"Kill/Fill" - not "Kill Bill"
-
Why does it have to be one or the other?
-
@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'.
-
"In my travels I have learned to be cautious. “The Great Invocation” and the Paraphrase were both “corrected” by yours truly in Magick (Liber ABA) (1994 and later editions) to change their original readings of "kill me" to “fill me”—a 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 “fill me” version by “picking up” (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 couldn’t 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.
-
@Carrot_Childe said
""In my travels I have learned to be cautious. “The Great Invocation” and the Paraphrase were both “corrected” by yours truly in Magick (Liber ABA) (1994 and later editions) to change their original readings of "kill me" to “fill me”—a 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 “fill me” version by “picking up” (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 couldn’t 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!
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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 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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
Welcome another one of them. Any other "logic" problems you'd like to expound?
-
@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.
-
"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?
-
@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. -
"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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@Jason R said
"SO was this just a test or something? I find it hard to believe you didn't know about this other supporting verse. "
No, not a test. It was, though, a training - a sharpening of your critical thinking.
And it's also so that, though I find your argument interesting, I don't find it persuasive. For one thing, the important arguments IMHO need to be documentary ones, not judgmental ones. And, in this case, to think that this verse is singularly pointed at this event (or one like it) is giving far too much wait to this event. The idea that the book would stop and embed a warning aimed at this one little detail seems... I'm not sure what the exact category is... some variation of inflated. Almost narcissistic. And it trivializes the real mysteries of the book.
I agree - and agreed even before you made your point - that not even a single character should be changed. (That's why my focus is on renewing attention to validating the original content and the provenance of the penciled passage.) The various forms of thought swirling around that are variations of, "Oh, my, the Book actually anticipated this exact situation and, look!, it gave us exact instructions for this very hour or our travail," is... at best... "So what!" Mostly I just think it's silly, inflationary, and overly attributing meaning.
"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)."
Yeah, that's the kind of thinking that I think is clever. Excessively clever. A tease by Choronzon.