From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Mattichak
Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013 1:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]

Hi All;

I want to start by saying that I am a long term Thelemite and that I haven't been offended by anything that anyone has said about the Law on this thread. I believe that it is very important for Thelemites to approach the Law and Crowley with an open and critical mind. This group certainly has done that.

I had looked at all of the evidence as Leigh suggested and I can't see the justification for making any change. The word 'fill' actually appears in the text of the MSS in Crowley's handwriting  inverse 37, Third Chapter and, comparing it to a letter 'k' that is used in a verse 35 there is no question that 'f' has been mistaken for 'k'. This negates any argument that the Stele Verse may have been different because the actual word that Breeze wants to change is written in the Book of the Law. I actually find the explanation by the caliphate to be purposely misleading.

I also agree with Melissa' insights into the passage and concur with her on the power of the poetry used in CCXX and the effectiveness of the verses generally. The proposed change makes a significant and unjustifiable alteration to the intention and meaning of the passage.

I too questioned the outcome of OTO using an altered version as an 'official' one. As Mogg has pointed out, they are altering the text in various places on the web to eliminate as many alternate versions as possible. While they can't possibly hope to succeed it does indicate a domineering attitude on the part of OTO in their bid for ownership of Thelema.

Regardless of the outcome of OTO vs Motta, which was far more complex than an argument over copyright and involved the lineage of the 'official' OTO, the copyright of CCXX is in the public domain. I wrote to Samuel Weiser and got that confirmed in writing a couple of years ago. If the publisher says that the work is in the public domain then it is reasonable to believe them. All of the other arguments by the OTO to the contrary have been very shaky and are yet to be tried in court- something that OTO is trying to avoid. There is a long history of these legal arguments- some of the details can be found here: http://www.parareligion.ch/dplanet/or/or2.htm

@ Caroline, I always thought that the Third Chapter was divided in half at verse 35 which says;

'the half of the word of Heru Ra Ha, called Hoor-pa-kraat and Ra-Hoor-Khut. This has always made the book an expression of Tetragrammaton, the Elements, the Quarters &etc.

I also don't think that discussing the Book of the Law has been forbidden and Crowley's later comment on the Book, called the New Comment (http://hermetic.com/legis/new-comment/) marked a change in his attitude from the short comment in the red covered copy of CCXX with the direful remarks about discussing the Book making you into a pariah.

I am also convinced, partly because of the works that have been produced by others like Motta and Parsons and partly because of my own experiences of working with the Book that all Thelemites can make a valid contribution to Thelema. I can see a body of Thelemite work and thought forming online now that will surely develop the concept of Thelema into the future. Even Leigh has contributed to the development of Crowley's work with a study of Bathyllic in his book From Babel to Babalon. All of these works are making a set of Thelemite texts that have value for future Thelemites.

The fact remains that OTO may have preserved some of the writings of Crowley but Israel Regardie and others have done just as much. Will the text version that Regardie edited and published in Gems from the Equinox or the version that was vetted by McMurty in the Holy Books of Thelema in 1983 now be the 'incorrect' versions? All because one obscure reference in a late note in the margin of one copy of CCXX makes the change? One also has to ask why Crowley didn't make this change when he was describing the reception of the MSS in The Equinox of the Gods. It looks to me like Breeze is ignoring a mass of evidence that is contrary to his assertion and focusing on a small amount that supports him. Not a very scholarly approach IMHO.

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to leave all of the interesting and enlightening comments and points of view.

David