Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
> So in a way, it's like a Rorshach test. It reveals more about our own
ways of thinking about the material and our relationships with it
Thank you so much for posting this information. Awesome thought provoking,
great timing! Absolutely I agree our relationship with (it), the "material"
is the key, specifically the "light". I think it could kill you. So then
who's light is the song speaking of specifically? While performing this
"ritual", reciting the song, I am the lord of Thebes, the inspired 4th
speaker of Mentu, etc., for me unveils the veiled sky, the self-slain
Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the prophet et al. At that time the "light" is "mine",
it does "consume me", it fills me, but I'm aware there are many types of
"light". What happens after is not always comfortable. Other factors can
enter in. Now suddenly given the choice, do I trust my interpretation of
the light enough, or anyone else's, to dare ask it to kill me? What do I
know about the Khabs, really? - enough to Worship them? - what does it mean,
the lord of Thebes"? - whose that? - what's Mentu?
So many unanswered questions, also the Book double talks death - "life upon
death" - "joy of death", "lovely death" - "the seal of the promise of our
agelong love", yet "death is forbidden o man", "thou shall long for death".
I'm thinking if times get really tough around here I might give it a try. I
rather like the idea, seems sort of a chicken's way out though. It's
certainly one of those, "Do what thou Wilt" things. Obviously if you don't
believe changing the word could kill you it makes little difference. If
you've felt the light fill you, it might.
Love is the Law, Love under Will,
the despised harlot
Behalf Of that guy
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: [t93] Kill versus Fill
On 4/15/2013 10:14 PM, threefold31 wrote:
> I'm interested in hearing the opinions pro and con regarding the
> decision by the USGL of the OTO to change the wording of Liber CCXX
> verse 3:37 to say "Aum! let it kill me!" to replace "Aum! let it fill me!"
Let me see if I can briefly summarize the arguments on both sides.
First, Crowley receives the Book of the Law, and at some point writes
(in pencil, so this is some time after the reception proper) in the
holograph "I adore thee in the song "I am the Lord of Thebes" etc. from
vellum book Unity etc. ---"fill me.""
The vellum book he is referring to is apparently lost, so there is no
going back to check *it*.
In the 1909 Equinox I, 7, Crowley published a very tiny copy of the
holograph, with pictures of the Stele of Revealing and its
versification. In this versification, he has "kill." So the first
printing of the versification, which Crowley presumably copied from the
vellum book, has "kill." It is also worth noting that the tiny
reproduction of the holograph, III, 37 appears as it does today, so the
note referencing the vellum book and "fill me" was made before 1909.
Also in 1909, Crowley printed Liber 220, the typescript version of Liber
AL, in "Thelema." Liber 220 has "fill" in III, 37. So the first printing
of 220 has "fill."
Some time between 1909 and 1913, Crowley noticed the discrepancy and
corrected "fill" to "kill" in his copy of "Thelema." We know this
because it was printed in 1909, and he gave this copy to James Windram
on a visit during 1913. This copy was recently returned to the Order by
Windram's estate, and is the source of the current controversy.
Also in fall of 1913, Crowley published Liber 220 in the Equinox I, 10.
It has the reading "fill."
In 1936, Crowley published "The Equinox of the Gods." It contains both
the versification as it appeared in the Equinox I, 7, and Liber 220 as
it appeared in the Equinox I, 10. In other words, with both readings,
"kill" and "fill" together.
Those are the facts - and a couple of these facts are certainly
susceptible to skepticism. For example, how can we be sure that it was
Crowley who corrected the verse? The correction apparently consists of a
strike through of the F in "fill" and a capital K written off to the
side in the margin. It's possible that Windram or someone else who
handled the book between 1909 and now made the change. How do we know
that "kill" was correctly printed in the versification from the Equinox
I, 7? Perhaps *that* was the typo. But there is no positive reason for
us to think those events are what actually happened. So let's set those
Now, the rationale for changing the verse is that it's a simple matter
of failed proofreading. Crowley intended "kill," wrote "kill" in his
vellum notebook, and was instructed to copy out the verse as it existed
in said vellum notebook when he published the typescript. This he did
not do faithfully, accidentally writing "fill" instead of "kill" in the
holograph, and missing the fact that it was printed as "fill" in 220, so
restoring "kill" is simply correcting an error that unfortunately
existed in even the very first typeset versions of Liber 220. It's
important to note that the correction in the Windram copy is the only
extant document (as far as I am aware) that definitely indicates
Crowley's *intent*, in distinction to what just ended up being
written/printed. If this is really what happened, it's a keen bit of
detective work and an editorial coup.
Now, the rationale for *not* changing it is...that Crowley never changed
it. Liber 220 says "fill" in every version Crowley published in his
lifetime! Now, before the Windram copy was discovered, one could say
that the error crept in before the printing of 220 in the 1909
"Thelema," (damn fool typists) and Crowley just never noticed it. But
the Windram copy shows that he did notice it some time before 1913, and
even though he made the note for correction, that he *still* published
220 with "fill" instead of "kill" in 1913 and again in 1936. I don't
think it's much of a stretch at all to imagine that when Crowley saw the
discrepancy and made the correction in his copy of "Thelema," he thought
it should be changed, but then thought better of the idea when it came
time to publish the typescript again. After all, the version of 220
published in 1909 had the class A imprimatur, and he had made the same
error in his own note in the holograph, so maybe that's how it was
supposed to be. When is a mistake not a mistake? At the very least, one
can imagine Crowley thinking this way.
Now, the rub is that I don't think there's a way of logically proving
either of these hypotheses with the current (public) evidence. All we
can do is weigh likelihoods and give more or less weight to intangibles
that we feel deeply about in one way or another. You can, for example,
give a lot of weight to the fact that 220 was published several times by
the Prophet under the class A imprimatur, and that means *it can not be
changed* even if it was, objectively speaking, a typo. Like, the secret
chiefs *obviously* blinded him to the "mistake" because that's what they
really wanted in there! Then it's a few small, angry hops to the notion
that HB is a filthy heretic and a slave of Because! Or, you can give a
lot of weight to the likelihood of human error and the fact that Crowley
was instructed by Aiwass to copy the versification from the vellum book,
which he evidently did imperfectly.
So in a way, it's like a Rorshach test. It reveals more about our own
ways of thinking about the material and our relationships with it (and,
frankly, the people involved) than any kind of ironclad chain of reasoning.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]