Liber L & self defeating imagery question
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
"It certainly brooks no room for compromise: Nothing in the Book hints that, "Y'know, if you really think that sex is evil and immoral, we can probably work something out about it." Quite the contrary."
"And the Book itself doesn't call for toadies: It says, "There is success." It's a 'done deal.' The law is in place. Anyone standing against it has lost."
Loved that.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
@Ethar said
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
LMAO
Well, I think part of the point is to not attract those with closed minds who can't understand such symbolism. And anyway, I don't think whatever forces are in charge, such as Aiwass, would've let Crowley do this if it wasn't meant to be this way. Unless he somehow could supersede spiritual authority.
Love is the law, love under will."
Yes, of course your right. I mean, as a Thelemite of course I understand theres a reason for it ultimately. But, when this question is posed to myself by others, I felt somewhat at a loss, simply giving a somewhat xtian type dogmatic answer along the lines of their usual "well, we dont know, its Gods will. His ways arent our ways." Lol you know what I mean? Always hated that arguement
So, I figured id ask, and see if there were a more logical answer. I think Jim did a great job at helping me with that, in that the new answer is it directly challenges the ideals of the outgoing Aeon, making those with the ability to think, and prevent "toadies" (love that term lol), & its telling us, not asking us.
93 93/93
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
That's why I don't talk about Thelema as something separate from me, I talk about me, what stuff means to me and what and why I believe in, (I'm not known as evil or satanic, so that helps) and if a conversation ensues I can build it from there.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
@Ethar said
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
That's why I don't talk about Thelema as something separate from me, I talk about me, what stuff means to me and what and why I believe in, (I'm not known as evil or satanic, so that helps) and if a conversation ensues I can build it from there.
Love is the law, love under will."
Lol im the same! Just easier to get across your points without silly distractions etc. However, once they make it into my house and see my shelf of books, well ill start using Jims help for wording lol. Sometimes people get so interested after talking generically, they start to want more details on how to DO it etc., which of course presses for more specifics, and out pops AC in all his "wickedness"
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Well, if they're willing to listen that far then you just have to explain where this myth came from, and make it clear that Thelema is not Crowley and you're not "following" him by being a Thelemite. (Well, you are, but only in the sense that you're following every Thelemite before you.)
Love is the law, love under will.
-
@Ethar said
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Well, if they're willing to listen that far then you just have to explain where this myth came from, and make it clear that Thelema is not Crowley and you're not "following" him by being a Thelemite. (Well, you are, but only in the sense that you're following every Thelemite before you.)
Love is the law, love under will."
Yes, very true. Usually thats exactly what I do, usually thats the case, and all is well. People are a lot more open these days, and I feel actually xtianity is being seen as more in a negative "controlling/guilt" light. Even if ultimately I was able to "explain" it all, it still raised the question of "why" was that obsticle there in the first place? It seemed a stumbling block tward "converting" I guess lol, which was my own misunderstanding.
93 93/93
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
@kasper81 said
"With that said AC's writings are full of such outrageous "jokes" or jolts /shocks and of course the BOLaw is a prime example."
Uh, again, the Book of the Law isn't Crowley's.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
@Iamus said
"And it's not Liber L it's Liber AL, hence the "sub figura XXXI" in the full title of the manuscript."
I actually disagree with that, Iamus. The title page was part of the original manuscript, so I hold it to the same standard of "Change not as much as the style of a letter." The title page said Liber L.
I accept the Aleph-Lamed key as an important interpretation of the name, but not as the name.
The number 31 was added by modern post-Crowley people to distinguish the manuscript. The original title page of the manuscript read, โLiber L. vel Legis. given from the mouth of Aiwass to the ear of The Beast on April 8, 9, & 10, 1904 O.S.โ
-
@Frater Potater said
"
@Ethar said
"Uh, again, the Book of the Law isn't Crowley's. "Not everyone believes that Aiwass was a discarnate being who dictated the book. Some say Aiwass was an aspect of Crowley's own mind... Others go as far as to say Aiwass was a fabrication.
Just try to keep in mind that others share differing views."
Nonetheless - belief aside - there was only one witness who testified, and his testimony was unequivocal.
The bench finds for Mr. Crowley.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Iamus said
"And it's not Liber L it's Liber AL, hence the "sub figura XXXI" in the full title of the manuscript."I actually disagree with that, Iamus. The title page was part of the original manuscript, so I hold it to the same standard of "Change not as much as the style of a letter." The title page said Liber L.
I accept the Aleph-Lamed key as an important interpretation of the name, but not as the name.
The number 31 was added by modern post-Crowley people to distinguish the manuscript. The original title page of the manuscript read, โLiber L. vel Legis. given from the mouth of Aiwass to the ear of The Beast on April 8, 9, & 10, 1904 O.S.โ"
See, I'd been under the impression that Crowley himself retitled it to AL (Liber Legis) The Book of the Law sub figurรข XXXI as delivered by 93 โ ืขืืื โ ฮฮนฯฮฑฯฯ โ 418 to Ankh-af-na-Khonsu The Priest of the Princes, which I took to indicate that Crowely only thought it was called Liber L. because he had only heard the title spoken aloud, but it was Liber AL all along, thus the "change" was really a correction of an error and not a change at all. Is that not correct, or do we simply disagree?
-
@Iamus said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Iamus said
"And it's not Liber L it's Liber AL, hence the "sub figura XXXI" in the full title of the manuscript."I actually disagree with that, Iamus. The title page was part of the original manuscript, so I hold it to the same standard of "Change not as much as the style of a letter." The title page said Liber L.
I accept the Aleph-Lamed key as an important interpretation of the name, but not as the name.
The number 31 was added by modern post-Crowley people to distinguish the manuscript. The original title page of the manuscript read, โLiber L. vel Legis. given from the mouth of Aiwass to the ear of The Beast on April 8, 9, & 10, 1904 O.S.โ"
See, I'd been under the impression that Crowley himself retitled it to AL (Liber Legis) The Book of the Law sub figurรข XXXI as delivered by 93 โ ืขืืื โ ฮฮนฯฮฑฯฯ โ 418 to Ankh-af-na-Khonsu The Priest of the Princes, which I took to indicate that Crowely only thought it was called Liber L. because he had only heard the title spoken aloud, but it was Liber AL all along, thus the "change" was really a correction of an error and not a change at all. Is that not correct, or do we simply disagree?"
93 Iamus,
Just a thought here, but even if the title was later "decided" to be AL, at the actual time of writing it was entitled L. If we give the excuse of later deciding what something "should" have been, and "correct" it, thats changing it regardless, which the Book specifically warns against. If we are allowed to "correct" then seems AC would have corrected a lot more (then again we excuse the later addition of verse numbers in the last two chapters).
The title "Liber L" was heard, and written down, just as AC says he had written down "Harder" when he said it was probably "Harden", but said he left it uncorrected in order to obey the directive of not changing as much as the style of a letter.
93 93/93
-
Debate not of the Image, saying : Beyond! Beyond!
It is unfortunate that people so often find it neccesary to push people into little boxes.
Squeeze them into certain labels.I mean, if I really wished to 'defend' Crowley, I could say:
The drugs he used were entirely legal,
You could purchase them over the counter -
(They also did not have a developed notion of addiction - they use to give the stuff to children!)
Crowley also admitted to playing for both teams,
A big NO NO, which these days,
Does not cause much of an up-roar.Thus, in Victorian times, perhaps one might have seen him as a "wicked beast"
These days he is no stranger than your standard rock muscianThough, I feel our time can be better spent not defending a person who is no longer around
For it is not Crowley that we follow, it is our True Will
One thing I am all ways sure to do , when a person becomes curious,
Is to try and direct them towards knowing and doing their True Will
Whether it be through Christianity, Buddhism, Wood-Working, Singing...
The Law is for ALL , not ALL for the Law -
@Iamus said
"See, I'd been under the impression that Crowley himself retitled it to AL (Liber Legis) The Book of the Law sub figurรข XXXI as delivered by 93 โ ืขืืื โ ฮฮนฯฮฑฯฯ โ 418 to Ankh-af-na-Khonsu The Priest of the Princes, which I took to indicate that Crowely only thought it was called Liber L. because he had only heard the title spoken aloud, but it was Liber AL all along, thus the "change" was really a correction of an error and not a change at all. Is that not correct, or do we simply disagree?"
Yes, Crowley did accept the new name - many years after the dictation, when Achad came up with a solution to many of the Qabalistic mysteries.
I hold that, under the very explicit rules the Book set for itself, he had no right to do so. Rose made immediate changes - a couple of things he got wrong or incomplete (which I take to be part of the original retrieval process), and Crowley was very explicitly told to change nothing at all - not even the style of amy of the letters - and was only given latitude on the "space marks-marks."
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I hold that, under the very explicit rules the Book set for itself, he had no right to do so. Rose made immediate changes - a couple of things he got wrong or incomplete (which I take to be part of the original retrieval process), and Crowley was very explicitly told to change nothing at all - not even the style of amy of the letters - and was only given latitude on the "space marks-marks.""
You know, I guess I never saw the title of the work falling under the same restrictions as the text itself, but without really critically considering it. I'll have to think about that. Thanks.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Crowley was very explicitly told to change nothing at all - not even the style of any of the letters - and was only given latitude on the "space marks-marks.""
Minor quibble -- you mean he was given latitude on the punctuation marks ("the stops").
-
Yes, you're right. (Cerebral flatulence, there.)
-
I am acutely aware that Discussion is the sub-cultural norm in sites such as this one but being a practising, Comment literalist โ still the only one, so far as I'm aware โ I won't address such material in this thread. And I don't wish to get onto that topic, here, either. I just wish to note why I'm not addressing points relating to the contents and also I must mention it in the context of this topic as I don't count the title as part of the "contents" and so I am free to discuss it. Indeed, I've never seen it claimed, previously, that it was of the contents; but I do hold that every reader has to define the contents, plural, for themselves.
A.C.'s account of the reception of the law has it that he heard the book called "liber l" (phonetically), not "Liber L vel Legis". He just assumed that it meant "Liber L" and so used that version early on; apparently adding the "vel Legis" himself. And there is no evidence, so far as I am aware, that he wrote the title page at the time. It could have been added, along with the doodles, months or years later. His later acceptance of the "AL" interpretation was predicated upon, amongst other considerations, the fact that he had heard it pronounced "el" and the word in Latin โ and English โ is pronounced "el", just as he had originally heard.
The original word was a widespread Semetic one meaning might/power/god, and it was used as a name of god, or in titles of god, in the OT. See El. It was therefore taken up into Biblical Latin. For instance, though, in the Vulgate, "El" is mostly translated as "Deus", it is used in proper names such as "Bethel"; for instance in Gen 31:13. "Liber El" is therefore a proper (Biblical) Latin phrase but A.C. chose, El knows why, to confuse the issue by using the title of "Liber [Aleph] [Lamed]" and the English transliteration "Liber AL", thus inviting generations of the ignorant to pronounce it "liber eh-el". I have long used simply "Liber El", which disallows that reading. But, of course, that is an interpretation โ and there are lots of other l/el words out there, in Latin and elsewhere. One might even use "Liber Deus". But, if one accepts A.C.'s interpretation of the word, the "Liber El" orthography solves all the difficulties, I believe.
-
Yes, I understand all of that. Where we seem to differ is that I hold that, once it was written down (let's say, at the end of Rose adding her comments right after), then it is not to be changed, even in "the style of a letter."
There are so many other scholarly (seeming) errors in the Book (let's just start with the rendering of the name Hadit) that, if we were to start looking at "what it should have said" or "how it should have been written," then things get very complicated and troubled.
And this is exactly the sort of change the Book prohibited.
I totally accept Aleph-Lamed, "El," as an esoteric (Qabalistic) interpretation of the title - and perhaps the Qabalistic interpretation of greatest importance. I just don't accept it as the actual title. That requires a change in more than the style of a letter - it requires a change in the actual letters.
PS - One of the ongoing points of debate is (to state it one way) when the "cut off" point was for changes (ignoring punctuation). The best guideline seems to be the vague "OK if it was done in the immediate aftermath, to shore up the original dictation." The obvious example of this wold be Rose's additions. And there is another change, potentially of very great importance, that I begrudgingly accept because it appears to be in the same ink and pen and, though clearly written after the line following it, appears to have been an "immediate aftermath" correction. I speak of III:39, where the words "and thy comment upon this the Book of the Law" are very obviously squeezed in between lines after the ones above and below it were written. It would solve so many nuisance problems if we could justify dropping out those 10 words; but I really can't justify it.
In contrast, "correcting" how the title was written occurred years later.