Changes to Liber Al?
-
@Jason R said
"
@Off the Wall said
"
Thanks. The O.T.O. has banned me from using it's Facebook fan page and it's community page to make exactly the same point (and also deleted the posts).Apparently the Law is for All but O.T.O. censorship of the wider Thelemic community is reserved for those making good points?"
Really? I'm not in the O.T.O., but I have heard stories. That seems to be a bit unfair, I don't see that as any reason to ban you. Strange."
It's censorship - plain and simple, and it's grossly unfair as this matter affects all Thelemites. I don't know why they resort to censorship. Perhaps they prepare a set of scripted responses for the moderators when they pull a trick like this - but if the mods can't answer you from the script then they censor you instead? You'd have to ask them why they favor censorship.
Apparently, Man has the right to think what he will, to speak what he will and to write what he will... as long as man doesn't disagree with Bill Breeze on FB.
-
@Off the Wall said
"It's censorship - plain and simple, and it's grossly unfair as this matter affects all Thelemites."
This is no violation of any Thelemic "rights," as you implied at the end of your post: it just sounds like they banned you from one specific area over which they have control, which is absolutely their right to do, for any reason at all.
If I had to guess, I would wager that you were banned for making loopy comments that not-so-subtly insulted the organization.
You have every right to make your comments, and they have every right to ban you for making those comments, and you have every right to go elsewhere and make those comments again. No one's oppressing any make believe "rights" you think you have.
-
@Los said
"
@Off the Wall said
"It's censorship - plain and simple, and it's grossly unfair as this matter affects all Thelemites."This is no violation of any Thelemic "rights," as you implied at the end of your post: it just sounds like they banned you from one specific area over which they have control, which is absolutely their right to do, for any reason at all.
If I had to guess, I would wager that you were banned for making loopy comments that not-so-subtly insulted the organization.
You have every right to make your comments, and they have every right to ban you for making those comments, and you have every right to go elsewhere and make those comments again. No one's oppressing any make believe "rights" you think you have."
As far as rights go, the community page entitled 'Thelema' is a public space set aside for people with like interests. All members (including the mods that set up, run and supervise these pages) are expected to abide by the community standards set out here:
www.facebook.com/communitystandard
My post there expressed the opinion given in my first post here, and was not in violation of the community standards expected by FB.
I think you may be confusing 'rights' with 'power'. Just because an O.T.O. member running a general Thelemic community page has the power to ban dissenting opinions does not give them the right to do so except when that opinion does not meet the standards of the community (set out in the above document). They are not privileged by FB with the right to ban people from community pages for "any reason whatsoever". And of course, I have the right to report that page owner for misusing their power, (which I shall do after breakfast).
Good day.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
" Plus, seems in violation of the oath to accept the book of the law without wishing to change it."
excellent point: which would surely make them in breach of the Oath if they implement it?
Plus Liber al clearly states: *Change not so much as the style of a letter; for behold! thou o prophet, shall not behold all these mysteries hidden therein.*I:54
Can it get any clearer than that?
-
Los,
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
@Los said
"
@Off the Wall said
"It's censorship - plain and simple, and it's grossly unfair as this matter affects all Thelemites."This is no violation of any Thelemic "rights," as you implied at the end of your post: it just sounds like they banned you from one specific area over which they have control, which is absolutely their right to do, for any reason at all. "
Now this that you are "once again" trying to do, is exactly what I were talking about when I said:
"You are very good with words, so good that all discussions with you seem to halt with you not understanding “feelings”, “nuances of words”, “words of expressions” etc. I have had these tiresome discussions with “about to be BB’s” and BB’s before, marking my words, having their reason taking us down into the pit called “Because”, due to their failure of understanding the “tacit knowledge” of the author etc."
You keep repeating that Black Brother pattern... You simply fail to grasp the very point of the discussion - the "tacit knowledge" of the author. The point here is NOT about "rights"; it's NOT about violating some man-made abstract ideological "right". The man was offended, his pride was hurt, they treated him like a criminal when they removed his commonsense comments without no special reason at all.
It's about the O.T.O. showing uncanny communist/faschist-tendencies...
The man has "emotional concerns" here, he is upset (he has it under control though
) and he is asking questions about that which has brought alot of people out of balance - including myself... But you don't see this, you try to make this to be some abstract discussion about "rights". We are not talking "ideological abstractions" here. We are talking REALITY... But you are blinded by ignorance, and can't seem to make a diffrence between the two...You also repeate the pattern of wanting to have another man look like a fool by making irrelevant points:
@Los said
"If I had to guess, I would wager that you were banned for making loopy comments that not-so-subtly insulted the organization."
You don't know what he really said, do you? But still you insinuate him being clumsy, brutish, foolish etc. Let me quote myself once again to show what you are up to:
"These discussions never seem to bear any fruit because of the tiresome burden of always having to explain that which isn’t relevant for understanding the topic currently discussed. It is tiresome to always having to guard against discussing endless loops of irrelevant points – points always made by you – only to have me look like a fool."
Voila! The points you are making are "once again" not at all relevant for understanding the current discussion. They are (as I have pointed out) only made to have another man look like a fool. You rude creature!
It's easy to know what to expect from you. You are very easily predicted. This is exactly why I wouldn't have any further discussions with you (Perhaps I would use you as a libary of reference [like this rainman thing] that's about it.)... To have any further discussions with you would be like walking down to that huge desert sandbox; that pit called "Because"...
One last question: What happned to that Angel of yours? Since I don't want to side-track this discussion any further - please let me have your answer in private!
Love is the law, love under will.
Peace
-
@Archaeus said
"
@Avshalom Binyamin said
" Plus, seems in violation of the oath to accept the book of the law without wishing to change it."excellent point: which would surely make them in breach of the Oath if they implement it?
Plus Liber al clearly states: *Change not so much as the style of a letter; for behold! thou o prophet, shall not behold all these mysteries hidden therein.*I:54
Can it get any clearer than that?"
One can't argue with these made points; it's actually impossible without invoking the dogs of reason...
-
93,
The change won't affect any of us who already have an 'unmodified' version of Liber L or anyone who has committed the adoration to memory for use in Liber Resh. However what about those who obtain the changed book and don't know the original? 'Fill' has connotations of life and the filling of the light. 'Kill',to me, gives the impression of being obliterated by the light. One is reinforcement, the other dissolution. Since the O.T.O more or less control Crowley's writings this new version will be the most widely used version in about 20-30 years. Anyone who feels strongly about the change can tell their students or publish online (like here) their complaints to educate the next generation.
Basically just ignore the silly O.T.O man (his name is too long and the vowels jump about) and make sure that everyone you meet knows the 'correct' word and that they tell everyone else. Other than that its out of everyone's hand because sadly they have the legal rights to do what they want. Perhaps he'll face the direful judgments of Ra-Hoor-Khuit
93's.
-
@Off the Wall said
"I think you may be confusing 'rights' with 'power'."
Not confusing: identifying. "Rights" -- in the context of Liber Oz, anyway -- are best read as "abilities." Man has the abilities to think, write, eat, etc. what he will. But he's not entitled to do those things if he's not strong enough to enforce them.
"It's about the O.T.O. showing uncanny communist/faschist-tendencies..."
This is a common criticism leveled against the OTO, but moderating an internet forum is neither "communist" nor "faschist" [sic].
"You don't know what he really said, do you?"
If you're saying that I can't pass a judgment without knowing for sure what he said, then -- by your own argument -- you can't pass a judgment that the OTO is "showing uncanny communist/faschist [sic] tendencies" without knowing for sure what was said.
You see how that works?
"I wouldn't have any further discussions with you [...] please let me have your answer in private!"
So you don't want to have any further discussions with me...but barely a paragraph later you want me to write to you in private. Hmm....
@mark0987 said
"The change won't affect any of us who already have an 'unmodified' version of Liber L"
Once more, people are acting as if there is definitely going to be a change...I see no grounds for thinking that yet.
-
-
@Archaeus said
"
@Los said
"Once more, people are acting as if there is definitely going to be a change...I see no grounds for thinking that yet."
OTO UKGL has already changed their online version of Liber Al, I'd say that's a pretty good indication."
Wow, I wasn't aware of that. I just checked the OTO USA website, and the same change has been made.
I think that change -- while not really that significant -- is premature, and I would be interested in hearing more about the decision to change it so soon on the basis of what appears to be very little textual evidence.
-
@Los said
Once more, people are acting as if there is definitely going to be a change...I see no grounds for thinking that yet."
OTO UKGL has already changed their online version of Liber Al, I'd say that's a pretty good indication."
Wow, I wasn't aware of that. I just checked the OTO USA website, and the same change has been made.
I think that change -- while not really that significant -- is premature, and I would be interested in hearing more about the decision to change it so soon on the basis of what appears to be very little textual evidence."
Me too; I expected at least that they would wait until releasing the new edition of the Holy Books before making such a sweeping change.
My personal feeling though is that this is basically a takeover bid by one particular group of people (who have a track record of such moves I might add) and that once the change is implemented it will be only a matter of time before they claim that any Thelemic Orders using Libers containing the phrase 'fill me' are frauds.
Remember that this is the same group who recently tried to claim that all AA groups not answerable to them are frauds.
Just a thought.
-
@Los said
Once more, people are acting as if there is definitely going to be a change...I see no grounds for thinking that yet."
OTO UKGL has already changed their online version of Liber Al, I'd say that's a pretty good indication."
Wow, I wasn't aware of that. I just checked the OTO USA website, and the same change has been made.
I think that change -- while not really that significant -- is premature, and I would be interested in hearing more about the decision to change it so soon on the basis of what appears to be very little textual evidence."
x,
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
It's blasphemy! But sadly it confirms my own supspicious feelings of this order being turned into some collectivistic communistic/faschistic community... I am not at all suprised, juding from the character of some of my own superiors.
They have no authority to do this...
Love is the law, love under will.
Peace
-
"
x,Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
It's blasphemy! But sadly it confirms my own supspicious feelings of this order being turned into some collectivistic communistic/faschistic community... I am not at all suprised, juding from the character of some of my own superiors.
They have no authority to do this...
Love is the law, love under will.
Peace"
Your superiors sound like a barrel of laughs.
-
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
It's blasphemy!"
No, it's not. But it's amusing to see you say that it's "blasphemy" to change the Book right after you misquote the most famous line from it.
"But sadly it confirms my own supspicious feelings of this order being turned into some collectivistic communistic/faschistic community"
It confirms nothing of the sort. Stop being hysterical.
-
@Los said
"
@The_Hawkheaded_child said
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.It's blasphemy!"
No, it's not. But it's amusing to see you say that it's "blasphemy" to change the Book right after you misquote the most famous line from it.
"But sadly it confirms my own supspicious feelings of this order being turned into some collectivistic communistic/faschistic community"
It confirms nothing of the sort. Stop being hysterical."
Hey, I am still awaiting that personal message of yours! I am still curious to what happened to that Angels of yours!? I can't be of any assistance if you continue bitching around like this
-
Again it seems the author of Liber L seems to know what will transpire. The line about not changing even "the style of a letter" seems to be right on the mark, seeing that this change is in fact about a single letter.
Its alright, though I think - those that fool around like this simply bar themselves. Nothings really hurt if you truly think about it. Most Thelemic literature, and of course AC's writings in general has "fill me". They cant rewrite everything, and so its pretty self contained. Anyone who is new will eventually realize the change and make their own decision.
-
@Los said
"
@Archaeus said
"
@Los said
"...definitely going to be a change...I see no grounds for thinking that yet."
OTO UKGL has already changed their online version of Liber Al, I'd say that's a pretty good indication."
Wow, I wasn't aware of that. I just checked the OTO USA website, and the same change has been made."
hermetic.com/legis/stele-of-revealing/#poem has 'kill' and also the Equinox of the Gods here: hermetic.com/crowley/equinox-of-the-god - was this changed or just prescient?@Los said
"I think that change -- while not really that significant -- is premature, and I would be interested in hearing more about the decision to change it so soon on the basis of what appears to be very little textual evidence."
not sure what you are referring to. it's all explained right here: oto.org/legis1.pdfit comes down to the fact that the Beast was disorganized and incapable of doing a very good job as a proofreader or book producer, according to Hymenaeus Beta. his 'master copy' (of Thelema) he was apparently using for some of his corrections he gave away to a friend (James Thomas Windram), then later used a typescript from someone who couldn't read his writing (in Cairo) as a master that had loads of errors. the story goes that Aiwas ordered him to 'quote' the bit he'd previously paraphrased and Crowley got it wrong when writing a note in pencil on the XXXI ms.:
I adore thee in the song "I am the Lord of Thebes" +c from vellum book Unity --- ---------"fill me"but the actual paraphrase he'd done was 'kill me', and HBeta says this makes sense because Ankh-n-f-khonsu is a 'self-slayer' ("he is described elsewhere in the Paraphrase as the 'self-slain Ankh-f-n-khonsu,'* giving the reading 'let it kill me' a clear contextual basis in the Paraphrase."), a suicide or kamakazi or something. I don't know quite how this squares with 'letting something kill him' (martyrdom?), but the above is the entirety of his argument for changing his mind about what should be printed on versions of CCXX, printed versions.
those who oppose it should also answer why they are being so perspicacious when there's bits in the holograph obviously added after the fact, added by Soror Ouarda, added by Crowley in between lines, probably rewriting or changing Hebrew, crossing out several lines at a stretch and later filling it in. it seems a bit extreme to put up a fuss now. it's not like you are going to see Hymenaeus Beta or the (c)OTO go in and scratch out the XXXI "fill" and write over it at this late a date!
==============
here's the bit up to the fill/kill part and you can see the 'self-slain' attribute, clear as day, giving reason for the death, at least:@Ankh-n-f-khons said
"
Above, the gemmèd azure is
The naked splendour of Nuit;
She bends in ecstasy to kiss
The secret ardours of Hadit.
The wingèd globe, the starry blue
Are mine, o Ankh-f-n-Khonsu.I am the Lord of Thebes, and I
The inspired forth-speaker of Mentu;
For me unveils the veiled sky,
The self-slain Ankh-f-n-Khonsu<========
Whose words are truth. I invoke, I greet
Thy presence, o Ra-Hoor-Khuit!Unity uttermost showed!
I adore the might of Thy breath,
Supreme and terrible God,
Who makest the gods and death
To tremble before Thee: —
I, I adore thee!Appear on the throne of Ra!
Open the ways of the Khu!
Lighten the ways of the Ka!
The ways of the Khabs run through
To stir me or still me!
Aum! let it kill me!"
