"Kill/Fill" - not "Kill Bill"
-
@Alrah said
"I make the following observations while making the usual disclaimers and warnings about Gematria, and trust you know what they are....Both King (MLK) and Kill are high frequency words in the book and they both = 90.
"I've been wondering about Crowley's gematric reading of the issue, myself. (Please pardon if this been discussed already - I have limited online time and haven't been able to make it through every post on the subject yet.)
Depending on which word in Hebrew is chosen for "kill", there are some interesting interplays between the two options. I'm particularly looking at (71) ืืื MLA (fill) and ื ืื NKA (strike/wound/break), and (75) ื ืื NKH (taking on more complete meaning of kill/slay, from what I've seen so far). There's some rich ground in there. If this was an area that Crowley had unsolved questions about, it seems likely that he would have investigated it qabalistically. I can understand where he would have been a strong preference for the "kill" side (for other reasons as well), but I think it's a mistake to think of the note in the marginalia as a correction. It is definitely good stuff that adds to an appreciation of the text (at least in my book!), but I don't feel that it replaces the fact that "fill" was what went down on the main document, our only surviving handwritten primary source for the revelation. I have to agree with the view that had he felt it warranted a change to Liber Legis, he would have been sure that it was immediately made and a corrected version issued within his lifetime. This book is, after all, the foundation of all his work. If a true error was discovered in 1912, it seems like he would have moved Heaven and Earth to get a corrected one published to sustain that work properly.
However, that doesn't rule out instances where he might have wanted to ritually incorporate the "kill" meaning or whatever personal insights he'd gained. Just offhand, I can see where "fill" would be more appropriate in some instances (such as when needing to radiate Divine authority over a evoked spirit), and where "kill" would be beneficial in something like Ritual CXX, or in something that was playing directly on the idea of "self-slain."
Without something more conclusive, such as a direct explanation of this "error" and the need for correcting it explained somewhere in Crowley's writings, I think that it's going too far to impose a personal meaning - even if it is Crowley's personal meaning - on Liber Legis itself. This has all become a more confusing with the online versions being instantly edited (and I don't have access to a good Crowley library at present), so if I am wrong on this point, and there was a Liber Legis using "kill me" issued by Crowley's authority during his lifetime, please correct me. (It may or may not change my personal opinion on the matter, since I do not hold Crowley as infallible on any matter, but I don't want to be stating a falsehood.
) -
Hang on a minute. Best we don't lose sight of the fact that the note causing all the ferkukkle is not an instruction to a typesetter, typist, copyist, or even Crowley. It is not even a proper part of Liber L. vel Legis. It is a correction!!!
As per the manuscript scan, Aiwass begins with the initial word of the third verse of Crowley's stele versification, "Unity."
From this are we to suppose that Aiwass was fallible and forgot the second verse, or that he/she/it specifically omitted it?
At some time afterwards, Crowley (not Aiwass) decided to include the second verse, and affixed a note to that purpose.
So, really, the "change not so much" rule demands that verse two of the stele paraphrase should NOT be included. Nor should Crowley's correction (change of mind). We have here a situation in which Aiwass is corrected (illegally) by Crowley, who is then (illegally) corrected by "yours truly." Magikal succession, eh!
See: "A pratererhuman entity with short-term memory loss - How's that work?" (www.lashtal.com/forum/index.php?topic=5940.0)
-
That's not Crowley's report. He indicated that his sparse note at the time of dictation was accompanied by his fully knowing the intent.
-
"He indicated that his sparse note at the time of dictation"
Hang on a minute! The note was scribbled in pencil. Since Crowley's description of items in the room excludes a pencil, I think it reasonable to assume that the note was added later. Besides, what point was Aiwass possibly trying to demonstrate by deliberately omitting verse two, then getting Crowley to nip into the next room for a pencil, then ordering him to insert a note that invalidates the manuscript's internal rules? Huh!
As previously noted - Aiwass is corrected (illegally) by Crowley, who is then (illegally) corrected by "yours truly." Deal with it!
-
It boils down to whether or not you think Crowley was supposed to quote his other manuscript verbatim.
And that's just an unknown. Fact is, he didn't.
You can project the accusation of someone supposing unreasonable infallibilty either way - infallibility in the moments closest to inspiration or infallibilty in his using "kill" in the original poetic translation and elsewhere.
Denying fallibilty is not an option unless you choose to believe in two infallible versions, which begs the questions of the purpose and the possibility of having two "correct" versions for at least two diverse purposes.
So, the question, if it must be entertained, is when did Crowley's flaw occur, in the time most immediately following the inspiration of the reception or both before and after that inspiration?
Errors are frequently made in moments of ecstatic inspiration - if the reception is to be viewed through those eyes. On the other hand, we also know he himself struggled with understanding and accepting the contents of the Law and the authority of what he himself penned (and penciled) during that period.
So where did the flaw occur?
Projections are enimical to be sure, but one can't answer this question without some form of projecting the nature of the error (if one is convinced there is only one correct version for all purposes, which is itself a projection of the need for absolute consistency).
Must this decision be made? Why?
For consistency's sake? Children need such consistency.
Children...
What decision would make sense to a child?
Just thinking out loud here, mind you...
It can be legitimately argued either way, minus the projections of motive on either side.
-
I feel it's VERY simple, and perfectly clear.
By whatever means, whatever mistakes, or circumstances, we arrived at the original ms., and it just so happens to have "fill me" within quotes, written in "the original writing of the beast".
The BOL says not to change even as much as the style of a letter.
This "correction" deals with a letter.
We shouldn't change it, whether an honest mistake, or a correction or whatever else you want to label it. The ms., SOMEHOW arrived to most of us with fill me. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if the whole matter wasn't already solved, meaning it was "fill" and we want to make it "kill".
We can go on and on about reasons it should be this or that, and into all sorts of details, but AC is gone, and it was a long time ago, and the book itself addresses this whole issue perfectly clear.
If it was in there for THIS long, it belongs.
Again, look at the "luck" of the Stele of Revealing being numbered 666. Luck? If we are going to believe this itself has no meaning then fine, but if you believe AC, then it wasn't. Would we even care if say in actuality the Stele was somehow labelled wrong? No. We don't even question it.
It all comes down to chance, and what drives it, and why. I think this SIMPLE overlooked bit of the story is actually VERY important. It helps us realize there is more at work, and what REALLY matters, as AC points out, the "mistakes", the chance circumstances that occur that themselves hold meaning independent of his awareness.
-
"It all comes down to chance, and what drives it, and why. I think this SIMPLE overlooked bit of the story is actually VERY important. It helps us realize there is more at work, and what REALLY matters, as AC points out, the "mistakes", the chance circumstances that occur that themselves hold meaning independent of his awareness.
"
"Fill"* is *what he wrote.
So simple a child could understand it.
-
@Bereshith said
"
"It all comes down to chance, and what drives it, and why. I think this SIMPLE overlooked bit of the story is actually VERY important. It helps us realize there is more at work, and what REALLY matters, as AC points out, the "mistakes", the chance circumstances that occur that themselves hold meaning independent of his awareness."
"Fill"* is *what he wrote.
So simple a child could understand it."
Exactly!
-
-
I don't understand how it can be even considered an option to change anything here.
This circumstance is directly prohibited - not once, not twice, but three specific injunctions to basically "NOT CHANGE A DAMNED THING".
To top it off, the whole debate should be squashed by the fact that there's already - oddly enough - exactly 220 K's in a book we call liber 220.
As if the author included an overly obvious qabalistic answer to this question before it ever arose.Of course, it could all just be 'coincidental', right?
-
Isn't one of the hallmarks of a religion arguing over canonical issues? See The Essence of Thelema topic.
-
@landis said
"Isn't one of the hallmarks of a religion arguing over canonical issues? See The Essence of Thelema topic."
FUNNY THRICE
-
@Carrot_Childe said
""He indicated that his sparse note at the time of dictation"
Hang on a minute! The note was scribbled in pencil. Since Crowley's description of items in the room excludes a pencil, I think it reasonable to assume that the note was added later."
The "sparse note" being the word "Unity" in pen - not being literally dictated by Aiwass.
You seem to assume in your argument that every single word in ink was spoken by Aiwass...
"As previously noted - Aiwass is corrected (illegally) by Crowley, who is then (illegally) corrected by "yours truly." Deal with it!
"Oh, I see! Your interpreration of what was and was not literally spoken by Aiwass leads you to believe that you have the right to correct those words you believe Crowley "illegally" added... Because to your mind, they're not really Aiwass' words anyway...
I'm going to refrain from immediate reaction to that and let that marinate for a while...
-
I'm not usually one to advertise or anything, so please don't see this as an advertisement.
I'm aware that many people here may not frequent the boards on lashtal.com and vice versa.
As such, I just wanted to note that a really full, comprehensive, and logical argument has been posted recently, in favor of the "fill" position. The owner of lashtal.com has decided to give it its own space on the website, and it may be viewed here.
-
Thank you for sharing the link, it's a great read, and nice to see all the available evidence laid out and weighed so clearly and carefully.
-
Yes, that clarifies much and explains versions and dates instead of merely citing them. That's definitely the best argument, wrapped in a very clear explanation that presents both sides.
I concede that much of what I've written missed some facts. This really clears it all up.
-
The question that the 'kill me' supporters now need to address (but cannot) is:
How do you justify the two typo theory?
With what evidence do you justify the two typo theory?Until these questions are addressed, then the 'fill me' scholarly consensus will remain in the lead on this issue.
-
(Hi. I'm new here
)The scholarly or texutal historical approach indisputably favors "fill me". This was HB's own opinion when he changed the Paraphrase from "kill me" to "fill me" in Book Four (1994 and following), and perhaps as early as 1983, in The Holy Books of Thelema (p. 250), attributed to Hymenaeus Alpha but the scholarship of which is generally held to be by William Breeze. As HB, he alludes to it in the final paragraph of his justification:
"โThe Great Invocationโ and the Paraphrase were both โcorrectedโ by yours truly in Magick (Liber ABA) (1994 and later editions) to change their original readings of "kill me" to โfill meโโa woefully misguided attempt to make these non-Class A texts agree with what I had every reason to assume was the correct reading in Liber Legis. I think I originally picked up the โfill meโ version by โpicking upโ (a term of art for cutting and pasting from another electronic document) part of the Paraphrase from Liber CCXX to save time, and failed to catch the different wording. In a later revision I decided to let it stand, and just annotated it as such, thinking that one of the readings had to be wrong, and it couldnโt be the Class A, could it?"
The only thing that has changed in the scholarly debate since then is the discovery of Crowley's note "K" in the Windram ฮฮฮฮฮฮ. Obviously this marginal note only shows that Crowley wanted to change the reading here. But if it shows anything beyond that, is speculation. HB argues that Crowley would have written it to correct it in the light of the Vellum Book, and that the marginal note must therefore be placed in 1912, when Crowley was preparing for the publication of the account of the reception of the Book of the Law in "The Temple of Solomon the King" for Equinox I(7), which included the first publication of the "Paraphrase of the Inscriptions" on the stele as an independent poem.
I find nothing to object to in HB's argument for the dating of the marginalium, but I find it difficult to accept the theory that the correction implies that the original reading of the paraphrase was "kill me", and that therefore Crowley erred in the manuscript of Liber L and the typist erred in typing the poem from the Vellum Book, or ignored the reading of the Vellum Book in favor of the manuscript on a whim (especially if the typist typed the Vellum Book form, he would have no reason to consider the manuscript's hastily written "fill me" as more authoritative than the book with the entire poem in it, and except for glancing at the manuscript to know how much of the poem to include, there is no reason why the typist would have looked again at it, rather than the poem itself in the Vellum Book and the next verse, verse 38). The textual evidence points to the original paraphrase having been "fill me", and that "kill me" was a subsequent revision. This also explains why the paraphrase as it was published in 1912 also has other differences from the usage in the Book of the Law.
Everything seems to point to Crowley's having continued to revise his paraphrase after the reception of the Book of the Law. The spelling "Ankh-af-na-khonsu" in the manuscript, as opposed to "Ankh-f-n-knonsu" in the 1912 paraphrase is the most glaring example, but it lends weight to the idea that Crowley changed an original "fill me", soundly attested in 1904, to "kill me" sometime thereafter (in time to be included in the Great Invocation, for example.) .
An absence-of-evidence argument for continued revision is the lack of quotes from the reverse of the stele in the Book of the Law, while they are quoted in their entirety in the Great Invocation. Given the importance of the stele as the key of the revelation, I suspect Aiwass would have found a way to work the poem on the reverse into the Book of the Law as well, had it been ready. The difference in the titles of the two sides - the obverse reading "Inscriptions upon the obverse" and the reverse reading "Hieroglyphs of the 11 lines", also points to a difference in time between the compositions (in addition to the revision of the spelling of Ankh-f-n-khonsu and the "fill" to "kill"). The former word "Inscriptions" was notably changed in Crowley's proofs of The Giant's Thumb, which HB recently provided for us. This shows indisputably that Crowley continued to revise his paraphrase of the stele.
Given the pattern of revising the paraphrase, I think that the evidence of the original manuscript of Liber L and the typescript made from it far outweight the significance of a marginal note made probably as late as 1912, from what was almost certainly a revision of the paraphrase made after April 10, 1904. In other words, what Crowley wrote in 1904 was what was in the paraphase as of April 10, 1904, the words "fill me", and only later did he change it to "kill me", for whatever reason he liked (since it was a work in progress, his own poem). He liked "kill me" more when he wrote the Great Invocation, and, apparently, when he wrote the marginal note in Windram's ฮฮฮฮฮฮ. But he never implemented the change in a printing of Liber CCXX, which strongly suggests he thought better of it.
And so should we.
-
93, That's a very well written and concise summary, Belmurru. Thanks. I've enjoyed reading your debates on Lashtal too. I'm quite the fan.
93 93/93. -
@belmurr said
"
Given the pattern of revising the paraphrase, I think that the evidence of the original manuscript of Liber L and the typescript made from it far outweight the significance of a marginal note made probably as late as 1912, from what was almost certainly a revision of the paraphrase made after April 10, 1904.... He liked "kill me" more when he wrote the Great Invocation, and, apparently, when he wrote the marginal note in Windram's ฮฮฮฮฮฮ. But he never implemented the change in a printing of Liber CCXX, which strongly suggests he thought better of it."I concur, and I'm very happy to see the detailed presentation of the textual argument. As a scholar, my current studies have included marginalia, particularly as a means of helping to understand the mind and intent of an auctor. While they are important, as they reflect the individual reader's personal emotions or insights - it is a long loong leap to reading any kind of intent into them, especially when there's no "outward" directed instructions to accompany them. As far as I can call it, HB's analysis is a blatant case of wanting very badly to read something into the textual situation that just isn't there.
It will be interesting to see where it goes from here...though I'm very thankful that the matter for me is settled for now and I can sit on the sidelines for the rest of it.