Changes to Liber Al?
-
@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!" -
"those who oppose it should also answer why they are being so perspicacious"
You say it like perspicacity is a bad thing...
-
("Perspicacious" means "insightful")
But, to respond substantively, lumping all the different kinds of changes together, and saying that one more won't hurt, doesn't really add clarity. Deciding what we mean by change, which kinds of changes are acceptable, and which aren't, are all pretty important conversations to be having, when dealing with the central text of Thelema.
The kinds of existing changes were (a) done by the assigned scribe within a short window of the manuscript being written, in compliance with the author's instruction; (b) typos introduced to typed/printed versions; (c) typos corrected (d) typesetting issues, such as whether a word is capitalized in the manuscript or not.
This is an editorial change of a word, 109 years after the fact, by someone else, that is claimed to trump the actual source manuscript.
That last point is pretty big. We're going around talking about the errors in the printed versions, and how they can never be a true representation of the manuscript. But here we have a new idea introduced; that the source document is unreliable!
-
@nigris said
" not sure what you are referring to."
Of course you're "not sure what [I'm] referring to." You're replying to a post that is over a month old, treating it as if it were just posted yesterday. In point of fact, I made that post shortly after this "correction" was made public knowledge, before I was aware of HB's essay (certainly before the essay's existence was widely known and quite possibly before the essay was even published).
Then again, responding to posts that are over a month old is the least of the challenges you face, nigris, since you're now bumping any ol' post pertaining to Liber AL, including posts that are seven years old (or more) and posting responses as if participants made those posts yesterday.
"it 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."
You're right that the official party line from the OTO is that Crowley forgot how his paraphrase ended (the paraphrase he had just written shortly before the reception), made an error, and then never corrected the error in any published copy of the Book printed in his lifetime, despite the fact that he had it published many times after he made this supposed "correction" in his master copy and despite the fact that he wrote a "New Comment" on this verse -- complete with "fill me" -- well after he made this supposed "correction" in the master copy.
"those who oppose [the "correction"] 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."
Well, the difference, obviously, is that those other changes you're talking about were made very shortly after the Book was "dictated," right on the manuscript itself. The change under discussion here was never made by Crowley in any published version he oversaw in his lifetime, despite the fact that he published the Book several more times in his life after he made this supposed "correction."
A lot of people feel that the textual evidence being used to support this change -- one single marginal note that Crowley himself never implemented in any publishing of the Book -- is insufficient.
Maybe you'd know all of this if you weren't busy bumping ancient threads and happily chatting away with yourself, to yourself.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"...lumping all the different kinds of changes together, and saying that one more won't hurt, doesn't really add clarity."
agreed. I was trying not to lump them together, and instead to compare serious things qualifying as changing the original manuscript with people who want to change some published versions of what they regard as more accurate material. to call that a problem seems an extreme disregard for the character of what went on in the past, contrasted to what is going on now."Deciding what we mean by change, which kinds of changes are acceptable, and which aren't, are all pretty important conversations to be having, when dealing with the central text of Thelema."
agreed. I was trying to find out why a more essential and early change is acceptable to core documents (XXXI) while complaining about refining an edition of its outward expression (CCXX)."The kinds of existing changes were (a) done by the assigned scribe within a short window of the manuscript being written, in compliance with the author's instruction;"
by description we cannot ascertain the instruction of the author except by inference, but i'll grant you that this is at issue. the contention is that the Scribe did NOT comply with that author (because the Paraphrase had been the 'kill' version)."(b) typos introduced to typed/printed versions; (c) typos corrected (d) typesetting issues, such as whether a word is capitalized in the manuscript or not."
most of these latter seem to have been resolved by now."This is an editorial change of a word, 109 years after the fact, by someone else, that is claimed to trump the actual source manuscript."
that is not my understanding, though i can see why you might interpret it that way. I tried to lay it out and even MISSED a page relevant to the whole picture:check this PDF out, it's only 11 DAYS OLD and contains additional evidence that Crowley was totally onboard with this version of the Paraphrase!!
there are instances where the Paraphrase appears to support this alternative, and what remains at issue (though a look at this latter PDF is rather fun and seems convincing to me) is what the ultimate will and intention of the combined direction by the author, and understanding of the Scribe, might be. with additional material indicating that the Scribe WANTED this change to 'kill' (apparently due to it being in character to a self-slain god), we're not talking about on anybody's authority other than the Scribe, so inferred from new data in James Thomas Windram's copy of Thelema (and in the newer PDF, in documents from other sources besides).
at least address the rudiments of the evidence. if you don't believe that this constituted one of Crowley's 'master copies' (and think that these other documents are fake or have differently meaning), say so. if you think this individual bringing all this up (Hymenaeus Beta) is lying, say so. you might also explain why you think he might want an Osirian slant to a central scripture (seems weird! is the (c)OTO's subsumption to the EGC compromising it toward Old AEon mythos?! what's the scoop? I'm game to consider the lot of it!).
"That last point is pretty big. We're going around talking about the errors in the printed versions, and how they can never be a true representation of the manuscript."
mostly they haven't been a true reflection of what is on the manuscript, right, that's why, in part, holographs are reproduced with them."But here we have a new idea introduced; that the source document is unreliable!"
it's not a new idea. do we have to go over all the reasons that the source document doesn't warrant the replication of its content due to the ineptness or incomplete capacity of the Scribe? I already covered some of those items. why should this one be any different? why aren't the documents assembled at the above PDFs extremely convincing that this was the interest of the author and of the Scribe and that this should be corrected in all CCXX future editions? -
@Los said
"I made that post shortly after this "correction" was made public knowledge, before I was aware of HB's essay (certainly before the essay's existence was widely known and quite possibly before the essay was even published)."
thank you for your correction." ...the official party line from the OTO is that Crowley forgot how his paraphrase ended (the paraphrase he had just written shortly before the reception), made an error, and then never corrected the error in any published copy of the Book printed in his lifetime, despite the fact that he had it published many times after he made this supposed "correction" in his master copy and despite the fact that he wrote a "New Comment" on this verse -- complete with "fill me" -- well after he made this supposed "correction" in the master copy."
there's more now, in the second PDF, demonstrating that within The Giant's Thumb, and in a composition of Ritual CXX, 'kill' is included, or is left as is. do you think there is an ulterior motive to the OTO's corruption here?beyond writing in the Beast's hand, however, Hymenaeus Beta states that the 1912 Equinox I was published with the reading in the Paraphrase as "kill", and that this was replicated once more in the 1936 Equinox of the Gods. 2 printings of the Paraphrase were "kill" at least. perhaps you're only talking about CCXX. these publishings appear to have contained 'kill' readings.*
"...those other changes you're talking about were made very shortly after the Book was "dictated," right on the manuscript itself. The change under discussion here was never made by Crowley in any published version he oversaw in his lifetime, despite the fact that he published the Book several more times in his life after he made this supposed "correction.""
are the 1912 and 1936 publishings of the Stele of Revealing Paraphrase exceptions to this, then?"A lot of people feel that the textual evidence being used to support this change -- one single marginal note that Crowley himself never implemented in any publishing of the Book -- is insufficient."
is the newer PDF from 11 days ago containing writing by the Beast better? does it matter that Grant's reception of Ritual CXX contains "kill" also?please pardon my late entry into your conversations. thank you for your patience with my brusque manners.
-
- HBeta: "Crowley gave the MS. its first publication in a very reduced photofacsimile in The Equinox I(7) in spring 1912, along with a facsimile plate of the Stele of Revealing and his Paraphrase of the Hieroglyphs from the Stele of Revealing (the title of which was misspelled 'Revelling'). I believe that this editorial work made him aware of the 'kill'/'fill' discrepancy between the Stele Paraphrase ('kill') and his pencil MS. note about its insertion into Liber CCXX ('fill')."
-
-
@nigris said
"
" ...the official party line from the OTO is that Crowley forgot how his paraphrase ended (the paraphrase he had just written shortly before the reception), made an error, and then never corrected the error in any published copy of the Book printed in his lifetime, despite the fact that he had it published many times after he made this supposed "correction" in his master copy and despite the fact that he wrote a "New Comment" on this verse -- complete with "fill me" -- well after he made this supposed "correction" in the master copy."
there's more now, in the second PDF, demonstrating that within The Giant's Thumb, and in a composition of Ritual CXX, 'kill' is included, or is left as is. do you think there is an ulterior motive to the OTO's corruption here?"I don't think there's any "corruption" going on. I'm generally a supporter and admirer of the OTO. I happen not to be persuaded by the evidence HB has presented in this specific instance, and I'll explain below.
"beyond writing in the Beast's hand, however, Hymenaeus Beta states that the 1912 Equinox I was published with the reading in the Paraphrase as "kill", and that this was replicated once more in the 1936 Equinox of the Gods. 2 printings of the Paraphrase were "kill" at least. perhaps you're only talking about CCXX. these publishings appear to have contained 'kill' readings.*"
There appears to be a consistent pattern of Crowley publishing the paraphrase of the Stele -- publishing it as his poem, separate from CCXX -- with the word "kill" in it. It appears in the Equinox and the EoG, as you say, and when Crowley incorporated the paraphrase into Ritual CXX, he similarly used "kill."
But every time that Crowley published CCXX -- every single time -- it gives "fill" in the text of CCXX. Even in the 1936 EoG, the CCXX in that text has "fill," while the paraphrase that appears at the beginning of the book has "kill."
The pattern seems to be that the paraphrase reads "kill" when published outside CCXX, as a stand alone poem, but reads "fill" when published within CCXX. That's the pattern we find under Crowley.
What HB seems to want us to believe is that Crowley noted an "error" in CCXX, intended for it to be changed, and then never changed it once in his life, despite the fact that he published CCXX several more times after he noticed this supposed "error." That doesn't really add up.
Sure, I guess it's possible that Crowley was even more of a retarded fluckup than he seems to have been (at least at times), but the only really solid conclusion we can reach from the evidence of what he actually did in terms of publication is that he published paraphrases with "kill" and the text of CCXX with "fill." Consistently.
Draw whatever conclusions you like from that, but I'm not convinced that this evidence is sufficient to reach the conclusion that Crowley necessarily intended an alterations to be made to CCXX.
