A New Versing of Liber Legis
-
@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...
