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

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

Page 4 / 6

threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 450
 

Dwtw

Thanks Lutz, I hadn't considered the slim possibility that the 'f' was done by Yorke. Yet the fact remains that the final version of "The Law is For All" edited by Wilkinson did not have this change to a 'k' in it. So if it was Yorke's hand, then HB may have just followed that change in doing the final editing for publication in 1996?

What's curious is that if the erasure of 'f' and change to a 'k' was meant as a serious edit, wouldn't it also have appeared in the typescript of the full text of Liber CCXX included in this volume?  It's all a bit odd, to say the least. I'd love to see some more pages from this document.

Litlluw
RLG.


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 450
 

Dwtw

Here's a magnified version of the edits in question. The 'f' does not look like Crowley's hand, (compared to the examples shared by Lutz), and the 'k' may not be either. Even in close up, it's hard to tell if the leftmost stroke on the 'k' was a simple upstroke to begin the letter, or a line indicating it was being crossed out and rejected. One would expect some kind of mark indicating that it was rejected in favor of returning to the original 'f' indicated below.

Although the scan is only in black and white, it still looks as if the 'f' and 'k' were made with different pens, presumably by AC, Wilkinson, or Yorke.  Without further examples from the same document, it is difficult to speculate as to who wrote them.

This is from Yorke Collection Film 6 - Reel 2 - frame 952, courtesy of MC.

Litlluw
RLG


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

This whole debate is *kill*ing me!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I've had my fill of it.

Though it's been amusing to watch, kind of like a troupe of contortionists and a marching band all falling down a flight of stairs.


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 450
 

Dwtw

I thought it interesting that RT Cole mentions this current bit of evidence in his teaser/gift wrapping/prelude to Liber L vel Bogus. Assuming that he has looked at the other slides from the same microfilm, it would have been great if he could have indicated who he thought had done the crossing-out and replacing of the 'F' and the 'K'. Alas, he did not. But he did make the important point that this typescript was 'approved by A.C' as noted by Gerald Yorke. So if indeed Crowley approved of sticking with the 'F' in The Law Is For All it would seem to have been the last word on the matter. That was obviously AC's final chance to 'set the record straight' so to speak, if that was his intention. Apparently it was not, and he allowed the word 'fill' to remain.

Although The Law is For All was not published in his lifetime, it was the final version of Liber CCXX that was proofread and approved by Crowley, so it stands to reason that it is the version that should be the standard, barring any obvious typos not supported by the holograph manuscript.

Litlluw
RLG


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

except that the 'F' doesn't seem to be in AC's hand and there is no indication as to when (or why) it was added...


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 450
 
"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
except that the 'F' doesn't seem to be in AC's hand and there is no indication as to when (or why) it was added...

Dwtw

I agree that the 'F' is not in AC's hand. But if he approved the edits on the typescript, then presumably he was okay with the 'F' being replaced. I don't believe this page is definitive when taken in isolation; it seems to be more of a corroboration of what has already been established - that there was always a question of a textual variant, which existed right up until the last time AC was involved with editing AL for publication.

Litlluw
RLG


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

but there is no indication that the 'F' was present when he approved it - perhaps it was added afterwards 😉

Without a definitive statement (from a man who can no longer make one) we're all reduced to stacking up circumstantial evidence in heaps and then, just like in the showers at the YMCA, trying to judge which is bigger and more attractive.


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

It's a fool's knot


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4146
 

No it's not.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1092
 

An ass must know its knot.


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 545
 
"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
... just like in the showers at the YMCA, trying to judge which is bigger and more attractive.

Pass me the soap.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3598
 

No soap radio.


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 545
 
"ignant666" wrote:
No soap radio.

😀


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 450
 
"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
but there is no indication that the 'F' was present when he approved it - perhaps it was added afterwards 😉

Without a definitive statement (from a man who can no longer make one) we're all reduced to stacking up circumstantial evidence in heaps and then, just like in the showers at the YMCA, trying to judge which is bigger and more attractive.

Dwtw

I agree that indeed, it may have come later. That's why it would be good to peruse the remainder of the microfilm to compare it to other notations. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to do that.

I disagree that there is a need to stack up circumstantial evidence for the overall argument.  There is quite a lot of unambiguous evidence to show that Crowley never intended the word to be 'kill' in the confines of Liber CCXX as a Class A document; it was only used by him in contexts outside of the Book of the Law.

The current bit under discussion, is, however, circumstantial evidence, in that it has yet to be corroborated by any analysis of whose writing it is. Secondary to that, it would also be difficult to ascertain when the writing was done. As it stands, it is merely a testament to the fact that the passage was subject to variance throughout AC's lifetime. In short, it tells us nothing new at this point.

Litluw
RLG


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

There is quite a lot of unambiguous evidence to show that Crowley never intended the word to be 'kill' in the confines of Liber CCXX as a Class A document;

without having to regurgitate the entire thread - do you have a pointer to this collection of unambiguous evidence?  I am not challenging your claim but am hoping that someone has done the spadework to put it all in one place.


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 450
 

Dwtw

There's a link on page one of this thread to said 'spade work'.
For a more formal treatment, there is an extended version found in
Liber AL: An Examination published by Conjoined Creation.

Litlluw
RLG


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

Hi threefold31,

93

oh dear, i suppose i missed that as i mistook this FvK thread for the other.  Pleased you recommend the book as i picked it up earlier this year while in San Francisco.

93 93/93
William


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1929
 

Paul (LAShTAL) 93!

Did Mr Cole ever answer this quiestion from you:

"You assert that HB's statement constitutes 'a tacit acknowledgement that the five leaves torn from OS27 do comprise a versification/paraphrase of the stele translation' and that 'a clarification is warranted.'

Well, if you've seen the torn pages and IF they contain the versifications then any acknowledgement - 'tacit' or otherwise - is surely immaterial? They either do or they don't and a simple photograph or scan will establish the facts."

Just asking, I might have missed it...

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5338
Topic starter  

No.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 5972
 
"lashtal" wrote:
No.

This is the shortest literary line on LAshTAL. Even shorter than "Jesus wept." Congratulations on your uncomplicated brevity 😀


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

a talent, the emulation of which, we would all be beneficiaries.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1688
 

Brief, but not quite as brief as X for No or √ for Yay might be.

A.C.’s “?” or “!” from The Soldier & The Hunchback and the beginning of The Book Of Lies could also be considered in the running in the brevity stakes (although he wasn’t the first to have employed these for purpose)

NJoy


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I posted this as part of a reply in another thread, but realised it should really be posted here due to the subject matter:

Has anyone else noticed that every edition of the Stele paraphrase on its own has "The Light is mine" with a capital "L". See for instance the paraphrase in The Equinox vol I no 7. Also it appeared that way in the original editions of Liber L. So that it has more authority as a change than the fill/kill one, as every instance of the paraphrase that was ever printed with the word "kill" was also printed with the word "Light", but unlike "kill" which never made any edition of Liber AL ever printed in Crowley's lifetime, all the early editions of Liber AL had "Light". And if we are to take the Windram copy as some sort of authority, well it had "Light" and it was left uncorrected by Crowley. Also in the proofs of the paraphrase in The Giant's Thumb, which HB said Crowley proofread very carefully, we also have it appearing as "Light". It even appears as "Light" in Ritual CXX.

The only possible source for the later changing of the style of that letter was that in the manuscript version (Liber XXXI) Crowley wrote "light" not "Light". So it would appear that Crowley thought that whatever appears in the manuscript should be what appears in print. This would then apply to "fill" as being the correct word, not "kill".

Just some more food for thought. And for anyone who misunderstood me, no I'm not calling for changing the style of a letter, I'm just saying leave "fill" the F_K alone.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Also another interesting angle on this debate would be to compare stanzas two and three of the paraphrase of the Stele with Crowley's loose paraphrase of those stanzas in Liber XV.

Paraphrase of the Stele                              Liber XV's Paraphrase of the Paraphrase

Unity uttermost showed!                          Thou that art One, our Lord in the Universe the Sun, our Lord in ourselves whose name is Mystery of Mystery, uttermost being
I adore the might of Thy breath,                whose radiance enlightening the worlds is also the breath                                                         
Supreme and terrible God,
Who makest the gods and death                that maketh every God even and Death
To tremble before Thee:-                          to tremble before Thee
I, I adore thee!

Appear on the throne of Ra!                      By the Sign of Light + appear Thou glorious upon the throne of the Sun.
Open the ways of the Khu!                        Make open the path of creation and of intelligence between us and our minds.
Lighten the ways of the Ka!                      Enlighten our understanding. Encourage our hearts.
The ways of the Khabs run through            Let Thy light crystallize itself
To stir me or still me!                              in our blood,
Aum! let it fill me!                                    fulfilling us of Resurrection.

So it can be seen from the above comparison that the last three lines of the Stele paraphrase were later loosely paraphrased by Crowley (in 1913) as, "Let Thy light crystallize itself in our blood, fulfilling us of Resurrection." That is hardly being killed by the light, but its opposite, which is experiencing the Covenant of Resurrection through being filled with the light.


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
The plants talk to me....
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2133
 

Apologies if this goes a bit off topic and sounds like a totally stupid question.

Does the changing of a word , within a copyrighted text by the copyright holder, extend or alter the copyright in any way?
I assume it makes no difference at all, just dont know much about copyright legislation etc.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"ptoner" wrote:
Apologies if this goes a bit off topic and sounds like a totally stupid question.

Does the changing of a word , within a copyrighted text by the copyright holder, extend or alter the copyright in any way?
I assume it makes no difference at all, just dont know much about copyright legislation etc.

I am not at all knowlegeable on the subject of copyrights. Though as Crowley denies authorship of the text, how is it part of his intellectual property? He says it is not his intellectual property at all, but that of a praeterhuman intelligence. I don't see how (c)OTO can claim copyright without denial of Aiwass as author. Though law being what it is, maybe someone can enlighten me as to why this perhaps isn't the case.


ReplyQuote
newneubergOuch2
(@newneubergouch2)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 287
 

How about 'kfill' then ? (The k is silent. - everyone is happy).  🙂


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4146
 
"cobbler" wrote:
I am not at all knowlegeable on the subject of copyrights. Though as Crowley denies authorship of the text, how is it part of his intellectual property? He says it is not his intellectual property at all, but that of a praeterhuman intelligence. I don't see how (c)OTO can claim copyright without denial of Aiwass as author. Though law being what it is, maybe someone can enlighten me as to why this perhaps isn't the case.

In 2004 Starfire Publishing organised a Conference in London to mark the centenary of the reception of The Book of the Law, and we considered beforehand the possibility of bringing out a special edition of the Book. We consulted a solicitor who specialised in intellectual property, and he dug up an interesting precedent from the late 19th or early 20th century whereby a British author, Bligh Bond, had worked with a medium who had brought through a received text. Later she claimed copyright, and Bond contested the claim.

The judge or judges hearing the case ruled that authorship could not be accredited to "beyond the river" as they put it. The medium, they concluded, had exercised literary skill in writing down the text, and in the circumstances they upheld her claim to copyright.

The case of The Book of the Law is somewhat different in that Crowley expressly disavowed authorship, but a case could be made that it nevertheless falls within the Crowley copyright. There's no evidence that the copyright holder intends to make that case, but it remains a case that could be made.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Michael Staley" wrote:
In 2004 Starfire Publishing organised a Conference in London to mark the centenary of the reception of The Book of the Law, and we considered beforehand the possibility of bringing out a special edition of the Book. We consulted a solicitor who specialised in intellectual property, and he dug up an interesting precedent from the late 19th or early 20th century whereby a British author, Bligh Bond, had worked with a medium who had brought through a received text. Later she claimed copyright, and Bond contested the claim.

The judge or judges hearing the case ruled that authorship could not be accredited to "beyond the river" as they put it. The medium, they concluded, had exercised literary skill in writing down the text, and in the circumstances they upheld her claim to copyright.

The case of The Book of the Law is somewhat different in that Crowley expressly disavowed authorship, but a case could be made that it nevertheless falls within the Crowley copyright. There's no evidence that the copyright holder intends to make that case, but it remains a case that could be made.

Thanks very much for some of the history on that one Michael. Interesting point.

Though if (c)OTO were to attempt to make the case as you state it then they would be making the case that the authorship of The Book of the Law cannot be attributed to "beyond the river", and must be attributed to Crowley. I bet R.T.Cole would just love that! Wouldn't that completely undermine their religious standing? Sort of like the pope claiming that the bible was not the word of god, and arguing to that effect in court.


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 478
 
"ptoner" wrote:
Apologies if this goes a bit off topic and sounds like a totally stupid question.

Does the changing of a word , within a copyrighted text by the copyright holder, extend or alter the copyright in any way?
I assume it makes no difference at all, just dont know much about copyright legislation etc.

Your assumption is correct in theory, but it would not stop someone from trying. The chances of a copyright certificate being denied (in the USA) are slim provided the paperwork has been filled out correctly; it would  be up to a defendant in a lawsuit to prove the work was formerly in the public domain.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"cobbler" wrote:
Though if (c)OTO were to attempt to make the case as you state it then they would be making the case that the authorship of The Book of the Law cannot be attributed to "beyond the river", and must be attributed to Crowley. [...] Wouldn't that completely undermine their religious standing?

I don't see why it would. It would simply be an argument made within the bounds of a particular temporal legal system, using the rules and precedent established by that system.

In other words, the argument would run something like this: "British law considers channeled works to fall under the copyright of the medium who claims to have 'received' it, and Crowley claims to have received the Book of the Law through a species of (in his words) 'automatic writing,' so therefore, under British law, the Book falls under the Crowley copyright."

That argument would have nothing to say about the veracity of the metaphysical claim that the work had actually been "channeled," nor would it at all be an admission that the work was written by Crowley. It would simply be recognizing that Crowley made the claim to have channeled it and that therefore, like all channeled works, it is considered (by this particular legal system) to fall under the copyright of the person who claimed to have channeled it.

Whether or not a given work was "really" channeled -- and indeed, whether or not it's even possible to actually "channel" something, in this sense -- is a separate question.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4146
 
"cobbler" wrote:
Though if (c)OTO were to attempt to make the case as you state it then they would be making the case that the authorship of The Book of the Law cannot be attributed to "beyond the river", and must be attributed to Crowley. I bet R.T.Cole would just love that! Wouldn't that completely undermine their religious standing? Sort of like the pope claiming that the bible was not the word of god, and arguing to that effect in court.

Not necessarily. Imagine that someone outside the USA - or anywhere else that doesn't regard works pre-1922 as public domain - issued an edition of The Book of the Law that wasn't to the copyright holder's liking, and about which they felt so strongly that they took legal action. In such circumstances they could make the case that they were acting to protect the integrity of the book, and that legal action was merely an instrument to achieve that end - a necessary compromise or act of pragmatism.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

You could well be right there Los, though I think it is a little more complicated than that, based on the fact of Crowley's public denial of the authorship.

Here is another interesting case of similar copyright law, this time from California. It is Oliver v. Saint Germain Foundation (1941).

In this instance the original issuer of the work had publicly claimed in the work itself that he was not the author, but merely the amanuensis or scribe. The court decided that on the basis of this claim it could not allow that position to be changed in a court of law for the purpose of profit.

The law deals with realities and does not recognize communication with and the conveyances of legal rights by the spiritual world as the basis for its judgment. Nevertheless, equity and good morals will not permit one who asserts something as a fact which he insists his readers believe as the real foundation for its appeal to those who may buy and read his work, to change that position for profit in a law suit.

More generally it states in this article on "Authorship and Religion": http://williampatry.blogspot.com.au/2005/08/authorship-and-religion.html

if X publicly says Y created the work, in a later infringement action against Z, X will be held to the statement that Y created it.


ReplyQuote
newneubergOuch2
(@newneubergouch2)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 287
 

The basic available budget red BoL used to have 'The book of the Law' on its spine. 
The recent edition has 'The book of the Law  - Crowley' on the spine.


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
The plants talk to me....
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2133
 

Could there therefore have been a legal reason for the word change?....


ReplyQuote
astralsun
(@astralsun)
Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 11
 

Well said.

Unfortunately Mr Beta's attempt to explain his change to Liber AL, is not convincing.
He fails to explain anything beyond "I think" and "Crowley forgot"
I think this article summarizes it very well:

https://fnordzone.blogspot.com/2014/08/from-fill-to-kill-oho-ignores-command.html


ReplyQuote
astralsun
(@astralsun)
Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 11
 

There should be absolute outrage and mutiny within the OTO and EGC about this.
Beta has failed to prove anything beyond some vague assertions of his own.
Are we seriously meant to believe that Crowley even up to his death, never wrote anything about this in his diaries, nor did he speak to anyone or make any attempt to reprint Liber AL with the word 'kill' instead?
Absolute absurdity!
As if he simply 'forgot' - in the words of H beta.
Aleister Crowley was famous for having an incredible memory. He also kept meticulous diaries.
How absurd it is to claim that Crowley "forgot" to do anything about this alleged 'mistake'.

OTO members should start a petition to have this rebuked.


ReplyQuote
astralsun
(@astralsun)
Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 11
 

well said. we should organize a petition to have this un-done.


ReplyQuote
astralsun
(@astralsun)
Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 11
 

Am I the only person who is actually really ***ked off about this?
How dare someone change Liber AL. How dare he?
And all the Thelemites and OTO members are just going to take it sitting down?
Pathetic.
Beta's arguments do not convince me in any way whatsoever.
He should not be allowed to change it.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3598
 

Calm down, astralsun!

No, you are not "the only person who is actually really ***ked off about this" (BTW, we are allowed to use "bad words" here, there is no need for asterisks), as you would know if you bothered to read the 13 pages in this thread before posting four times here, or the reply from Shiva to your four posts in the "A feast ..." thread.

No one who posts here regularly agrees with the "kill/fill" change, as far as i know.

It may interest you to know that when i asked recently if anyone who posts here is a member of the (c)OTO, not one single solitary person replied saying they were in the (c)OTO. This is very far from being a forum full of uncritical Beta-kowtowers, unlike some other online AC/Thelema venues.


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1822
 

Why has it taken 4, 5 years to finally get "***ed off " enough about it to post?

Norma N Joy Conquest


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4146
 

@astralsun

And all the Thelemites and OTO members are just going to take it sitting down?

There was some controversy about it at the time. I think that most people simply ignore the change. I have a lovely copy of the 1936 edition of The Equinox of the Gods, but have thus far managed to resist the temptation of making the holograph amendment. Does anyone know if the c.O.T.O. have actually issued a "corrected" edition of The Book of the Law yet? Are there any online copies, even, where the change has been enacted?


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3598
 

Michael: Oh, yes, there certainly are at least online versions, and i would be surprised if there aren't print versions by now.

Here is an online version with the change, from the US "Grand Lodge" of the (c)OTO:

http://lib.oto-usa.org/libri/liber0220.html


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 5972
 

Resistance is futile! OTO is a Templar-derived, "serious and secret," military-style, dictatorship. Says so in the Scriptures ... well, the Constitution.

Now if certain activists are members of OTO, then they should proceed to foment rebellion at the grassroots level. They will probably destroy themselves, but (you know) it's "free will."

If an activist (such as astralsun) is not a member of OTO, then what's the fuss? He (HB) did what he did. If you don't like it, simply get copies of older versions, or new copies of non-OTO publishers, to give to every person they meet, even if it's to share a Burger at McDonalds.

The use of two forum threads to encourage revolt and mayhem within a lineage that some people are calling The Black Lodge (names witheld by reason of seriousness and secrecy), plus proficiency in serial posting, causes me to warn you that you are pushing the envelope of the Guidelines of the LAShTAL sovereign society (AC).

Tech Note: If this WordPress software was as good at detecting serial posters as it is at detecting multiple links in a post, then we could stop this seemingly constant policing of rampant, serial posters ... who have personal agendas to proclaim.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4146
 

@ignant666

Many thanks. I han't seen this, though I should have anticipated that links from c.O.T.O. sites would be to "corrected" versions.


ReplyQuote
astralsun
(@astralsun)
Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 11
 

Ok, apologies for writing in 2 threads. I simply thought that making a joke about having a 4th feast day might draw some more attention to the issue.
Then afterwards I saw this thread and thought I’d probably get more interest here.
I have been a member of the cOTO for many years and this issue is a constant annoyance to me.
It just feels like HB took something that didn’t need messing with and chose to mess with it, creating a huge rift between all Thelemites.
I’m sure many of us have dealt with it by now. And non cOTO people probably don’t give a toss what HB does, but the many thousands of cOTO initiates have been collectively forced to go through this mess by HB.
For many, going through all the references in HB’s explanatory publication that he put out is just too tedious and complex and so they probably just end up trusting his decision as he is the Frater Superior.
But those who do take the time to, find it quite frankly lacking. The burden of proof is not fulfilled.
HB says often phrases like “I think” and nonsense such as “Crowley simply forgot” to change it.
It’s that old concept of - “if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it”. But then again - what more would you expect from a XII’ ?
I think the expression “having your head stuck up your ass” never seemed more appropriate.

I genuinely wonder if HB Is not a Jesuit who’s mission is to disrupt and ultimately destroy the Caliphate O.T.O. Many will laugh at this idea, but I honestly would not put it past them. They infiltrate and attempt to take over many organisations, I don’t see why they would ignore O.T.O.
I also think Porridge and many of his associate bottom feeders were part of a psyop led by Jesuits also.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3598
 

OMG, an actual (c)OTO member among us! You are the first to admit to membership in many years.

Why would you continue to swear obedience to an OHO about whom you have such a low opinion? I think your suspicions of the Jesuits are silly, but i agree that HB has not been a great success in promulgating Thelema.

Who is Porridge? Genesis P?


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 5972
 

as: I genuinely wonder if HB Is not a Jesuit who’s mission is to disrupt and ultimately destroy the Caliphate O.T.O.

If you "genuinly" think this, without proof, then you are "reasoning from the known to the unknown."

One only needs to follow the esoteric career of a person in order to see what happened. For example, a person might have started out under madman Motta, who expelled him and his associates. Said person then links up under Mahachohan McMurtry, the Caliph himself in Calif. When said McMurtry dies, the (rather large) Council of IX* members has to vote on said Caliph's successor. It gets as complicated as Brexit or a wall with Mexico. Finally, deadlocked, they depart from electing on of themselves (IX*) and choose instead a member of the IV* (probably with all the attachments like P.'.I.'.) because "he is good at editing Crowley books" (a loose translation of their stated rationale).

Note that in our example, said new Frater Super is not chosen for his level/depth of attainment, nor for his proven administrative ability, and certainly not for his charming persona ... but because he's good at editing.

So, in our theoretical example, he edits a few books and publishes them. Then the publishing ceases, but the Super Frater decides to enter the Quantum circuit and edit a so-called "holy" book, but subtitly noted as an "A.'.A.'. Publication in Class A," a text that is not to be changed not even in the style of a letter much less a word. Changing an "f" to a "k" is, I believe, changing the style of a letter.

In another example, we might postulate a member of a serious and secret society (that has incorporated and is not so secret any more)) who logs into a publickly displayed forum and therein rants and rails against his Frater Super, no higher possible, and foments rebellion in the ranks. Does said poster realize that agents of said secret society monitor said thread? (And others, and Wikipedia too). Does he know what response will ensue from said society towards said poster/member if they discover his true identity? Does said poster know what it means when we say "Shitlist?"

as: I also think Porridge and many of his associate bottom feeders were part of a psyop led by Jesuits also.

Porridge was (still is?) a monitor agent who moved (moves?) in almost immediately to assess anything in Wikipedia mentioning "OTO" and probably other keywords he had (has?) in order to immediately change the entry if it doesn't already have the proper "spin" embedded in the text. "Immediately" refers to next-day modifications, so there was (is?) a keyword search or notification borg unit in place.

Ig: Why would you continue to swear obedience to an OHO about whom you have such a low opinion?

I'm gladly happy you mentioned this. It's a built-in archetypal scenario in all/any Tong(s). Any given member adjusts their interface with reality to include a buffer of an Order, or a Guru, or some similar structure. This buffer becomes embedded. Then the poor sucker (I am referring to myself and many others I have known and still know) starts getting jerked around by what is clearly personal subjugation to something or some things that are irrational or unnecessarily aggressive.

Said member then undergoes a period of agony, mistrust, and isolation (maybe even while on the official shitlist) ... finally culminating in their resignation.

Ig: I think your suspicions of the Jesuits are silly,

I wouldn't put it past them, IF they had an opportunity to infiltrate. I don't think it applies in this case. This case is more like "Halfway up the Mountain."

Ig: Who is Porridge? Genesis P?

Yes, of course. Have you ever read his/her/its bio?


ReplyQuote
astralsun
(@astralsun)
Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 11
 

Some interesting responses, thank you.

OK, maybe the Jesuit conspiracy is a bit of a leap of imagination (but I don't rule it out)

But the whole "changing the style of a letter" thing seems almost comical in it's blatant abuse of A.'.A.'. rules.
It's almost as if he chose deliberately to do the one thing - clearly spelled out - that he should not do.
This is what makes me think of possible ulterior motives.
Could it be that, possibly even unbeknownst to himself, he manifested this action in order to cause a schism within the Order?
The reports of HB having no aura are also very disturbing, although I have never met him personally, (I read about that on aiwass.com)
Could it be that the dark masters have influenced him in making this edit to Liber AL?
Surely if he'd debated the change with some of his colleagues (Soveriegn Council?), I would guess that the general consensus would have been to leave the Book alone.
So why did he do it?
I put forward the following two possible theories:

1) He did it deliberately to cause a rift within the Thelemic community
2) His ego was overcome by dark magical forces to make him believe that he was 'doing the right thing', when in fact these dark forces intention was to cause a rift in the Thelemic community.

Either he was conscious of this or not, basically. But clearly he HAS caused a rift. And it is the kind of rift that will never go away. Thelemites will never stop talking about this - forever. What he has done therefore is totally unforgivable, as he has caused a permanent rift within Thelema itself.

I speak for myself, but I imagine that any serious Thelemite who is performing Liber XV, will have to make a decision - do they use Crowley's Liber AL - or the Breeze version?
Is this going to cause disagreements at events? Yes, probably.
I know that I personally would insist on using the un-doctored version of Liber AL. What if others present insisted on using the Breeze version? Having arguments over which Holy Book to use in a magical ritual is hardly a god way to begin.
So this I fear will be his ultimate legacy, a never ending rift in the Thelemic community, born from his inability to quash his ego.


ReplyQuote
Page 4 / 6
Share: