"Kill/Fill" - not "Kill Bill"
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Azidonis said
"That is, "I am grateful to the the Officers of the A.'.A.'. for consenting to the release of part of this ritual material. This was done in the public interest, so as to further our understanding of Crowley’s intention with Liber Legis". - H.B.If someone wouldn't mind helping me understand English, saying "the Officers of the A.'.A.'." implies one of two things: 1) ALL of the Officers of the A.'.A.'., or 2) THE Officers of the A.'.A.'. (as in, the 'main ones'). Maybe it implies a third thing. If someone would please help me understand this not-so-subtle wording, I will be grateful."
As the imprimaturs on the recent Equinox volumes he released would testify, there are three people that he regards as the A.'.A.'. Chiefs.
For myself, I would call them Chiefs of a particular lineage. In the past, Bill has said that my book, The Mystical & Magical System of the A.'.A.'. is flawed specifically because it speaks of lineages, and I've gone on to say that if that's the worst criticism I get, I'm happy to embrace the role of tolerant pragmatist
Regardless, he has his point of view, and I'm sure that's where he's coming from.
I also respect his not publishing the excerpt from a confidential A.'.A.'. initiation ritual without some such justification. That would create a far worse new precedent."
Thanks for the reply. I have been content to view them in the same way for quite some time, although I have at times in the past (falsely) hoped for some sort of union between lineages.
It does seem that they are out to commit only themselves as "THE A:.A:. lineage", which I know beyond all doubt to be a complete and total lie.
And that all of this is being put "on the back of the A:.A:.", as it were. That particular 'lineage' (if it can even be called that!), is a clear indication of fraud, in my humble opinion.
Not even Motta stooped so low... or did he? I don't remember hearing of him doing so.
As for your book, I don't care what the say - the masterpiece that you presented was far more worthy of Class B than Gunther's trash, and I'm really trying to put that nicely.
@Metzareph said
"
There is a difference between claims regarding the OTO and claims regarding the AA. Two very different orders with very different purposes.
This whole thing (including the Fill/Kill debacle) boils down to control and not the "spiritual reality of A.'.A.'. nor tradition of OTO"."This appears true, unfortunately. And to be quite honest, it's sickening.
-
I've written a critical review of HB's recent third article, which is available to read on Scribd.
-
@Alrah said
"I've written a critical review of HB's recent third article, which is available to read on Scribd.
Liked the article.
Unfortunately, no articles or discussions are going to change H.B.'s mind. At the moment, he's just gathering information and objections, and doing his best to come up with as solid of a case as possible - but the outcome of that case will continue to be in favor of "kill" in his eyes, no matter how much anyone reasons with him.
And then there are people who are "on his side" no matter what he chooses - a quaint little Bill Breeze army.
He wants it to be "kill". He wants a (c)O.T.O. and a (c)A:.A:.
What he fails to realize is that a (c)A:.A:. is impossible.
So, let the B.B. continue to reason and 'debate', and do as much as he can to confuse the symbols. It ultimately means nothing more than him spreading a big stain across the pages of Thelema that will last until it is removed, for all things are impermanent.
-
@Azidonis said
"
@Alrah said
"I've written a critical review of HB's recent third article, which is available to read on Scribd.Liked the article.
Unfortunately, no articles or discussions are going to change H.B.'s mind. At the moment, he's just gathering information and objections, and doing his best to come up with as solid of a case as possible - but the outcome of that case will continue to be in favor of "kill" in his eyes, no matter how much anyone reasons with him. "
Cheers. I felt that the 220 good folk that have signed the petition so far deserved something a little more substantial from me than Facebook soundbites.
The last time HB made an error like this was when he “corrected” Magick (Liber ABA) (1994 and later editions) to change their original readings of “kill me” to “fill me”. He is able to admit that he was woefully misguided in this, and hopefully he will have learned enough caution from making that mistake to admit to himself that he may be making another in exactly the same vein.
Frater HB needs to learn the proper use of the logical AND statement, instead of overusing the logical OR... and I suggest it may improve his meditations and be a boon to his GW as well. Just imagine the sort of knots the poor fellow is likely to get into if he applies the logical OR instead of the AND to the dualism of the Self vs. the NOT-Self.
-
93,
Some people question the way I relate to the change to Liber AL. They want to know the basis of my argument.
When the Spanish Inquisition was at work they decided that the solar calendar was correct, therefore the Jews could only have a lunar calendar and they sought to make the books and records reflect that fact by 'correcting' them. A 'twelve' in the Zohar was even 'expunged' and replaced with 'thirteen' for the lunar months in connection with this affair. The Inquisition took the line that the Jews were far too degenerate to know of the Solar Calendar and so they must have copied this information down from their betters. Actually, they had known it since 70 BCE or far older in their history. But the inquisition took the view that this wasn't really 'Jewish' information which was of the 13 (and the 13th apostle Judas). Thus ran the 'reasoning' and scholarly judgement of the inquisition when they changed the Zohar.
Prejudice made the change. Prejudice justified it in sweet words. And prejudice went on to burn and censor many other books.
And now I hear... Crowley must have forgot... been lazy... etc... and it smells like prejudice (not teen spirit) to me...
-
-
@seekinghga said
"
@Alrah said
"93,Some people question the way I relate to the change to Liber AL."
What change?"
... Have you been on a retreat in the mountains or something?
... If so - post photographs and I will explain.
If not - read the thread and the Lashtal threads, and then the blogs and please check out the petition and sign!
P.s. - if I were to explain right now... I would only bias you.
-
@Alrah said
"
@seekinghga said
"
@Alrah said
"93,Some people question the way I relate to the change to Liber AL."
What change?"
... Have you been on a retreat in the mountains or something?
... If so - post photographs and I will explain.
If not - read the thread and the Lashtal threads, and then the blogs and please check out the petition and sign!
P.s. - if I were to explain right now... I would only bias you.
"My cynicism opts to decline, thanks.
"Beware therefore! Love all, lest perchance is a King concealed! Say you so? Fool! If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him."
-
http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/ae111/alrah/Peculiar_zps45db6063.jpg
I've chosen to select just 5 from many differences between Liber xxxI and Liber CCXX and only from the first few pages of each work. I show the 5 examples featured in the poster in brackets of the verses (below) as they appear in the 1976 Weiser version of the little red Book of the Law.
- AL I,15: Now (ye) shall know that the chosen priest & apostle of infinite space is the prince-priest the Beast; and in his woman called the Scarlet Woman is all power given. They shall gather my children into their fold: they shall bring the glory of the stars into the hearts of men.
3 & 2) AL I, 22: Now, therefore, I am known to ye by my name Nuit, and to him by a secret name which I will give (him) when at last he knoweth me. Since I am Infinite Space, and the Infinite Stars (thereof), do ye also thus. Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt.
-
AL I, 26. Then saith the prophet and slave of the beauteous one: Who am I, and what shall be the sign? So she answered (him), bending down, a lambent flame of blue, all-touching, all penetrant, her lovely hands upon the black earth, & her lithe body arched for love, and her soft feet not hurting the little flowers: Thou knowest! And the sign shall be my ecstasy, the consciousness of the continuity of existence, the omnipresence of my body.
-
- There are four gates to one palace; the floor of that palace (is of) silver and gold; lapis lazuli & jasper are there; and all rare scents; jasmine & rose, and the emblems of death. Let him enter in turn or at once the four gates; let him stand on the floor of the palace. Will he not sink? Amn. Ho! warrior, if thy servant sink? But there are means and means. Be goodly therefore: dress ye all in fine apparel; eat rich foods and drink sweet wines and wines that foam! Also, take your fill and will of love as ye will, when, where and with whom ye will! But always unto me.
Note - the punctuation is also different in Liber xxxi and ccxx, and the punctuation in ccxx at times misleads...
This is not to show that CCXX is 'wrong', but that there are important differences which the prophet deliberately kept in the work and didn't regard their inclusion in CCXX as an error or in need of correction.
The mathematics of CCXX & Liber XXXI are different, and each reveal different hidden content. Thus - the published version of CCXX should remain EXACTLY as the scribe wished it in the last known published and authorized version of CCXX by 'H'im.
-
Ps... if you total the letters of Page 1 + page 3 of Liber XXXI then they come to 718 letters.
- 361 + 3) 357 = 718.
I also note that both page 1 and page 5 have 361 letters each.
-
-
Except that your two examples are already capitals whereas the 'f' in fill clearly is not.....?
-
93,
I think it is a k, it looks like a k and is different from the other two examples, I just don't know if it's Crowleys K....
Everyone has seen the arguments presented and I'm fairly certain most of the people here agree that it is is 'fill' and not kill. I have two copies of liber L and quite frankly, even if it sounds a bit rude, I couldn't care less what anyone else has. Then again I do side that noone has the authority to change a class A document, but surely any real seeker would check the manuscript and see that big old 'fill'.....perhaps another organisation will publish a clean copy and advertise it as an 'unchanged' version. I believe at the end of the day Mr Breeze has made his decision and believes he is correct in doing so and so nothing anyone says or does is going to change his decision, especially since he believes it is the will of the universe for this to happen. Hell if I believed that, I wouldn't go against it either!
93, 93/93.
-
@Archaeus said
"Except that your two examples are already capitals whereas the 'f' in fill clearly is not.....?"
In which case it would indicate the f should be F.
Aum! let it Fill me.
But as it was neither changed to a k not capitalized to an F by Crowley it makes no difference.
Some other points of note are:
- Usually Crowley rings spelling changes in his proofing rather than striking them through. I've only found one other occurrence of him striking through a spelling change and that is also in the Windram copy- into > unto
- If it was a k then why is it a uppercase K rather than a lowercase 'k'?
- Crowley (or someone) lifts the pressure between the two characters rather than follows through as he would have done with one character. He does not lift in other instances of the letter K.
- If it was a K then it omits the proofing mark of |. It should be |k. Also unusual for Crowley but also seen in the Windram copy (into > unto again). This again raises the question of whether Crowley really proofed that section or whether Windram or another may have done it.
So it is more likely to be |c than K. If HB really believes it is a K then he should be changing it to a capital and not a lowercase k. Why doesn't he?
There is an assumption being made that the K is really a K, but it's just an assumption. It could as easily be a |c.
-
-
@mark0987 said
"93,
I think it is a k, it looks like a k and is different from the other two examples, I just don't know if it's Crowleys K....
Everyone has seen the arguments presented and I'm fairly certain most of the people here agree that it is is 'fill' and not kill. I have two copies of liber L and quite frankly, even if it sounds a bit rude, I couldn't care less what anyone else has. Then again I do side that noone has the authority to change a class A document, but surely any real seeker would check the manuscript and see that big old 'fill'.....perhaps another organisation will publish a clean copy and advertise it as an 'unchanged' version. I believe at the end of the day Mr Breeze has made his decision and believes he is correct in doing so and so nothing anyone says or does is going to change his decision, especially since he believes it is the will of the universe for this to happen. Hell if I believed that, I wouldn't go against it either!
93, 93/93."
You're right, it doesn't look like the other two editing marks, which is not to say that's not what it is; either way 'd say this is a pretty slim piece of evidence, and unnecessary in the face of the weight of evidence that Breeze's 'correction' is merely his own folly.
-
@Archaeus said
"
@mark0987 said
"93,I think it is a k, it looks like a k and is different from the other two examples, I just don't know if it's Crowleys K....
Everyone has seen the arguments presented and I'm fairly certain most of the people here agree that it is is 'fill' and not kill. I have two copies of liber L and quite frankly, even if it sounds a bit rude, I couldn't care less what anyone else has. Then again I do side that noone has the authority to change a class A document, but surely any real seeker would check the manuscript and see that big old 'fill'.....perhaps another organisation will publish a clean copy and advertise it as an 'unchanged' version. I believe at the end of the day Mr Breeze has made his decision and believes he is correct in doing so and so nothing anyone says or does is going to change his decision, especially since he believes it is the will of the universe for this to happen. Hell if I believed that, I wouldn't go against it either!
93, 93/93."
You're right, it doesn't look like the other two editing marks, which is not to say that's not what it is; either way 'd say this is a pretty slim piece of evidence, and unnecessary in the face of the weight of evidence that Breeze's 'correction' is merely his own folly."
I think Crowley certain wrote in Windram's copy but I don't believe he proofed it, because he uses different proofing conventions in his other works. I think he's made some notes on Qabalah for Windram in the margins, but the capitals by the trigrams don't look like they are written in Crowley's distinctive hand either. They are corse and inelegant. I have zero confidence that the proof-reader and Crowley are the same writer for these reasons.
-
I think that this whole thing merely puts us into the mouth of Choronzon, divides Thelemites and drags the whole movement into the sort of sectarian stupidity that devises like Class A designations were supposed to avoid, for which reason Breeze has shown himself to be unpardonably stupid.
In 500 years Thelema will be just another divided cultus, much like Christianity and Islam are today. Truly the limits of human stupidity are boundless.
-
@Archaeus said
"I think that this whole thing merely puts us into the mouth of Choronzon, divides Thelemites and drags the whole movement into the sort of sectarian stupidity that devises like Class A designations were supposed to avoid, for which reason Breeze has shown himself to be unpardonably stupid.
In 500 years Thelema will be just another divided cultus, much like Christianity and Islam are today. Truly the limits of human stupidity are boundless."
Unquestionably stupid. Breeze, and Gunther, and Wasserman, and Lon Milo Duquette, and David Shoemaker, and all the ones who immediately accepted whatever Breeze said without the slightest question. The Churchill gang... oooooh yes.