"Kill/Fill" - not "Kill Bill"
-
@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.
-
"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?
-
"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."
Just the sort of attitude the book probably saw fit to include this warning for! Why the uproar? The book, to those who believe, holds hidden aspects that may be altered by changing so much as "the style of a letter". How can you say no one is changing it? It most certainly IS a change, although it may be minor, or even insignificant, it IS a change. The words "fill" and "kill" lend a whole new meaning to the phrase, at the very least! I'm not buying this whole "it's a correction" B.S.
I wouldn't call it angry rhetoric, but more like concern, and surprise the visible heads of the orders seem to shrug off something the book definitely says not to do. It seems odd to me that this verse alone about not changing even a letter wouldn't be enough to drop the idea outright.
-
Screw this, I'm going to type up my own copy from the manuscript.
-
@Jason R said
"The book, to those who believe, holds hidden aspects that may be altered by changing so much as "the style of a letter"."
The Book itself says that "in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another: in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine."
In other words, there are "mysteries" supposedly hidden in the shape of the letters that Crowley wrote and their positions on the page. Those are mysteries contained in the manuscript.
The text already differs from the manuscript. For example, the text contains numbers for the verses in Chapter One, where the manuscript has no numbers; the text entirely omits the bit crossed out before Rose rewrote that part in "whiter words" (it also omits the instruction to write it in whiter words); the text omits the grid, the line, and the circle with a cross in it; the text omits the injunctions to place the verses of the Stele in three places (instead, the text actually contains those verses).
I could go on, but the point is that the text differs from the manuscript already pretty considerably: which is fine, because the "mysteries" are in the manuscript, not in the way it's represented in the text.
"How can you say no one is changing it? It most certainly IS a change"
Well, the argument appears to be that Crowley is the one who "changed" the Book by misquoting that line from the Stele in a pencil note he made after the dictation. Hence, altering the f to the k isn't a change, but a correction of a change that Crowley accidentally made in the text.
Now, I don't find that argument convincing, but it certainly makes sense and is consistent. And, as I pointed out above, in the grand scheme of things, this issue makes no difference. To get so worked up over virtually nothing is to demonstrate that one is attached to the trappings of Thelema rather than the essence.
-
@Los said
"To get so worked up over virtually nothing is to demonstrate that one is attached to the trappings of Thelema rather than the essence."
Yeah, btw here is the essence, since we're talking about it:*The external evidence for the Book is accumulating yearly: the incidents connected with the discovery of the true spelling of Aiwaz are alone sufficient to place it beyond all quaver of doubt that I am really in touch with a Being of intelligence and power immensely subtler and greater than aught we can call human.
This has been the One Fundamental Question of Religion. We know of invisible powers, and to spare! But is there any Intelligence or Individuality (of the same general type as ours) independent of our human brain-structure? For the first time in history, yes! Aiwaz has given us proof: the most important gate toward Knowledge suings wide.
I, Aleister Crowley, declare upon my honour as a gentleman that I hold this revelation a million times more important than the discovery of the Wheel, or even of the Laws of Physics or Mathematics. Fire and Tools made Man master of his planet: Writing developed his mind; but his Soul was a guess until the Book of the Law proved this.
I, a master of English, was made to take down in three hours, from dictation, sixty-five 8" x I0" pages of words not only strange, but often displeasing to me in themselves; concealing in cipher propositions unknown to me, majestic and profound; foretelling events public and private beyond my control, or that of any man.
This Book proves: there is a Person thinking and acting in a praeterhuman manner, either without a body of flesh, or with the power of communicating telepathically with men and inscrutably directing their actions.
* -
"The Book itself says that "in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another: in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine."
In other words, there are "mysteries" supposedly hidden in the shape of the letters that Crowley wrote and their positions on the page. Those are mysteries contained in the manuscript."
Yes, in the chance] shape of the letters, which you leave out. To sit there and read this as simply meaning the message of the book itself makes this verse completely pointless. The** “chance” **changes everything, in that, as AC mentions the “mistakes” even hold value and meaning in and of themselves. Besides, this is not the ONLY verse that mentions secrets hidden etc.
"The text already differs from the manuscript. For example, the text contains numbers for the verses in Chapter One, where the manuscript has no numbers; the text entirely omits the bit crossed out before Rose rewrote that part in "whiter words" (it also omits the instruction to write it in whiter words); the text omits the grid, the line, and the circle with a cross in it; the text omits the injunctions to place the verses of the Stele in three places (instead, the text actually contains those verses)."
Yes, and these are ALL easily found in the original. The text itself may not show them, but they are there to be found in the original. The words “fill me” in quotes in the ORIGINAL can be found, that's true, however CHANGING the word to “kill” is not there. Get me? I said, that it is* significant* that AC actually quotes the words “fill me” IN the original, not “kill me”. This change to “kill” changes the meaning as well of the phrase.
"I could go on, but the point is that the text differs from the manuscript already pretty considerably: which is fine, because the "mysteries" are in the manuscript, not in the way it's represented in the text."
The text is read by many newcomers, and it is the usual part we all read, not the original. The original is suppose to be the basis of the text, and this meaning then of the original is changed IN the text, if the words change, like the difference in meaning between “fill” and “kill”.
"Well, the argument appears to be that Crowley is the one who "changed" the Book by misquoting that line from the Stele in a pencil note he made after the dictation. Hence, altering the f to the k isn't a change, but a correction of a change that Crowley accidentally made in the text.
Now, I don't find that argument convincing, but it certainly makes sense and is consistent. And, as I pointed out above, in the grand scheme of things, this issue makes no difference. To get so worked up over virtually nothing is to demonstrate that one is attached to the trappings of Thelema rather than the essence."
I know the argument, I just think it’s silly. My main point, that I have repeated here over and over, is that the MISTAKES are important. AC even mentions how these mistakes have proved important in the long run. We have NO idea of what may be hidden or effected, and so I am saying the warning in not one, but several verses about not tampering with the end result should be heeded. Yes, I agree AC may have wanted to fix it, and tried, but he FAILED. Hes gone, and cannot speak about it. What we have is what we have, and to second guess all the factors over a hundred years later is silly. The book mentions this very thing pretty darn clearly, and so why not just heed its warning?
Anyway, it’s your opinion that my concern is over nothing. How would you know if it is important or not? Do you know everything? The “essence” is not the point here, the “mysteries” hidden within it are, and even the essence of the phrase within the verse is at stake. I’m simply defending what I think the book obviously thinks is important, and warns about. Why bother with including this verse about ironically a single letter if it’s just not that important?
-
"Yeah, btw here is the essence, since we're talking about it:
The external evidence for the Book is accumulating yearly: the incidents connected with the discovery of the true spelling of Aiwaz are alone sufficient to place it beyond all quaver of doubt that I am really in touch with a Being of intelligence and power immensely subtler and greater than aught we can call human."
Exactly, thank you Frater 639. That is another point too, and that is this is evidence of a prediction, which lends weight to the reality of Awaiss.
-
@Frater 639 said
" btw here is the essence"
Anyone who thinks the "essence" of Thelema is about contact with oogity-boogities needs to go back and read the core Crowley texts again.
@Jason R said
"My main point, that I have repeated here over and over, is that the MISTAKES are important. AC even mentions how these mistakes have proved important in the long run. We have NO idea of what may be hidden or effected"
Yeah, I hear what you're saying -- and to your credit, at least you're making sense here -- but Crowley evidently did correct the f to k in his copy, which suggests he didn't see anything wrong with correcting it.
Besides, the original manuscript is there for anyone to examine, so no matter what alterations/corrections are made, no one will be prevented from examining the "chance" anything.
-
@Jason R said
"
"Yeah, btw here is the essence, since we're talking about it:The external evidence for the Book is accumulating yearly: the incidents connected with the discovery of the true spelling of Aiwaz are alone sufficient to place it beyond all quaver of doubt that I am really in touch with a Being of intelligence and power immensely subtler and greater than aught we can call human."
Exactly, thank you Frater 639. That is another point too, and that is this is evidence of a prediction, which lends weight to the reality of Awaiss."
I disagree that the warning was a "prediction," per se.
I paraphrase Crowley: for a prediction to made it must first be stated that it is a prediction, it must be made and known of before the event itself actually occurs, and it must be clear that it could have meant nothing but the stated event that it was said to have predicted.
I don't believe this warning/injunction was a prediction and I said with Jim that it is being made too important as such. It is, in my opinion, a good example of what and why this injunction is about - and also do not agree that William Breeze's arguments for his "correction" are strong enough to warrant the correction.
-
@Jason R said
"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.*""
By the way, the "mistakes" Crowley is talking about here are the apparent mistakes in grammar throughout the Book (e.g. "be me" instead of "be I," and all the unusual capital letters throughout).
He's not talking about those passages where he was instructed to add something to the Book and then later mistquotes the thing he was supposed to add.
-
@Los said
"Anyone who thinks the "essence" of Thelema is about contact with oogity-boogities needs to go back and read the core Crowley texts again."
Hmm. I think that Book 4 is a core text. And, of course, so is the Book of the Law.
Remember, a WHOLE SECTION and the CLIMAX of Book 4 is designed to "make the case" and calculate probabilities -- to mathematically PROVE that Aiwaz is a "Being of intelligence and power immensely subtler and greater than aught we can call human."
Also, see below:
@Crowley said
"This Book [the Book of the Law] proves: there is a Person thinking and acting in a praeterhuman manner, either without a body of flesh, or with the power of communicating telepathically with men and inscrutably directing their actions."
Don't argue with me, argue with Crowley -- he's saying here that the BOL is proof of your "oogity-boogities" as you call them. And that this discovery is about as important as the invention of the Wheel, etc...
Sounds important to him in regards to the "essence" of Thelema.
Again, I'm not arguing for or against Crowley's belief of a praeterhuman origin -- I'm simply stating what Crowley wrote directly about this in relation to the significance of the BOL -- which is THE CORE TEXT of Thelema. If we agree that the BOL is the "essence" of Thelema, while ignoring what Crowley is saying here (btw - he is swearing an oath about this specific significance), we would be omitting key evidence as to what he thought the BOL stood for. These are hardly "trappings."
But, let's not get off topic because of your bias and blatant disagreement with Crowley's oath. If you want to pursue further, don't derail Jim's thread -- start your own.
Good day, Los.
@Takamba said
"I don't believe this warning/injunction was a prediction and I said with Jim that it is being made too important as such. It is, in my opinion, a good example of what and why this injunction is about - and also do not agree that William Breeze's arguments for his "correction" are strong enough to warrant the correction."
Agreed. It doesn't seem like that big of a deal. And there is no such thing as "bad publicity."
-
@Los said
"
@Frater 639 said
" btw here is the essence"Anyone who thinks the "essence" of Thelema is about contact with oogity-boogities needs to go back and read the core Crowley texts again."
There's not a consensus on what the "core texts" are.
-
The is a PDF addendum to Hymenaeus Beta's explanation of the "fill/kill" correction to Liber CCXX released today (5/7/13) published on the OTO website.
HB writes:
"“ Ritual CXX, called of Passing through the Tuat, ” or “Liber Cadaveris,” appears as the first of several papers in a MS. notebook, Yorke Collection O S 26. It is immediately followed by the MS. of an O.T.O. degree paper, Crowley’s second version of Liber C, Agape Azoth , which is dated internally to December 1912. “ Ritual CXX ” is therefore earlier, but probably not by much. It is important to bear in mind t hat Crowley sometimes worked in multiple notebooks at once, and the contents are not always strictly chronological , i.e., they do not necessarily appear in the order they were written . In other words, he sometimes wrote on a paper available basis . But the se two papers appear with no intervening blank pages. I therefore believe that “ Ritual CXX ” was written in 1912, around the time that Crowley made the correction from “fill” to “kill” in III:37 in his copy of Thelema , i.e., concurrently with his publication of the MS. of Liber Legis and the Stèle Paraphrase in The Equinox I(7) (spring 1912) or soon thereafter.
"Still, the manuscript says "fill" independently of these documents. And we can go back and say that Crowley never published Liber 220 with "kill"
-
@Frater 639 said
"the "essence" of Thelema"
The essence of Thelema -- which means "Will," remember -- is discovering and carrying out the True Will. The clue was in the name all along.
True Will is the essential Thelemic concept. Anything else is just bells and whistles.
-
@Los said
"
@Frater 639 said
"the "essence" of Thelema"The essence of Thelema -- which means "Will," remember -- is discovering and carrying out the True Will. The clue was in the name all along.
True Will is the essential Thelemic concept. Anything else is just bells and whistles."
Again, you pick and choose your arguments. Convenient. Now go back and say something meaningful about Crowley's claim that his reception of Liber L demonstrates all the proof of religious effort in toto; the concept of other worldly beings.
Also, answer me this if you will - is it your True Will to simply bore us with the same old story?
-
@Takamba said
"Again, you pick and choose your arguments. Convenient."
It certainly is convenient to be able to pick and choose correct arguments and evidence to support factual claims, such as pointing out that Thelema is named for its central concept.
"Now go back and say something meaningful about Crowley's claim that his reception of Liber L demonstrates all the proof of religious effort in toto; the concept of other worldly beings."
Ok. It's a completely ridiculous claim -- one not supported in the slightest by the so-called "evidence" he cites --that pretty much any reasonable person in today's world would shrug off as the ravings of a nut.
What's clear is that that particular claim -- which pertains to the supposed source of the document that defines Thelema -- is separate from Thelema itself, which is a philosophy of individual action centered around the Will. If I claimed that a spirit gave me the plans to build a car, and then I built that car, there's nothing about the actual car itself, or the driving of it, that would have anything to do with spirits. You could still get in it and drive around whether there are spirits or not. It's the same with Thelema.
-
So, the "thou" in "Do what thou wilt" doesn't really matter; it's the "do", "what", and "will" that matter?
-
@Los said
"It certainly is convenient to be able to pick and choose correct arguments and evidence to support factual claims, such as pointing out that Thelema is named for its central concept. "
The above proves someone else in their opinion (correct) of you. I think it's called inductive reasoning when you seek evidence to support an ***a priori ****"central concept."
*I know how much that Latin bothers you.
-
@Los said
"Ok. It's a completely ridiculous claim -- one not supported in the slightest by the so-called "evidence" he cites --that pretty much any reasonable person in today's world would shrug off as the ravings of a nut."
If he's a raving nut when it is convenient for you, what right do you have (in your alleged "right" mind) to use his points in any other direction? You must be a raving lunatic to trust even what you imagine is not "ridiculous" of him to claim.