A New Versing of Liber Legis
-
@Wizardiaoan said
"People should realize that Crowley's versification in Chapter I is proven incorrect. "
To my eye, Crowley's versification is sublime! It's an extraordinary subtext, given pretty much a verse-by-verse encoding of the Book into 22 sets of 10 verses and reflect the Sephiroth in sequence and hide some really stunning keys.
-
This is a good example of when "The Comment" should be obeyed.
-
Edit: posted same comment twice.
-
@Silenci said
"This is a good example of when "The Comment" should be obeyed."
You mean destroy your copy of the Book of the Law and never look at it again? -
that's the one..in addition to
"Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence." -
@Wizardiaoan said
"I have arrived at my preferred versing for Liber Legis. It notably posits verse 31 as "This that thou writest is the threefold book of Law.""
thank you for doing this.I would like to note the effects of your changes after assimilating their meaning here in a summary. I note that this conversation, from 2007, no longer contains your link to your file and commentary, so i will contact you privately to obtain that. all students of the work should be collecting all possibly valuable matter in a thorough examination.
(I)
12/13 combination - reduces one verse.
22 split - adds another verse.
28/29 combination - reduces one verse.(II)
70 split - adds another verse.
75/76 combination - reduces one verse.@Wizardiaoan said
"I think Crowley magically got it right that there are 220 verses total."
I don't understand your reasoning here except as a matter of faith. also, doesn't this make I.35 into I.34, rather than I.31? you've reduced by one the verse total number, apparently 219. I'd appreciate an explanation for the 'magical' conclusion of the Beast beyond the usual religious support or some tautology.@Wizardiaoan said
"It is proven there are meant to be individual verses by page line separation in the document. However by just the course of natural writing there sometimes is a full page line of writing but the next line is still a new verse. This is where it becomes ambiguous."
it does, and you have done a fine job of correcting the Beast. your suggestions (based on form) are coherent and meaningful. I'll help look for more.@Wizardiaoan said
"People should realize that Crowley's versification in Chapter I is proven incorrect."
well, first they should look at the holographs of the original manuscript and see for themselves that it was NEVER DONE for chapter 1, whereas (during the writing?) it was for chapters 2 and 3. more likely there were more than two passes over this material to input the line numbers and amendations, as with many other scriptures.@Wizardiaoan said
"In chapters II & III he adheres to the rule of page line separation which is itself sometimes ambiguous as I say when there is a full page line of writing above the break."
a full examination of the work would identify each one of these and will occupy the time of the scholars of Thelema. I agree completely with your noted 'forced versing errors'. excellent.@Wizardiaoan said
"...my "correct" versing of it opens up the most esoteric number symbolism with it, and I think reconstructs how it was meant to be ordered and read."
if you are just talking about I.35 becoming I.31, then i don't see how that works, and your contention about number symbolism is unsupported. there are problems with supposing as a premise that "it was meant to be ordered and read". typically the religious establish a standard outside of rational analysis and then stick by it with all manner of hogwash. I am not seeing your support for your contention and so it comes off as chutzpah or defensive preremptory boasting while steeling yourself for cultic criticism.@Wizardiaoan said
"...If people are not willing to accept my reconstructed versification, they must at least accept that Crowley made three versing errors in chapter I and try to work it out for themselves."
this is an overstatement. only the liberated will feel at ease to adjust these parameters and constructs to their liking, presume that the Beast actually marred the material and needs correction, examine the whole with an eye for rational standards of language use, and admit of "errors". the typical cultist presumes inerrancy and follows tradition. this is simply the way of things.@Wizardiaoan said
"My chapter I changes the verse structure significantly."
unfortunately you did not do it justice by analyzing how it changes it. I may follow up here and do that job for you. it's important Thelemic work few will be able to achieve. -
E6
@peregrinus93 said
"...any 'forced versification' or folly on the part of the scribe seems to be addressed by verse 54."
discernment between the Scribe and the subsequent student is valuable to those with the True Will to undertake the correction to the Beast's construct. this may not be for the cults (the 'people') to endure, and surely was not easily to be seen as a fault of the Scribe's because it was his duty simply to get it down and leave it to others. mistaking the instructions to the Scribe as the instructions to all others is an error of category, rather than degree.@peregrinus93 said
"Thorough inquiry into the versification, the stops, seems to invite slavery to Because."
though the term 'because' is used numerous times in the scripture and commentary itself, it becomes a problem when there is a desire to stop rational inquiry so as to make progress. for purpose during rite and within cultic development these are necessary interruptions. as a course of inquiry and study of Thelema there is no 'slavery' if one's True Will is to analyze and make plain the details of the flaws of those who have come before in order to improve upon them. their followers and cultists may exclaim in agony over the thought of a lack of consensus on the matter, but this is wholly unimportant. since diversity of knowledge and approach to the spiritual is a Thelemic principle, the rulesets and (mostly arbitrary) standards are pragmatically set to ensure a lattice of ascent, and outside these systems may be set aside. Thelema is simply much larger than any prophet's flock contains.so while it may seem to invite slavery to Because, I would suggest that the more comprehensive indicators of such slavery become delineated and outlined as productive signposts in preventing cultic anti-rationalism which such objections may have (a chilling factor about which numerous have already complained as the orders solidify and dogmatize; hand-wringing and outcry about heresy have already become apparent).
E666
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"To my eye, Crowley's versification is sublime! It's an extraordinary subtext, given pretty much a verse-by-verse encoding of the Book into 22 sets of 10 verses and reflect the Sephiroth in sequence and hide some really stunning keys."
thank you for this analysis, very helpful. are there any overt and available analyses in depth of this character (relating Liber L or Liber Al to Qabalah and sefiroth)? -
@Silenci said
"This is a good example of when "The Comment" should be obeyed."
circumstances are weak indicators of behavioural resolve.far better to pay attention to your intuition, or, if you can identify it, your True Will. if you keep on the universal ruleset mentality you will become a tool of your superiors, effecting the very essence of Slave which Thelema instructs against. the prods for progs typically take the form of "X should be done by all." those who are impressionable and have no navigational orientation will follow out the dictates of their chosen masters. become aware of the format of dictation so that you can seize the reins of your own destiny. this is the Law of Thelema in action.
-
Hello Nigris,
I appreciate your acknowledgement of this versing work. It was finally concluded, but took place over some years. I will release it eventually at wizardiaoan.wordpress.com. I believe the final adjustment was the "for why" verse of chapter three. I end the previous verse with this now rather than begin a new one with this. Anyway, your quote of Eshelman's enthusiasm of Crowley's versing, when I factually pointed out his forced versing errors, is the reason I left this board long ago, beyond the fact he threw my magickal child proofs in his trash. Also, I know him to be merely a VI (from some magickal visualizaton), so that he would rather fight about it than be true about it. Further, his order is founded on a V, which is laughable were it not so paltry. I see no reason to be here (other than to reveal true lucidity).
Yes, my magickal feeling is that The Book of Law has 220 verses, this is all it is.
-
@Silenci said
"This is a good example of when "The Comment" should be obeyed."
This depends on whether or not you think that Crowley has the final word on The Book of the Law, and whether or not you consider the Tunis Comment that final word. I don't, and neither do I regard the Tunis Comment as a command or set of commands to be be obeyed. Nevertheless, I respect the view of those who think otherwise; it's a case that I can understand.
-
@Michael Staley said
"
@Silenci said
"This is a good example of when "The Comment" should be obeyed."This depends on whether or not you think that Crowley has the final word on The Book of the Law, and whether or not you consider the Tunis Comment that final word. I don't, and neither do I regard the Tunis Comment as a command or set of commands to be be obeyed. Nevertheless, I respect the view of those who think otherwise; it's a case that I can understand."
Well seeing as Crowley authored it (or dictated if you buy the story) I'd say the he most definitely does have the final say. There seem to be a lot of people seeking to claim they know what he intended better than he himself recently. I don't suppose there are many writers that get that treatmemt, it seems to be something reserved for those who write on spiritual matters.
-
@Archaeus said
"
@Michael Staley said
"
@Silenci said
"This is a good example of when "The Comment" should be obeyed."This depends on whether or not you think that Crowley has the final word on The Book of the Law, and whether or not you consider the Tunis Comment that final word. I don't, and neither do I regard the Tunis Comment as a command or set of commands to be be obeyed. Nevertheless, I respect the view of those who think otherwise; it's a case that I can understand."
Well seeing as Crowley authored it (or dictated if you buy the story) I'd say the he most definitely does have the final say. There seem to be a lot of people seeking to claim they know what he intended better than he himself recently. I don't suppose there are many writers that get that treatmemt, it seems to be something reserved for those who write on spiritual matters."
What a myopic attitude. Do you imagine that Crowley knew everything there was to know about The Book of the Law? He himself did not believe that to be the case, so it's curious that you do.
-
@Michael Staley said
"
What a myopic attitude. Do you imagine that Crowley knew everything there was to know about The Book of the Law? He himself did not believe that to be the case, so it's curious that you do."
Myopic!? That really is laughable. In fact I do believe that Crowley/Aiwass knew what he was doing when he penned Liber Al. What I find hard to believe is the attitude of those who claim that he didn't know his own mind, but then I don't have that much faith in the reception myth but instead take the stance that Aiwass (being Crowley's HGA) was Crowley at his best , which is all the more reason to assume that he knew what he was doing.
-
@Silenci said
"that's the one..in addition to
"Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.""yeah, the comment that starts with 'Do What thou Wilt Shall be the whole of the law'. lol
-
Anyway, to save this thread from becoming a tit for tat thread that destroys itself I'll simply state that my personal view is that Crowley knew what he was doing. You are entitled to hold whatever opinion you like on the matter so long as you don't force it on anybody. 93 93/93
-
"Change not as much as the style of a letter; for behold! thou, o prophet, shalt not behold all these mysteries hidden therein."
-
@Silenci said
"that's the one *..in addition to
"Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.""Yeah, but there are a lot of stupid interpretations of the Comment.
For example, the Comment obviously doesn't mean "never, ever read or study The Book of the Law." For one thing, Crowley himself recommended studying it in several places, so if we follow the Comment and choose to decide "All questions of the Law [...] only by appeal to [Crowley's] writings," then a study of Crowley's writings indicates that we ought to study the Book.
For another thing, the Comment begins "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law," and it closes with "There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt," implying that the Will of the person reading these words is the paramount authority, and if it is one's Will to read and study the Book of the Law, then one must do it.
For yet another thing, the Comment is worded ambiguously enough that it's not clear exactly who is doing the "forbidding" and whether the "forbidding" has any authority behind it whatsoever. Perhaps it is forbidden ** to study this Book. Perhaps "Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all" isn't a command for Thelemites to shun people who discuss the Book but instead is a simple statement of fact: that going around proclaiming the contents of the Book is going to turn most people off (who won't like its message).
The whole thing does come off like some kind of joke, and anybody who seriously is so weak that some "Comment" stops them from studying the Book probably isn't cut out for Thelema to begin with.
-
I largely agree with what you say, Los. I don't think, though, that it comes over as some sort of joke, but as something that is a lot deeper and more ambiguous than might appear at first sight.
-
@Silenci said
"This is a good example of when "The Comment" should be obeyed."
I obey "The Comment" to the letter and freely discuss the contents of the Book with anyone who will listen.
"The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading."
Yea! but I am a fool, a flutterer!
"Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire."
So is crossing the road in Camberwell.
"Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence."
Al-Quaeda have really got it in for me.
"All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself."
Fortunately, my inspired folly guided me to retain my copy of Liber Al and all my other Crowley books.
etc...
