"Kill/Fill" - not "Kill Bill"
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The 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.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He 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 cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
Yes, AFAIK it's lost.
Nonetheless, based on the secondary (or indirect) evidence, I'm 93% sure the original said "kill."
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The 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.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He 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 cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The 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.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He 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 cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Yes, AFAIK it's lost.
Nonetheless, based on the secondary (or indirect) evidence, I'm 93% sure the original said "kill.""
It just goes to show the weaknesses of the case H.B. makes though. It's circumstantial evidence based on at least 2 assumptions. The first is the assumption that 'fill me' is a mistake. There is no evidence to back that assumption. The second is the assumption that we know what was in the vellum book, when infact we can only speculate on what was in it on the basis of probabilities.
I know that in courts there is a requirement that the more serious the crime committed then the evidence must be stronger and carry more weight to get a conviction, whereas for misdemeanors or in exceptional circumstances then a judge can weigh evidence on the basis of probabilities.
The way I see it, is that following the 2 assumptions he makes then he presents a well reasoned case, but there is no 'smoking gun'.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The 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.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He 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 cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
"In my travels I have learned to be cautious. âThe Great Invocationâ and the Paraphrase were both âcorrectedâ by yours truly in Magick (Liber ABA) (1994 and later editions) to change their original readings of "kill me" to âfill meââa woefully misguided attempt to make these non-Class A texts agree with what I had every reason to assume was the correct reading in Liber Legis. I think I originally picked up the âfill meâ version by âpicking upâ (a term of art for cutting and pasting from another electronic document) part of the Paraphrase from Liber CCXX to save time, and failed to catch the different wording. In a later revision I decided to let it stand, and just annotated it as such, thinking that one of the readings had to be wrong, and it couldnât be the Class A, could it? This was an object lesson for me: wait for the source material. You might have to wait a hundred years, but it may turn up."
An object lesson evidently not learned! We're still waiting for the source material (vellum notebook) to show up, so it looks like "yours truly" is heading for another woefully misguided attempt.
BTW: Isn't the word you're looking for 'abject?' "object" is what everyone is doing to another woefully misguided attempt.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The 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.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He 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 cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
@Carrot_Childe said
""In my travels I have learned to be cautious. âThe Great Invocationâ and the Paraphrase were both âcorrectedâ by yours truly in Magick (Liber ABA) (1994 and later editions) to change their original readings of "kill me" to âfill meââa woefully misguided attempt to make these non-Class A texts agree with what I had every reason to assume was the correct reading in Liber Legis. I think I originally picked up the âfill meâ version by âpicking upâ (a term of art for cutting and pasting from another electronic document) part of the Paraphrase from Liber CCXX to save time, and failed to catch the different wording. In a later revision I decided to let it stand, and just annotated it as such, thinking that one of the readings had to be wrong, and it couldnât be the Class A, could it? This was an object lesson for me: wait for the source material. You might have to wait a hundred years, but it may turn up."
An object lesson evidently not learned! We're still waiting for the source material (vellum notebook) to show up, so it looks like "yours truly" is heading for another woefully misguided attempt.
BTW: Isn't the word you're looking for 'abject?' "object" is what everyone is doing to another woefully misguided attempt.
"CC... Jim has jokingly estimated that the vellum would say 'kill' at a 93% probability. But what is 'really' known about the vellum book? To quote an old movie... 'gimmie the facts man!' What are the facts that we can safely say about the vellum book, and what is guesswork, speculations and wishful thinking on the part of H.B.?
We shall all be 'abject' until you answer!
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The 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.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He 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 cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
Uh, that wasn't a joke. (OK, the number was a fun estimate. But I sincerely meant that I am all but completely certain that this is what it says, based on indirect evidence.)
But I can be pretty relaxed about that notebook because I don't think it matters. I'm far more concerned about what got written onto the original manuscript, and whether it was written there soon enough to constitute "part of the original process." The evidence, thus far, appears to say that it was.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The 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.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He 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 cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Uh, that wasn't a joke. (OK, the number was a fun estimate. But I sincerely meant that I am all but completely certain that this is what it says, based on indirect evidence.)
But I can be pretty relaxed about that notebook because I don't think it matters. I'm far more concerned about what got written onto the original manuscript, and whether it was written there soon enough to constitute "part of the original process." The evidence, thus far, appears to say that it was."
I agree with your reasoning that the penciled 'Fill me' in the MS was written in Cairo before being transcripted into type - and that it is highly unlikely that a grand chess master would forget his own poetry or paraphrasing within a few days of making them, or make a mistake about such a thing.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The 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.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He 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 cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
I put that one under the heading of inspiration. Most likely the original said "kill." But, at a time, in the IMMEDIATE wake of the dictation, when this was fresh in his mind and he had the original poem at hand, he nonetheless wrote "fill" on the manuscript. Something in his mind impelled it to come out that way.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The 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.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He 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 cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
@Jim Eshelman said
"I put that one under the heading of inspiration. Most likely the original said "kill." But, at a time, in the IMMEDIATE wake of the dictation, when this was fresh in his mind and he had the original poem at hand, he nonetheless wrote "fill" on the manuscript. Something in his mind impelled it to come out that way."
And when it comes out that way then we have 220 instances of the letter 'K' showing in the MS.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The 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.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He 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 cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
@Jim Eshelman said
"I put that one under the heading of inspiration. Most likely the original said "kill." But, at a time, in the IMMEDIATE wake of the dictation, when this was fresh in his mind and he had the original poem at hand, he nonetheless wrote "fill" on the manuscript. Something in his mind impelled it to come out that way."
@Jim - a question if you do not mind. I find this dilemma intriguing - it may be my own fantasy, but I can't help but wonder about this and curious to hear your thoughts.
This issue would be (the first maybe?) true ordeal for the Thelemic Community at large, yes? It's quite an issue considering, as Jason mentioned, it really comes down to a
single letter issue, precisely (or almost precisely) what is 'warned' in liber al 'change not so much as the style of the letter'.This almost seems to me to be too perfect of a dilemma - almost paradoxical but at the very least extremely ironic. Personally I attribute 'change not so much as the style of the letter' to mean 'hey dont even think about breathing on it the wrong way, dont change anything!"
I can't help but wonder if this dilemma was not 'programmed' to happen by Crowley himself, as a way to design an ordeal for the community after he was gone.
I say this because it seems to me that at any time, Crowley could have very well easily made his intentions known here, especially since the issue itself is almost picture perfect of the actual warning in liber al.
I have an easier time wrapping my head around Crowley designing this as an ordeal for the thelemic community than I do Crowley being lazy and not making it crystal clear somewhere.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The 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.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He 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 cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
I find it interesting that this is the 1936 Edition of "The Equinox of the Gods" that has "kill" instead of "will" and that this edition that the O.H.O. is relying upon as authorative also says that the book, 'Liber L vel legis' was received on "the first of April."
And a complete edition with the original title page intact, has never been made in accordance with the instructions given in the book. We've never had all the pages to assemble the manuscript as we're instructed to do in the manuscript.
And of course the writings on that page are particularly problematic, and open up a baker's dozen of cans of worms. David Allen Hulse expounds upon this in great depth in his "Genesis of the Book of the Law" Part 1 & Part 2.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The 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.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He 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 cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The 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.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He 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 cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
@ldfriend56 said
"This issue would be (the first maybe?) true ordeal for the Thelemic Community at large, yes?"
Well, of course, that's the way it's playing out, so that's what it is (de facto). But if you mean by this that it was somehow plotted ort planned or set in place in advance, then I would answer the opposite way. "True ordeals" don't manifest that way. They're a consequence of something terribly simply working its way through the field of our own distorted complexity.
So, yes, people are having some struggle with this. No, IMNSHO it isn't some Planned Event.
"It's quite an issue considering, as Jason mentioned, it really comes down to a single letter issue, precisely (or almost precisely) what is 'warned' in liber al 'change not so much as the style of the letter'."
As I pointed out to Jason, the verse he chose to read with its subtleties had a subtlety he looked right past: The verse only refers to not changing the style or a letter. It says nothing about changing a single letter itself.
So: I'm not convinced. Or, at best: The argument isn't good enough.
"I can't help but wonder if this dilemma was not 'programmed' to happen by Crowley himself, as a way to design an ordeal for the community after he was gone."
That sort of thinking is so easy to justify after the fact, and the hindsight rationalizations always seem like justifications. There is a big difference between staying, "Damn, I was too dumb to understand that thing, so I really fucked it up" and saying, "It seems I was created dumb so that I could have the experience of fucking that thing up for some greater reason."
"I say this because it seems to me that at any time, Crowley could have very well easily made his intentions known here, especially since the issue itself is almost picture perfect of the actual warning in liber al."
I tend to think he did make it known. He published the 1938 edition of Liber Legis, with a great public pronouncement that he'd finally gotten it right! (He was wrong about getting it all right, but is a separate matter from his intentions about it.)
"I have an easier time wrapping my head around Crowley designing this as an ordeal for the thelemic community than I do Crowley being lazy and not making it crystal clear somewhere."
To what end? (Of course, the purpose of an experience is always manifest in the consequence of the experience, so I just asked an unfair question - one we couldn't answer except in hindsight. But I leave the question anyway, to get people thinking.)
PS - You asked my opinion, so I gave it.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The 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.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He 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 cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
"As I pointed out to Jason, the verse he chose to read with its subtleties had a subtlety he looked right past: The verse only refers to not changing the style or a letter. It says nothing about changing a single letter itself.
So: I'm not convinced. Or, at best: The argument isn't good enough."
I was simply pointing out that it involved one letter, just as the verse suggests. Regardless, this point about it saying "style" instead, is not that big of a deal really. It STILL is relevant in that it speaks about a "letter", it's singular, and this proposed change deals with a single letter. In addition, there was talk about penciled in corrections, specifically turning the "f" into a "k", that is technically "changing the style", the shape of the letter. Right?
"It says nothing about changing a single letter itself."
1:36 "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
"One letter" which of course is changing "f" to "k" - one letter is the subject at hand. How am I wrong?
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The 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.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He 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 cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
@Jason R said
"
"As I pointed out to Jason, the verse he chose to read with its subtleties had a subtlety he looked right past: The verse only refers to not changing the style or a letter. It says nothing about changing a single letter itself.So: I'm not convinced. Or, at best: The argument isn't good enough."
I was simply pointing out that it involved one letter, just as the verse suggests. Regardless, this point about it saying "style" instead, is not that big of a deal really. It STILL is relevant in that it speaks about a "letter", it's singular, and this proposed change deals with a single letter. In addition, there was talk about penciled in corrections, specifically turning the "f" into a "k", that is technically "changing the style", the shape of the letter. Right?
"It says nothing about changing a single letter itself."
1:36 "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
"One letter" which of course is changing "f" to "k" - one letter is the subject at hand. How am I wrong?"
Absolutely not wrong, as well as the fact that the verse Jim is alluding to specifically says (verbatim)
"Change not as much as the style of a letter; for behold! thou, o prophet, shalt not behold all these mysteries hidden therein. "
That is, "not as much as" means "not even so much as," not, as he seems to be suggesting, "only don't change the style." Not so much as, let alone a complete revision of. I side with you Jason, this entire consideration is wrong of the Breeze to imagine and the FACT that "the Prophet" (not future teller, as Alrah elsewhere believes, but "truth" teller) never changed this publicly himself. That alone is evidence for me. -
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The 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.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He 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 cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
"That is, "not as much as" means "not even so much as," not, as he seems to be suggesting, "only don't change the style." Not so much as, let alone a complete revision of."
Great catch Takamba! Your completely right, that's exactly what I feel it is saying as well, I missed this. In other words, "don't tamper with even the style of a letter, let alone change something more". It also tells us to retain the* original* in the writing of the Beast, which of course says* "fill"*. I think that's another important point, that regardless the original has "fill" and not "kill" - period.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The 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.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He 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 cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
@Jim Eshelman said
"
PS - You asked my opinion, so I gave it.
"Indeed! thank you your thoughts on the matter welcome. I'm hardly aware of the history at the level you are so I trust your judgement here.
I shall continue to watch as this unfolds from the side lines - your time appreciated.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The 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.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He 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 cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
@Jason R said
"...specifically turning the "f" into a "k", that is technically "changing the style", the shape of the letter. Right?"
Wrong.
"1:36 "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it.""
There you go - that sharpens your argument. Good job.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The 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.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He 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 cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Jason R said
"...specifically turning the "f" into a "k", that is technically "changing the style", the shape of the letter. Right?"Wrong.
"1:36 "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it.""
There you go - that sharpens your argument. Good job."
You're welcome.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The 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.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He 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 cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Jason R said
"...specifically turning the "f" into a "k", that is technically "changing the style", the shape of the letter. Right?"Wrong.
"1:36 "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it.""
There you go - that sharpens your argument. Good job."
It's a moot point anyway; but I still believe changing the style could refer to one fiddling with how a letter appears, how it was written; which one does when penciling over it. If I'm adding to a letter, with lines to transform it to "appear" as another letter, this is changing the style of it.
SO was this just a test or something? I find it hard to believe you didn't know about this other supporting verse.
My original point, then remains, and I am guessing you agree? Liber L specifically speaks to this very issue, and is perfectly clear what changing it would lead to - "folly"! I find it highly significant that this whole thing is predicted within Liber L, and it seems to warn against this very situation to the letter (pun intended).
As I said, I believe this supports the claim of AC and to the veracity of the reception and power of Awaiss.
*"The Author called himself Aiwass, and claimed to be the 'the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat'; that is, a messenger from the forces ruling this earth at present, as will be explained later on.
How could he prove that he was in fact a being of a kind superior to any of the human race, and so entitled to speak with authority? Evidently he must show Knowledge and Power such as no man has ever been known to posses.
- He showed his Knowledge chiefly by the use of cipher or cryptogram in certain passages to set forth recondite facts, including some events which had yet to take place, such that no human being could possibly be aware of them; thus the proof of his claim exists in the manuscript itself. It is independent of any human witness."*
The above quote of AC speaks to this sort of thing, and demonstrates how the author seems to know what sort of temptation would arise, perfectly.