"Kill/Fill" - not "Kill Bill"
-
Not that anyone important cares what I think, but just because I do think...
Anytime someone makes a decision like this, you have to document and include the reasoning of the decision along with the text. Bare minimum.
If I may though... in spite of the numbing effect that comes from long pouring over many such complex and and pedantic scholarly dispustes, this is a big deal. It strikes at the heart of the intended final authority of Class A designation and documentation.
I will refrain from projecting motivation, but I will comment that so many future problems would be so easily resolved here and now by simple, literal submission both to the original Class A documentation and the primary OTO pledge.
-
Bereshith, no offense intended here, but your last post leads me to believe you didn't read the full 20 page (when I copy/pasted it into Word and created a PDF using a more readable font size and moving it to my tablet because just in case it turned into shit I wanted to be on my throne) explanation that H.B. gives. He states that all future copies that will include this new "correction" will also include a note explaining the change. This new correction, so-called, seems to appear according to Breeze's understanding not a change per se, but a correction of a previous error, and he is saying that the correction therefor is not a change but a change back. And according to Breeze, neither you nor Breeze are making changes to the text (in line with the O.T.O. oath) but Crowley did.
That's the reasoning being used. You have to read the full 20 pages to get to the meat of his reasoning on this matter.
Just sayin'
-
Good. I missed that bit.
-
Thank you Jim for helping a few of us, who are not as informed upon Bill Breeze, a bit more information. I for one am not as educated in the past in regards to Bill, or the functions of the O.T.O., as I am not a member etc.
I read H.B.s explanation, and I can understand how he believes it makes sense, and I feel that he is most likely doing exactly what he feels is right, and not for some other motivation. IMHO, I simply feel what was done was done, and there were a few things AC mentions should have been different and yet he did not change. I feel these "mistakes" were meant to be, but of course that's my opinion.
Anyway, I do want to say the "Self-slain" title does seem to suit the "kill" change. I felt that was a pretty powerful point beyond most of it. Either way, I am glad there will be a comment made about the change, for those who may be new to reading Liber L.
-
@Bereshith said
"Good. I did skim some parts. "
What do you think (in case you missed this part) about "kill" being suitable to the title "self-slain"? Just curious. It does seem to make sense though. Right?
-
Damn. I edited that for less drama, but you caught me.
As long as you're asking.
He's already self-slain. You know, like he's been through the initiation of Osiris already.
Having him repeat that formula seems to indicate ongoing technique, which continues Osiris. Or at least, I can see that argument being made.
It's an eternal truth, imho, but it's not metaphorically consistent with the imagery of this Aeon. Unless I'm wrong, and the aspirant stands in as Osiris, who is slain by RHK. But in that case, the supposed difference between Thelema and Christianity is much more smoke and mirror than I have been led to believe.
-
93, Hey boys, I decided to pop back for this. Thanks to everyone who has signed the petition so far.
I posted an open letter to H.B. and the O.T.O. a few hours ago in response to his detailed explanation - and you can see that on the petition page. The petition continues to grow and attract supporters: www.change.org/petitions/bill-breeze-oho-of-the-ordo-templi-orientis-please-do-not-change-the-book-of-the-law#
I hereby pledge not to stop my efforts until the Book of the Law is safe. Looks like we're united on this one for once Bereshith!
I was surprised by the title of this page. Kill Bill? Of the 108 petition supporters that have made comments on the page, then not one has called for or suggested the removal of him from his office as O.H.O. Disagreeing with H.B. while not wanting to see him removed seems to be very much what everyone is about so I thought the title of the post was a little dramatic.
Then again - if that was the only way to prevent this change to the Book of the Law... if he really cannot see the damage he is doing to the Book and to Thelema then I feel a time will come when we are forced to call for his resignation. However, at the moment as far as I can see, people just want him to stop and ... as they say 'take a moment' - to consider that he might be wrong in his assumption (and it is a guess) that Crowley made a mistake when he wrote 'fill me''. There are other far more likely explanations that fit the facts (all the facts) and require no change to the text or breaking of oaths or all the disruption to the social harmony of the community that his proposed change to the Book has caused.
If you say he is a nice guy Jim, and an honorable one then I believe you, but there are some things that can never be compromised on, and this one is going to run and run.
Best, Alrah. 93 93/93
-
@Bereshith said
"Damn. I edited that for less drama, but you caught me.
As long as you're asking.
He's already self-slain. You know, like he's been through the initiation of Osiris already.
Having him repeat that formula seems to indicate ongoing technique, which continues Osiris. Or at least, I can see that argument being made.
It's an eternal truth, imho, but it's not metaphorically consistent with the imagery of this Aeon. Unless I'm wrong, and the aspirant stands in as Osiris, who is slain by RHK. But in that case, the supposed difference between Thelema and Christianity is much more smoke and mirror than I have been led to believe."
Oops! Sorry. Fixed it. good point though, thanks.
-
@Jason R said
"What do you think (in case you missed this part) about "kill" being suitable to the title "self-slain"? Just curious. It does seem to make sense though. Right?"
Though this wasn't addressed to me...
I think it's the wrong basis for a decision. This turns it into "what feels right to me, what I like" - mostly, "what would I like it to say" - rather than, "What does the Book actually say?"
The main import of H.B.'s citing that, I think, is to disarm the equally-invalid basis of assessment, that somebody "likes it better the other way." But, whichever way it makes most sense to you, that shouldn't be the basis of assessing its rightness.
IMVHO.
-
@Alrah said
"If you say he is a nice guy Jim, and an honorable one then I believe you, but there are some things that can never be compromised on, and this one is going to run and run."
I agree that even the best of people in the best of times don't always get it right.
(That's a generalization. <s>) -
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Alrah said
"If you say he is a nice guy Jim, and an honorable one then I believe you, but there are some things that can never be compromised on, and this one is going to run and run."I agree that even the best of people in the best of times don't always get it right.
(That's a generalization. <s>)" I've been on FB so much lately I was looking for the 'like' button. 
Consider your comment 'liked'. 
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Alrah said
"If you say he is a nice guy Jim, and an honorable one then I believe you, but there are some things that can never be compromised on, and this one is going to run and run."I agree that even the best of people in the best of times don't always get it right.
(That's a generalization. <s>)"In light of this issue concerning the kill/fill/thrill cult, Crowley either got it wrong or got it right. So there's that. Yep.
-
"Though this wasn't addressed to me...
I think it's the wrong basis for a decision. This turns it into "what feels right to me, what I like" - mostly, "what would I like it to say" - rather than, "What does the Book actually say?"
The main import of H.B.'s citing that, I think, is to disarm the equally-invalid basis of assessment, that somebody "likes it better the other way." But, whichever way it makes most sense to you, that shouldn't be the basis of assessing its rightness.
IMVHO."
Hmmm I see. Thanks Jim, I agree.
-
@Takamba said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Alrah said
"If you say he is a nice guy Jim, and an honorable one then I believe you, but there are some things that can never be compromised on, and this one is going to run and run."I agree that even the best of people in the best of times don't always get it right.
(That's a generalization. <s>)"In light of this issue concerning the kill/fill/thrill cult, Crowley either got it wrong or got it right. So there's that. Yep."
At the moment, for H.B. to be right then Crowley has to be wrong, and for Crowley to be right, then H.B. has to be wrong.
Isn't this just a crazy situation going down between a present OHO and a past OHO?
-
It really doesn't affect me though. I'm not personally changing anything one way or the other. I'm just reading different versions, and so far, no one is making anybody choose between the two versions as authoritative that I can tell.
I did grow up with people arguing over whether or not the King James Version of the Bible was the "Holy Bible" while the other translations weren't. "Says so right there on the cover!" So I'm kind of pessimistic about it.
But so far as I can tell. It just doesn't affect me. I hope it never does.
I'm so ****ing tired of being forced to choose between two things by people who themselves just don't get it.
-
@Bereshith said
"I did grow up with people arguing over whether or not the King James Version of the Bible was the "Holy Bible" while the other translations weren't. "Says so right there on the cover!" So I'm kind of pessimistic about it. "
So I learned Hebrew and Greek so I could read the Bible in the original.
It seems "read it in the original" resolves a certain amount of friction in the present instance, as well.
-
@Bereshith said
"It really doesn't affect me though. I'm not personally changing anything one way or the other. I'm just reading different versions, and so far, no one is making anybody choose between the two versions as authoritative that I can tell.
I did grow up with people arguing over whether or not the King James Version of the Bible was the "Holy Bible" while the other translations weren't. "Says so right there on the cover!" So I'm kind of pessimistic about it.
But so far as I can tell. It just doesn't affect me. I hope it never does.
I'm so ****ing tired of being forced to choose between two things by people who themselves just don't get it."
I suppose that it doesn't personally affect me either. Nobody is going to break into my flat and start expunging the F from my copy like the Inquisition used to to with books (although apparently modern electronic versions are susceptible to on the fly revisions?). But it is possible that in the future this will grow to be a divisive issue and I wouldn't want any of my descendants suffering the same sort of crap that you grew up with Bereshith. That must have been so.... boring! Urgh!
I think I'm being driven by a sense of duty as well as a love of the books puzzles and beautiful complexities. I just want this one thing... this one book which I have probably explored and had a more tumultuous relationship with over the years than many of my ex-lovers... to just NOT change. Everything else can, and I can change around it - that's OK... but give this one book a couple of thousand years first? That's how I feel.
We get on this magical path and it's a total rollercoaster of change. There needs to be an anchor in something, somewhere, and for a lot of people that something is Liber AL.
-
@Alrah said
"
At the moment, for H.B. to be right then Crowley has to be wrong, and for Crowley to be right, then H.B. has to be wrong.Isn't this just a crazy situation going down between a present OHO and a past OHO?
"You've got a point there, and from an outsider's point of view of things (not saying you have such, just saying "from such") that would indeed appear to be the case. But H.B. didn't say it was Crowley's mistake, it was the mistake of who ever originally typed up Liber L from the handwritten version (the implication was that this was not Crowley). Crowley's error, according to H.B., was in being lazy and forgetful.
I personally stand with Jim. I'd need more evidence than what has been presented to make such a change. If the only argument that we have is to say that Crowley was too lazy, inattentive, or forgetful to make the "correction" himself all the reprinting during his lifetime, then we probably diminish any other credit we could give the old man.
-
Yup - I agree Takamba. And what are we supposed to say to newbies or those just getting interested in Thelema or to our children or grandchildren?
Do we tell little Tommy that "yes, OK - the book said not to change it but the prophet was too lazy to make sure and so a man called H.B. had to sort it out later?" Or will the footnote that H.B. intends to add to the book go missing at some point in the future, from the sheer embarrassment of it all and the little Tommy's of this future world will grow up believing it was always a 'K'? Probably. Even likely. It's a slippery slope.
Yup... I agree Takamba.
-
Maybe we should forget the stupid paraphrase altogether and read it in ancient Egyptian.