"Kill/Fill" - not "Kill Bill"

Bryce Churchill

Inevitably, the response to a particular change like this seems to fall into one of four categories:

People who will not accept whatever the change may be, or fight it, for the sole reason that it's coming from HB/OTO Grand Lodge.
People who look at both sides of the debate and decide that the BOTL should remain as it is and not be changed.
People who look at both sides of the debate and decide that the BOTL verse III:37 should be changed from "fill" to "kill."
People who don't want to review the facts for themselves, would rather leave it up to the authorities to decide for them.

I have a 100% zone of tolerance for #'s 2 & 3, and 0% tolerance for #'s 1 & 4.

To quote Soror Virakam in Book IV, Part I:

"Frater Perdurabo is the most honest of all the great religious teachers. Others have said: "Believe me!" He says:"Don't believe me!" He does not ask for followers; would despise and refuse them. He wants an independent and self-reliant body of students to follow out their own methods of research. If he can save them time and trouble by giving a few useful "tips," his work will have been done to his own satisfaction.

Those who have wished men to believe in them were absurd. A persuasive tongue or pen, or an efficient sword, with rack and stake, produced this "belief," which is contrary to, and destructive of, all real religious experience.

The whole life of Frater Perdurabo is now devoted to seeing that you obtain this living experience of Truth for, by, and in yourselves!"

belmurru

@Bryce Churchill said

"Inevitably, the response to a particular change like this seems to fall into one of four categories:

People who look at both sides of the debate and decide that the BOTL should remain as it is and not be changed.

"

That's a good post, Bryce. I consider myself 2. I have nothing against OTO or its leadership in general, any more than I do with any other organization I am or have been a part of (initiated 1985, inactive since '92).

I do my part to keep the debate alive because I think it is a cathartic moment, a watershed perhaps. I myself was drawn into the debate on the heels of another, almost comical one, about Richard Cole's contention that Crowley fabricated the whole reception story and actually wrote the book in 1906 (I'm sure he's changed his chronology now). This forced me to look into the details of the early evidence for the book more than I had ever done before. I would not have been prepared for this current debate, a much more important one, if I had not first been familiar with what the debate about Cole's ideas had taught me.

I have argued the way I have in order to show that it is not out of a sentimental feeling about "fill me" , nor a motive of spite for Bill Breeze (I admire him tremendously and I profoundly appreciate his work, and I know of no reason why I should feel anything but goodwill towards him, principled disagreement or not), but because it is my honest, scholarly opinion that this change is not justified by the history of the text or the author's attitude towards it. It would be the same with any other text with a similar problem: one marginal correction by the author in a single exemplar of the text in one of its early printings can not be taken as indicative of the author's continual wish to change the text, especially when further printings supervised by the author, over decades, do not show the change nor possess such a marginal correction.

I think this controversy will not go away, however. It will cause another schism in the Order, definitely more significant than that which happened after Grady died. There will be the "Fillers" and the "Killers". The former will never accept what they will see as a defective edition of CCXX.

But as Crowley wisely noted, with greater foresight than was apparent up to last month, the revelation of the Law is "photographically guaranteed" in Liber XXXI. And the Comment tells us that "All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself."

I think that this debate has been the best education I have ever had in the history of the text, and I trust it has been so for anyone else who has followed it closely. It is to HB's credit that he has kept up with it and argued his side, including publishing the relevant proofs of his position (like the manuscript of Cadaveris).

But for me, the evidence clearly points to Crowley's having originally written "fill me" and intended "fill me", and only later, and briefly, preferred "kill me". He never had the printed text changed to reflect this secondary revision of the paraphrase, which stands as the most persuasive evidence of his real intentions.

belmurru

@Jim Eshelman said

"belmurru, thanks for your contributions on this.
"

Thanks for the opportunity to contribute, Jim.

"
I believe I said all of this previously, but I do want to focus in on a point that keeps coming up: I don't think what the original poetic paraphrase said has anything to do with the question. In fact, I'm 93% sure that it said "kill." To me, that's irrelevant. To me, any attention spent on that specific question is a distraction and potentially derailing.
"

I don't understand how you can be so certain that the original paraphrase said "kill" though. Until last month, HB was so certain it should be "fill" that he changed the text of the Paraphrase to read "fill me" in Magick (Liber ABA), in the three editions since 1994, and, if rumor is to be believed, it was his decision to change it in 1983's Holy Books of Thelema (p. 250). This issue has been bugging him a long time; he wanted a solution.

The only thing that has changed is the Windram "K", so, unless you objected to the Paraphrase being changed to "fill me", and had your own reasons for suspecting "kill me" was original, I find it difficult to understand how this "K" suddenly tilts the balance in favor of the original paraphrase, the one Crowley made between March 23rd and April 8th, saying "kill me".

Before last month, HB and everyone else seems to have taken the evidence as unambiguous - "fill me" was intended and original, and "kill me" was a later variant. Suddenly, a number of people think that the "kill me" was original, and Crowley and the typist made a mistake with "fill me".

Isn't the simpler and fairly demonstrable solution that Crowley continued working on the poem, and after the typescript had been made liked "kill me" there better?

(my speculation is that this is after he had versified the reverse of the stele, which speaks more to the death and coming forth of Ankh-f-n-khonsu).

"
To me, the question is: What belongs in Liber Legis? I believe this is "fill" for two specific reasons - only two:

The best evidence available to me leads to the conclusion that the penciled words "fill me" were written into the manuscript by the Prophet within a couple of days of the dictation, and I consider this as "within the original window of the dictation," on a level comparable to the Scarlet Woman's additions.
"

I agree it had to have been written within a couple of days, and that not only was it in the glow of the events, but it was well fixed in Crowley's memory what he had worked on for around the last two weeks - the poetic paraphrase of the French translation of the stele. I can't accept the notion that he erred in remembering what he had written, or that the typist, filling in the poem from the Vellum Book, chose to write the scribbled note in the manuscript over what was in that book. There is no reason not to think that "fill me" was what was written in the Vellum Book when the typescript was made. I think this has to be the default textual position, and that the existence of the variant "kill me" is best explained as part of Crowley's later revision of his poetic text, outside of the Book of the Law.

"

Crowley never changed this in any version of Liber Legis he ever published, even with an accelerated and highly public effort to "get it right." (And the evidence available to me leads to the conclusion that Crowley was aware of the f/k issue proximate to one or more of these editions.)
"

Yes, especially in the 1913 Equinox I(10), when the issue really was fresh on his mind. The editions of 1913, 1936 and 1938/1942 show conclusively Crowley's ultimate preference and intention. There can really be no question - the Windram "K" is an aberration, the meaning of which may be debated, of course, but it is deserving of a footnote or lengthy discursus at best. Weighing it any more than that rests on non-textual considerations - providential timing of discovering the Windram volume, primarily.

"
If I changed my mind on either of these conclusions, I'd have to go back to the start, reassess, and come to a fresh (same or different) conclusion. (For example, if the penciled note were not added until much later, I'd likely conclude that the text of the poetic paraphrase, as it existed on April 10, 1904, mattered. Otherwise, I don't see that it matters at all.)

Based on what is available to me now, and the weight that I give to the various factors, my present conclusion is easy: Obey my prophet, and publish it as "fill.""

I agree fully.

belmurru

@he atlas itch said

"First, let me clarify some points:

Perhaps it would be more to the point to ask proponents of the “fill me” camp what they see in Crowley’s marginal correction in Windram’s Thelema?"

It would seem to be pure speculation, since it was a marginal correction that was never implemented. HB suggests that the circumstance was Crowley's desire to make the text of CCXX agree with the Paraphrase in the Vellum Book that Crowley must have had in front of him (after having found it, as HB suggests, with the manuscript of XXXI in 1909), in preparation for its first printing in Equinox I(7) in 1912. I accept that that is the most likely scenario.

But, since the earliest (and most consistent) evidence is that the Paraphrase said "fill me" when Crowley wrote XXXI and had the typescript made in Cairo, then I cannot accept that "kill me" was original, and therefore Crowley in 1912 was trying to make CCXX agree with that. In other words, at this moment, Crowley liked his revision of the poem. This revision is what is printed as the Paraphrase.

Why did he like it then, or why did he change his original paraphrase from "fill me" to "kill me"? I think the best answers have been given by people recently trying to come to terms with "kill me", for instance to try to understand it in the ideological context of the poem, following on the words "consume me", etc. I myself earlier suggested that "kill me" was suggested by the imagery of "run through", as in being run through with a sword.

But whatever the explanation for what I see as a revision to "kill me", I have no doubt, and I think there is no good reason to doubt, that on April 10 1904 the poem in Crowley's mind said "fill me", and when the typist used the Vellum Book it said "fill me".

To sum up my belief about the Windram marginal note, I think it was a whim of Crowley's, which he thought better of (or in HB's words "promptly forgot about").

gurugeorge

@he atlas itch said

"
Perhaps it would be more to the point to ask proponents of the “fill me” camp what they see in Crowley’s marginal correction in Windram’s Thelema?"

A possible temporary flirtation with "kill me".

Azidonis

Seems fairly clear that "fill" is what Crowley wanted used in the printings of Liber L/AL.

Also seems fairly clear that "kill" is a variation on this, and Crowley liked to use it in his poetry, perhaps for a certain effect.

It also seems fairly clear that Crowley did not intend for the two to be crisscrossed and muddled into a divisive confusion.

belmurru

@Azidonis said

"Seems fairly clear that "fill" is what Crowley wanted used in the printings of Liber L/AL.

Also seems fairly clear that "kill" is a variation on this, and Crowley liked to use it in his poetry, perhaps for a certain effect.

It also seems fairly clear that Crowley did not intend for the two to be crisscrossed and muddled into a divisive confusion."

The problem is that HB believes that there is only one right answer - one or the other is simply an error that must be corrected, and the other expunged from authorized editions. He formerly believed it was "fill me", and corrected the Paraphrase to read that. But Windram's volume convinced him otherwise last month - now "kill me" is the only correct version and "fill me" must be changed everywhere it is found.

The idea that Crowley may have altered his paraphrase after April 10, 1904, continued to work on his poem, does not seem to have occurred to him. He certainly doesn't mention it as a possibility, although it can be shown that Crowley did indeed keep working on it.

Azidonis

@belmurr said

"
@Azidonis said
"Seems fairly clear that "fill" is what Crowley wanted used in the printings of Liber L/AL.

Also seems fairly clear that "kill" is a variation on this, and Crowley liked to use it in his poetry, perhaps for a certain effect.

It also seems fairly clear that Crowley did not intend for the two to be crisscrossed and muddled into a divisive confusion."

The problem is that HB believes that there is only one right answer - one or the other is simply an error that must be corrected, and the other expunged from authorized editions. He formerly believed it was "fill me", and corrected the Paraphrase to read that. But Windram's volume convinced him otherwise last month - now "kill me" is the only correct version and "fill me" must be changed everywhere it is found.

The idea that Crowley may have altered his paraphrase after April 10, 1904, continued to work on his poem, does not seem to have occurred to him. He certainly doesn't mention it as a possibility, although it can be shown that Crowley did indeed keep working on it."

I know, and agree.

Doesn't mean he's right.

For that matter, we could ALL be wrong, every last one of us, and may never know it.

Sr_MNA

@he atlas itch said

"Perhaps it would be more to the point to ask proponents of the “fill me” camp what they see in Crowley’s marginal correction in Windram’s Thelema?"

First of all, people have to understand the nature of marginalia...it's generally a reader's response to emotions or thoughts that arise during the process of reading. In cases where the reader is also the author, it can be self-commentary or a sort of note taking, but it is primarily a process of intimate reflection on the subject matter to be shared by other readers of that text. (If anyone wants to get deeply into this subject, there's some great studies out there. Start with H. J. Jackson's Marginalia: Readers Writing in Books.) So while I can play all day with what Crowley might have been thinking, and speculate on what he may have been intending as a result, or even interpret the circumstances as some sort of significant event, in the end, what we have is a marginal note that indicates that at the time of reading that "fill" in a copy of Thelema, someone (potentially Crowley) was thinking of the related meaning of "kill" that Crowley had used poetically elsewhere and noted it for whomever would be encountering that book. That's it. Anything else is pure speculation, and requires a set of assumptions based on what you can extrapolate from other data...or what you want to believe about it.

@he atlas itch said

"Crowley’s marginal correction in Windram’s Thelema overrides his “fill me” in Liber 31 because 1) both comments are in his handwriting 2) the Windram correction occurs later and 3) it is the only textual example where “fill” is clearly corrected in favor of “kill.”"

Again, it's a huge jump from "marginal notation" to "intended correction to the foundational document of the entire Thelemic belief system." And your comment that it's the "only textual example where 'fill' is clearly corrected in favor of 'kill'" only supports that - had it been more than a marginal thought, it would have been mentioned as a correction in other texts, because he would need to communicate the importance of those thoughts clearly to someone else (as was done in the case of the correction in EG 1(10) as mentioned in Threefold31's essay.) Unless you want to argue that he or the Secret Chiefs or Aiwaz left something of this importance up to a chance "discovery" like this....certainly your prerogative, but far too sketchy for me.

My strong objection to HB's decision to treat this as a correction and start publishing the new version of Liber AL as if it had always been Crowley's intended version is primarily due to the mess it will make for those of us who study Crowley's life and work from a scholarly position (regardless of whatever personal meaning we have for it.) I left the OTO on peaceful terms in '06 after a useful 10 years, and their decisions have long ceased to have any impact on my personal work, life, beliefs, etc. But this would have already turned into a historian's nightmare without the quick and excellent work that has been done by so many already. We do at least have a good current batch of data to keep the evidence intact and can track the changes, and it has opened up a fascinating new area of investigation. So thank you to all involved with that.

But I do agree with Belmurru that this is a watershed moment...it will show whether or not the religious authority of a modern organization is sufficient to make a significant alteration to scriptural authority based on a leader's personal fiat, breaking a taboo that has been in place for a century now. What happens next is new territory for Thelema, since should HB (and thus OTO members) continue to insist on its legitimacy, there will no longer be one Book of the Law common to Thelema. There's been many "dividing lines" before, but not of this caliber (IMO.)

nashimiron

The answer to this seems simple to me. As has already been considered here, Crowley continued to work on the poem and made a little change, but as Liber Al tells him not to change a single letter of the Book he felt he was barred from implementing the change in Liber Al itself, but he could implement it when printed separately from Liber Al. After all, he is directly instructed not to make changes so once the ink is on the page that's it, and that's how it stays. The book probably doesn't say "no one else in years to come should change it either" because it's patently absurd for anyone else to do so, and it was inconceivable that anyone would try to.

Azidonis

@nashimiron said

"The answer to this seems simple to me. As has already been considered here, Crowley continued to work on the poem and made a little change, but as Liber Al tells him not to change a single letter of the Book he felt he was barred from implementing the change in Liber Al itself, but he could implement it when printed separately from Liber Al. After all, he is directly instructed not to make changes so once the ink is on the page that's it, and that's how it stays. The book probably doesn't say "no one else in years to come should change it either" because it's patently absurd for anyone else to do so, and it was inconceivable that anyone would try to. "

Agreed.

In fact, that scenario makes the most sense, in my opinion. That XXI and CCXX were pretty much "set in stone", so Crowley could not/would not touch them. Therefore, when he got the itch to play around with it at all, he did it within the confines of his own poetry.

It's possible that the child in him wrote the marginal "k" to as to urge Windram (or himself, or someone else) not to forget about the monkey at play.

the atlas itch

That sounds logical enough. However, the following facts need to be taken into consideration:

Crowley wrote the poetic paraphrase of the Stele prior to the reception of Liber Legis.
He penciled the aide-memoire “fill me” in the margins of Liber 31 *after *the reception of Liber Legis.

These facts raise questions on whether Liber Legis 3:37 should be classified as falling under the “dictation” of Aiwass. The argument could be made that the debate over fill/kill arose *precisely because *its Class A status was uncertain. Crowley may have felt license to revise the wording of the paraphrase because he was the author.

The Temple of Thelema’s position on this issue is worth noting.

The TOT has drawn a time-frame around the reception of Liber Legis that extends beyond April 8, 9, and 10. Anything falling within this time-frame constitutes “dictation” by Aiwass and therefore Class A. That means Rose Kelly’s correction of two passages in Liber Legis, along with Crowley’s aide-memoire of “fill me” in the margins of Liber 31, both of which occurred after April 10th, are part of the “dictation” of Liber Legis by Aiwass and hence Class A.

The underlying assumption here is that, within the above-described time-frame, a vastly superior and transcendent intelligence (Aiwass) acted upon and through various human actors, coincidences and so-called “mistakes”, to transmit Liber Legis to humanity.

Under this scenario, even if Crowley incorrectly recalled or miswrote "fill me" in the margins of Liber 31, this human error is nonetheless correct and Class A. Moreover, under this scenario, Crowley is far more of an unwitting tool and instrument of Aiwass. The TOT’s position contrasts strongly with HB’s thinking:

As the editor of Liber Legis, Crowley had the requisite authority, knowledge, experience and access to all the necessary primary materials to decide this matter; we do not. Or, to back up the timeline and put it more bluntly: Crowley was at the Cairo Working; we were not. He marked what he wanted clearly. Who are we to second guess him?

oto.org/legis1.pdf

Azidonis

@he atlas itch said

"That sounds logical enough. However, the following facts need to be taken into consideration:

Crowley wrote the poetic paraphrase of the Stele prior to the reception of Liber Legis.
He penciled the aide-memoire “fill me” in the margins of Liber 31 *after *the reception of Liber Legis.
"

You forgot to add that he was working on the poem for about a month before the reception. As much as he liked to revise his works and poetry, one would think that what he decided on at the time would have been fresh in his memory. Thus, as far as memory goes, he would have had plenty of time to store his decision in both short and long term memory.

You also forgot to add that even after all of this, for over 30 years after, he did not publish a change in Liber CCXX from "fill" to "kill" not one time.

The only changes exist in private revisions of his poetry, and a little side note in Thelema, which he gave no extant reason for making.

Bereshith

"These facts raise questions on whether Liber Legis 3:37 should be classified as falling under the “dictation” of Aiwass."

Granted.

"The argument could be made that the debate over fill/kill arose precisely because its Class A status was uncertain."

Uncertain to whom? Doesn't matter though. That's a separate point.

"Class “A” consists of books of which may be changed not so much as the style of a letter: that is, they represent the utterance of an Adept entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organization."

At what point are you going to recognize that this redaction is the very kind of "criticism" forbidden to Class A documents?

"But, but, but, but, but.... "

This redaction is nothing but personal opinion and "criticism" not based on any official action of the Adept who penned, classified, and repeatedly published the Class A document as "fill me."

This Class A utterance is beyond his ability to criticize exactly for the reason that he must presume to know the mind of the author to do so. This is precisely what the Class A designation forbids. It's the very thing it was intended to prevent. You don't get to presume to know the mind of the Adept who penned the Class A document and then change the document. I don't know how else to say it. What else do you need to hear to understand that what is happening is the very thing that was expressly forbidden?

It's there already - repeatedly published as Class A. And it's there in the very manuscript that we still have.

"Crowley may have felt license to revise the wording of the paraphrase because he was the author. "

He did not do so.

He repeatedly did not do so.

And now, the very Visible Head of the OTO justifies his criticism of this repeatedly published and repeatedly "uncorrected" Class A utterance of an Adept based on his personal opinion that the original author *intended *to do so but never actually did so because this same author, this Adept who dared classify and repeatedly publish this as his own official Class A Adept utterance, beyond any future criticism, was lazy.

""Class “A” consists of books of which may be changed not so much as the style of a letter: that is, they represent the utterance of an Adept entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organization."

the atlas itch

@Azidonis said

"You also forgot to add that even after all of this, for over 30 years after, he did not publish a change in Liber CCXX from "fill" to "kill" not one time."

The logical conclusion is that Crowley did not want discrepancies to appear between Liber 31 and Liber 220:

III:47: This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast

Under this scenario, whatever was "transmitted" by Aiwass during the Cairo Working, regardless of what Crowley meant or intended or decided later, is what constitutes Liber Legis.

Azidonis

@he atlas itch said

"
@Azidonis said
"You also forgot to add that even after all of this, for over 30 years after, he did not publish a change in Liber CCXX from "fill" to "kill" not one time."

The logical conclusion is that Crowley did not want discrepancies to appear between Liber 31 and Liber 220:"

Liber 31 clearly says "fill", and Crowley did not change it not one time when printing Liber CCXX.

@he atlas itch said

"
III:47: This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast

Under this scenario, whatever was "transmitted" by Aiwass during the Cairo Working, regardless of what Crowley meant or intended or decided later, is what constitutes Liber Legis."

And during the Cairo Working, he wrote "fill", no?

@Bereshith said

"
"These facts raise questions on whether Liber Legis 3:37 should be classified as falling under the “dictation” of Aiwass."

Granted.

"The argument could be made that the debate over fill/kill arose precisely because its Class A status was uncertain."

Uncertain to whom? Doesn't matter though. That's a separate point.

"Class “A” consists of books of which may be changed not so much as the style of a letter: that is, they represent the utterance of an Adept entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organization."

At what point are you going to recognize that this redaction is the very kind of "criticism" forbidden to Class A documents?

"But, but, but, but, but.... "

This redaction is nothing but personal opinion and "criticism" not based on any official action of the Adept who penned, classified, and repeatedly published the Class A document as "fill me."

This Class A utterance is beyond his ability to criticize exactly for the reason that he must presume to know the mind of the author to do so. This is precisely what the Class A designation forbids. It's the very thing it was intended to prevent. You don't get to presume to know the mind of the Adept who penned the Class A document and then change the document. I don't know how else to say it. What else do you need to hear to understand that what is happening is the very thing that was expressly forbidden?

It's there already - repeatedly published as Class A. And it's there in the very manuscript that we still have.

"Crowley may have felt license to revise the wording of the paraphrase because he was the author. "

He did not do so.

He repeatedly did not do so.

And now, the very Visible Head of the OTO justifies his criticism of this repeatedly published and repeatedly "uncorrected" Class A utterance of an Adept based on his personal opinion that the original author *intended *to do so but never actually did so because this same author, this Adept who dared classify and repeatedly publish this as his own official Class A Adept utterance, beyond any future criticism, was lazy.

""Class “A” consists of books of which may be changed not so much as the style of a letter: that is, they represent the utterance of an Adept entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organization.""

This is spot on.

Los

@Azidonis said

"
@he atlas itch said
"
III:47: This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast

Under this scenario, whatever was "transmitted" by Aiwass during the Cairo Working, regardless of what Crowley meant or intended or decided later, is what constitutes Liber Legis."

And during the Cairo Working, he wrote "fill", no?"

Just a reminder: according to Crowley's account of events, Aiwass did not dictate the poetic rendering of the Stele. He says that Aiwass simply indicated to him -- wordlessly -- to insert his paraphrase of the Stele in there (i.e. the poem that Crowley had written just the other day, in the vellum notebook).

The pencil note was written by Aleister Crowley as a reminder or instruction to the typist, probably some time after the dictation. That's the whole crux of this issue: whether Crowley made a mistake when he wrote "fill me."

As people have pointed out, it seems really odd that Crowley would misremember how his own poem ends, especially so soon after having written it, but that's the argument....

Alrah

@Los said

"
@Azidonis said
"
@he atlas itch said
"
III:47: This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast

Under this scenario, whatever was "transmitted" by Aiwass during the Cairo Working, regardless of what Crowley meant or intended or decided later, is what constitutes Liber Legis."

And during the Cairo Working, he wrote "fill", no?"

Just a reminder: according to Crowley's account of events, Aiwass did not dictate the poetic rendering of the Stele. He says that Aiwass simply indicated to him -- wordlessly -- to insert his paraphrase of the Stele in there (i.e. the poem that Crowley had written just the other day, in the vellum notebook).

The pencil note was written by Aleister Crowley as a reminder or instruction to the typist, probably some time after the dictation. That's the whole crux of this issue: whether Crowley made a mistake when he wrote "fill me."

As people have pointed out, it seems really odd that Crowley would misremember how his own poem ends, especially so soon after having written it, but that's the argument...."

Over the years there has grown up an entirely arbitrary convention based around when Aiwass was inspiring Crowley and when he wasn't, and people actually go out of their way to make a little timeline of events for themselves. Its been amusing and I suppose it gives commentators somewhere to stand when they debate on forums and newsgroups. But in actual fact we don't have a window into the mind and consciousness of Aleister Crowley and doesn't it seem a little ridiculous to anyone that if Crowley's HGA was Aiwass, that Aiwass should ever go missing or not be around for the entirety of Crowley's life? For all we know Aiwass could have inspired Aleister Crowley everytime he visited the crapper, or Aleister Crowley may have been led to do things under the influence of his HGA without him being aware that he was acting thusly. "Thou hast no choice but to do thy Will!"

I do not think that you can truly separate out the work of Aleister Crowley from the work of Aiwass and I think it is foolishness to try.

nashimiron

Yeah, I think questions of timelines and which part of a class A document really is class A and which part can be considered less than A (A- maybe?) are red herrings. What's written down on paper, the tangible manifestation of the impulse that started in Aiwass' consciousness is what cannot be changed or edited. So we have XXXI in it's unchanging form, and anything that deviates from it is a different book, not a true transcription.

Azidonis

@Los said

"
@Azidonis said
"
@he atlas itch said
"
III:47: This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast

Under this scenario, whatever was "transmitted" by Aiwass during the Cairo Working, regardless of what Crowley meant or intended or decided later, is what constitutes Liber Legis."

And during the Cairo Working, he wrote "fill", no?"

Just a reminder: according to Crowley's account of events, Aiwass did not dictate the poetic rendering of the Stele. He says that Aiwass simply indicated to him -- wordlessly -- to insert his paraphrase of the Stele in there (i.e. the poem that Crowley had written just the other day, in the vellum notebook).

The pencil note was written by Aleister Crowley as a reminder or instruction to the typist, probably some time after the dictation. That's the whole crux of this issue: whether Crowley made a mistake when he wrote "fill me."

As people have pointed out, it seems really odd that Crowley would misremember how his own poem ends, especially so soon after having written it, but that's the argument...."

If we start getting into various timelines and questioning what exact times the Cairo Working is comprised of, we could be in for quite a headache!

I think it's logical, Los, to acknowledge that had Crowley felt he made a mistake in the manuscript when writing "Fill", he did not show this in his actions.

"fill" was written in pencil. He could have easily erased it and changed the manuscript, but he didn't. The fact that it was in pencil gives more weight, in my opinion, to Crowley's decision on "fill", as he could have changed "Fill" to "kill" at any time, without marring the rest of the manuscript.
Over 30 years, and every publication of Liber CCXX has "fill". The evidence has provided that he did use "kill" in some instances of the poem, but never in an instance of the poem that was going into print as Liber CCXX.