A Petition on please-do-not-change-the-book-of-the-law
-
"Back when I was in seminary school there was a young man there who put forth the proposition you could petition the OTO as if it were a democracy.... petition the OTO as if it were a democracy.... petition the OTO as if it were a democracy.....
YOU CANNOT PETITION THE OTO AS IF IT WERE A DEMOCRACY!"
Good luck with your petition, but it isn't as if William Breeze didn't already expect a rebellion to rise up. No one can prevent him, the outer head of the OTO, from doing whatever he wants. He's the King of Kings for jism's sake!
-
@Takamba said
""Back when I was in seminary school there was a young man there who put forth the proposition you could petition the OTO as if it were a democracy.... petition the OTO as if it were a democracy.... petition the OTO as if it were a democracy.....
YOU CANNOT PETITION THE OTO AS IF IT WERE A DEMOCRACY!"
Good luck with your petition, but it isn't as if William Breeze didn't already expect a rebellion to rise up. No one can prevent him, the outer head of the OTO, from doing whatever he wants. He's the King of Kings for jism's sake!"
We know that; HB has all the cards and I don't think he really cares what the few MoE that have the balls to disagree openly have to say. He probably regards this as a way of losing what he regards as undesirable elements.
-
@Uni_Verse said
"Anyone able to corroborate the information?"
It is incorrect that Crowley published "kill" in an edition of The Book of the Law more times than he published it as "fill."
There is no edition of The Book of the Law ever published by Crowley using "kill" in this place.
Following simply the examples given in the article you cite:
The original manuscript, though broadly referring to the inclusion from a vellum notebook, does specifically include the word "fill".
The Temple of Solomon and Equinox of the Gods references are the same item, since the latter was simply reproducing the former. IIRC the "kill" there was in the poetic paraphrase of the text of the stele, but NOT in The Book of the Law per se. (I don't care at all how he originally wrote it. I care about how it appears in Liber L.)
The original manuscript and (as far as I can recall without checking) every single time Crowley published Liber L. from 1909 through the climactic "I got it right this time!" 1938 edition, the word "fill" was used.
It is untrue that, "...the current printing of 'fill' that so many are acting as if it were canon derives from previous editorial decision in 1983 by Mr. Breeze for the publication of The Holy Books of Thelema," pushing aside Crowley's subsequent changes. Rather, that edition followed ever publication by Crowley of Liber L. and, especially, relied on the definitive 1938 edition with a small number of further typographic corrections from simple proofreading.
-
The more I discover about all that has gone before, the more I think, if he is considering all the factors, that it must be a very difficult decision.
I personally lean toward accepting "fill," which is technically, but very literally in the original manuscript of the Law, as that represents the inspiration at the moment of the dictation even if technically an incorrect mental inclusion from the poetic translation of the stele. There are other reasons, but this is primary for me. It best captures that moment in time, and for me, the inspiration of that particular moment in time, even in its accidents, carries more weight than consistency of information with the other source document.
But me, I'm primarily a mystic, so that's my bias.
-
@Uni_Verse said
"What about this fellow who believes "kill" has been used more than "fill" overall?
markluskin.blogspot.com/2013/05/hegemonic-holy-books.html
Anyone able to corroborate the information?"
@Mark Luskin said
"
If you look at the variations on this during Crowley's lifetime and overseen publications it runs something like this:"1904 ??? in the missing and presumed lost vellum notebook
1904 “fill” in Liber Legis MS
1909 “fill” in Thelema / The Holy Books of Thelemaaft
1909 – bef 1913 “fill” hand corrected via marginal note to “kill” in θέλημα
1912 “kill” in The Priest from The Temple of Solomon the King, Eq I vii
1936 “kill” in The Equinox of the Gods"(summary from "My Life With the Fill Kill Kult")"
The problem as I see it is that the "kill" was published by Crowley (1912 & 1936) in works apocryphal to Liber Legis. Liber Legis, it appears, has always had "fill" (with the exception of the copy of Liber Legis in Thelema that Crowley allegedly added the handwritten "k" in a margin near the crossed out "f."
As I am not mistaken that "The Temple of Solomon the King" is not Liber Legis, but a telling of how (among other things) Liber Legis came about and The Equinox of the Gods is similar in that vein. The portions of those writing where "kill" is inserted instead of "fill" aren't actually within "The Book of the Law" themselves, but in the versification of the Stele and in a separate context. In other words, Crowley was happy to change his verse where and when he pleased, but he never did so within the actual text of Liber Legis.
see Equinox Vol. I, No. 7 : the page labeled A PARAPHRASE OF THE INSCRIPTIONS UPON THE OBVERSE OF THE STELE OF REVEALING (not numbered but between pages 368 and 369). It does say "kill" there - but again, this is not a class A text, this is a poetic revision of a historic artifact.
The Equinox of the Gods version appears to me to be nothing more than a reprinting of this exact copy. Again, I point out that this is not taking place in a Class A text, not within Liber Legis itself, but regarding a poem Crowley had every right to tinker with (outside of its placement in a Class A text) as he so desired.
So these instances of "controversy" regarding Crowley's opinion about "kill" and "fill" seem meaningless to me. He clearly never made a change to the actual text within Liber Legis (unless this marginal note is in the section of the Holy Books that is Liber Legis and not the section of the Holy Books that is yet another copy of the above mentioned PARAPHRASE).
You see, Breeze, in his blog, didn't make clear to me where he found this Effin Kay. He could have found it in Liber Legis of the Holy Books or he could have found it in the Paraphrase of the Stele portion of the Holy Books. In any case, the real question is how many printings of Liber Legis did Crowley sign off on after 1913 and not himself make this "correction?"
-
@Bereshith said
"I personally lean toward accepting "fill," which is technically, but very literally in the original manuscript of the Law, as that represents the inspiration at the moment of the dictation even if technically an incorrect mental inclusion from the poetic translation of the stele."
I too lean toward "fill".
But it's not altogether clear that the word in question is actually part of the "inspiration at the moment." Although it's hard to tell from B&W scans, it does appear that the word (and associated lines) are written in pencil. Whether this 'editorial clean up' occured in the immediate aftermath of the dictation or at some later date is unknown.
Maybe Rose walked off with the pen after filling in the blanks in verse 72.
-
Well, that's ultimately the point, though. What's actually there in the original manuscript is as close as it is possible for certainty to get to recovering the original inspiration. The rest is pure guesswork. That's the record, and that's what's in it. You don't get closer to the original inspiration by deviating from the actual record, even if that particular inclusion came a little later. That's still as close as you can get.
-
IMVHO...
The fact that "kill" is in a non-CCXX source document matters as little to me as the fact that the name "Hadit" is nowhere to be found in
[attachment=0:1wqiumzm]<!-- ia0 -->Hadit.JPG<!-- ia0 -->[/attachment:1wqiumzm] -
Does anyone else feel it is significant that this change involves a single letter? To me that's highly significant, in that the book itself seems to perfectly point to THIS particular issue. It's not a word, or a sentence or a verse number, but indeed "the style of a single letter". I say it is definitely saying NOT to change it!
What "mistakes" happened in the past that led to "fill" being used, was meant to happen, just as the Stele itself just happened to be exhibit number 666.
Divine Providence.
-
@Jason R said
"Does anyone else feel it is significant that this change involves a single letter? To me that's highly significant, in that the book itself seems to perfectly point to THIS particular issue. It's not a word, or a sentence or a verse number, but indeed "the style of a single letter". I say it is definitely saying NOT to change it!"
Because you are zeroing in, with laser-like precision, in the exact applicability of this instruction, I want to mention that... the style of the letter isn't being changed. Only the letter is being changed.
(To Heru: That's interesting. How many Fs are there?)
-
"Because you are zeroing in, with laser-like precision, in the exact applicability of this instruction, I want to mention that... the style of the letter isn't being changed. Only the letter is being changed."
I'm not implying this is the ONLY reason for it, and it doesn't have a wider implication, only that it definitely suits the situation perfectly. I argue that the "style" could be a word used to also mean a "different" letter. The main point was that the wording of the verse just happens to suggest a single letter, and this proposed change deals with a single letter. To me anyway, it is highly significant.
-
@Jason R said
"
"Because you are zeroing in, with laser-like precision, in the exact applicability of this instruction, I want to mention that... the style of the letter isn't being changed. Only the letter is being changed."I'm not implying this is the ONLY reason for it, and it doesn't have a wider implication, only that it definitely suits the situation perfectly. I argue that the "style" could be a word used to also mean a "different" letter. The main point was that the wording of the verse just happens to suggest a single letter, and this proposed change deals with a single letter. To me anyway, it is highly significant."
Well, I understand the starting point of focusing on the most precisely literal meaning.
The next lens I personally put on top of that only makes sense in referring to the original manuscript. And that's a big one. Because it leaves open the possibility of alternate printed revisions of that text, so long as the original remains unchanged and given.
But, the next lens for me is, "If not in the style of a letter, how much more so a letter?" ...even in alternate print revisions.
But it has to be said that even this is an interpretive choice for the meaning of the literal text, and then you have to consider whether it applies to printed translations of the text so long as the original is given... yada, yada, yada...
Textual variants. hurrah.
-
620 "f"s with "fill"; 619 without.
Interesting, because 620 is 31 x 20 (kaph)
-
From the OTO's website:
Class “A” consists of books of which may be changed not so much as the style of a letter: that is, they represent the utterance of an Adept entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organization.
Class “B” consists of books or essays which are the result of ordinary scholarship, enlightened and earnest.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"From the OTO's website:
Class “A” consists of books of which may be changed not so much as the style of a letter: that is, they represent the utterance of an Adept entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organization.
Class “B” consists of books or essays which are the result of ordinary scholarship, enlightened and earnest.
"See how simple it could be? Was intended to be? Avoids all the yada, yada, yada.
Unchanging it.... Sounds like a criticism by the visible head of the organization...
-
hmm. Interesting. I finally decided to look at The Law is For All (New Falcon, 1996, 1998) and on page 166 Crowley comments
"Stanza 3 suggests the Rosicrucian Benediction:
May thy Mind be open unto the Higher!
May thy Heart be the Centre of Light!
May thy Body be the Temple of the Rosy Cross."(Later, in footnote, he writes "These are the words of the Reception of the Adeptus Minor 5°=6° ritual of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.")
Sounds a lot like "fill me" was Crowley's accepted version when he wrote this long commentary (1919-1922 somewheres).