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

'Kill me' or 'Fill me' - The Debate

Page 2 / 6

lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5330
Topic starter  
"jamie barter" wrote:
"lashtal" wrote:
Until that time, though, HB's job as editor is to provide the best, most accurate version of CCXX possible and for the time being the balance seems clear to me: 'kill me' is what should be included, not 'fill me'.

Am I correct in “assuming” here that H.B. is incontrovertibly correct to ‘make the change’ as editor (stroke publisher)?

Well, no, his decision to make the change can't be incontrovertibly correct. If it was, we wouldn't be debating the matter.

"jamie barter" wrote:
And that you are, by extension and in effect, stating that this is the same ‘authority’ on which he has been acting throughout in the matter since April 10th?  That it therefore is purely a matter of ‘scholarship’ and has nothing to do with any notion of authority (real or otherwise) invested in H.B. by virtue of any position as “Visible Head” of the “O.T.O.” or “A.’. A.’.” - including by implication any sanction given to him to act on their behalf by A.N. Other (presumably J.D. Gunther) in their position as representing the A.’. A.’. in the same matter?

As I think I made very clear, my interest is in the publishing of the best edited, most accurate and most scholastically sound version of AC's material. HB is preparing a new edition of 'The Holy Books' and from this - and his scholarship, his ability by virtue of his position to resolve any potentially troublesome copyright issues and his access to source material - is derived his 'authority'. Aspects relating to which version of the OTO you prefer, which AA lineage is best and so on are irrelevant to the debate.

"jamie barter" wrote:
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
According to Yorke 21, on March 23rd, AC still hadn't got the transliteration from the museum staff: "My rituals work out well, but I need the transliteration."

Well it would have been even fresher in his mind, then, if A.C. still hadn’t got it by or on March 23rd – assuming that he received it the very next day, that would leave just sixteen days before the first day of the reading of The Book of the Law.

Which my be true but isn't the point Azidonis was trying unsuccessfully to make. And we still don't know on what day AC scribbled, in pencil, a note to his typist, causing this kerfuffle!

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 

The point I was making here, Paul, and wishing to clarify, was that it appears that the justicification (at least on Lashtal) for HB’s fill>kill change has nothing to do with his ‘spiritual’ authority as being in a position to make the change (i.e., as Head of the/ a A.’. A.’., or else by their proxy), as much as being purely based upon editorial/ publishing considerations taken apart from that.  The position appeared so strong that on that account I termed it “incontrovertibly ” – perhaps a little strong in itself, but I have perhaps been a little infected by the “absolutism” of the terms of the debate!  The sense I was meaning was that he appears to be “indisputably”, “undeniably” correct to do so, on the given evidence – and that that alone is sufficient to warrant the alteration. 

Your subsequent comment, however, appears to have quite answered that:

"lashtal" wrote:
As I think I made very clear, my interest is in the publishing of the best edited, most accurate and most scholastically sound version of AC's material. HB is preparing a new edition of 'The Holy Books' and from this - and his scholarship, his ability by virtue of his position to resolve any potentially troublesome copyright issues and his access to source material - is derived his 'authority'. Aspects relating to which version of the OTO you prefer, which AA lineage is best and so on are irrelevant to the debate.

in other words, H.B.’s authority as editor, etc, is sufficient to transcend and overrule any action by any O.T.O/ A.'. A.'. representative on that Authority... However given this, I personally feel this level of absolute certainty about the matter (such that it warrants a highly controversial and diversive actual change rather than the compromise footnote) cannot be so, as even H.B. concedes there are still question marks around certain matters, that there is a hell of a lot of Assumption, and that other things will presumably remain an unknown factor for ever, lost in the sands of history.

N. Joy


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I'll try again.

Surely the Class A version of Liber XXXI must be the facsimile copy that was first issued under a 'Class A' imprimatur?

it is also the facsimile that the reader is referred to in EoG for dubious styles and spellings, not 'those bits of the facsimile that represent actual dictation from Aiwass'

It is also notable that not all editorial comments penciled into the manuscript made it into the facsimile - the note on the first page of the third chapter to 'leave stain on paper - not in (block)'? (which sounds like an instruction to the printer) isn't in the facsimile, (nor is the stain!)  if the pencil notes on the verses to be added weren't considered a significant part of the facsimile surely it would have easy to have also omitted them?

Also of note is that while the vastly superior quality of the recent scans of the holograph make it abundantly clear that the penciled additions to 3:37 and 3;38 ARE penciled additions, this was not clear in the earlier printings, where they look like ink, and much more like an integral part of the manuscript.

It would be interesting to consider when the first facsimile copy of the manuscript was made, and whether the appearance of "fill" in it, in a form that does not make it distinct from the main ink text was an influence on Crowley's editorial policy for subsequent editions of  Liber 220.

Can anyone confirm if the penciled in notes to 3;37 and 3;38 appeared in the copy of the manuscript first published in the original equinox  I;7?

In the centennial Edition of the Book of the Law HB notes that this lacked markings made to some pages in later years ( and that some reprints have later versions of the Mss.)


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2964
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
According to Crowley, if he and Aiwass would have had the time, he would have almost certainly written the verifications into the Book on the spot. "The versified paraphrase of the hieroglyphs on the Stele being ready, Aiwaz allowed me to insert these later, so as to save time. " This also vaguely indicates that, as he had been working on the poem for about a month straight before the reception, he would have had the entire poem fresh in his mind, able to write it in.

Where was this from, Azidonis, do you have the reference source? (you seem to have for so many others!)

The Equinox of the Gods, point 6: The Editing of the Book, letter D.

"jamie barter" wrote:
“If they would have had the time?”  Surely this cannot have been an impediment – for one thing ‘time is not here as there’ (in Aiwass’s abode, wherever that may be); for another, neither of them were running to a military-style timetable where they simply had to stop at the stroke of the end of an hour, surely?  (But if so - why?  And who was keeping an eye on the clock?)

As I understand it, Crowley was to sit down and write down exactly what he heard. Time is not "here" as "there", but handwriting is "here". Therefore, Aiwass would have been on Crowley's time in the sense of the constraint of one hour.

"jamie barter" wrote:
It would have made things a lot clearer if Aiwass had spelled thing out in full, clearly, right from the off.  And it wouldn’t have done any harm reading through the thing again at the end for doublechecking purposes either, if the document was meant to be so incredibly important as all that (i.e., the guiding principle for the advancement of humanity during the course of the next æon).

I agree. But, as even Liber L shows, Crowley did not maintain a full Dhyana during the entire time. This is evidenced by such verses as II:11, "I see thee hate the hand & the pen; but I am stronger. "

This in itself creates more lag time than Crowley just allowing himself to be a pure vessel.

"jamie barter" wrote:
Am I correct in “assuming” here that H.B. is incontrovertibly correct to ‘make the change’ as editor (stroke publisher)?

This is the "Class B argument", that the Book should be unmarred by any 'scholarship' other than Crowley's (and Rose's, ofc).

"jamie barter" wrote:
And that you are, by extension and in effect, stating that this is the same ‘authority’ on which he has been acting throughout in the matter since April 10th?  That it therefore is purely a matter of ‘scholarship’ and has nothing to do with any notion of authority (real or otherwise) invested in H.B. by virtue of any position as “Visible Head” of the “O.T.O.” or “A.’. A.’.” - including by implication any sanction given to him to act on their behalf by A.N. Other (presumably J.D. Gunther) in their position as representing the A.’. A.’. in the same matter?

If H.B. were only acting as an editor or a scholar, I would suppose him to have no need to use such terms as "Secret Chiefs" or "the Officers of A:.A:.".

"jamie barter" wrote:
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
According to Yorke 21, on March 23rd, AC still hadn't got the transliteration from the museum staff: "My rituals work out well, but I need the transliteration."

Well it would have been even fresher in his mind, then, if A.C. still hadn’t got it by or on March 23rd – assuming that he received it the very next day, that would leave just sixteen days before the first day of the reading of The Book of the Law.  (Of course, it’s just over one week if we take that date as being April 1st, as per Kenneth Grant/ Achad, etc. appear to! – see relevant different threads for that discussion…)

Crowley wishing he had the transliteration is in some ways a key, indicating that errors exist in The Great Invocation. One of those possible errors is the word, "kill". Also, I don't know any French, but Google tells me that the French word for "fill" is "remplir", the French word for "kill" is "tuer". How very hard it must be to mistake those two words for each other, unless one considers the possibility of a 'Freudian slip' in transliterating, and subsequently remembering, the English.

"lashtal" wrote:
Your rambling excursion into Aleph territory intended to imply support for your view from Crowley has little direct relevance and I note that you've brought it into the debate by throwing in a careless 'as above, so below.'

Actually, it wasn't a "rambling excursion", though I see you are quick to dismiss it. The quoted chapter from Liber Aleph is intended to show that even though Aiwass indicated to Crowley to insert the paraphrases by means of gesture, Aiwass' gestures are just as important as his words.

The bold sentence says, "Therefore deem not that thy lightest Fancy is insignificant." The rest of the chapter is quoted in full, for context.

The "As above, so below" remark was a way of saying, if one is going to regard one's own "lightest fancies" as significant, then one should regard Aiwass' as significant as well, including his gestures, which were a direct command to Crowley to insert the stele paraphrases into the Book. That, in effect, makes the stele paraphrases that appear in Liber L/AL, Class A.

"lashtal" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
... he had been working on the poem for about a month straight before the reception

Not so. You need to check your dates. And, in any case, remember that the available evidence would suggest that AC didn't write 'fill' during the reception but, again, only as part of an instruction to a third party, probably a typist, at a date unknown. AC wrote 'unity' - he wrote neither 'fill me' nor 'kill me' during the reception, which is hardly surprising as the text written in pencil was specifically not spoken by 'Aiwass'!

The poem... The Great Invocation, including the paraphrase, would have been instilled in Crowley's memory, given the short window with which he would have written the penciled note for "fill". That there are may be some discrepencies in The Great Invocation is evidenced, again, by Crowley wishing he would have had the stele transliterations with him. This gives credence to the possibility that Crowley may have written kill from a false memory, or error. This also gives credence that penciling in "fill" was a correction to that Invocation, albeit indirectly, taken from the vellum book.

"lashtal" wrote:
You repeat the same old stuff about the use of 'fill' in CCXX across various editions, as if this is challenged by anyone. We can all see what is published. The debate is over whether this was an error that should be corrected. You can agree with that 'correction' being made to CCXX or not, but simply repeating one single fact over and over again doesn't make either position any stronger.

It's one of the most pertinent facts, and needs continual restating, as the "debaters" are busy splitting hairs over the tiniest minutiae of possibilities. It is a reminder of the forest, not the trees.

"lashtal" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
So where does lashtal.com end and Paul begin, in this scenario? Is Paul Feezey lashtal.com, or are Paul Feezey and lashtal.com 'two separate entities'? I'm not trying to pick at you, or the site (so please don't take this as a 'sarcastic comment'), just asking a basic question, for clarification, as lashtal.com is a "non-partisan site", whereas Paul Feezey is clearly "pro-kill".

Azidonis: You're simply not reading posts before you respond to them.

You have no idea what I am doing on this end of my computer, and your "charge" here is both speculative and presumptuous. If you want to point back to the initial post, don't bother. I read it, and as I stated in my initial response, I intended on finishing up the rest of that document. Until then, I tossed in a quote I was concerned about in one of the other documents (which remains unaddressed), and was subsequently berated for it.

"lashtal" wrote:
You think you know what the person writing really means and you respond to that, rather than to the points actually raised. This is obvious time and time again and appears again in the tone and content of your reply to my own post. What on earth does your comment have to do with the context?

No. I read the words, as they are, and respond to them. In this case, my comment was a sincere question on how where your personal views and the site's policies meet up. In other words, I like to know when I am talking to "Paul the human being", and when I am talking to "Paul the moderator". It is not always so clear cut.

"lashtal" wrote:
Okay, I realise it pleases you to dismiss my opinion by suggesting that I'm not impartial but you're really barking up the wrong tree here. First, my remark about LAShTAL.COM was with reference to it not being an 'occult site' - I made no specific mention here of impartiality. Secondly, I clearly have opinions and I sometimes express them here, just as as any member might. The site, however, is impartial and I'm robust in enforcing that. If you look at the first post in this thread you will note that the first link I gave was to a 'pro-fill' paper, for example. This site is impartial. I have opinions but am careful to ensure that the impartiality of the site is never compromised by them.

No, as I just said above, and I even said "please" in my initial statement, it is difficult, at times, to know when you are speaking as "Paul the human being" (who is pro-kill), and when you are speaking as "Paul the moderator" (the owner of a non-partisan website).

It's really that simple. No charges, no emotional accusations, no monkey business. If I'm going to debate with you, I don't want to walk on eggshells in case you might go put on your moderator hat. Please note that this too is not intended as sarcastic or in any way offensive. If you recall, you and I have never had an elongated debate, though we've had some pretty intense discussions.

"lashtal" wrote:
And, if you insist on using my name in full three times in a couple of lines of your post, at least show me the courtesy of spelling it correctly.

I'm sorry for that! 🙂 You're right - I never have been able to remember how to spell your last name. Please accept my apology. I do understand your position on this one. With a last name like Bogenschneider, I certainly do understand.

"lashtal" wrote:
Actually, let's stick with user names while on the Forums, eh?

But... you want me to call you "lashtal" while everyone else calls you Paul? I would much prefer to call you Paul, if you don't mind. I'll refrain from using your last name if possible, so that I might not butcher it again as I have, more than once, in the past.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
Also, I don't know any French, but Google tells me that the French word for "fill" is "remplir", the French word for "kill" is "tuer". How very hard it must be to mistake those two words for each other, unless one considers the possibility of a 'Freudian slip' in transliterating, and subsequently remembering, the English.

93, Az!

Crowley did not receive the text of his poem in french from the museum and simply translated it. What he did receive was a word-for-word transliteration of the hieroglyphs (see here: http://www.lashtal.com/forum/index.php?topic=6113.120 Reply #128 ff.), he put the whole thing together in poetic terms and added what he thought was needed (from a literary standpoint, so to speak). You also find the French "pre-translation" in the 1907 Collected Works galley proofs. No Aum! let it whatever me! in there...

"Azidonis" wrote:
The poem... The Great Invocation, including the paraphrase, would have been instilled in Crowley's memory, given the short window with which he would have written the penciled note for "fill". That there are may be some discrepencies in The Great Invocation is evidenced, again, by Crowley wishing he would have had the stele transliterations with him. This gives credence to the possibility that Crowley may have written kill from a false memory, or error. This also gives credence that penciling in "fill" was a correction to that Invocation, albeit indirectly, taken from the vellum book.

I don't understand you here. The Great Invocation wasn't begun before the transliterations from the museum had arrived. It probably was written after the reception of XXXI and incorporates parts of his poetic paraphrase just like he planned to insert into XXXI. His poem "a paraphrase of the hieroglyphs upon the ob-/re-verse of the stele of revealing" (the one he was to insert in part) never anywhere uses "fill". If (and the "kill" followers think so) it was "kill" from the beginning (pre-dicatation), he clearly made a mistake - for whatever reason - when he later scribbled "fill" into XXXI. But that aside, I wonder what gestures you mean:

"Azidonis" wrote:
including his gestures, which were a direct command to Crowley to insert the stele paraphrases into the Book.

If I remember correctly, the order what to insert where made through "instantaneous thoughts" and no gestures from Aiwass, who couldn't be seen by the scribe anyway. But what you so nicely said is true: it was a direct command to insert the stele paraphrase into the book. Which he - according to some - did incorrectly, thereby ignoring a Divine order.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2964
 
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Also, I don't know any French, but Google tells me that the French word for "fill" is "remplir", the French word for "kill" is "tuer". How very hard it must be to mistake those two words for each other, unless one considers the possibility of a 'Freudian slip' in transliterating, and subsequently remembering, the English.

93, Az!

Crowley did not receive the text of his poem in french from the museum and simply translated it. What he did receive was a word-for-word transliteration of the hieroglyphs (see here: http://www.lashtal.com/forum/index.php?topic=6113.120 Reply #128 ff.), he put the whole thing together in poetic terms and added what he thought was needed (from a literary standpoint, so to speak). You also find the French "pre-translation" in the 1907 Collected Works galley proofs. No Aum! let it whatever me! in there...

"Azidonis" wrote:
The poem... The Great Invocation, including the paraphrase, would have been instilled in Crowley's memory, given the short window with which he would have written the penciled note for "fill". That there are may be some discrepencies in The Great Invocation is evidenced, again, by Crowley wishing he would have had the stele transliterations with him. This gives credence to the possibility that Crowley may have written kill from a false memory, or error. This also gives credence that penciling in "fill" was a correction to that Invocation, albeit indirectly, taken from the vellum book.

I don't understand you here. The Great Invocation wasn't begun before the transliterations from the museum had arrived. It probably was written after the reception of XXXI and incorporates parts of his poetic paraphrase just like he planned to insert into XXXI. His poem "a paraphrase of the hieroglyphs upon the ob-/re-verse of the stele of revealing" (the one he was to insert in part) never anywhere uses "fill". If (and the "kill" followers think so) it was "kill" from the beginning (pre-dicatation), he clearly made a mistake - for whatever reason - when he later scribbled "fill" into XXXI. But that aside, I wonder what gestures you mean:

My understanding is that Crowley performed The Great Invocation before the reception, which means he would have written it, and had it, somehow. I'm aware that the line in question was made up by Crowley. Sorry, I'm very busy with real life, as of late. The corrections you have made are appreciated.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
including his gestures, which were a direct command to Crowley to insert the stele paraphrases into the Book.

If I remember correctly, the order what to insert where made through "instantaneous thoughts" and no gestures from Aiwass, who couldn't be seen by the scribe anyway. But what you so nicely said is true: it was a direct command to insert the stele paraphrase into the book. Which he - according to some - did incorrectly, thereby ignoring a Divine order.

Was it Paul that said gestures? If so, it'll be in this, or the other, recent thread (from S... name escapes me).

Out of time. bbl


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
According to Crowley, if he and Aiwass would have had the time, he would have almost certainly written the verifications into the Book on the spot. "The versified paraphrase of the hieroglyphs on the Stele being ready, Aiwaz allowed me to insert these later, so as to save time. " This also vaguely indicates that, as he had been working on the poem for about a month straight before the reception, he would have had the entire poem fresh in his mind, able to write it in.

Where was this from, Azidonis, do you have the reference source? (you seem to have for so many others!)

The Equinox of the Gods, point 6: The Editing of the Book, letter D.

I somehow had the feeling you were going to mention that!  It is my fault, I should have made things a bit clearer.  There is a difference, not great, but detectable, in meaning between your “if [A.C.] and Aiwass would have had the time”, and A.C.’s remark in TEOTG “…so as to save time.”  The former implies that no extra time beyond the allotted hour was available, for whatever reason, and that it was limited as a scarce resource; the latter does not imply a shortage of time as such but suggests a more efficient use of the time available (although it doesn’t discount it, either.)  I should perhaps have known by the absence of direct quotation marks after your “According to Crowley”, but it was just a thought he may have said things slightly differently elsewhere and I'd hoped more light might be thrown upon the matter from some other different source.

I know this is a side-issue, but this business of the “exactly one hour” has always struck me as one of the more curious details about the whole Reception story; that for whatever scientific/ magical or other reasons each chapter had to be dealt with ‘bang on the minute’.  (A.C. also mentions in TEOTG that each day’s session lasted for “exactly” the same period – which implies, all other factors being equal, that Aiwass must have had to dictate faster & A.C. must have had to consequently speed up his writing for the longer, third instalment.  Again, it would have been so much more productive and constructive, in view of the difficulties we are having now, if the ‘pair’ of them - leaving aside for the moment any debate about Aiwass being an aspect of A.C.'s unconscious mind - could have just taken another twenty minutes, say, each day for A.C. like a secretary to have ‘read back’ his longhand in order to ensure that no avoidable error may have crept into this singularly vital and significant "charter of universal freedom".)

"Azidonis" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
And that you are, by extension and in effect, stating that this is the same ‘authority’ on which he has been acting throughout in the matter since April 10th?  That it therefore is purely a matter of ‘scholarship’ and has nothing to do with any notion of authority (real or otherwise) invested in H.B. by virtue of any position as “Visible Head” of the “O.T.O.” or “A.’. A.’.” - including by implication any sanction given to him to act on their behalf by A.N. Other (presumably J.D. Gunther) in their position as representing the A.’. A.’. in the same matter?

If H.B. were only acting as an editor or a scholar, I would suppose him to have no need to use such terms as "Secret Chiefs" or "the Officers of A:.A:.".

Yes this is the curious dichotomy which has now been revealed: and according to Paul's interpretation the two things would appear to be mutually exclusive with no bearing upon one another.  (If this is not so, i.e., if I am misreading Paul's words, I am sure he will make this known in due course.)  However if this is the case, and if there is a widespread adoption or acceptance of this criterion, I foresee there will be strong repercussions arising from it & not only from within This Debate...

N. Joy


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5330
Topic starter  
"jamie barter" wrote:
Yes this is the curious dichotomy which has now been revealed: and according to Paul's interpretation the two things would appear to be mutually exclusive with no bearing upon one another.  (If this is not so, i.e., if I am misreading Paul's words, I am sure he will make this known in due course.)

Goodness me, no! Not 'mutually exclusive with no bearing', but irrelevant in the context of the present thread:

"lashtal" wrote:
My interest is in the publishing of the best edited, most accurate and most scholastically sound version of AC's material. HB is preparing a new edition of 'The Holy Books' and from this - and his scholarship, his ability by virtue of his position to resolve any potentially troublesome copyright issues and his access to source material - is derived his 'authority'. Aspects relating to which version of the OTO you prefer, which AA lineage is best and so on are irrelevant to the debate.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5330
Topic starter  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Was it Paul that said gestures? If so, it'll be in this, or the other, recent thread (from S... name escapes me).

The AC quote is in HB's third paper:

"Aleister Crowley" wrote:
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 Stèle, 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.

By the way, Azidonis:

"Azidonis" wrote:
But... you want me to call you "lashtal" while everyone else calls you Paul? I would much prefer to call you Paul, if you don't mind. I'll refrain from using your last name if possible, so that I might not butcher it again as I have, more than once, in the past.

Nah, call me 'Paul' - 'lashtal' seems so formal! Seriously, though, as a general rule, personal names should obviously be avoided unless the user has made it clear that it's okay. As for me, of course, my full name appears in the sig I use for every post here. Why? 'Cos I'm proud of the site. Impartial as it is! 🙂

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2964
 
"lashtal" wrote:
Nah, call me 'Paul' - 'lashtal' seems so formal! Seriously, though, as a general rule, personal names should obviously be avoided unless the user has made it clear that it's okay. As for me, of course, my full name appears in the sig I use for every post here. Why? 'Cos I'm proud of the site. Impartial as it is! 🙂

Derp! I remember you got me on it a couple years ago too. I think it was when Perdurabo was re-issued... and it has been on your sig the entire time. Shame on me.

"davyp93" wrote:
I'll try again.

Surely the Class A version of Liber XXXI must be the facsimile copy that was first issued under a 'Class A' imprimatur?

it is also the facsimile that the reader is referred to in EoG for dubious styles and spellings, not 'those bits of the facsimile that represent actual dictation from Aiwass'

It is also notable that not all editorial comments penciled into the manuscript made it into the facsimile - the note on the first page of the third chapter to 'leave stain on paper - not in (block)'? (which sounds like an instruction to the printer) isn't in the facsimile, (nor is the stain!)  if the pencil notes on the verses to be added weren't considered a significant part of the facsimile surely it would have easy to have also omitted them?

Also of note is that while the vastly superior quality of the recent scans of the holograph make it abundantly clear that the penciled additions to 3:37 and 3;38 ARE penciled additions, this was not clear in the earlier printings, where they look like ink, and much more like an integral part of the manuscript.

It would be interesting to consider when the first facsimile copy of the manuscript was made, and whether the appearance of "fill" in it, in a form that does not make it distinct from the main ink text was an influence on Crowley's editorial policy for subsequent editions of  Liber 220.

Can anyone confirm if the penciled in notes to 3;37 and 3;38 appeared in the copy of the manuscript first published in the original equinox  I;7?

In the centennial Edition of the Book of the Law HB notes that this lacked markings made to some pages in later years ( and that some reprints have later versions of the Mss.)

davyp, I really don't know. My 'scholarship' is on vacation, at the moment, if it isn't obvious. 🙂 Some interesting observations though.


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 501
 

Davyp93,

I no longer have an original Equinox V.1 No. 7 but the tiny version of Liber XXXI from it is reproduced in the 1975 Law is for All which I do have. I don't know how to put images in posts so I have sent a scan of the relevant section to the galleries where it should show up eventually.

It is just about legible though I suppose the original was slightly better. Crowley said of it: “The reproduction of Liber Legis has been done thus minutely in order to prevent the casual reader from wasting his valuable time over it.”

OK


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5330
Topic starter  

Thanks, OKontrair:

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"lashtal" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
Yes this is the curious dichotomy which has now been revealed: and according to Paul's interpretation the two things would appear to be mutually exclusive with no bearing upon one another.  (If this is not so, i.e., if I am misreading Paul's words, I am sure he will make this known in due course.)

Goodness me, no! Not 'mutually exclusive with no bearing', but irrelevant in the context of the present thread:

"lashtal" wrote:
My interest is in the publishing of the best edited, most accurate and most scholastically sound version of AC's material. HB is preparing a new edition of 'The Holy Books' and from this - and his scholarship, his ability by virtue of his position to resolve any potentially troublesome copyright issues and his access to source material - is derived his 'authority'. Aspects relating to which version of the OTO you prefer, which AA lineage is best and so on are irrelevant to the debate.

Thanks for pointing out that this position of ‘mutual exclusivity’ does not apply in The Debate at least Paul, however there is definitely a dichotomy/ demarcation of sorts intimated by your wording that “AA lineage is irrelevant to the debate”, since the whole idea of being able to “change” a Class A text – allowing that such a thing is in fact possible – would only conceivably proceed from someone who was in sufficient authority to do so: i.e., again, if not the original “Adept Author”, then the Præmonstrator of that organization under which the publication occurred.  H.B. does not appear to have any such authority himself; therefore the change to the word he is proposing comes from the context of his scholastic, ‘editorial’/ publishing persona alone.

I have now read through all of H.B.’s most recent update of 31st May and offer the following observations upon it:

From Page 1:
He is not known to have kept a regular diary for 1912 or 1913. He may have kept one in 1911 but if so, it was lost. Except for his Algerian and Vision and the Voice records, few primary diaries survive for 1909–1910 beyond quoted fragments (e.g., for 1909, a few paragraphs in Confessions) and a few stray entries in notebooks.

This will make the much-vaunted Collected Diaries 1898-1947 interesting - when they eventually do surface from the rabbit-hole after over 20 years of talk about it.  In terms of the disruption of an ongoing continuum which might have been hoped for by some, there appear to be several large gaps – therefore one wonders exactly for which years they are available?

From Page 1:
Though I’ve not seen the theory advanced, I suppose that one could theorize that the preceding line—“To stir me or still me!”—poses two alternatives: “fill me” (“stir”) or “kill me” (“still”). Parallels could be drawn between LVX (“fill”) and NOX (“kill”).

I have not come across this theory elsewhere either, am not sure why it should be advanced, and cannot see the reasoning for posing these “two alternatives” – why should filling something involve stirring, for instance?  (If the “container” was full up to the brim with e.g. liquid in place of light, stirring would cause it to slop over.)

From Page 2:
But none of this, however interesting, explains the textual divergence, and this approach goes against the presumption—which I believe to be true—that there is one correct reading, and only one. I believe that the usage pattern in the chronological table of textual variants shows more than one editorial hand at work, and that this is the simplest explanation for the fundamental inconsistency.

Presumably “presumption” here means the same thing as “Assumption”?  But why should there only be “one, true, correct reading”?  This is incredible absolutism and not at all relativist; but it fits in perfectly well with the ‘Caliphornian’ ethos of deleting all opposition to the One True Order’s perceived way of doing things.

From Paragraph Preceding Section 1:
I have yet to hear a truly plausible explanation for Crowley’s correction to the Crowley-Windram Thelema in support of preserving the “fill me” reading. My best effort to construct one, given in an appendix, is not very convincing.[ …]

There are several of these have been advanced through Lashtal and, I imagine, in other Thelema or A.C.-based forums (one is that the correction formed a personal instruction to Windram alone).

From Paragraph Preceeding Section 1:
But our best evidence to settle the longstanding discrepancy in sources remains Crowley’s correction to his Thelema. It is provably from Crowley himself, and unlike other holograph evidence, is unquestionably directly on point. It plainly shows him considering the issue as a problem with two possible answers, and making his decision.

The language: “Provably, unquestionably, plainly…”  resembles that of a demagogue, i.e., someone preaching with unquenchable zeal & unimpeachable (‘total’) certainty.

From Section 1:
In his verse-by-verse “Critical Recension” in the same chapter, Crowley discusses the verses that drew on his Stèle paraphrase poetry:

This particular phrase is not explained for the benefit of newcomers, and similarly in Section 3, “the Ballantyne Hanson proofs” is mentioned for the first time; perhaps what this was should also have been briefly reiterated?

From Section 7:
My tentative dating of c. 1912 for the “fill” to “kill” correction in the Crowley-Windram Thelema is based on his publication of the Stèle Paraphrase in spring 1912, which also carries the “kill” reading, but the correction may have been made somewhat earlier; e.g., if he had prepared the Cairo Working installment of The Temple of Solomon the King in 1911. The “kill” correction was almost certainly made to his Thelema after May 1910, the latest date on which he personally (verifiably) used the “fill” reading, in his MS. for “An Evocation of Bartzabel.”

“The latest date” could be expressed more precisely as: “The latest date for which records are available”, as it is not accurate as it stands and forms yet another assumption.

From Section 7:
For all we know, she was dating two men, one of whom happened to be married, and got pregnant—this happens all the time. It is possible that, in the end, she married the actual father. I do know that she raised a fine son, was by all appearances responsible, leaving a good-sized bequest to her son on her passing.

This could also have been expressed as “…raised what appears to me to have been a fine son…”.  Also, in a Crowleyan context why is “by all appearances responsible” meant to indicate a point in her favour?  Out of all the many adjectives which could be employed, one of the last that one would expect to see used to describe Crowley in a positive light would be “responsible”…

From Section 8:
This was probably due to Crowley editing the Egyptian transliteration for his own poem, and possibly writing from memory. Such editing should not surprise us—it should be borne in mind that there is no evidence that Crowley considered the Stèle Paraphrase as such to be Class A. If he had, he would have described it as “received” and published it with that imprimatur, listing it appropriately in the curricula. Even Aiwass (or as he later spelled his name, Aiwaz) credited Crowley with the authorship of “The Spell called the Song” Stèle poetry, in Liber Legis III:38: “these are the adorations, as thou hast written”.

Nor is there evidence that A.C. did not consider the Stèle Paraphrase as such to be Class A.  The matter is therefore “Not Proven”.
Also, the exact question of authorship with Class A documents is not straightforward, particularly as A.C. declared himself “inspired” with regard to Liber Legis – this may include his construction of the versifications, also – or at least, that cannot be definitely ruled out.

From Section 13:
This set of proofs is unusual in that it shows Crowley working very hard on the proofreading; many other poems in this book [The Giant’s Thumb] have heavy corrections—see for example the examples following here.

But how far has it been proven that the proofreading markings are (all) Crowley’s own here?  “The jury is still out”, is it not?  (Ditto with the marks in Windram’s Thelema.)  But even if the answer is “yes” (the marks were Crowley’s), it is indeed “unusual” as it shows extreme diligence in proofing on A.C.’s behalf, and would appear to be at odds with his denigratory comments expressed elsewhere (e.g. to Gerald Yorke) regarding the (value of the) proof-reading profession as a whole.

From Section 16:
Notably, the above-cited miscitation of Liber Legis I:14 as “chapter I, verse 26,” and the often-discussed problem with the “first of April” date, went uncorrected.

“Often discussed”?  I was under the impression that I was the first person to have raised this possibility only as far back as April 10th (see Replies #13 & #15 in the “Introduction to Liber AL Date” thread) but would be very interested to learn if other people happened to be writing along similar lines before this time (in addition to Achad and Grant).

From Section 16:
For the very same reasons, however, it is not reasonable to argue that the correction of the titling of the Stèle Paraphrase (from “Revelling” > “Revealing”) proves that Crowley read the text of the Paraphrase with particular care. This typo is a “howler” in a heading, and might just as easily have been pointed out to him by a reader, possibly even an irate subscriber in a letter.

It seems unlikely that an “irate subscriber” would take the trouble to berate The Equinox staff by letter over just that error, although not impossible of course.  I would imagine the typical readership of The Equinox would not be like the Daily Mail's though, and that it would probably be less easy to raise them to ire.  (Some people would accept the ‘Stèle of Revelling’ as an acceptable alternative reading – in the same way that the more open-minded are quite capable themselves of also accepting “kill” along with “fill” in reference to III.37.)

From Section 17:
Early printings of the Weiser reprint carried the following note on the copyright page (since lost by the publishers, who are forever revising copyright pages), and it details the corrections that were required:

How could it have been “lost by the publishers” – not some amateur tin-pot back-street outfit but Weiser’s, the world’s leading ‘occult’ publisher?  It is rather odd, especially in view of the fact that this wouldn’t have been back in the Dark Ages pre-World War I, but 1976.  And is it also true that they are “forever revising” their copyright pages” – why would this need to be, exactly?

From Section 17:
A set of proofs for this edition, as well as Crowley’s personal red buckram 1938 Liber Legis, were shipped to the O.T.O. in America after Crowley’s death. His Liber Legis was stolen in the robbery of the O.T.O. Archives by the Brayton “Solar Lodge” group in the 1960s. The proofs survived this robbery, as they were catalogued in Box 6 in the catalog titled “Crowley-Germer Library MSS. and Correspondence” prepared by Helen Parsons Smith and Phyllis Seckler, but they disappeared in the second 1970s robbery of the Crowley-Germer O.T.O. Archives.

It is a side track, but how far is it definitely known that it was “the Brayton ‘Solar Lodge’ group responsible, or is this more supposition/ further assumption which has been perpetuated since the 60s?  Furthermore, is there then an inventory of the contents which might have been stolen in either or both burglaries, and if so, where this might be perused?

From Section 18:
As in so many other things, Smith did not rely on Crowley but simply got it (very nearly perfectly) right on his own, in his characteristically quiet way. He did introduce at least one new typo, as noted in the table; there may have been others.

Why, then, could this one typo not be briefly listed here in the main text (as H.B. has itemised other minutiae of a similar nature), since it appears to be the only “one” of significance noted?  And what is this “there may have been others”? – there may have been a pig fly by my window just now, but in the absence of seeing it for myself, or at least then being able to watch it having been filmed by others, I conclude that there was not…

From Appendix:
I have tried to note all assumptions as such in the text (using the language “Assume that” etc.). In general, statements that lack the word “assume” can be considered factual.

The very large number of them & mere act of their continued repetition like a dripping tap forms a constant refrain & backdrop of mild irritation in the Appendix – there are 26 Assumptions in Section A and 32 in Section B.  (Please do not hold me accountable if I have miscounted myself somewhere – I do have other claims on my time!)

From Appendix, Argument A, Pro "Fill Me":
(14) Crowley does not erase his “fill me” > “kill me” correction in his copy of Thelema.

This would more or less seem to repeat #20 below, for no clear reason:

From Appendix, Argument B, Pro "Fill Me":
(20) Crowley does not erase his holograph “fill me” > “kill me” correction in his Thelema.

From Appendix, Argument B, Pro Kill Me":
(3) Assume that the vellum notebook was kept with the MS. of Liber Legis, so that the Cairo TS. of Liber Legis and “The Spell called the Song” TS. became Crowley’s sole sources until June 1909, when he recovered the MS. and the vellum book.

The ms. of Liber L was also Crowley’s primary source (along with the ts and vb) until 1906, the date when its contents “possessed” him & when he then lost the ms. (again?) until June 1909.  (Incidentally, is it known whether he lost track of the vellum book along with the ms. and found them together at the same time as well?)

Assuming like Me, U know of course what they say about those who Assume,
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Jamie,
It is not mere supposition that the “the Brayton ‘Solar Lodge’ group robbed the O.T.O. archives....it is a fact.  Shiva freely admits to their crime in both editions of Inside the Solar Lodge and in various posts on this very site!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Thanks for the image O'Kontrair, very much appreciated


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 436
 

Dwtw

In response to a couple points made by jamie...

The Stele Versifications, as they appear in Liber CCXX are Class A. I understand HB's point, that Crowley did not consider them 'received', but neither were any of the other Hoy Books. All were written by Crowley in a 'state of high trance' or whatever, inspired of course by Aiwass. Is that the same thing as 'received'? May be. I won't argue the semantics.

But consider the rather strange state of affairs if the poetry from the Obverse of the Stele is made Class A because it is in Liber CCXX, while the poetry from the Reverse is not. Even though they are from the same poem. Odd, is it not?

And once the versifications were included in CCXX, they became Class A. So are they not Class A when they stand on their own?
If so, this will get HB in a sticky wicket, because if that's the case, then all the other evidence for Kill comes from a non-class A work, namely the Paraphrases outside of CCXX. Hence, his argument that the 'correction' is Class A, because it's made to a Class A document is not bolstered by anything else, because the only other evidence for the correction comes from non-Class A sources. Go figure.

Now we can see why it was important for him to make the distinction about a 'correction' in a Class A becoming Class A itself. Funny, a pencil note can become Class A, but the whole damn poem itself is not Class A when it's outside Liber Legis. Seriously, that is some twisted logic.

HB centers the 'imperative' for making this correction on the fact that Aiwass insisted that Crowley include his poem in Liber Legis. But nobody seems to have noted the point that doing so means that Aiwass knows about the poem And this poem was written after "The Equinox of the Gods" had come, (by AC's admission), and that Horus had been invoked (and Thoth for good measure). And of course after a magickal link had been made with the Stele itself. And the Goetic work, and who knows what else. All of this magick going on, and nobody thinks the poem is Class A or inspired? If it's not inspired, then why does Aiwass want it in a book that he insists should not be changed by so much as a letter? Maybe because it's part of the Book?

Crowley knew this poem was powerful - how many rituals did he try to incorporate parts of it in? A good handful. And published them on their own a couple times. Even used it in Resh, on a daily basis. This poem meant an awful lot to him, and by the looks of it, the versifications were the first Class A document. Well, at lest the part that Crowley said was Class A 😉

As for proofreading Giant's Thumb, the only marks he made in the Versifications (besides the title) were to capitalize the O's before proper nouns, which seem rather obviously in need of changing. At that late date, he probably didn't have anything else to compare the poem against anyway. And if he was as lazy and negligent as we are made to believe, he probably missed the word 'kill' in there too. Or is the fact that 'kill' is not crossed out a tacit approval of it's appearance? Because if it is, then what about the copy of CCXX from the Equinox with the correction in AC's hand that was used for EOTG? That has 'fill' in it, unmarked, which would then be getting tacit approval also. Oh, I know, that copy wasn't carefully proofread...

The waters in this abyss get murkier and murkier. Choronzon is laughing his ass off somewhere.
Trying to prove negatives, dozens of assumptions, incompetent proofreaders, missing documents, Secret Chiefs (or none), Class A or B, inspired or not; the list goes on.

And one little K in a margin is going to clear all this up for us, once and for all.

You know, there's a K missing from the margin of Trigrammaton in the same volume... coincidence?

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5703
 
"N.O.X" wrote:
It is not mere supposition that the “the Brayton ‘Solar Lodge’ group robbed the O.T.O. archives....it is a fact.  Shiva freely admits to their crime in both editions of Inside Solar Lodge and in various posts on this very site!

This is true. However, although we apparently had AC's wooden stele, we did not have his copy of AL. It seems like Yorke didn't let everything get shipped to Germer, and there were three (3) major abstructions from the OTO archives. For #1, we may look to Solar Lodge. For #2, McMurtry and Seckler actually blamed each other. #3 was after McMurtry died.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"threefold31" wrote:
But consider the rather strange state of affairs if the poetry from the Obverse of the Stele is made Class A because it is in Liber CCXX, while the poetry from the Reverse is not. Even though they are from the same poem. Odd, is it not?

Poetry from the Reverse… an interesting point, since although the position with that from the Obverse is ambiguous - i.e., uncertain as to whether it appertains to Class A or not - with the Reverse, there seems to be no classification as such to go on at all.

"threefold31" wrote:
And once the versifications were included in CCXX, they became Class A. So are they not Class A when they stand on their own?
If so, this will get HB in a sticky wicket, because if that's the case, then all the other evidence for Kill comes from a non-class A work, namely the Paraphrases outside of CCXX. Hence, his argument that the 'correction' is Class A, because it's made to a Class A document is not bolstered by anything else, because the only other evidence for the correction comes from non-Class A sources. Go figure.

Now we can see why it was important for him to make the distinction about a 'correction' in a Class A becoming Class A itself. Funny, a pencil note can become Class A, but the whole damn poem itself is not Class A when it's outside Liber Legis. Seriously, that is some twisted logic.

I would argue that if the Stele versifications can be considered Class A within the context of CCXX, then that would also make them Class A outside the context of the Book as well – after all, the other words themselves all remain the same (ignoring the actual kill/fill anomaly for the moment) & if they were ‘inspired’ when A.C. wrote them their nature would remain ‘inspired’ whenever they were read back again. 
Yes, I’m not quite sure what H.B. is arguing in this context; it doesn’t seem to have been made clear from the 3rd ("On the Fill/ Kill Correction (3) dated 31st May) update here.

"threefold31" wrote:
HB centers the 'imperative' for making this correction on the fact that Aiwass insisted that Crowley include his poem in Liber Legis. But nobody seems to have noted the point that doing so means that Aiwass knows about the poem And this poem was written after "The Equinox of the Gods" had come, (by AC's admission), and that Horus had been invoked (and Thoth for good measure). And of course after a magickal link had been made with the Stele itself. And the Goetic work, and who knows what else. All of this magick going on, and nobody thinks the poem is Class A or inspired? If it's not inspired, then why does Aiwass want it in a book that he insists should not be changed by so much as a letter? Maybe because it's part of the Book?

Surely it is rather self-evident that “Aiwass would have known about the poem”?  He is meant to be a præter- (i.e., super-) human intelligence, and appeared to have been aware of quite a number of things, in addition to maybe having a hand in “ordering events”.  (Although blessed with a short-term memory too, apparently.  “Go figure” that one!!)

"threefold31" wrote:
The waters in this abyss get murkier and murkier. Choronzon is laughing his ass off somewhere.
Trying to prove negatives, dozens of assumptions, incompetent proofreaders, missing documents, Secret Chiefs (or none), Class A or B, inspired or not; the list goes on.

I think that the important thing to bear in mind über alles is that “There is no certain test” & that, as always, “there is a factor infinite and unknown”…

"threefold31" wrote:
And one little K in a margin is going to clear all this up for us, once and for all.

Isn’t that the idea then??!  (So sorry, I must have been reading H.B.’s documentation under a misapprehension all this while…)

"Shiva" wrote:
"N.O.X" wrote:
It is not mere supposition that the “the Brayton ‘Solar Lodge’ group robbed the O.T.O. archives....it is a fact.  Shiva freely admits to their crime in both editions of Inside Solar Lodge and in various posts on this very site!

This is true. However, although we apparently had AC's wooden stele, we did not have his copy of AL. It seems like Yorke didn't let everything get shipped to Germer, and there were three (3) major abstructions from the OTO archives. For #1, we may look to Solar Lodge. For #2, McMurtry and Seckler actually blamed each other. #3 was after McMurtry died.

Thanks for the input here; my ‘history’ on this is slightly lacking at the moment as I remember that although the Brayton gang - sorry, group - had always had the blame, wasn’t there also a counter-accusation from Sascha Germer that it was allegedly Phyllis Seckler & co.?  So I’m not sure how much was received error & how much there is foundation, and if down to the Brayton mob, I mean, Brayton & co., then how much was authorised by Brayton as leader in charge (or perhaps ‘behind the scenes’ in absentia, rather like Manson), or how much possibly a burglary instituted ‘unofficially’ by other members of the gang without her knowledge? 

Also (I don’t know whether Shiva can help here, and I haven’t yet read Inside Solar Lodge, which is beginning to move up my ‘to do’ list: were you yourself  ‘in on the job’, old buddy?) I am unclear if there were inventories of the swag – I mean, contents - taken after each of the – is it two, or three now? – abstructions (is that a polite euphemism here for theft or burglaries?)….  There is obviously more to this which I will have to look into outside of this thread.

I wanted to just slightly ‘edit’ my long contribution in Reply #62 (I still need to learn how to do this in a pukka fashion, so please bear with me in the interim…):

"jamie barter" wrote:

From Section 7:
For all we know, she was dating two men, one of whom happened to be married, and got pregnant—this happens all the time. It is possible that, in the end, she married the actual father. I do know that she raised a fine son, was by all appearances responsible, leaving a good-sized bequest to her son on her passing.

This could also have been expressed as “…raised what appears to me to have been a fine son…”.  Also, in a Crowleyan context why is “by all appearances responsible” meant to indicate a point in her favour?  Out of all the many adjectives which could be employed, one of the last that one would expect to see used to describe Crowley in a positive light would be “responsible”…

In that “responsible” here, is only one step away from “respectable”, i.e., conforming to the expectations of the masses, behaving oneself “properly”, etc.

"jamie barter" wrote:

From Paragraph Preceeding Section 1:
But our best evidence to settle the longstanding discrepancy in sources remains Crowley’s correction to his Thelema. It is provably from Crowley himself, and unlike other holograph evidence, is unquestionably directly on point. It plainly shows him considering the issue as a problem with two possible answers, and making his decision.

The language: “Provably, unquestionably, plainly…”  resembles that of a demagogue, i.e., someone preaching with unquenchable zeal & unimpeachable (‘total’) certainty.

This should really have read: “The language: “Provably, unquestionably, plainly…”  resembles that of a demagogue, i.e., someone preaching with unquenchable zeal & unimpeachable (‘TOTAL’) certainty.”

There is a minor correction in that I typed Argument B for Argument A under (20) below: it should, of course, read “Argument A” in both instances:

"jamie barter" wrote:

From Appendix, Argument A, Pro "Fill Me":
(14) Crowley does not erase his “fill me” > “kill me” correction in his copy of Thelema.

This would more or less seem to repeat #20 below, for no clear reason:

From Appendix, Argument B, Pro "Fill Me":
(20) Crowley does not erase his holograph “fill me” > “kill me” correction in his Thelema.

Also:

"jamie barter" wrote:

From Appendix:
I have tried to note all assumptions as such in the text (using the language “Assume that” etc.). In general, statements that lack the word “assume” can be considered factual.

The very large number of them & mere act of their continued repetition like a dripping tap forms a constant refrain & backdrop of mild irritation in the Appendix – there are 26 Assumptions in Section A and 32 in Section B.

All the more so as the reason for H.B.’s change is itself otherwise couched in such absolutist terms.

"jamie barter" wrote:
(Please do not hold me accountable if I have miscounted myself somewhere – I do have other claims on my time!)

Nor do I have much time to proof my own postings!  (But I think the number is right).

On with The Debate! (Is any reason known why H.B. does not (want to) participate in this on Lashtal & comment generally in the same manner as his “opposite number” Michael Staley is willing to do, for instance?)
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2964
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
"threefold31" wrote:
The waters in this abyss get murkier and murkier. Choronzon is laughing his ass off somewhere.
Trying to prove negatives, dozens of assumptions, incompetent proofreaders, missing documents, Secret Chiefs (or none), Class A or B, inspired or not; the list goes on.

I think that the important thing to bear in mind über alles is that “There is no certain test” & that, as always, “there is a factor infinite and unknown”…

It is most important that neither of these are used as an excuse or veil.

For instance, there is no certain test because each individual is unique. There can be no standardized text.

"jamie barter" wrote:
"Shiva" wrote:
"N.O.X" wrote:
It is not mere supposition that the “the Brayton ‘Solar Lodge’ group robbed the O.T.O. archives....it is a fact.  Shiva freely admits to their crime in both editions of Inside Solar Lodge and in various posts on this very site!

This is true. However, although we apparently had AC's wooden stele, we did not have his copy of AL. It seems like Yorke didn't let everything get shipped to Germer, and there were three (3) major abstructions from the OTO archives. For #1, we may look to Solar Lodge. For #2, McMurtry and Seckler actually blamed each other. #3 was after McMurtry died.

Thanks for the input here; my ‘history’ on this is slightly lacking at the moment as I remember that although the Brayton gang - sorry, group - had always had the blame, wasn’t there also a counter-accusation from Sascha Germer that it was allegedly Phyllis Seckler & co.?  So I’m not sure how much was received error & how much there is foundation, and if down to the Brayton mob, I mean, Brayton & co., then how much was authorised by Brayton as leader in charge (or perhaps ‘behind the scenes’ in absentia, rather like Manson), or how much possibly a burglary instituted ‘unofficially’ by other members of the gang without her knowledge? 

Also (I don’t know whether Shiva can help here, and I haven’t yet read Inside Solar Lodge, which is beginning to move up my ‘to do’ list: were you yourself  ‘in on the job’, old buddy?) I am unclear if there were inventories of the swag – I mean, contents - taken after each of the – is it two, or three now? – abstructions (is that a polite euphemism here for theft or burglaries?)….  There is obviously more to this which I will have to look into outside of this thread.

I wanted to just slightly ‘edit’ my long contribution in Reply #62 (I still need to learn how to do this in a pukka fashion, so please bear with me in the interim…):

You really would do well to move Inside Solar Lodge to the top of your list. Just a suggestion. Not only for this thread, but for the one concerning your S.O.T.O. research as well. The book not only tells about Shiva's perspective and the Solar Lodge happenings, Shiva does a really good job of presenting "the times" as well, which gives some context to the whole 'occult scene' during that period.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5703
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
Is any reason known why H.B. does not (want to) participate in this on Lashtal & comment generally in the same manner as his “opposite number” Michael Staley is willing to do, for instance

Some of us believe that HB has indeed been present among us, but we're not going to disclose his screen name. Why? #1: Because we can't prove it.*  #2: Because it's more fun to watch the drama unfold.

*Just look for the poster who is speaking with authority and who does not use phrases like, I think, I believe, it is likely, supposedly ... et al speculatum. Sorry for the bad latin.  😉

I'm going to pass on any further detailed questions regarding Solar Lodge's field maneuvers ... see my current reply under the old "Solar Lodge" thread. I'm trying to keep the noise level down here - as requested.

Now ... back to the Fillers and the Killers.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2964
 
"Shiva" wrote:
Now ... back to the Fillers and the Killers.

I can't wait for the book and subsequent movie!


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
"threefold31" wrote:
The waters in this abyss get murkier and murkier. Choronzon is laughing his ass off somewhere.
Trying to prove negatives, dozens of assumptions, incompetent proofreaders, missing documents, Secret Chiefs (or none), Class A or B, inspired or not; the list goes on.

I think that the important thing to bear in mind über alles is that “There is no certain test” & that, as always, “there is a factor infinite and unknown”…

It is most important that neither of these are used as an excuse or veil.

For instance, there is no certain test because each individual is unique. There can be no standardized text.

Yes, indeed!  I was attempting to emphasise the fact that there can be no absolute way of approaching the matter in view of all the uncertain aspects which threefold31 had tightly managed to summarise in his third sentence there.
One must diligently employ discrimination as well (that muchunderestimated Malkuthian virtue).  And it wouldn’t do to answer all (historical/ scientific) enquiries in this fashion, but, as I have remarked previously before in various analogies, it is always productive to bear to in mind as the default/ reset button of last resort (- as contrasted with that infamous, crusading “Totalitarianism of belief”).

"Azidonis" wrote:
You really would do well to move Inside Solar Lodge to the top of your list. Just a suggestion. Not only for this thread, but for the one concerning your S.O.T.O. research as well. The book not only tells about Shiva's perspective and the Solar Lodge happenings, Shiva does a really good job of presenting "the times" as well, which gives some context to the whole 'occult scene' during that period.

OK, as soon as Madame Fate in her meandering fashion sees fit to put a copy of ISL acrawss my path, I will put all the rest of my pressing affairs to one side & devote my undivided attention to it, how’s that?!  What I have come across regarding it sounds as if it might be a good read & I quite look forward to engaging with it (and hope it makes me laugh too!)

"Shiva" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
Is any reason known why H.B. does not (want to) participate in this on Lashtal & comment generally in the same manner as his “opposite number” Michael Staley is willing to do, for instance

Some of us believe that HB has indeed been present among us, but we're not going to disclose his screen name. Why? #1: Because we can't prove it.*  #2: Because it's more fun to watch the drama unfold.

Sort of like a Secret Chief incognito, in fact!  I imagined that there was a possibility that H.B. might have been a “lurker on the threshold” but hadn’t contemplated that thought - what a fascinating possibility!  If true it would indeed be fun to watch the drama – or at least the mask – unfold.  But some would say it’s a shame that what should be the leader of what was meant to be the world’s principal Order to promulgate and show by example the workings in the world of Thelema, instead of being e.g., proud & mighty, for instance, feels he has to hide and shy away rather than stand up & be himself accountable.

Look here brother who are you jiving with that Cosmick De Bree?
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 436
 

Dwtw

Since the evidence is so varied, and indeed confusiing at times, I thought I would follow the Editor's example and give a simplified timeline of possible events. This timeline uses a number of assumptions, as any argument must, since there are so many gaps in the historical record. However, I have kept the assumptions to a minimum, and most of them are quite reasonable to my mind. There are only a small handful of assumptions that are contentious, but that is exactly the crux of the argument. Whether or not they are contentious is beside the point; are they reasonable is the main question. This timeline should account for all publications germane to the argument. For specific examples of the wording in the Stele Versifications, see the Editor's excellent "Stele Paraphrase Analysis"

So here goes:

Crowley has a Vellum Book (VB) with the Stele Versifications (SV) in it.

Assume that the word ‘fill’ is used in these versifications.

Assume that Crowley could remember a poem he had written sometime in the prior two weeks.

Aiwass instructs AC to include the SV in Liber CCXX

Crowley writes a note in ink, during the dictation of XXXI, indicating v. 3:37 will include the SV starting with “Unity, etc”.

Assume the pencil note in XXXI was written as an instruction for the typist.

Assume AC noticed that he had originally written ‘Unity, etc.’, thus skipping a stanza of the SV.

Assume AC referred to the VB, and changed the directions, in pencil, to start with “I am the lord of Thebes”, etc.

AC then inserts a pencil note in XXXI indicating an insertion of the SV up to the words “fill me”.

A typist in Cairo makes a typescript and two carbons of the material in XXXI.

Assume the Cairo typist follows the penciled instructions, and (more or less) correctly copies the SV from the Vellum Book, including the word ‘fill’.

The Cairo TS (CTS) is not properly checked against the ms before leaving Cairo, thus resulting in errors perpetuated in the next version.

Assume AC works on an early version of The Great Invocation (TGI) shortly after the Cairo Working in 1904.

AC wants to incorporate the SV into this ritual.

Assume AC does not consider the SV as ‘received text’, and is therefore open to revision.

Assume AC either copies the SV from his VB, (or writes them from memory), into this new ms of TGI, revising them as he sees fit.

Assume AC wants to intensify the identification with the deceased priest Ankh-af-na-khonsu, and deliberately changes the word ‘fill’ to ‘kill’, for dramatic effect in the ritual, since the Adept is a living person.

Collected Works Vol. III Appendix reaches proofs in 1907, almost certainly from the CTS, including many errors.

Proof version of CCXX is made in 1908, almost certainly from the CTS, repeating many errors.

Thelema published in 1909, almost certainly from the 1908 proofs, and thus from the CTS. In the SV, an accent is added to ‘veiled’, a hyphen is added to ‘self-slain’.

Assume the Evocation of Bartzabel ms, May 1910, includes the SV hand copied from Thelema 1909, fixing the bad scansion of “to still me” in the process, and introducing a new spelling of Ankh-f-n-khonsu.

A Paraphrase of the Inscriptions is prepared for publication in EQ I(7), late 1911 - early 1912. Source material is required.

Assume Crowley marks the Windram copy of Thelema sometime shortly prior to March 1912, for the purpose of preparing A Paraphrase of the Inscriptions on the Obverse of the Stele of Revelling (sic), thus insuring the scansion and the word ‘kill’ are fixed in the Paraphrase.

Assume the VB is used as the source material for the Paraphrase from the Reverse of the Stele, as it is the only full copy in AC’s possession.

Assume that Crowley made deliberate changes in the Paraphrase, resulting in a version different from the SV that appear in CCXX 1909 & 1913.

Assume that the printer or a typist preparing a copy for the printer misspelled ‘Revealing’, mistakenly left capital O’s as lowercase and changed one accent mark, but correctly left out the letter a’s in the middle of Ankh-af-na-khonsu, and left in the “H’ at the end of Nuith and Hadith.

Crowley, and/or someone else, did not properly proofread the copy for the Paraphrase, thus missing the obvious mistake in the title.

Assume Crowley sketched out Liber Cadaveris circa 1912 with the newly fixed word ‘kill’ still fresh in his mind, and included it there.

An Invocation of Bartzabel is published in EQ I(9) in 1913.

Assume the editor transcribed the ms of Bartzabel as faithfully as possible, not trying to conform it with any other document.

Assume Bartzabel undergoes minor changes during transcription - a changed accent on ‘veiled’, a change from capital to lower case L on ‘light’, and the inclusion of an ‘a’ in the middle of Bes-na-Maut.

Crowley gives away his copy of Thelema to Thomas Windram in 
Sep.- Oct. 1913.

Assume Crowley gives away his copy of Thelema to Windram prior to the final editing of Liber CCXX.

Assume Liber CCXX for EQ I(10) is checked against a different copy of Thelema 1909, and the ms of XXXI, as the primary sources, thus fixing numerous errors.

Assume the changes between CCXX 1909 and 1913 are the result of editing or compositing. Accents are changed on ‘gemmed’ and ‘veiled’, added to ‘winged’ and removed from ‘Thebes’; scansion is fixed on ‘to still me’; capital L is changed on ‘light’; H is removed from “Nuith’ and “Hadith”.

Assume the changes in the SV of CCXX 1913 to the names Nuith and Hadith are done deliberately, disregarding their appearance in the VB or the Paraphrases.

Assume all later versions of Paraphrases and CCXX are ultimately generated from EQ I(7) and I(10).

Conclude that the Paraphrase and the SV as they appear in CCXX are two different versions of the same poem, deliberately changed by Crowley, with no need to harmonize the two or include the SV verbatim from the VB into CCXX.

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5330
Topic starter  
"jamie barter" wrote:
Sort of like a Secret Chief incognito, in fact!  I imagined that there was a possibility that H.B. might have been a “lurker on the threshold” but hadn’t contemplated that thought - what a fascinating possibility!  If true it would indeed be fun to watch the drama – or at least the mask – unfold.  But some would say it’s a shame that what should be the leader of what was meant to be the world’s principal Order to promulgate and show by example the workings in the world of Thelema, instead of being e.g., proud & mighty, for instance, feels he has to hide and shy away rather than stand up & be himself accountable.

Wow! What an extraordinary set of presumptions and judgments!

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5330
Topic starter  
"threefold31" wrote:
Assume that the word ‘fill’ is used in these versifications.

Interesting, RLG. It's enormously frustrating, though, that the whereabouts of the vellum notebook are currently unknown. I wonder how your sequence would work out if the second assumption reads: 'Assume that the word ‘kill’ is used in these versifications'?

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 436
 
"lashtal" wrote:
"threefold31" wrote:
Assume that the word ‘fill’ is used in these versifications.

Interesting, RLG. It's enormously frustrating, though, that the whereabouts of the vellum notebook are currently unknown. I wonder how your sequence would work out if the second assumption reads: 'Assume that the word ‘kill’ is used in these versifications'?

Dwtw

In that case, a couple other assumptions would be changed - that the Cairo typist defaulted to the 'fill' reading of the ms XXXI, and that subsequent use of Fill was a deliberate choice on Crowley's part at least from 1913 onward, when a comprehensive edit of CCXX was finally accomplished ( since previous versions of CCXX had relied on the Cairo TS, not XXXI).

In either scenario, the key point is that there are two options, AC used them both, and preferred Fill in CCXX and usually Kill otherwise, because he did not feel that the Paraphrase was received, and therefore was subject to revision as he saw fit.

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2964
 
"threefold31" wrote:
In either scenario, the key point is that there are two options, AC used them both, and preferred Fill in CCXX and usually Kill otherwise, because he did not feel that the Paraphrase was received, and therefore was subject to revision as he saw fit.

Are you also implying that you think that the SV, as they are published in CCXX, are not to be considered Class A?


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1026
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
Are you also implying that you think that the SV, as they are published in CCXX, are not to be considered Class A?

I think that the legal - letter of the law - answer would be that in CCXX, the Paraphrase quotes are Class A, while standing alone, they are not Class A. This includes the reverse side of the Paraphrase - it is not Class A.

Therefore, the "kill me" variation is never attested as Class A.

The question then becomes, as it has been since April of this year, why Crowley crossed out "f" and wrote "K" in the margin of Windram's Thelema. Is this to be considered a belated Class A correction? If so, on what basis?


ReplyQuote
Markus
(@markus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 259
 
"threefold31" wrote:
Dwtw

In either scenario, the key point is that there are two options, AC used them both, and preferred Fill in CCXX and usually Kill otherwise, because he did not feel that the Paraphrase was received, and therefore was subject to revision as he saw fit.

Litlluw
RLG

RLG has hit the nail on the head. The conclusion to be drawn - in my opinion - is that we retain the reading Fill in CCXX and are free to use Kill outside this text, much like Therion himself practised it.

Markus


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 474
 
"threefold31" wrote:

In that case, a couple other assumptions would be changed - that the Cairo typist defaulted to the 'fill' reading of the ms XXXI,

If the penciled "instructions" in verses III:37-38 of Liber L actually are instructions (big if), and were intended for a typist, the instructions were probably for the benefit of the Cairo typist. According to Crowley, he had his copy of the Book of the Law while traveling through China in 1906, and sent J.F.C. Fuller a typescript of the book sometime between 1907-1908, proving there was a typescript version available for copying, making the need for copying directly from the holograph unlikely after 1904.

The odd thing about the penciled additions to verses III:37-38 of Liber L being directed at a typist, is there is no similar instruction included in verse I:14 that specifies the vellum book as the source of the paraphrases, a fact that challenges the typist theory. The reference to the 'spell called the song' written in ink in verse I:14 of Liber L specifies which verse of the paraphrases is to be included in the book verse; the penciled notes in the third chapter complement the specification made in verse I:14 by establishing which of the verses of the stele should be included with those verses of book, and may consist of a clarification aimed at posterity in general.

Also in need of consideration is the use of pencil by Crowley to add notes to Liber L. The last pages of Invocation of Hoor were written in pencil by Crowley during the summer of 1904 while at Boleskine; the likely reason pencil was used is Crowley ran out of ink, and being 30 miles from Inverness, was unable to obtain more ink without a day's journey to do so. Liber L also contains other instances of writing in pencil, such as the page and verse numbers. The use of pencil by Crowley during the summer of 1904 suggests all of the penciled additions to Liber L were written then as well, all of which casts aspersions on the theory that the mention of the vellum book in Liber L was for the benefit of a typist.

Also questionable is the thought that Crowley could have added only two penciled notes to Liber L that would have provided all of the clarifications needed for a typist to produce an accurate copy of the book from the holograph: a typist would have needed any number of clarifications to proceed, yet there are no others in the manuscript.


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 436
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
"threefold31" wrote:
In either scenario, the key point is that there are two options, AC used them both, and preferred Fill in CCXX and usually Kill otherwise, because he did not feel that the Paraphrase was received, and therefore was subject to revision as he saw fit.

Are you also implying that you think that the SV, as they are published in CCXX, are not to be considered Class A?

Dwtw

No, I think that Crowley presumed that the SV were fair game for revisions as he saw fit. Once put into CCXX, they became Class A in that context, as published with the Imprimatur.

The more I have studied all the evidence, the more I've come to the conclusion that Crowley was not at all interested in having the Stele Verses - as Paraphrases - be identical to their appearance in CCXX. There is no single instance where this is the case. Talk all you want about what a bad proofreader Crowley was. Are we really supposed to believe that he incorrectly proofread every single instance of the SV as they appeared in print? That he never once got it right? I for one find that impossible to believe - except in the sense that he may have never actually put the precise contents of the vellum book into CCXX, on purpose. The evidence we have is that many different versions of the SV were published, and they never concur inside and outside of CCXX. This has to be a deliberate choice.

The Editor is at pains to say that the vellum book was the source for the Paraphrases in Equinox 1(7), the Temple of Solomon the King. Given that Fuller had the proofs of the Great Invocation, then the Editor is probably right; there would have been no other copy of the Reverse Paraphrases, unless it were a typescript, in which case it would stand for the vellum book anyway.

But the giveaway is this: the names Nuith and Hadith in the SV appear that way in the original 1907 proofs, and in TSK in Equinox 1(7). This would make sense if both documents ultimately had the vellum book as their source - one via the Cairo typescript and the other directly.
But WHY then were the names Nuith and Hadith changed in CCXX 1913, the big new editorial revision? The one where Crowley said he was at pains to adhere to not changing so much as the style of a letter? This aspect is glossed over by the Editor, who says that these names were simply 'conformed' to their appearances elsewhere in CCXX. Seriously? That's all you have to say? He changed the words you are claiming that he was supposed to include in CCXX, by direct order of Aiwass, and it doesn't even raise an eyebrow?

If the Editor thinks the TSK version of the Paraphrases is in fact a fair copy of the vellum book, and that this is what Crowley was instructed to include in CCXX, then why are we not changing Nuith and Hadith also? Is it because Crowley never told us to do so? Then what did he tell us to do? He had them changed to Nuit/Hadit, which means either the TSK and 1907 versions are both wrong, (very doubtful), or they are both right, but Crowley just didn't care, and used the words he thought were best for CCXX. And in that case, those words include Fill, and therefore it should stay Fill.

If, on the other hand, the Editor wants to ignore this type of evidence, then all we are left with is a single pencil note in Thelema 1909 with a K in the margin, and no context as to what purpose this was for. And we are right back to where we started. Which is a fine place, because where we started is with 'fill' in CCXX, and that's where we should end, too.

Crowley allowed Nuith and Hadith to be changed to Nuit and Hadit, for which there is no evidence they were ever in the vellum book. If that type of change is okay, then it doesn't matter if Kill was originally in the vellum book either, because the Stele Versifications have become fair game for revision, as seen fit by the Adept who penned them, and who published them as Class A in CCXX, when they supposedly achieved the status of being 'beyond the criticism of even the visible head of the order'.

I totally agree with the Editor that Crowley, and he alone, can determine what goes into Class A. And he has, on numerous occasions, indicated that the word is Fill. And all the evidence points to the fact that he didn't really care what was in the vellum book. He used what he wanted to suit his own purposes. And for us to second guess him a century later, based on one pencil note, is simply unjustified. There is no proof that the Windram Thelema was used for correcting CCXX, and plenty of evidence that it was not. The corrections it contains are therefore in some sort of limbo. AC obviously thought Fill should be Kill when he made that correction, but the total lack of any supporting evidence in CCXX, or any action on his part later, leaves us with no justification for using that correction to change a word in Liber CCXX.

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"herupakraath" wrote:
The odd thing about the penciled additions to verses III:37-38 of Liber L being directed at a typist, is there is no similar instruction included in verse I:14 that specifies the vellum book as the source of the paraphrases, a fact that challenges the typist theory. The reference to the 'spell called the song' written in ink in verse I:14 of Liber L specifies which verse of the paraphrases is to be included in the book verse; the penciled notes in the third chapter complement the specification made in verse I:14 by establishing which of the verses of the stele should be included with those verses of book, and may consist of a clarification aimed at posterity in general.

Also of note in this context is that the pencil notes to the printer on the first page of the third chapter were not included in printed copies of the manuscript.

While the dating of the notes on the stele verses and the note to the printer may be different - it does show that it was possible for A.C. to omit penciled editorial notes from printed copies of  the manuscript.  He chose not to do this with the notes on the stele verses, which does suggest that they were somewhat more than notes to a typist.


ReplyQuote
abn53
(@abn53)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 66
 

My guess is that the penciled comments were done at different times. The fill/kill one likely
near 1904, the Ch. III, page 1 probably closer to Cephalu....but that is just my guess. Could
they "relate" to different revelations? We will never know.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I second abn53 here. It is most likely the stain being referred to on the first page of chapter three originated during the Cefalu period.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"lashtal" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
Sort of like a Secret Chief incognito, in fact!  I imagined that there was a possibility that H.B. might have been a “lurker on the threshold” but hadn’t contemplated that thought - what a fascinating possibility!  If true it would indeed be fun to watch the drama – or at least the mask – unfold.  But some would say it’s a shame that what should be the leader of what was meant to be the world’s principal Order to promulgate and show by example the workings in the world of Thelema, instead of being e.g., proud & mighty, for instance, feels he has to hide and shy away rather than stand up & be himself accountable.

Wow! What an extraordinary set of presumptions and judgments!

But far less presumptious (aka assumptious) than the total in the 31st May document (32+26=58?) and far less absolute in Judgement (e.g., the change to ‘kill’ must happen).  And any judgement on my part – and there is only one, I think – is solely emanating from the conjecture that H.B. might be participating under an assumed name on Lashtal.  (Itself another assumption, I suppose!)  I personally find the idea unlikely but not impossible by any means, and merely remarked to the effect that it would seem a rather ‘indirect’ (some might say cowardly) way for the would-be Head of a Thelemic order to make his views known.  Why not directly so declare oneself on your fine website, incidentally, Paul?  I ‘presume’ again (that is, I do not know myself for sure) that Michael is quite comfortable in doing so, and I am sure that in a spirit of non-partisanship you will have made an offer to H.B. to directly participate at one time or another?  (forgive me if the question has been dealt with previously in the last twenty years of existence, I have not researched.)

"herupakraath" wrote:
Also in need of consideration is the use of pencil by Crowley to add notes to Liber L. The last pages of Invocation of Hoor were written in pencil by Crowley during the summer of 1904 while at Boleskine; the likely reason pencil was used is Crowley ran out of ink, and being 30 miles from Inverness, was unable to obtain more ink without a day's journey to do so. Liber L also contains other instances of writing in pencil, such as the page and verse numbers. ...

Or he may also have mislaid his pen: my “Where’s that damned Swan?!” hypothesis – as likely as any other, I feel!  How many of us have not temporarily misplaced, or have found otherwise to have dematerialized, our favoured writing implement from time to time?

"threefold31" wrote:
Are you also implying that you think that the SV, as they are published in CCXX, are not to be considered Class A?

No, I think that Crowley presumed that the SV were fair game for revisions as he saw fit. Once put into CCXX, they became Class A in that context, as published with the Imprimatur.

The more I have studied all the evidence, the more I've come to the conclusion that Crowley was not at all interested in having the Stele Verses - as Paraphrases - be identical to their appearance in CCXX. There is no single instance where this is the case. Talk all you want about what a bad proofreader Crowley was. Are we really supposed to believe that he incorrectly proofread every single instance of the SV as they appeared in print? That he never once got it right? I for one find that impossible to believe - except in the sense that he may have never actually put the precise contents of the vellum book into CCXX, on purpose. The evidence we have is that many different versions of the SV were published, and they never concur inside and outside of CCXX. This has to be a deliberate choice.

The Editor is at pains to say that the vellum book was the source for the Paraphrases in Equinox 1(7), the Temple of Solomon the King. Given that Fuller had the proofs of the Great Invocation, then the Editor is probably right; there would have been no other copy of the Reverse Paraphrases, unless it were a typescript, in which case it would stand for the vellum book anyway. ...

As I said in Reply #67, if the Stele versifications can be considered Class A within the context of CCXX, then that would also make them Class A outside the context of the Book as well - after all, the other words themselves all remain the same (ignoring the actual fill/ kill anomaly for the moment) & if they were 'inspired' when A.C. wrote them their nature would remain 'inspired' whenever they were read back again, in whatever context.

Truly assumscrumptious,
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
⛄
 
(@jg)
Frosty the Snowman
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 144
 

Quote from: herupakraath on June 17, 2013, 03:05:31 am

"Also in need of consideration is the use of pencil by Crowley to add notes to Liber L. The last pages of Invocation of Hoor were written in pencil by Crowley during the summer of 1904 while at Boleskine; the likely reason pencil was used is Crowley ran out of ink, and being 30 miles from Inverness, was unable to obtain more ink without a day's journey to do so. Liber L also contains other instances of writing in pencil, such as the page and verse numbers. ..."

Quoth Jamie

"Or he may also have mislaid his pen: my “Where’s that damned Swan?!” hypothesis – as likely as any other, I feel!  How many of us have not temporarily misplaced, or have found otherwise to have dematerialized, our favoured writing implement from time to time?"

I have found the Swan!

"Also the Holy One came upon me, and I beheld a white swan floating in the blue. Between its wings I sate, and the æons fled away.  Then the swan flew and dived and soared, yet no whither we went.  A little crazy boy that rode with me spake unto the swan, and said:  Who art thou that dost float and fly and dive and soar in the inane? Behold, these many æons have passed; whence camest thou? Whither wilt thou go?  And laughing I chid him, saying: No whence! No whither!  The swan being silent, he answered: Then, if with no goal, why this eternal journey?  And I laid my head against the Head of the Swan, and laughed, saying: Is there not joy ineffable in this aimless winging? Is there not weariness and impatience for who would attain to some goal?  And the swan was ever silent. Ah! but we floated in the infinite Abyss. Joy! Joy!  White swan, bear thou ever me up between thy wings! O silence! O rapture! O end of things visible and invisible! This is all mine, who am Not."

You certainly are not now buddy, unless you be in our head!


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 316
 

  93

One bird flight deservers another...
a pertinent musical interlude?

[flash=200,200:2axqu6xf] http://www.youtube.com/v/4HEwUwNRnlo[/flash:2axqu6xf]

93/93


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 501
 

Very nice. but if this is still the strict thread I think we may be drifting.

OK


ReplyQuote
⛄
 
(@jg)
Frosty the Snowman
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 144
 
"OKontrair" wrote:
Very nice. but if this is still the strict thread I think we may be drifting.

OK

On a Sea of Fortune.  Back to the old K


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 436
 
"herupakraath" wrote:
"threefold31" wrote:

In that case, a couple other assumptions would be changed - that the Cairo typist defaulted to the 'fill' reading of the ms XXXI,

If the penciled "instructions" in verses III:37-38 of Liber L actually are instructions (big if), and were intended for a typist, the instructions were probably for the benefit of the Cairo typist. According to Crowley, he had his copy of the Book of the Law while traveling through China in 1906, and sent J.F.C. Fuller a typescript of the book sometime between 1907-1908, proving there was a typescript version available for copying, making the need for copying directly from the holograph unlikely after 1904.

The odd thing about the penciled additions to verses III:37-38 of Liber L being directed at a typist, is there is no similar instruction included in verse I:14 that specifies the vellum book as the source of the paraphrases, a fact that challenges the typist theory. The reference to the 'spell called the song' written in ink in verse I:14 of Liber L specifies which verse of the paraphrases is to be included in the book verse; the penciled notes in the third chapter complement the specification made in verse I:14 by establishing which of the verses of the stele should be included with those verses of book, and may consist of a clarification aimed at posterity in general.

Also in need of consideration is the use of pencil by Crowley to add notes to Liber L. The last pages of Invocation of Hoor were written in pencil by Crowley during the summer of 1904 while at Boleskine; the likely reason pencil was used is Crowley ran out of ink, and being 30 miles from Inverness, was unable to obtain more ink without a day's journey to do so. Liber L also contains other instances of writing in pencil, such as the page and verse numbers. The use of pencil by Crowley during the summer of 1904 suggests all of the penciled additions to Liber L were written then as well, all of which casts aspersions on the theory that the mention of the vellum book in Liber L was for the benefit of a typist.

Also questionable is the thought that Crowley could have added only two penciled notes to Liber L that would have provided all of the clarifications needed for a typist to produce an accurate copy of the book from the holograph: a typist would have needed any number of clarifications to proceed, yet there are no others in the manuscript.

Dwtw

HPK has raised some interesting points. If the penciled additions were for the benefit of posterity, and not a typist, this would seriously undermine the rationale for the proposed 'correction', as such additions could have been made much later, but prior to 1912 when they appeared in EQ I(7).

However, the use of the term 'vellum book' would have no meaning for posterity, and would be superfluous, so I think we are left with the simplest explanation - that the pencil additions were for the Cairo typist. That despite the fact that there would have likely been a lot more notes to the typist than these simple directions. But focusing on those notes again, and especially the term 'vellum book', brings us right back to the beginning of this debate.

We can be reasonably certain the the Collected Works proof of 1907 represents what was in the Cairo typescript. Undoubtedly there would be some transcription errors, and somewhere along the way the verse numbers were added, but in the main, let us suppose that CW III is a fair copy of the original typescript.

What is telling about this version is the use of the word 'fill'. The Editor William Breeze would like to think, (and have us agree) that this was a typographical error. That in fact the vellum book said 'kill', but the typist, reading the pencil notes, defaulted to 'fill' to solve the contradiction. But that conclusion really makes little sense. Consider it this way:

Crowley hands the typist the ms of XXXI, and a vellum book. He says, "type this up, and include the poem from this vellum book in the specified places" Fine, easy enough. The typist then gets to verse 3:37 and notices that the vellum book poem says 'kill', but the pencil note says 'fill'. What to do? How about following the original instructions? The typist was told to insert a poem from the vellum book; that is the general directive. If there was a discrepancy, and the pencil word 'fill' was incorrect, why in the world would the typist defer to the pencil note, and ignore the word 'kill' which was actually in the poem, in the book she was told to copy from? The Editor says it is reasonable that the typist would do so. Really? I think not. If the directive is to type up the poem, then you type up the poem, not the pencil notes that indicate which parts of the poem go where. It is the vellum book which is the primary source; the pencil notes are just indicators. If there was a discrepancy, then the typist would be perfectly sensible in assuming that the pencil note was a typo, not the poem she was told to copy. There is enough information in the pencil notes to determine exactly which stanzas to include in the verses, and that the stanzas for verse 3:37 end with "Aum! let if fill me!", because the next note says that for verse 3:38 the stanzas begin with "The light is mine..."

Since the typist did not type up the word 'kill', it stands to reason that kill was never in the vellum book in the first place. The 'typo theory' really has no merit. It is only convenient to agree with it in order to bolster the claim that a correction is required, but is not the more reasonable conclusion of the two that are available. The more reasonable conclusion is that the typist did her job and typed up the poem from the vellum book, rather than typing up the notes from the holograph.

The 'typo' conclusion has been treated like a premise, when in fact it cannot be taken as a given; it can only be a conclusion. And the only evidence we have makes the 'typo' conclusion an incorrect one. The parsimonious premise is that there is no typo. Then we have to explain why 'kill' ever appeared at all. And that is simple - because Crowley preferred it in certain contexts, since his poem was not a received work, and he felt he could change it to suit the circumstances.

Despite the weakness of the 'typo theory', the Editor has chosen to build an increasingly complex edifice of assumptions upon it, like a battlement on top of a sandy foundation. At the height of this battlement is the single correction found in the Windram copy of Liber CCXX; a correction whose intention is not at all clear, and was certainly never used as the basis for actually changing Liber CCXX. In response to why this was never done, all we are offered further vague assumptions about Crowley's laziness, ineptitude, non-involvement in actual editing, and ability to forget things and move on to the next project. All of that may be true to some degree, but is not in the least bit direct evidence for why no change was made. Nor is 'repetition of error', since so many errors were in fact not repeated, but corrected in later editions.

Why should we concoct ever more elaborate reasons for why Crowley never changed CCXX instead of applying Occam's Razor and concluding that he didn't change 'fill' because he didn't want to change 'fill'. Period. He corrected it in only one copy, but did not implement this in CCXX, when he had every opportunity to do so, (and even changed other parts of the poem in the next version of CCXX 1913). He did however, implement the word 'kill' in the Paraphrases. So again, the most parsimonious conclusion is that the editing of the Paraphrases in EQ I(7) was the reason for the pencil correction in the Windram copy.

I would bet the farm that the Cairo typescript says 'fill'. This is either because 'fill' is in both the vellum book and XXXI, or 'kill' is in the vellum book and the typist did the unreasonable thing - ignored the general directive and deferred to a pencil note in XXXI, thus using 'fill'. Of these two possibilities, the former is the most reasonable and simplest explanation of the facts.

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5703
 
"hpk & threefold31" wrote:
...assumptions...should be included...may consist of...the likely reason...Crowley could have...would have...If the penciled additions...could have been made...would have no meaning...so I think...would have likely been...We can be reasonably certain...let us suppose that...would like to think (and have us agree)...I think not...it stands to reason that...it cannot be taken as a given; it can only be a conclusion...

Note the conjecture, the guessing, the assuming. These qualities have been used throughout this thread, and not merely by these quoted posters.

At the height of this battlement is the single correction found in the Windram copy of Liber CCXX; a correction whose intention is not at all clear, and was certainly never used as the basis for actually changing Liber CCXX.

Now here is less guesswork and certainly describes the truth of the matter.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3473
 

As Shiva points out, the only certain fact here is that no edition of AL published under AC's supervision uses "kill".
Oh, and one more certain fact: the new revised edition is eligible for a fresh term of copyright.
As our Prophet could well attest, it is very helpful when spiritual revelations from the Secret Chiefs, as well as the results of diligent scholarship, coincide so neatly with self interest.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4119
 
"ignant666" wrote:
Oh, and one more certain fact: the new revised edition is eligible for a fresh term of copyright.

I appreciate that this is off-topic, but how long is this "fresh term of copyright", ignant666? On what point of copyright law is this founded?


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3473
 

A revised work is subject to a new copyright term; this is not exactly an esoteric or obscure point of copyright law.
This applies to a work revised solely by, for example, changing the letter "f" to "k", just as much as to a new edition incorporating extensive revisions, as the (c) OTO has done with many AC works in the past
How long that term might be is a complex question that varies by jurisdiction and the nature of the specific right asserted, among other things.
As I am not here engaged in the practice of law, I will simply refer you to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_term


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3473
 

BTW, this is  a game anyone can play, provided they are not put off by a lot of silly twaddle about "Class A" etc: since AL is certainly in the public domain, and certainly not among the copyrights the Californian OTO purchased from the Crown (since AC, the bankrupt whose copyrights they purchased, repeatedly disclaimed authorship), anyone who wills to do so can do the same.
It is worth noting that the (c) OTO is famously litigious and will very likely involve you in extensive litigation that may be very very costly should you dare to do so.


ReplyQuote
newneubergOuch2
(@newneubergouch2)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 287
 

Spine titles. One is of no author, presumably Aiwass/Aiwaz etc.
The others have Crowley-I think they are more recent.Copyright? A change in authorship attrribution?


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 348
 

Ignant666 wrote: "BTW, this is  a game anyone can play, provided they are not put off by a lot of silly twaddle about "Class A" etc: since AL is certainly in the public domain, and certainly not among the copyrights the Californian OTO purchased from the Crown (since AC, the bankrupt whose copyrights they purchased, repeatedly disclaimed authorship), anyone who wills to do so can do the same.
It is worth noting that the (c) OTO is famously litigious and will very likely involve you in extensive litigation that may be very very costly should you dare to do so."

This is an unnecessarily hostile observation in my opinion, and littered with inaccuracies.  This topic has been covered before so I'll be brief.  When I wrote William Heidrick back in the '80s, his kind reply informed me that the Book of the Law was at that time in the public domain, and that "you may print or quote it to your heart's content".  In 2003, when I discussed the matter with him via email, he informed me that this was no longer the case.  Of course, copyright law varies from country to country.  But I suspect that the O.T.O. (they are no longer referencing themselves as Caliphate btw) is primarily concerned with preserving the integrity of the book.  Poor or faulty representations of the book would harm the cause.  The O.T.O. is not the villainous outfit some make them out to be.  They deserve respect, in my view, for their stewardship.  As for the decision to change "fill" to "kill", I really see no point in arguing the matter -- is it not the Law to "argue not"?  Best to let the matter rest, in my opinion.


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 316
 

  93

The market is not that large. Anyone who cares enough and is taking on the time, expense and effort required to put out a copy of Liber Al would surely get it right? If not we would have some ready made kindling for the fireplace. So the O.T.O. saying they are concerned, "with preserving the integrity of the book.  Poor or faulty representations of the book would harm the cause", doesn't ring true. Look at the embroilment of this thread? Who is chipping at the integrity? Who is causing the harm?

93/93


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4119
 
"Aleisterion" wrote:
As for the decision to change "fill" to "kill", I really see no point in arguing the matter -- is it not the Law to "argue not"?  Best to let the matter rest, in my opinion.

So any change to The Book of the Law that the O.T.O. make is OK by you, irrespective of whether the grounds for making that change are strong or weak?


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 348
 

MichaelStaley wrote: "So any change to The Book of the Law that the O.T.O. make is OK by you, irrespective of whether the grounds for making that change are strong or weak?"

Not at all.  I am in fact dead set against the change being implemented, in spite of the points raised in favor of it.  Arguing back and forth to no end just seems pointless to me.  The change to the book has been made, and no amount of argument is going to make any difference.  Unless one is in a position to make rectification possible, it seems to me a better use of one's energy to follow a course of action that is bound, over time, to bring about the necessary change.  I am confident that, eventually, this mistake (and others) will be corrected.  I'm anything but a pacifist, but I don't see any need for hostile action in this situation: the O.T.O. has done a fair job promulgating the Law; and they mean well.  Besides, we are few enough as is: it is no time (in my opinion) for a house divided.  I am of the conviction that the Hand which moved the pen in the first place is stronger than the hand that changes it today.  And I am also certain that this Hand is moving the right chess pieces to effect an eventual checkmate.     


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 6
Share: