fyreflye
deleted
Publishing updates from the O.T.O.
Ross G Caldwell
No, HB argues that it is a correction.
His argument is that while writing chapter III of Liber Legis, Crowley was ordered to insert part of the paraphrase he had made a few days earlier of the stele.
When Crowley wrote what was meant to go there, he wrote only "unity etc", from the beginning of the stanza "Unity uttermost showed".
Later, how long no one knows, hours or days, he wrote in pencil around the ink: "I am the Lord of Thebes" etc. from vellum book ----- "fill me"".
This latter reminded him of the full extent of the intended insertion.
It is this "fill me" that HB considers a mistake.
This is because the same poem is used in the ritual "The Great Invocation", written around the time of the Cairo Working, and there it says "kill me." Later the versification of the stele was printed in The Equinox, I,7 (1912), as an independent poem, and there it says "kill me." Finally, in the 1909 edition of Crowley's own ΘΕΛΗΜΑ, Crowley, sometime before 1913, crossed out the "f" of "fill me" and wrote in the margin, "K!".
Nevertheless, Crowley always had the Book of the Law printed as "fill me".
But - the original text of the versification is lost. The original text of the Great Invocation is lost. We don't know their dates. So, it is arguable whether the text in the ritual is more original or authentic than the text in the manuscript of the Book of the Law, Liber XXXI. The pencil note in Liber XXXI is probably the closest evidence we have of what the original paraphrase said.
Crowley wrote both. The evidence for "kill me" exists in three places, over about 5 years, while "fill me" lasted for 43 years (the rest of Crowley's life), and is the only form to be found after the annotation in the 1909 volume.
For me the weight of printed tradition and the example of Thelemic practice stemming from Crowley himself proves which phrase he intended. It is not a correction; the text should be left as is, and the versification as it is. Let Thelemites work out the tension between these two as they wish.
Aeon418
I'm in total agreement with you, Ross. The text should be left alone.
In my opinion a better solution would be to have a footnote indicating an ambiguity and a variant reading. That seems far more sensible and reasonable than a change that appears to be based on little more than Bill Breeze's interpretation of circumstantial evidence.
I can't help feeling that there is something highly disingenous in Breeze's presentation of the case. He's clearly trying to wriggle out of the firing line by claiming that he's just being a diligent editor implementing an authors correction. But all he's doing it's foisting his opinions on others. And then to top he says if we don't agree we can do our own un-correction. Thanks for giving me the choice, Bill!
fyreflye
Just to clear things up, my comment that the change was "a correction, not a change" was not really meant to endorse the "correction" position. I know little or less about who's right if anyone is, and can't really say that I care. I'm deleting the post.
ravenest
As Crowley wrote in Liber CCC - Khabs Am Pekht:
The lineage of A.'.A.'. that Breeze is allied with is the only one that claims the true line of descent (despite having one of the weakest claims). And it is the only one that disputes the legitimacy of all other A.'.A.'. lineages.
Go figure....
I figure that the Law (capital L i.e. Do what thou Wilt) 'cometh from' the A.A. as a vehicle of its origin. It was that association (with and via the A.A.) that 'bought the Law fourth'. It was (amongst other things) Crowley's journey 'through' the A.A. and the influence and result it had on the greater journey (his life experience expressed and influenced by the A.A. experience). Certainly the Law did not come from the OTO. It existed before the Law was revealed and Crowly put the Law into the OTO ... it was quiet different before this Law / Thelemic influence.
That is how I' figure' the quoted statement. I do not figure that it means interpretation of the Law or law or the copyrights or anything else it doesnt say and I am not really clear how that quote makes what point ???
The OTO holds the copy rights (again) DONT THEY? Not the A.A.
ravenest
Aeon418
Yes the OTO holds the 'mundane' copy rights. But take a look in your copy of Liber Legis. Ever notice that thing called the "Imprimatur of A.'.A.'." It's a declaration authorizing publication of a book. Does an OHO of OTO have the authority to alter such a text? I would say no.
But looking in the most recent centennial edition published by the OTO the A.'.A.'. Imprimatur features someone called, Frater SUA 5=6. I'll give you three guesses who that is.
Which hat is Bill Breeze wearing while making this change?
Zephyros
I read the article you linked to, Aeon, and while it was more than a little whiny, it did convey the political situation there. So is this the latest power play? And if so, why? He can't be making money off this. Power? Seems a "silly" kind. Respect? Doesn't appear as if it's working.
ravenest
Thats also a
I cant argure with its magical validity... only the legal validity. Which do I prefer? At the moment I am so involved in the latter that it now seems SILLIER than the magical level 
But looking in the most recent centennial edition published by the OTO the A.'.A.'. Imprimatur features someone called, Frater SUA 5=6. I'll give you three guesses who that is.
Which hat is Bill Breeze wearing while making this change?
I never agreed with this and in older documents the Beast himself makes the distinction citing one particular Past Head of OTO who did not even know the pentagram ritual ... and that was fine (according to AC). *
Have two hats by all means but to wear both at the same time ... ??? I would like to see any valid documentation to encourage that! Maybe he is a reincarnation of Narmer and is about to unite the two kingdoms?
* Hang on a minute ... is this document reprinted in Equinox 3. 10. ?? Edited by HB and published to show the distinction beteeen the AA and OTO? Memory .... nah, I will have to check.
ravenest
Wacky post warning!
I just realised that my legal issues at the moment have a similar twist. The main antagonist is wearing three hats! With the Separation of Powers (judicial, legislative and executive) supposedly being a key feature and main base structure of Australian law (it’s a bit different in English Law; Australian law's parent - cross bread with the USA); the Plaintiff is head of two of them and holds a seat in the third.
Separation of Powers is to keep it fair; the Australian version allows a mixing of the separation to.... hmmm, what was that reason again??? ...
I just realised that my legal issues at the moment have a similar twist. The main antagonist is wearing three hats! With the Separation of Powers (judicial, legislative and executive) supposedly being a key feature and main base structure of Australian law (it’s a bit different in English Law; Australian law's parent - cross bread with the USA); the Plaintiff is head of two of them and holds a seat in the third.
Separation of Powers is to keep it fair; the Australian version allows a mixing of the separation to.... hmmm, what was that reason again??? ...
