Dear Mogg and all
Exactly the point, Liber Al was once the sacrosanct text of Aleister Crowley
(and Aiwass?). However, as the OTO hopes to extract more money from the
gullible before the copyright finally expires that will be the main reason
for altering the text. What the OTO obviously need to find, before the
Crowley copyright finally expires in 2017, is a new prophet writing an all
new singing and dancing sacred text with a good long copyright to go with
it. Any takers?
love and peace
Elaine Bailey
P.S. Really must try harder to be less cynical in my old age.
-----Original Message-----
From: mandrake
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] OTO proposed change to the Book of the
Law
On 13/05/2013 18:11, Pitch wrote:
The debate seems a bit long winded and I couldn't really stick with it
long enough to
get to the point - i find a lot of comments on Liber Al a little boring
- especially those involving so-called "gematria".
Can someone summarise the change?
Wonders whether the picking over of the already well fleshed crowley
corpse is evidence of a lack of magical creativity?
Wonders why crowley's egyptian communicators were so dyslexic ?
Is there a change of authorship for supernatural Aiwass to Aleister
Crowley the human being ?
Was once thought that Liber Al was exempt from wrangling over trade
marks and copyrights - is this more of the same?
Magical Libers (written by humans) to tend to evolve
"Love and do what you will"
Mogg Morgan
> Aloha,
>
> On 5/13/2013 2:21 AM, D G Mattichak jr wrote:
>
> >There has been a debate in the Thelemite world lately over a proposed
> change to the text of the Book of
> >the Law by OHO of OTO William Breeze. It thought that this might be
> of interest to some of the people
> >here on the list.
>
> A few thoughts & observations:
>
> 1.) It appears the Crowley was not a particularly careful editor or
> manager of the publishing process. No reason that he should have been.
> But uncertainties about authorial intention and document content
> arise later because of it.
>
> 2.) I swear that I've read similar arguments about a number of authors
> and works in a number of literary journals over the years. Reminds me
> that lit crit techniques and outlooks may bear even on matters of
> occulture.
>
> 3.) The change from "fill" to "kill" does alter the meaning of the poem. I
> suppose that it equally alters the conditions of rituals proceeding from
> the poem.
> So, for OTO practitioners, the change of a word holds greater import than
> a footnote about variant readings would have for a reader (like me).
>
> 4.) If discarnate entities want us human practitioners to transcribe their
> words as communicated, then they probably owe us a great deal more on
> the unambiguity front. Why not, in the early 20th Century, use radio and
> Morse code, for example? Maybe Crowley wasn't really certain which word
> Aiwass communicated--Some noise in the psychic channels!?! Peculiarities
> of accent?!? A moment's distraction?!?
>
> 5.) What really surprised me was that OTO practitioners took to Change.org
> to petition for and against this change of a word! It somehow normalizes
> the
> role of the Interwebz in occulture in a manner that I hadn't noticed.
> Something
> for me to remember when one of the Trads I'm affiliated with has a
> dispute.
>
> Musing Agitation In The Etheric World! Rose,
>
> Pitch
> has taken psychic dictation and made errors
>
|