"Kill/Fill" - not "Kill Bill"

[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.

[Azidonis]

@nigris said

"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."

A change in versions? Are we going to have a Baptist version, Catholic version, etc.? Slippery slope, when you mention versions.

@nigris said

"
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."

What was it, the 1938 version that Crowley considered correct?

@nigris said

"
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."

I'm noting who is making the change. That Crowley and Rose made changes is fine by me. It's 'their' book. Also, those changes were apparently made 'at the direction of Aiwass'. The proposed change does not fit any of that criteria.

@nigris said

"
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?"

"In the first edition this Book is called L. L is the sacred letter in the Holy Twelve-fold Table which forms the triangle that stabilizes the Universe. See "Liber 418". L is the letter of Libra, Balance, and 'Justice' in the Taro. This title should probably be "AL", "El", as the 'L' was heard of the Voice of Aiwaz, not seen. "AL" is the true name of the Book, for these letters, and their number 31, form the Master Key to its Mysteries." - Crowley

And just so you know, I've had the habit, for years, to call the book (both the MS and the TS) Liber L. I've pretty much always only called the MS Liber L.

As for Crowley's change a la Achad, that's Crowley's business.

I've continually tried to point out here that there is a difference between Crowley (or Rose) making any changes or alterations to the book, and other people.

For instance, if he put the 'k' in his copy for some reason, maybe in thinking about changing that letter, that's his business. I'm okay with it. It's his book. But, he printed it every single time with an 'f', and the MS clearly has an 'f'. No typescript version of the book from Crowley has the 'k' printed.

Thus, it is the changes from 'scholarship' that I question.

@nigris said

"
I join with you in opposing such things. I've seen it in every cultic milieu."

Yes.

@nigris said

"
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."

No. I've read the manuscript itself multiple times. In fact, I've learned to read the MS without referring to the TS, which is not at all easy, considering Crowley's atrocious handwriting.

And what I am saying, all I have been saying, is that the TS should reflect the MS. If some typist could not read or proof-read Crowley's handwriting correctly, that's not my problem.

But, when Crowley goes through pains to make such corrections, and then prints a TS that he considers accurate, and does not even one time bother changing 'f' to 'k' in any rendition of the TS, then there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Crowley wanted it to remain 'f', and not 'k'.

As I said on the other forum, to say that Crowley "really did want to change 'f' to 'k', but he didn't," implies either incompetence or negligence on his part. I find him guilty of neither.

@nigris said

"
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."

Because a couple of cronies saw a 'k' somewhere in a side note?

@nigris said

"
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."

Again, the initial changes were 'directed by Aiwass', according to Crowley.

The MS. shows what has been done, and why, as follows:

On page 6 Aiwaz instructs me to "write this (what he had just said) in whiter words," for my mind revelled at His phrase. He added at once "But go forth on," i.e., with His utterance, leaving the emendation until later.
On page 19 I failed to hear a sentence, and (later on) the Scarlet Woman, invoking Aiwass, wrote in the missing words. (How? She was not in the room at the time, and heard nothing.)
Page 20 of Cap. III, I got a phrase indistinctly, and she put it in, as for "B."
The versified paraphrase of the hieroglyphs on the Stele being ready, Aiwaz allowed me to insert these later, so as to save time. 

These four apart, the MS. is exactly as it was written on those three days. The Critical Recension will explain theses points as they occur.

@nigris said

"
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."

Again, I'm okay with correcting typographical errors. "Oh, that first word is 'Had'. Why did you put Yad? Please change it to Had." or... "Oh, I see you left out a letter here, or made a typo there. Why did you send it to the press like that? Why didn't you call me? Nevermind. We'll correct it in future editions."

In NO edition did Crowley make a change from 'f' to 'k'. The best evidence for that is in a side note, in pencil.

Also, again, the "fill" was written in PENCIL. Had Crowley really wanted to change it, he could have erased the pencil marking 'f', changed it to 'k', and we would be none the wiser. But, he didn't. In over thirty years of publishing the book, Crowley never printed a published version of the book as "kill". And, the MS clearly says "fill".

Point being, there is not enough evidence to even make the change, if one were actually warranted.

@nigris said

"
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.

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."

I've seen your website. It's an admirable venture. If the letters in the TS are faithful to the MS, then there is no issue.

Also, I see that you have "fill" on your website. Why do you have it as "fill"?

This is also an opportunity to point to the new comment, which is,

"Stanza 3 suggests the Rosicrucian Benediction:

May thy Mind be open unto the Higher!
May thy Heart be the centre of Light!
May thy Body be the Temple of the Rosy Cross! "

"fill" fulfills this comment. "kill" does not.

[nigris]

@Azidonis said

"A change in versions? Are we going to have a Baptist version, Catholic version, etc.? Slippery slope, when you mention versions."
yes, it's just the way of cults. I agree it's a slippery slope. I tend to select my own preference as you do and proceed accordingly, unless i am trying to put forward an educational or study document, in which case i'll want to reflect as much variation is included in tradition.

"What was it, the 1938 version that Crowley considered correct?"
that would be for Fr. Eshelman to answer, as i have only seen him refer to it. I have no reason to doubt this and think it is interesting.

@nigris said

"...I'm noting who is making the change. That Crowley and Rose made changes is fine by me. It's 'their' book. Also, those changes were apparently made 'at the direction of Aiwass'. The proposed change does not fit any of that criteria."
transparent and excellently argued. your reasoning is completely supportable.

"...I've had the habit, for years, to call the book (both the MS and the TS) Liber L. I've pretty much always only called the MS Liber L."
a helpful clarification. since it is not my scripture i tend to refer to the numbers (XXXI, CCXX) so as to remain clear or refer to the both as "Crowley's scripture" and imply by the more exalted term outside a context of reference a category transcendent to both (and inclusive of other Lawbooks, Volumes of Sacred Law, etc., including my own, The Gospel of Satan).

"...there is a difference between Crowley (or Rose) making any changes or alterations to the book, and other people.... Thus, it is the changes from 'scholarship' that I question."
again, completely supportable, wisely questioned and even opposed. I'm gleaning at this point that our primary obstacle was semantic, since i am agreeing, based on the premises you're specifying, with your conclusions (i have little invested in the matter myself since it isn't my scripture, and my role is to be sure i have the details in mind when helping others to get a clear picture of what went on prior to it arriving online).

"...the TS should reflect the MS. If some typist could not read or proof-read Crowley's handwriting correctly, that's not my problem."
understood, and so since you do not have the vellum book, how will you fill out the Stele lines? will you leave it as it is to be found in the manuscript? or do you want to complete it using some standard? is that standard supposing 'kill' in the vellum book? (why does Fr. Eshelman suppose it likely that the paraphrase has 'kill' in what was lost, yet still ignore this direction from Aiwass to quote the vellum, and to leave it as 'fill'? I never understood the logic, aside from the fact that, like you and many others have reasonably concluded, since no correction was issued in any Liber CCXX, then it ought remain as is?)

"...to say that Crowley "really did want to change 'f' to 'k', but he didn't," implies either incompetence or negligence on his part. I find him guilty of neither."
yes it does seem so. the argument, to be fair, was that the paraphrase was changed to kill in more than one instance of printing and proofreading. the most i can follow can be inferred is that Crowley wanted the paraphrase to be different than Liber CCXX.

"
@nigris said
"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."
Because a couple of cronies saw a 'k' somewhere in a side note?"
hey, i won't bother to try to justify, support, or deny the "inspired" reasons that cultists will arrive at their ideal versions. I know better than that. all that i am attempting to do is to participate in a 'fair hearing' of the logic where it can be known. in the instance of Hymenaeus Beta he has given a pretty clear set of data explaining why he will want to refine his ideal and may do so if he doesn't get a lot of opposition from interior to his order and church. I'm guessing based on previous implementation that 1) the issue isn't that important to some of those affected and 2) capitulation from inferiors will be consonant with oaths and vows already secured. ideas beyond this that Thelema is somehow coincident with the OTO seem, to me, completely unfounded. hey, they'll be doing us a favour. they'll stigmatize their Thelemic flavour by sigilizing (an Osirian quality to?) their scripture. yes, this is the slide down a slippery slope into sectarianism. set up a sect and expect that events like these will result in sectarianism. if one is not a participant in cults, in sects, then one does not encounter this.

"...I'm okay with correcting typographical errors.... ...there is not enough evidence to even make the change, if one were actually warranted."
I completely understand this conclusion and think that it is reasonable.

"I've seen your website. It's an admirable venture. If the letters in the TS are faithful to the MS, then there is no issue. Also, I see that you have "fill" on your website. Why do you have it as "fill"?"
because, like you, i have not yet found the argument convincing. however. i am a responsible philosopher and have been attempting to bolster both sides of the argument strongly and find a way to see a way to agree with both before reaching a final decision. I'll take a long time to examine it and watch general Thelemic response before making that particular decision/change. I've been doing radical things with the commentary already (by moving numerological, gematric, and qabalistic explications to an appendix, which research indicates was planned) and to the content of Liber CCXX by trying as completely as possible to provide the manuscript through to the typescript (we seem to share this strong interest).

"This is also an opportunity to point to the new comment, which is, "Stanza 3 suggests the Rosicrucian Benediction:
May thy Mind be open unto the Higher!
May thy Heart be the centre of Light!
May thy Body be the Temple of the Rosy Cross! " "fill" fulfills this comment. "kill" does not."
please elaborate your reasoning on this point. how does it fulfill this comment and how does 'kill' not do so? thank you kindly for your time and attention.

[Jim Eshelman]

FYI position is: What matter is what made it to the manuscript of L., not what was in the original versification. I don't care what was in the original. When (in the immediate aftermath of the reception) he wrote "fill" on the physical manuscript, that (literally) became gospel. I make no room for mistakes at that point. Something impelled him to write "fill." I don't need to know what it was, only that it happened.

[Azidonis]

@nigris said

"
@Azidonis said
"A change in versions? Are we going to have a Baptist version, Catholic version, etc.? Slippery slope, when you mention versions."
yes, it's just the way of cults. I agree it's a slippery slope. I tend to select my own preference as you do and proceed accordingly, unless i am trying to put forward an educational or study document, in which case i'll want to reflect as much variation is included in tradition."

Honestly, I try to have no preference. It's definitely not an easy task. Nor is it a hard task.

It's easy to do in an isolated environment, much harder to do in the social cultural trappings of a 'modern' environment.

In the current case though, I don't mind making a preference of "fill" over "kill". I think it has more to do with maintaining the integrity of the text than any 'scholarly findings'.

@nigris said

"

"What was it, the 1938 version that Crowley considered correct?"
that would be for Fr. Eshelman to answer, as i have only seen him refer to it. I have no reason to doubt this and think it is interesting."

I think this is an appropriate place to cite: An Essay Concerning Liber CCXX and the Fill vs Kill Debate.

@nigris said

"

"...I've had the habit, for years, to call the book (both the MS and the TS) Liber L. I've pretty much always only called the MS Liber L."
a helpful clarification. since it is not my scripture i tend to refer to the numbers (XXXI, CCXX) so as to remain clear or refer to the both as "Crowley's scripture" and imply by the more exalted term outside a context of reference a category transcendent to both (and inclusive of other Lawbooks, Volumes of Sacred Law, etc., including my own, The Gospel of Satan)."

Well, referring to the number is fine. In my opinion, we should not have to though. Liber CCXX should textually mirror Liber XXXI. I think the 'corrections' should be limited to typos that have occurred during printing, and the few corrections that Crowley himself cited in The Equinox of the Gods.

@nigris said

"

"...there is a difference between Crowley (or Rose) making any changes or alterations to the book, and other people.... Thus, it is the changes from 'scholarship' that I question."
again, completely supportable, wisely questioned and even opposed. I'm gleaning at this point that our primary obstacle was semantic, since i am agreeing, based on the premises you're specifying, with your conclusions (i have little invested in the matter myself since it isn't my scripture, and my role is to be sure i have the details in mind when helping others to get a clear picture of what went on prior to it arriving online)."

The link I provided should help with some of the available details. Not sure if you've seen it yet or not.

@nigris said

"

"...the TS should reflect the MS. If some typist could not read or proof-read Crowley's handwriting correctly, that's not my problem."
understood, and so since you do not have the vellum book, how will you fill out the Stele lines? will you leave it as it is to be found in the manuscript? or do you want to complete it using some standard? is that standard supposing 'kill' in the vellum book? (why does Fr. Eshelman suppose it likely that the paraphrase has 'kill' in what was lost, yet still ignore this direction from Aiwass to quote the vellum, and to leave it as 'fill'? I never understood the logic, aside from the fact that, like you and many others have reasonably concluded, since no correction was issued in any Liber CCXX, then it ought remain as is?)"

Honestly, I could care less what the vellum book, or any other book aside from Liber XXXI says. Further and again, that "fill" was written in pencil, and never changed, says more for Crowley's thoughts towards the integrity of the MS than a side note in a printed copy.

@nigris said

"

"...to say that Crowley "really did want to change 'f' to 'k', but he didn't," implies either incompetence or negligence on his part. I find him guilty of neither."
yes it does seem so. the argument, to be fair, was that the paraphrase was changed to kill in more than one instance of printing and proofreading. the most i can follow can be inferred is that Crowley wanted the paraphrase to be different than Liber CCXX."

Well, both "fill" and "kill" have certain implications. But, Crowley definitely maintained "fill" when dealing with Libers XXXI and CCXX. Whatever he did with his poetry and his rituals are another subject, although closely related.

@nigris said

"

"
@nigris said
"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."
Because a couple of cronies saw a 'k' somewhere in a side note?"
hey, i won't bother to try to justify, support, or deny the "inspired" reasons that cultists will arrive at their ideal versions. I know better than that. all that i am attempting to do is to participate in a 'fair hearing' of the logic where it can be known. in the instance of Hymenaeus Beta he has given a pretty clear set of data explaining why he will want to refine his ideal and may do so if he doesn't get a lot of opposition from interior to his order and church."

As I said before, H.B. is asserting that Crowley was either negligent or incompetent, if he is trying to say that Crowley really did want it to say "kill". That Crowley had worked with both versions in rituals and other renderings, but never once changed The Book of the Law itself, other than a side note which could mean anything, the 'logical' conclusion is that he drew some sort of conclusion, at some point, that both XXXI and CCXX should be "fill". On top of that, he made no mention anywhere of it being a discrepancy, and had over 30 years and many printings to make a change had he saw fit to do so.

@nigris said

"
I'm guessing based on previous implementation that 1) the issue isn't that important to some of those affected and
"

Well, I'm not going to be hypocritical and call for "non-judgement" in one case and "judgement" in another. I do think that evidence exists more in favor of "Crowleyanity" than "Mastery" in relation to the masses though.

@nigris said

"

2. capitulation from inferiors will be consonant with oaths and vows already secured."

It is my understanding that O.T.O. members take an Oath to not change the book.

Such an Oath does not exist in the A:.A:., but in the A:.A:. it is understood that it's quite simply a "no no", in any lineage of the A:.A:. that I have been affiliated with, at least. It's not even a question of changing the Book.

Hell, had I mentioned wanting to change the Book in my earlier years, I can see it now... "Get back to Work! You are letting yourself become too idle if you have time to think of frivolous nonsense like that!"

@nigris said

"
ideas beyond this that Thelema is somehow coincident with the OTO seem, to me, completely unfounded. hey, they'll be doing us a favour. they'll stigmatize their Thelemic flavour by sigilizing (an Osirian quality to?) their scripture. yes, this is the slide down a slippery slope into sectarianism. set up a sect and expect that events like these will result in sectarianism. if one is not a participant in cults, in sects, then one does not encounter this."

The more sections (divisions) that occur, the further future generations will initially be from the truth.

@nigris said

"

"I've seen your website. It's an admirable venture. If the letters in the TS are faithful to the MS, then there is no issue. Also, I see that you have "fill" on your website. Why do you have it as "fill"?"
because, like you, i have not yet found the argument convincing. however. i am a responsible philosopher and have been attempting to bolster both sides of the argument strongly and find a way to see a way to agree with both before reaching a final decision."

It seems useful to break out a list of logical fallacies, and begin to enumerate.

@nigris said

"
I'll take a long time to examine it and watch general Thelemic response before making that particular decision/change.
"

Best of luck in this.

@nigris said

"
I've been doing radical things with the commentary already (by moving numerological, gematric, and qabalistic explications to an appendix, which research indicates was planned) and to the content of Liber CCXX by trying as completely as possible to provide the manuscript through to the typescript (we seem to share this strong interest)."

I'm interested in it only in the light of the integrity of Crowley's work. It is my opinion that The Book of the Law is the very cornerstone of Crowley's entire system. To think that a person would spend their entire life on a text like this, to the point that they will drop everything they are doing in a split second just to do what they think the Book indicates that they should do, is an admirable display of willpower. And, the compassionate parts of me just cringe when I see people wanting to try and take advantage of his work for their own sake, whether for good or ill. And, when there is money involved, it becomes even more sickening.

@nigris said

"

"This is also an opportunity to point to the new comment, which is, "Stanza 3 suggests the Rosicrucian Benediction:
May thy Mind be open unto the Higher!
May thy Heart be the centre of Light!
May thy Body be the Temple of the Rosy Cross! " "fill" fulfills this comment. "kill" does not."
please elaborate your reasoning on this point. how does it fulfill this comment and how does 'kill' not do so?"

I am working with time constraints at the moment. But, I will leave you a leading question, and maybe that will get the ball rolling for a later time.

Does "kill" relate better to the Formula of the Rosy Cross than "fill"? If so, how?

I maintain that it does not.

@nigris said

"thank you kindly for your time and attention."

Likewise. Until next time, sir.

@Jim Eshelman said

"FYI position is: What matter is what made it to the manuscript of L., not what was in the original versification. I don't care what was in the original. When (in the immediate aftermath of the reception) he wrote "fill" on the physical manuscript, that (literally) became gospel. I make no room for mistakes at that point. Something impelled him to write "fill." I don't need to know what it was, only that it happened."

Agreed.

[nigris]

@Azidonis said

"
"This is also an opportunity to point to the new comment, which is, "Stanza 3 suggests the Rosicrucian Benediction:
May thy Mind be open unto the Higher!
May thy Heart be the centre of Light!
May thy Body be the Temple of the Rosy Cross! " "fill" fulfills this comment. "kill" does not."
{elaborating} I am working with time constraints at the moment. But, I will leave you a leading question, and maybe that will get the ball rolling for a later time. Does "kill" relate better to the Formula of the Rosy Cross than "fill"? If so, how? I maintain that it does not."
well, for a superordinary 'self-slain god'(?), i'm unsure what applies, but isn't a cross a death-inflicting symbol? not sure whether a rosy cross indicates more than some kind of death-rebirth scenario. if he's the self-slain and is still talking, maybe he went through death and is now telling about it?

[Alrah]

The total number of characters in CCXX is 23,520 (sans punctuation and the verse numbers from Chapter 1 as they are not included in the handwritten MS).
The total number of characters in CCXX III,37 = 420. R (200) + K (220).

The Golden Dawn didn’t have the true number attribution of the ‘K’ but there are 220 ‘K’s in the Book of the Law, relating to older Kabbalah where Kaph is of Solar origin. She is the hidden and concealed Mother. Where the Father is manifested she is hidden, and when she is manifested the Father is hidden. She is ‘the light’, which is also the veil. Using Temple values:

ADM or AMD (Adam or the Fool) = 45.
45 x 5 = 225 AKD (Akkad – a city like Babylon, where the Akkadian Empire was centred, and the worship of the Goddess Anu/Innana was prominent.)

As the 420 characters of III, 37 refer to the hiding of the Solar Mother (seen in the Chariot card) then we remove/hide 420 from the calculations to get a straight 23100 characters in CCXX, Which is VITAL (see II,15) when using Temple values: V = 9 + I = 211 + T = 11 = 231. The path of Lamed (aka ALR) also = 231 on the Temple.

Finally, using the value of the Lost Word rounded up two steps then 21700 divided by 231 = 93.9393939393 E (recurring decimal)...

And much more... of course – the change HB makes to the Book kills the higher mathematics of the book.

John Griffith & Leo Gillis have also been doing a neat bit of work on Lashtal in a similar vein, but they remove all the verse numbers to get a total character count of 23112 from the Book. But I was inspired to produce a right angled triangle from the book as well. Using the integers 231 & 200 (significant numbers!) I get an area of precisely 23100! Hehehe.

Alrah. 93 93/93.

p.s. - there is an online right angled triangle calculator available here to check this number: www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm

[LAShTAL]

Frater Superior of the OTO has today published a very substantial third paper and extensive appendices explaining the decision to implement a change to Liber CCXX.

www.lashtal.com/forum/index.php?topic=6188.msg76917;

[Alrah]

@LAShTAL said

"Frater Superior of the OTO has today published a very substantial third paper and extensive appendices explaining the decision to implement a change to Liber CCXX.

www.lashtal.com/forum/index.php?topic=6188.msg76917;"

I've read it. He says Crowley must have 'forgot' that the 'fill me' in the Evocation of Bartzabel was really a 'kill me'. In other words - he's defending a two typo theory.

""I think it possible that, when writing “Bartzabel” in May 1910, Crowley had simply forgotten
that his Stèle Paraphrase had originally read “kill me,” and working fast, copied out the wording in
Thelema with slight variants, or was writing from memory of his readings in Thelema. The MS. of
“Bartzabel” does have a white heat quality about the writing. ""

Of course... he's assuming that the original paraphrase of the Stele says 'kill me'...

(It doesn't, but I have to respect the confidentiality of my source about this at this time, and I'm afraid I cannot say further right now. All in good time... so be in good cheer! I am! )

[Jim Eshelman]

@LAShTAL said

"Frater Superior of the OTO has today published a very substantial third paper and extensive appendices explaining the decision to implement a change to Liber CCXX.

www.lashtal.com/forum/index.php?topic=6188.msg76917;"

Paul, thanks for cross-posting this here and sharing it with us.

[belmurru]

@Alrah said

"
Of course... he's assuming that the original paraphrase of the Stele says 'kill me'...

(It doesn't, but I have to respect the confidentiality of my source about this at this time, and I'm afraid I cannot say further right now. All in good time... so be in good cheer! I am! )"

Are you implying that the "Vellum Book" exists, and you know who has it?

[Archaeus]

"Distrust any explanation whatsoever. Disreali said: Never ask anyone to dinner who has to be explained. All explanations are intended to cover up lies, injustices, or shames. The Truth is radiantly simple."

Liber al II:30, with new commentary:

Anyway; been away for a while doing my own thing, I come back to the whole kill/fill thing even more certain that the whole thing is rubbish, as a friend of mine said: A fish rots from the head first. I have withdrawn my support from (C)OTO and will be attending to my own work without being disturbed by their antics.

The slaves shall serve.

[The_Hawkheaded_child]

Archaeus,

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

@Archaeus said

""Distrust any explanation whatsoever. Disreali said: Never ask anyone to dinner who has to be explained. All explanations are intended to cover up lies, injustices, or shames. The Truth is radiantly simple.""

Thank you for that quote; best quote ever. I can't stand these "walking brains" (scholars, bureaucrats, politicians etc.) invoking "because" all the time - and getting away with it! - fooling the ordinary man for being "intelligent", when the case often really is severe retardation!

These "air-heads", "Rainmen" whatever; are destroying the world as a whole.

The cure is simply not to argue; not to listen. My former psychopathic boss; my Master and teacher learned me all about this skill. I used to come to her with this "problem", and she talked and reasoned for a while, and finally I left the room with this good feeling - only to find out a week later, that the problem remained and that I was still angry...

That's why there is a point in time when I simply stop listening, because if you do listen you are "lost" in the pit called because...

EDIT: Oh yes, about the matter at hand: It is so simple, the most simplest thing in the world, but these "masterminds", these "air-heads" fail to understand simple logic:

YOU CAN MAKE AN ARGUMENT OUT OF BOTH PERSPECTIVES - "TO CHANGE OR NOT TO CHANGE"... THIS MAKES THE CHANGING FROM "FILLME" TO "KILLME", TO BE NOTHING BUT A VERY "VAGUE" AND "SPECULATIVE" CASE - SINCE THE OPPOSITE IS JUST AS TRUE!

THIS IS THE MOST SIMPLE LOGIC THAT EVEN A SMALL CHILD CAN UNDERSTAND - BUT THE "INTELLECTUAL" - THE "AIR-HEAD" FAILS HORRIBLY IN THIS...

Love is the law, love under will.

Peace

[Metzareph]

"I've read it. He says Crowley must have 'forgot' that the 'fill me' in the Evocation of Bartzabel was really a 'kill me'. In other words - he's defending a two typo theory. "

So according to this, Crowley was Mr. Magoo and not the Magus of the Aeon.

[Alrah]

@Metzareph said

"
"I've read it. He says Crowley must have 'forgot' that the 'fill me' in the Evocation of Bartzabel was really a 'kill me'. In other words - he's defending a two typo theory. "

So according to this, Crowley was Mr. Magoo and not the Magus of the Aeon."

Basically! According to Gunther lineage then Crowley was forgetful, negligent, and was a chess master with a bad memory (that's a first!). Or he was overworked, too drug addled to cope, lazy (that explains K2 then..).

I chalk it up as psychological projections on their part. HB makes a mistake with kill & fill so Crowley must have made a mistake. HB is overworked while editing the Holy Books so Crowley must have been overworked. HB forgets to make footnotes so Crowley must have been forgetful and negligent too. Crowley took cocaine at times (such interesting effects on the ego)... is this why HB cannot really imagine himself wrong on this issue despite all the evidence to the contrary? Actually, I would seriously like to know if HB has a drug problem.

[Azidonis]

I got about 8 pages into H.B.'s third document, and do plan on going over some remarks within it, when time permits. For now though, I would like to point out a statement made in his second argument.

That is, "I am grateful to the the Officers of the A.'.A.'. for consenting to the release of part of this ritual material. This was done in the public interest, so as to further our
understanding of Crowley’s intention with Liber Legis". - H.B.

If someone wouldn't mind helping me understand English, saying "the Officers of the A.'.A.'." implies one of two things: 1) ALL of the Officers of the A.'.A.'., or 2) THE Officers of the A.'.A.'. (as in, the 'main ones'). Maybe it implies a third thing. If someone would please help me understand this not-so-subtle wording, I will be grateful. As I said, even though English is regrettably my first and only fluent language, I still have a hard time understanding what may appear to others as "clear".

[Alrah]

Has anyone noticed that the scan of the handwritten MS of the Evocation of Bartzabel, contains a correction by Crowley at the top of the page? The correction is written in a heavier pen, which suggests Crowley checked the MS and corrected it after he had written it. The point being that he had the opportunity to correct the 'fill me' if he'd considered it a typo - and he didn't.

@Az - I think what HB means by the phrase "The Officers of the A.'.A.'." is "The Officers of THE A.'.A.'." Gunther, Wasserman and Breeze typically take the attitude that their A.'.A.'. is the* one and only* and have even had the temerity to suggest that lineages such as the Soror Meral A.'.A.'., or the McMurtry lineage, or the Motta lineage currently run by Ray Eales, should all change their name and not call themselves A.'.A.'. anymore!

What can we say about such rank egotism? Well... here's a picture!

http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/ae111/alrah/Loto_zpseac97ac0.jpg

[Metzareph]

" I think what HB means by the phrase "The Officers of the A.'.A.'." is "The Officers of THE A.'.A.'." Gunther, Wasserman and Breeze "

I'm guessing that they are the creators of Liber Vesta as well?