"Kill/Fill" - not "Kill Bill"
-
@Azidonis said
"
@he atlas itch said
"
III:47: This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the BeastUnder this scenario, whatever was "transmitted" by Aiwass during the Cairo Working, regardless of what Crowley meant or intended or decided later, is what constitutes Liber Legis."
And during the Cairo Working, he wrote "fill", no?"
Just a reminder: according to Crowley's account of events, Aiwass did not dictate the poetic rendering of the Stele. He says that Aiwass simply indicated to him -- wordlessly -- to insert his paraphrase of the Stele in there (i.e. the poem that Crowley had written just the other day, in the vellum notebook).
The pencil note was written by Aleister Crowley as a reminder or instruction to the typist, probably some time after the dictation. That's the whole crux of this issue: whether Crowley made a mistake when he wrote "fill me."
As people have pointed out, it seems really odd that Crowley would misremember how his own poem ends, especially so soon after having written it, but that's the argument....
-
@Los said
"
@Azidonis said
"
@he atlas itch said
"
III:47: This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the BeastUnder this scenario, whatever was "transmitted" by Aiwass during the Cairo Working, regardless of what Crowley meant or intended or decided later, is what constitutes Liber Legis."
And during the Cairo Working, he wrote "fill", no?"
Just a reminder: according to Crowley's account of events, Aiwass did not dictate the poetic rendering of the Stele. He says that Aiwass simply indicated to him -- wordlessly -- to insert his paraphrase of the Stele in there (i.e. the poem that Crowley had written just the other day, in the vellum notebook).
The pencil note was written by Aleister Crowley as a reminder or instruction to the typist, probably some time after the dictation. That's the whole crux of this issue: whether Crowley made a mistake when he wrote "fill me."
As people have pointed out, it seems really odd that Crowley would misremember how his own poem ends, especially so soon after having written it, but that's the argument...."
Over the years there has grown up an entirely arbitrary convention based around when Aiwass was inspiring Crowley and when he wasn't, and people actually go out of their way to make a little timeline of events for themselves. Its been amusing and I suppose it gives commentators somewhere to stand when they debate on forums and newsgroups. But in actual fact we don't have a window into the mind and consciousness of Aleister Crowley and doesn't it seem a little ridiculous to anyone that if Crowley's HGA was Aiwass, that Aiwass should ever go missing or not be around for the entirety of Crowley's life? For all we know Aiwass could have inspired Aleister Crowley everytime he visited the crapper, or Aleister Crowley may have been led to do things under the influence of his HGA without him being aware that he was acting thusly. "Thou hast no choice but to do thy Will!"
I do not think that you can truly separate out the work of Aleister Crowley from the work of Aiwass and I think it is foolishness to try.
-
Yeah, I think questions of timelines and which part of a class A document really is class A and which part can be considered less than A (A- maybe?) are red herrings. What's written down on paper, the tangible manifestation of the impulse that started in Aiwass' consciousness is what cannot be changed or edited. So we have XXXI in it's unchanging form, and anything that deviates from it is a different book, not a true transcription.
-
@Los said
"
@Azidonis said
"
@he atlas itch said
"
III:47: This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the BeastUnder this scenario, whatever was "transmitted" by Aiwass during the Cairo Working, regardless of what Crowley meant or intended or decided later, is what constitutes Liber Legis."
And during the Cairo Working, he wrote "fill", no?"
Just a reminder: according to Crowley's account of events, Aiwass did not dictate the poetic rendering of the Stele. He says that Aiwass simply indicated to him -- wordlessly -- to insert his paraphrase of the Stele in there (i.e. the poem that Crowley had written just the other day, in the vellum notebook).
The pencil note was written by Aleister Crowley as a reminder or instruction to the typist, probably some time after the dictation. That's the whole crux of this issue: whether Crowley made a mistake when he wrote "fill me."
As people have pointed out, it seems really odd that Crowley would misremember how his own poem ends, especially so soon after having written it, but that's the argument...."
If we start getting into various timelines and questioning what exact times the Cairo Working is comprised of, we could be in for quite a headache!
I think it's logical, Los, to acknowledge that had Crowley felt he made a mistake in the manuscript when writing "Fill", he did not show this in his actions.
-
"fill" was written in pencil. He could have easily erased it and changed the manuscript, but he didn't. The fact that it was in pencil gives more weight, in my opinion, to Crowley's decision on "fill", as he could have changed "Fill" to "kill" at any time, without marring the rest of the manuscript.
-
Over 30 years, and every publication of Liber CCXX has "fill". The evidence has provided that he did use "kill" in some instances of the poem, but never in an instance of the poem that was going into print as Liber CCXX.
-
-
"Order : a group of people united in a formal way: as (1) : a fraternal society <the Masonic Order> (2) : a community under a religious rule; especially : one requiring members to take solemn vows (Merriam-Webster). "
"Rule: the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members (Merriam-Webster). "
"The publications of the A∴A∴ divide themselves into five classes.
Class “A” consists of books of which may be changed not so much as the style of a letter: that is, they represent the utterance of an Adept entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organization.
Class “B” consists of books or essays which are the result of ordinary scholarship, enlightened and earnest.
Class “C” consists of matter which is to be regarded rather as suggestive than anything else.
Class “D” consists of the Official Rituals and Instructions.
Class “E” consists of public announcements and broadsheets.
(lib.oto-usa.org/libri/byclass.html)
"The Rule of the Order is broken.
A Class A document is being altered according to Class B criteria, i.e. those of "ordinary scholarship, enlightened and earnest."
This discussion continually centers around such scholarly debate instead of the Rule of the Order.
But what is at stake is very literally and simply acceptance or rejection of the Rule of the Order itself by "ordinary scholarship, enlightened and earnest."
And as much as it pains me to say this in its overt dramatic grandeur in an environment of friends and colleagues... the nature of orders and their rules being what they are, the question goes to the divestment of the Visible Head of the Organization, having rejected the Rule of the very Order he heads in favor of his own ordinary scholarship, however enlightened and earnest it may be.
Not that I want that or call for that myself. But these are the facts, and orders have their rules, or they are not truly orders nor do they truly have rules.
-
@Bereshith said
"
"Order : a group of people united in a formal way: as (1) : a fraternal society <the Masonic Order> (2) : a community under a religious rule; especially : one requiring members to take solemn vows (Merriam-Webster). ""Rule: the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members (Merriam-Webster). "
"The publications of the A∴A∴ divide themselves into five classes.
Class “A” consists of books of which may be changed not so much as the style of a letter: that is, they represent the utterance of an Adept entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organization.
Class “B” consists of books or essays which are the result of ordinary scholarship, enlightened and earnest.
Class “C” consists of matter which is to be regarded rather as suggestive than anything else.
Class “D” consists of the Official Rituals and Instructions.
Class “E” consists of public announcements and broadsheets.
(lib.oto-usa.org/libri/byclass.html)
"The Rule of the Order is broken.
A Class A document is being altered according to Class B criteria, i.e. those of "ordinary scholarship, enlightened and earnest."
This discussion continually centers around such scholarly debate instead of the Rule of the Order.
But what is at stake is very literally and simply acceptance or rejection of the Rule of the Order itself by "ordinary scholarship, enlightened and earnest."
And as much as it pains me to say this in its overt dramatic grandeur in an environment of friends and colleagues... the nature of orders and their rules being what they are, the question goes to the divestment of the Visible Head of the Organization, having rejected the Rule of the very Order he heads in favor of his own ordinary scholarship, however enlightened and earnest it may be.
Not that I want that or call for that myself. But these are the facts, and orders have their rules, or they are not truly orders worthy of that name."
I think you are correct that, if the debate were a scholarly one, the rule of the Class A documents is being broken ("fill me" is not a typo, either).
But, the narrative as HB gave it in the News of April 11 - oto.org/news0413.html - places the discovery of the Windram's ΘΕΛΗΜΑ in a spiritual context. That is, the Secret Chiefs, the hidden heads of the Order, brought this volume to the visible head providentially.
HB's claim is not that he is making the change; his claim is that the invisible head(s) are commanding him to do it, as proven by the timing of the volume.
So there's a loophole in the Class A definition - they are beyond the criticism of the visible head of the order - but not the invisible head of the order!
-
This creates an imagined scenario in which the founder of these very same order rules, who repeatedly published and designated his own Class A utterance without this correction, was out of communication with these same chiefs who supposedly now desire this correction.
Who is the Prophet of the New Aeon? Did he really speak for these same chiefs, or was he too lazy and/or closed off from them to hear and take action himself?
The question goes to the authority of the Prophet and Magus of the New Aeon. Was he truly their/its prophet or not? Does he truly carry his own "Class A" authority in his own Class A utterances or not?
-
To be true to my own nature, I will not refuse myself to say this much...
The wind stirs within me against this, but such speech carries no weight here. So why bear the blows of the insane?
My intuitions and elemental passions warn in the language of a Great Truce being broken - of Saturn's bars being bent - of lawlessness - the seditious seek release from their lawful restraints - a deviation from the Prophet and Magus' set boundaries for humanity's collective New Aeonic spiritual dreaming.
It's a bad course to set - a precedent of refuting the Prophet's concrete, official, historically enacted authority.
To say that, I am willing to bear my blows if deserving.
The rest is learning.
Now, back to the scholar's persona for as long as I can restrain this other.
-
@he atlas itch said
" The logical conclusion is that Crowley did not want discrepancies to appear between Liber 31 and Liber 220...."
Bingo! And this is as much a conscious, well thought out decision made by the person in the prophetic office as anything else that has been proposed. That is the whole problem here. The evidence - lack of a corrected publication or direct instructions to that end - supports that Crowley intentionally chose to not regard the matter as one needing to be corrected. HB's entire argument is that he is fulfilling the command of the Prophet by changing Liber 220, even though - for the past 19 years that I've been intimately familiar with Thelema - the "Book of the Law" in publication is both Liber XXXI and Liber CCXX. His scenario proposes a rationalization of why Crowley never made the change as the base of that argument. But it starts from the assumption that Crowley was deciding to make a change when he made the marginal notation. And many of us, regardless of affiliation or even personal relationship to Thelema as a Religion, do not agree with that assumption.
@he atlas itch said
" Under this scenario, whatever was "transmitted" by Aiwass during the Cairo Working, regardless of what Crowley meant or intended or decided later, is what constitutes Liber Legis."
Then "Under this scenario, whatever was "transmitted" by Aiwass during the Cairo Working, regardless of what Crowley meant or intended or decided earlier, is what constitutes Liber Legis" is equally true.
In that case, the crux of the issue is whether Aiwass was directing Crowley to use the Paraphrase as it was written in the days before the working (which many believe was quite feasibly "kill"),or to use what he was inspired to write down during the transmission itself, which is clearly "fill." If one's desire is to get as close to the original transmission as possible, then it may be indeed necessary to look beyond the words of Liber XXXI, as - just as with any transmission of spiritual Truth - the interface can distort the message. But this also raises some serious problems, the biggest being that Crowley's decision not to publish a version of CCXX which did not conform with Liber XXXI would then reflect his own desires - possibly an ego-based one, perhaps a subconscious resistance, rather than following the explicit instructions of Aiwass. And that leads to the extremely slippery ground of deciding when Crowley was acting under the influence of Aiwass and when he was serving his own purposes. Have at that one all you want!
There is a very simple solution to this, which is that Crowley did not feel that the change of the letter would warrant the problems it would cause for those readers sincerely trying to understand the Book of the Law, as the Liber CCXX is necessary to create a uniform reading of Liber XXXI. The divergence in letters would create an unnecessary dissonance, while the possible meanings of "kill" could be as easily accessed through "fill" if one is working within the Thelemic paradigm. I've never known anyone in my life among Thelemites to stumble over that one, personally - everyone pretty much understood that we were, through the entire practice, aspiring to the moment of surrending our entire essence into the Cup of Babalon, and until that time, were seeking only to be more and more filled with devotion, power, light, and inspiration to get us there. Crowley's writings leave no doubts about that. Thus I feel it's quite feasible that he felt that the direct instruction "not to change a letter" was more important that the matter of the paraphrase.
This does disagree with HB believes and has decided as policy for the OTO. Fortunately, I get to do that all day long. What oaths still bind me are to the Law itself, not anyone or anything else. But those who are under some sort of obligation of friendship or oath to him obviously feel justified supporting his position. Out of respect for the Wills of others, I'm sensing the boundaries of what I can Lawfully say before it becomes persuasion or argument. So, the cases have been made, and each until their own, DWTW.
-
@Bereshith said
" Now, back to the scholar's persona for as long as I can restrain this other."
LOL...the story of my life!
@belmurr said
"That is, the Secret Chiefs, the hidden heads of the Order, brought this volume to the visible head providentially."
But in all seriousness, Belmurru's point is an excellent one, and for that reason, it may be that the debate generated here and now by the "event" is exactly what Thelema needs. Certainly in my life, it's been a positive thing, and served to draw my interest back into an area I'd mostly abandoned and show me some new opportunities for growth, as well as some great new work that I'd been missing out on. This is my favorite of the Thelemic forums, and the exchanges this round have been particularly inspiring.
Hence, though there are assumptions here that I feel honor bound to call out, as both a scholar and practitioner, I do respect all involved. People can publish whatever they will, however they will, and face whatever consequences that entails. If it's useful to my work in either arena, I'll buy it; if not, I won't. Simple as that. The way that this all works out is one of the core reasons I hold the Law so dear.
LLLL,
M -
Re my previous Osirian argument: I admit I'm learning some things as we go. To me, who has had to forsake much of my spiritual past, some of the new has tasted bitterly, artificially "different" while in truth being the same. "Unless a seed falls to the ground and dies..." But I understand the new also brings a further progression that breaks the old wineskins of form of the eternal truth of transformation.
-
@Alrah said
" we don't have a window into the mind and consciousness of Aleister Crowley
[...]
I do not think that you can truly separate out the work of Aleister Crowley from the work of Aiwass and I think it is foolishness to try."
Well, in this one particular case, we can separate them out because Crowley tells us as much:
@Equinox of the Gods, Chapter 7 said
"It is to be noted that the translations from the Stele in verses 37-38 were no more than instantaneous thoughts to be inserted afterwards.
Verse 38 begins with my address to the God in the first sentence, while in the second is his reply to me. He then refers to the hieroglyphs of the Stele, and bids me quote my paraphrases. This order was given by a species of wordless gesture, not visible or audible, but sensible in some occult manner."
So Crowley explicitly says that in this particular instance of the writing, Aiwass didn't "dictate" anything but commanded him "wordless[ly]" to "quote [his] paraphrase" of the Stele.
I take this to mean that Aiwass' intention was for Crowley to insert into that part of the Book those sections of the paraphrase, as they appeared in the vellum notebook (which he had just recently written).
The paraphrases were composed by Aleister Crowley, before the reception of the Book. They aren't the "words of Aiwass" in the slightest.
So the debate is over whether Crowley forgot how the poem ended and made a mistake when he (at some later time) jotted down the brief note to the typist.
-
Re: Secret Chiefs
Breeze's note regarding the Secret Chiefs is dealing with something that Crowley himself should have dealt with more in-depth, in my opinion. That is:
-
The imagined existence of a bunch of Chieftains presiding over humanity making sure humanity is "on-track".
-
The Work necessary to even get a statement like 1 (above) to make any sense without imagining fairies or gremlins.
-
Crowley's insistence that the degrees of the O.T.O. do not offer such exalted states.
-
Breeze's connection with the Thelemic group that potentially does offer such exalted states.
-
Breeze's own ability to achieve such exalted states.
-
The integrity of the group mentioned in 4 (above), and likewise their ability to offer such exalted states.
-
The fact that just as changing The Book of the Law has become taboo, talking openly of points 3, 4 and 6 especially bring a form of "bad juju" with them.
8 ) The question of how appropriate any of this is on this particular site.
-
-
Re individual freedom: The order and its rules and their consistent application by all those who maintain the original spirit of the order's rules serve to maintain the consistency of the collective human spiritual dream that is the New Aeon. Take away from the historic authoritative determinations of its founding prophet, and you bring disorder to that collective dream. You throw out the compass that is the final authority of the founding prophet.
But, yes, in any case, individuals are free to act under Will, as always.
-
@Los said
"
@Alrah said
" we don't have a window into the mind and consciousness of Aleister Crowley[...]
I do not think that you can truly separate out the work of Aleister Crowley from the work of Aiwass and I think it is foolishness to try."
Well, in this one particular case, we can separate them out because Crowley tells us as much:
@Equinox of the Gods, Chapter 7 said
"It is to be noted that the translations from the Stele in verses 37-38 were no more than instantaneous thoughts to be inserted afterwards.
Verse 38 begins with my address to the God in the first sentence, while in the second is his reply to me. He then refers to the hieroglyphs of the Stele, and bids me quote my paraphrases. This order was given by a species of wordless gesture, not visible or audible, but sensible in some occult manner."
So Crowley explicitly says that in this particular instance of the writing, Aiwass didn't "dictate" anything but commanded him "wordless[ly]" to "quote [his] paraphrase" of the Stele.
I take this to mean that Aiwass' intention was for Crowley to insert into that part of the Book those sections of the paraphrase, as they appeared in the vellum notebook (which he had just recently written).
The paraphrases were composed by Aleister Crowley, before the reception of the Book. They aren't the "words of Aiwass" in the slightest.
So the debate is over whether Crowley forgot how the poem ended and made a mistake when he (at some later time) jotted down the brief note to the typist."
Los, do you find it logical that, given the angle you are approaching this (as states above), that had Crowley wanted to change "fill" to "kill" in the MS then he would have, especially considering the markings were done in pencil?
Also, do you find it logical that, since he did not change the Book from "fill" to "kill" in any publication, that he was perfectly okay with accepting "fill" as a part of both Liber XXXI and Liber CCXX?
-
@Azidonis said
"I think it's logical, Los, to acknowledge that had Crowley felt he made a mistake in the manuscript when writing "Fill", he did not show this in his actions."
Yes, I'm in agreement with this. I haven't seen any evidence that would compel me to think that Crowley's intention was for "fill" to be replaced by "kill" in subsequent publications of the Book.
But I just wanted to be clear about the argument: we're arguing over which of Crowley's own words, written for his own personal poetry, should appear in the Book of the Law (since Aiwass apparently instructed Crowley to insert his own poetry into the Book at that point).
In the grand scheme of things, certainly not a hugely significant argument and nothing over which to get one's panties in a bunch, as the kids say.
-
@Bereshith said
"Re individual freedom: The order and its rules and their consistent application by all those who maintain the original spirit of the order's rules serve to maintain the consistency of the collective human spiritual dream that is the New Aeon. Take away from the historic authoritative determinations of its founding prophet, and you bring disorder to that collective dream. You throw out the compass that is the final authority of the founding prophet.
But, yes, in any case, individuals are free to act under Will, as always."
I agree with you.
As this goes along though, it seems less of a matter of "Do what thou wilt", and more of a matter of "As brothers fight ye". I could be wrong, though.
-
@Los said
"In the grand scheme of things, certainly not a hugely significant argument and nothing over which to get one's panties in a bunch, as the kids say."
EXACTLY.
The Universe is the Practical Joke of the General at the Expense of the Particular, quoth FRATER PERDURABO, and laughed.
Well, it certainly has the "the kids" talking. HB has a Genius.
Reminds one of certain obfuscatory measures in the media when something important is going on?
-
"They [the members of the Order S. S.] are all, however, bound by the original and fundamental Oath of the Order, to devote their energy to assisting the Progress of their Inferiors in the Order.
"These "kids"?
The Abyss lies ahead for all bound to the order.
What has been duly spoken in Time, duly approved in Time, and duly sealed into Time, on these things you may certainly rely.
With how many refined scholarly uncertainties and questions of prophetic authority would you like to begin your journey? With how many such uncertainties would you like others to begin their journey?
Submission to that which has been duly given has its advantages.
-
@Bereshith said
"
"They [the members of the Order S. S.] are all, however, bound by the original and fundamental Oath of the Order, to devote their energy to assisting the Progress of their Inferiors in the Order.
"These "kids"?
The Abyss lies ahead for all bound to the order.
What has been duly spoken in Time, duly approved in Time, and duly sealed into Time, on these things you may certainly rely.
With how many refined scholarly uncertainties and questions of prophetic authority would you like to begin your journey? With how many such uncertainties would you like others to begin their journey?
Submission to that which has been duly given has its advantages."
It is Friday. "Time" for a drink.
I'm glad you mentioned submission...I have a date with an 18 year-old tonight.
I'm agreeing with not getting the panties in a bunch.
I'm saying throw the panties on the floor and have fun.
The questions above are answered differently depending on the mood.O my God, but the love in Me bursts over the bonds of Space and Time; my love is spilt among them that love not love.
My wine is poured out for them that never tasted wine.
The fumes thereof shall intoxicate them and the vigour of my love shall breed mighty children from their maidens.
Yea! without draught, without embrace:—and the Voice answered Yea! these things shall be.
Then I sought a Word for Myself; nay, for myself.
And the Word came: O Thou! it is well. Heed naught! I love Thee! I love Thee!
Therefore had I faith unto the end of all; yea, unto the end of all.HAPPY VENUS DAY!
