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

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

Page 8 / 12
  RSS

threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 436
08/05/2013 5:01 pm  
"Marlene Cornelius" wrote:
Something to consider...

In the Equinox I:9, p.129 within the Evocation of Bartzabel the full verse of Liber CCXX III:37 is used, beginning with

"I adore Thee in the Song:
I am the Lord of Thebes, and I
...
Aum! let it fill me!"

Dwtw

It's also important to note that this inclusion of the paraphrases in Bartzabel has the O's capitalized, and the spelling 'Ankh-f-n-khonsu', so it is not simply a direct reprint of the verses found in CCXX, nor is it a reprint of the Paraphrases (which have lower case o's and the word 'kill'). It's an intermediate stage, and an important piece of independent evidence.  Thanks Marlene!

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5384
08/05/2013 5:07 pm  
"gurugeorge" wrote:
"ptoner" wrote:
I am starting to think that Thelema is entering dangerous territory and borderline fanatical, even being similar to the development and division of the early Christian sects.

Christ, it's been doing that for years.

That's right, this fill/kill thread is only the latest controversial forum. In the past, there have been other "hot" threads that fill up the pages with fervor and spite. I remember one where "Will" (or true Will)(or willpower) was debated to the point that several long-time members disappeared and have not been seen in the forum hall since that battle.

Put a bunch of people (Thelemites, or politicians, or gang members) in a room and ask what they think about any subject, and soon the lines are drawn, with poisons being slipped into the opposition's drinks.

Say, what do you think happened when Martin Luther decided to mass-print the bible in the common language (German)? Was there oppostion when King James decided to standardize the bible? What about all those other versions that are now available? Does debate still rage on certain words in "holy" books everywhere in the world?

Does the Christian world not still stand divided into various opposing sects? You bet'cha!

Does the Moslem world stand divided into various opposing sects? Oh yes - just read the "middle" Eastern daily news.

Do Taoists disagree? Yup!  Some simply study Lao Tzu without external trappings, while others erect temples and have services and prescribe "correct" actions.

There is a division hither homeward ... in any subject or concept that you can think of or name. We have been set adrift in a river of duality without a paddle. We did have a paddle, but it got filled and killed, and it dropped into the river and is washing down into the Tuat (Duat, Duant, etc).


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 456
08/05/2013 5:09 pm  

WB hasn't really met the standards of proof even in ordinary scholarly terms.  It should have been an interesting footnote reflecting a temporary preference of AC's, no more.

Fill me  😛


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5384
08/05/2013 5:11 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Was Crowley negligent, and incompetent?

Usually, he is called "evil" and a "satanist," and "wicked." But even his most terrible enemies do not use the words negligent or incompetent.


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 456
08/05/2013 5:11 pm  

Don't know if anyone else has noticed this http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fok.asp , but:-

Definition of 'Fill Or Kill - FOK'
A type of time-in-force designation used in securities trading that instructs a brokerage to execute a transaction immediately and completely or not at all. This type of order is most likely to be used by active traders and is usually for a large quantity of stock. The order must be filled in its entirety or canceled (killed). The purpose of a fill or kill order is to ensure that a position is entered at a desired price.

Oh the irony!  ;D


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
08/05/2013 5:24 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
"gurugeorge" wrote:
"ptoner" wrote:
I am starting to think that Thelema is entering dangerous territory and borderline fanatical, even being similar to the development and division of the early Christian sects.

Christ, it's been doing that for years.

That's right, this fill/kill thread is only the latest controversial forum. In the past, there have been other "hot" threads that fill up the pages with fervor and spite. I remember one where "Will" (or true Will)(or willpower) was debated to the point that several long-time members disappeared and have not been seen in the forum hall since that battle.

Put a bunch of people (Thelemites, or politicians, or gang members) in a room and ask what they think about any subject, and soon the lines are drawn, with poisons being slipped into the opposition's drinks.

Say, what do you think happened when Martin Luther decided to mass-print the bible in the common language (German)? Was there oppostion when King James decided to standardize the bible? What about all those other versions that are now available? Does debate still rage on certain words in "holy" books everywhere in the world?

Does the Christian world not still stand divided into various opposing sects? You bet'cha!

Does the Moslem world stand divided into various opposing sects? Oh yes - just read the "middle" Eastern daily news.

Do Taoists disagree? Yup!  Some simply study Lao Tzu without external trappings, while others erect temples and have services and prescribe "correct" actions.

There is a division hither homeward ... in any subject or concept that you can think of or name. We have been set adrift in a river of duality without a paddle. We did have a paddle, but it got filled and killed, and it dropped into the river and is washing down into the Tuat (Duat, Duant, etc).

This forum ain't got nuthin' on these people:

[flash=200,200:138elad2] https://www.youtube.com/v/V6daHMqrMUY[/flash:138elad2]

"Shiva" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Was Crowley negligent, and incompetent?

Usually, he is called "evil" and a "satanist," and "wicked." But even his most terrible enemies do not use the words negligent or incompetent.

Well, he would have either had to be negligent or incompetent in order to really want a change from "fill" to "kill" and not be able to implement it. Either that, or he had a valid reason for not doing so.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5384
08/05/2013 5:37 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:

This is the funniest thing I have seen all week.


ReplyQuote
RHK418
(@rhk418)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 14
08/05/2013 6:32 pm  

I don't know. At first, I was against it on principle. Then I read the 'reasons', and it kind of made sense.

But I can't shake the fact that there's not just one, but THREE specific injunctions to "not change even a letter" - and that without this change - there's currently exactly 220 K's in Liber Legis.

Frankly, that's a very striking 'coincidence'. "Calculate the odds!".

IMO, I would consider this reason enough not to fiddle with it, let alone based on solely on rather vague and highly debatable circumstance. 

Oh, and a full character-count, for those interested. Any other letter, and I wouldn't question it so much.. but K? Why K? Why exactly 220 characters in a book with 220 verses?

a : 1688
b : 402
c : 381
d : 773
e : 3107
f : 620
g : 366
h : 1764
i : 1420
j : 37
k : 220
l : 1176
m : 556
n : 1399
o : 1844
p : 354
q : 15
r : 1396
s : 1444
t : 2304
u : 658
v : 199
w : 452
x : 28
y : 490
z : 4


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
08/05/2013 6:39 pm  

93!

While I understand the positions of the "fill" fraction and do agree with most of them, I don't see any indication to settle the matter simply with "it's "fill" here and there and on the manuscript, it's absolutely clear that it is "fill" in the lost vellum book!". Nothing is clear about the vellum book. It's lost, we cannot see it. (a forthcoming book will probably claim it never even existed) I am sure more evidence will show up in the coming days, weeks or months (why not years?). What I personally find completely unconvincing is the notion that the whole matter was "a temporary preference" on Crowley's side. It doesn't sound plausible that he gamed around with not any one poem of his, but with the poem that was part of the most important event in his life. I just don't see him reworking the poem. All the other corrections - including Ankh-f-n-Khonsu - don't alter the poem phonetically - well, maybe cabalistically.

My theory - at this point in time - is that the original poem said "kill", but undeniably the manuscript and probably even the typescript said "fill", I don't know about the scientific standards of early 20th century copyists in Cairo. The vellum book is lost, maybe it was already lost for Crowley. There are many reasons why he never changed it in Liber CCXX. Maybe it was not so important to him. Maybe he was unsure because of the Class A rules (this would explain the usage of the Liber CCXX version in rituals and what not). Maybe there was no money. Maybe there was always more important stuff to do. I just don't think it was just a temporary mood swing which went by. And IF the original poem really said "kill" (and there are indications for this), it is absolutely comprehensible to think about a correction of Liber CCXX.

Let's see what comes up next. Corrections can be corrected and re-corrected.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
08/05/2013 6:50 pm  

I thought people might be interested in the following, written by James Wasserman and published on his facebook wall earlier today. It does seem to confirm that future printings of Liber CCXX will be "corrected" to replace 'fill' with 'kill':

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

Someone asked me yesterday about the fill/kill issue on Facebook. Someone else belligerently mischaracterized the matter as an attempt by OTO to alter Liber 31. Here are some thoughts that are solely my own opinions.

First, what the OHO and A.’.A.’. have agreed upon is that the text of Liber 220, the typeset text of the Book of the Law, should be corrected based on Crowley’s personalized copy of Liber 220 recently received after a century in South Africa.

Liber 220 varies considerably from Liber 31, the manuscript of the handwritten dictation. For example, in Liber 31, chapter 1, the verse numbers were added later in pencil. There are other changes, like page 6, verse 26 (in pen), and page 19, verse 60 (in Rose’s hand). Chapter 3, page 20, verse 72 is another example. These are mysteries. The quotes from the versification of the text of the Stele referred to in chapter 3, page 10, verses 37 and 38 also adds material, in pen and pencil, that was not “real time.”

There is plenty of evidence provided recently by the OHO that Crowley used “kill” rather than “fill” quite often. We know “kill” was used in his original versification of the Stele.

Thus the question becomes what is Class A and what is not? What is the Prophet’s instruction and what is not? My understanding is that the OHO has interpreted the Prophet’s corrected copy of Liber 220 that mysteriously appeared from the Windram family as a message from the Secret Chiefs regarding our Tradition.

In the Center of the Fire describes the return of the manuscript of Liber 31 in 1984 and uses the Tibetan Buddhist word “Terma” for hidden scriptures that magically resurface when needed by the community. The manifestation of such scriptures demonstrates the continuing guidance of the Masters or Secret Chiefs in a living Tradition.

This is what we believe has happened here with the donation of Crowley’s personal copy of Liber 220. It is complicated. I mentioned earlier that I initially found this very troubling as many people have opined since it was publicly announced. When I did my recent signing at Catland Bookstore, I had not intended to give a talk, intending instead to “mingle” with the folks who came. But I became aware of the Caliph’s first public post that morning, and instead, talked extemporaneously for some 40 minutes on the nature of spiritual challenge after a lifetime following a spiritual Path. How the fact that everything I believed could be rocked so thoroughly was a joyous realization that I was very much alive and the Law of Thelema was not some dogma into which I had comfortably settled like a warm bath.

I also explained that the key to my acceptance of this change resides in my awareness that there is a true Hierarchy. As one quite comfortable with ambiguity and duality, I am aware that the reappearance of the Prophet’s copy of Liber 220 could easily have been a “test,” a blind.

“Here is the Prophet’s copy. He changed the Class A text. Are you going to do it?” And we do and fail the ordeal.

Or, “Here is the Prophet’s copy. Do you have the courage to ‘Obey my prophet’ and correct the text of 220 issued by the Order henceforth?” And we do and pass the ordeal.

You know what I also understood? It was not my problem. Should the Caliph and the Praemonstrator be in agreement that it was the latter, my question was simply did I accept the Hierarchy to which I have pledged myself or not. After a month of contemplation, I did.

Sometimes life is simpler than it appears. What we really need to do is publish a full size reproduction in perfect color of Liber 31. Inshallah, this shall happen and help clarify these matters even further.

For those Thelemites who are not members of OTO or A.’.A.’., there has been as much evidence presented as we have to date to provide a basis for your own contemplation.

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
08/05/2013 7:07 pm  

So, was Crowley negligent, incompetent, or did he really want it to be "fill"?

Do his diary entries indicate that he wanted "kill"? Do more than a couple of marginal side notes indicate that he actually wanted "kill" in The Book of the Law, and not just in the poem?

If he really wanted "kill" in The Book of the Law, then he failed to make that occur. I'm presuming that if said failure did occur, it was either due to incompetence or negligence, or both.

Point being, those purporting that Crowley really did want The Book changed to "kill" are saying that between the years of say, 1909 and 1947, he accomplished absolutely nothing in regards to changing his foundational publication. This is not some random book. For Crowley, it held the TOP priority.

I cannot imagine that for 38 years he chose to simply dance around or ignore the issue, assuming that he saw one. If he did exhibit such negligence, or such an incompetence in proofreading his own TOP priority publication, then maybe he deserves a lot of the discrediting he has actually been given over the years.

However, if he was not negligent, and not incompetent, and actually gave even one fuck about his TOP priority document, then he certainly would have seen to it that a change be made as soon as possible.

I mean, we are talking about a guy that spent his own money publishing his literature. So, if he wanted to, surely he would have just taken the Book down to the press himself, and made it a point to have another copy issued, or 11 copies.

But, he didn't. Every subsequent copy of the Book, while it may contain grammatical errors and what-not, contained "fill". Hell, the fact that he even allowed grammatical errors and typos in said publication is an indication of either negligence, incompetence, or both.

So which is it? Was your prophet, and those under his employment and guidance, so incompetent and/or negligent so as to let this go unnoticed and unchanged for 30+ years, or did he actually really think, for whatever reason, that the Book should remain "fill"?

"LiberShaun" wrote:
First, what the OHO and A.’.A.’. have agreed upon is that the text of Liber 220, the typeset text of the Book of the Law, should be corrected based on Crowley’s personalized copy of Liber 220 recently received after a century in South Africa.

This should read, "What the OHO and the A:.A:. members connected with the OHO have agreed upon".

"LiberShaun" wrote:
Liber 220 varies considerably from Liber 31, the manuscript of the handwritten dictation. For example, in Liber 31, chapter 1, the verse numbers were added later in pencil. There are other changes, like page 6, verse 26 (in pen), and page 19, verse 60 (in Rose’s hand). Chapter 3, page 20, verse 72 is another example. These are mysteries. The quotes from the versification of the text of the Stele referred to in chapter 3, page 10, verses 37 and 38 also adds material, in pen and pencil, that was not “real time.”

Matters little. Crowley explained each of those discrepancies in The Equinox of the Gods. He did not, however, mention "fill" as a discrepancy.

"LiberShaun" wrote:
There is plenty of evidence provided recently by the OHO that Crowley used “kill” rather than “fill” quite often. We know “kill” was used in his original versification of the Stele.

There is plenty of evidence that Crowley used "fill" as well.

"LiberShaun" wrote:
Thus the question becomes what is Class A and what is not? What is the Prophet’s instruction and what is not? My understanding is that the OHO has interpreted the Prophet’s corrected copy of Liber 220 that mysteriously appeared from the Windram family as a message from the Secret Chiefs regarding our Tradition.

My understanding is that the 'prophet' either wanted it to be "fill" or he was a bungling nitwit who deserves to have his Magnum Opus changed by "scholarship".

"LiberShaun" wrote:
In the Center of the Fire describes the return of the manuscript of Liber 31 in 1984 and uses the Tibetan Buddhist word “Terma” for hidden scriptures that magically resurface when needed by the community. The manifestation of such scriptures demonstrates the continuing guidance of the Masters or Secret Chiefs in a living Tradition.

Terma. Trying to put a bunch of loose evidence that does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Crowley wanted the Book to say "kill" into the same classification as terma is a far-reaching attempt, at best.

Please, leave the Buddhists out of this.

"LiberShaun" wrote:
This is what we believe has happened here with the donation of Crowley’s personal copy of Liber 220. It is complicated. I mentioned earlier that I initially found this very troubling as many people have opined since it was publicly announced. When I did my recent signing at Catland Bookstore, I had not intended to give a talk, intending instead to “mingle” with the folks who came. But I became aware of the Caliph’s first public post that morning, and instead, talked extemporaneously for some 40 minutes on the nature of spiritual challenge after a lifetime following a spiritual Path. How the fact that everything I believed could be rocked so thoroughly was a joyous realization that I was very much alive and the Law of Thelema was not some dogma into which I had comfortably settled like a warm bath.

Eh, okay...

"LiberShaun" wrote:
I also explained that the key to my acceptance of this change resides in my awareness that there is a true Hierarchy. As one quite comfortable with ambiguity and duality, I am aware that the reappearance of the Prophet’s copy of Liber 220 could easily have been a “test,” a blind.

Oh, right. I suppose Crowley's negligence and incompetence (if proven) are going to be considered some sort of divine test for the faithful. Nice religious spin. It'll sell more copies that way.

"LiberShaun" wrote:
“Here is the Prophet’s copy. He changed the Class A text. Are you going to do it?” And we do and fail the ordeal.

I laughed a little inside.

"LiberShaun" wrote:
Or, “Here is the Prophet’s copy. Do you have the courage to ‘Obey my prophet’ and correct the text of 220 issued by the Order henceforth?” And we do and pass the ordeal.

Laughed a little again.

"LiberShaun" wrote:
You know what I also understood? It was not my problem. Should the Caliph and the Praemonstrator be in agreement that it was the latter, my question was simply did I accept the Hierarchy to which I have pledged myself or not. After a month of contemplation, I did.

Just blindly follow the "will of the Hierarchy"? What a model Thelemite!

"LiberShaun" wrote:
Sometimes life is simpler than it appears. What we really need to do is publish a full size reproduction in perfect color of Liber 31. Inshallah, this shall happen and help clarify these matters even further.

"Inshallah" means, "God Willing".

"LiberShaun" wrote:
For those Thelemites who are not members of OTO or A.’.A.’., there has been as much evidence presented as we have to date to provide a basis for your own contemplation.

And yet, more evidence keeps turning up. Lutz offered a piece, and Magmus offered a piece, and it seems that so very many people have 'evidence' either for or against it.

So, was Crowley negligent and incompetent, or not?


ReplyQuote
⛄
 
(@jg)
Frosty the Snowman
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 144
08/05/2013 7:43 pm  
"RHK418" wrote:

a : 1688
b : 402
c : 381
d : 773
e : 3107
f : 620
g : 366
h : 1764
i : 1420
j : 37
k : 220
l : 1176
m : 556
n : 1399
o : 1844
p : 354
q : 15
r : 1396
s : 1444
t : 2304
u : 658
v : 199
w : 452
x : 28
y : 490
z : 4

You are correct in your count of the letter K upper and lower case equaling 220.  However, I think you have slightly miscounted a number of other letters.  The text I am using has the following counts for the letters A to Z upper or lower

1686
402
381
771
3105
620
366
1763
1419
37
220
1176
555
1399
1844
354
15
1396
1444
2302
658
199
452
28
490
3

This yields a total count of 23085 English letters.  Adding in the 6 Greek letters and the 1 Hebrew letter brings the total to 23092.  Adding in the 20 number characters brings the alpha-numeric character count to a total of 23112.  Here I do not count the verse number characters.  There are a bunch of interesting mathematical properties derivable from various ways of counting the text.  For instance, if one applies Euler's Phi function to the alpha-numeric character count of CCXX ( 23112 ) it yields the number of alphabetic characters in chapter II of CCXX ( 7632 )

φ(23112) = 7632

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=eulerphi%2823112%29


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 436
08/05/2013 8:21 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
93!

While I understand the positions of the "fill" fraction and do agree with most of them, I don't see any indication to settle the matter simply with "it's "fill" here and there and on the manuscript, it's absolutely clear that it is "fill" in the lost vellum book!". Nothing is clear about the vellum book. It's lost, we cannot see it. (a forthcoming book will probably claim it never even existed) I am sure more evidence will show up in the coming days, weeks or months (why not years?).
Love=Law
Lutz

Dwtw

Lutz, just to clarify my position, I have not claimed that the Paraphrases prove that the word 'fill' was used in the vellum book. What I believe has been shown conclusively is that the Paraphrases, as published in the Equinox 1(7), EOTG 1936 (same version) and Giant's Thumb (same version with the O's marked up), could not possibly be the source for the poetry inserted into Liber CCXX. They simply do not match, (or put another way, the Cairo typescript cannot be the source for both the published Paraphrases and CCXX). As far as we can ascertain, the Cairo typescript was the source for CWIII Appendix and Thelema 1909 versions of Liber CCXX, and these obviously do not match the Paraphrases.

While not conclusive as to what is in the vellum book, (since nothing could be unequivocal evidence for the contents except the vellum book itself), the discrepancy between the contents of CCXX and the Paraphrases strongly supports that the word Kill was not in the original vellum book, because at least two versions of CCXX predate the publication of the Paraphrases.

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5384
08/05/2013 8:40 pm  

This is a public opinion poll. While a short comment on why one voted "f" or "k" might be appropriate, wouldn't it be best to take the lengthy arguments and qabalistic mumbo-jumbo word and letter counts back over to the ever-popular main fill/kill thread?


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
The plants talk to me....
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2115
08/05/2013 8:49 pm  

In agreement with Shiva. Please vote if you want too and leave a "brief" comment if you so choose.
Quite simplistic really. It is only an opinion poll with optional public declaration.
Thank you.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5329
08/05/2013 9:41 pm  

I've set a time limit of 5 days on this poll and the result will be visible when the poll concludes.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
08/05/2013 9:50 pm  

93, RLG!

I didn't want to imply that you said there is evidently "fill" in the vellum book, I am just sure I read it somewhere here in the last days. Anyway, it is clear that the paraphrase always has "kill". It is also clear that the paraphrase was done before the dictation. In the dictation it says "fill" and later added was a part of the paraphrase with "fill" instead of "kill" which became Liber CCXX. This could easily be explained with a Cairo typist ordered to put the part of the vellum book from "I am the Lord of Thebes" up to "fill me!" into the typescript. Maybe it was the typist who had to decide between "kill" and "fill"! Since we don't see a change in the paraphrase over the years it can be argued that "kill" is correct here. There is no evidence that AC at any time changed "fill" to "kill". And so it is possible that CCXX is wrong. We don't even know how deeply AC was involved in the making of the typescript. He said he forgot about it, he took it with him on his 1906 voyage in the East, he incorporated parts of it and of the paraphrase into the Great invocation. Then in 1909 the very first CCXX is published, with "fill". And suddenly: a bunch of typescripts became a Class A book! In his own copy he marked it as an error and I can imagine a hundred reasons why he never managed (or dared) to change it in subsequent editions.

"threefold31" wrote:
at least two versions of CCXX predate the publication of the Paraphrases.

No, the first printer-ready type-set proof has both (the paraphrase incorporated in the Great Invocation). Since the paraphrase is no part of CCXX, yes, there are two editions without it, but the "kill" and "fill" dilemma is type-set simultaneously in 1907.

I am sure quite a lot of people are searching for evidence for one or the other solution and I am sure we will hear more from either "party", but the imaginative leap one has to take to claim that Crowley changed one of his most important poems just because he was in the mood to do so is not a shorter one than to assert he made a mistake filling in a quote in XXXI which unfortunately made it into CCXX and for some reason - I gave some sober examples - did not change that in later editions. I mean, he had people working independently with the Thelema or the Equinox editions until at least 1925 (I never saw a Tunis edition), so it would have been quite an awkward hassle to correct it 20 years later. And, let's not forget that, it does not change a thing if it's "kill" or "fill" (apart maybe from cabalistic calculations, but these are highly suspect in view of the differences between XXXI and CCXX), so he simply had bigger issues on his mind.

So, if one feels to decide right now, I think both solutions have their merits. But I am not yet giving my vote in the poll.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
08/05/2013 10:51 pm  
"OKontrair" wrote:
This is not an exclamation point it is a proofreader's vertical line to draw the printer's attention to something in the text that may not otherwise be conspicuous. You can see more of them in the marked up example of The Giant's Thumb.

Thank you for that.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
08/05/2013 11:08 pm  
"JamesWasserman" wrote:
Thus the question becomes what is Class A and what is not? What is the Prophet’s instruction and what is not? My understanding is that the OHO has interpreted the Prophet’s corrected copy of Liber 220 that mysteriously appeared from the Windram family as a message from the Secret Chiefs regarding our Tradition.

This is precisely what I feared when I raised the point the other day in this thread, and while I'm glad to see that HB has written an essay justifying his change -- and while I can appreciate that he's gone to the trouble of constructing a consistent argument -- it still feels as if a superstitious belief in oogity-boogities, reinforced by coincidece, is the real driving force behind this decision.

So, let me try to get this straight: the argument in favor of "kill" is that Crowley couldn't remember that his paraphrase ended with "kill me" and accidentally wrote "fill me." He apparently noticed the error only years later and corrected it in his copy of the Book, and then he either forgot about the correction or didn't think it important enough to do anything about or even mention again in writing for the rest of his life.

Is that right?

I mean, I'll grant you that I think Crowley probably wouldn't take this matter anywhere nearly as seriously as some botchagaloops on the internet are, but I'm finding it rather hard to believe that he wouldn't remember how his own poem ended -- when it would have been fresh in his mind -- or that he would mark a correction that needs to be made to Liber AL and then never mention it ever again in his life. Am I giving Crowley too much credit?

I definitely think HB's conclusions are consistent with the evidence we have, but I'm not persuaded yet that the conclusions necessarily follow from that evidence.


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
The plants talk to me....
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2115
08/05/2013 11:22 pm  

My fear was that if people could not see the results after they posted, that they wouldn't vote at all. I can understand the time limit.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1026
08/05/2013 11:31 pm  
"LiberShaun" wrote:
We know “kill” was used in his original versification of the Stele.

No, we don't.


ReplyQuote
RHK418
(@rhk418)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 14
09/05/2013 12:33 am  
"John Griffith" wrote:
You are correct in your count of the letter K upper and lower case equaling 220.  However, I think you have slightly miscounted a number of other letters.

Aaa, you're right. Curious to verify the 220 K's for myself, I just copy-pasted an online copy though a quick 'n' dirty script to count em up. The number I was interested in was correct, figured the rest were as well.
Upon closer examination, the source I fed it spells out 'tzaddi', and undoubtedly contains other small discrepancies. 


ReplyQuote
Frater_HPK
(@frater_hpk)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 104
09/05/2013 2:10 am  

fill me


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 456
09/05/2013 4:20 am  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:

This is the funniest thing I have seen all week.

"But the keen and the proud, the royal and the lofty; ye are brothers! As brothers fight ye!"

Debating (formal or informal) is tremendous fun, the monkey part of us enjoys flinging filth; but part of the discipline of debate is not getting too het up about it, retaining some perspective.  Enjoy the energy, but master reason, and not be its thrall, as the Tibetan guy says.

IMHO, in theory, division should strengthen "us", not weaken "us", as it has most religions (although it's debatable whether it's perhaps been a good thing that religions have been kept weaker than they might have been by internal division - except for the collateral damage, of course).

Anyway, back to the show!


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3357
09/05/2013 4:52 am  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Was Crowley negligent, and incompetent?

Usually, he is called "evil" and a "satanist," and "wicked." But even his most terrible enemies do not use the words negligent or incompetent.

No, they seldom do, although we are informed that the "the Caliph" (is this now a permanent title?) and "the" Praemonstrator of A.’.A.’. agree he was. How fortunate that Thelemites unable to make up their own minds about this admittedly vexed issue have authorities to whom they may turn.
It is interesting to observe that the original Hymanaeus was "delivered unto Satan , that [he] may learn not to blaspheme." (i Timothy 1:20)


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 436
09/05/2013 5:02 am  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
93, RLG!

"threefold31" wrote:
at least two versions of CCXX predate the publication of the Paraphrases.

No, the first printer-ready type-set proof has both (the paraphrase incorporated in the Great Invocation). Since the paraphrase is no part of CCXX, yes, there are two editions without it, but the "kill" and "fill" dilemma is type-set simultaneously in 1907.
Love=Law
Lutz

Dwtw

Thanks for the correction Lutz. I did mean to say there were two editions of CCXX without the Paraphrases. But it IS interesting, is it not, that two different typeset versions of this poem were made at the same time? This returns to my previous point, that the same source could not be used for both, because they differ in the capital O's, the name Ankh-af-na-khonsu, and the word Kill/Fill. It stretches credulity to think that a typist would have gotten all of those things wrong simultaneously. And if they WERE typeset at the same time, WHY do they differ in these details?

Let's say the word "Kill' is in the vellum book of poetry...

Are we to presume that a Cairo typist, entering the poem for verse 3:37, saw the word Kill in the poem from the vellum book, but saw the note 'fill me' in the ms, and chose the latter without consulting her employer, Mr. Crowley to resolve the discrepancy? If she did, and he said, go ahead and use fill, then he's either ignoring his own poem, or Kill was not in the poem in the first place. But also, this typist got the capital O's and the scribe's name correct? So are those in the vellum book?

And then a different typist was employed to get the Paraphrases ready years later, using the same vellum book of poems;  she dutifully typed the word Kill, but got the O's wrong (all of them), and the name Ankh-af-na-khonsu wrong, (multiple times), even though they must have been in the vellum book as capitals, and spelled correctly, if the first typist did her job right and was using the same source.

The likelihood of two different typists using the same document years apart, and getting considerably different results, is a huge stretch of the imagination. The poem is not that long, or complicated. Maybe Crowley's writing is hard to decipher, but in that case, wouldn't they consult him?

One really needs to apply the Law of Parsimony to this series of murky events. The Kill camp wants us to believe in far too many unlikely scenarios to justify their position. And let us not forget that there is only a single instance of a correction to the text of CCXX, and that this correction was ignored, while others were not. That tells me that the so-called 'master editor's copy' of Thelema 1909 was no such thing at all. it was used momentarily, perhaps as a start toward proofreading the text, but obviously abandoned long before it was anything close to being a comprehensive list of the mistakes to be found in Thelema 1909.

I'll grant you that AC crossed out the F and marked it with a K in that sole copy of CCXX. At that moment he obviously wanted that changed. But for what purpose? There is no indication. And it was NEVER IMPLEMENTED in CCXX.

We have him using one set of Paraphrases for Equinox 1(7) TSK, a different set for Equinox 1(9) Bartzabel, and yet another set for Equinox 1(10) Liber CCXX. All in the space of a year or so!

AC had his copy of Thelema 1909 for what, four years? And he gave it away right as the last Equinox was being published. For all we know, as he handed the book to Windram, he crossed out the K and said, "when you employ this invocation, use the word Kill instead". We just don't know why that mark is there, and it is not corroborated by a single other instance of a correction to one of his copies of Liber CCXX.

Seriously, it's time to sharpen Occam's Razor. The published Paraphrases do not provide any clear evidence of what was in the vellum book. But the holograph and the earliest printing of CCXX both say 'fill', and that is the default position which must be disproven. I don't have to prove that Fill belongs in verse 3:37; HB has to prove that it does NOT belong there. And so far, the case is extremely weak. AC was obviously ambivalent about this whole matter, perhaps intentionally so. And since all the copies of CCXX say Fill, and all the Paraphrases published separately say Kill, then that's exactly the way it should stay.

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3357
09/05/2013 5:28 am  

Any persons wishing to dispose of now-obsolete "fill" versions of AL issued during AC's lifetime are invited to PM me.
I will be happy to replace each with an updated version, as soon as they are in print.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1026
09/05/2013 11:51 am  

Paul, can you set it to show how many total votes there are, without showing the proportions of yeas or nays?

I know, I know, be patient, it's only four days!


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
09/05/2013 1:13 pm  

I think that it's beginning to seem as if addressing points in this particular thread is a bit like watching serials, in that a batch at a time (as in a "box set") maintains a sense of continuity whch might be lost or go otherwise unnoticed.  Someone coming to it from scratch is going to be in for a long read, however!

from the real_simon-iff, Reply #293, 07 May 2013 at 04:36:29 pm:
93, Jamie!
What can I say? I've read more boring threads...

Anyway, to "sensibly" speak about that matter at all, one has to accept the basic facts like Crowley told them. If one decides this is too goofy, there is no need to talk about orders/dictations of Higher Intelligences at all, and much less about Class A documents. If it's simply a book by AC, than he should have the last word and one could argue he wanted "kill", or "fill". But it's about a Divine Order, and therefore it would be nice to know what in God's name was in the vellum book. Nobody knows, so we have to guess and argue by certain evidence. This might be highly important to some or quite boring to others, I think it's quite refreshing and interesting to go through this stuff and look for evidence for one or the other side. I am sure something will come up which nobody had in mind so far

While there is the possibility of a "Where's the pen?" incident, it sounds quite logical to me that any additions made to the original dictation should be clearly distinguishable from the Divine stuff. Therefore - what's easier than that? - take a different pen. Take a different colour, take a different paper, whatever - keep it distinguishable from the rest.

93 93/93 Yes I quite agree, Simon.  It is refreshing & interesting, and your point was well made about distinguishing different writing instruments - if A.C. was thinking lucidly in that direction at the time, which I would question without discounting it.  Coming out from the Reception I would not imagine he would be quite in normal consciousness for at least a few minutes and still in an ‘altered state’ & so been distracted and not thinking so rationally (hence my semi-whimsical “where’s my pen” comment, and which he may have mislaid at the end in all the ongoing excitement.  Though I accept your other explanation as likelier!)

from the real_simon-iff, Reply #293, 07 May 2013 at 04:36:29 pm:
I just thought that the beginning of verse 38 is another pro for the "fill" fraction.

However, just to play devil’s advocate I would have thought the language of: “the light - its rays consume me” would actually fit in more with the (metaphorical not literal) expression of kill rather than fill, as the rays of light are portrayed as acting in an almost aggressive, active and dominant manner rather than in a more passive sense associated with filling up (cf. II.14 with light “devouring” men and “eating” them up, there).

from Azidonis, Reply #295, 07 May 2013 at 05:08:45 pm:
Just to emphasize this once again: Liber L is an A:.A:. publication in Class A. While it is also an O.T.O. Class A document, it is still an A:.A:. publication. And there is no head of A:.A:..

Please someone refresh my memory, but what is “an OTO Class A publication”?  I thought they (Class A) were all A:.A:.?

from John Griifith, Reply #315, 07 May 2013 at 10:28:59 pm:
Did he try to kill AL through the publication of the 'paraphrases' of the Stele?  His only way of striking back?  Or vice versa, he refused to write "kill" in the manuscript, and struck back by using "fill"?  Did he remember what he wrote?  Or is his entire life a living play in which every action and ambiguity is meant to instruct?

I am not quite clear what you are getting at, John – is there an inference that A.C. was acting under Freudain/quasi-oedipal drives and ‘striking back’ as an act of rebellion back at Aiwass the dictator, as his putative father figure?

N Joy


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 436
09/05/2013 3:23 pm  

The evidence shows AC voted for Fill more times than he voted for Kill 🙂


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1026
09/05/2013 3:27 pm  
"threefold31" wrote:
The evidence shows AC voted for Fill more times than he voted for Kill 🙂

LOL - very true! It was also his first vote, and his last.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
09/05/2013 3:46 pm  

Reply #335 from: OKontrair on 08 June 2013 at 10:51:44 am:

My apologies if this has been asked before on the thread, but does anyone have any speculation as to why Crowley's marginal "K !" has an exclamation point?

This is not an exclamation point it is a proofreader's vertical line to draw the printer's attention to something in the text that may not otherwise be conspicuous. You can see more of them in the marked up example of The Giant's Thumb.

But this can not altogether discount the possibility that it may have been an exclamation point, drawn in order to specifically draw attention to that letter.  And whoever has suggested that AC was so strong on proofreading anyway that he’d execute a “proofreader’s vertical line” – do me a favour!  That would show an almost touching faith that he had any of these such skills, which in his case appear to have been virtually non existent!  But – then again, we seem to have his proofing marks in abundance in The Giant’s Thumb which suggest his own handwriting, so – who’s kidding who? (I ask again)

Reply # 340 from Carrot_Childe on 08 June at 11:44:50 am:

I'd like to hold up a bit of information for scrutiny here, if you will. I believe it's rather important, and I haven't seen it brought up anywhere else (at least in the Google searches I've made.)
There is evidence that Crowley quoted verse III:37 in its entirety, using the word "fill", separately from both Liber CCXX and the Stele Paraphrase, both before and after 1912 (when both the pencil edit to the Crowley-Windram copy of Thelema and the Liber CXX MS are believe to have been written).

The instance is in a ritual titled "An Evocation Of Bartzabel The Spirit Of Mars" that appears in The Equinox Vol I, No IX, which was published in March of 1913. On page 129, it includes the following:

For the sake of ‘point of information’, Marlene Cornelius brought this up earlier in Reply #330 (q.v.)

Reply # 340 from Carrot_Childe on 08 June at 11:44:50 am:

Regardless, we still have an instance of the verse being published immediately after the 1912 pencil edit and CXX MS where Crowley indeed uses the word "fill" in print. If he had wished to correct it to another word, being fresh in his mind after writing the note in the Windram book, this would have been the perfect opportunity as it would have had to have been inserted and re-typeset specifically for this piece regardless. Not to mention it also survived proofing by a man who had committed The Book of the Law to memory.

Who precisely are you suggesting proofed / memorised it here – A.C.?  And if so, what evidence is there that he (a) did the proofing of Liber L himself and (b) had committed it to memory by 1912?

Reply # 342 from gurugeorge on 08 June at 01:45:15 am:

Reviewing the situation yet again today.  I still think Bel is right, it looks like Crowley had a brief flirtation with "kill", but didn't stick with it. 

Bad form from WB, too much weight on too thin a strut; should have just been a footnote flagging a possibility.

For the moment I am agreeing with gurugeorge’s assessment of the situation.  But like the breeze, I may ‘bloweth where I listeth’ and change my mind tomorrow!

Reply # 347 from obscuruspaintus at 07/05  05:00:04pm:

What really jumped off the page at me from the oto/legis2.pdf was this line, "His first thought, as he composed the ritual, was to follow these with that part of the Stele Paraphrase indicated by "Unity &c." "His first thought"...really?  Oh that I could read the mind of and know the very thoughts of Aleister Crowley!  Could this be a case of we are betrayed by our own words and actions? or am I nitpicking?

Here H.B., apart from any astounding clairvoyant faculties he may or may not have, also betrays woolly and most non-scholarly expression with his “A.C.’s first thought was…”.  Everyone with an inkling of knowledge about General Semantics would know that should read: “It seemed to me that A.C.’s first thought was…” Or, “A.C.’s first thought might have been”…

"ignant666" wrote:
"Shiva" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Was Crowley negligent, and incompetent?

Usually, he is called "evil" and a "satanist," and "wicked." But even his most terrible enemies do not use the words negligent or incompetent.

No, they seldom do, although we are informed that the "the Caliph" (is this now a permanent title?) and "the" Praemonstrator of A.’.A.’. agree he was. How fortunate that Thelemites unable to make up their own minds about this admittedly vexed issue have authorities to whom they may turn.
It is interesting to observe that the original Hymanaeus was "delivered unto Satan , that [he] may learn not to blaspheme." (i Timothy 1:20)

I agree also with ignant666’s succinct appraisal.  Is “The Caliph” now a permanent title?  H.B. tends to prefer the term “Frater Superior” these days, for some reason.  Originally he also claimed to be “(Acting) OHO”, although how long the acting is intended to last is open to debate, along with whether he will now intend to act de jure rather than de facto.  Crowley bestowed the title of “Caliph” (it has a specialised meaning in Islam, however A.C. used it more in the sense of its meaning to be ‘executive officer empowered to act in time of emergency.’)  There is also a (growing stronger) school of thought (gone into in the pending 2nd Edition (Revised) of Secret Rituals of the O.T.O.) which asserts that Crowley was “taking the piss” out of McMurtry at the time, as further evidenced by his reference to the membership of the OTO Agape Lodge as his Hollywood “fans” rather than serious students out in ‘Caliphornia’, and the fact that he used the term Hymenaeus Alpha to refer to McMurtry as “a number one cunt” [pardon my French! but I quote verbatim here].  For some strange reason, Bill Breeze has decided to take this appellation over and become “cunt number 2”… (one wonders whether his successor(s) in turn will be Hymenaeus Gamma through the course of the next millenium right up to Hymenaeus Omega, or whether they may all have got fed up of the joke (joke?) by that time...)

"threefold31" wrote:
Are we to presume that a Cairo typist, entering the poem for verse 3:37, saw the word Kill in the poem from the vellum book, but saw the note 'fill me' in the ms, and chose the latter without consulting her employer, Mr. Crowley to resolve the discrepancy? If she did, and he said, go ahead and use fill, then he's either ignoring his own poem, or Kill was not in the poem in the first place. But also, this typist got the capital O's and the scribe's name correct? So are those in the vellum book?

And then a different typist was employed to get the Paraphrases ready years later, using the same vellum book of poems;  she dutifully typed the word Kill, but got the O's wrong (all of them), and the name Ankh-af-na-khonsu wrong, (multiple times), even though they must have been in the vellum book as capitals, and spelled correctly, if the first typist did her job right and was using the same source.

The likelihood of two different typists using the same document years apart, and getting considerably different results, is a huge stretch of the imagination. The poem is not that long, or complicated. Maybe Crowley's writing is hard to decipher, but in that case, wouldn't they consult him?

As I said back in Reply # whenever it was - this typist, whoever she/ he/ they is/are, has a lot to answer for.  Not that we will ever be likely to get it (an answer), of course…

"threefold31" wrote:
I'll grant you that AC crossed out the F and marked it with a K in that sole copy of CCXX. At that moment he obviously wanted that changed. But for what purpose? There is no indication. And it was NEVER IMPLEMENTED in CCXX.

As was remarked in an earlier reply (I don’t have the time or inclination to hunt for it this moment), the instruction may have been a personal instruction to his student Windram to interpret the verse in a way to him personally as kill - as I then noticed you go on to say in:

AC had his copy of Thelema 1909 for what, four years? And he gave it away right as the last Equinox was being published. For all we know, as he handed the book to Windram, he crossed out the K and said, "when you employ this invocation, use the word Kill instead". We just don't know why that mark is there, and it is not corroborated by a single other instance of a correction to one of his copies of Liber CCXX.

(This would appear to be another case of “where great minds think alike”!)  It could also reflect a temporary position which A.C. held around c.1912, but subsequently changed again.  There is no proof either way on this one and it is left up to each interpreter’s ingenium.  What fun for us all – and in terms of the following the lead of the hierarchy of the current “OTO” and the “AA” - it sort of sorts out the shepherd(s) from the flock.  As it were.  And when it comes up to shearing time, I don’t think they will pay a lot of attention to Occam’s Razor & that it will remain for the duration somewhat blunt.

(Going to the barbers)
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
Candide
(@candide)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 49
09/05/2013 4:04 pm  

That does seem to be the latest thing. If the heads of the OTO/Outercol say so then it must be right....go back to sleep Thelemaland, your (not so) secret chiefs are in control.... 😉


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
09/05/2013 4:40 pm  
"threefold31" wrote:
Seriously, it's time to sharpen Occam's Razor. The published Paraphrases do not provide any clear evidence of what was in the vellum book. But the holograph and the earliest printing of CCXX both say 'fill', and that is the default position which must be disproven. I don't have to prove that Fill belongs in verse 3:37; HB has to prove that it does NOT belong there. And so far, the case is extremely weak. AC was obviously ambivalent about this whole matter, perhaps intentionally so. And since all the copies of CCXX say Fill, and all the Paraphrases published separately say Kill, then that's exactly the way it should stay.

Agreed.

"Candide" wrote:
That does seem to be the latest thing. If the heads of the OTO/Outercol say so then it must be right....go back to sleep Thelemaland, your (not so) secret chiefs are in control.... 😉


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
09/05/2013 4:56 pm  

"fill"


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5329
09/05/2013 8:10 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
But this can not altogether discount the possibility that it may have been an exclamation point, drawn in order to specifically draw attention to that letter.  And whoever has suggested that AC was so strong on proofreading anyway that he’d execute a “proofreader’s vertical line” – do me a favour!

Tell me, Jamie: do you have much experience of AC's handwriting and proofing technique? I can't believe you do, otherwise you'd know how feeble this statement is.

Overall, I'm enjoying this thread very much but it would be enormously helpful if members restricted their remarks to subjects about which they actually have something constructive to contribute.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5329
09/05/2013 8:12 pm  
"Candide" wrote:
That does seem to be the latest thing. If the heads of the OTO/Outercol say so then it must be right....go back to sleep Thelemaland, your (not so) secret chiefs are in control.... 😉

Candide: Paraphrases of Bill Hicks in this context are wildly overstated and your sarcasm is unhelpful to a proper exchange of information.

By the way: would you care to declare other usernames you've employed on this site?

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5329
09/05/2013 8:17 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
Paul, can you set it to show how many total votes there are, without showing the proportions of yeas or nays?

31 votes so far - and some very interesting IP addresses suggesting that at least some votes for the same option are being made by very near neighbours!

You may correctly infer that I am unimpressed with the Poll software!

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
The plants talk to me....
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2115
09/05/2013 8:27 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
Paul, can you set it to show how many total votes there are, without showing the proportions of yeas or nays?

31 votes so far - and some very interesting IP addresses suggesting that at least some votes for the same option are being made by very near neighbours!

That is sad to hear Paul. Seems that some wish to enforce their views onto others, via fraudulent voting methods. I feel sorry for them, that in order to get a desired outcome that they have to deceive fellow members of LAShTAL.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1028
09/05/2013 9:45 pm  
"Aleister Crowley" wrote:
"[...] In Paris [Tunis], in a mood of blank despair about it all, out came the Comment. Easy, yes; inspired, yes; it is, as printed, the exact wording required. No further cavilling and quibbling, and controversy and casuistry. All heresiarchs are smelt in advance for the rats they are; they are seen brewing (their very vile small beer) in the air (the realm of Intellect --- Swords) and they are accordingly nipped in the bud. All Parliamentary requirements thus fulfilled according to the famous formula of the Irish M.P., we can get on to your other questions untroubled by doubt.

One Textus Receptus, photographically guaranteed. One High Court of Interpretation, each for himself alone. No Patristic [patristic = of or relating to the church fathers or their writings] logomachies! [logomachy = a dispute about words, or a dispute carried on in words only; a battle of words] No disputed readings! No civil wars and persecutions. Anyone who wants to say anything, off with his head, and On with the Dance; let Joy be unconfined, You at the prow and Therion at the helm! Off we go." [Text written in bold in brackets, is added by me.]

The quote above from A.C. and the "Masters"; Why they Chose him, etc., letter 50 or chapter 50 of Magick Without Tears, documents Aleister Crowley's own interpretation of The Comment - containing the commandment "All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself." - as functioning to forestall revision and unnecessary disputation with respect to the content of The Book of the Law.

To me this is an official, final, full and clear expression or demonstration of Crowley's intention at the end of his life, being against any revision with respect to the content of The Book of the Law.

My point is that the context described above, indicates the late Aleister Crowley having a final intention, opposing the implementation of any kind of change or revision to the content of The Book of the Law.


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 316
09/05/2013 9:52 pm  


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
09/05/2013 10:18 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
"Aleister Crowley" wrote:
"[...] In Paris [Tunis], in a mood of blank despair about it all, out came the Comment. Easy, yes; inspired, yes; it is, as printed, the exact wording required. No further cavilling and quibbling, and controversy and casuistry. All heresiarchs are smelt in advance for the rats they are; they are seen brewing (their very vile small beer) in the air (the realm of Intellect --- Swords) and they are accordingly nipped in the bud. All Parliamentary requirements thus fulfilled according to the famous formula of the Irish M.P., we can get on to your other questions untroubled by doubt.

One Textus Receptus, photographically guaranteed. One High Court of Interpretation, each for himself alone. No Patristic [patristic = of or relating to the church fathers or their writings] logomachies! [logomachy = a dispute about words, or a dispute carried on in words only; a battle of words] No disputed readings! No civil wars and persecutions. Anyone who wants to say anything, off with his head, and On with the Dance; let Joy be unconfined, You at the prow and Therion at the helm! Off we go." [Text written in bold in brackets, is added by me.]

The quote above from A.C. and the "Masters"; Why they Chose him, etc., letter 50 or chapter 50 of Magick Without Tears, documents Aleister Crowley's own interpretation of The Comment - containing the commandment "All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself." - as functioning to forestall revision and unnecessary disputation with respect to the content of The Book of the Law.

To me this is an official, final, full and clear expression or demonstration of Crowley's intention at the end of his life, being against any revision with respect to the content of The Book of the Law.

My point is that the context described above, indicates the late Aleister Crowley having a final intention, opposing the implementation of any kind of change or revision to the content of The Book of the Law.

That doesn't explain the many errors in printed versions that H.B. has cited.

If anything, it gives more credence to negligence.


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 501
09/05/2013 10:36 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
That doesn't explain the many errors in printed versions that H.B. has cited.

A golden opportunity to do the lot then?

OK


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
09/05/2013 10:46 pm  
"OKontrair" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
That doesn't explain the many errors in printed versions that H.B. has cited.

A golden opportunity to do the lot then?

OK

Just pointing it out. Crowley had this thing for authoritative writing. And he wrote, in many cases, like everything was so nice and tidy, so cleaned up and exactly the way he wanted it.

So... if there were errors in Liber 220 printings, then what was Crowley on about? It seems he was under the impression that everything was in tip-top shape.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/05/2013 12:24 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"OKontrair" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
That doesn't explain the many errors in printed versions that H.B. has cited.

A golden opportunity to do the lot then?

OK

Just pointing it out. Crowley had this thing for authoritative writing. And he wrote, in many cases, like everything was so nice and tidy, so cleaned up and exactly the way he wanted it.

So... if there were errors in Liber 220 printings, then what was Crowley on about? It seems he was under the impression that everything was in tip-top shape.

There were many errors *only* in the 1909 edition of Thelema since Crowley did not have the manuscript at that time - he even wrote a footnote to this point in the pulled proof from the Collected Works which shared the same errors...

However, after the printing in Eq I:10 there were *very* few errors (3 or 4?) and they are clearly of the "typesetting kind" -- "of The tomb" corrected to be "of the tomb"... no word changes at all.

Unfortunately this issue has been conflated in people's mind due to the unfounded repetition of there "being many errors" implying these occurred throughout Crowley's publishing hisorty of CCXX. This is simply not true.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
10/05/2013 12:39 am  
"Marlene Cornelius" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
"OKontrair" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
That doesn't explain the many errors in printed versions that H.B. has cited.

A golden opportunity to do the lot then?

OK

Just pointing it out. Crowley had this thing for authoritative writing. And he wrote, in many cases, like everything was so nice and tidy, so cleaned up and exactly the way he wanted it.

So... if there were errors in Liber 220 printings, then what was Crowley on about? It seems he was under the impression that everything was in tip-top shape.

There were many errors *only* in the 1909 edition of Thelema since Crowley did not have the manuscript at that time - he even wrote a footnote to this point in the pulled proof from the Collected Works which shared the same errors...

However, after the printing in Eq I:10 there were *very* few errors (3 or 4?) and they are clearly of the "typesetting kind" -- "of The tomb" corrected to be "of the tomb"... no word changes at all.

Unfortunately this issue has been conflated in people's mind due to the unfounded repetition of there "being many errors" implying these occurred throughout Crowley's publishing hisorty of CCXX. This is simply not true.

So what you are saying is... the 1909 edition is the only one that had typos, and every edition had "fill"?


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1026
10/05/2013 9:33 am  

The Perils of Online Editions

Bryce Churchill at Temple of Thelema Forums has noted a troubling silent change of "fill me" to "kill me" in an on-line version of Equinox of the Gods at hermetic.com:
http://www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?p=81664#p81664

The edition -
http://hermetic.com/crowley/equinox-of-the-gods/liber-al-vel-legis.html

I think we can all agree that this kind of revisionism is intellectually dishonest and should be condemned, whatever decision is made for future editions of Liber CCXX issued by OTO.

This edition of Equinox of the Gods is not a faithful electronic copy of the 1936 edition, but a polemical revised copy. It is also a reminder of the dangers to anyone researching textual history issues never to trust on-line sources (I mean those re-entered, obviously; unless there is some reason for mistrust, scans and PDF texts (not OCR'd) are sometimes our only options). 


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1026
10/05/2013 10:55 am  

For me, the evidence as it stands now (and I am in complete agreement with RLG's comments) shows that Crowley continued to work on the paraphrase after having had the typescript of Liber L made in Cairo.

The earliest form of the paraphase had "fill me" and "Ankh-af-na-khonsu". This is reflected in the manuscript of Liber L and the typescript made from it and the vellum book together.

Later Crowley changed the form of the name in the paraphrase to "Ankh-f-n-khonsu" and "fill" to "kill", which is reflected in the Great Invocation. This means that the Great Invocation is not quoting Liber L or the typescript, but the revised version of the paraphrase.

The form "kill me" in CXX (Cadaveris) is quoting the paraphrase from the last revision, the same that the Great Invocation used, and that from which the Paraphrase of 1912 was set.

The form "fill me" in Bartzabel is quoting Liber Legis.

Although Crowley revised the paraphrase after receiving Liber L, the form he quotes in the manuscript with "fill me", and that which was set in the typescript, was the earliest form of his paraphrase, and is the form that should remain in CCXX.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
10/05/2013 12:28 pm  

Reply #4 from belmurru on: May 08, 2013, 04:31:58 pm:

Actually "kill me" never appears in any edition of CCXX (the printed version of Liber XXXI), until this year.

At the risk of appearing pedanticK (but "I just wanted to make sure the language was clear"), Kill appears in Liber AL under III.18.  This is in a different context of course, but anyone who is not very familiar with the Book just happening to come across this sentence in isolation - maybe while skimming - would come away with a wrong impression.

My opinion on the matter started to go a bit 12 Angry Men (the snappy film starring Henry Fonda), where I started off thinking ‘fill’ was what was intended at all times through mistakes etc; then was beginning to be swayed a little by the introduction of the evidence from The Giant’s Thumb which threatened a counter-movement for a while; but am beginning to return to my earlier position again and so will go with Fill for the purposes of the Poll for the main reason given (i.e., the dead man wishes to do his pleasure on earth among the living).

It is still too early yet however (if at all) to arrive at a definite & categorical decision either way. 

This does not affect earlier postings on the (ir)relevance of the matter to the OTO rather than the AA; the unproven nature and intention of the pencilled K; and the decision to include an annotated footnote with as much detail as possible within the context instead of making any changes within the text of Liber CCXX.

“Fill” me in,
Norma N. Joy Conquest


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 316
10/05/2013 12:32 pm  

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

Tit for tat and this for that. If there is one thing I've learned in this life, it is that things are not always as they appear.  What is this all really about?

No matter where else AC may have used the word kill it was not used in Liber XXXI.

The argument has become tertiary to me at this point. What has taken on more importance is the effect. It has brought out into full view a chink in the armor, a small crack in the hull.

The treatment of The Book Of The Law has been a long time irritant for me, which I had suppressed with the thought that others more knowledgeable than I were at the helm. Now I find myself in the uncomfortable position of having to pay my own personal piper for such foolishness. It's not all bad though, thankfully I've sworn an oath to no one or no thing but myself and my own development.

One of the greatest things that has troubled me about The Book Of The Law has been the placement of Liber XXXI. Should it not be placed at the very beginning? Should it not be printed in the highest quality color and on the finest paper available with Liber CCXX following? And what of the rest of the Holy Books? Should they not receive the same treatment...the highest quality reproduction of the originals followed by the interpretations? A.C. labored to bring this material forth into the world for the benefit of all mankind, not just members of the club but all mankind. Since his passing it would appear that this ideal has been given nothing but lip service. Having spent a great part of my life with varying amounts of time and intensity with them and having never seen the original handwritten reception, I now find myself wondering whether or not they have been monkeyed with as well?

What has been solidly proven to me by all this is the failure of the so called leadership since A.C. I'm now comfortable with this thought, Crowley's O.T.O. died with him and Mr. Germer shoveled the last soil into what was the smoking hole left behind. As each of us possess varying degrees of perception and capacity for understanding I can only suggest take a step back and a good long objective look at all of this.

I'm finished with all this.

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
Page 8 / 12
Share: