"Kill/Fill" - not "Kill Bill"
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The Outer Head of O.T.O. is making a textual change in digital and physical publications of The Book of the Law published by O.T.O. (Note that I have characterized this as a textual change in publications, not as a textual change in The Book of the Law. The distinction is at least somewhat important.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He has said many times (my paraphrase from memory) that to avoid sectarianism or denominationalism in Thelema, and maximize the sovereign right of any individual regarding their own relationship with Liber Legis, the Tunis Comment provides the key, and people should just not discuss the Book or its meaning. Having similar motives, I strongly hold that the only way to prevent religious tyranny and to maximize the sovereign right of individuals to their own understanding of the Book, is to discuss it constantly, to actively exchange views, insights, and responses in a spirit of tolerance that doesn't require anyone to agree with you; that is, a cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
-
Not that anyone important cares what I think, but just because I do think...
Anytime someone makes a decision like this, you have to document and include the reasoning of the decision along with the text. Bare minimum.
If I may though... in spite of the numbing effect that comes from long pouring over many such complex and and pedantic scholarly dispustes, this is a big deal. It strikes at the heart of the intended final authority of Class A designation and documentation.
I will refrain from projecting motivation, but I will comment that so many future problems would be so easily resolved here and now by simple, literal submission both to the original Class A documentation and the primary OTO pledge.
-
Bereshith, no offense intended here, but your last post leads me to believe you didn't read the full 20 page (when I copy/pasted it into Word and created a PDF using a more readable font size and moving it to my tablet because just in case it turned into shit I wanted to be on my throne) explanation that H.B. gives. He states that all future copies that will include this new "correction" will also include a note explaining the change. This new correction, so-called, seems to appear according to Breeze's understanding not a change per se, but a correction of a previous error, and he is saying that the correction therefor is not a change but a change back. And according to Breeze, neither you nor Breeze are making changes to the text (in line with the O.T.O. oath) but Crowley did.
That's the reasoning being used. You have to read the full 20 pages to get to the meat of his reasoning on this matter.
Just sayin'
-
Good. I missed that bit.
-
Thank you Jim for helping a few of us, who are not as informed upon Bill Breeze, a bit more information. I for one am not as educated in the past in regards to Bill, or the functions of the O.T.O., as I am not a member etc.
I read H.B.s explanation, and I can understand how he believes it makes sense, and I feel that he is most likely doing exactly what he feels is right, and not for some other motivation. IMHO, I simply feel what was done was done, and there were a few things AC mentions should have been different and yet he did not change. I feel these "mistakes" were meant to be, but of course that's my opinion.
Anyway, I do want to say the "Self-slain" title does seem to suit the "kill" change. I felt that was a pretty powerful point beyond most of it. Either way, I am glad there will be a comment made about the change, for those who may be new to reading Liber L.
-
@Bereshith said
"Good. I did skim some parts. "
What do you think (in case you missed this part) about "kill" being suitable to the title "self-slain"? Just curious. It does seem to make sense though. Right?
-
Damn. I edited that for less drama, but you caught me.
As long as you're asking.
He's already self-slain. You know, like he's been through the initiation of Osiris already.
Having him repeat that formula seems to indicate ongoing technique, which continues Osiris. Or at least, I can see that argument being made.
It's an eternal truth, imho, but it's not metaphorically consistent with the imagery of this Aeon. Unless I'm wrong, and the aspirant stands in as Osiris, who is slain by RHK. But in that case, the supposed difference between Thelema and Christianity is much more smoke and mirror than I have been led to believe.
-
93, Hey boys, I decided to pop back for this. Thanks to everyone who has signed the petition so far.
I posted an open letter to H.B. and the O.T.O. a few hours ago in response to his detailed explanation - and you can see that on the petition page. The petition continues to grow and attract supporters: www.change.org/petitions/bill-breeze-oho-of-the-ordo-templi-orientis-please-do-not-change-the-book-of-the-law#
I hereby pledge not to stop my efforts until the Book of the Law is safe. Looks like we're united on this one for once Bereshith!
I was surprised by the title of this page. Kill Bill? Of the 108 petition supporters that have made comments on the page, then not one has called for or suggested the removal of him from his office as O.H.O. Disagreeing with H.B. while not wanting to see him removed seems to be very much what everyone is about so I thought the title of the post was a little dramatic.
Then again - if that was the only way to prevent this change to the Book of the Law... if he really cannot see the damage he is doing to the Book and to Thelema then I feel a time will come when we are forced to call for his resignation. However, at the moment as far as I can see, people just want him to stop and ... as they say 'take a moment' - to consider that he might be wrong in his assumption (and it is a guess) that Crowley made a mistake when he wrote 'fill me''. There are other far more likely explanations that fit the facts (all the facts) and require no change to the text or breaking of oaths or all the disruption to the social harmony of the community that his proposed change to the Book has caused.
If you say he is a nice guy Jim, and an honorable one then I believe you, but there are some things that can never be compromised on, and this one is going to run and run.
Best, Alrah. 93 93/93
-
@Bereshith said
"Damn. I edited that for less drama, but you caught me.
As long as you're asking.
He's already self-slain. You know, like he's been through the initiation of Osiris already.
Having him repeat that formula seems to indicate ongoing technique, which continues Osiris. Or at least, I can see that argument being made.
It's an eternal truth, imho, but it's not metaphorically consistent with the imagery of this Aeon. Unless I'm wrong, and the aspirant stands in as Osiris, who is slain by RHK. But in that case, the supposed difference between Thelema and Christianity is much more smoke and mirror than I have been led to believe."
Oops! Sorry. Fixed it. good point though, thanks.
-
@Jason R said
"What do you think (in case you missed this part) about "kill" being suitable to the title "self-slain"? Just curious. It does seem to make sense though. Right?"
Though this wasn't addressed to me...
I think it's the wrong basis for a decision. This turns it into "what feels right to me, what I like" - mostly, "what would I like it to say" - rather than, "What does the Book actually say?"
The main import of H.B.'s citing that, I think, is to disarm the equally-invalid basis of assessment, that somebody "likes it better the other way." But, whichever way it makes most sense to you, that shouldn't be the basis of assessing its rightness.
IMVHO.
-
@Alrah said
"If you say he is a nice guy Jim, and an honorable one then I believe you, but there are some things that can never be compromised on, and this one is going to run and run."
I agree that even the best of people in the best of times don't always get it right.
(That's a generalization. <s>) -
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Alrah said
"If you say he is a nice guy Jim, and an honorable one then I believe you, but there are some things that can never be compromised on, and this one is going to run and run."I agree that even the best of people in the best of times don't always get it right.
(That's a generalization. <s>)" I've been on FB so much lately I was looking for the 'like' button. 
Consider your comment 'liked'. 
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Alrah said
"If you say he is a nice guy Jim, and an honorable one then I believe you, but there are some things that can never be compromised on, and this one is going to run and run."I agree that even the best of people in the best of times don't always get it right.
(That's a generalization. <s>)"In light of this issue concerning the kill/fill/thrill cult, Crowley either got it wrong or got it right. So there's that. Yep.
-
"Though this wasn't addressed to me...
I think it's the wrong basis for a decision. This turns it into "what feels right to me, what I like" - mostly, "what would I like it to say" - rather than, "What does the Book actually say?"
The main import of H.B.'s citing that, I think, is to disarm the equally-invalid basis of assessment, that somebody "likes it better the other way." But, whichever way it makes most sense to you, that shouldn't be the basis of assessing its rightness.
IMVHO."
Hmmm I see. Thanks Jim, I agree.
-
@Takamba said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Alrah said
"If you say he is a nice guy Jim, and an honorable one then I believe you, but there are some things that can never be compromised on, and this one is going to run and run."I agree that even the best of people in the best of times don't always get it right.
(That's a generalization. <s>)"In light of this issue concerning the kill/fill/thrill cult, Crowley either got it wrong or got it right. So there's that. Yep."
At the moment, for H.B. to be right then Crowley has to be wrong, and for Crowley to be right, then H.B. has to be wrong.
Isn't this just a crazy situation going down between a present OHO and a past OHO?
-
It really doesn't affect me though. I'm not personally changing anything one way or the other. I'm just reading different versions, and so far, no one is making anybody choose between the two versions as authoritative that I can tell.
I did grow up with people arguing over whether or not the King James Version of the Bible was the "Holy Bible" while the other translations weren't. "Says so right there on the cover!" So I'm kind of pessimistic about it.
But so far as I can tell. It just doesn't affect me. I hope it never does.
I'm so ****ing tired of being forced to choose between two things by people who themselves just don't get it.
-
@Bereshith said
"I did grow up with people arguing over whether or not the King James Version of the Bible was the "Holy Bible" while the other translations weren't. "Says so right there on the cover!" So I'm kind of pessimistic about it. "
So I learned Hebrew and Greek so I could read the Bible in the original.
It seems "read it in the original" resolves a certain amount of friction in the present instance, as well.
-
@Bereshith said
"It really doesn't affect me though. I'm not personally changing anything one way or the other. I'm just reading different versions, and so far, no one is making anybody choose between the two versions as authoritative that I can tell.
I did grow up with people arguing over whether or not the King James Version of the Bible was the "Holy Bible" while the other translations weren't. "Says so right there on the cover!" So I'm kind of pessimistic about it.
But so far as I can tell. It just doesn't affect me. I hope it never does.
I'm so ****ing tired of being forced to choose between two things by people who themselves just don't get it."
I suppose that it doesn't personally affect me either. Nobody is going to break into my flat and start expunging the F from my copy like the Inquisition used to to with books (although apparently modern electronic versions are susceptible to on the fly revisions?). But it is possible that in the future this will grow to be a divisive issue and I wouldn't want any of my descendants suffering the same sort of crap that you grew up with Bereshith. That must have been so.... boring! Urgh!
I think I'm being driven by a sense of duty as well as a love of the books puzzles and beautiful complexities. I just want this one thing... this one book which I have probably explored and had a more tumultuous relationship with over the years than many of my ex-lovers... to just NOT change. Everything else can, and I can change around it - that's OK... but give this one book a couple of thousand years first? That's how I feel.
We get on this magical path and it's a total rollercoaster of change. There needs to be an anchor in something, somewhere, and for a lot of people that something is Liber AL.
-
@Alrah said
"
At the moment, for H.B. to be right then Crowley has to be wrong, and for Crowley to be right, then H.B. has to be wrong.Isn't this just a crazy situation going down between a present OHO and a past OHO?
"You've got a point there, and from an outsider's point of view of things (not saying you have such, just saying "from such") that would indeed appear to be the case. But H.B. didn't say it was Crowley's mistake, it was the mistake of who ever originally typed up Liber L from the handwritten version (the implication was that this was not Crowley). Crowley's error, according to H.B., was in being lazy and forgetful.
I personally stand with Jim. I'd need more evidence than what has been presented to make such a change. If the only argument that we have is to say that Crowley was too lazy, inattentive, or forgetful to make the "correction" himself all the reprinting during his lifetime, then we probably diminish any other credit we could give the old man.
-
Yup - I agree Takamba. And what are we supposed to say to newbies or those just getting interested in Thelema or to our children or grandchildren?
Do we tell little Tommy that "yes, OK - the book said not to change it but the prophet was too lazy to make sure and so a man called H.B. had to sort it out later?" Or will the footnote that H.B. intends to add to the book go missing at some point in the future, from the sheer embarrassment of it all and the little Tommy's of this future world will grow up believing it was always a 'K'? Probably. Even likely. It's a slippery slope.
Yup... I agree Takamba.