Changing the styles of letters in CCXX
-
@Los said
"
@nigris said
"my role is [...]"As long as you're shaing your "role" with everyone, perhaps you might explain why on earth you've been bumping threads from 5-8 years ago.
Is there any particular point to this?"
Well, it seems he's reviving material that relates directly to the BOL. Fascinating that this interest coincides with the discussed change to the original text?
Also, there is a resource listed on the tagline that seems to be devoted to many published aspects of the BOL...
Drawing my own conclusions, I would say it may have something to do with compiling all possible resources and information about the BOL for archival purposes (and possibly other purposes as well). Admirable Work, IMHO.
-
Who here said, "screw it, I'm going to write my own text based on the ms"?
This brings up a good question.
The Book says we are to each interpret the book for ourselves; and so would this apply to how we interpret these "capitals" and even what translation of the paraphrase to use? Would it be wrong for each individual to transcribe his OWN personal Liber Legis based on the original writing of the Beast? Perhaps this is what is meant about it being translated into "all tongues"; it may not mean languages, but each persons "tongue", or how each interprets this writing of the Beast? The whole problem of "changes" would be eliminated, and literally be in alignment with the teachings of the Book of the Law, if everyone literally decided for him or herself what AC "wrote", and made their own master copy based upon the ms.
Could this work?
-
@Jason R said
"Who here said, "screw it, I'm going to write my own text based on the ms"?"
neat option. if you care about any of these things, there's a range of options available to the liberated.-
follow the dictates of your master, superior, or teacher in your cult;
-
follow the recommendations of your favourite source from outside a tradition;
-
focus on the 'essence' of the Lawbook by some measure (centering on the manuscript, Liber XXXI, and what it appears to say, even about itself; getting a complete picture of what the prophet intended; somehow communing with the messenger angel, the priest of the princes, or the gods Nuit, Hadit and Ra-Hoor-Khuit; invoking the spirit of the manuscript; etc.);
-
focus on the 'intended' product(s) beyond the manuscript, Liber CCXX (and possibly on what those who brought them to you, such as the Beast, Grant/Symonds, Regardie, Motta, Heidrick, Hymenaeus Beta, or nigris, have to say about the meaning);
-
focus on your own intuition or True Will and play it all by ear without much thought or energy put into understanding how these words originate;
-
use bibliomancy to consult without care for peripherals;
-
duplicate the process, write your own Lawbook, and possibly use one of the above with that.
" ...The Book says we are to each interpret the book for ourselves; and so would this apply to how we interpret these "capitals" and even what translation of the paraphrase to use?"
demonstrate that the book says this by quoting it and i'll try to come up with an interpretation for you or agree with you that this is what it means. note that "The Comment" is not part of the Book, so referred.it would be helpful to ask about the meaning of particular text with a premise that you would like to interpret it as a direction from a particular authority (say, Nuit) to a particular audience (say, the sincere and devoted reader of the scripture as a devotee of the cultus, maybe outside social circles).
"Would it be wrong for each individual to transcribe his OWN personal Liber Legis based on the original writing of the Beast?"
according to the Book itself, it does not appear so."Perhaps this is what is meant about it being translated into "all tongues"; it may not mean languages, but each persons "tongue", or how each interprets this writing of the Beast?"
that's one of the fun things about disjointed or expositorily variant Magic Books: it begins to become difficult to interpret with any certitude. this is why there is emphasis on the interpretation of the writing by the Scribe or some representative of the religious cult: so as to constrain to intended norms the conclusions drawn from it. the characteristic of oracular text with myriad facets plays off against the desires of herd(s) to reach expressions of will and enterprise.it seems to me very unlikely that 'tongues' implied personal lexicons. I suggest, from a very conservative Thelemic vantage point, that you consult the Old Comment and New Comment of the Beast on this (III:47) portion of the scripture to get the most likely meaning, rather than wild speculation. for example, try here: book-of-the-law.com/#VIII47
"The whole problem of "changes" would be eliminated, and literally be in alignment with the teachings of the Book of the Law, if everyone literally decided for him or herself what AC "wrote", and made their own master copy based upon the ms. Could this work?"
sounds GREAT!, and it seems very nicely to fit into the 'Do what thou wilt' type of mentality as long as you follow it from a liberated or libertine standpoint (not all do, to be sure). good luck!! -
-
@Frater 639 said
"
@Los said
"...why on earth you've been bumping threads from 5-8 years ago. ..."
...something to do with compiling all possible resources and information about the BOL for archival purposes (and possibly other purposes as well). Admirable Work, IMHO."
thank you kindly. I described something alike to this within #3 at this post: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?p=82185#p82185">viewtopic.php?p=82185#p82185</a><!-- l -->I am I!
-
@nigris said
" very interesting. like a documentarian, neither am i concerned (have no evidence to suggest) that any such "secrets" exist inherent to that work"
The book mentions the word 'secret' 22 times, and A.C. states that he book hides the Lost Word, ciphers, cryptography, anagrams, 'a new sublime qabalah' etc. in numerous other texts. There is plenty of evidence if you look, and the hidden and concealed content itself has it's cipher checks as confirmation.
-
"demonstrate that the book says this by quoting it and i'll try to come up with an interpretation for you or agree with you that this is what it means. note that "The Comment" is not part of the Book, so referred."
3:47 “This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast;”
These “tongues” may not simply be other languages, but instead Hadit.
1:6 “Be thou Hadit, my secret center, my heart & tongue!”
In other words, these* tongues* are each Stars interpretation, their own personal translation based upon the original writing of the Beast - Liber XXXI.
-
That's certainly an interpretation.
-
@Alrah said
"...Without intimate knowledge of all of the ciphers and cryptography set into Liber AL vel Legis, then we just cannot judge what effect any change will have upon secrets that Crowley concealed in the book...."
@nigris said
" very interesting. like a documentarian, {i am not} concerned (have no evidence to suggest) that any such "secrets" exist inherent to that work..."
@Alrah said
"The book mentions the word 'secret' 22 times, "
fun! my problem in part was that you attributed to Crowley the hidden secrets. I am willing to accept that Crowley wrote the thing (mostly) and even that he 'authored' it in a physical and general sense (coming to accept that whatever it was that gave him the text was interior to his consciousness and i cannot ascertain that it was other than him at this remove of time and person). however, the usual religious conviction amongst Crowleyans is that he did NOT author the text, and so your contention seems like it ought to have been that Aiwass or that Ankh-n-f-khonsu concealed the secrets.I'm sorry this is so complex. the Beast maintains that he did not himself conceal anything (he called it initially "automatic writing"), only that he thinks it was so concealed and he has tried to help to disclose what was concealed to his students, to his cultists, and to the world, including what he thought of as its important meaning, its status as a scripture, etc. I have no confidence in his report or his accuracy (however scientific he says that it may be, how 'proven', how astounding), as i haven't seen anything convincing about that as yet. perhaps i am ignorant of it all, and if so i am grateful for you breaking the news to me.
it's not unusual that i would be unaware of the evidence (primarily due to a differentiation on what we might think constitutes such a thing) for religious claims of this type which i've had the chance to encounter, including "Bible Codes" or the "Quran-19 Code" or its like, and requires a certain statistical bolstering to be considered seriously, even then becoming something of a religious (/arcane) issue. I like to learn about the generalities and am not always able to agree about or confirm the (meaning of the) complex detail.
"and A.C. states that {the} book hides the Lost Word, ciphers, cryptography, anagrams, 'a new sublime qabalah' etc. in numerous other texts."
fun! right, so you're talking about Crowley stating he found them therein (or suspects them of being there, or has it on good word that they are there, or something like that), and the evidence is the fact that Crowley found and described, identified, them. based on that i can see what you mean about shifting some lettering having the possibility of shifting the significance of any these previously unknown secrets."There is plenty of evidence if you look,"
great! do you have a list of these, are these detailed somewhere in succinctness without a mass of ritual goo or oaths of secrecy to wade through? is it your understanding that there is any widespread agreement (outside subsects of Thelema) as to what these are, and/or what they mean, by your reckoning? I find the category of "evidence" is disputed or exaggerated, yet am happy to see reference to the lot, if summarized. I know there are innumerable contenders for the 'Solver of the Puzzle' of the scripture, with its RPSTOVAL string. They seem to come and go."and the hidden and concealed content itself has it's cipher checks as confirmation."
I find no confidence in that so far. if i understand what you're saying it is like watching for coincidence of sums out of 777 during pathworking or something, and these 'checks' arrive with a variable of convincingness. 220 Ks in Liber Al!!!! 690 Fs! are these 'checks'? thanks for your time and information. -
"un! my problem in part was that you attributed to Crowley the hidden secrets. I am willing to accept that Crowley wrote the thing (mostly) and even that he 'authored' it in a physical and general sense (coming to accept that whatever it was that gave him the text was interior to his consciousness and i cannot ascertain that it was other than him at this remove of time and person). however, the usual religious conviction amongst Crowleyans is that he did NOT author the text, and so your contention seems like it ought to have been that Aiwass or that Ankh-n-f-khonsu concealed the secrets."
Alrah believes AC is the sole author, she has a different perspective than many Thelemites. This may be what's confusing you. She doesn't believe in the story of the dictation, and that it was "received". However, she does believe in the paranormal, and the H.G.A. etc. If I understand her correctly.
-
@Takamba said
"Evidence that (at least in this case) nigris makes assessment without investigation."
I don't think that your comments lately to many board members have been of the sort that encourage discussion and conversation. Mr. Eshelman had a notice posted in the general forum about comments like yours have been. It would be nice to not have to read, and read and read comments like this one that seem to detract from the overall quality of this fine forum.
While you may think you are sharing some deep insight, or revelation, It comes off as rude, especially toward a new forum member who obviously is not an illiterate teenager.
-
@Takamba said
"Evidence that (at least in this case) nigris makes assessment without investigation."
give it time. I hope to receive direction in where it may be found. I haven't assessed any evidence yet, or found any qualifying as so claimed. you never know what lies just around the corner. I used to be surrounded with atheists and agnostics. who would have known that i'd be partying with occultists and witches but a decade later and supporting spiritualists, readers and folk magicians through the better course of my life? wonders abound!