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

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

Page 2 / 12

belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"terra_trema" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:

One question I have come up with is - what does "it" refer to?

The light.

Okay. I "feel" that too, when I say "let it fill me!". But technically, "it" should have an antecedent. The Light appears in the following verse.

I suppose I prefer, on rereading it, to think that "it" is the "presence" of Ra-Hoor-Khuit.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"belmurru" wrote:
"terra_trema" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:

One question I have come up with is - what does "it" refer to?

The light.

Okay. I "feel" that too, when I say "let it fill me!". But technically, "it" should have an antecedent. The Light appears in the following verse.

I suppose I prefer, on rereading it, to think that "it" is the "presence" of Ra-Hoor-Khuit.

"Aum! let it fill me! The light is mine; its rays consume Me:" -- the light, or the presence of RHK, I'm fine with both. I think the one is a metaphor for the other.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"terra_trema" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
"terra_trema" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:

One question I have come up with is - what does "it" refer to?

The light.

Okay. I "feel" that too, when I say "let it fill me!". But technically, "it" should have an antecedent. The Light appears in the following verse.

I suppose I prefer, on rereading it, to think that "it" is the "presence" of Ra-Hoor-Khuit.

"Aum! let it fill me! The light is mine; its rays consume Me:" -- the light, or the presence of RHK, I'm fine with both. I think the one is a metaphor for the other.

I agree, then.

I'm satisfied we've solved it.

What we perhaps haven't solved is whether the now-lost vellum book with the poem as Crowley composed it read "kill me" or "fill me". The manuscript of Liber Legis is annotated with "fill me", which would seem to be the closest witness, chronologically, to what the notebook contained. But the printed version of the poem in The Equinox I,7 (between pages 368 and 369) has "kill me", and of course the 1909 copy of ΘΕΛΗΜΑ, that started all this discussion, has the "f" of "fill me" crossed out and "K !" written in the margin.

RHK's presence, the light, could "consume" or "kill" and "fill" to become "mine". I suppose I've reached a place where the imagery evoked by either word works.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"terra_trema" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:

One question I have come up with is - what does "it" refer to?

The light.

I alluded to this earlier, but it was overlooked, I suppose.

"Azidonis" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
It makes even less sense when we realize that Ankh-f-n-Khonsu is already dead, and in fact wants to come back to full life, in a body, "among the living".

In this context, the Light "filling" Ankh-f-n-Khonsu would bring him to life, no? As in, the Operation of the Angel.

Of course, being completely full of the Light would also "kill" the ego (persona, identity) of Ankh-f-n-Khonsu, no? As in, the Operation of the Abyss.

HGA, aka RHK, etc.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 

"Kill" obviously doesn’t mean the same as murder in a Thelemic sense – I prefer to think of it as – transfiguration, I suppose.  Azidonis came very close to summing up the matter in Reply #24 (which I did not overlook at all!) when he wrote:

In this context, the Light "filling" Ankh-f-n-Khonsu would bring him to life, no? As in, the Operation of the Angel.
Of course, being completely full of the Light would also "kill" the ego (persona, identity) of Ankh-f-n-Khonsu, no? As in, the Operation of the Abyss.

But I think belmurru nailed it precisely in a nutshell in Reply #19:

It makes even less sense when we realize that Ankh-f-n-Khonsu is already dead, and in fact wants to come back to full life, in a body, "among the living".

(Oh, dear!  We all seem to have been ‘discussing’ the ‘contents’ of the third chapter of The Book of the Law!  Ah, well, never mind!)

I am intuited by my "Angel" – to whom I am but a hollow scribe – to put down the following for some reason:

IT will reve-al itself!

Pardon me!  Thank you for allowing me a momentary indulgence, although please don’t ask me to explain further.  I have not been taking strange chemicals (well no stranger than usual anyway).  Carry on…

Would anyone happen to know if H.B. (or “Father Barrè” from Ken Russell’s superb film The Devils [of Loudun], as myself and Gerald Suster used to regard him!) has abdicated or been overthrown yet?!  - “Kill” not “fill”?  Kill Bill, I say! (has anybody seen that other relevant film by Tarantino?)

With
N. Joy
meant


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

To whom it may concern,

The "very important text correction to Liber CCXX III:37 which resolves a longstanding textual difference" as published on 10 April 2013 ( http://oto.org/news0413.html) is unjustified. Why, because:

1 - Crowley wrote a versification (a poem) called A PARAPHRASE OF THE INSCRIPTIONS UPON THE OBVERSE OF THE STELE OF REVEALING. This contains the word "fill" (verse four, line six).

2 - As dictated by Aiwass, a handwritten note (including the word "fill") instructs Crowley to incorporate a portion of his poem into Liber L. (Chapter III, Verse 37).

3 - At some point prior to September 1906 (Harry Ransom CWIII appendix), Crowley changed his mind about the poem and replaced 'fill' with 'kill.'

4 - Thereafter, whenever the word appeared as a poem Crowley used 'kill.' Conversely, in CCXX it is always printed as 'fill.' - This must be the case since (to resolve issues of this type) Aiwass stipulated that a facsimile of the manuscript must be included with all editions.

5 - (EoG, page 119) "There was, however, no actual voice audible save that of Aiwaz. Even my own remarks made silently were incorporated by him audibly, wherever such occur."  Crowley stated quite explicitly that even his own thoughts were voiced by Aiwass, therefore Class A and not to be changed. Crowley certainly adhered to this game's internal rules (i.e. he retained his 'abrogated' word, 'fill,' when used as part of CCXX, but employed his preferred 'kill' when used as a poem). The III, 37 note may reference a poem/word written by Crowley, but was dictated by Aiwass, so is Class A and immobile - As confirmed by Crowley's own works.

6 - Whilst wearing his A.A. hat, H.B. is - arguably - entitled to determine what is (or has become) Class A in CCXX, but not XXXI. In this instance, the change to CCXX is predicated on an illegal (with reference to its internal rules) change to XXXI.

Therefore... The "very important text correction to Liber CCXX III:37..." is unjustified, even if 'kill' was Crowley's preference in his poem.

Incidentally, it may prove useful to consider the above with reference to "#Reply 29 - Go ask Alys. I think she'll know..." as posted on this thread.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"R.T.Cole" wrote:
As dictated by Aiwass, a handwritten note (including the word "fill") instructs Crowley to incorporate a portion of his poem into Liber L. (Chapter III, Verse 37).

[...]

The III, 37 note may reference a poem/word written by Crowley, but was dictated by Aiwass, so is Class A and immobile - As confirmed by Crowley's own works.

I'm not so sure that any part of the poem was supposedly dictated. From Equinox of the Gods:

"Crowley" wrote:
It is to be noted that the translations from the Stele in verses 37-38 were no more than instantaneous thoughts to be inserted afterwards.

Verse 38 begins with my address to the God in the first sentence, while in the second is his reply to me. He then refers to the hieroglyphs of the Stele, and bids me quote my paraphrases. This order was given by a species of wordless gesture, not visible or audible, but sensible in some occult manner.

Emphasis added. So I'm not sure that the song was dictated at all. The "fill me" in the manuscript appears to have been written with pencil at a later time anyway, as if Crowley were just making notes as to what goes there.

Incidentally, it may prove useful to consider the above with reference to "#Reply 29 - Go ask Alys. I think she'll know..." as posted on this thread.

I'm getting pretty bored with you making coy references to this book you're supposedly going to publish one of these days (that is, you call the decision to make this change "a rather clumsy and pre-emptive pre-rebuttal of a larger 'issue' that will rear its ugly head in a soon-to-be-released book.").

Ho-hum. If you know something relevant, tell us. If not, get lost and try to promote your book somewhere else.


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 482
 

Dwtw

I must second the notion that the OTO is in no position to change the wording of an A.A. document in Class A. It really doesn't matter whether there was a typo or not, what was 'supposed' to be published or not. Liber CCXX is Class A and can't be changed. There were ample opportunities to remedy this situation while the original A.A. authorities were alive to do so. All of them are dead, so how is it that those who have succeeded them, (and no, let's not start a lineage argument here), are in a position to undo those decisions? There must be a lot more to this story than is being released to the public at this time.

But separate from the question of legitimate action by an A.A. authority empowered to do so, there is the question of the change itself...

Regarding the changing of 'fill' to 'kill', first of all the paraphrase in question reflects nothing that is actually on the stele, so there is no going back to the hieroglyphs to determine fitness. If AC had written Ptah for Tum, it would be easy to show that this was an error. But setting aside the fact that 'kill me' reflects nothing on the stele, it does seem odd for a dead man to ask to be killed! He has already claimed that he is 'self-slain', (another phrase not found on the stele), and in the paraphrases of the obverse, he (Ankh-f-n-khonsu) twice mentions that he is a dead man.

Another point is that certainly the paraphrases were written before the dictation and are not the utterance of Aiwass. This alone does not, however, disqualify them from being Class A, since all the other Holy Books were also written by AC under inspiration, not dictation. And AC had invoked Thoth in March 1904, and claimed that this god had appeared, so it's possible that the
paraphrases were the adumbration of what was about to come. Certainly the stele is considered the magickal talisman of the Cairo Working, so merely making contact with it again after all those centuries may have had a catalytic effect on the psyche of AC.

I believe that the idea that somehow the Secret Chiefs have provided this copy of Thelema 1909 at an opportune time when the Holy Books are being republished, in order to indicate an editorial change, is hardly a compelling premise, and certainly unprovable. It may be more sensible that such 'chiefly intervention' has already been manifested in the three major publications of Liber 220 in AC's lifetime - authorized by him, and given the status of Class A.

Let us presume for the sake of argument, that it can be proven that AC wrote the 'k' in Windram's copy. Although nearly impossible to prove, let's just say it's true. Does this alone prove the 'intent' of AC that this is the correct word to appear in Liber 220? I for one fail to see how this case can be made. Perhaps AC wrote it in there to remind Windram he should do his Resh with that word instead
of 'fill'. Perhaps he wrote it for a different reason. Considering how prolific AC was when it came to marginalia, why is there no explanation of the 'K'? No note that says 'replace' or anything of the sort. It seems that the weight given to this letter is out of proportion with it's objective importance. It is simply too little evidence to go on. At best, it should be mentioned in a thorough footnote (such as belMurru's explanation) as circumstantial evidence that AC intended such a change. But that change was never made, despite many years and many publishers at his disposal. So really, how important could this change have been to AC, if he never bothered to actually make it happen?

What is certainly true is that whenever the paraphrases were published, the word was kill, and whenever 220 was published, the word was fill. Why then is it justified to change 220 based on what appears in the paraphrase? Do they necessarily have to match? Why shouldn't the presumption be that when AC jotted the pencil note indicating what parts of the paraphrase to include in verse 37, he actually had the vellum book at hand and consulted it and decided that's how much should go in that space? (the reverse of the stele never made it in at all).

This might be nothing more than a forensic and editorial exercise if this were simply an edition of a normal work of literature, but this is a Class A document, one which specifically states that not a letter of it should be changed. So if one is going to do exactly that, there ought to be very persuasive reasons for it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And I don't see such evidence in this case. And Liber CCXX also says that a copy of the holograph must accompany all editions of it in typeset form. Why? For precisely this reason, so that those in control can't just change it when it suits their desire for revisionism or editorial prominence, and so that the original can always be consulted about questions of the Law, each to himself.

The question of intent is the key. And not the intent of Crowley, but the intent of Aiwass. He was the minister of HPK who delivered the Law, and he is the one who gave precise instructions on its content, its publication, its commentary, and its preservation. It is Aiwass who turned AC's poetry into a Class A text, by insisting it be put into the Book in the first place. Are we to conclude that one letter jotted down by an unconfirmed person trumps what is written in the ms itself, and published under AC's imprimatur many times over? Without further evidence, there is simply too much reasonable doubt in this case.

As anecdotal evidence against the change, when I heard the news I went into my archives and dug out my facsimile copy of The Equinox of the Gods, purchased in 1986, a copy I have not opened in probably a dozen years. I asked my Angel for a bibliomantic response to the question at hand, and opened the book at random. My finger landed on the first words of verse 1:54 "Change not as much as the style of a letter..."

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 

…the [1909 Thelema] book includes …a very important text correction to Liber CCXX III:37 which resolves a longstanding textual difference between three sources… In this copy Crowley's marginal holograph note clearly corrects “fill me!” to “kill me!” in the text of Liber CCXX.

As noted in the OTO IHQ news post, a single word in Liber CCXX has been corrected to reflect newly available information concerning Crowley's intention for the text. In III:37 fill should read kill

Please reassure me, someone, that this is not a case of ‘Caliphornia’ Uber Alles?

Going for a shower (most invigorating!),
N. Joy
///////


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 

The following appeared in “The Equinox” Vol. V No. 1(pp. 269-72), ed. Marcelo Motta:

“Upon Mr Germer’s death his rightful Successor, for lack of any being specifically appointed, should have been chosen from among the National Kings of the O.T.O. one year after the O.H.O.’s demise, by unanimous ballot.  At such elections Candidates are considered first in order of rank; then in order of antiquity; last in order of merit….
By rank and antiquity Mr. Germer’s Successor would normally have been Herr H.J. Metzger, known as Frater Paragranus IX[sup:3atpyhps]o[/sup:3atpyhps], then Head of the Swiss branch of the O.T.O. and working with a full charter….However, Herr Metzger had been guilty of several breaches of Magickal Discipline in the years preceeding Mr. Germer’s death, to wit:

1.Had changed the text to Mr. Germer’s translations of the Holy Books of Thelema into German to fit what he, Herr Metzger, considered more appropriate rendition [e.g., swelling “DU willst” in Liber AL];

2.Had “expurgated” his version of the Gnostic Mass, in that the Priestess, who is supposed to incarnate Nuit during the proceedings, no longer unclothed her body as a Symbol of the Truth and Purity of the Goddess;

3.Had altered the styling of the translation of the verses of Liber AL into German to fit his own misconceptions of the Law;

[…]Any of the above should have been sufficient cause for the expulsion of Herr Metzger from the Sanctuary of the Gnosis [….]”

Motta also adds: “Let it be known that Herr H. J. Metzger was expelled from the Sanctuary of the Gnosis by authority of the present Head of the Order of Thelema [i.e., M. R. Motta]; but he is also convoked to work in humility and obedience to the Christ, TO MEGA THERION, that his heart may be weighed in the scale of the next Five years, and his worth as a man and a brother tested in the true forge of Service.  And let all those who persist in disobedience and discord to the Work and Will of the late O.H.O., Frater SATURNUS X[sup:3atpyhps]o[/sup:3atpyhps], know the weight of Our displeasure.”[!]

Sauce for goose = gander?
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 5354
Topic starter  

I'm really unclear as to what this has to do with the topic.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"lashtal" wrote:
I'm really unclear as to what this has to do with the topic.

It's curious when anyone mentions Motta in connection with the O.T.O.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4256
 
"lashtal" wrote:
I'm really unclear as to what this has to do with the topic.

That's an understatement.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

Los - "Ho-hum. If you know something relevant, tell us. If not, get lost and try to promote your book somewhere else."

I suggest you take a look at the recent "Downloads" thread. Is this 'relevant' enough for you? As for "get lost!" Really, I'd expect a more eloquent response from a petulant seven year-old! 😮


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 

So, the 1907 galley proofs say "fill me" in the transcription of Liber L at III,37 (p. 242), but "kill me" in The Great Invocation on page 245.

That is pretty uncontroversial to me. Haven't we already established that Crowley seems to have been unable to make up his mind which word he preferred, but that, nevertheless, he left "fill me" in all of the printed versions of The Book of the Law in his lifetime, which he had plenty of opportunity to correct if he had cared very much?


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"lashtal" wrote:
I'm really unclear as to what this has to do with the topic.

That's an understatement.

Well if one has to explain things more than one thought one had inferred, it really makes one wonder if it was worth the bother mentioning it at all in the first place! 

However: the reason is one of precedence, which the OTO (in whatever form, except possibly Michael’s) has always laid great measure by.  The present leader or “Frater Superior” of the ‘Caliphornian’ recension of the Order has in effect changed, or ordered the change, of one letter in a, if not The, Holy Book Class A.  This is a most serious matter for all Thelemites.  Although I do not wish to draw any direct parallels with the Nazi party, for that would be silly, it is also undeniable that from such “little acorns” their totalitarianism in belief grew.

H.B.’s predecessor but one, Karl Germer, effectively “excommunicated” (i.e., cut all communication with) Metzger, the national leader of the Swiss OTO, for the same crime, even though it appears to have been carried out in a German translation context.  That shows how hardline Germer was about the matter, and he was nominated by Crowley & showed A.C. had sufficient confidence in his abilities to be his successor.  I can understand Michael’s reluctance to get involved in the repercussions, since Germer actually did expel Kenneth Grant from the Ordo Templi Orientis in 1955; but that is not an issue for here either.  Personally, I think under all the circumstances Grant was right to take no notice.  However getting back to the point, if precedent has been set in the matter and no leader (by which I take it in the broadest sense of no IX[sup:1fo4l753]o[/sup:1fo4l753] and X[sup:1fo4l753]o[/sup:1fo4l753], but in fact let alone any member!)  in the Order is allowed to do so (quite apart from the injunctions within The Book itself), HB himself should either do the right thing and stand down, or be forced to do so by those with whom he is directly associated, assuming that they still have the power to do so and haven't "Bye-lawed" themselves into impotence...

Sorry to seem as if I am bringing ‘politics’ into the matter’, Paul.  But I’m not really.

From a slubberdegullion with squeaky feet,
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 

But the "verse translations of the stele inscriptions" are NOT "Class A". They are not the words of Aiwass, or V.V.V.V.V., or inspired in any way. They are the work of Aleister Crowley, trying to make a rhyming poem out of a French prose translation. He apparently couldn't make up his mind whether he liked "let it fill me!" or "let it kill me!" better, as both are continuously attested throughout his life.

HB apparently thinks that the 1909 marginal annotation is sufficient authority for changing the text of Liber CCXX at III,37. Many disagree.

But the change has not been made in secret, or silently, and it is not to a part of the text that is Class A anyway.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"belmurru" wrote:
But the "verse translations of the stele inscriptions" are NOT "Class A". They are not the words of Aiwass, or V.V.V.V.V., or inspired in any way. They are the work of Aleister Crowley, trying to make a rhyming poem out of a French prose translation. He apparently couldn't make up his mind whether he liked "let it fill me!" or "let it kill me!" better, as both are continuously attested throughout his life.
...
But the change has not been made in secret, or silently, and it is not to a part of the text that is Class A anyway.

I fundamentally disagree that they do not come under Class A, belmurru.  The whole of Liber CCXX, the published version, is in Class A - the handwritten version, Liber XXXI, naturally so.  All of the editions of Liber AL in Crowley’s lifetime ascribed to the same printing with verse 37 – that of fill me, not kill me.  So now everything’s to be changed with a pencil mark in some 1909 book?  Where will this end?  The ‘Caliphornian’ OTO’s “Revised” Version in twenty years time, with whole verses unrecognizable and more “tuned in” to the new order??

"belmurru" wrote:
HB apparently thinks that the 1909 marginal annotation is sufficient authority for changing the text of Liber CCXX at III,37. Many disagree.

Snort!

"Oh to find a door that doesn’t bring me back here again – take me away!"
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
I fundamentally disagree that they do not come under Class A, belmurru.  The whole of Liber CCXX, the published version, is in Class A - the handwritten version, Liber XXXI, naturally so.  All of the editions of Liber AL in Crowley’s lifetime ascribed to the same printing with verse 37 – that of fill me, not kill me.  So now everything’s to be changed with a pencil mark in some 1909 book?  Where will this end?  The ‘Caliphornian’ OTO’s “Revised” Version in twenty years time, with whole verses unrecognizable and more “tuned in” to the new order??

"belmurru" wrote:
HB apparently thinks that the 1909 marginal annotation is sufficient authority for changing the text of Liber CCXX at III,37. Many disagree.

Snort!

"Oh to find a door that doesn’t bring me back here again – take me away!"
N. Joy

I think we need a dose of common sense here, Jamie. Crowley worked on the versification of the stele before and outside of those three days of dictation. He says that those verses are his own work. It is simply an over-literal interpretation to insist that because they are included in CCXX under the Class A rubric, that they are inspired in the sense that the spirit of the Class A rubric intends.

I mean, is it reasonable to think that, when published apart from the book, the versification is just a poem of Aleister Crowley, but, when published in the context of having been inserted into Liber CCXX, they suddenly become holy, inspired, unchangeable, etc?

Also, I don't think slippery-slope hysteria is justified here. The change has some authority, some antecedent, also very probably stemming from Crowley himself. It is not a change introducted willy-nilly by the OHO of OTO. The reason is given, an argument can be made. I don't buy it, personally, and I think it is not necessary or helpful. My solution was given above - an explanatory footnote for those who are puzzled that the versification standing alone and in the context of the ritual always has "kill me", while Liber CCXX always has "fill me". It should simply be left at that.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

belmurru - "I think we need a dose of common sense here, Jamie. Crowley worked on the versification of the stele before and outside of those three days of dictation."

What "three days of dictation" would that be? Are you speaking about events not recorded in Crowley's personal diary, or those not mentioned in his (later) Book of Results, or the reception not included in the aborted CWIII appendix, or the three days not mentioned in HBIII or Across the Gulf? Perhaps you are referring to the alleged event that simply pops up from nowhere in Equinox 1, 7 (March 1912) once the only person who can contradict Crowley's fantasy (Rose) has been shunted into an asylum? 


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 5354
Topic starter  
"R.T.Cole" wrote:
belmurru - "I think we need a dose of common sense here, Jamie. Crowley worked on the versification of the stele before and outside of those three days of dictation."

What "three days of dictation" would that be? Are you speaking about events not recorded in Crowley's personal diary, or those not mentioned in his (later) Book of Results, or the reception not included in the aborted CWIII appendix, or the three days not mentioned in HBIII or Across the Gulf? Perhaps you are referring to the alleged event that simply pops up from nowhere in Equinox 1, 7 (March 1912) once the only person who can contradict Crowley's fantasy (Rose) has been shunted into an asylum? 

R.T.Cole makes what I think is a very significant point here and one that I alluded to in my 'Crowley in Egypt' lecture, the notes of which are available on this site for download.

He and I draw, I suspect, different conclusions, but I think we are both justified in thinking it worth noting that the Book and account weren't published until Rose was out of 'play', as it were. Mr Cole has his own explanation, though I personally prefer an interpretation based on his fear of admitting, during a process leading inexoraby to an appearance in the divorce courts, the participation of a male lover (the 'waiter') during his honeymoon.

That's not to say I favour 'kill' or 'fill' or that I consider it appropriate - or not - for the head of the OTO to revise the text. That's a different question and one that isn't made any more transparent byJamie's rather enthusiastic attempts to return to discussions of post-Germer OTO disputes.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"belmurru" wrote:
Crowley worked on the versification of the stele before and outside of those three days of dictation. He says that those verses are his own work. It is simply an over-literal interpretation to insist that because they are included in CCXX under the Class A rubric, that they are inspired in the sense that the spirit of the Class A rubric intends.

I accept what you are saying, that he wrote the versifications outside the context.  What I’m saying is that despite that, it is nevertheless included under the Class A umbrella.  And how do you actually know they may not have been composed while “under the same spirit”?

"belmurru" wrote:
I mean, is it reasonable to think that, when published apart from the book, the versification is just a poem of Aleister Crowley, but, when published in the context of having been inserted into Liber CCXX, they suddenly become holy, inspired, unchangeable, etc?

This seems perfectly reasonable, to me.

"belmurru" wrote:
The change has some authority, some antecedent, also very probably stemming from Crowley himself. It is not a change introducted willy-nilly by the OHO of OTO. The reason is given, an argument can be made. I don't buy it, personally, and I think it is not necessary or helpful.

You appear to contradict yourself; on the one hand you say you find it “very probably Crowley himself” authorised the change, on the other you are saying that you personally don’t buy it.  Get off the fence, mein freund!

"belmurru" wrote:
My solution was given above - an explanatory footnote for those who are puzzled that the versification standing alone and in the context of the ritual always has "kill me", while Liber CCXX always has "fill me".

I totally agree(d) with your idea of an explanatory footnote , as I mentioned in an earlier Reply.

"belmurru" wrote:
Also, I don't think slippery-slope hysteria is justified here. ... It should simply be left at that.

Who was it who said something along the lines of: “if no one says something, then one day they will come for me and no one will be left to say anything?” - something along those lines, I paraphrase.  (It was something to do with the Jews in WW2 anyway.)  Call me ober-reacting, but that's what they said then, too.  It costs nothing to be vigilant.

I rest my case.

“Let me feel the way the breezes blow and I’ll show you where to go” – L. Lilith
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 

I meant to add:

"belmurru" wrote:
I think we need a dose of common sense here, Jamie.

Common sense? Pile it on!

"jamie barter" wrote:
Who was it who said something along the lines of: “if no one says something, then one day they will come for me and no one will be left to say anything?” - something along those lines, I paraphrase.  (It was something to do with the Jews in WW2 anyway.)  Call me uber-reacting, but that's what they said then, too.  It costs nothing to be vigilant.

I rest my case.

Can you imagine it? - “Kommen Sie all, zey said zere is a holiday camp for everyone over at Chez Belsen! ‘Zyklon B in zer showers?’ Stuff und nonsense.  Oi vey, you are a nutter! ‘Zey are firing up zer ovens?’ Ach, nein, who are you trying to kid – be quiet, now!  You’ll give us all an even worse name zan we hat already!”

Mioschievously Empty in my fullness,
For the Grand Parade Of Lifeless Packaging (it just needs a fuse!)
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 2130
 
"R.T.Cole" wrote:
(March 1912) once the only person who can contradict Crowley's fantasy (Rose) has been shunted into an asylum? 

Richard, 93!

Just a few thoughts:

AC and Rose were divorced in 1909 (funnily he is already then described as an inventor of a new religion, see my articles thread of late November http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=56.15) and I know of nothing that suggests they had contact after that, although he mentions her birthdays and her death somewhat sentimentally in later diaries. He clearly (as far as I know) wasn't involved in her being shunted into an asylum and his pre-divorce diaries (those that I know of) show his worries of her drinking problems. Do you think it is plausible that he really "waited" until 1912 for her being out of the way? It doesn't really make sense because her being institutionalized must have come as a surprise for him also. So why do you think he waited until 1912, when Rose was "out of the way" for him by 1909 already?

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"R.T.Cole" wrote:
belmurru - "I think we need a dose of common sense here, Jamie. Crowley worked on the versification of the stele before and outside of those three days of dictation."

What "three days of dictation" would that be? Are you speaking about events not recorded in Crowley's personal diary, or those not mentioned in his (later) Book of Results, or the reception not included in the aborted CWIII appendix, or the three days not mentioned in HBIII or Across the Gulf? Perhaps you are referring to the alleged event that simply pops up from nowhere in Equinox 1, 7 (March 1912) once the only person who can contradict Crowley's fantasy (Rose) has been shunted into an asylum? 

I have not yet seen any reason not to accept Crowley's chronology, the dates of 8, 9 and 10 April, and the year 1904, for the writing of the book. I also see no reason not to believe that he wrote it (or that part of him he called "Aiwass", the inspiration that possessed him). We know he could write like a demon, preferred to in fact. Liber VII is even longer than Liber L, and was written even more quickly.

I don't think Rose's involvement in "The Cairo Working" embarrassed him at all. Her writing is even in the book, and he considered it equally inspired, the words of Aiwass, even though she was not present in the room. I don't know when she added her words, but given what we discussed before it seems that she held the manuscript from sometime after their return to Boleskine in 1904, until July 1906. If he had wanted to erase her from the working, he could have simply rewritten the manuscript.

Crowley may not always have been the most careful of people, but he would have to have been unbelievably stupid to leave "Given from the mouth of Aiwass to the ear of the Beast on April 8, 9 and 10, 1904" immediately followed by "[This manuscript (which came into my possession in July 1906)...", if he were trying to deceive people as to the date of its writing.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 5354
Topic starter  
"belmurru" wrote:
I don't know when she added her words, but given what we discussed before it seems that she held the manuscript from sometime after their return to Boleskine in 1904, until July 1906.

I'm glad you've mentioned this, belmurru. The internal evidence of the manuscript itself is that it - the MS - existed physically at a time when AC and Rose were together. Of course, as far as I know, there's no obvious source of a sample of her handwriting to compare it with but  a suggestion that AC got someone else to write it and then pretended it was written by Rose seems to be quite a leap of imagination!

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"lashtal" wrote:
He and I draw, I suspect, different conclusions, but I think we are both justified in thinking it worth noting that the Book and account weren't published until Rose was out of 'play', as it were. Mr Cole has his own explanation, though I personally prefer an interpretation based on his fear of admitting, during a process leading inexoraby to an appearance in the divorce courts, the participation of a male lover (the 'waiter') during his honeymoon.

Although proof of homosexuality could indeed end careers and ruin lives in those days (and up to not too long ago, it must be remembered), I think that Crowley was in no danger from Rose making such an accusation, even if she knew with certainty that he had had trysts in Egypt. Crowley could just deny it, and would the court really try to find some guy in Cairo after five years had passed, and even if found he would certainly deny it too?

As it is, Crowley had to manufacture evidence of an affair - and a child! - with the teenager Jane Zwee. Rose went along with it. http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=56.msg73408#msg73408
(thanks especially to Lutz who provided so much about it in the "On this day in history" thread)


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"lashtal" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
I don't know when she added her words, but given what we discussed before it seems that she held the manuscript from sometime after their return to Boleskine in 1904, until July 1906.

I'm glad you've mentioned this, belmurru. The internal evidence of the manuscript itself is that it - the MS - existed physically at a time when AC and Rose were together. Of course, as far as I know, there's no obvious source of a sample of her handwriting to compare it with but  a suggestion that AC got someone else to write it and then pretended it was written by Rose seems to be quite a leap of imagination!

Yes, I'd like to see some of her handwriting too. Surely some must exist, letters for instance. I don't disbelieve that the writing in AL is hers, but there are those who will disbelieve it, so it would be nice to have the proof on hand.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
Common sense? Pile it on!

Can you imagine it? - “Kommen Sie all, zey said zere is a holiday camp for everyone over at Chez Belsen! ‘Zyklon B in zer showers?’ Stuff und nonsense.  Oi vey, you are a nutter! ‘Zey are firing up zer ovens?’ Ach, nein, who are you trying to kid – be quiet, now!  You’ll give us all an even worse name zan we hat already!”

Mioschievously Empty in my fullness,
For the Grand Parade Of Lifeless Packaging (it just needs a fuse!)
N. Joy

I'm not worried that in 50 years' time, the OTO, in an effort to whitewash Crowley, will have edited out all the nasty parts of The Book of the Law. Changing "fill" to "kill" would actually seem to go in the opposite direction.

No, we have the autograph manuscript, which has been published countless times and is freely available to view, thanks to that very OTO, warts and all.

I really don't get all the suspicion. I, personally, don't agree with changing CCXX III,37 to read "kill me", but the OTO has no power to cover up the fact that it was always "fill me" before, and no power to silence the debate that we are having about it. All of this will remain for those who might, in the future, wonder about it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"belmurru" wrote:
I'm not worried that in 50 years' time, the OTO, in an effort to whitewash Crowley, will have edited out all the nasty parts of The Book of the Law. Changing "fill" to "kill" would actually seem to go in the opposite direction.

No, we have the autograph manuscript, which has been published countless times and is freely available to view, thanks to that very OTO, warts and all.

The handwritten M.S. is painful to the eyes to read.  Yes - the content may be ultimately preserved in there, but at the end of the day I want to read the type and have it conform exactly to the M.S. without going blind! 

And what about this cryptography business that some commentators outside these hallowed halls have mentioned?  It seems a logical and a practical perspective, to suggest that you shouldn't change a book with cryptography in it because the change might queer the content or even leave it unreadable.   

Or this:  http://www.paganspace.net/forum/topics/the-temple-of-solomon-the-lost-word-and-the-key-of-it-all
I'm not well read enough to check the solution but she might have a point.

And there's the contribution of Cornelius that seems to laid it all down in a substantial and robust manner:
"NOTES ON LIBER AL VEL LEGIS
AND THE HOLY BOOKS OF THELEMA - "fill me" or "kill me"?

(1. The Collected Works Vol. III appeared in 1907 but Liber Al vel Legis, which was supposedly to be published in the Appendix, was removed before publishing. The proof copy is at the University at Austin, Tx – it clearly states – “fill me.”

(2. In the first few months of 1909 the A.’.A.’. was created.

(3. June 28th 1909 Crowley discovers the manuscript of Liber AL vel Legis in the attic. In the original manuscript Crowley wrote next to III:37 – “I adore thee in the song “I am the Lord of Thebes” & c from vellum book --- fill me” ….. The spacing in the original handwritten manuscript between verse 36 and 38 clearly shows that the above statement about verse 37 had to have been written at the commencement of Liber AL vel Legis, not scribbled in later. Oddly, it is as if the Gods knew that this would someday be a controversial issue spawned by centers of Thelemic Pestilence. The only piece of the original prayer from the vellum notebook which Crowley inserted into the manuscript of Liber AL vel Legis (in his handwriting) on April 10th 1904 is “fill me.”

(4. The Holy Books, Third Volume, 35 pgs, proof dated September 24th 1909, housed at the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, Austin, Texas. It states ‘fill me.’

(5. March 1910 James Thomas Windram joined the A.’.A.’. … He receives The Holy Book, and in the margin next to verse III:37 is the letter ‘K’ while the first letter of ‘f’ in ‘fill me’ is crossed out. Some are now claiming the ‘K’ was written by Crowley but if anyone examines Crowley’s letter ‘K’ in the original manuscript of Liber AL vel Legis, this ‘K’ in the margin is highly suspicious and may well be that of Windram’s, not Crowley’s.

(6. The Equinox Vol.I No.7 1912. Granted, when the Stele was published herein, the translation for the front states – “Aum, let it kill me.” ... But this is, by Crowley’s own admission, a “Paraphrase” of the original … The definition of ‘Paraphrase’ in the Webster’s dictionary is : “A restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words.” … Hence ‘kill me” is simply a rewording of the original manuscript which states ‘fill me.’ ... Which is more important? The rewording, or the original? ... Also, the manuscript itself was published in this book, and it clearly shows ‘fill me.’

(7. The Equinox of the Gods 1936. The typed version of Liber AL vel Legis in this book, on p.33, clearly states “fill me.” Later in the book Crowley states – “It is to be noted that the translation from the Stele in verses 37-38 were no more that instantaneous thought to be inserted afterward.” P.125. ... Again, the manuscript was published, and it clearly shows ‘fill me.’

The bottom line, it is obviously 'fill me' in Liber AL vel Legis and anyone or any A.'.A.'. lineage who changes this Class A manuscript should be shunned as a centre of pestilence. And swearing any magickal Oaths using such a volume only ties you to 'them' and not the Lords of the Aeon." - Satan in Berkeley (on Facebook).

Jaimie's points are also well made.  There is a standard and that standard is not a casual one and I think it was put there and upheld by intelligent men for a good reason. 


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"Allan McCormack" wrote:

(5. March 1910 James Thomas Windram joined the A.’.A.’. … He receives The Holy Book, and in the margin next to verse III:37 is the letter ‘K’ while the first letter of ‘f’ in ‘fill me’ is crossed out. Some are now claiming the ‘K’ was written by Crowley but if anyone examines Crowley’s letter ‘K’ in the original manuscript of Liber AL vel Legis, this ‘K’ in the margin is highly suspicious and may well be that of Windram’s, not Crowley’s.

I agree in principle that this isolated marginalia cannot be definitive, but I'm going to give HB the benefit of the doubt and assume that there are other marginal notes in the volume, which are clearly in Crowley's hand, and that this "K !" is from the same hand.

As I said, I don't personally see the need for the change, I think it's unhelpful. However, all of this is worthy of a footnote, especially as the versification of the stele is invariably printed (in Crowley's lifetime) as "kill me", while the same verse in CCXX is invariably "fill me".


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

1. If the manuscript says "fill", then it should be "fill".
2. The manuscript is the Class A document form which CCXX is written. Thus, CCXX should exactly mirror the manuscript, letter for letter.
3. A footnote is understandable, in the typed text, not in the manuscript. It is very easy to add said footnote, and subsequent explanation, without changing the text itself.
4. Whoever seeks to change the Class A document, or its typescript, should be presented with this question: "By what Authority?"
5. Liber AL clearly states that the book must not be changed. It therefore denies any claims or appeals to "Authority" by those attempting to answer the question in position 4.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"belmurru" wrote:
"Allan McCormack" wrote:

(5. March 1910 James Thomas Windram joined the A.’.A.’. … He receives The Holy Book, and in the margin next to verse III:37 is the letter ‘K’ while the first letter of ‘f’ in ‘fill me’ is crossed out. Some are now claiming the ‘K’ was written by Crowley but if anyone examines Crowley’s letter ‘K’ in the original manuscript of Liber AL vel Legis, this ‘K’ in the margin is highly suspicious and may well be that of Windram’s, not Crowley’s.

I agree in principle that this isolated marginalia cannot be definitive, but I'm going to give HB the benefit of the doubt and assume that there are other marginal notes in the volume, which are clearly in Crowley's hand, and that this "K !" is from the same hand.

Barring a huge, flashing, verifiable sign, visible for all to see, by Therion himself saying "change this letter", I wouldn't dare to touch it. In other words, if Crowley didn't expressly say, "Hey, this letter needs to be changed. Change this letter," and it is 99.99% certain that the writing with the command to change it is Crowley's, then don't change it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Allan McCormack" wrote:

And there's the contribution of Cornelius that seems to laid it all down in a substantial and robust manner:

[...]

(3. June 28th 1909 Crowley discovers the manuscript of Liber AL vel Legis in the attic. In the original manuscript Crowley wrote next to III:37 – “I adore thee in the song “I am the Lord of Thebes” & c from vellum book --- fill me” ….. The spacing in the original handwritten manuscript between verse 36 and 38 clearly shows that the above statement about verse 37 had to have been written at the commencement of Liber AL vel Legis, not scribbled in later. Oddly, it is as if the Gods knew that this would someday be a controversial issue spawned by centers of Thelemic Pestilence. The only piece of the original prayer from the vellum notebook which Crowley inserted into the manuscript of Liber AL vel Legis (in his handwriting) on April 10th 1904 is “fill me.”

The above point by Jerry C. really doesn't make any sense - as its  obvious from the manuscript that the reference to the vellum book is in pencil and must have been added later, the only bit in ink in the manuscript is "unity" - so id hardly consider it robust  🙂

also the original OTO news article mentions that this particular volume of Thelema "  includes several early comments on verses of Liber Legis (a few of which are important)" - i assume these are in A.C.'s handwriting , though this is not explicitly stated, but would seem to lend weight to the 'corrected' K being Crowleys.

However - even if it is certain that the correction is from Crowleys hand - it does no more than demonstrate that he chose to correct it at one period in time - not that the change is definitive - as it obviously wasn't carried through into later additions.

It will be interesting to see the full story behind this in due course, but i would have slight concern that someone emerging from a year long 'editorial rabbit-hole'  maybe reading a little too much into the timing of the discovery of this book in relation to signs from the secret chiefs and the current re-proofing of the Holy Books, just seems to remind me of A.C.'s caution in Liber E

"It is desirable that the student should never attach to any result the importance which it at first seems to possess."

also , for people really concerned with text versions exactly matching the original manuscript, how come there is no issue with  " leave stain on page but not in block"  (lost phrase) -  " The shape of my star is.." , " The unfragmentary non-atomic fact of my ....." " done later as above etc. bits?

The manuscripts stands alone - as is, flaws, changes typos and all - text copies are really a different book altogether.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"davyp93" wrote:
also , for people really concerned with text versions exactly matching the original manuscript, how come there is no issue with  " leave stain on page but not in block"  (lost phrase) -  " The shape of my star is.." , " The unfragmentary non-atomic fact of my ....." " done later as above etc. bits?

The manuscripts stands alone - as is, flaws, changes typos and all - text copies are really a different book altogether.

When Crowley created Liber CCXX, he did so with efforts of presenting Liber AL to 'the world at large'. Sure, he cleaned up some of it, as you have noted, and Rose even got to do a bit of that, but the CCXX that was published... now people are saying it wasn't final, that Crowley put an "f" where he really meant to put a "k".

All I'm saying is that, if indisputable evidence from Crowley himself exists that it should say "k" and not "f", then change it, but add a footnote. If such evidence does not exist, then don't change it, and if it bothers people enough, add a footnote saying why it was not changed.

"Allan McCormack" wrote:
Or this:  http://www.paganspace.net/forum/topics/the-temple-of-solomon-the-lost-word-and-the-key-of-it-all
I'm not well read enough to check the solution but she might have a point.

I went and read it. Her point was simply that changing even the styling of the letter could severely alter or even destroy potential attempts at any 'cypher'.

Seems legit.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1182
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
Crowley worked on the versification of the stele before and outside of those three days of dictation. He says that those verses are his own work. It is simply an over-literal interpretation to insist that because they are included in CCXX under the Class A rubric, that they are inspired in the sense that the spirit of the Class A rubric intends.

I accept what you are saying, that he wrote the versifications outside the context.  What I’m saying is that despite that, it is nevertheless included under the Class A umbrella.  And how do you actually know they may not have been composed while “under the same spirit”?

Aleister Crowley might have written the verse numbers of The Book of the Law outside of the supposed three days of dictation, but the verse numbers are nevertheless included under the Class A umbrella. And how do we actually know that Crowley's writing of the verse numbers may not have been inspired in the sense that the spirit of the Class A rubric intends?

Whether the verse numbers of The Book of the Law are understood as Class A inspired or not, have a direct bearing on wheter they can relate to the numbers mentioned in verse 75 in chapter two of The Book of the Law:

"Aye! listen to the numbers & the words:"


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
Aleister Crowley might have written the verse numbers of The Book of the Law outside of the supposed three days of dictation, but the verse numbers are nevertheless included under the Class A umbrella. And how do we actually know that Crowley's writing of the verse numbers may not have been inspired in the sense that the spirit of the Class A rubric intends?

Well, I agree, we can't ultimately "know" whether the verse numbering, the grid on folio 16 chapter 3, Rose's contributions, etc. are from the same level of inspiration that the bare text of those three days was. He might well have been under the same "glow" all day long, and made the grid at 1:30 pm on April 10, 1904. Maybe he versified chapter 2 on April 9, and chapter 3 on April 10. Maybe he left chapter 1 without any verse numbers because Nuit is infinite. So of course we can speculate and believe what we like, but we can't know with certainty.

Judging by the placement and style of the verse numbers, I think they were written after the body of the text was. For me, the "most" Class A part of Liber XXXI is the bare text of each chapter itself, without verse numbers or the grid (or page numbers), without Rose's annotations and Crowley's later comments on Rose's annotations, and including the crossed out phrases. I think it shows the urgency of the poetic fever Crowley was under, and remains an incomplete text. Liber CCXX is an attempt to "complete" it, but it was essentially an unfinished work until the edition of 1907 (which Paul so generously supplied to us a few days ago).

Of course, in 1907, Crowley had not yet developed the classification system - his other "inspired" works were to begin coming later in the year (perhaps his work on Liber XXXI/CCXX was itself instrumental in re-starting this current or state of mind for him).

I also don't accept that the versification of the stele is "inspired" in the same way that the body of the text of Liber XXXI is. Working on it aroused the magickal drumbeat in Crowley, certainly (since he included it in the ritual as well), but I don't recall him saying anywhere that these were the words of Aiwass or any other entity but himself. That text is plain, conscious, intellectual invention.

Whether the verse numbers of The Book of the Law are understood as Class A inspired or not, have a direct bearing on wheter they can relate to the numbers mentioned in verse 75 in chapter two of The Book of the Law:

"Aye! listen to the numbers & the words:"

I think that only applies to the following riddle of verse 76, rather than to every number and word in the manuscript of Liber XXXI or the printed text of Liber CCXX.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1182
 
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
Whether the verse numbers of The Book of the Law are understood as Class A inspired or not, have a direct bearing on wheter they can relate to the numbers mentioned in verse 75 in chapter two of The Book of the Law:

"Aye! listen to the numbers & the words:"

"belmurru" wrote:
I think that only applies to the following riddle of verse 76, rather than to every number and word in the manuscript of Liber XXXI or the printed text of Liber CCXX.

The numbers and letters in the "riddle" of verse 76 might apply to certain numbers and words in the printed text of Liber CCXX/The Book of the Law.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"belmurru" wrote:
I don't think Rose's involvement in "The Cairo Working" embarrassed him at all. Her writing is even in the book, and he considered it equally inspired, the words of Aiwass, even though she was not present in the room. I don't know when she added her words, but given what we discussed before it seems that she held the manuscript from sometime after their return to Boleskine in 1904, until July 1906. If he had wanted to erase her from the working, he could have simply rewritten the manuscript.

And then there is of course the feast of which he would be reminded every year "for the first night of the Prophet & his Bride", which he always took to be on August 12th, the anniversary of his and Rose’s wedding from 1903.

"belmurru" wrote:
Crowley may not always have been the most careful of people, but he would have to have been unbelievably stupid to leave "Given from the mouth of Aiwass to the ear of the Beast on April 8, 9 and 10, 1904" immediately followed by "[This manuscript (which came into my possession in July 1906)...", if he were trying to deceive people as to the date of its writing.

A.C. mentions that he was extremely adverse to TBotL when he first received it (in fact he still felt uncomfortable with much of the third chapter for most of his life).  Perhaps “possession” meant that he actually allowed its ‘truth’ to “consume” him for the first time in that month, i.e., twenty seven months after its initial reception.  Allegedly.  Of course, he still seems to have then managed to lose it in his ski loft at Boleskine for apparent rediscovery in July 1909.  Didn’t he?!

"belmurru" wrote:
"lashtal" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
I don't know when she added her words, but given what we discussed before it seems that she held the manuscript from sometime after their return to Boleskine in 1904, until July 1906.

I'm glad you've mentioned this, belmurru. The internal evidence of the manuscript itself is that it - the MS - existed physically at a time when AC and Rose were together. Of course, as far as I know, there's no obvious source of a sample of her handwriting to compare it with but  a suggestion that AC got someone else to write it and then pretended it was written by Rose seems to be quite a leap of imagination!

Yes, I'd like to see some of her handwriting too. Surely some must exist, letters for instance. I don't disbelieve that the writing in AL is hers, but there are those who will disbelieve it, so it would be nice to have the proof on hand.

I’m sure I remember seeing another example of Rose’s handwriting somewhere, but damned if I can recollect where at this moment.  Maybe someone else might know?

"belmurru" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
Common sense? Pile it on!

Can you imagine it? - “Kommen Sie all, zey said zere is a holiday camp for everyone over at Chez Belsen! ‘Zyklon B in zer showers?’ Stuff und nonsense.  Oi vey, you are a nutter! ‘Zey are firing up zer ovens?’ Ach, nein, who are you trying to kid – be quiet, now!  You’ll give us all an even worse name zan we hat already!”

Mioschievously Empty in my fullness,
For the Grand Parade Of Lifeless Packaging (it just needs a fuse!)
N. Joy

I'm not worried that in 50 years' time, the OTO, in an effort to whitewash Crowley, will have edited out all the nasty parts of The Book of the Law.

I’m not laying awake unable to sleep at nights, but it is not an impossible scenario.  Much strangers things have happened.  As I inferred before, this change of a letter could be the first thin end of the wedge.  If the climate is considered to be not unhospitable to revision, then further revisions may inevitably follow.  "Kill and torture"?  Oh, that’s not very good for PR, in the 'wider interests of propagating Thelema' we’d better change that – what did Crowley really mean?  Ah yes, I know… (or so Bill or a successor of his might say)...

"belmurru" wrote:
Changing "fill" to "kill" would actually seem to go in the opposite direction.

In this case, yes.  But it is obviously in a metaphorical context here.  Lots of the other verses clearly aren’t, and can be taken a lot more literally.  (I’m sure that I don’t need to give examples.) 

"Allan McCormack" wrote:
(2. In the first few months of 1909 the A.’.A.’. was created.

The A.’.A.’. was not founded in 1909 but in July 1907.  (Or so we are all led to believe).

"Allan McCormack" wrote:
The bottom line, it is obviously 'fill me' in Liber AL vel Legis and anyone or any A.'.A.'. lineage who changes this Class A manuscript should be shunned as a centre of pestilence. And swearing any magickal Oaths using such a volume only ties you to 'them' and not the Lords of the Aeon." - Satan in Berkeley (on Facebook).

An excellent point, Allan.  Also, don’t forget that the 'oaths of loyalty' in the "Caliphornian" OTO are sworn not to Baphomet, as in the original rituals (published by Francis King, and which Grady McMurtry himself is also to have reported to have used in initiations), but unto Hymenaeus Beta himself "as his duly appointed representative”.

"Allan McCormack" wrote:
Jaimie's points are also well made.  There is a standard and that standard is not a casual one and I think it was put there and upheld by intelligent men for a good reason.

Thank you!  A reader of most rare & true discernment, at last!!

"Azidonis" wrote:
Barring a huge, flashing, verifiable sign, visible for all to see, by Therion himself saying "change this letter", I wouldn't dare to touch it. In other words, if Crowley didn't expressly say, "Hey, this letter needs to be changed. Change this letter," and it is 99.99% certain that the writing with the command to change it is Crowley's, then don't change it.

Well rendered, Az!

"davyp93" wrote:
also the original OTO news article mentions that this particular volume of Thelema "  includes several early comments on verses of Liber Legis (a few of which are important)" - i assume these are in A.C.'s handwriting , though this is not explicitly stated, but would seem to lend weight to the 'corrected' K being Crowleys.

However - even if it is certain that the correction is from Crowleys hand - it does no more than demonstrate that he chose to correct it at one period in time - not that the change is definitive - as it obviously wasn't carried through into later additions.

Quite so, yes - where is this other information mentioned?  Surely everything germane to this volume should have been already released, rather than selectively as H.B. sees appropriate?  I wonder what (else) is perhaps being hidden, or rather 'edited out'?

"davyp93" wrote:
It will be interesting to see the full story behind this in due course, but i would have slight concern that someone emerging from a year long 'editorial rabbit-hole'  maybe reading a little too much into the timing of the discovery of this book in relation to signs from the secret chiefs and the current re-proofing of the Holy Books, just seems to remind me of A.C.'s caution in Liber E

vide. Richard Cole’s pertinent comments in Reply #29 about the “air quality” down that particular hole, and the verdict of the canary…

"davyp93" wrote:
also , for people really concerned with text versions exactly matching the original manuscript, how come there is no issue with  " leave stain on page but not in block"  (lost phrase) -  " The shape of my star is.." , " The unfragmentary non-atomic fact of my ....." " done later as above etc. bits?

I believe I have seen these discussed on other threads, indeed even made a list on one of them myself.  It is by no means not a non-issue (if you will forgive the inelegant series of negatives).

"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
Crowley worked on the versification of the stele before and outside of those three days of dictation. He says that those verses are his own work. It is simply an over-literal interpretation to insist that because they are included in CCXX under the Class A rubric, that they are inspired in the sense that the spirit of the Class A rubric intends.

I accept what you are saying, that he wrote the versifications outside the context.  What I’m saying is that despite that, it is nevertheless included under the Class A umbrella.  And how do you actually know they may not have been composed while “under the same spirit”?

Aleister Crowley might have written the verse numbers of The Book of the Law outside of the supposed three days of dictation, but the verse numbers are nevertheless included under the Class A umbrella. And how do we actually know that Crowley's writing of the verse numbers may not have been inspired in the sense that the spirit of the Class A rubric intends?

Thank you for in essence agreeing with me here, well (do you mind if I call you well?).

"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
Whether the verse numbers of The Book of the Law are understood as Class A inspired or not, have a direct bearing on wheter they can relate to the numbers mentioned in verse 75 in chapter two of The Book of the Law:

"Aye! listen to the numbers & the words:"

A valid point, well.  But with it we veer ever-increasingly more off the middle of the road of this topic onto the hard shoulder of the mysteries of Liber AL and in particular II. 75 & 76, which must surely be the topic of at least one whole other thread….

Incidentally, Okontrair (from the PorkPie infamy of Reply #4!)'s sign-off signature

“Give me an 'F'....."  Country Joe & the Fish

seems singularly apposite given the nature of the particular topic under discussion, i.e., Killing an already “dead man” who wants to do and take his pleasure among the living…!

If the “1906” front page and ms. of The Book of the Law is generally identified as “Liber L”, perhaps in the future the 1909 Volume of the SL, “Thelema”, may come to be known by shorthand as “Liber K”, in view of the prominence that that letter has achieved in the marginalia of the same?

Hovering Like A Fly & Waiting for the Windshield On The Freeway
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
"davyp93" wrote:
also , for people really concerned with text versions exactly matching the original manuscript, how come there is no issue with  " leave stain on page but not in block"  (lost phrase) -  " The shape of my star is.." , " The unfragmentary non-atomic fact of my ....." " done later as above etc. bits?

I believe I have seen these discussed on other threads, indeed even made a list on one of them myself.  It is by no means not a non-issue (if you will forgive the inelegant series of negatives).

I meant to say “It is by not by any means to be thought of as a non-issue”, but it was inelegantly put anyway and was probably only done because I have “negativising negatives” on the brain at the moment (which is the same object of concentration as “positiving positives” as well, and “positivising negatives”/ “negativising positives”; however I digress.)  Hopefully my meaning got across somehow – but if not, delete that sentence.

The difficulty is that I have very limited time to spend with a computer each day, and in the ‘white heat’ of writing out the reply I did not have time to go over & proof it.  Sorry to appear pedantic, but I am particularly harsh about my own stuff!  And anyway generally when I am pedantic about something I have found that 93% of the time I am right.

"jamie barter" wrote:
"Allan McCormack" wrote:
(2. In the first few months of 1909 the A.’.A.’. was created.

The A.’.A.’. was not founded in 1909 but in July 1907.  (Or so we are all led to believe).

I meant of course 15th November 1907, according to Crowley’s diary entry: “Saw D.D.S. [George C. Jones] and got him to consent to…”

"The cheerleader waves her cyanide wand – there’s a smell of peach blossom & bitter almonds"
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 1099
 

reading last night i came across a passage which speaks to the issue of Crowley proofing his texts, mentioned above in connection with the words 'fill me' being present in versions of the text printed at various times.

from Timothy D'Arch Smith's excellent The Books of the Beast

In contradistinction to typographical scrupulousness is his quite astonishing uninterest in proof-correcting. Literals abound in his books; from their pages errata slips flutter like autumn leaves. 'Proof-reading,' he wrote to Fra. N:., 'is an art which I strongly recommend you not to learn; as long as there are any sewers to clean, you would be ill-advised to adopt it as a profession.' Nonetheless, he must have been upset that the coloured plate  of the funerary tablet of Ankh-f-n-khonsu that adorned BL6 and BL7 was miscaptioned, and he angrily annotated the passage of Chinese in Konx Om Pax: 'Upside Down. Damn Jacoby.' Even after his death - analogy here with A.E. Housman, who unlike Crowley dreaded and despised misprints - he was pursued by printers' devils and his birth date was misprinted, October 18th for October 12th, on the order of his funeral service.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

guy just can't win can he


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Why not get your '93 Hour Energy' and sign the petition! 

http://www.change.org/petitions/bill-breeze-oho-of-the-ordo-templi-orientis-please-do-not-change-the-book-of-the-law#


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

Did Crowley express directly, at any time, that the letter should be changed?

If he didn't, then I suppose it's proper to sign the petition.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 5354
Topic starter  

Moderator's Note

"Allan McCormack" wrote:
Or this:  http://www.paganspace.net/forum/topics/the-temple-of-solomon-the-lost-word-and-the-key-of-it-all
I'm not well read enough to check the solution but she might have a point.

Really, 'Allan McCormack'?

I wonder if you'd do me a favour and just confirm that you haven't previously been present on this site under a variety of other usernames, alas now closed? Specifically, you appear to share an Internet provider and IP address with one we may remember here as 'Alrah', whose article you claim not to be sufficiently 'well read enough' to pass verdict on.

I need to refer you to the Guidelines and the instruction to avoid sock puppet accounts.

Of course, I could be wrong, but ten minutes after you posted the link to the 'petition', out of the blue I received an email from 'Alrah' from the same IP address urging me to sign it. Given that it's quite possible that I'm doing you a disservice, I'll be moderating your posts pending your 'clarification'.

I shall, of course, delete this post if my suspicions are shown to be incorrect.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

I'm personally not sure who Allan McCormack is.

Regardless, does the creator of the petition make the petition itself less valid?

It would seem that, given enough people signing said petition, H.B. could be persuaded into re-examining his course of action, which is the point.

Or are people just content to sit and babble about the proposed changes for 7 forum pages, without actually taking a stance for or against said changes in a manner that might actually garner the necessary attention to make the change or not?

Should a decision to change Liber AL, in any capacity, require a majority vote of self-professed "Thelemites" or other interested parties?

Or, can one person, at any point, and by any slapstick notion of "authority" just up and change Liber AL based on such frivolous evidence as that presented in this thread?

Point being, in following this thread, I haven't become the least bit convinced that the "f" should be changed to a "k". Seeing that the petition has reached 23 supporters thus far, I'm certainly not the only one.

So are those who are against the proposed change content to sit around and do nothing about it besides talk, or are they willing to unite under said petition, aimed at furthering their own agenda, which is to not change the Book?

Further, this proposed change involves not only past and present Thelema, but future Thelema as well. Is the "evidence" sufficient enough to warrant said change, and open the doors for those of future generations to make future changes based on "evidence" of similar strength (or in my opinion, weakness)?


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 

Well, I signed it. I gave my reason as historical precedent - Liber CCXX throughout Crowley's lifetime. I think no such change to that text should be introduced silently, and a footnote would be the proper editorial approach to give information to those who might notice the difference between the text of CCXX, III,37 and the stand-alone versification of the stele (not to mention between all versions of CCXX, III,37 before 2013 and some of those after).


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4256
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
It would seem that, given enough people signing said petition, H.B. could be persuaded into re-examining his course of action, which is the point.

What are your grounds for stating "it would seem"? This change has already been implemented. It didn't go out for consultation; the people that decided to make this change aren't interested in the views of yourself, Alrah, McCormack, or anyone else. They will do whatever they see fit.

I won't be updating the various editions of The Book of the Law that I have accumulated over the years, just as I didn't rush to revise my copy of The Equinox of the Gods in line with the silent editing of the 1990s edition.


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 482
 

Dwtw

I think it is important to note that The Book of the Law was intended by Aiwass to be published in a readable, typeset form, and in various languages. This is evident from many references in the Book itself. If this were not the case, then simply publishing a photocopy of the original ms would suffice, and this controversy of fill vs. kill would never come up.

Among the many instructions given regarding publication are included those that indicate the paraphrases are to be included as well. This indicates that Aiwass considered them to be an important part of the revelation, regardless of the fact that they were obviously not voice-dictated as the main text was. And once these paraphrases were included, and published along with the full text as Liber CCXX, they became Class A. The designation of Class A has nothing to do with dictation or inspiration - almost all of the 13 Holy Books were inspired, not dictated, and all are Class A. and of course the major defining characteristic of a Class A text is that it not be changed, again referring back to instructions in the first of them, as dictated by Aiwass.
In preparing the ms for publication, AC decided at some point to number the verses. when this was done is not certain. There are no verse numbers in chapter 1 of the ms, and those in chapters 2 and 3 are written in colored pencil, so they were not likely done at the time of the dictation itself. So these were clearly an ‘editorial decision’, made presumably by Crowley.

Now this is a key point, because when the ms was typed out, by persons unknown, (AC himself?), there must have been notes as to where the verse numbers went - these notes exist in the ms for chapters 2 and 3, but not for chapter 1; there is no surviving evidence as to how the verse numbers were determined for chapter 1.

Now coincident with this is the insertion of the paraphrases. A typist would presumably have had a copy of them, or the actual vellum book itself, to read from and type them up. And if that copy, or vellum book, had the words ‘let it kill me’, while the ms. clearly has a note (in pencil, written after the dictation), that says ‘fill me’, then isn’t it reasonable that the typist would ask AC, what do you want in here? “kill me” from the vellum book, or “fill me” as it says in the ms? How was this discrepancy resolved - if there ever was one in the first place? A.C. presumably responded by saying ‘use the words “fill me”; alternatively, ‘kill me’ didn’t even exist in the vellum book, and so there was no need to question what was to be inserted in the first place.

The overall point is that the ms had to become a printable book in english, and thus there was a stage when someone typed it up, and presumably Crowley was heavily involved at this stage. That does not mean he caught every little error, but it does mean that it is unlikely a typist was given free rein to put whatever words in the book that they felt were right. AC must have acted as editor at some point.

There seems to be more evidence that ‘fill’ is the correct word, and not enough evidence that ‘kill’ was the right word, and no evidence at all that it was in the vellum book, which is unfortunately lost.

If you were a researcher trying to construct a definitive version of ‘Ulysses’, and you had  two slightly different published versions of the book, and only a pencil note from James Joyce to go on regarding a single word in his manuscript, would you feel justified in changing the typescript of the book based on this evidence? Or would you do as BelMurru has eloquently pointed out and make an extensive footnote regarding the discrepancy?

It’s not a question of whether a Class A text, as published, may have a typo here and there, it is really a question of the intent of Aiwass, as understood and implemented by Crowley. Unless there is more extensive evidence, such as Azidonis has rhetorically asked for - where did AC definitively say “change this from fill to kill” - then the presumption has to be to let the text stand as it is.

And one last rhetorical question - what if the vellum book was found, and it said “let it fill me”? Would we then revert to the EOTG version of Liber CCXX, or would this crossed out F and marginal K  in Thelema still be allowed to trump that?

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
It would seem that, given enough people signing said petition, H.B. could be persuaded into re-examining his course of action, which is the point.

What are your grounds for stating "it would seem"? This change has already been implemented. It didn't go out for consultation; the people that decided to make this change aren't interested in the views of yourself, Alrah, McCormack, or anyone else. They will do whatever they see fit.

I won't be updating the various editions of The Book of the Law that I have accumulated over the years, just as I didn't rush to revise my copy of The Equinox of the Gods in line with the silent editing of the 1990s edition.

So... you think it's too late to try and pressure them into not doing it?


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 12
Share: