College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

Hi, yes, it's Κὸγξ, ὂμπαξ . With a nu it is a misspelling. I am the one who corrected the wikipedia article on Crowley's Konx Om Pax with the original source in Hesychius. Crowley knew this, of course, and gives it the value of 404 in the Greek Qabalah.

In Greek orthography, a gamma before another gamma or the other velar consonants Κ, ξ, and χ, represents the sound /ng/, a characteristic called “ingma.” This is simply a rule of Greek, both ancient and modern, and there are no orthographic exceptions.

Here are some other well-known words with Latin or English cognates which show it –

Ιυγγες - - “Iunges”as in Star Ruby ritual (nominative plural form of Ιυγξ, “Iunx”, whence English “jinx”); never spelled “ιυνγες” or “Ιυνξ”
Σφιγξ - “Sphinx”; never spelled “σφινξ”
Αγγελος – “Angel”; never spelled “ανγελλος”
Ελεγχος – “Elench”; never spelled “ελενχος”
Κογχη – “Conch”; never spelled “κονχη”
Πλαγκτόν – “Plankton”; never spelled “πλανκτόν”
Etc.

@Alrah said

"
Of course... he's assuming that the original paraphrase of the Stele says 'kill me'...

(It doesn't, but I have to respect the confidentiality of my source about this at this time, and I'm afraid I cannot say further right now. All in good time... so be in good cheer! I am! )"

Are you implying that the "Vellum Book" exists, and you know who has it?

@Bereshith said

"
"Order : a group of people united in a formal way: as (1) : a fraternal society <the Masonic Order> (2) : a community under a religious rule; especially : one requiring members to take solemn vows (Merriam-Webster). "

"Rule: the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members (Merriam-Webster). "

"The publications of the A∴A∴ divide themselves into five classes.

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.
Class “C” consists of matter which is to be regarded rather as suggestive than anything else.
Class “D” consists of the Official Rituals and Instructions.
Class “E” consists of public announcements and broadsheets.
(lib.oto-usa.org/libri/byclass.html)
"

The Rule of the Order is broken.

A Class A document is being altered according to Class B criteria, i.e. those of "ordinary scholarship, enlightened and earnest."

This discussion continually centers around such scholarly debate instead of the Rule of the Order.

But what is at stake is very literally and simply acceptance or rejection of the Rule of the Order itself by "ordinary scholarship, enlightened and earnest."

And as much as it pains me to say this in its overt dramatic grandeur in an environment of friends and colleagues... the nature of orders and their rules being what they are, the question goes to the divestment of the Visible Head of the Organization, having rejected the Rule of the very Order he heads in favor of his own ordinary scholarship, however enlightened and earnest it may be.

Not that I want that or call for that myself. But these are the facts, and orders have their rules, or they are not truly orders worthy of that name."

I think you are correct that, if the debate were a scholarly one, the rule of the Class A documents is being broken ("fill me" is not a typo, either).

But, the narrative as HB gave it in the News of April 11 - oto.org/news0413.html - places the discovery of the Windram's ΘΕΛΗΜΑ in a spiritual context. That is, the Secret Chiefs, the hidden heads of the Order, brought this volume to the visible head providentially.

HB's claim is not that he is making the change; his claim is that the invisible head(s) are commanding him to do it, as proven by the timing of the volume.

So there's a loophole in the Class A definition - they are beyond the criticism of the visible head of the order - but not the invisible head of the order!

@he atlas itch said

"Your dates are misleading.
"

No, they're just the facts as facts. You are presenting a misleading account of my argument. Please read it more closely.

I assume you tacitly agree with my defense of your speculation that "kill me" may be a ritual adaptation of the original poem.

"
The date of 1907 for The Great Invocation is when the unpublished galleys were printed, not when it was composed. The exact date for Crowley’s composition of The Great Invocation is unknown.
"

This is exactly what I have said. We don't know when the Great Invocation was composed. But we cannot say with the same degree of confidence, anywhere near it in fact, when it might have been composed, in contrast to the "fill me" of the manuscript of Liber L.

For "fill me", the period of uncertainty is a few days at most after April 10; for the Great Invocation, the period of uncertainty in which it might have been composed is, at least, several months, and, at most, three years. The last position is unlikely for a number of reasons, but since the text itself is not known before September 1907, there may be a case to be made that the period of uncertainty lasts a couple of years.

"Fill me" in the manuscript of Liber L has priority, both as fact and as reasonable conjecture (when speculating on the date of the composition of the Great Invocation's version of the line).

I don't know how anyone can see it otherwise. Is there someone who holds that both the pencil "fill me" and the Great Invocation's "kill me" were possibly written on the same day? If so, how thoughtless do we have to imagine the composer of the poem to have been? And, if so, which version is "right"?

"
Let’s agree it was sometime in 1904. Or as you suggest “before summer of 1904.”
"

You did read my argument, then

" Threefold31 notes The Great Invocation was probably composed during the "Cairo period."
"

Here RLG seems to be merely restating HB's own estimation of the date: "a ritual entitled “The Great Invocation” that probably dates from the Cairo Working..." (and in any case, this is a highly technical debate, which requires proofs to be offered for every assertion; arguing from authority is a logical fallacy or rhetorical mistake in this kind of argument).

HB offers no proofs for this dating, as there are none to give, which you can see from reading it. Even if "Cairo Working" is taken to extend to about April 20, 1904, there is nothing in the text that places it in Cairo before that date. It could just as easily be a few weeks or months afterward. The degree of uncertainty over the dating of the Great Invocation, and its "kill me", is far greater, several months at least, than that for "fill me", which must be a few days at most.

"
There are Egyptian formulas in The Great Invocation. Most notably, the lines "I am Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow" from the Egyptian Pert Em Hru. This would date the "kill me" of The Great Invocation far closer to the Cairo Working than your date of "1907".
"

I'm happy to have inspired you to look for Egyptian formulae in the Great Invocation. This is why I am happy to put it "before summer 1904", as you noted before.
However, I don't understand how you then go on to characterize my claim as "1907". It is a fact that "kill me" appears for the first time in 1907, and "fill me" in 1904. The best conjecture of a date for "kill me" might be around summer, 1904 - I am the one who just made that dating!

If you agreed with my dating at the beginning of your paragraph, why are mischaracterizing it at the end of the same paragraph? It is, quite simply, not a "fact" that the Great Invocation was composed before 1907. It is the best guess, it is my best guess at least, that it was. But even the best guess cannot bring the actual date into any better focus than a few months, whereas "fill me"'s fuzziness is a few days.

"
Similarly, the exact date for the penciled aide-memoire “fill me” in Liber 31 is unknown. It probably followed the reception of Liber Legis, but before Liber 31 was typed up. However, we do not know for certain.
"

We know with a great deal more certainty, a much smaller window of uncertainty, when "fill me" was written in the manuscript (a few days at most), than the degree of uncertainty hanging over "kill me" (a few months at least). Not all uncertainty is the same, there are greater and lesser degrees of it. Do you disagree, and, if so, why?

"
Therefore to make assertions of “1904 versus 1907” imposes belief on to facts."

1904 - "fill me"
1907 - "kill me".

That's the just the fact of the matter. No belief at all.

Conjecture - educated guesses, argument, not belief - must resolve the dates of composition. For "fill me", it is before the typescript was made in Cairo, that is, within a week or so of April 10. For "kill me", my best guess can only place it within the context of Egyptianizing vocabularly and concepts that would have been foremost on his mind in 1904. That is, within a few months of April, 1904.

@he atlas itch said

"
@belmurr said
"Historically, "fill me" has priority, both in manuscript and printed forms, in Libers XXXI and CCXX."

Belmurru

There is absolutely no evidence that "fill me" has priority over "kill me." Threefold31 notes the following about The Great Invocation:

TGI – The Great Invocation – A ritual that includes the third and fourth verses from the obverse Stele Versifications, (including the reading "kill me!"), as well as the whole of the versifications from the reverse of the Stele. Composed probably during the 1904 Cairo period, but after Liber L vel Legis was received, as it includes terms unique to that book. This was never published, but appears in galley proofs in the Appendix to CW III. The original manuscript copy is no longer extant.

www.lashtal.com/portal/library/texts/background/2798-an-essay-concerning-liber-ccxx-and-the-fill-vs-kill-debate.html

The aide-memoire "fill me" was written in the margins of Liber 31 following the reception of Liber Legis, possibly a few days afterwards.
"

"Fill me" is in the manuscript of 1904; "kill me" does not appear until 1907. It doesn't matter whether the pencil-note was written minutes, hours or days after chapter III was received, it is simply an incontrovertible fact that is has priority over the version of the poem with "kill me".

A supporting fact is the Cairo typescript whose readings survive in the 1907 and 1909 versions of CCXX, which read "fill me". The simplest explanation is that this is what the poem originally said, and that "kill me" is a later version of this line.

"
The Great Invocation containing "kill me" was probably written during the Cairo Working, but following the reception of Liber Legis.
"

There is no basis for the assertion that the Great Invocation was even "probably" written during the Cairo Working. "ZERO evidence", to use your categorical characterization of the situation. It is possible that it was composed within days after April 10, 1904, but probably is far too strong a position to take on the textual evidence. Read it carefully and see if you can find anything that places it in Cairo before, say, April 20 (presumably, give or take a couple of days, when they left the city).

The Egyptianizing flavour of the text seems to put it in the same general mood or atmosphere, but this atmosphere extended into the summer at Boleskine (where, for instance, he adds "Sekhet!" to the formula "Balasti! Ompehda!"). In other words, while I am content to give it to 1904, I cannot date it with any more accuracy than "before summer 1904".

In any case, whatever conjectures we have about the date of the composition of the Great Invocation, XXXI's "fill me" his indisputable priority. It is simply acknowledging the truth to say that it does.

Even if the manuscript of the poem as Crowley was working on it in the lost Vellum Book turns up, and "kill me" is shown to have priority, it remains that Crowley wrote "fill me" in the manuscript, and let "fill me" survive in every edition of the printed version. It isn't a typo or a mistake, it is a real word, which Crowley could not have just slipped up and written if he had not had it in his mind.

The default position should be that "fill me" is what he meant in 1904, and it should stay in CCXX. Windram's "K" does not prove otherwise, either that "kill me" has priority, or that Crowley made a mistake in 1904. It only proves that Crowley once thought of changing III,37 to the other version of the line.

"
The above facts demonstrate ZERO evidence that "fill me" has priority over "kill me."
"

No, "fill me" REALLY does have priority (1904 versus 1907).

@he atlas itch said

"One is tempted to conclude Crowley wanted "fill me" for *Liber Legis *and "kill me" for initiatory ritualistic purposes, but there is no evidence for such interpretation.
"

I think there is some evidence for such an interpretation. The Great Invocation is a ritual of identification with Ra-Hoor-Khuit; in sections A-C, the speaker is identified as the "Priest"; the final act of section C says "Aum! Let it kill me!", and he emerges in section D "as God".

The human part, the invoker, is killed in C, and the God takes his place in D.

(It might be that this invocation was used in the Beelzebub working in Boleskine in the summer of 1904, since he describes the purpose of that ritual as "General idea of ceremony to become R.H.K., also to devote oneself to him by a Grand Method; thence directly to vivify Avenger" (Invocation of Hoor, p. 36). Note also the similarity of "Great" and "Grand", and that Crowley experimented with methods from the book, like III,25, which brought beetles as the book said it would.)

@Sr_MNA said

"
@chris S said
"
Actually not a coincidence, an inevitability. "

I would say it's a necessary stage in the life cycle of a religion. As a delightfully heretical Pentacostal minister I knew once described the life cycle of his churches: "The First Generation has the vision. The Second Generation is taught the vision with the witness of their father's conviction. The Third generation recieves the vision only as words, and so has decide between accepting it as scriptural authority, or seeking a new vision by which to get the revelation first hand again."

"

I agree it's inevitable and necessary that this will happen. Fortunately this time it is not (much of?) a doctrinal issue, just a textual one. That's all that bothers me - the ambiguity, the tension - playful tension even - of the two versions of that line of the poem is getting conformed to a single meaning. HB is trying to drive out "fill me" with "kill me", as if the former is a mistake of Crowley's in the manuscript of XXXI. Previous to the Windram K, it was "kill me" that was wrong and had to be driven out.

I know people on both sides of this, but I must say that those who side with HB all seem to be bound to him by friendship or oaths of loyalty. It is submission to authority or sentiment, not evidence and independent judgment.

I try to prove my neutrality in every post - I have nothing personal in this. It is, you might say, a professional judgment.

In another field, my only true speciality, the history of the Tarot, I am the big bad scholarly consensus. The Tarot is like a Bible to many people, and the mystique of its origins and meanings has to be preserved at any cost. I am on the same side in this debate, where submission to Secret Chief authority takes the place of a decision based on evidence and reason.

I just don't understand why this change has to be made. Why this insistence on textual uniformity, when the tradition says there are two versions of the Paraphrase? One version was consistently used in The Book of the Law and sometimes in outside contexts, and the other consistently used in the Paraphrase as a stand-alone poem, and sometimes in outside contexts.

There is one piece of evidence that Crowley once thought of changing "fill me" to "kill me" in CCXX, but he never implemented it. Crowley didn't make it, in any of the printings of CCXX, so why does HB think he should make it? Crowley's example is clear and the conclusion indisputable, I think - he didn't want it, whatever the Windram "K" means.

The explanation for the two versions of the final line of obverse of the stele is that Crowley revised the poem. He didn't make a "mistake" when quoting it in XXXI or the Cairo typescript, this is what the poem said and it was his preferred version when he wrote it in XXXI and had the typescript made. Later he changed it to "kill me" and this is what was used in the printed version of the poem in 1912, in the Great Invocation, and in Liber CXX (Cadaveris).

Why does one version have to be wrong, and the other right? There is no more justification in "correcting" the Paraphrase to read "fill me" (as HB did), than there is to "correct" Liber Legis to read "kill me" (which he is about to do). It is just a case of two variants, used consistently in different contexts.

Historically, "fill me" has priority, both in manuscript and printed forms, in Libers XXXI and CCXX.

@Azidonis said

"Seems fairly clear that "fill" is what Crowley wanted used in the printings of Liber L/AL.

Also seems fairly clear that "kill" is a variation on this, and Crowley liked to use it in his poetry, perhaps for a certain effect.

It also seems fairly clear that Crowley did not intend for the two to be crisscrossed and muddled into a divisive confusion."

The problem is that HB believes that there is only one right answer - one or the other is simply an error that must be corrected, and the other expunged from authorized editions. He formerly believed it was "fill me", and corrected the Paraphrase to read that. But Windram's volume convinced him otherwise last month - now "kill me" is the only correct version and "fill me" must be changed everywhere it is found.

The idea that Crowley may have altered his paraphrase after April 10, 1904, continued to work on his poem, does not seem to have occurred to him. He certainly doesn't mention it as a possibility, although it can be shown that Crowley did indeed keep working on it.

@he atlas itch said

"First, let me clarify some points:

Perhaps it would be more to the point to ask proponents of the “fill me” camp what they see in Crowley’s marginal correction in Windram’s Thelema?"

It would seem to be pure speculation, since it was a marginal correction that was never implemented. HB suggests that the circumstance was Crowley's desire to make the text of CCXX agree with the Paraphrase in the Vellum Book that Crowley must have had in front of him (after having found it, as HB suggests, with the manuscript of XXXI in 1909), in preparation for its first printing in Equinox I(7) in 1912. I accept that that is the most likely scenario.

But, since the earliest (and most consistent) evidence is that the Paraphrase said "fill me" when Crowley wrote XXXI and had the typescript made in Cairo, then I cannot accept that "kill me" was original, and therefore Crowley in 1912 was trying to make CCXX agree with that. In other words, at this moment, Crowley liked his revision of the poem. This revision is what is printed as the Paraphrase.

Why did he like it then, or why did he change his original paraphrase from "fill me" to "kill me"? I think the best answers have been given by people recently trying to come to terms with "kill me", for instance to try to understand it in the ideological context of the poem, following on the words "consume me", etc. I myself earlier suggested that "kill me" was suggested by the imagery of "run through", as in being run through with a sword.

But whatever the explanation for what I see as a revision to "kill me", I have no doubt, and I think there is no good reason to doubt, that on April 10 1904 the poem in Crowley's mind said "fill me", and when the typist used the Vellum Book it said "fill me".

To sum up my belief about the Windram marginal note, I think it was a whim of Crowley's, which he thought better of (or in HB's words "promptly forgot about").

@Jim Eshelman said

"belmurru, thanks for your contributions on this.
"

Thanks for the opportunity to contribute, Jim.

"
I believe I said all of this previously, but I do want to focus in on a point that keeps coming up: I don't think what the original poetic paraphrase said has anything to do with the question. In fact, I'm 93% sure that it said "kill." To me, that's irrelevant. To me, any attention spent on that specific question is a distraction and potentially derailing.
"

I don't understand how you can be so certain that the original paraphrase said "kill" though. Until last month, HB was so certain it should be "fill" that he changed the text of the Paraphrase to read "fill me" in Magick (Liber ABA), in the three editions since 1994, and, if rumor is to be believed, it was his decision to change it in 1983's Holy Books of Thelema (p. 250). This issue has been bugging him a long time; he wanted a solution.

The only thing that has changed is the Windram "K", so, unless you objected to the Paraphrase being changed to "fill me", and had your own reasons for suspecting "kill me" was original, I find it difficult to understand how this "K" suddenly tilts the balance in favor of the original paraphrase, the one Crowley made between March 23rd and April 8th, saying "kill me".

Before last month, HB and everyone else seems to have taken the evidence as unambiguous - "fill me" was intended and original, and "kill me" was a later variant. Suddenly, a number of people think that the "kill me" was original, and Crowley and the typist made a mistake with "fill me".

Isn't the simpler and fairly demonstrable solution that Crowley continued working on the poem, and after the typescript had been made liked "kill me" there better?

(my speculation is that this is after he had versified the reverse of the stele, which speaks more to the death and coming forth of Ankh-f-n-khonsu).

"
To me, the question is: What belongs in Liber Legis? I believe this is "fill" for two specific reasons - only two:

1. The best evidence available to me leads to the conclusion that the penciled words "fill me" were written into the manuscript by the Prophet within a couple of days of the dictation, and I consider this as "within the original window of the dictation," on a level comparable to the Scarlet Woman's additions.
   "

I agree it had to have been written within a couple of days, and that not only was it in the glow of the events, but it was well fixed in Crowley's memory what he had worked on for around the last two weeks - the poetic paraphrase of the French translation of the stele. I can't accept the notion that he erred in remembering what he had written, or that the typist, filling in the poem from the Vellum Book, chose to write the scribbled note in the manuscript over what was in that book. There is no reason not to think that "fill me" was what was written in the Vellum Book when the typescript was made. I think this has to be the default textual position, and that the existence of the variant "kill me" is best explained as part of Crowley's later revision of his poetic text, outside of the Book of the Law.

"

2. Crowley never changed this in any version of Liber Legis he ever published, even with an accelerated and highly public effort to "get it right." (And the evidence available to me leads to the conclusion that Crowley was aware of the f/k issue proximate to one or more of these editions.)
   "

Yes, especially in the 1913 Equinox I(10), when the issue really was fresh on his mind. The editions of 1913, 1936 and 1938/1942 show conclusively Crowley's ultimate preference and intention. There can really be no question - the Windram "K" is an aberration, the meaning of which may be debated, of course, but it is deserving of a footnote or lengthy discursus at best. Weighing it any more than that rests on non-textual considerations - providential timing of discovering the Windram volume, primarily.

"
If I changed my mind on either of these conclusions, I'd have to go back to the start, reassess, and come to a fresh (same or different) conclusion. (For example, if the penciled note were not added until much later, I'd likely conclude that the text of the poetic paraphrase, as it existed on April 10, 1904, mattered. Otherwise, I don't see that it matters at all.)

Based on what is available to me now, and the weight that I give to the various factors, my present conclusion is easy: Obey my prophet, and publish it as "fill.""

I agree fully.

@Bryce Churchill said

"Inevitably, the response to a particular change like this seems to fall into one of four categories:

2. People who look at both sides of the debate and decide that the BOTL should remain as it is and not be changed.

"

That's a good post, Bryce. I consider myself 2. I have nothing against OTO or its leadership in general, any more than I do with any other organization I am or have been a part of (initiated 1985, inactive since '92).

I do my part to keep the debate alive because I think it is a cathartic moment, a watershed perhaps. I myself was drawn into the debate on the heels of another, almost comical one, about Richard Cole's contention that Crowley fabricated the whole reception story and actually wrote the book in 1906 (I'm sure he's changed his chronology now). This forced me to look into the details of the early evidence for the book more than I had ever done before. I would not have been prepared for this current debate, a much more important one, if I had not first been familiar with what the debate about Cole's ideas had taught me.

I have argued the way I have in order to show that it is not out of a sentimental feeling about "fill me" , nor a motive of spite for Bill Breeze (I admire him tremendously and I profoundly appreciate his work, and I know of no reason why I should feel anything but goodwill towards him, principled disagreement or not), but because it is my honest, scholarly opinion that this change is not justified by the history of the text or the author's attitude towards it. It would be the same with any other text with a similar problem: one marginal correction by the author in a single exemplar of the text in one of its early printings can not be taken as indicative of the author's continual wish to change the text, especially when further printings supervised by the author, over decades, do not show the change nor possess such a marginal correction.

I think this controversy will not go away, however. It will cause another schism in the Order, definitely more significant than that which happened after Grady died. There will be the "Fillers" and the "Killers". The former will never accept what they will see as a defective edition of CCXX.

But as Crowley wisely noted, with greater foresight than was apparent up to last month, the revelation of the Law is "photographically guaranteed" in Liber XXXI. And the Comment tells us that "All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself."

I think that this debate has been the best education I have ever had in the history of the text, and I trust it has been so for anyone else who has followed it closely. It is to HB's credit that he has kept up with it and argued his side, including publishing the relevant proofs of his position (like the manuscript of Cadaveris).

But for me, the evidence clearly points to Crowley's having originally written "fill me" and intended "fill me", and only later, and briefly, preferred "kill me". He never had the printed text changed to reflect this secondary revision of the paraphrase, which stands as the most persuasive evidence of his real intentions.

@he atlas itch said

"Should evidence arise demonstrating that Crowley ... deliberately generated two readings of his paraphrase, I will be happy to amend my understanding of the above facts."

I think revision of the Paraphrase is the only rational theory, and that the two readings "fill me" and "kill me" are indeed what he generated. Why is it implausible? It's a poem by Aleister Crowley. I don't understand why anybody should think it unlikely, given the differences between quotes of it in XXXI and the Great Invocation and others (Ankh-af-na-khonsu/Ankh-f-n-khonsu, "To stir me or to still me", titles, capitalizations, "fill me", "kill me", absence of reverse side quotations in the Book of the Law).

Revisions and changes in the Paraphrase can be demonstrated, but the fact remains that he and the typist wrote "fill me" in XXXI and the Cairo typescript. To argue otherwise introduces a theory of error on both of their parts that is simply untenable.

@he atlas itch said

"It's funny you say that I am "interpreting" when I am only looking at the facts and avoiding speculation on "what Crowley really meant.""

As I noted above, you betrayed in your former post by the use of "if so" that you are not simply stating a fact, but rather a hypothetical situation in which, if you are interpreting the facts correctly, something follows. You really are trying to interpret "what Crowley really meant" by writing that K in the margin. This whole issue is being caused by overinterpreting what Crowley meant by this marginal note.

If the facts alone are weighed in a balance, and the heaviest wins, then "fill me" wins. It is only when interpretation is allowed unlimited and providential weight, that "kill me" wins.

@he atlas itch said

"
It is important to keep in mind that Crowley’s position on the “longstanding textual uncertainty” of "fill" versus "kill" was unknown until the discovery of his marginal correction in Windram’s Thelema.
"

No, "fill" versus "kill" was not even thought to be a problem at all until the editor(s) of versions of the Paraphrase from 1983 onward decided it was a problem that had to be decided one way or the other (and until last month, always decided on "fill me". They should not have touched it).

Crowley wrote both, and used both. He used "fill me" MUCH more than he used "kill me". And he ALWAYS used "fill me" in the published editions of CCXX.

The problem is the search for editorial conformity, when the tradition actually speaks to two versions.

"
The significance of the correction is that it clearly shows his position on “fill” versus “kill” within one document. It directly addresses the uncertainty, in Crowley’s handwriting, in favor of KILL.
"

The "uncertainty" is a manufactured problem. It turns into an academic issue, which came first, "fill me" or "kill me". "Fill me" wins by priority in time and overwhelming weight of usage.

"
If so, his marginal correction in Windram's Thelema overrides his penciled aide-memoire of "fill me" in Liber 31.

What is so difficult to grasp about this fact?"

The use of "if so" shows that you're not certain about something you claim as fact. Facts either are or are not, they aren't maybes or ifs. That's interpretation.

(Hi. I'm new here )

The scholarly or texutal historical approach indisputably favors "fill me". This was HB's own opinion when he changed the Paraphrase from "kill me" to "fill me" in Book Four (1994 and following), and perhaps as early as 1983, in The Holy Books of Thelema (p. 250), attributed to Hymenaeus Alpha but the scholarship of which is generally held to be by William Breeze. As HB, he alludes to it in the final paragraph of his justification:

"“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?"

The only thing that has changed in the scholarly debate since then is the discovery of Crowley's note "K" in the Windram ΘΕΛΗΜΑ. Obviously this marginal note only shows that Crowley wanted to change the reading here. But if it shows anything beyond that, is speculation. HB argues that Crowley would have written it to correct it in the light of the Vellum Book, and that the marginal note must therefore be placed in 1912, when Crowley was preparing for the publication of the account of the reception of the Book of the Law in "The Temple of Solomon the King" for Equinox I(7), which included the first publication of the "Paraphrase of the Inscriptions" on the stele as an independent poem.

I find nothing to object to in HB's argument for the dating of the marginalium, but I find it difficult to accept the theory that the correction implies that the original reading of the paraphrase was "kill me", and that therefore Crowley erred in the manuscript of Liber L and the typist erred in typing the poem from the Vellum Book, or ignored the reading of the Vellum Book in favor of the manuscript on a whim (especially if the typist typed the Vellum Book form, he would have no reason to consider the manuscript's hastily written "fill me" as more authoritative than the book with the entire poem in it, and except for glancing at the manuscript to know how much of the poem to include, there is no reason why the typist would have looked again at it, rather than the poem itself in the Vellum Book and the next verse, verse 38). The textual evidence points to the original paraphrase having been "fill me", and that "kill me" was a subsequent revision. This also explains why the paraphrase as it was published in 1912 also has other differences from the usage in the Book of the Law.

Everything seems to point to Crowley's having continued to revise his paraphrase after the reception of the Book of the Law. The spelling "Ankh-af-na-khonsu" in the manuscript, as opposed to "Ankh-f-n-knonsu" in the 1912 paraphrase is the most glaring example, but it lends weight to the idea that Crowley changed an original "fill me", soundly attested in 1904, to "kill me" sometime thereafter (in time to be included in the Great Invocation, for example.) .

An absence-of-evidence argument for continued revision is the lack of quotes from the reverse of the stele in the Book of the Law, while they are quoted in their entirety in the Great Invocation. Given the importance of the stele as the key of the revelation, I suspect Aiwass would have found a way to work the poem on the reverse into the Book of the Law as well, had it been ready. The difference in the titles of the two sides - the obverse reading "Inscriptions upon the obverse" and the reverse reading "Hieroglyphs of the 11 lines", also points to a difference in time between the compositions (in addition to the revision of the spelling of Ankh-f-n-khonsu and the "fill" to "kill"). The former word "Inscriptions" was notably changed in Crowley's proofs of The Giant's Thumb, which HB recently provided for us. This shows indisputably that Crowley continued to revise his paraphrase of the stele.

Given the pattern of revising the paraphrase, I think that the evidence of the original manuscript of Liber L and the typescript made from it far outweight the significance of a marginal note made probably as late as 1912, from what was almost certainly a revision of the paraphrase made after April 10, 1904. In other words, what Crowley wrote in 1904 was what was in the paraphase as of April 10, 1904, the words "fill me", and only later did he change it to "kill me", for whatever reason he liked (since it was a work in progress, his own poem). He liked "kill me" more when he wrote the Great Invocation, and, apparently, when he wrote the marginal note in Windram's ΘΕΛΗΜΑ. But he never implemented the change in a printing of Liber CCXX, which strongly suggests he thought better of it.

And so should we.