = 418, et cetera - and the proof will always be in the pudding - they still are at best Class B - human scholarship - unless of course I do what Crowley did, claim high grades of initiation, and convince others I am an Ipsissimus ( you did not know ? ), and then publish the order & value under the Seal of the Holy and August Order of which I am the Visible and the Invisible Head.  The document which assigns the significance of the Liber Class Categories is not even in a Class.  Perhaps Crowley here is slying reflecting on the problem Russell and Whitehead faced with logical Classes in Principia Mathematica. 

If the solution is right, does it take an Ipsissimus to decipher a Magus? 

I unequivocally am not the or a child of the prophet, nor do I claim any grade, my work is that of simple historical research, and a lot of hard persevering work.  Whether the fruit is worth the labour is another matter.  I was a child who came under his spell.  I evidently was not as intelligent as I thought I was to come so easily under his spell.  We can not all be perfect.

On the transliteration of the letter ‘F’ by the undotted ‘Pe’ Crowley’s Qabalistic investigation of the letter 'Pe' in the Cephaloedium Working may be pertinent, where he multiply emphasizes the identity of the “fortress” and the “House of God” in Liber AL. 

One may remark as an aside, not as a proof, that the word “fortress” here equals 620 - the number of 'F's' assigned to 'Phe' - using the very values equal to the "great mystery of the House of God", which precedes “All these old letters of my Book” - that is the 27 Assyrian letters used to transliterate the 26 English letters, equal in value the 27 letters of the "great mystery of the House of God" which precede the 26 letters of "All these old letters of my Book" - so that the English alphabet itself transcripted into Assyrian by this minimum method equals the name of the letter B spelled in full.  X is transliterated as a dyad for phonetic reasons, and accords in sound with the consonants of the word "CHAOS" in the final verse of Liber B.

Let's take a very traditional gematria approach to see what happens:

If K = Kaph = 20, and F = Vav = 6, then the original totals in Liber CCXX are 4400 for K and 3720 for F.
Grand total of the two letters involved in this change is 8120 = 20 x 406:

20 is the letter Yod spelled in full as Yod-Vav-Dalet,
406 is the letter Tau spelled in full as Tau-Vav.

Now, what is the significance of the letters Yod and Tau?
Well, they're the 10th and 22nd letters of the Alef-bet, and 10 x 22 = 220, which is the number of our Book.

Change one letter to another, and none of this happens.

An excellent little result using the values you have chosen.  One may also remark that if the number of verses of AL be 220 and the number of K's 220, the name of the work and the name of the letter both spelled in full equal each other

AL = ALPh LMD = 185 = KPh PhE = KPh

By the way, I wrote incorrectly above in regards to the transliteration methodology used to transcript English letters into Assyrian letters.  All letters except for one are transcripted through a one to one mapping that never varies, however, one letter - X - which has no analogue in ancient Assyrian is transcripted using two Assyrian characters.  The modern usage in Hebrew of using Tzaddi to transliterate the appearance of X in European tongues for words adopted into modern Hebrew, for instance, transliterating MATRIX as MATRITz, has no real historical phonetic basis.  We can improvise, If "Tzaddi is not the Star" mayhap we can agree with Nietzsche in this particular instance "one must have chaos in oneself to give birth to a dancing star."

John

"It is certain that every letter of this cipher hath some value; but who shall determine the value? For it varieth ever, according to the subtlety of Him that made it.
And He answered Him: Have I not the key thereof?"  LXV I 52-53

"the letters?  Change them not in style or value!" AL II 54


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
23/05/2013 4:57 pm  

93!

But as always, there are other gematria approaches. One would - maybe even with more confidence - state that the F is not Vav, but Pe or Fe, which has the value 80.

Thus we have in the Fill version of CCXX:

220 K's = 220 x 20 = 4400
and
620 F's = 620 x 80 = 49600
the sum of which is 54000 which leaves us clueless.

But in the Kill version we have:

221 K's = 221 x 20 = 4420
and 619 F's = 619 x 80 = 49520
the sum of which is 53940
and 53940 = 93 x 580
whereby 580 is the value of the Shofar Horn which when blown marks the end of (judeo-christian) time and the coming of the new Messiah and 93 is ... well, we all know.
Fits...

Just a guess...

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
⛄
 
(@jg)
Frosty the Snowman
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 144
23/05/2013 5:29 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
But as always, there are other gematria approaches. One would - maybe even with more confidence - state that the F is not Vav, but Pe or Fe, which has the value 80.

Yes, that is how I transliterate the F as noted above.

Thus we have in the Fill version of CCXX:

220 K's = 220 x 20 = 4400
and
620 F's = 620 x 80 = 49600
the sum of which is 54000 which leaves us clueless.

It is always possible to discover something or other.  For instance transcripting using the minimum Hebrew values

54000 = The word of the Law is θελημα * כפ = Star & Star * כפ = Take your fill of love! * כפ

An argument for "fill" ?!

It equals product of verse 39 and the sum of the two letters in question!

But in the Kill version we have:

221 K's = 221 x 20 = 4420
and 619 F's = 619 x 80 = 49520
the sum of which is 53940
and 53940 = 93 x 580
whereby 580 is the value of the Shofar Horn which when blown marks the end of (judeo-christian) time and the coming of the new Messiah and 93 is ... well, we all know.
Fits...

Just a guess...

An excellent result.  Although the value of any given literal Qabalah ought in the judgement of the writer to be measured in reference to its complete application to the work, for instance, what it accomplishes summing the verse in question, other verses, the book in totality.  Whether the F & K switch is significant enough to be a major determining criterion of a given literal Qabalah is  debatable.  I personally do not care either way, it only affects the global sums of my work, which although sweet, do not bear upon the rest of my work.  However, is so far as a given literal Qabalah can be used to help determine the question of F or K either way - a dubious proposition at best - I think a global sum or a verse sum or a chapter sum would be more relevant than the number of occurances of letters.  However, there is something to be said for a mathematical analysis using letter frequencies et cetera prior to the application of any specific literal Qabalah, given the variability in the valuation of the letters.

John


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
23/05/2013 5:33 pm  
"John Griffith" wrote:
I personally do not care either way, it only affects the global sums of my work, which although sweet, do not bear upon the rest of my work.

93!

That's a healthy and commendable approach.

Let's never forget the importance of JOY!

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Page 10 / 12
Share: