"Kill/Fill" - not "Kill Bill"
-
@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. -
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.
-
@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
"
- 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.
-
@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? -
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
-
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.
-
@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!
) -
@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.
-
@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?
-
"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.
-
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
-
"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.
-
@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.
-
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".
-
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
-
" 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?
-
Azidonis - I believe the talk given by James Wasserman last December answers you question about the officers of the A.'.A.'. referred to by HB. According to Wasserman there are only 3 officers. Here is the transcript of his speech.
"James Wasserman speaking on Dec 16th 2012 at the 'Swirling Star Lodge', Florida.
"To begin with lineages...
In July of 1976, Motta and Grady declared magical war on each other. The head of the O.T.O. and the praemonstrator of A.'.A.'. each said "No" for the first time in our history. Crowley had worn the unified crown of both orders until his death in 1947. He passed that on to Karl Germer. If we date the Thelemic OTO to 1912, when Crowley joined and formed the English speaking OTO, the alliance between OTO and A.'.A.'. was a matter of course for half a century, and as far as we know the question of division or conflict between A.'.A.'. and OTO never once arose between 1962 and 1976. There were no such things as A.'.A.'. lineages.
During their negotiations in July of 1976, Grady accepted Motta's assertions of headship of A.'.A.'. If Motta was stating it Grady assumed it must have been true! Who else would dare make such a statement? Grady certainly never said anything like "Well, Howdy Marcello I'm Grady McMurtry from the Jane Wolf lineage, and I'm happy you're saying hello from over there in the Karl Germer line. Uhuh. The entire modern concept of A.'.A.'. lineages came about after the show down between these two leaders in 1976 and I know this because I was right in the middle.
Grady was absolutely clear about the relationship between OTO and A.'.A.'. He wrote in a July 21st 1976 letter to Motta that A.'.A.'. is the flaming heart of OTO. On the other hand, Grady was careful never to claim A.'.A.'. leadership, while fiercly defending his legitimate authority as head of the OTO. Motta never expressed any interest in the OTO, he repeatedly said he had no interest in the OTO, until he learned that Crowley had willed the copyrights to the OTO.
People today, listening to claims of a McMurtry lineage of A.'.A.'. or a Phyllis Seckler lineage of A'.A.'. simply have no idea how totally off the wall, such claims are, when viewed against both the spiritual reality of A.'.A.'. and the tradition of OTO.
I believe there is one A.'.A.'. with one set of officers; one praemonstrator, one imperator, and one cancellarius. Just as there is one OTO, with one outer head, one treasurer and one secretary. We have at last been able to dispense with such inane characterizations as 'the Caliphate OTO'.
If you have affiliated yourselves (I hope no-one in this room has) but if you have affiliated yourself with one of the outlying groups bragging about A.'.A'. lineages, you might consider correcting your mistake sooner rather than later. There is no shame in sincerely searching for truth; learning that you have been temporarily mislead by false claims, and using that as a learning opportunity to make better informed decisions. Believe me, we have all had to do it." "
I think it's important to point out that this account appears to make some assertions that are not supported by the evidence, or are presented in such a way that do not reflect an accurate picture of what went on during that period of time.
That Grady McMurtry did not claim leadership of the A.'.A.'. is really not surprising since his wife at the time, Phyllis Seckler, was his A.'.A.'. superior. Apart from Wasserman's bald assertions there is no evidence that Grady accepted Motta as headship of the A.'.A.'. It's far more likely that Grady said something long the lines of: if he want's to head his own A.'.A.'. down in Tennessee it's nothing to do with me. The idea that Grady would acknowledge Motta as THE HEAD of A.'.A.'. and thus the superior of both himself and Phyllis is frankly ridiculous, and even in the fleetingly unlikely event that he did so, it was not his call to make.
As for the statement that "Motta never expressed any interest in the OTO", Motta still believed he was the head of the OTO in July 1976. He was extremely paranoid and suspected some subterfuge in the matter of Germer's Will. It was at this time that Wasserman, Daniel Gunther and Richard Gernon deserted Motta and flew to California to take Minerval initiations in the OTO. Then on the 26th July 1976 Grady was recognized by the Superior Court of the State of California as the "Duly constituted and authorised representative of the Ordo Templi Orientis", and this so infuriated Motta that he decided to establish his own OTO in the United States and he immediately began filing papers through his A.'.A.'. branch in Tennessee to begin a corporation known as the Society Ordo Templi Orientis, more commonly known as SOTO.
So this idea that there was any kind of gentleman's agreement resolving a 'magical war' in which the spoils were divided up and Grady got the OTO while Marcello got the A.'.A.'. is pure fantasy fiction. Really - Mr Wasserman has missed is true calling and robbed the world of fiction writing of a very inventive and imaginative mind.
-
"Motta never expressed any interest in the OTO, he repeatedly said he had no interest in the OTO, until he learned that Crowley had willed the copyrights to the OTO."
There is a difference between claims regarding the OTO and claims regarding the AA. Two very different orders with very different purposes.
This whole thing (including the Fill/Kill debacle) boils down to control and not the "spiritual reality of A.'.A.'. nor tradition of OTO".Also, Liber Vesta... seriously?
-
@Metzareph said
"This whole thing (including the Fill/Kill debacle) boils down to control and not the "spiritual reality of A.'.A.'. nor tradition of OTO"."
Agreed. There cannot be anything less spiritual that trying to change and subvert the words of a Magus of the Aeon for your own purposes. These people are politicians... old politicians at that! And I think what these people don't understand is how media savvy and educated the young people of today really are - how able they are as a generation to see through the spin.
-
@Azidonis said
"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 the imprimaturs on the recent Equinox volumes he released would testify, there are three people that he regards as the A.'.A.'. Chiefs.
For myself, I would call them Chiefs of a particular lineage. In the past, Bill has said that my book, The Mystical & Magical System of the A.'.A.'. is flawed specifically because it speaks of lineages, and I've gone on to say that if that's the worst criticism I get, I'm happy to embrace the role of tolerant pragmatist
Regardless, he has his point of view, and I'm sure that's where he's coming from.
I also respect his not publishing the excerpt from a confidential A.'.A.'. initiation ritual without some such justification. That would create a far worse new precedent.