"Kill/Fill" - not "Kill Bill"
-
@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!
-
I wish I had a date with an 18 year old!
-
Happy Venus Day to you as well. Having a couple to celebrate myself.
But just to make sure you don't lack for an appropriate rejoinder...
That sure is a pretty quote. Who said it? I hope they knew what they were talking about... You know?
-
@Bereshith said
"That sure is a pretty quote. Who said it? I hope they knew what they were talking about... You know?"
Uh, that would be from Liber VII
-
My point, Takamba, was that he was referrencing another Class A document to reinforce his own point about not getting one's panties in a bunch about someone altering a Class A document.
Perhaps the irony was a little too subtle.
-
@Bereshith said
"My point, Takamba, was that he was referrencing another Class A document to reinforce his own point about not getting one's panties in a bunch about someone altering a Class A document.
Perhaps the irony was a little too subtle.
"
I got it. Talking of irony... Jesus signed the petition today.
-
"
I got it. Talking of irony... Jesus signed the petition today.
"See? I've always said he was a good guy, just misunderstood by the YOLOs, that's all.
That's what happens when you don't write anything down yourself. Ehhh... Maybe he knew they'd just change it to "what he should have written but didn't" anyway. I guess he just let them go ahead and do that in the first place.
Crowley tried to fix that problem, but...
Here we are... "what the prophet should have written." -
@Bereshith said
"My point, Takamba, was that he was referrencing another Class A document to reinforce his own point about not getting one's panties in a bunch about someone altering a Class A document.
Perhaps the irony was a little too subtle."
Haha! No...not too subtle. But I wasn't pulling that quote to make my point about "altering a Class A document." I was replying to this statement here:
@Bereshith said
"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 just sounded a little ostentatious? We share many views, but this particular point presupposed precise pulpit pontifications. Can't one be a YOLO and a Serious Suzy stomping in the same set of sandals? Just look at the tone, bro...
My point was: no one is bound by anything but their own lack of love -- this includes being free the "fetters" of someone altering a Class A document in their particular sect. As you know, the quote I pulled was from the chapter that corresponds to Venus.
If anyone would like to get passionate about HB's decision, that's great. The world needs activists. But sometimes all the world gets is re-activists.
I just think there are people that get reactionary...and there are others who can look into the purpose of the sensationalism, without getting all antsy-in-their-pantsy.
Either way, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Have a good day, brother.
-
@Frater 639 said
"
Well, it certainly has the "the kids" talking. HB has a Genius.
"@Frater 639 said
"It just sounded a little ostentatious? . . . this particular point presupposed precise pulpit pontifications. . . . Just look at the tone, bro..."
I'm not interested in such projection games.
I stand by what I said.
-
It's hard to put my finger on where in the conversation this happened but... this thread is way past the point of addressing the original post on the thread. Furthermore, it has gotten contention\us and off-track. It's no longer the prudent, careful addressing of the matter that the OP started.
I'm not sure how much of this I'm going to go back and wipe out (it's a big time consumer and PITA to do that) but please IMMEDIATELY stop the personal back and forth and jibber jabber. If you don't have something substantial and concrete to say that is directly relevant to the topic AS PRESENT IN THE ORIGINAL POST ON THIS SPECIFIC THREAD, then start another thread or don't post.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"It's hard to put my finger on where in the conversation this happened but... this thread is way past the point of addressing the original post on the thread. Furthermore, it has gotten contention\us and off-track. It's no longer the prudent, careful addressing of the matter that the OP started.
I'm not sure how much of this I'm going to go back and wipe out (it's a big time consumer and PITA to do that) but please IMMEDIATELY stop the personal back and forth and jibber jabber. If you don't have something substantial and concrete to say that is directly relevant to the topic AS PRESENT IN THE ORIGINAL POST ON THIS SPECIFIC THREAD, then start another thread or don't post."
This is an incredibly serious issue apparently. One feels that if the brow isn't furrowed, then one may be reacting improperly.
In any event, directly relevant to the topic:
The Caliphate decided that they want to change the Book of the Law. IMHO, I don't think changing one letter does much more than attract attention to the Caliphate -- helping to assert once again their claims over the copyrights that they successfully won in our fair and impartial U.S. courtrooms.
In fact, they are the Thelemic sect that controls the majority of Crowley's published works -- they can do whatever they want with the BOL. And I support their decision to handle their own property 100% -- anything else would be un-Thelemic!
Also, there is more than meets the eye on this one.
In short, the kill/fill move has produced quite the stir around Thelemic circles. Regardless of the personal importance, the move could definitely be considered a form of sensationalism -- a device is used and attention is drawn.
If I went OT, I apologize. I feel that the above points, however unpopular they may be on this forum, are directly related to the change -- it would be irresponsible to ignore aspects of the motivations for the change, when addressing the change itself.
I think it's a bold move that actually has more Thelemites talking.
-
@Frater 639 said
"I think it's a bold move that actually has more Thelemites talking.
"It's a destructive move as it damages the linkages between the open text and the hidden text of the book.
There won't be 220 'K's in Liber 220 anymore. There will still be 61 'K's in Chapter One and 69 in Chpater Two, but the change will mean there are now 91 'K's in Chapter Three.
The change kills the King, kills the Kill, says bollocks to summer solstice..
And 'Amen' said HB.
-
@Alrah said
"It's a destructive move as it damages the linkages between the open text and the hidden text of the book."
I can understand your perspective and I respect it. But there are other aspects to the change as well.
Also, I'm really happy to have your input on the forum again!
-
@Frater 639 said
"In fact, they are the Thelemic sect that controls the majority of Crowley's published works -- they can do whatever they want with the BOL. And I support their decision to handle their own property 100% -- anything else would be un-Thelemic!"
The Book of the Law is not Crowley's work - his literary estate haven't even claimed that it is - and, in any case, it has been published since 1909, so it is in the public domain and not subject to control by any human author or his/her successors. - In short, it isn't their property even in a mundane, legal sense.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"The Book of the Law is not Crowley's work - his literary estate haven't even claimed that it is - and, in any case, it has been published since 1909, so it is in the public domain and not subject to control by any human author or his/her successors. - In short, it isn't their property even in a mundane, legal sense."
I know. So they can do whatever they want with it -- and they can control their published work by law. That was my point. That being said, it's important to examine why such a change would be important to certain Thelemites that may fall outside the sway of the OTO...
The Caliphate does control most of Crowley's published work AFAIK. Is this why the OTO making a change is evoking such a tumultuous reaction? I'm legitimately curious...is it the general consensus that the OTO controls the benchmark for the publishing of the Book of the Law?
If someone can establish themselves as a leading authority of a text, and they make changes, does it have further publishing implications down the road? If not, why would it matter what the OTO decides to do? That was my point...or, I guess, it's more of a question.
In any event, the change is attracting A LOT OF ATTENTION -- which, to me, is a good move when it comes to publicity for the OTO.
EDIT: Could this theoretically apply? www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-re-copyright-decision/
-
@Frater 639 said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"The Book of the Law is not Crowley's work - his literary estate haven't even claimed that it is - and, in any case, it has been published since 1909, so it is in the public domain and not subject to control by any human author or his/her successors. - In short, it isn't their property even in a mundane, legal sense."@Frater 639 said
"I know. So they can do whatever they want with it -- and they can control their published work by law. That was my point. That being said, it's important to examine why such a change would be important to certain Thelemites that may fall outside the sway of the OTO..."
"Because it doesn't just include the O.T.O.. The proposed change is not a change to an O.T.O. manifesto or anything. It is a change to the central document of Thelema. As such, it effects everyone involved with Thelema.
@Frater 639 said
"The Caliphate does control most of Crowley's published work AFAIK. Is this why the OTO making a change is evoking such a tumultuous reaction? I'm legitimately curious...is it the general consensus that the OTO controls the benchmark for the publishing of the Book of the Law?"
Again, it has more to do with the importance of The Book of the Law, which itself is an A:.A:. publication in Class A, than it does about the O.T.O..
@Frater 639 said
"If someone can establish themselves as a leading authority of a text, and they make changes, does it have further publishing implications down the road? If not, why would it matter what the OTO decides to do? That was my point...or, I guess, it's more of a question."
Bill Breeze is not a leading authority on The Book of the Law. He may think he is, or may claim to be, or others may claim that he is, but he is not.
@Frater 639 said
"In any event, the change is attracting A LOT OF ATTENTION -- which, to me, is a good move when it comes to publicity for the OTO."
Does it come as good publicity for the O.T.O. when A:.A:. lineages are basically turning their backs on the O.T.O.'s decision?
The publicity they are getting is to further ostracize the (c)O.T.O. from the general Thelemic community that is not involved with them. I would hardly say that is good publicity.
@Frater 639 said
"EDIT: Could this theoretically apply? www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-re-copyright-decision/"
Quite possibly. The decision to make the change could very well boil down to an issue of copyrights, money, power, and control.
-
Thanks for your replies. Please keep in mind, my following comments are pretty much devil's advocate to further investigate motivations for the change, in light of the OP.
@Azidonis said
"Because it doesn't just include the O.T.O.. The proposed change is not a change to an O.T.O. manifesto or anything. It is a change to the central document of Thelema. As such, it effects everyone involved with Thelema.
"Well, if one accepts that it does. Again, it would change their published version of the BOL, correct? How does this affect you and your version?
@Azidonis said
"Again, it has more to do with the importance of The Book of the Law, which itself is an A:.A:. publication in Class A, than it does about the O.T.O.."
It may be an A.'.A.'. publication, but most of the A.'.A.'. publication copyrights are owned by the OTO AFAIK. Jim would probably know more since he was involved with the OTO for so many years...
@Azidonis said
"Bill Breeze is not a leading authority on The Book of the Law. He may think he is, or may claim to be, or others may claim that he is, but he is not."
I would agree with this in a "spiritual" sense; but, in a mundane sense, the courts may not share your sentiments. When it comes to "a leading authority," it could very well boil down to evidence in the courtroom. Let's remember that the Caliphate is not above going to court for copyrights...
@Azidonis said
"Does it come as good publicity for the O.T.O. when A:.A:. lineages are basically turning their backs on the O.T.O.'s decision?
The publicity they are getting is to further ostracize the (c)O.T.O. from the general Thelemic community that is not involved with them. I would hardly say that is good publicity."
Well, that's arguable. Everybody seems to think the change is a big move -- remember, you just said that their decision affects everyone in Thelema. That being the case, that opinion empowers a stance that HB's authority to make changes to the BOL affects even you, by your own admission. Is this why many Thelemites are taking this so seriously?
As far as other lineages of the A.'.A.'. -- we know that a person supposedly affiliated with one of them has lost to the Caliphate in court before. The A.'.A.'., as a system outside of the OTO, doesn't seem to have much legitimacy in the eyes of the court system AFAIK.
It would be great to look at this more in-depth, but it may be a separate thread.
@Azidonis said
"Quite possibly. The decision to make the change could very well boil down to an issue of copyrights, money, power, and control."
I really don't know. But it raises the question, doesn't it?
I would like to state that I'm not affiliated with the OTO in any way. Also, I really don't care too much one way or the other when it comes to their decisions on how they publish their material.
Again, I'm just asking the questions. I'm wondering why non-OTO affiliated Thelemites are seemingly so affected by the OTO's decision on a book that is public domain.