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

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

Page 3 / 6

Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4132
 
"Aleisterion" wrote:
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.

Many thanks for the clarification, Aleisterion. Interesting remarks, with which I largely agree.


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 447
 
"Shiva" wrote:
"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.

Dwtw

I couldn't agree more. As I've said in other posts, the amount of assumptions and lack of evidence, on either side, mean that there is no answer that is beyond reasonable doubt. All we have are more or less reasonable arguments as to what may or may not have happened. In which case, the default position should be to leave the text the way it is.

We don't know who the Cairo typist was and we don't have a copy of their work; we don't know who actually edited or prepared the proofs for any publication; we don't know when the verse numbers were added to chapter one, or the pencil notes to chapter three; we don't have the vellum book...the list goes on. In this climate of uncertainty, it seems presumptuous to make a definite change.

I also agree with Aleisterion that arguing the matter won't solve it, and probably will not convince the Editor to change his mind as easily as he is changing this Book. But for the sake of posterity, such arguments should be made, and all the facts laid out as clearly as possible. I believe the possibility exists that at some point a key piece(s) of evidence will surface that will make for a convincing narrative. And this will be that much easier to accomplish if facts, reasonable conjectures, and alternatives are laid out beforehand.

As an aside, I think it a bit humorous for the Editor to suggest that those who disagree with the change can just change it back in their own copy. Really? Then why not leave it alone, have an appendix explaining the controversy, and thus empower someone to change the text to 'kill' if they are swayed by the evidence? This would be more in line with The Comment that the Editor finds so persuasive as an approach to this Class A document. Let each decide for themselves, based on an appeal to the writings of Ankh-f-n-khonsu.

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
Candide
(@candide)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 49
 

Anyone care to apply Occam's razor? Pretty much 'kill's' the argument dead if you ask me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

For those of you who don't know, devastatingly simple.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5803
 
"Candide" wrote:
Anyone care to apply Occam's razor? Pretty much 'kill's' the argument dead if you ask me.

"<span style="color: blue]Occam's razor states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one."[/font">
- Wikipedia - the final solution to all disputes[/align:2gzb1dek]

I don't see how this will help. The issue is not a rational natter. It is a power play. If Occam's register, er, razor, was applied to say modern Syria (Sunni vs Shia), or the Levant (Palestine vs Israel), the result would be the same. That is, it has nothing to do with anything. None of these things are hypothetical or rational - they are territorial and irrational.

In this thread, a debate [?] as it were, people try to be rational, and so Occam's regularity, um, razor, might apply. But what comes out in print will be assertive.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5803
 
"Shiva" wrote:
... But what comes out in print will be assertive.

Now, now, thats only partially true. [Well, is it true or false? What does partially mean?] ::)

If it comes out in print, it will be assertive. But ... if it comes out in print, it will actually also be rational*. That is, it (the proposed change) appears to be well thought-out and defended in detail in writing.

*Rational = Adjective; "Based on or in accordance with reason or logic: "a rational explanation."[/align:3hhigwlu]

Now we surely all know that "reason is a lie." And so we have two or more styles of reason that have been applied, and lo!  We have two conclusions, both of which are rational. Yet one can be said to be in its season, while the other is treason. But which is correct, and which term applies to which side? Please consult the reason of The Book of Lies.


ReplyQuote
Candide
(@candide)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 49
 
"Shiva" wrote:
"Candide" wrote:
Anyone care to apply Occam's razor? Pretty much 'kill's' the argument dead if you ask me.

"<span style="color: blue]Occam's razor states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one."[/font">
- Wikipedia - the final solution to all disputes[/align:3mg9u306]

I don't see how this will help. The issue is not a rational natter. It is a power play. If Occam's register, er, razor, was applied to say modern Syria (Sunni vs Shia), or the Levant (Palestine vs Israel), the result would be the same. That is, it has nothing to do with anything. None of these things are hypothetical or rational - they are territorial and irrational.

In this thread, a debate [?] as it were, people try to be rational, and so Occam's regularity, um, razor, might apply. But what comes out in print will be assertive.

Yes I realize that basically the whole thing is a power play, or if it wasn't at first then it has rapidly become so. Even now the dissenters are going quiet and Breeze and his little gang of Cronies are getting there way, at least within the (c)oto. I have had very little contact with the Order recently so I'm unsure how the ground lies but I get the impression that nobody likes to talk about it. Mainly because those who do are seen as troublemakers or ****-stirrers.

The reason I bring up Occam's razor is because from my position, isolated from the politics recently I have been able to see things much more clearly. The thousands of words written by HB and co. to justify their point can only ever be speculation, and with all that on one side of the scales, on the other the feather of truth; which is always radiantly simple.


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 447
 

Dwtw

It has now been a solar year since the 'correction' to Liber CCXX was made by William Breeze and accepted by the OTO. Part of the rationale for that change included his assertion that 'Lo and behold!, the Master Therion's copy of Liber Legis has appeared -- precisely at a time when the Holy Books are being edited for re-publication. This must be an intervention of the Secret Chiefs, allowing us to finally make a correction that the Prophet intended to make.' ... or words to that effect.

The publication of the aforementioned Holy Books of Thelema has still not appeared. One would hope that they will appear before another year has passed, as this would be an appropriate time for such a publication. Five cycles of 22 years have passed since the Cairo Working, and we are now in the first year of the Emperor cycle. He had his letter changed too 🙂

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"threefold31" wrote:
It has now been a solar year since the 'correction' to Liber CCXX was made by William Breeze and accepted by the OTO. [...]

The publication of the aforementioned Holy Books of Thelema has still not appeared. One would hope that they will appear before another year has passed, as this would be an appropriate time for such a publication.  Five cycles of 22 years have passed since the Cairo Working,

That should not be so strange, given that over TWENTY five tears have passed since the announcement that, amongst other pieces, a re-edited Confessions and an edited Complete Diaries would also see the light of day.  Although of late the ©.O.T.O. have apparently given up making any announcements or reference to the forthcoming release of these, no doubt out of sheer embarrassment at the ongoing continued procrastination of their appearance. 

Doubtless they will appear one fine day – maybe in time for the centenary of Crowley’s death, possibly?  Or maybe the 100th anniversary of the first appearance of Confessions in 1929 if they are REALLY energetic?  Older Thelemites may find themselves in the position of having dropped dead before that celebrated day comes to pass, however.

If the ©.O.T.O. weren’t so monomaniacal about publishing (copy)rights, some other enterprising publisher/s could step in, or have stepped in, to fill the breach with their own suitably deserving editions.  But it appears Hymenaeus Beta wants to hold onto all his cards & do all of the annotations, introductions, prolegomena, editorial forewords etc himself, no matter many damned decades it’ll take to do that task, and if he can’t do it then O.T.O. International Incorporated will jolly well see to it that no other bugger is going to pick up the option, either!

It is ironic that just after H.B. acceded to the position of Frater Superior in the 1980s, the suggestion was that this in effect “Caliphornian” recension would not be a teaching order, or more in line with what Crowley actually had in mind for it at all, for at least “a generation or two” (I cannot place the reference immediately) simply because it was seen that the only straightforward policy, objective and priority was actually getting A.C.'s works out before the public: and everything else was to be sacrificed towards that worthy end on account of it. 

But that all seems rather a hollow-sounding ambition now, doesn't it - if not a full scale joke in itself, wouldn't you say?
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Philip Harris-Smith
(@philip-harris-smith)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 62
 

Just as Pharaoh's would cut away and replace inscriptions made by previous rulers.  In my opinion by controlling publication and 'updating' any actual published material those concerned seek orthodoxy and perhaps also legacy. 

Coming from a protestant country even though I am not xtian I do start to feel hostile at Thelemic 'Papery' that I perceive, so I am completely biased here.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2964
 

Just burn the book, and get on with life.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
Just burn the book, and get on with life.

I’m curious – why “burn it”, specifically?  There are any number of ways to skin a cat, and the Tunis comment (for example) suggests “destroy”, rather than any more explicitly combustible activity.

N Joy


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1073
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Just burn the book, and get on with life.

I’m curious – why “burn it”, specifically?  There are any number of ways to skin a cat, and the Tunis comment (for example) suggests “destroy”, rather than any more explicitly combustible activity.

N Joy

Indeed. I ate mine.

Per Ezekiel 3:1:

"Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel.'

And Apocalypse 10:9:

"And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey."

Destroyed it, yes. But absorbed it, digested it (or it me?) too. In fact, I think I'm still being nourished by it, as rich a meat as it is. It didn't kill me - not yet anyway, but somebody will surely blame its author when the time comes - but it has filled me.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"belmurru" wrote:
Indeed. I ate mine.

Per Ezekiel 3:1 [...] And Apocalypse 10:9

Admit it. You got the idea from Red Dragon.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1073
 
"Los" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
Indeed. I ate mine.

Per Ezekiel 3:1 [...] And Apocalypse 10:9

Admit it. You got the idea from Red Dragon.

I can only admit that I have no idea to what you are making reference (I haven't even googled it).


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"belmurru" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
Indeed. I ate mine.

Per Ezekiel 3:1 [...] And Apocalypse 10:9

Admit it. You got the idea from Red Dragon.

I can only admit that I have no idea to what you are making reference (I haven't even googled it).

Oh, I was just screwing around. The opening scene of Red Dragon -- one of the Hannibal Lecter novels -- has a character eat a watercolor by William Blake ("The Great Red Dragon and the Woman Clothed with the Sun"). I'm pretty sure those passages from scripture are referenced somewhere in the book.

Here's the painting, since it's awesome:


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

[Moderator's Note: Inappropriate post deleted.]


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4132
 

What's that got to do with this thread?


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5803
 

Uh, oh 😮
Multiple postings on assorted threads with random irrevelence and saber-rattling in reference to a "Jamie."
Maybe it's that weekend-alky-libation connection? ::)


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3548
 

Apparently someone has gone off his meds, though i bow to Dr Shiva's expertise here- it could indeed be the handiwork of that evil King, Drin.
At least now i have figured out who this "Jamie Barber" (here rendered as "Jaime") is that he is so upset about in 2 other threads just now.
Why a possible TV show about Parsons is of such huge importance, or what it has to do with, well, really anything, is still unclear, as is why Jamie Barter is meant to be so put in his place by this development.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5803
 
"ignant666" wrote:
Apparently someone has gone off his meds ...

Off, or on, as the case may be.


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

I don’t have to be Simon Iff to deduce that the “inappropriate” thread must have been at least partly about little ol’ me, for some reason, and the fact that it has been “deleted” in its entirety by our – it must be said, normally pretty fair-minded & easy-going - webmaster has sparked my curiosity no end.  Anyone care to let me know by PM what it might have said?  Maybe Magickal you could even do so yourself, as you seem to have a – what’s that word the cod-gangsters use in films etc?  Ah yes, a “problem” – and we could then - ‘ow you say? - “thrash” it out together?  (Amicably, of course!) The last time we connected on the forum before this sudden barrage of yours was when you apparently sincerely thanked me for the corrections I made regarding Jack Parsons, which at the time appeared to be void of satire, or such was the way I took it anyway (in the words of Lisa Simpson: "checking for sarcasm - no, seems clear!")

Still, ‘I feel I must be doing something right’ as they say - and everything is a learning experience isn’t it though but, Magickal?!

From out of the Blue,
n Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5803
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
Anyone care to let me know ... what it ... said?

As I said above, "Multiple postings on assorted threads with random irrevelence and saber-rattling in reference to a "Jamie." He made posts that were not related to the (several) threads, each of which continued about a "Jamie/Jaime" who hated Jack Parsons and was therefore disreputable.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3548
 

And about how the announcement that a TV show about Parsons meant that you were proven as a very very bad person, Jamie, that was definitely mentioned here, among assorted gibberish and flowery invective.
The first of his spate of apparently chemically-inspired (whether endogenous chemicals, as I suggested, or external substances, as Shiva posited) postings about your abasement by this TV show press-release may be seen here in all its naked majesty (at least for now):
http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9.msg85361#msg85361


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

Thanks for the news, Shiva & ignant666.
 
Was that drivel all?!  I did think it may have been something far more exciting.  Ah well, best carry on, then, folks!

“As you were”,
N Joy

Yes – where were we, btw?  The kill – fill matter seems to have been completely forgotten about, as I was pretty darned convinced was bound to happen.  There will be a few sighs of relief, no doubt, from aroundabout the vicinity of certain rabbit holes!  I think I’ve said quite enough & all I’m going to say about that development already (see all relevant “Mark my words” & “This will be the thin end of the wedge”-type comments therein, etc., etc. [q.v.]) so: adios & 93 - for now!…


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2964
 

Posters peg Jamie, Jamie tries to deflect... what else is new?

People have been calling this dude on his crap for at least a year now.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
Posters peg Jamie, Jamie tries to deflect... what else is new?

What is new is a new posting from the once-upon-a-time irrestrainably prolific you, after what now, a couple of months?  I trust you have been somewhere nice on vac!

"Azidonis" wrote:
People have been calling this dude on his crap for at least a year now.

Your allusion to the “dude” is a bit vague though Az, although I think one could surmise the nature of the “crap” involved once one knows the identity of the dude concerned: there are three distinct possibilities who it could be – apart from yours truly (surely not, however!) there is H.B. and there is Magickal.  Or can such ambivalence on your part be intentional?!

Perhaps then you might possibly care to clarify?
N Joy


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
The plants talk to me....
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2132
 

First time I came across this image from the GY collection.
Please tell me if it has already been discussed and I can slink under a rock. 🙂

What is the timeline difference between the Windram correction and this Wilkinson one?

To quote the source, not myself.
"Thelemites should know that the current head of the OTO, Hymenaeus Beta, made a change to the text of Liber AL. The adorations which say "let it fill me" was changed, based upon a change made in Crowley's hand to an edition recently recovered. This image is from the Yorke collection and shows input from Crowley on the Wilkinson commentaries. You will note that the original, typewritten, text reads "fill." This was changed by Crowley to read "kill" and then back again to "fill."


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 475
 

Nice find Paul; I can't recall the document being discussed, but it certainly appears to disqualify the Windram copy as evidence that Crowley settled on the decision to change 'fill' to 'kill'.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Is this another message from the Secret Chiefs?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2964
 
"VRST" wrote:
Is this another message from the Secret Chiefs?

No, but this is:

Eat more fiber.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3548
 

Or kiber?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2964
 
"ignant666" wrote:
Or kiber?

Kiber - to become big?

Um, yes. 🙂

[flash=200,200:2reukhba] https://www.youtube.com/v/lCmyX6CYhI0[/flash:2reukhba]


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3548
 

You see, if you changed the "f" in "fiber" to a "k" (say because of a message from the Secret Chiefs), it would then be "kiber".


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2964
 
"ignant666" wrote:
You see, if you changed the "f" in "fiber" to a "k" (say because of a message from the Secret Chiefs), it would then be "kiber".

Why, that would just be silly! 😉


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 541
 
"ptoner" wrote:
What is the timeline difference between the Windram correction and this Wilkinson one?

Now THAT is the question! I don't recall your new (?) piece of evidence entering the debate before, ptoner. Granted, it has been awhile since the fire was stoked on this subject... Even so, this latest nugget, complete with a scan (Thank You!), is certainly interesting.


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 447
 
"ptoner" wrote:
First time I came across this image from the GY collection.

Dwtw

This is a compelling piece of evidence, if indeed it is in Crowley's hand. Where exactly was this posted? Sorry for my ignorance here, but you quoted a source yet didn't name it.

"ptoner" wrote:
What is the timeline difference between the Windram correction and this Wilkinson one?

Wilkinson worked on the edited "Commentaries" that are in the current "The Law Is for All: The Authorized Popular Commentary of Liber Al Vel Legis", which postdates the Windram copy by decades. The New Comment itself, which is the subject of the excerpt you cite, postdates Windram by many years.

If this scan is legitimate, it indicates that Crowley was proofreading the New Comment, and despite going back and forth, decided on the word 'fill'. The fact that 'fill' is in the original typescript can be expected, since this was the received text of Liber CCXX at the time. The fact that it was crossed out and replaced with a 'k' suggests that AC was still considering this variant at that stage. That it concludes with a letter 'f' would have to indicate he thought better about changing the letter. The 'k' is, however, not completely eradicated like the typed 'f', but it looks like a line is put through it - hard to tell from the scan.

Assuming this is Crowley's handiwork, it reinforces the whole thrust of the argument that I made in my essay on the Fill vs. Kill change: there were obviously two readings and AC vacillated between them, but ultimately decided not to change Liber CCXX. But it not only does that, it shows that the conjecture that AC simply 'forgot' to ever make the change is simply not true. He remembered it many years later, and could have made the change even at this late date. But ultimately he chose not to.

I'd say that IF this correction and anti-correction is in Crowley's hand, it essentially negates the argument of the Editor, and proves that the recent editing of Liber CCXX is mistaken. There is already plenty of evidence to indicate this. But a correction at this late stage of Crowley's life would basically settle the matter entirely.

Regardless of where one stands on the change to 'kill', this type of evidence cannot be dismissed out of hand. Especially because it is precisely the type of evidence the Editor relied on to make his change in the first place.

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
Candide
(@candide)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 49
 

Apologies if this is a dumb question, but where is this evidence? As Threefold31 says, it sounds like compelling evidence so I (and probably quite a few others) would like to see it, and probably share it as far as possible.

Candide


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4132
 

It will probably be in the Gerald Yorke Collection at the Warburg Institute, London, and if so would be likely to have been amongst the many items scanned by the O.T.O. a few years ago. That being the case, it should be available outside the UK also.


ReplyQuote
Candide
(@candide)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 49
 

In which case the OTO would be aware of it, yet have somehow overlooked it?

Can you imagine them hiding evidence? 😛


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1073
 

As far as I am concerned, the evidence still shows that Crowley used two words here, in a poem of his own composition, and, as RLG says, "vacillated" between them sometimes.

The problem with the proponents of "kill me" is that they insist there is an error, that only one reading can be correct, and that reading is "kill me." So the conclusion they draw is that Crowley forgot the "correct" reading when he wrote it in the manuscript of the Liber Legis (within days of having composed it!), as well as when proofreading for subsequent printed editions. Somehow, despite there being only one correct reading, Crowley never managed to get it printed in The Book of the Law.

But it is his poem, and he wrote two versions, one with "fill me" and one with "kill me."

It is certainly worthy of a lengthy excursus in upcoming editions of The Book of the Law, but I think there is no justification for changing the traditional and received text. Why can't people merely have this difference pointed out, and choose for themselves which phrase to use where?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"threefold31" wrote:
I'd say that IF this correction and anti-correction is in Crowley's hand, it essentially negates the argument of the Editor, and proves that the recent editing of Liber CCXX is mistaken. There is already plenty of evidence to indicate this. But a correction at this late stage of Crowley's life would basically settle the matter entirely.

I'd have to agree with this, and with belmurru's interpretation.

It's really starting to look as if making the change was premature and in error. Oh, those wacky Secret Chiefs! Always communicating through everyday coincidences that force people to interpret (and maybe misinterpret) their messages. Why do they have to be so secret? It's almost like...they don't exist at all.


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
The plants talk to me....
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2132
 

I am glad that Belmurru commented on the way he did. For I also think as he. This scan was presented to me via an obscure post on Diaspora. It's source is certainly questionable, yet, if it does reside within the Yorke collection, it would not take much effort to find.
The timeline clearly indicates, if the scan is true, that he never really thought kill was suitable, yet should be still considered. Either way, i personally think any change should include a footnote to this effect. My own practice will still go with the written manuscript, in the prophets own hand.


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 447
 

Dwtw

According to the Warburg Gerald Yorke catalogue, OS K4 contains "Louis Wilkinson’s abridgement of OS K2 [The Commentaries on Liber Legis] commissioned and approved by A. C.", which is presumably the source for the scan, if its genuine. Shouldn't be too hard to check, since there are a couple dozen microfilm copies of the collection in existence around the world.

Perhaps an enterprising lashtalian in the vicinity of a repository could take a look?

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1906
 

93!

In my humble opinion - whatever this means - the second correction "f" doesn't look too Crowley - whatever this means. To me it seems he never made a curve to the right side when he reached the lowest point of the letter, quite the contrary I would say, he either went straight up or swung to the left side. Maybe it is Wilkinson's "f" - whatever this means.

For your consideration:

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 1091
 

indeed, that is what first occurred to me upon seeing the scan, that the 'f' seems a bit too readable and bulbous to be AC's.


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1264
 

Agreed, not by the same hand.

The last two strokes of Crowley's 'F' are typically a down stroke, followed by an up stroke to the right. In the above, the 'F' ends in a curved upstroke to the left.


ReplyQuote
Candide
(@candide)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 49
 

True, is might not have been Crowley that wrote the 'f'. I'm not a graphologist so couldn't really say.

On the other hand, assuming this is a genuine document, it does prove beyond doubt that the apparent disparity between the paraphrase and the Liber 31 manuscript was not forgotten by Crowley, far from it he was actively considering the matter up to the point when this document was written. Whats the consensus on a date for this? It has to be somewhere between 1922 and 1946, but that's quite a large gap.

Anyway, what we know for sure is that long after the 'dictation' this issue was still in Crowley's mind, and he opted to go with fill.


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 447
 

Dwtw

Thanks for the comparison Lutz. Certainly doesn't look like a Crowley 'f'. Scans from other pages of the document would probably show if it was in Wilkinson's hand. If someone was faking the doc with photoshop, presumably they'd go to the trouble of faking a Crowleyan 'f' as well.

Whoever made the changes, it raises the question of why they were made. Since the document would have been proofread by AC at some point, the presumption would be that he approved whatever the final version was. There are four possible scenarios: AC made both changes, Wilkinson made both, or they each made one of the changes. But it would be doubtful that Wilkinson would make the final change back to an 'f' without AC's okay.

It's certainly interesting evidence, worth pursuing if it's genuine.

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1906
 

93, RLG!

"threefold31" wrote:
There are four possible scenarios: AC made both changes, Wilkinson made both, or they each made one of the changes.

There might be at least a fifth scenario: Yorke  - not knowing what the "k" is all about, annotated the typescript, as he usually did. He probably wondered why Wilkinson put in the "k". Though he usually wrote in block letters, sometimes there is a handwritten "f" in his annotations:

Just a guess.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4132
 

I've studied a lot in the Gerald Yorke Collection over the years since the late 1980s, have a typescript of the Amalantrah Working with annotations by Yorke, and more recently have busied myself with the Yorke-Jones correspondence. If this scan is something from the Yorke collection then the possibility has to be considered that the correction could be by him. Nevertheless, it does not seem to me to be Yorke's hand.


ReplyQuote
Page 3 / 6
Share: