"Kill/Fill" - not "Kill Bill"
-
@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?)
-
@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."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."
It's already 'a little weird'.
@Frater 639 said
"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 won't go that route.
@Frater 639 said
"
"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."
Yes. And you are talking about a material, due process scenario. We all know how such a thing would turn out, quite nasty, with the end result being determined by lawyers and money.
@Frater 639 said
"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..."
This should be interesting.
@Frater 639 said
"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."
Of course. Seems like that's what it has been about all along.
@Frater 639 said
"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."
This is true.
@Frater 639 said
"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."
Imo, the entire mess has the invisible stamp of 333 on its head.
@Frater 639 said
"
@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."
Yes. And it's sickening.
@Frater 639 said
"
"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."
Not naive, polite. I've taken some effort to alleviate the stress others may incur in moderating the site.
So, if I say it's about Spiritual Integrity, and you politely reply, in a manner of speaking, that they have none, and I agree with you, then we are in agreement... but continuing to discuss this openly might make for a moderation headache.
@Frater 639 said
"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.'. "
Germer did a poor job as the O.T.O.'s mortician. Too bad he did not have a fancy for bonfires.
@Frater 639 said
"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."
If they don't alter the manuscript, their move throws a huge question-mark onto their actions anyway. Any reader that doesn't know about the change, or the debacle that has ensued because of it, will still be able to plainly see that the MS says "fill", and if they are decently acute, they will begin to ask questions. May they ask the right ones, and obtain the truth, whatever that turns out to be.
@Frater 639 said
"
"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."
As I said above, I'm inclined to believe it was all about money from the get-go.
It reminds me of a short story. A guy decided he wasn't smart enough to be an inventor, so he decided to place a patent on the long-time existing design of the common wheelbarrow. The guy then reaped the benefits of someone else's work for the rest of his life. True story or not, it seems to fit the current scenario.
@Frater 639 said
"
"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."
Well, placing a cover over a lamp does not turn off the lamp.
However, the path is already obscured enough for beginners. This move only serves to enhance that obscurity.
@Frater 639 said
"
"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."
Yeah. Piss on the cornerstone of the system, and hope everything else gets wet.
@Frater 639 said
"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."
At this point, I know of no lineage aside from Gunther's (obviously) that supports the change.
@Frater 639 said
"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 can understand this approach. But is the A:.A:. not about all of humanity? The proposed change will have long term effects, and those will have to be dealt with, eventually.
@Frater 639 said
"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 don't equate greed with Will.
@Frater 639 said
"
"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..."
The "True Control" as you call it, is unobtainable by any human being. Even the understanding of it is unreachable through the methods of one who would succumb to greed or lust of power.
@Frater 639 said
"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..."
Yes. And thankfully so.
@Frater 639 said
"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?)
"And the Hermits watch, and laugh, and take their fill and will of love. All the while, the householders poke and prod at the hermits, make fun of them and mock them, failing to realize the folly of their ways...
-
-
Just a thought. Feel free to take it with eleven grains of heavy salt.
The next move won't be changing any more current holy books.
It will be the exaltation of the current con men, by means of "receiving" an all new one. And this new book will link the "kill" change to it, and will establish the current con men as the "visible heads" of Thelema.
These waters have already been tested by the recently published "Class B", released in 2009.
The mention of the "Secret Chiefs" in connection with the "fill/kill" change is only one of many steps in that direction.
-
@Takamba said
"
@Azidonis said
"
These waters have already been tested by the recently published "Class B", released in 2009.
"What are you referring to?"
Initiation in the Aeon of the Child was published as Class B.
-
@Azidonis said
"
@Takamba said
"
@Azidonis said
"
These waters have already been tested by the recently published "Class B", released in 2009.
"What are you referring to?"
Initiation in the Aeon of the Child was published as Class B."
Under the imprimatur: V; V.V.; & S.U.A. I believe, so as long as people pay attention and know which Lineage of A.'.A.'. produced it then it shouldn't pose a huge problem.
-
@Archaeus said
"
@Azidonis said
"
Initiation in the Aeon of the Child was published as Class B."Under the imprimatur: V; V.V.; & S.U.A. I believe, so as long as people pay attention and know which Lineage of A.'.A.'. produced it then it shouldn't pose a huge problem."
Oh. I haven't got that book. It is on my list though. I was only planning to buy it as a curiosity since I have all the published Crowley material on my shelves and though other Thelemic authors have made interesting little things to read, none of it really adds much as far as I'm concerned.
-
@Archaeus said
"
Under the imprimatur: V; V.V.; & S.U.A. I believe, so as long as people pay attention and know which Lineage of A.'.A.'. produced it then it shouldn't pose a huge problem."Interesting.
Well, regarding the "kill me" version being printed under the imprimatur "A∴A∴ Publication in Class A," I think you know how the preacher in me stands. But the scholar in me says you'd at least need some kind of specific lineage reference in order to even make "A∴A∴ Publication in Class A" a factual statement.
I don't like where the precedent leads, but it's the only honest, responsible thing to do if it's going to be done anyway. Otherwise, it's just pure fiction to cite A∴A∴ authority if not a thinly veiled authority-grab.
But it would aid those like me to discern the level of final authority given by each lineage to the Prophet. I want it "as received," not "'as corrected' a century later by sincere scholarship under the personal belief that a particular coincidence reflected the Will of the Secret Chiefs."
Class A?
How declasse.
Filioque!
Filioque! -
Question.
Could the reason AC noted within parenthesis in Liber XXXI* "fill me"* be that Awaiz informed him to use* "fill me"* instead of "kill me"? Perhaps this quote was a note to himself of what change Awaiz wanted in the paraphrase in relation to the Book of the Law in particular? AC may have already known the paraphrase used* "kill me"*, yet when he was instructed to add that paraphrase within Liber L, he simply jotted down the important difference to be used? This may explain why elsewhere he used the "kill me", and yet never changed "fill me" in Liber Legis. Just a thought, and possibility?
Also, do we all agree AC made that penciled "k" in the margin of that book? How do we know that someone else didn't (Windram?), thinking to themselves "hey this is wrong, the paraphrase says kill me?". Maybe someone else simply noted a possible mistake, and was later corrected by AC that it was to be different as per Awaiz in Liber L?
-
My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it.
@Jim Eshelman said
"...the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition"
I'll guess that the errors acknowledged were only after the fact and the 'got it right' claim came before these were found. as such, any error/change might have been overlooked/approved if some other error/change was. it seems difficult to use that as a seal or benchmark."...{Hymenaeus Beta} has said many times (my paraphrase from memory) that to avoid sectarianism or denominationalism in Thelema, and maximize the sovereign right of any individual regarding their own relationship with Liber Legis, the Tunis Comment provides the key, and people should just not discuss the Book or its meaning. Having similar motives, I strongly hold that the only way to prevent religious tyranny and to maximize the sovereign right of individuals to their own understanding of the Book, is to discuss it constantly, to actively exchange views, insights, and responses in a spirit of tolerance that doesn't require anyone to agree with you; that is, a {culture} of tolerance and active sharing on the matter."
it's a valuable contrast of methods. I cannot for the life of me see sectarianism or denominationalism curtailed in Thelema as long as there are sects, sectarian leaders, denominations, and ecclesiastical advocates who will shape and influence the consciousness of others. I like both of your approaches, especially as you do not prohibit the advocation by one another (i prefer to walk a Middle Way between preservation of confidence and public philosophy)."I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript."
I agree that this is a very important bit of data, something that should have been included in a transparent account by the Scribe."There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript.""
I know what you mean, and i've been tracking this a little due to my peripheral and initiatory involvement. a 'temporal footprint' seems to be allowed by religious groups around the origins of their special documents and greater and greater consensus develops around that footprint terminating, the faithful splintering over more and less convincing contributor evidence on the matter.that's the first component. with the installation of a Classification (A.'.A.'.) system along, and in the leeward, side of scriptural origin, this becomes all the more difficult and confusing. when the reality is such that sequential published versions actually do have differences ('corrections' based on authorial intention, apparently), these Classes seem to represent a stopgap measure, an inhibition, against the transmutation and morphing to which such documents may be subjected (at each change in publishing losing their ability to be taken seriously).
the addition of initiatic vows on top of this seems rather more dramatic, and adds pressure toward the same end; pressure that may turn inward in the instance where what may be perceived, on the one hand, to be a correction based on authorial intent, may be seen as betrayal (as against oaths about changing scripture) on the other.
"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 {the O.T.O.'s} property even in a mundane, legal sense."
diverging radically on Liber CCXX by changing a single letter might be substantial enough to 'brand' (as through order copyright) the particular configuration of letters by formula and thus control this order's scripture, however.Los has a good point when he writes:
@Los said"No one's "changing the Book of the Law." There has been a proposed correction to the text (which already varies in lots of ways from the manuscript anyway)...."
it's even been admitted that the various 'fill' versions of Liber CCXX have varied by 'corrections' and 'errors', though i can also understand those who are upset because they perceive this to be a betrayal of oaths. in part it depends on where one sits in relation to the social group(s) at effect (e.g. an OTO, an AA).even so, in response to Avshalom, who writes:
@Avshalom Binyamin said"If you're not interested in the source text, or in the source of the will (the divine, not the individual), and you're not interested in Crowley except where he can be corroborated by others, why bother with Thelema at all?"
i can affirm that connections may exist that have as their foundation a respect for all philosophies of will and an admiration for anything respecting individual sovereignty. this was one of the primary vectors of my approach to the Thelemic, sufficient to live with and love a good number of the Beast's admirers and cultists. I may focus on the Law of Thelema as i understand it (relating in fact to the source of will in the individual, equating this with divinity in a manner), and thus the cults of the Beast hold a special meaning to me -- one I encounter in part as a measure of discipline.with respect to this specific change (fill to kill), i thought you, Brother Eshelman, and belmurru have adequately summarized the convincing argument against the change:
@belmurr said" {Crowley} liked "kill me" more when he wrote the Great Invocation, and, apparently, when he wrote the marginal note in Windram's ΘΕΛΗΜΑ. But he never implemented the change in a printing of Liber CCXX, which strongly suggests he thought better of it. ... 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."
it is rather odd that the heavy focus on preventing 'the change of one letter' (in style or whatever) may have led to the incident in some weird way. my guru informs me that Crowley was following after the Qur'an, so it isn't unique or original to Thelema and scripture. this appears to be correct: witness Qur'an 6:115: "And the word of your Lord has been accomplished truly and justly; there is none who can change His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing." and 18:27: "And recite, {O Muhammad}, what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord. There is no changer of His words, and never will you find in other than Him a refuge."extended outcomes already have been noted by Berashith (oto-usa.org and hermetic.com 220 documents changing their online versions to 'kill'), who puts his finger on the real and enduring problem when saying that "the issue of the authority to present a document as an 'A∴A∴ Publication in Class A' is of greater importance" and that "one could raise question after question about the nature of Class A documents and whether the authority to change them actually exists if one has good reasons, good intentions, and the 'proper' authority." looking at the soft white underbelly of "Class A" publishing that includes changes through the years, and even overt 'announced' changes such as this one, we may wonder how long these systems of classification will appeal to fluctuating cults.
though i have covered what i think of the social movement attendant to that, i'd like to respond here with respect to an outlet of the Great White Brotherhood and Third Order (presumed) to say that by my affiliated understanding its terrestrial manifestations are not that crucial, except to the corporeal aspirants who may participate in, and be influenced, by them.
with Simon Iff i agree that
"If this stuff is really initiating a crisis, I would see the danger for Thelema more in going the way of fundamentalist religion...."
I saw signs of that decades ago. my brother Ebony told me he met with 'Baptist Thelemites' wearing suits and attending Gnostic Mass, giving me the impression that we could look forward to a far greater conservatism making its way into the cultus. the changes apparently within the OTO of its EGC consolidation and initiation rite tweaking gave several of my kin incentive to break ties. perhaps this is just part of what brother Binyamin calls "{calcifying} around an esoteric core".Change not as much as the style of a letter; for behold! thou, o prophet, shalt not behold all these mysteries hidden therein.
-
http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/ae111/alrah/seeme_zpsea3eb53c.jpg
Please share.... everywhere!
-
This morning I sent the above flier out to almost every single OTO lodge in the entire world.
I'd noticed that while the news about the change is hot in the UK and US, the word hasn't filtered through to the rest of the world yet.
If we want to stop the OTO from changing the Book of the Law we need to reach out to as many Thelemites in as many countries as we can, with one clear and central argument against the change. That is the purpose of this flier. Please get pro-active - and if you know a foreign language, convert this flier or make a new one. Let's get this message out there!
A .'. 93 93/93!
-
@Alrah said
"...If we want to stop the OTO from changing the Book of the Law"
the (c)OTO will not change The Book of the Law, it will at most change its published versions."we need to reach out to as many Thelemites in as many countries as we can"
you won't be able to predict where they are located. some of them may be part of the cults, but the bulk of Thelemites will never have heard of the Beast."with one clear and central argument against the change. ..."
it's a top-down heirarchy (Old AEon). its incentives are only partly informed by A.'.A.'. standards (insofar as those who are affiliated to this initiatic club are actually connected to the Third Order). it isn't a democracy!! did you notice what happened when there were objections to 'reforms' made within the order previously? -
@nigris said
"
@Alrah said
"...If we want to stop the OTO from changing the Book of the Law"
the (c)OTO will not change The Book of the Law, it will at most change its published versions."By "published versions" you mean the new versions of The Book of the Law that will show the change, right?
Which means, they plan on changing (or "editing", depending on how PC you want to be), The Book of the Law.
Unless you just see The Book of the Law as the manuscript only, with Liber CCXX not being The Book of the Law.
@nigris said
"
"we need to reach out to as many Thelemites in as many countries as we can"
you won't be able to predict where they are located. some of them may be part of the cults, but the bulk of Thelemites will never have heard of the Beast."This refers to "adoption", and I would have advised Crowley against ever doing it, with his list of Saints. But what do I know?
@nigris said
"
"with one clear and central argument against the change. ..."
it's a top-down heirarchy (Old AEon). its incentives are only partly informed by A.'.A.'. standards (insofar as those who are affiliated to this initiatic club are actually connected to the Third Order). it isn't a democracy!! did you notice what happened when there were objections to 'reforms' made within the order previously?"Oh, do tell! What happened "when there were objections to 'reforms' made within the order [A:.A:.] previously", and what were those objections and reforms?
-
So, just learned of the Kill/Fill schism (yes, been out of Thelemic news for a while now) and read through the discussions on it. Oddly though, I can't help but feel a little non-plussed about it. I get the idea of wanting to have it exactly right, but sometimes things are not that simple and so I'm riding on this Hegelian wave of synthetic thinking.
I can understand why Crowley might have had difficulties deciding which is the more appropriate.
The light is mine; its rays consume me.
To me it seems the filling is also a killing. Tried to fish for a quick gematria correlation, but didn't find one at first glance. Nevertheless, it seems there is scarcely a difference between the two or rather, that as long as there is a difference, a schism if you will (a wound if you dare), the filling/killing has not been completed.
-
I don't mean to pick on you, but this is my point.
Your thoughts would be more valid if it were a Class B document.
However, it is a Class A document, and the issue is one of authority and nothing more.
Of course, a room full of scholars will tend to be biased toward the authority of the scholarly perspective. But it's a Class A document, and scholarly criticisms are irrelevant.
One either allows the Class A designation to be potentially more meaningful than one may rationally justify or not. That's the point of it, and any other more critical response kills that potential and places the power of the original text beneath, lower than, the power of the scholar and the rational mind.
-
I can understand why someone who uses non-plussed to mean nonchalant would be a bit lackadaisical about word choice...
