"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.
@Jim Eshelman said
"I put that one under the heading of inspiration. Most likely the original said "kill." But, at a time, in the IMMEDIATE wake of the dictation, when this was fresh in his mind and he had the original poem at hand, he nonetheless wrote "fill" on the manuscript. Something in his mind impelled it to come out that way."
@Jim - a question if you do not mind. I find this dilemma intriguing - it may be my own fantasy, but I can't help but wonder about this and curious to hear your thoughts.
This issue would be (the first maybe?) true ordeal for the Thelemic Community at large, yes? It's quite an issue considering, as Jason mentioned, it really comes down to a
single letter issue, precisely (or almost precisely) what is 'warned' in liber al 'change not so much as the style of the letter'.This almost seems to me to be too perfect of a dilemma - almost paradoxical but at the very least extremely ironic. Personally I attribute 'change not so much as the style of the letter' to mean 'hey dont even think about breathing on it the wrong way, dont change anything!"
I can't help but wonder if this dilemma was not 'programmed' to happen by Crowley himself, as a way to design an ordeal for the community after he was gone.
I say this because it seems to me that at any time, Crowley could have very well easily made his intentions known here, especially since the issue itself is almost picture perfect of the actual warning in liber al.
I have an easier time wrapping my head around Crowley designing this as an ordeal for the thelemic community than I do Crowley being lazy and not making it crystal clear somewhere.
-
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.
I find it interesting that this is the 1936 Edition of "The Equinox of the Gods" that has "kill" instead of "will" and that this edition that the O.H.O. is relying upon as authorative also says that the book, 'Liber L vel legis' was received on "the first of April."
And a complete edition with the original title page intact, has never been made in accordance with the instructions given in the book. We've never had all the pages to assemble the manuscript as we're instructed to do in the manuscript.
And of course the writings on that page are particularly problematic, and open up a baker's dozen of cans of worms. David Allen Hulse expounds upon this in great depth in his "Genesis of the Book of the Law" Part 1 & Part 2.
-
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.
-
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.
@ldfriend56 said
"This issue would be (the first maybe?) true ordeal for the Thelemic Community at large, yes?"
Well, of course, that's the way it's playing out, so that's what it is (de facto). But if you mean by this that it was somehow plotted ort planned or set in place in advance, then I would answer the opposite way. "True ordeals" don't manifest that way. They're a consequence of something terribly simply working its way through the field of our own distorted complexity.
So, yes, people are having some struggle with this. No, IMNSHO it isn't some Planned Event.
"It's quite an issue considering, as Jason mentioned, it really comes down to a single letter issue, precisely (or almost precisely) what is 'warned' in liber al 'change not so much as the style of the letter'."
As I pointed out to Jason, the verse he chose to read with its subtleties had a subtlety he looked right past: The verse only refers to not changing the style or a letter. It says nothing about changing a single letter itself.
So: I'm not convinced. Or, at best: The argument isn't good enough.
"I can't help but wonder if this dilemma was not 'programmed' to happen by Crowley himself, as a way to design an ordeal for the community after he was gone."
That sort of thinking is so easy to justify after the fact, and the hindsight rationalizations always seem like justifications. There is a big difference between staying, "Damn, I was too dumb to understand that thing, so I really fucked it up" and saying, "It seems I was created dumb so that I could have the experience of fucking that thing up for some greater reason."
"I say this because it seems to me that at any time, Crowley could have very well easily made his intentions known here, especially since the issue itself is almost picture perfect of the actual warning in liber al."
I tend to think he did make it known. He published the 1938 edition of Liber Legis, with a great public pronouncement that he'd finally gotten it right! (He was wrong about getting it all right, but is a separate matter from his intentions about it.)
"I have an easier time wrapping my head around Crowley designing this as an ordeal for the thelemic community than I do Crowley being lazy and not making it crystal clear somewhere."
To what end? (Of course, the purpose of an experience is always manifest in the consequence of the experience, so I just asked an unfair question - one we couldn't answer except in hindsight. But I leave the question anyway, to get people thinking.)
PS - You asked my opinion, so I gave it.
-
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.
"As I pointed out to Jason, the verse he chose to read with its subtleties had a subtlety he looked right past: The verse only refers to not changing the style or a letter. It says nothing about changing a single letter itself.
So: I'm not convinced. Or, at best: The argument isn't good enough."
I was simply pointing out that it involved one letter, just as the verse suggests. Regardless, this point about it saying "style" instead, is not that big of a deal really. It STILL is relevant in that it speaks about a "letter", it's singular, and this proposed change deals with a single letter. In addition, there was talk about penciled in corrections, specifically turning the "f" into a "k", that is technically "changing the style", the shape of the letter. Right?
"It says nothing about changing a single letter itself."
1:36 "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
"One letter" which of course is changing "f" to "k" - one letter is the subject at hand. How am I wrong?
-
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.
@Jason R said
"
"As I pointed out to Jason, the verse he chose to read with its subtleties had a subtlety he looked right past: The verse only refers to not changing the style or a letter. It says nothing about changing a single letter itself.So: I'm not convinced. Or, at best: The argument isn't good enough."
I was simply pointing out that it involved one letter, just as the verse suggests. Regardless, this point about it saying "style" instead, is not that big of a deal really. It STILL is relevant in that it speaks about a "letter", it's singular, and this proposed change deals with a single letter. In addition, there was talk about penciled in corrections, specifically turning the "f" into a "k", that is technically "changing the style", the shape of the letter. Right?
"It says nothing about changing a single letter itself."
1:36 "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
"One letter" which of course is changing "f" to "k" - one letter is the subject at hand. How am I wrong?"
Absolutely not wrong, as well as the fact that the verse Jim is alluding to specifically says (verbatim)
"Change not as much as the style of a letter; for behold! thou, o prophet, shalt not behold all these mysteries hidden therein. "
That is, "not as much as" means "not even so much as," not, as he seems to be suggesting, "only don't change the style." Not so much as, let alone a complete revision of. I side with you Jason, this entire consideration is wrong of the Breeze to imagine and the FACT that "the Prophet" (not future teller, as Alrah elsewhere believes, but "truth" teller) never changed this publicly himself. That alone is evidence for me. -
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.
"That is, "not as much as" means "not even so much as," not, as he seems to be suggesting, "only don't change the style." Not so much as, let alone a complete revision of."
Great catch Takamba! Your completely right, that's exactly what I feel it is saying as well, I missed this. In other words, "don't tamper with even the style of a letter, let alone change something more". It also tells us to retain the* original* in the writing of the Beast, which of course says* "fill"*. I think that's another important point, that regardless the original has "fill" and not "kill" - period.
-
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.
@Jim Eshelman said
"
PS - You asked my opinion, so I gave it.
"Indeed! thank you your thoughts on the matter welcome. I'm hardly aware of the history at the level you are so I trust your judgement here.
I shall continue to watch as this unfolds from the side lines - your time appreciated.
-
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.
@Jason R said
"...specifically turning the "f" into a "k", that is technically "changing the style", the shape of the letter. Right?"
Wrong.
"1:36 "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it.""
There you go - that sharpens your argument. Good job.
-
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.
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Jason R said
"...specifically turning the "f" into a "k", that is technically "changing the style", the shape of the letter. Right?"Wrong.
"1:36 "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it.""
There you go - that sharpens your argument. Good job."
You're welcome.
-
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.
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Jason R said
"...specifically turning the "f" into a "k", that is technically "changing the style", the shape of the letter. Right?"Wrong.
"1:36 "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it.""
There you go - that sharpens your argument. Good job."
It's a moot point anyway; but I still believe changing the style could refer to one fiddling with how a letter appears, how it was written; which one does when penciling over it. If I'm adding to a letter, with lines to transform it to "appear" as another letter, this is changing the style of it.
SO was this just a test or something? I find it hard to believe you didn't know about this other supporting verse.
My original point, then remains, and I am guessing you agree? Liber L specifically speaks to this very issue, and is perfectly clear what changing it would lead to - "folly"! I find it highly significant that this whole thing is predicted within Liber L, and it seems to warn against this very situation to the letter (pun intended).
As I said, I believe this supports the claim of AC and to the veracity of the reception and power of Awaiss.
*"The Author called himself Aiwass, and claimed to be the 'the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat'; that is, a messenger from the forces ruling this earth at present, as will be explained later on.
How could he prove that he was in fact a being of a kind superior to any of the human race, and so entitled to speak with authority? Evidently he must show Knowledge and Power such as no man has ever been known to posses.
- He showed his Knowledge chiefly by the use of cipher or cryptogram in certain passages to set forth recondite facts, including some events which had yet to take place, such that no human being could possibly be aware of them; thus the proof of his claim exists in the manuscript itself. It is independent of any human witness."*
The above quote of AC speaks to this sort of thing, and demonstrates how the author seems to know what sort of temptation would arise, perfectly.
-
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.
@Jason R said
"SO was this just a test or something? I find it hard to believe you didn't know about this other supporting verse. "
No, not a test. It was, though, a training - a sharpening of your critical thinking.
And it's also so that, though I find your argument interesting, I don't find it persuasive. For one thing, the important arguments IMHO need to be documentary ones, not judgmental ones. And, in this case, to think that this verse is singularly pointed at this event (or one like it) is giving far too much wait to this event. The idea that the book would stop and embed a warning aimed at this one little detail seems... I'm not sure what the exact category is... some variation of inflated. Almost narcissistic. And it trivializes the real mysteries of the book.
I agree - and agreed even before you made your point - that not even a single character should be changed. (That's why my focus is on renewing attention to validating the original content and the provenance of the penciled passage.) The various forms of thought swirling around that are variations of, "Oh, my, the Book actually anticipated this exact situation and, look!, it gave us exact instructions for this very hour or our travail," is... at best... "So what!" Mostly I just think it's silly, inflationary, and overly attributing meaning.
"My original point, then remains, and I am guessing you agree? Liber L specifically speaks to this very issue, and is perfectly clear what changing it would lead to - "folly"! I find it highly significant that this whole thing is predicted within Liber L, and it seems to warn against this very situation to the letter (pun intended)."
Yeah, that's the kind of thinking that I think is clever. Excessively clever. A tease by Choronzon.
-
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.
@walterfive said
"I find it interesting that this is the 1936 Edition of "The Equinox of the Gods" that has "kill" instead of "will" and that this edition that the O.H.O. is relying upon as authorative also says that the book, 'Liber L vel legis' was received on "the first of April." "
93 Walterfive, I'm glad you're feeling better and are able to join the debate.
It has 'kill' because the text is a reproduction of the paraphrased Stele. No-one is arguing that the paraphrase says 'kill'. The crux of the matter is that the penciled in 'fill me' of the MS was made in all likelyhood mere hours or days of writing the book in Cairo and that is highly unlikely that Crowley forgot his own poetic paraphrase when he made the penciled notation for the transcribers, and Norman Mudd says that 3 transcriptions of the MS were made in Cairo.
As for the first of April thing (April Fools day)... in his comments to the book (the old comment as I recall) he makes something out of Aiwass and the Fool card of the Tarot. I think that's significant.
@ everyone.
Some people may be wondering why I am giving quite a lot of weight to Heru's discovery that there are 220 'K's in the book before HB changes it, so I ought to explain.
Jim inspired me to study Kabbalah some time ago, and while doing so I've learn that Crowley utilizes a number of techniques used by Kabbalists that he doesn't explain (or source the method) in any of his written works. The Lurianic Kabbalists employed a technique that was meant to produce a mystical exegesis of the Torah whilst bypassing the rational mind. Thus, a Lurianic Kabbalist might go to synagogue and instead of focusing on the meaning of the verses he would (for instance) sit and count the number of instances that a certain letter (say a Beth) appeared in the text. Then once he had the number he would go home and think about the significance of the number in respect of the Torah chapter that was being read out. It's reasonable to assume that since our Book of the Law is supposed to be a replacement for the lost biblical Book of the Law, that this method of Lurianic exegesis is relevant.
In other works (such as Ararita) then Crowley uses another Lurianic Kabbalistic technique - that of comparing what is said with it's opposite and uniting them. (See appendix of the Cry of the 22nd Aeythr - The vision and the voice)
"33. ARARITA (— a name of God, which is a Notariqon of the sentence: "One is His beginning; One is his Individuality; His Permutation One.") The use of this Name and Formula is to equate and identify every idea with its opposite; thus being released from the obsession of thinking any one of them as "true" (and therefore binding); one can withdraw oneself from the whole sphere of the Ruach. See Liber 813, vel Ararita. Contrast each verse of Cap. I with the corresponding verse of Cap. II for the first of these methods. Thus in Cap. III (stil verse by verse correspondence) the Quintessence of the ideas is extracted; and in Cap. IV they are withdrawn each one into the one beyond it. In Cap. V they have disappeared into the Method itself. In Cap. VI they reappear in the Form appointed by the Will of the Adept. Lastly, in Cap. VII they are dissolved, one into the next until all finally disappear in the Fire Qadosh, the Quintessence of Reality."
This type of meditation on the opposites is typical of Kabbalists but Crowley does not attribute the source of the technique he uses here. Likewise, the technique of reading the same numbered verse across chapters is another Kabbalistic method of especial note when it comes to hiding/concealing text. So in the Zohar (for instance) then you might find (once you have derived the correct layout of the Temple from the Tree) that the path of Mem when added to the letters of the holy name yeild the numbers 41, 44 and 45. To find the hidden text about Mem you would then read verse 41 across the chapters of the Book of Concealed Mystery, Greater Assembly and Lesser Assembly. Once assembled then you would read verse 44 in chapter one, then verse 44 in chapter two, and so on - precisely as Crowley here instructs us to do with Ararita.
Given that Crowley clearly demonstrates 2 methods of Kabbalistic exegesis and that he never bothers to attribute where he learned them, I am not surprised that a third method of Lurianic Kabbalah has cropped up in the Book of the Law, nor that Crowley left a 'K' in the margin of Windram's copy to draw attention to this fact.
Alrah. 93 93/93.
-
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.
-
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.
@KhutnAb said
"It's interesting that this is coming about in the last year of the Era of the Emperor."
Isn't it
-
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.
"And it's also so that, though I find your argument interesting, I don't find it persuasive. For one thing, the important arguments IMHO need to be documentary ones, not judgmental ones. And, in this case, to think that this verse is singularly pointed at this event (or one like it) is giving far too much wait to this event. The idea that the book would stop and embed a warning aimed at this one little detail seems... I'm not sure what the exact category is... some variation of inflated. Almost narcissistic. And it trivializes the real mysteries of the book."
How can we determine how much weight this event has, if we do not even know all it’s mysteries?
1:56 “Change not as much as the style of a letter; for behold! thou, o prophet, shalt not behold all these mysteries hidden therein.”
The book seems to obviously speak to this type of thing, so how can we simply shrug at ANY instance it is threatened? Even more so if the change involves a single letter as the book seems to uncannily point out? To trivialize the real mysteries of the book, is to think this doesn’t matter. I don’t know if it does or not, I don’t know everything it could or could not change, so it’s best to error on the side of caution.
"I agree - and agreed even before you made your point - that not even a single character should be changed. (That's why my focus is on renewing attention to validating the original content and the provenance of the penciled passage.) The various forms of thought swirling around that are variations of, "Oh, my, the Book actually anticipated this exact situation and, look!, it gave us exact instructions for this very hour or our travail," is... at best... "So what!" Mostly I just think it's silly, inflationary, and overly attributing meaning."
So what you’re trying to say is; it’s better to run around and flip through various files and notes, and compare this to that etc., then simply follow the very clear warning given? After all the “fact” checking is over with (and 100 years hence facts to boot), and let’s say out pops a change of a letter, the verse said NOT to.
"Yeah, that's the kind of thinking that I think is clever. Excessively clever. A tease by Choronzon."
I think Choronzon is in the details. I think all this running around and comparing facts and notes and trying to figure it all out IS the pit of because. “Why did we change the letter?** BECAUSE...**”
All I am saying is that these chance events are perhaps NOT chance, just like the exhibit number was 666 by “chance”. If this is the case, what ended up in the book should be left, it was suppose to be that way. I am simply pointing out as well, the fact the book seems to describe this event so perfectly, gives weight to the power of Awaiss, and his validity.
-
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.
@Jason R said
"How can we determine how much weight this event has, if we do not even know all it’s mysteries? "
Most likely, a definitive answer will require waiting. Things may be more evident in distant hindsight. Otherwise, we have only reason and intuition to guide us.
"1:56 “Change not as much as the style of a letter; for behold! thou, o prophet, shalt not behold all these mysteries hidden therein.”
The book seems to obviously speak to this type of thing, so how can we simply shrug at ANY instance it is threatened?"
You seem to be ignoring the possibility that he isn't changing but, in fact, is restoring it from an inadvertent distortion in the past. I don't happen to think that this is so, but the main reason I'm not bouncing boing-boing off the walls about the issue is that I recognize the possibility that this is so.
No two published editions of Liber Legis have been identical (unless one was a photographic replica of the other). Each successive edition by Crowley and others has had a few small changes. In that sense, changing this one is nothing new - except that it's a more noisy, obvious example. But making editorial corrections to the Book isn't new or unique at all - it's been the standard of each edition.
"So what you’re trying to say is; it’s better to run around and flip through various files and notes, and compare this to that etc., then simply follow the very clear warning given?"
See above. Your point would be sound if there were a single clear, perfect standard for CCXX content. There isn't. Every edition has removed or added errors. Therefore, there's no way to apply your recommendation since there is no master standard (including the original manuscript) against which to match it.
"All "fact” checking is over with (and 100 years hence facts to boot), and let’s say out pops a change of a letter, the verse said NOT to. "
Except it isn't. It's been ongoing for over 100 years. This is the latest sincere effort.
-
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.
In case it got lost in the length of the foregoing, let me reiterate a point that may surprise some people.
No two separate publications of The Book of the Law have ever been identical unless one has been a photo reproduction of the other. (And that isn't the standard case.) Every main edition by Crowley and his successors has been different from every other edition.
-
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.
@Jim Eshelman said
"In case it got lost in the length of the foregoing, let me reiterate a point that may surprise some people.
No two separate publications of The Book of the Law have ever been identical unless one has been a photo reproduction of the other. (And that isn't the standard case.) Every main edition by Crowley and his successors has been different from every other edition."
And, of course, since the Book itself instructs that it should always be published with the original writing of the Beast, the differences between editions -- and all the other differences between the manuscript and the text -- don't add up to much.
I can't help but think that people are making a big deal over nothing, even though I don't agree with the correction. No one's "changing the Book of the Law." There has been a proposed correction to the text (which already varies in lots of ways from the manuscript anyway).
All of this "let's draw up petitions!" and angry rhetoric against the OTO seems to me misguided overreactions, products of attachment to the exterior trappings of the system ("holy books") rather than the essence of the subject.
-
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.
"You seem to be ignoring the possibility that he isn't changing but, in fact, is restoring it from an inadvertent distortion in the past. I don't happen to think that this is so, but the main reason I'm not bouncing boing-boing off the walls about the issue is that I recognize the possibility that this is so.
No two published editions of Liber Legis have been identical (unless one was a photographic replica of the other). Each successive edition by Crowley and others has had a few small changes. In that sense, changing this one is nothing new - except that it's a more noisy, obvious example. But making editorial corrections to the Book isn't new or unique at all - it's been the standard of each edition."
*"AL I,54: 'Change not as much as the style of a letter; for behold! thou, o prophet, shalt not behold all these mysteries hidden therein.'
The New Comment
(...)This injunction was most necessary, for had I been left to myself, I should have wanted to edit the Book ruthlessly. I find in it what I consider faults of style, and even of grammar; much of the matter was at the time of writing most antipathetic. But the Book proved itself greater than the scribe; again and again have the 'mistakes' proved themselves to be devices for transmitting a Wisdom beyond the scope of ordinary language.*"
The bold of course is my own, and this is simply what I am saying. AC here is talking about the "mistakes" proving themselves to be on purpose, and required. Of course to those who do not take his original account of the dictation it means very little. I'm not "bouncing off the walls" I'm saying this particular change proposed, and the only one I know of, seems significant. I would be interested in knowing what other types of changes were made, and if they were dealing with a single letter.
Also, my argument is that this particular situation isn't simply an error of missing a punctuation mark, or a capital that may be in the original writing of the beast, but actually different than the ORIGINAL. The original manuscript that we have and see, and the book itself says to include, and actually ironically has within quotes "fill me", which is different than "kill me". What other changes are like this one?