"Kill/Fill" - not "Kill Bill"

[Jason R]

"Don't you dare start bleating to Jim about your {•••••••} rights after you blithely walk over mine and dismiss my work without an explanation. Just because you have a {•••••••} dick does not make you a higher status individual who ought to be respected more than me.

I solved II, 76, and revealed about half of the cryptography of Liber Al to the world while you are stick d1cking around with number games and English Qabalah illusions. You haven't earned the right by your scholarship to take the attitude to my work - completely dismissive of one section of it without even crediting the very real discoveries I have made over the months while cracking Liber AL or the recent work. All you wanted was to vampirically take a piece. Well {••••} you!

You should shut your mouth already."

HA!

Is the above some higher form of scholarly humor that somehow is over my head? I don't get it.

I don't need any "scholarship" to see how weak your ideas are. My point was that I CAN take, and only need to take, ONE of your ideas out of the whole thing to prove my point. It's a stretch!

JUST that one point is enough to justify calling it convoluted!

[Alrah]

@Takamba said

"
@Jim Eshelman said
"I'm going to presume the last set of posts were made without noticing my prior post. So, before issuing warnings to individuals, I'm going to repost this:

OK, everyone... the attacks are getting personal. Roll it back, please.

Thank you."

You are being incredibly kind to Alrah as she clearly quoted your warning."

And you think he doesn't see you now with that comment?

[Alrah]

@Jason R said

"
"Don't you dare start bleating to Jim about your {•••••••} rights after you blithely walk over mine and dismiss my work without an explanation. Just because you have a {•••••••} dick does not make you a higher status individual who ought to be respected more than me.

I solved II, 76, and revealed about half of the cryptography of Liber Al to the world while you are stick d1cking around with number games and English Qabalah illusions. You haven't earned the right by your scholarship to take the attitude to my work - completely dismissive of one section of it without even crediting the very real discoveries I have made over the months while cracking Liber AL or the recent work. All you wanted was to vampirically take a piece. Well {••••} you!

You should shut your mouth already."

HA!

Is the above some higher form of scholarly humor that somehow is over my head? I don't get it.

I don't need any "scholarship" to see how weak your ideas are. My point was that I CAN take, and only need to take, ONE of your ideas out of the whole thing to prove my point. It's a stretch!

JUST that one point is enough to justify calling it convoluted!"

And your argument to justify your opinion is?

Show me where you have made a comparison? (I suggested the guys on Lashtal at the moment since we're working the same work here, but you didn't see to have the balls for that... did you?)

Offered evidence?

No - you just relied on the fact you have respect from others more than I do because of that sausage between your legs.

Weak.... very weak of you.

[Jason R]

"And your argument to justify your opinion is?

Show me where you have made a comparison? (I suggested the guys on Lashtal at the moment since we're working the same work here, but you didn't see to have the balls for that... did you?)

Offered evidence?

No - you just relied on the fact you have respect from others more than I do because of that sausage between your legs.

Weak.... very weak of you."

Please.

Guess what, we are not ON Lashtal are we? We are HERE, and you brought up YOUR idea HERE. I gave you my opinion HERE. I thought this was YOUR idea, or are you now suggesting it is someone else's? What, do you need them to argue for you or something? Can't you argue your theory?

I have GREAT respect for others, and have always shown respect, unless someone has disrespected me first. So get your facts straight! Your the one obsessed with sausages.

The ONLY thing weak is you counting verse numbers as words, and circles drawn on a page as a word. Period. Dumb idea, without any sort of evidence to back it up. Can you quote ANY verse that would suggest counting the circle squared character as a word? How about ignoring then the line drawn character? THAT alone shows how weak an idea it is.

[Alrah]

@Jason R said

"
"And your argument to justify your opinion is?

Show me where you have made a comparison? (I suggested the guys on Lashtal at the moment since we're working the same work here, but you didn't see to have the balls for that... did you?)

Offered evidence?

No - you just relied on the fact you have respect from others more than I do because of that sausage between your legs.

Weak.... very weak of you."

Please.

Guess what, we are not ON Lashtal are we? We are HERE, and you brought up YOUR idea HERE. I gave you my opinion HERE. I thought this was YOUR idea, or are you now suggesting it is someone else's? What, do you need them to argue for you or something? Can't you argue your theory?

I have GREAT respect for others, and have always shown respect, unless someone has disrespected me first. So get your facts straight! Your the one obsessed with sausages.

The ONLY thing weak is you counting verse numbers as words, and circles drawn on a page as a word. Period. Dumb idea, without any sort of evidence to back it up. Can you quote ANY verse that would suggest counting the circle squared character as a word? How about ignoring then the line drawn character? THAT alone shows how weak an idea it is."

Since what I did is* extract* the verse numbers as words and since the circle squared by Crowley is symbolic of a 'word', then it just shows how lacking in scholarship your comments and critic really are.

John Griffiths also includes the circled squared in his calculations so you are calling him 'dumb' as well. ***slow cap for a slow individual ***

[Jim Eshelman]

@Takamba said

"
@Jim Eshelman said
"I'm going to presume the last set of posts were made without noticing my prior post. So, before issuing warnings to individuals, I'm going to repost this:

OK, everyone... the attacks are getting personal. Roll it back, please.

Thank you."

You are being incredibly kind to Alrah as she clearly quoted your warning."

They both did. Warnings formally issued. (And a Jason post completely deleted that had nothing to do with the topic of this thread.)

C'mon, guys, just because you know I'm leaving town for two days to hit about 10 wineries, please don't break the furniture.

[Jason R]

@Jim Eshelman said

"
@Takamba said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"I'm going to presume the last set of posts were made without noticing my prior post. So, before issuing warnings to individuals, I'm going to repost this:

OK, everyone... the attacks are getting personal. Roll it back, please.

Thank you."

You are being incredibly kind to Alrah as she clearly quoted your warning."

They both did. Warnings formally issued. (And a Jason post completely deleted that had nothing to do with the topic of this thread.)

C'mon, guys, just because you know I'm leaving town for two days to hit about 10 wineries, please don't break the furniture."

With all due respect Jim, what do you mean by you guys?

I simply said her idea was convoluted. She went off on me with PERSONAL attacks and calling me sexist! I'm sorry but that needs to be addressed, because obviously she is under the impression you some how agree, and that it is ok.

I defended myself. So I don't think I am doing anything but making sure my points are recorded, and it is perfectly clear I in no way being sexist. I think it fair to point out that she is making unfair accusations.

[Jason R]

Really Jim?

[Alrah]

@Jim Eshelman said

"
@Takamba said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"I'm going to presume the last set of posts were made without noticing my prior post. So, before issuing warnings to individuals, I'm going to repost this:

OK, everyone... the attacks are getting personal. Roll it back, please.

Thank you."

You are being incredibly kind to Alrah as she clearly quoted your warning."

They both did. Warnings formally issued. (And a Jason post completely deleted that had nothing to do with the topic of this thread.)

C'mon, guys, just because you know I'm leaving town for two days to hit about 10 wineries, please don't break the furniture."

I didn't know that Jim. Have fun! I've bigger fish to fry that that '.....' trying to win status - so I'll make myself scare till you get back. Try and make time to have a glass with Heidrick...

---

p.s. - one of the reasons that mods ban and censor more women on the internet than they do men is that men are used to a higher status and get offended and object more. As we see. Ha! Ra!La!

[Jim Eshelman]

@Jason R said

"With all due respect Jim, what do you mean by you guys? "

You and Alrah have dropped into personal attacks.

I don't care who started it, who is trying to defend themselves, or who insists on getting the last word. None of the above is acceptable.

"I defended myself."

So stop it. Defending yourself by attacking back is an attack, and you can get kicked off this site for that as much as for picking a fight in the first place.

"So I don't think I am doing anything but making sure my points are recorded, and it is perfectly clear I in no way being sexist. I think it fair to point out that she is making unfair accusations."

Sure. You say, "That is an inaccurate, unfair accusation."

[nigris]

hail Azidonis, sorry i missed your post previously. finding it today, i immediatly respond:

@Azidonis said

"
@nigris said
"
@Alrah said
"...If we want to stop the OTO from changing the Book of the Law"
the (c)OTO will not change The Book of the Law, it will at most change its published versions."
By "published versions" you mean the new versions of The Book of the Law that will show the change, right?"
oh sure, or the ones it controls which are online.

"Which means, they plan on changing (or "editing", depending on how PC you want to be), The Book of the Law."
you could easily put it that way, but this 'moulding' of Liber CCXX has been going on for years, not just recently. the reference standard had been a conceived interpretation of Liber L, naturally. this conception seems to have shifted. in the sense of 'changing a Class A document', i doubt anyone directly involved conceives of it in that way at all.

"Unless you just see The Book of the Law as the manuscript only, with Liber CCXX not being The Book of the Law."
it seems difficult to support that, given that it's the latter with the name and the former as "Liber L. vel Legis". see book-of-the-law.com/#HOLO00 for what i am pointing to here. BTW, is this the manuscript cover page or the typescribe cover page? anyone know what hotel letter paper this is? I'm enlisting the help of a couple of scholars to suss out Crowleyan Arabic/Farsi soon.

"
@nigris said
"
"we need to reach out to as many Thelemites in as many countries as we can"
you won't be able to predict where they are located. some of them may be part of the cults, but the bulk of Thelemites will never have heard of the Beast."
This refers to "adoption", and I would have advised Crowley against ever doing it, with his list of Saints. But what do I know?"
I don't think that i really understand this. which part is the 'adoption'? reaching out? understanding the principle of Will (Thelema) to refer to something inherent to human beings of any culture?

"
@nigris said
"
"with one clear and central argument against the change. ..."
it's a top-down heirarchy (Old AEon). its incentives are only partly informed by A.'.A.'. standards (insofar as those who are affiliated to this initiatic club are actually connected to the Third Order). it isn't a democracy!! did you notice what happened when there were objections to 'reforms' made within the order previously?"
Oh, do tell! What happened "when there were objections to 'reforms' made within the order [A:.A:.] previously", and what were those objections and reforms?"
NOT the AA, the OTO.

with the reforms made by Hymenaeus Beta regarding the Bishops of the EGC, the official Gnostic Mass Cakes of Light and the Saints List (surely there were others i'm forgetting) discussion was minimal, directives were issued from the top down and expected to be followed (probably from the Head Council under the direction of the Frater Superior). there was dispersal in part due to differences of opinion on these and other matters. likely that's part of many changes of administration. Hymenaeus Alpha (Grady McMurtry) was a different type of administrator in the San Francisco Bay Area than HBeta in New York. attitudes about sex, drugs (and rock and roll?), and church all seemed to play out differently. changes to the way that initiation rituals are handled, what was part of them, etc., all elicited some irritation/criticism in my vicinity of post-Alpha wakefulness.

in his defense, such hierarchical direction was good for the order's cohesiveness as a religious group (a cult). its upper administrative quarters, coincident with the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica, was standardized and brought more strongly into line with sustainable practices and ideological facets given the climate and context of its geographical spread.

as an aim, the promulgation of the Law of Thelema need not actually demonstrate its quality as a forefront factor, especially for a 'secret society'. what is imperative is that the idea be repeatedly put out there for the Strong to find and of which to make use.

where it pertains to the Kill/Fill controversy, if you wonder how and why it may be that a strict hierarchy is 'Thelemic' in character, you're not alone, and one may take from certain military and quasi-masonic aspects of this social structure that its intention is to advance the principles, ideas, and doctrines of Thelema so conceived. if this includes refining Class A documents to proper conformity to their ideal form (each has one, based on a set of criteria perhaps spoken and published, perhaps never mentioned to the public), this is an element of that promulgation, and few others than the torch-bearers of the prophet's Will have any business trying to manage this.

[Jason R]

@Jim Eshelman said

"
@Jason R said
"With all due respect Jim, what do you mean by you guys? "

You and Alrah have dropped into personal attacks.

I don't care who started it, who is trying to defend themselves, or who insists on getting the last word. None of the above is acceptable.

"I defended myself."

So stop it. Defending yourself by attacking back is an attack, and you can get kicked off this site for that as much as for picking a fight in the first place.

"So I don't think I am doing anything but making sure my points are recorded, and it is perfectly clear I in no way being sexist. I think it fair to point out that she is making unfair accusations."

Sure. You say, "That is an inaccurate, unfair accusation.""

Oh and so if I had simply stopped and ignored her first accusation you would have given her a skull or pointed out she was unfairly calling me a sexist? This is BS! I simply refuse to participate then in this forum, if I am forced to ignore someone attacking me, allowing them to say whatever they want without any ability to defend myself. That is simply unfair.

[Alrah]

@nigris said

"where it pertains to the Kill/Fill controversy, if you wonder how and why it may be that a strict hierarchy is 'Thelemic' in character, you're not alone, and one may take from certain military and quasi-masonic aspects of this social structure that its intention is to advance the principles, ideas, and doctrines of Thelema so conceived. if this includes refining Class A documents to proper conformity to their ideal form (each has one, based on a set of criteria perhaps spoken and published, perhaps never mentioned to the public), this is an element of that promulgation, and few others than the torch-bearers of the prophet's Will have any business trying to manage this."

That's a very interesting (and disturbing) idea nigris...

Are you saying the motta branch (springing from a strongly influenced Catholic land)... are Thelemites of the wool? ... i.e. - externally Thelemic yet internally Christian and subverting Thelema and it's Holy Texts from within?

[nigris]

@Azidonis said

"
@nigris said
"
"with one clear and central argument against the change. ..."
it's a top-down heirarchy (Old AEon). its incentives are only partly informed by A.'.A.'. standards (insofar as those who are affiliated to this initiatic club are actually connected to the Third Order). it isn't a democracy!! did you notice what happened when there were objections to 'reforms' made within the order previously?"
Oh, do tell! What happened "when there were objections to 'reforms' made within the order [A:.A:.] previously", and what were those objections and reforms?"
"NOT the AA, the OTO." additionally, i'd like to address this conflation and confusion somewhat. not only is there a (fairly ridiculous at this point since most of the realistic disputants have all but dropped their cases as far as i can see, but real) dispute about what one might mean by 'O.T.O.', but also a very real confusion about to what "the A.'.A.'." refers.

you'll see mention made of various branches, or lines, or instantiations, or some other more peculiar and particular faction or facet of "the A.'.A.'.", and yet there are both more (Great White Brotherhood (GWB) franchises, Third Order contacts, or Celestial Master extensions) and less (one student per contact; no social events or functions; no actual rosters) complications to the mention of it at all. terrestrial history of what is called the A.'.A.'. starts with what was initiated by George Cecil Jones and Aleister Crowley, but its aftermath and its various outlets or wider scope of operation is usually too ambiguous and broad to specify with any accuracy.

the interest by some of cementing certain A.'.A.'. franchises to their order (OTO or other) is both strategic and subject to propagandizement for purpose of affiliation. there are reasons for a consideration of secrecy surrounding it, and all GWB manifestations, and one might compare references to it in public zones to a kind of 'encrustation' sliding from Third Order to Second Order (compare the inclusion of the GD interior to the A.'.A.'. as indicated by the essay 'One Star in Sight'). arguably social strife surrounding these is an indicator that the individual providing this is compromised, possibly helping to taint that about which they are speaking. contention amongst these, supposed, is a total disclosure of their disconnection from the Hidden Masters (whatever name they go by).

[Alrah]

@nigris said

"
@Azidonis said
"
@nigris said
"it's a top-down heirarchy (Old AEon). its incentives are only partly informed by A.'.A.'. standards (insofar as those who are affiliated to this initiatic club are actually connected to the Third Order). it isn't a democracy!! did you notice what happened when there were objections to 'reforms' made within the order previously?"
Oh, do tell! What happened "when there were objections to 'reforms' made within the order [A:.A:.] previously", and what were those objections and reforms?"
"NOT the AA, the OTO." additionally, i'd like to address this conflation and confusion somewhat. not only is there a (fairly ridiculous at this point since most of the realistic disputants have all but dropped their cases as far as i can see, but real) dispute about what one might mean by 'O.T.O.', but also a very real confusion about to what "the A.'.A.'." refers.

you'll see mention made of various branches, or lines, or instantiations, or some other more peculiar and particular faction or facet of "the A.'.A.'.", and yet there are both more (Great White Brotherhood (GWB) franchises, Third Order contacts, or Celestial Master extensions) and less (one student per contact; no social events or functions; no actual rosters) complications to the mention of it at all. terrestrial history of what is called the A.'.A.'. starts with what was initiated by George Cecil Jones and Aleister Crowley, but its aftermath and its various outlets or wider scope of operation is usually too ambiguous and broad to specify with any accuracy.

the interest by some of cementing certain A.'.A.'. franchises to their order (OTO or other) is both strategic and subject to propagandizement for purpose of affiliation. there are reasons for a consideration of secrecy surrounding it, and all GWB manifestations, and one might compare references to it in public zones to a kind of 'encrustation' sliding from Third Order to Second Order (compare the inclusion of the GD interior to the A.'.A.'. as indicated by the essay 'One Star in Sight'). arguably social strife surrounding these is an indicator that the individual providing this is compromised, possibly helping to taint that about which they are speaking. contention amongst these, supposed, is a total disclosure of their disconnection from the Hidden Masters (whatever name they go by)."

The Florence Farr lineage would speak of the sphere in contrast to mundane organisations (like the OTO) that derived their power from pyramid structures. It is the same idea as you set out above and more current or known of in GD lineages. The sphere is one that has no circumference, and so is more of a movement like Thelema, or like the GWB, or that transmitted from the traditions. The sphere promotes the balance, seeks the peace and furthers evolution or (r)evolution - depending upon the circumstances and they may hedge their bets too. It has no formal lodges or order but it is the true power at work upon the face of the Earth.

[Karel McCoy]

93. Hi I am new on this page. Salutations! There is a theme running through the kill fill "thing" that is evident to me. That is that, even those who are in agreement initially, resort to a dog scrap, and it is beyond disturbing. Although we have differing opinions, looking at us all "fighting as brothers" Makes me think of children trying to gain some authority and it is annoying. Civility is lost. Language limited. Ideas swamped. When we could be debating this emotive issue with at least some decency, decorum. All I can see is your a d... No, it's you, you are an as...... This is not about personal attack. But it has become so. And where do you think that will lead? I know where. But it is not a place anyone can move from or grow with. It is called Stalemate. Argue! I do! But please, not to insult each other. Even if you feel insulted yourself. You are my Brothers and Sisters, and I hold you in high regard. Be considerate, show how evolved you are. I also can say... shit fuck dick arse. But I choose not to.
    Sister Karel
    Sr. I.O

[nigris]

@Alrah said

"
@nigris said
"where it pertains to the Kill/Fill controversy, if you wonder how and why it may be that a strict hierarchy is 'Thelemic' in character, you're not alone, and one may take from certain military and quasi-masonic aspects of this social structure that its intention is to advance the principles, ideas, and doctrines of Thelema so conceived. if this includes refining Class A documents to proper conformity to their ideal form (each has one, based on a set of criteria perhaps spoken and published, perhaps never mentioned to the public), this is an element of that promulgation, and few others than the torch-bearers of the prophet's Will have any business trying to manage this."
That's a very interesting (and disturbing) idea nigris... Are you saying the motta branch (springing from a strongly influenced Catholic land)... are Thelemites of the wool?"
no, nothing of the sort. I do not recall ever meeting a self-identified "Motta A.'.A.'. aspirant". all i remember were Jane Wolfe / CoT/Sr Meral/PSeckler affiliates, and enjoyed those few i met very much. some informed me that they were affiliates with the Third Order directly, associating this with the A.'.A.'. but NOT with a human contact (my own involvement is of this character to my knowledge). please tell me more about the Motta affiliates and their "springing from a strongly influenced Catholic land"; which one?).

"... i.e. - externally Thelemic yet internally Christian and subverting Thelema and it's Holy Texts from within?"
I am really not getting how you are making this conclusion. help me follow you. you're saying that HBeta is a Motta A.'.A.'. affiliate and displays Osirian aims? see above for my expansion on to what A.'.A.'. refers (GWB franchises whose various portions may have NOTHING, ZERO to do with Crowley or his cults, English or American culture!). also, the term 'Thelemic' refers to more than religious groups (cults), and neither is any GWB franchise specifically contrary to Christianity, or Osirianism, nor is it necessarily connected to Aleister Crowley, his works, orders, groups, or fans.

the idea of 'subverting Thelema' is peculiar in the sense that one might subvert a cult or religious group, but once you allow 'Thelema' to mean more than this (such as a principle of the cosmos), then the notion of subverting this becomes challenging to discuss. you start running into ideology like 'true will' where orbits cannot be changed and surpass the ability of ordinary humans to affect (almost a Predestinarianism or Cosmic Justice Principle). I'm not sure these are actually substantiated (another topic, really, one which i will chime in upon elsewhere), and most who talk about 'subverting Thelema' don't usually have these more general interpretations of 'Thelema' in mind at all.

the idea of 'Thelemic Holy Texts" is popular amongst the cults but it is not at all substantiated by them. once one gets from "One Star in Sight" that at least the A.'.A.'. is supposed to be an instantiation of the GWB, it starts to have many more implications beyond what one may find within the Crowleyan sociocultural milieu. I won't try to claim that any of these are "real", "legitimate", or "more important than the Beast's wake", but such things should be considered seriously by those whose interests extend outside of them (say, to Rabelais, Walter Besant, New Thought, and Atkinson at least if not Taoist Celestial Masters and the Qutub(s?)). sure, i suppose that some post-Crowleyan might try to subvert or destroy the Beast's output, and there have been assertions about Grant, and Bertiaux, and Motta, and batches of alternative OTO or AA line contenders. it starts quickly to beg the question of what "Do what thou wilt" means, and who shall decide it, when defenders of the Beastocracy may command contenders to stop their efforts at innovation which "perturb" or "malign" or "confuse" the 'proper' text, ideas, belief, or dogma they seek to push elsewise. controlling one's own output, however, and commanding others to cease and desist are very different tones and actions.

"Holy Texts" deserve a complete annihilation or subversion to egalitarian status alongside all others, arguably, in the New AEon (of the Adversary) of my authority. Horusians might want to look beyond Osiris for conflict and competition, since the world (and the GWB) is demonstrably much larger than English-oriented post-Christianity. how the Magus proceeds is instructive, and the flock following afterward can avoid Slavishness by not propping it all up as the Grand New Religious Monolith. this emphasis on "Liber Al vel Legis" or "The Book of the Law" or "Liber L", as you wish, comes about in part after a subversion of the particular cultural wake of which it is in fact a more general pointer ('The Volume of Sacred Law' (VSL) of Freemasons, 'The Law Book' of Egyptians, Jews, any many many others in other cultures prior and later). where shall we call a halt to subversion and why?

there's a tension between the brilliant genius of a Magus and the inspiration of following out the true will of others. once the momentum of a cult takes shape and proceeds, this has the propensity to disorient those who encounter it. few seem to understand this dynamic in a way that fits in with Thelemic philosophy. discussion surrounding "Liber OZ" sometimes touches on all of these points. once diverse and divergent Thelemic sources are brought together, however, there are quickly disputes about which source is more authoritative, insightful, and worthy of consideration merely on the basis of what is presented. surely this is one of the reasons for advocation to desist from conversion or, indeed, from discussing a particular scripture entirely, though it may be preventative and parental to do so.

[nigris]

@Alrah said

"The Florence Farr lineage would speak of the sphere in contrast to mundane organisations (like the OTO) that derived their power from pyramid structures. It is the same idea as you set out above and more current or known of in GD lineages. The sphere is one that has no circumference, and so is more of a movement like Thelema, or like the GWB, or that transmitted from the traditions. The sphere promotes the balance, seeks the peace and furthers evolution or (r)evolution - depending upon the circumstances and they may hedge their bets too. It has no formal lodges or order but it is the true power at work upon the face of the Earth."
it does not sound like it would be a publishing outfit with terrestrial interests in putting its name on books it makes and getting a specific 'ideal form' of a book rectified. as such, this differs markedly from the OTO of which Hymenaeus Beta is the Frater Superior.

I'm wondering if too many people are placing too great an emphasis on the (c)OTO as a bastion and vanguard of Thelema here, with Hymenaeus Beta as its exemplar. we should be asking more about what other things that order does in the world, if it is known, beyond engage in legal struggles to secure copyrights and issue decisions about its prophet and his writings such that we should identify them with Thelema.

[Azidonis]

@nigris said

"hail Azidonis, sorry i missed your post previously. finding it today, i immediatly respond:"

Wow! I hardly expected a letter addressed to me, what with the pissing match going on and all. (Seriously, guys and gals - get a room or at least use PMs.)

Anyway, I'm going to trim some of this, nigris, if you don't mind.

@nigris said

"

@Azidonis said

"By "published versions" you mean the new versions of The Book of the Law that will show the change, right?"

oh sure, or the ones it controls which are online."

Right. So this is a change to The Book of the Law. Just wanted to clarify that, as it seemed like you implied they weren't changing it, when this is definitely a change.

@nigris said

"
you could easily put it that way, but this 'moulding' of Liber CCXX has been going on for years, not just recently. the reference standard had been a conceived interpretation of Liber L, naturally. this conception seems to have shifted. in the sense of 'changing a Class A document', i doubt anyone directly involved conceives of it in that way at all."

I don't know why you keep jumping to words like "moulding". It's clearly a change. An open, straight-forward, change from the MS to the TS. Any other words to make it seem like it's 'not that big of a change' are intentionally misleading, in my opinion.

@nigris said

"

"Unless you just see The Book of the Law as the manuscript only, with Liber CCXX not being The Book of the Law."
it seems difficult to support that, given that it's the latter with the name and the former as "Liber L. vel Legis". see book-of-the-law.com/#HOLO00 for what i am pointing to here."

I see that you agree that both the MS AND the TS are "The Book of the Law".

@nigris said

"
BTW, is this the manuscript cover page or the typescribe cover page?"

Pretty sure it's the MS cover page.

@nigris said

"
anyone know what hotel letter paper this is? I'm enlisting the help of a couple of scholars to suss out Crowleyan Arabic/Farsi soon."

I recall a very extensive thread covering this a couple years ago on lashtal.com. You may be able to find it with a forum search.

@nigris said

"

@Azidonis said

"This refers to "adoption", and I would have advised Crowley against ever doing it, with his list of Saints. But what do I know?"
I don't think that i really understand this. which part is the 'adoption'? reaching out? understanding the principle of Will (Thelema) to refer to something inherent to human beings of any culture?"

I used to do that, but found that it's really overreaching the bounds of Thelema, and seems to be more subjective than objective. That is, instead of learning a person well enough to see how they are executing their Will within their own chosen paradigm or system, a tendency exists to try and transplant the idea of Thelema onto those same people, which is a form of judgement.

@nigris said

"
@Azidonis said
"Oh, do tell! What happened "when there were objections to 'reforms' made within the order [A:.A:.] previously", and what were those objections and reforms?"

NOT the AA, the OTO."

I see. Well, my interest in this thread isn't really the O.T.O.

But, I would not want to see your work go to deaf ears, so I'll give it a read.

@nigris said

"
with the reforms made by Hymenaeus Beta regarding the Bishops of the EGC, the official Gnostic Mass Cakes of Light and the Saints List (surely there were others i'm forgetting) discussion was minimal, directives were issued from the top down and expected to be followed (probably from the Head Council under the direction of the Frater Superior). there was dispersal in part due to differences of opinion on these and other matters. likely that's part of many changes of administration. Hymenaeus Alpha (Grady McMurtry) was a different type of administrator in the San Francisco Bay Area than HBeta in New York. attitudes about sex, drugs (and rock and roll?), and church all seemed to play out differently. changes to the way that initiation rituals are handled, what was part of them, etc., all elicited some irritation/criticism in my vicinity of post-Alpha wakefulness."

Okay,

@nigris said

"
in his defense, such hierarchical direction was good for the order's cohesiveness as a religious group (a cult)."

A cult full of people thinking themselves individuals. How ironic! (Just had to.

@nigris said

"
its upper administrative quarters, coincident with the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica, was standardized and brought more strongly into line with sustainable practices and ideological facets given the climate and context of its geographical spread."

Okay.

@nigris said

"
as an aim, the promulgation of the Law of Thelema need not actually demonstrate its quality as a forefront factor, especially for a 'secret society'. what is imperative is that the idea be repeatedly put out there for the Strong to find and of which to make use."

This could harbor some debate, but I see your angle here. I do not disagree, but I'm not really interested in discussing it in this thread.

@nigris said

"
where it pertains to the Kill/Fill controversy, if you wonder how and why it may be that a strict hierarchy is 'Thelemic' in character, you're not alone, and one may take from certain military and quasi-masonic aspects of this social structure that its intention is to advance the principles, ideas, and doctrines of Thelema so conceived. if this includes refining Class A documents to proper conformity to their ideal form (each has one, based on a set of criteria perhaps spoken and published, perhaps never mentioned to the public), this is an element of that promulgation, and few others than the torch-bearers of the prophet's Will have any business trying to manage this."

Again, instead of "mould" you used "refine", but you admitted that it is a "change". It's a change. No need to color it. No need to avoid any implications it may have.

Saying that everyone has an "ideal form" for a Class A document is misleading. There is a definite instruction not to change even the style of a letter. Thus, the text itself is designed to have an objective effect on the subjective nature of our individual awarenesses. So, our own ideals of the Book may include an "ideal form" (or image), but the Book is pretty clearly supposed to remain as it was written in the MS.

When people go deciding to alter that, especially according to "scholarship", they have transposed their subjective viewpoint onto an object that was intended to present an objective effect, ie. a control in the Experiment called the Great Work, of which the Universe itself (and how it is perceived) is the ever-changing variable.

[nigris]

@Azidonis said

"...Right. So this is a change to The Book of the Law. Just wanted to clarify that, as it seemed like you implied they weren't changing it, when this is definitely a change."
this is a change in versions of The Book of the Law (Liber CCXX). "The Book of the Law" (not versions) is an ideal, and one whose referent varies somewhat.

"
@nigris said
"...this 'moulding' of Liber CCXX has been going on for years, not just recently. the reference standard had been a conceived interpretation of Liber L, naturally. this conception seems to have shifted. in the sense of 'changing a Class A document', i doubt anyone directly involved conceives of it in that way at all."
I don't know why you keep jumping to words like "moulding"."
because we're talking about Liber CCXX, and that appears never to have received the same content and typesetting since the day it was first typed up (only stabilized when photoreproduced). those changes were errors creeping in from the first typescript through to today.

"It's clearly a change. An open, straight-forward, change from the MS to the TS. Any other words to make it seem like it's 'not that big of a change' are intentionally misleading, in my opinion."
I think if you read my earliest contributions on this subject you'll see that i was pointing out the fact that these kinds of changes (to the manuscript) had been happening from the first days of reception. if you accept those changes (like the Scarlet Woman's addition, or the intruded line from Crowley, or the prepended 'Had!'), then where do you draw the line and why? in the manuscript there are entire lines crossed off and corrected, so this notion of 'not changing so much as the style of a letter' was abandoned long ago. it's always been about some arbitrarily accepted ideal surrounding the manuscript at a given time and the publisher's interpretation of what the 'real' document included, in the best cases based on the expressions of the Scribe.

"
@nigris said
"
"Unless you just see The Book of the Law as the manuscript only, with Liber CCXX not being The Book of the Law."
it seems difficult to support that, given that it's the latter with the name and the former as "Liber L. vel Legis". see book-of-the-law.com/#HOLO00 for what i am pointing to here."
I see that you agree that both the MS AND the TS are "The Book of the Law"."
odd vision, given that i said just the opposite. I do not equate "Liber L. vel Legis" and "Liber Al vel Legis" as titles, though they are close. do you know what "L." stands for?

@Azidonis said

"This refers to "adoption", and I would have advised Crowley against ever doing it, with his list of Saints. But what do I know?"
{elaborating:}
"...instead of learning a person well enough to see how they are executing their Will within their own chosen paradigm or system, a tendency exists to try and transplant the idea of Thelema onto those same people, which is a form of judgement."
I join with you in opposing such things. I've seen it in every cultic milieu.

"
@nigris said
"...refining Class A documents to proper conformity to their ideal form (each has one, based on a set of criteria perhaps spoken and published, perhaps never mentioned to the public)..."
Again, instead of "mould" you used "refine", but you admitted that it is a "change". It's a change...."
disagreed. we simply disagree about the facts. you are talking about a transcendental or ideal as if everyone shared it and as if there is and was a given trigger-point at which we could observe it was 'changed'. nothing could be further from the truth, and if you were to look at the various editions of Liber CCXX through time then you'd see that they were fluctuating. if that fluctuation doesn't bother you, then you may just be talking about an ideal within a certain cultic context, in which case i can agree that such a small group can and has (at times) arrived at a consensus about what that ideal includes. I see that at this time the OTO does NOT have such a consensus about this ideal.

"Saying that everyone has an "ideal form" for a Class A document is misleading."
not that everyone has one, only that there are variations in ideal amongst the Thelemic subculture as to what this ideal "The Book of the Law" does and does not include.

"There is a definite instruction not to change even the style of a letter."
INdefinite instruction. we don't know to whom it was given, though we can infer it was to the Scribe. the Class A category didn't arrive with the scripture itself. it was assigned to the work by the Scribe, who then saw fit to break the letter of the rule. we need to ask at what point in time should have the changes ceased? if at the time of the first pass, then this did not occur. if at the time of the corrections and completions by the Scribe then this did not occur. if at the time of the additions by the Scarlet Woman, then this did not occur. if after all the changes by the Scribe and his Scarlet Woman which seemed necessary, then the typescript was bungled and included many errors. if after the typescript was corrected then this, arguably, has NEVER ONCE OCCURRED, though Frater Eshelman claims that there was a time when Crowley crowed that he'd "finally got it right" (later finding errors that needed correcting). Hymenaeus Beta found another one. why you see that it is necessary to draw the line at instructions rather that literal contents, i really do understand. it does say "fill" on Liber XXXI.

"Thus, the text itself is designed to have an objective effect on the subjective nature of our individual awarenesses."
not demonstrated or immediately apparent. not only did the Scribe claim not to have done so, but we have no access to the author so claimed. did the Scribe claim this? it wouldn't surprise me. he claimed many outrageous things about his scription. I've done so about my own.

"So, our own ideals of the Book may include an "ideal form" (or image), but the Book is pretty clearly supposed to remain as it was written in the MS."
again, if you literally mean that, then Liber CCXX has NEVER been printed correctly. the best that i've ever seen at this is what i am now attempting at book-of-the-law.com where i am attempting to showcase the manuscript's exact content as well as the scripture with descriptions of variations and commentary by Crowley and several others.