"Kill/Fill" - not "Kill Bill"
-
@nashimiron said
"
@Archaeus said
"I think that this whole thing merely puts us into the mouth of Choronzon"An inevitable result of people who were expelled from, or never members of an Order claiming to be it's Heads? The cracks are starting to show."
Touche'.
-
@Alrah said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Separately, I add only the interesting facts that about a month before Germer's death, he affirmed in writing that Motta was no more than a 1=10, whereas a decade earlier he had affirmed (and discussed in lengthy correspondence) that Phyllis was at least a 5=6. If (note the 'if') these were the only two choices on who was "the member of the A.'.A.'. highest in rank (and then in seniority)" at Germer's death, it seems an easy choice."indeed it stands, Jim! ..."
it does not. the problem of evaluation within an esoteric and non-centralized manifestation beyond the Third Order (into manifestation) are sufficient so as to avoid the whole enterprise, and this is just one of the reasons that severe restraints are set on A.'.A.'. social descripts.granted the premise that this retains a streaming throughput from the Third Order of the Great White Brotherhood, and that this holds meaning on par with Eckhartshausen or other sources, then there is every reason to think that personal evaluations of these kinds are counter-indicators of reliable connection thereto. thus if someone goes on record in some public way evaluating one "lineage" over against another or one person who is "part of" some "lineage" or "order" and these are supposed to be related to the Third Order, we may conclude deductively that they have disqualified themselves from authority.
"...the only head of any A.'.A.'. lineage is Crowley himself."
there is no 'head' of a sphere."...the inspiration for the A.'.A.'. came from the work of Florence Farr when she sought to establish 'the Sphere', and ...the A.'.A.'. is a direct successor of the Sphere conceptually, and I channel that from my own lineage."
if it is and was based on the Third Order, then its manifestation is older, by form, or work, than anything Miss Farr may have conceived."...we should not judge the A.'.A.'. as if it were a mundane organisation shaped with a pyramid power structure...."
of any kind. the fresh reed of the A.'.A.'. is constantly rigidifying and becoming Secondary."...There can be no 'true lineage' - as members of the Sphere will arise across the formal boundaries of lineage just as they do across the artificial boundaries of countries. Or they may arise from no known lineage as they will. The current will die, and be reborn, and live again, and die again."
the term 'lineage' gives the impression of a single trajectory or origin of authority to esoteric content. this is distinctly at odds with how such content is mediated from their source-points as Mysteries and through the experience, psychology, and expressive output of incidental exponents (in specific interactions). these are constellated in an 'atmosphere' (similar to your assertion about the sphere) of indeterminate cause. were that cause determined, it would solidify into a Second Order and become known and defined (as might have Crowley's construct if it effectively 'died' at some point after his initiation of it with George Cecil Jones).{from a letter}
"...the only test of whether an A.'.A.'. is proper or not is whether they teach the material that A.C. placed in the public domain from the very beginning,"
this sets the Second(ary) Order in place, guaranteeing ossification. like the cosmos and cosmology where people invert the notion of manifestation to derive the material world from some unseen and transcendental dimension, so people invert the authority of the Third Order and place emphasis on the terrestrial streams of carriage rather than to pay attention to the resonance these have with that transcendental originating source and their Mysteries." and whether they produce Adepts and foster the cultivation of new Magisters (i.e. the accomplishment of the two main tasks of every magician)."
so easily misunderstood and badly assessed that it has become a cult of its own, disconnected from the real excepting as it vies for supremacy of reputation."...The members of the Sphere were purely interested in individual spiritual progression and work. The true A.'.A.'. are the successors of The Sphere and it may not be ruled by the mundane concerns of the pyramid organisations..."
there are no "successors" to the Third Order. this is one of the fallacies of Second Order fallouts. they self-disqualify each time they begin to do Second Order work, thereby effectively requesting that they be looked past to the Secret Chiefs, Celestial Masters, or Order of Guardian Angels who may engage the sincere and interested aspirant approaching them in her own way.those who base their social weight upon lineages or Second Order proclamations out of sync with their referents (as in esoteric networks where certain standards are said to apply, personal evaluations are issued as part of reputation-swaggering, and a 'hardening of the arteries' of esoteric current has set in) do themselves and their associates a disservice by engaging in this kind of expression.
-
Nigris' post, of course, has essentially nothing to do with the Order called A.'.A.'.. He explicitly dismisses some of the most concrete, specific principles articulated in writing by the only person authorized to do so.
-
@nigris said
"
@Alrah said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Separately, I add only the interesting facts that about a month before Germer's death, he affirmed in writing that Motta was no more than a 1=10, whereas a decade earlier he had affirmed (and discussed in lengthy correspondence) that Phyllis was at least a 5=6. If (note the 'if') these were the only two choices on who was "the member of the A.'.A.'. highest in rank (and then in seniority)" at Germer's death, it seems an easy choice."indeed it stands, Jim! ..."
it does not. the problem of evaluation within an esoteric and non-centralized manifestation beyond the Third Order (into manifestation) are sufficient so as to avoid the whole enterprise, and this is just one of the reasons that severe restraints are set on A.'.A.'. social descripts.granted the premise that this retains a streaming throughput from the Third Order of the Great White Brotherhood, and that this holds meaning on par with Eckhartshausen or other sources, then there is every reason to think that personal evaluations of these kinds are counter-indicators of reliable connection thereto. thus if someone goes on record in some public way evaluating one "lineage" over against another or one person who is "part of" some "lineage" or "order" and these are supposed to be related to the Third Order, we may conclude deductively that they have disqualified themselves from authority.
"...the only head of any A.'.A.'. lineage is Crowley himself."
there is no 'head' of a sphere."...the inspiration for the A.'.A.'. came from the work of Florence Farr when she sought to establish 'the Sphere', and ...the A.'.A.'. is a direct successor of the Sphere conceptually, and I channel that from my own lineage."
if it is and was based on the Third Order, then its manifestation is older, by form, or work, than anything Miss Farr may have conceived."...we should not judge the A.'.A.'. as if it were a mundane organisation shaped with a pyramid power structure...."
of any kind. the fresh reed of the A.'.A.'. is constantly rigidifying and becoming Secondary."...There can be no 'true lineage' - as members of the Sphere will arise across the formal boundaries of lineage just as they do across the artificial boundaries of countries. Or they may arise from no known lineage as they will. The current will die, and be reborn, and live again, and die again."
the term 'lineage' gives the impression of a single trajectory or origin of authority to esoteric content. this is distinctly at odds with how such content is mediated from their source-points as Mysteries and through the experience, psychology, and expressive output of incidental exponents (in specific interactions). these are constellated in an 'atmosphere' (similar to your assertion about the sphere) of indeterminate cause. were that cause determined, it would solidify into a Second Order and become known and defined (as might have Crowley's construct if it effectively 'died' at some point after his initiation of it with George Cecil Jones).{from a letter}
"...the only test of whether an A.'.A.'. is proper or not is whether they teach the material that A.C. placed in the public domain from the very beginning,"
this sets the Second(ary) Order in place, guaranteeing ossification. like the cosmos and cosmology where people invert the notion of manifestation to derive the material world from some unseen and transcendental dimension, so people invert the authority of the Third Order and place emphasis on the terrestrial streams of carriage rather than to pay attention to the resonance these have with that transcendental originating source and their Mysteries." and whether they produce Adepts and foster the cultivation of new Magisters (i.e. the accomplishment of the two main tasks of every magician)."
so easily misunderstood and badly assessed that it has become a cult of its own, disconnected from the real excepting as it vies for supremacy of reputation."...The members of the Sphere were purely interested in individual spiritual progression and work. The true A.'.A.'. are the successors of The Sphere and it may not be ruled by the mundane concerns of the pyramid organisations..."
there are no "successors" to the Third Order. this is one of the fallacies of Second Order fallouts. they self-disqualify each time they begin to do Second Order work, thereby effectively requesting that they be looked past to the Secret Chiefs, Celestial Masters, or Order of Guardian Angels who may engage the sincere and interested aspirant approaching them in her own way.those who base their social weight upon lineages or Second Order proclamations out of sync with their referents (as in esoteric networks where certain standards are said to apply, personal evaluations are issued as part of reputation-swaggering, and a 'hardening of the arteries' of esoteric current has set in) do themselves and their associates a disservice by engaging in this kind of expression."
I daresay, all this coming from a self-professed "Black Brother"?
@Jim Eshelman said
"Nigris' post, of course, has essentially nothing to do with the Order called A.'.A.'.. He explicitly dismisses some of the most concrete, specific principles articulated in writing by the only person authorized to do so."
Agreed.
-
@kasper81 said
"What is the "it"?"
"The ways of the Khabs," according to the syntax.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@kasper81 said
"What is the "it"?""The ways of the Khabs," according to the syntax."
Ergo, the question is...
The way of the Khabs... let it kill me
or
The way of the Khabs... let it fill me.
(The Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs)
-
Just a quick question, If the Fill me/Kill me is published today will that make Liber AL copyright continue for another 70 years (or what ever it is?) from date of publication of added so called correction? Will this mean that any without the change no longer copyrighted/void...........I think its about cash to be honest, Many in Thelema have become greedy and the only Magick is Money for certain individuals imo.
Not trying to get all political here nor hijack thread for a political views. (I dont really care, follow, believe in whom or what ever group you want Im just adding an opinion.)
93 -
It will mean that all editions with the "fill me" "correction" have a new copyright. The actual text of Liber AL has already fallen into public domain by copyright law. Once the "fill me" version is published, you would violate copyright law to reprint that version (in entirety and not withstanding any fair use situations such as a scholarly review of the content of that portion of the text).
-
Is that true Takamba? Just asking because I know that in UK/European copyright law, it's 75 years after the death of the author which, if Crowley is taken as the author, would mean it's still covered.
I have heard that there have been court cases establishing Aiwass as the legitimate author but do those hold jurisdiction?
It's always seemed like a potential money grab to me as well is why I'm asking.
-
I believe his point is that it's irrelevant what the copyright of the original is. By changing anything at all. You create a new work, with a new copyright period. The specific edition is newly protected, under those conditions.
The original. Though, is its own thing.
There are various exceptions and special cases, but the above is widely true. (Don't get me started n the 'work in progress' exceptions.)
-
Yeah, that side of the equation is definitely true. My question (and deep seated discomfort with the whole thing) stems from motive. If the book has been in the public domain, then this controversy can be chalked up to honest scholarly disagreement (I think one side has the clear factual advantage, but I'm willing to give the other the benefit of the doubt).
If, however, this is a work that is currently under copyright but will be falling out within the decade... a motivation to retain copyright for another X number of years enters into the evaluation. Yes, as the law sees it, they are two separate works. The copyright holder, on the other hand, would experience it as an extension on royalties for their "Authorized Edition".
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
-
I decided, at the beginning of this question, not to speculate on motives. I can, however, see consequences of the actions
If I speculate on motives, I make this personal. I would also be ignoring the fact that multiple people were surely involved in this decision (it's the sort of thing that would have resulted in conversations among several people - some known to me, some not) - and that means motives are multiple, individual, not necessarily all of them being known to all parties.
Ah, unless it was a conspiracy! <vbg>
And I'm certain (from those parties I do know) that at least some motives, and perhaps the strongest motives, are positive (even when I disagree with the result).
So... I do get the discomfort on this, bro. I just wanted to distinguish my comments on consequences from any actual ascription of motive.
PS - In case it hasn't been answered here: Yes, the Crowley literary estate has, as far as I know, always accepted Liber Legis as public domain. Considering Crowley's repeated, unequivocal, sometimes emphatic statement that he wasn't the author, that isn't surprising.
-
I think I and Jim have answered your question, Gnosomai Emauton, regarding the "re-upping" of copyright authority. Legally speaking, one can currently publish ALL of Crowley's words (the 70 years didn't apply to his age of works, only those some years shortly prior to that copyright treaty, Crowley's works had a 25 year lifespan) as public domain. What the OTO can currently own copyright on are specific editions (ie with Indexes, annotations, footnotes, etc, which weren't published by Crowley in his life) - but his words themselves are now free to distribute as he wrote them. On the other hand, if you revise a work with a "correction," that correction is a new copyright held by whomever expended the effort - in the current case, the OTO.
Motives? "If Will stops and cries Why, invoking Because, then Will stops & does nought."
-
Yep. That answers the question.
EDIT: Now that I'm home from my walk, I double checked UK copyright law and the updates in 1911, 1956, 1988, & 1995 were retroactive. The 1995 act stirred up a bit of controversy for reviving the copyright of works that had recently fallen into the public domain. So, in fact, all of Crowley's works are still under copyright in the UK until 1 Dec 2017 (I was incorrect on my previous statement of 75 years). Whether this applies to Aiwass is another matter but, unless the literary estate released them to the public domain, the rest still have a few years left to go.
-
Under American copyright law and the World Intellectual Copyright Treaty of 1996, the Geneva Text remains intact and those authorships expired after the 25 year period. You may want to research again.
-
A - I was referring to UK copyright law as that is the jurisdiction for Crowley's literary estate.
B - As I understand it, the WCT of 1996 updated the Berne convention to bring the language in line with digital publishing. The treaty itself doesn't stipulate any terms or limits, merely that any member state must extend the same protections to a work originally published in another member state as it would to one of its own. Thus, any work by authors from any member state get life-of-the-author plus 70 years' protection in the UK (except for Peter Pan).All of this is moot for this discussion since, as Jim points out, the estate has voluntarily placed Liber AL in the public domain but... Is my read of the law incorrect regarding his other works? That's certainly how it played out last time I tried to re-publish an edition of a work I thought to be in the public domain in the UK.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
-
This is getting off topic, but keep in mind it depends greatly on which edition you are trying to republish. I suppose this is the only reason I could see for wanting a first edition of something or another, because it's exact errors etc are now what is valuable for public domain. Any corrections, annotations, notes, and collections put together by other publishers are separate copyrights in themselves. This is why some bodies are in the habit of adding new "introduction by Christopher Hyatt" or "Forward by Frater Stuperious" or some such, as this now creates a "new" work to copyright.
-
This following link gives an interesting analysis and argument against Beta's changes. It's also interesting that Shiva's Australia OTO still claims to be part of Bill Breeze's Caliphate - even though they do not accept the change. How can 1 Order have 2 different Holy Books?
fnordzone.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/from-fill-to-kill-oho-ignores-command.html
-
It is both.
For if it fills you it kills you
As you are only THAT -
Where does it say shiva/ Australia doesn't accept change?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk