"Kill/Fill" - not "Kill Bill"
-
My point, Takamba, was that he was referrencing another Class A document to reinforce his own point about not getting one's panties in a bunch about someone altering a Class A document.
Perhaps the irony was a little too subtle.
-
@Bereshith said
"My point, Takamba, was that he was referrencing another Class A document to reinforce his own point about not getting one's panties in a bunch about someone altering a Class A document.
Perhaps the irony was a little too subtle.
"
I got it. Talking of irony... Jesus signed the petition today.
-
"
I got it. Talking of irony... Jesus signed the petition today.
"See? I've always said he was a good guy, just misunderstood by the YOLOs, that's all.
That's what happens when you don't write anything down yourself. Ehhh... Maybe he knew they'd just change it to "what he should have written but didn't" anyway. I guess he just let them go ahead and do that in the first place.
Crowley tried to fix that problem, but...
Here we are... "what the prophet should have written." -
@Bereshith said
"My point, Takamba, was that he was referrencing another Class A document to reinforce his own point about not getting one's panties in a bunch about someone altering a Class A document.
Perhaps the irony was a little too subtle."
Haha! No...not too subtle. But I wasn't pulling that quote to make my point about "altering a Class A document." I was replying to this statement here:
@Bereshith said
"The Abyss lies ahead for all bound to the order.
What has been duly spoken in Time, duly approved in Time, and duly sealed into Time, on these things you may certainly rely.
With how many refined scholarly uncertainties and questions of prophetic authority would you like to begin your journey? With how many such uncertainties would you like others to begin their journey?
Submission to that which has been duly given has its advantages."
It just sounded a little ostentatious? We share many views, but this particular point presupposed precise pulpit pontifications. Can't one be a YOLO and a Serious Suzy stomping in the same set of sandals? Just look at the tone, bro...
My point was: no one is bound by anything but their own lack of love -- this includes being free the "fetters" of someone altering a Class A document in their particular sect. As you know, the quote I pulled was from the chapter that corresponds to Venus.
If anyone would like to get passionate about HB's decision, that's great. The world needs activists. But sometimes all the world gets is re-activists.
I just think there are people that get reactionary...and there are others who can look into the purpose of the sensationalism, without getting all antsy-in-their-pantsy.
Either way, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Have a good day, brother.
-
@Frater 639 said
"
Well, it certainly has the "the kids" talking. HB has a Genius.
"@Frater 639 said
"It just sounded a little ostentatious? . . . this particular point presupposed precise pulpit pontifications. . . . Just look at the tone, bro..."
I'm not interested in such projection games.
I stand by what I said.
-
It's hard to put my finger on where in the conversation this happened but... this thread is way past the point of addressing the original post on the thread. Furthermore, it has gotten contention\us and off-track. It's no longer the prudent, careful addressing of the matter that the OP started.
I'm not sure how much of this I'm going to go back and wipe out (it's a big time consumer and PITA to do that) but please IMMEDIATELY stop the personal back and forth and jibber jabber. If you don't have something substantial and concrete to say that is directly relevant to the topic AS PRESENT IN THE ORIGINAL POST ON THIS SPECIFIC THREAD, then start another thread or don't post.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"It's hard to put my finger on where in the conversation this happened but... this thread is way past the point of addressing the original post on the thread. Furthermore, it has gotten contention\us and off-track. It's no longer the prudent, careful addressing of the matter that the OP started.
I'm not sure how much of this I'm going to go back and wipe out (it's a big time consumer and PITA to do that) but please IMMEDIATELY stop the personal back and forth and jibber jabber. If you don't have something substantial and concrete to say that is directly relevant to the topic AS PRESENT IN THE ORIGINAL POST ON THIS SPECIFIC THREAD, then start another thread or don't post."
This is an incredibly serious issue apparently. One feels that if the brow isn't furrowed, then one may be reacting improperly.
In any event, directly relevant to the topic:
The Caliphate decided that they want to change the Book of the Law. IMHO, I don't think changing one letter does much more than attract attention to the Caliphate -- helping to assert once again their claims over the copyrights that they successfully won in our fair and impartial U.S. courtrooms.
In fact, they are the Thelemic sect that controls the majority of Crowley's published works -- they can do whatever they want with the BOL. And I support their decision to handle their own property 100% -- anything else would be un-Thelemic!
Also, there is more than meets the eye on this one.
In short, the kill/fill move has produced quite the stir around Thelemic circles. Regardless of the personal importance, the move could definitely be considered a form of sensationalism -- a device is used and attention is drawn.
If I went OT, I apologize. I feel that the above points, however unpopular they may be on this forum, are directly related to the change -- it would be irresponsible to ignore aspects of the motivations for the change, when addressing the change itself.
I think it's a bold move that actually has more Thelemites talking.
-
@Frater 639 said
"I think it's a bold move that actually has more Thelemites talking.
"It's a destructive move as it damages the linkages between the open text and the hidden text of the book.
There won't be 220 'K's in Liber 220 anymore. There will still be 61 'K's in Chapter One and 69 in Chpater Two, but the change will mean there are now 91 'K's in Chapter Three.
The change kills the King, kills the Kill, says bollocks to summer solstice..
And 'Amen' said HB.
-
@Alrah said
"It's a destructive move as it damages the linkages between the open text and the hidden text of the book."
I can understand your perspective and I respect it. But there are other aspects to the change as well.
Also, I'm really happy to have your input on the forum again!
-
@Frater 639 said
"In fact, they are the Thelemic sect that controls the majority of Crowley's published works -- they can do whatever they want with the BOL. And I support their decision to handle their own property 100% -- anything else would be un-Thelemic!"
The Book of the Law is not Crowley's work - his literary estate haven't even claimed that it is - and, in any case, it has been published since 1909, so it is in the public domain and not subject to control by any human author or his/her successors. - In short, it isn't their property even in a mundane, legal sense.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"The Book of the Law is not Crowley's work - his literary estate haven't even claimed that it is - and, in any case, it has been published since 1909, so it is in the public domain and not subject to control by any human author or his/her successors. - In short, it isn't their property even in a mundane, legal sense."
I know. So they can do whatever they want with it -- and they can control their published work by law. That was my point. That being said, it's important to examine why such a change would be important to certain Thelemites that may fall outside the sway of the OTO...
The Caliphate does control most of Crowley's published work AFAIK. Is this why the OTO making a change is evoking such a tumultuous reaction? I'm legitimately curious...is it the general consensus that the OTO controls the benchmark for the publishing of the Book of the Law?
If someone can establish themselves as a leading authority of a text, and they make changes, does it have further publishing implications down the road? If not, why would it matter what the OTO decides to do? That was my point...or, I guess, it's more of a question.
In any event, the change is attracting A LOT OF ATTENTION -- which, to me, is a good move when it comes to publicity for the OTO.
EDIT: Could this theoretically apply? www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-re-copyright-decision/
-
@Frater 639 said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"The Book of the Law is not Crowley's work - his literary estate haven't even claimed that it is - and, in any case, it has been published since 1909, so it is in the public domain and not subject to control by any human author or his/her successors. - In short, it isn't their property even in a mundane, legal sense."@Frater 639 said
"I know. So they can do whatever they want with it -- and they can control their published work by law. That was my point. That being said, it's important to examine why such a change would be important to certain Thelemites that may fall outside the sway of the OTO..."
"Because it doesn't just include the O.T.O.. The proposed change is not a change to an O.T.O. manifesto or anything. It is a change to the central document of Thelema. As such, it effects everyone involved with Thelema.
@Frater 639 said
"The Caliphate does control most of Crowley's published work AFAIK. Is this why the OTO making a change is evoking such a tumultuous reaction? I'm legitimately curious...is it the general consensus that the OTO controls the benchmark for the publishing of the Book of the Law?"
Again, it has more to do with the importance of The Book of the Law, which itself is an A:.A:. publication in Class A, than it does about the O.T.O..
@Frater 639 said
"If someone can establish themselves as a leading authority of a text, and they make changes, does it have further publishing implications down the road? If not, why would it matter what the OTO decides to do? That was my point...or, I guess, it's more of a question."
Bill Breeze is not a leading authority on The Book of the Law. He may think he is, or may claim to be, or others may claim that he is, but he is not.
@Frater 639 said
"In any event, the change is attracting A LOT OF ATTENTION -- which, to me, is a good move when it comes to publicity for the OTO."
Does it come as good publicity for the O.T.O. when A:.A:. lineages are basically turning their backs on the O.T.O.'s decision?
The publicity they are getting is to further ostracize the (c)O.T.O. from the general Thelemic community that is not involved with them. I would hardly say that is good publicity.
@Frater 639 said
"EDIT: Could this theoretically apply? www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-re-copyright-decision/"
Quite possibly. The decision to make the change could very well boil down to an issue of copyrights, money, power, and control.
-
Thanks for your replies. Please keep in mind, my following comments are pretty much devil's advocate to further investigate motivations for the change, in light of the OP.
@Azidonis said
"Because it doesn't just include the O.T.O.. The proposed change is not a change to an O.T.O. manifesto or anything. It is a change to the central document of Thelema. As such, it effects everyone involved with Thelema.
"Well, if one accepts that it does. Again, it would change their published version of the BOL, correct? How does this affect you and your version?
@Azidonis said
"Again, it has more to do with the importance of The Book of the Law, which itself is an A:.A:. publication in Class A, than it does about the O.T.O.."
It may be an A.'.A.'. publication, but most of the A.'.A.'. publication copyrights are owned by the OTO AFAIK. Jim would probably know more since he was involved with the OTO for so many years...
@Azidonis said
"Bill Breeze is not a leading authority on The Book of the Law. He may think he is, or may claim to be, or others may claim that he is, but he is not."
I would agree with this in a "spiritual" sense; but, in a mundane sense, the courts may not share your sentiments. When it comes to "a leading authority," it could very well boil down to evidence in the courtroom. Let's remember that the Caliphate is not above going to court for copyrights...
@Azidonis said
"Does it come as good publicity for the O.T.O. when A:.A:. lineages are basically turning their backs on the O.T.O.'s decision?
The publicity they are getting is to further ostracize the (c)O.T.O. from the general Thelemic community that is not involved with them. I would hardly say that is good publicity."
Well, that's arguable. Everybody seems to think the change is a big move -- remember, you just said that their decision affects everyone in Thelema. That being the case, that opinion empowers a stance that HB's authority to make changes to the BOL affects even you, by your own admission. Is this why many Thelemites are taking this so seriously?
As far as other lineages of the A.'.A.'. -- we know that a person supposedly affiliated with one of them has lost to the Caliphate in court before. The A.'.A.'., as a system outside of the OTO, doesn't seem to have much legitimacy in the eyes of the court system AFAIK.
It would be great to look at this more in-depth, but it may be a separate thread.
@Azidonis said
"Quite possibly. The decision to make the change could very well boil down to an issue of copyrights, money, power, and control."
I really don't know. But it raises the question, doesn't it?
I would like to state that I'm not affiliated with the OTO in any way. Also, I really don't care too much one way or the other when it comes to their decisions on how they publish their material.
Again, I'm just asking the questions. I'm wondering why non-OTO affiliated Thelemites are seemingly so affected by the OTO's decision on a book that is public domain.
-
@Frater 639 said
"Thanks for your replies. Please keep in mind, my following comments are pretty much devil's advocate to further investigate motivations for the change, in light of the OP."
I don't mind that one bit, but Jim may. As it has been stated, this is a very touchy subject in many ways. I personally don't have a need to restrict my words, for "Mystery is the enemy of Truth", but I do understand that pragmatically, some restriction is necessary.
@Frater 639 said
"
@Azidonis said
"Because it doesn't just include the O.T.O.. The proposed change is not a change to an O.T.O. manifesto or anything. It is a change to the central document of Thelema. As such, it effects everyone involved with Thelema.
"Well, if one accepts that it does. Again, it would change their published version of the BOL, correct? How does this affect you and your version?"
It's not "my" version. It's Crowley's version. Crowley placed "fill" in the manuscript, and subsequently used "fill" in every single publication of Liber CCXX.
So, Breeze isn't changing "Azidonis' version", he's changing the version that Crowley obvious decided on, as evidenced by his continual used of the word in question.
@Frater 639 said
"
@Azidonis said
"Again, it has more to do with the importance of The Book of the Law, which itself is an A:.A:. publication in Class A, than it does about the O.T.O.."
It may be an A.'.A.'. publication, but most of the A.'.A.'. publication copyrights are owned by the OTO AFAIK. Jim would probably know more since he was involved with the OTO for so many years..."
Copyrights have only to do with them being able to legally print the Book however they want to, and reap the monetary benefits therefrom.
They have nothing to do with the original intent of the Book, which is as an A:.A:. publication.
The A:.A:. and O.T.O. are separate Orders. They always have been, and Crowley was at pains to make sure people knew they were. The current proposed change, through the backing of "Gunther's lineage" (lol), is not a sort of Council of Nicaea for The Book of the Law. All of the current heads of A:.A:. lineages did not get together and agree on this change. In fact, many of them have openly opposed it.
The issue is less about United States copyright and legalities as it is about "Spiritual Integrity".
@Frater 639 said
"
@Azidonis said
"Bill Breeze is not a leading authority on The Book of the Law. He may think he is, or may claim to be, or others may claim that he is, but he is not."
I would agree with this in a "spiritual" sense; but, in a mundane sense, the courts may not share your sentiments. When it comes to "a leading authority," it could very well boil down to evidence in the courtroom. Let's remember that the Caliphate is not above going to court for copyrights..."
Yes, I know. And that's what makes this entire situation just plain sour. The idea that people would stoop so low as to deny their "Spiritual Integrity" for the potential monetary gains is sickening.
@Frater 639 said
"
@Azidonis said
"Does it come as good publicity for the O.T.O. when A:.A:. lineages are basically turning their backs on the O.T.O.'s decision?
The publicity they are getting is to further ostracize the (c)O.T.O. from the general Thelemic community that is not involved with them. I would hardly say that is good publicity."
Well, that's arguable. Everybody seems to think the change is a big move -- remember, you just said that their decision affects everyone in Thelema. That being the case, that opinion empowers a stance that HB's authority to make changes to the BOL affects even you, by your own admission. Is this why many Thelemites are taking this so seriously?"
It effects me if I identify myself as a Thelemite.
It effects Thelema in general, as for the current and future of Thelema. As many have said, the one "taboo" that Thelemites have is not to change even the style of a letter of a Class A document... and Breeze's proposal bathes in that taboo. And that, on evidence which does not establish he should beyond a reasonable doubt.
@Frater 639 said
"
As far as other lineages of the A.'.A.'. -- we know that a person supposedly affiliated with one of them has lost to the Caliphate in court before. The A.'.A.'., as a system outside of the OTO, doesn't seem to have much legitimacy in the eyes of the court system AFAIK."The court system itself doesn't have much legitimacy.
@Frater 639 said
"
It would be great to look at this more in-depth, but it may be a separate thread."TBD, I think.
@Azidonis said
"Quite possibly. The decision to make the change could very well boil down to an issue of copyrights, money, power, and control."
I really don't know. But it raises the question, doesn't it?"
It does. And I think anyone would be remiss not to consider it as a motivating factor, even if only to decide for themselves whether or not it isn't.
H.B. has already insisted that he has made his proposal based on "scholarly" efforts, treading lightly where the O.T.O. and A:.A:. are mentioned in some cases, and completely avoiding any mention of copyrights and other possible issues.
Such as, let's say he goes through with it, and publishes a new version of The Book of the Law, with the "kill" change. And then, one of the A:.A:. lineages makes a new publishing of The Book of the Law, with the original "fill". How will that shake things up?
@Frater 639 said
"
I would like to state that I'm not affiliated with the OTO in any way. Also, I really don't care too much one way or the other when it comes to their decisions on how they publish their material."I have never, and will never, be officially affiliated with the (c)O.T.O. My interest is only the A:.A:..
That said, I do recognize a "Two Truths" approach to this scenario, in which on a conventional level the proposed change is a "big thing", but on an 'ultimate' level, it's pretty much void of meaning.
@Frater 639 said
"
Again, I'm just asking the questions. I'm wondering why non-OTO affiliated Thelemites are seemingly so affected by the OTO's decision on a book that is public domain."As stated, this is not just any book. The Book of the Law is the central foundational book of Thelema. It is the cornerstone of Thelema, and the cornerstone of Crowley's system. And, it is explicitly stated that the Book is not to be changed so much as the style of a letter.
-
Just to throw my two pence into the "copyright" theory (which I'm actually likely to buy) the "fill me" version remains public domain whereas the "kill me" version can only be republished with the copyright holder's written permission (hence, why I'm leaning toward this motivating theory).
-
IT RENEWS THE COPYRIGHT LIFE!!!!!!!!!!
-
But I'm also known to wear a triangular aluminum foil hat, so feel free to disregard me.
-
@Frater 639 said
"It may be an A.'.A.'. publication, but most of the A.'.A.'. publication copyrights are owned by the OTO AFAIK. Jim would probably know more since he was involved with the OTO for so many years..."
Most of the A.'.A.'. source document copyrights are expired, i.e., are in the public domain. For example, anything Crowley published in The Equinox is in public domain, and (other than a few specialized large later works), that's damn near everything.
-
From the original post:
"The Outer Head of O.T.O. is making a textual change in digital and physical publications of The Book of the Law published by O.T.O. (Note that I have characterized this as a textual change in publications, not as a textual change in The Book of the Law. The distinction is at least somewhat important.)"
I do note that you choose to characterize it this way, and I do agree that the distinction is important. However, I'm not entirely inclined to agree with your characterization for the following reason [emphasis mine]:
"lib.oto-usa.org/libri/liber0220.html
Liber AL
vel
Legis
sub figurâ CCXX
as delivered by
XCIII = 418
to
DCLXVI
A∴A∴ Publication in Class A. . .
"Aum! let it kill me!" "
Copyright issues aside, in my opinion, use of the designation "A∴A∴ Publication in Class A" constitutes the presentation of an actual textual change in the Book of the Law given under the imprimatur of the A∴A∴.
Respectfully, as much as this is a sensitive personal issue between friends, respected colleagues, and fraternal brothers, and as much as my seeming disregard for such sensitivities is loathed, in my opinion, the issue of the authority to present a document as an "A∴A∴ Publication in Class A" is of greater importance.
-
Care Frater
93
@Azidonis said
"
I don't mind that one bit, but Jim may. As it has been stated, this is a very touchy subject in many ways. I personally don't have a need to restrict my words, for "Mystery is the enemy of Truth", but I do understand that pragmatically, some restriction is necessary."Yeah. There are things that can be left unsaid. We both know what you mean.
@Azidonis said
"Because it doesn't just include the O.T.O.. The proposed change is not a change to an O.T.O. manifesto or anything. It is a change to the central document of Thelema. As such, it effects everyone involved with Thelema.
"Again, as long as the A.'.A.'. documents remain public domain, it really doesn't matter what they do. But if and when they decide to copyright grab, watch out! We can be left with whoever published which ones of Crowley's public domain works. That could shake out to a monopoly by the people judicious enough to invoke and publish often!
Honestly, with the recent moves of the OTO compiling the information of the BOL, touting that they are somehow the warden and authority of Thelema -- don't be surprised if it gets a little weird. Interestingly enough, the strength of the OTO is centralization. This could be the Union vs. the Confederates all over again -- complete with the moral reason to boot! Funny how slaves serving is a central theme...
"It's not "my" version. It's Crowley's version. Crowley placed "fill" in the manuscript, and subsequently used "fill" in every single publication of Liber CCXX.
So, Breeze isn't changing "Azidonis' version", he's changing the version that Crowley obvious decided on, as evidenced by his continual used of the word in question."
Well, Crowley is dead. He doesn't have any rights to his version. Again, devil's advocate...
So, the power and control of the BOL rests in the loudest and most organized voice. This is the OTO at this point. Quite honestly, the other A.'.A.'. lineages do not openly cooperate, in most cases. It will be extremely interesting to see how this shakes out, if it goes the way that I envision it...
The best part about this is the fact that the Caliphate has documentation to back their claims up. They are trying to prove the case that they are the only real editors and caretakers of the legacy of Crowley. They're making the argument that they've edited all sorts of details in the past -- and taking the position that this has been their fiduciary duty.
The real facts are that they DO NOT have all documentation about the A.'.A.'. -- and people with legitimate claims don't always throw up certain PDFs like a Six Flags groupon giveaway.
However, this does not change the fact that they are trying to control the information and making the change to the BOL with supposed authority. Look at the Wikipedia...the A.'.A.'. and the OTO being a close ally? Historically, maybe a long time ago -- but it's that kind of unclear information that shapes ideas. Let's not get into Germer's opinion of the successors of the OTO...Metzger, McMurtry, etc.
To the point: it seems that this change in the BOL is about establishing dominance.
@Azidonis said
"
Copyrights have only to do with them being able to legally print the Book however they want to, and reap the monetary benefits therefrom.They have nothing to do with the original intent of the Book, which is as an A:.A:. publication."
It means way more than that, I think. If they can prove that the A.'.A.'. is still viably linked with the OTO, then I would say that they could incur costs as caretakers of the documentation -- giving them legal impetus to collect copyright benefits. Further, they can control other people's publishing of the document and possibly other A.'.A.'. documents.
"The A:.A:. and O.T.O. are separate Orders. They always have been, and Crowley was at pains to make sure people knew they were. The current proposed change, through the backing of "Gunther's lineage" (lol), is not a sort of Council of Nicaea for The Book of the Law. All of the current heads of A:.A:. lineages did not get together and agree on this change. In fact, many of them have openly opposed it.
The issue is less about United States copyright and legalities as it is about "Spiritual Integrity"."
Spiritual integrity? I hate to say it, but I think you're being a little naive; although, I understand what you mean. One has to do a few Google searches to see how far spiritual integrity goes in the Caliphate's history.
I understand that they are separate Orders, as Crowley intended them to be. We all know the history -- Crowley and Germer thought that the OTO was far less important than the work of the A.'.A.'.
In any event, we're here now and the BOL is trying to be changed by the most organized and powerful. At this point, it seems to be the OTO...but only because they're the most visible.
"Yes, I know. And that's what makes this entire situation just plain sour. The idea that people would stoop so low as to deny their "Spiritual Integrity" for the potential monetary gains is sickening."
The whole evolution of the "legitimacy" of the Caliphate was proven in court. This had to do directly with monetary gains.
"It effects me if I identify myself as a Thelemite.
It effects Thelema in general, as for the current and future of Thelema. As many have said, the one "taboo" that Thelemites have is not to change even the style of a letter of a Class A document... and Breeze's proposal bathes in that taboo. And that, on evidence which does not establish he should beyond a reasonable doubt. "
Yeah, it may affect it -- but not in the grand scheme of things.
"The court system itself doesn't have much legitimacy."
Tell that to McMurtry.
"TBD, I think.
"Which is why we get back to the point of the OP...
"It does. And I think anyone would be remiss not to consider it as a motivating factor [of changing the BOL], even if only to decide for themselves whether or not it isn't.
H.B. has already insisted that he has made his proposal based on "scholarly" efforts, treading lightly where the O.T.O. and A:.A:. are mentioned in some cases, and completely avoiding any mention of copyrights and other possible issues.
Such as, let's say he goes through with it, and publishes a new version of The Book of the Law, with the "kill" change. And then, one of the A:.A:. lineages makes a new publishing of The Book of the Law, with the original "fill". How will that shake things up?"
Well, it could shake out like this:
The OTO proves that it has been selflessly and diligently working to preserve the "correct" BOL. With all of its tireless dedication, it pushes the "true" version of the BOL and copyrights it; after all, it is the intellectual property of the people that can prove the most legitimate ties -- this is the crux of the "copyright from public domain" law. It could then make claim to other parts of the A.'.A.'. canon...
Go for the main holy book and the rest will follow.
Currently other lineages, as far as I know, don't really care to be in the public eye that much...some lineages will support the change, probably in exchange for "legitimacy" in the eyes of the organization that controls the central document.
The end result? Business as usual -- the ones that profit and the ones that don't. It's a matter of personal taste. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
I like money -- but I'd never be able to take it from an A.'.A.'. standpoint. Of course, these non-profits always have creative ways of explaining "operating expenses." Again, Do what thou wilt...
"I have never, and will never, be officially affiliated with the (c)O.T.O. My interest is only the A:.A:..
That said, I do recognize a "Two Truths" approach to this scenario, in which on a conventional level the proposed change is a "big thing", but on an 'ultimate' level, it's pretty much void of meaning."
I'm with you all the way here.
"As stated, this is not just any book. The Book of the Law is the central foundational book of Thelema. It is the cornerstone of Thelema, and the cornerstone of Crowley's system. And, it is explicitly stated that the Book is not to be changed so much as the style of a letter."
Well, yes and no. One letter is what it is. But the True Control is elsewhere. The A.'.A.'. is a solitary and initiatic System. Those who have come into contact with It Understand what I mean. This Current doesn't stop at copyrights, thank the gods...
Crowley didn't write everything down, much to some people's chagrin! And there are some items that he has written that they can only dream about owning...
In conclusion, when it comes to the OTO's "legitimate claims" regarding the BOL, proofreading is their proof!
93 93/93
(Or should I write that upside down?)