Ash's Ashram

Aleister and Me

Sat, 17 May 2008 18:11:59 GMT

It has been quite a while since I updated this journal. In part, this is because I've been dealing with some health issues which took a lot of my attention. Perhaps a larger reason is that I've stepped back from thinking about Thelema so that I might eventually come back at it with a fresh perspective. I am not ready to do that with the vigor I want to do it with, so I'll simply jot down a few notes on where I stand now.

When I wrote my essay on Aleisterianism, I was motivated by the understanding that all spiritual systems are artificial (although they are meant to reflect the natural). They are constructed to help mediate the relationship between humans and reality, specifically in terms of meaning. There are of course many components to spiritual systems, including a desire for control, safety, love, power, and joy. But at the root, I believe, is the fundamental human need to be connected with something larger than or beyond the self, along with a sense of what such a connection means.

What I call Aleisterianism is a compilation of pre-existing spiritual concepts and practices that were meaningful to Aleister Crowley. They were mostly a collection of ideas gleaned from popular Victorian occult movements and eventually contextualized within the mythology Crowley constructed for himself. There was nothing especially unusual in what Crowley did; it was and remains a popular pastime with many spiritually-minded people who have strong personalities and a powerful imagination. However, few people will ever have the strength of personality that Crowley had, and his large body of works will ensure that the ideas he promoted and his mythology will live on.

My own relationship with Aleisterianism changed radically within the last three years or so. I lost interest in the hocus pocus, in the focus on Crowley the man, and in his personal philosophy. The trite master/slave mentality he promoted is especially offensive to me, both intellectually and morally. I also got tired of a system that was largely set up as oppositional—to Christianity, to society, even to basic human needs. In this way, Aleisterianism promotes rebelliousness; which is fine, of course, and can certainly be both fun and transformative, but rebelliousness is a largely an adolescent function. A fully mature system needs something more.

I fully admit that Aleisterianism's adolescent rebelliousness was a phase I needed to go through in my own spiritual journey. Now that I've reached a place where I am capable, albeit imperfectly, of examining my own feelings and motivations and also of making decisions that might go against the popular grain, I have lost my appetite for Aleisterianism's artificial (and often hypocritical) rebelliousness. Rather, I've come to a point where I am much more interested in integration—in the ability to be both a unique individual and a positive member of society. I am only just starting to explore that path and so I will leave that topic unfinished for now.

While many believe that Aleisterianism and Thelema are synonymous, I do not. I maintain that Aleisterianism is an expression of Thelema (just as OTO and the AA are expressions of Aleisterianism in institutional form). Once I was able to outline the nature of Aleisterianism to my own satisfaction, I was then better able to see what Thelema is. Said another way, I truly believe that there is a fundamental spiritual principle that runs not only in Aleisterianism, but throughout all the world's religions. It is that core Thelemic principle that I am most interested in exploring.

Now then, as I said before, all spiritual systems are artificial—my understanding of Thelema is and always will be a work in progress. That said, I have come to a starting place, a beginning Thelemic Thesis, if you will:

Thelema, at it's heart, is about the primacy of Universal Will as the fundamental spiritual force of being. Will is both primordial and constantly emerging, eternal and fleeting. We humans arise out of this paradox and mirror it—we also have, both at the same time, a deep abiding self and a self that constantly emerges from moment to moment. The aim of the Thelemian is to align, as closely as possible, not only these two "selves", but also one's consciousness and behavior with the River of Universal Will. Thelema is a journey both inwards and outwards, a celebration of individuality and unity, and a connection of self with Self and self with All (thus a variation on the Hermetic Principle: as Without so Within). In seeking the flowing center of the Sacred River, the Thelemian develops exceptional character, an appreciation for and curiosity about all things, and a new-found freedom to be the genuine person he or she is meant to be.

Some will say that what I've just described isn't Thelema. I respect their opinions. But please note, I have completely lost my appetite for debating it. I very sincerely do not care about the man Aleister Crowley or his status as prophet, guru, sacred scribe, or social lecturer—although some of his individual works will certainly remain on my reading list. Is my thesis "real" Thelema? Is it "reformed" Thelema? Is it something wholly non-Thelema? I honestly don't care. My passion is now focused on integrating Will with all areas of living—relationships, work, pleasure, intellectual pursuits, culture, and with nature herself. That is a conversation I'd love to have.

Over time, my conversations here will focus on the above Thesis, with a full expectation that it will change and mature. Please note, I am not seeking a perfect statement of Sublime Truth. Rather, I am interested in the process of discovery and transformation, and playing with words is one method I enjoy. I sincerely hope that many of you will continue to play with me...

"As men's prayers are a disease of the will, so are their creeds a disease of the intellect." —R.W. Emerson, "Self-Reliance"

Eidolons hits 20k

Sun, 24 Feb 2008 06:52:51 GMT

Brief note: Eidolons shot past 20,000 unique visits yesterday. Also, it shows up nineteenth on Google when searching "Thelema." That is all.

Crowley I Like...

Sun, 24 Feb 2008 02:09:57 GMT

Although I have been critical of Aleisterianism of late, some have accused me of rejecting or hating everything Crowley wrote. I'm not sure why that is, since I've written again and again that any text can potentially be a source of inspiration and guidance. Be that as it may, I wanted to take a moment to praise some of Crowley's work that I still very much enjoy. The list below doesn't comprise the entire list of works that I find valuable, but it does provide a nice set that I return to often.

The Book of the Balance. This remains perhaps my favorite work of Crowley's. It inspires courage, thoughtfulness, tolerance, fortitude, temperance, generosity, and self-respect. One of my top three Crowley quotes comes from Libræ—"Act passionately; think rationally; be Thyself." Edit: I have heard before the suggestion that Crowley did not write this document, but only added a few key edits. Even so, he clearly endorsed it and I consider it to be a staple in the Aleisterian collection of texts.

The Heart of the Master. I consider this work to be perhaps Crowley's most spiritually eloquent (even if it is a bit rambling).

The True Self is the meaning of the True Will: know Thyself through Thy Way!
Calculate well the Formula of Thy Way!
Create freely; absorb joyously; divide intently; consolidate completely.
Work thou, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, in and for Eternity.

Liber Oz. Although I think this document is incomplete as an outline of basic human rights (offering only rights related to individual action), Oz is a great manifesto of personal liberty.

On Thelema. This, in my opinion, is Crowley's finest summary of his understanding of Thelema. A couple of passages:

....the ultimate Will of every conscious being must be to so increase his general experience as to understand and know himself, which he can only do by studying and understanding the whole universe. That the task is endless is no detriment to this process, but makes it all the more interesting. It is the way of the tao. Finality would cloy.
[...]
No other individual has any right to determine or restrict the choice of another except in such cases as the experience of one includes for all practical purposes the experience of the other; as in the case of parents and young children. There are also various other cases where the free choice of the individual must be restricted insofar as that unhampered choice might interfere with the equal rights of others. But this is in no way a question of abstract right and wrong, but a matter of practical politics.

The Initiated Interpretation of Ceremonial Magic. This was Crowley's introduction to The Goetia, edited by Mathers and Liddell. He lays out, in concise and compelling terms, how "magical phenomena" are products of the mind (e.g. "The spirits of the Goetia are portions of the human brain."). It is a bit ironic that he penned this a year before writing AL.

The Sun Symbolically Considered. This short essay appears in the book The General Principles of Astrology by Crowley and Evangeline Smith Adams. It is a wonderful paean to the Sun. My favorite excerpts:

For each one of us is the central figure of a drama divine and human. Each one of us has clothed immortal splendour in a veil of flesh, has doomed himself to suffer and to die in order to rise again and mount the heaven with ever-increasing joy and majesty. It is hard for us to realize why this formula must be fulfilled, why the nature of things is such that the incorruptible must feed on corruption, the immortal shroud itself in the cerecloth of mortality. Only when we consciously attain to the enjoyment of life as a sacrament, only when the universe is understood as being a vast replica of our own nature, do we accept the cross, and hail death as the culmination and prize of life.
[...]
In this way, we shall not only harmonize and perfect our natures, but thrill them with the rapture of illumination. We shall lose the petty personal consciousness that is the cause of our selfishness, and so of all our miseries and fears, of all our cruelty and our injustice; we shall regain the cosmic consciousness; we shall be once more one with all things, and the universe will appear in its unsullied glory, freed from the veil of horror and darkness that our own imperfect light has seemed to cast upon its holy and adorable splendour.

Psychography and Liber Legis

Thu, 21 Feb 2008 03:12:37 GMT

Psychography is the term applied to texts that have been written by disembodied spirits or beings. There are several forms of this, ranging from the spirit taking full motor control of the scribe to simply working from an intuitive influence. It is considered a form of automatic writing, but unique in that the scribe is generally aware of what is being written (as opposed to going into a trance state).

The Book of the Law is an interesting example of psychography, because it seems to exhibit several forms of it. For example, Crowley claims that the text was dictated to him by Aiwass, and he simply wrote what he heard (a perfectly legitimate form of psychography). However, as an example, the diagonal line drawn across sheet 60 (III:47) suggests that some of the writing was also "automatic" or "mechanical". Further, some of the text was intuitively inspired, and not through Crowley—his wife Rose afterwards wrote in her own hand, "The Five Pointed Star, with a Circle in the Middle, & the circle is Red" (I:60). Crowley even had the nerve to edit the divine author, saying of a dictated phrase (the unfragmentary non-atomic fact of my universality, the non-atomic omnipresence of my body), "people will never be able to understand this," (as if everything else in the text was clear!) to which the angel replied "Write this in whiter words. But go forth on," resulting in the final phrase, "the consciousness of the continuity of existence, the omnipresence of my body" (I:26).

Entire chunks of the text were added in later, mostly from Crowley's poetic transcription of the Stele 666 (e.g. III:37-38). There are also numerous corrections and changes made by Crowley and Rose, some at the time of the dictation and some later, mostly in the first and third chapters. Examples include: the tzaddi (I:57) from the original odd scribble, "clerk-house" (III:41) changed from "clerk-ship", and "Coph Nia" (III:72) from the initial "Copha" (later changed by Rose), plus multiple minor changes. A catalog of all these changes can be explored here.

Liber Legis was, at the time, not in the least bit odd for how it was generated. Psychographic texts had been all the rage for decades and continued in popularity through the 1920s. Several 19th c. treatises on the subject were written, perhaps the best known being The Spirits' Book (1861) by Allan Kardec, Practical Occultism (1888) by J.J. Morse, and Psychography (1878) by William Stainton Moses. Well-known psychographic texts of the period include Oahspe: A New Bible (1882) by J.B. Newbrough, various works by Alice A. Bailey, Clothed with the Sun (1889) by Anna Kingsford, The Mahatma Letters by Madame Blavatsky, and A Vision (1925) by W. B. Yeats. A large list of online psychographic texts can be found here.

The practice of channeling messages from higher beings never really stopped, but had a revival in the latter half of the 20th century (who here over the age of 30 doesn't remember "Seth"?). It continues today, now more than ever. With the advent of blogs, psychographers can publish their divine messages as fast as they receive them, and there seems to be a wide audience hungry for it.

Naturally there are a wide range of attitudes regarding psychography, from unquestioning faith to curious skepticism to outright denial. A common explanation of psychography states that it is a product of the unconscious mind, that nothing written using this method can surpass what is already known by the author. It is not uncommon to hear this psychological perspective applied to Liber Legis as well.

From my own point of view, it seems obvious that AL was a product of Crowley's own mind (as are all psychographic texts). Multiple influences were involved in its writing (occult and literary knowledge, memories, attitudes, desires, wounds, etc.), which lends to its complexity and sense of depth. From a psychological frame, as an example, it's possible to interpret AL as Crowley's unconscious attempt to create a new family for himself to replace the cold and harsh one he grew up with. His new mother, Nuit, was—unlike the corporeal version—infinitely warm, loving, embracing, accepting, and sexual. His new father was more like his actual one—stern, merciless, strong, mysterious, and pious (even speaking pseudo-Biblical quotes)—but transformed into a joyful being, approving of his son's hedonistic appetites, as well as being immortal (his father died when he was 12). And then there is the god-child Ra-Hoor-Khuit. Into this divine character Crowley poured all his childish rage against the world, his desperate craving for power and control, and his desire to be respected and worshiped. The entire book is filled with messages giving himself praise, absolution, and authority, as well as permission to be cold and rejecting of others (just as his parents had treated him). From this one perspective, AL can be seen as a narcissistic fantasy—"Lift up thyself! for there is none like unto thee among men or among Gods! Lift up thyself, o my prophet, thy stature shall surpass the stars. They shall worship thy name..." (AL II:78). AL is notable in that most "inspired" texts do not go to nearly such lengths to aggrandize the scribe.

Of course, such an explanation has little import to one who sees value in any given psychographic text. Even those who admit that the product was likely a result of unconscious processes will often say that that doesn't matter, that what's important is the product itself, not the source. "So what if Aiwass was just a projection of Crowley's unconscious? That doesn't mean it has no value!" Too true, I fully admit. In such a case, Liber Legis can be thought of as art. It is certainly true that some pieces of art—whether visual, literary, or auditory—can have a profound spiritual impact on people, providing meaningful inspiration and guidance. But as in all cases with art, it is deeply subjective, even when it draws upon universal human themes. The spiritual spark does not reside within the work itself, but in the relational process between the work and the individual.

And what about the notion that AL isn't of purely psychological origin? This suggests that it is possible to receive divine messages from non-human intelligences and that such a message would have great universal import. Okay, fine; nearly every religion makes some version of this claim. But why should I accept AL on these terms, and not any of the other hundreds of psychographic texts? What tells me that the message of Aiwass is more reflective of reality than that of Seth or Ashtar or Metatron? Why should I not conclude that accepting this notion isn't simply superstition? In the end, I cannot accept that The Book of the Law is of supernatural origin, no more than I can of the Bible or Oahspe.

I certainly accept that AL is a work of art capable of providing meaningful inspiration and guidance—how could I not, since it was so for many years. Since it is my task as a Thelemite (perhaps I could adopt the term Thelemian to differentiate myself from adherents of AL and Crowley) to increase my awareness of Will as well as my ability to carry it out, then it follows that I should be able to employ any text that assists me in that goal. Ideally, I should be able to write my own Book that is applicable to me alone, an articulation of the Law that is my ever-emerging genuine self.

Perhaps that is all these psychographic works really are...folks laying out their own personal truths in the guise of divine inspiration. Of course, if we are each divine beings, then perhaps it's true that "All words are sacred and all prophets true; save only that they understand a little" (I:56). In Crowley's day, there were certainly many "prophets" to choose from. It's also true that not all their works are equal—some have a greater impact than others (although why this might be so is a matter for another essay).

As with nearly all aspects of Crowley's spiritual career, where he tried his hand in nearly everything that was popular in occult circles, he naturally also tried out psychography. It's interesting that his initial assessment was almost dismissive ("This MS...is a highly interesting example of genuine automatic writing. Though I am in no way responsible for any of these documents, except the verse translations of the stele inscription, I publish them among my works, because I believe that their intelligent study may be interesting and helpful."). It wasn't until years later that he considered AL important—curious to think what his legacy would've been like if he hadn't or if the document had remained lost. Still, we have it today, a "highly interesting example of genuine automatic writing" that certainly stands out among the stable of psychographic works of his day.

Occultism and Apophenia

Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:54:31 GMT

Ever hear of apophenia? It is the perception of apparently meaningful connections derived from otherwise unrelated phenomena or data. Taken to its worst extreme, apophenia can be found amongst schizophrenics who believe they see patterns that support their delusions. Many such people report delusions of reference, where everything in the environment somehow becomes related to them personally, such as the television giving them direct messages. A more specific form of apophenia is pareidolia, which is the perception of significance derived from a vague and random stimulus, such as an image or sound.

Apophenia isn't limited to those with a thought disorder—it can exist in the "normal" cognitive range as well, with some evidence indicating that the lateral temporal lobes are somehow involved with the effect.* Further, high levels of dopamine might also play a part, especially when the person is predisposed to seeing a pattern.** It doesn't have to be religious in nature...who hasn't seen a face within a parking meter or tree bark? Indeed, this mechanism has long been a key to our survival as a species...it helps us recognize people, common objects, and landscape features. As we have become more sophisticated, it has allowed us to ascertain more subtle patterns, such as those found in the physical and social arenas (e.g. chemistry and language, respectively). It is a very powerful tool that continues to serve us well, not only in terms of survival, but also in the realms of both science and art.

A key human drive is the need for meaning, to make life about more than simple survival. Religion, in part, tries to serve this function, and for most people does so successfully. A much smaller but still sizable percentage of people look to occultism to fulfill their need for meaning, and for many years I was included in this number. Now that I've moved past occultism, I can look back and try to examine my experience with perhaps some objectivity.

One of the core mechanisms of occultism is the induction of apophenia, which it does via several conceptual models, such as Kaballah and the Tree of Life. By plugging in otherwise unrelated ideas and objects into such a model, a sense of meaningful connection is easily and quickly created. Of course, usually only already-meaningful ideas are plugged in, such as serpent or immortal, rather than less-meaningful things, like toilet or keyboard. The point here being that the model itself, when being used in this way, doesn't create the initial meaning, but provides a sense of greater import and external agency. To be clear, this is not the only use of these models, but I'm just talking about one practice that I myself used and see others doing.

A feature of occultism is the promise of finding the Big Secret. Part of doing so can involve practices that use trance or imagination to create the experience of evoking spirits, invoking deities, or visiting ultra-terrestrial or non-material planes. However, much of the "information" that is gleaned from these experiences seems to be transmitted in the code of symbolism, which is then processed through conceptual models to provide a sense of understanding. As the Philips article points out, when people seek patterns in otherwise unrelated data, they will find them. And I can say first hand that the experience of this, of the sense of having discovered or been made privy to some deeper spiritual reality, is intensely satisfying.

In itself, I see no problem with this—it feels good and can, for a short time, fulfill the need for meaning. However, things get sticky when occultists begin assuming that what they've experienced connotes some kind of objective, external reality or change in themselves. It is especially problematic when the occultist is seeking experience to either confirm or create a belief of unique personal eminence, because he will inevitably find it. Practice improves the ability to create and retain complex patterns (especially when certain symbols are already in mind), promoting the sensation of increased understanding, and it is all too easy to develop a narcissistic attitude regarding one's superior "wisdom" and spiritual "knowledge". The "I-know-something-you-don't-know" mindset is seductive and sadly common in the larger occult population; I succumbed to it myself for a time.

I will not say that occult practice cannot produce for some people a valuable and meaningful relationship between the occultist and the universe. When used to explore one's internal world, such practices can indeed produce useful psychological insight as well as develop useful skills, such as mindful discipline. Further, certain occult practices are excellent at promoting a sense of interconnection between all things, which can help develop the valuable awareness of being a meaningful part of culture and nature.

But when apophenia really sets in it can become counterproductive. One manifestation in occultism is the illusion of change at a distance, which is supported by the ability to invent connections between unrelated phenomena. Again, when ritual is done to prime the mind to act in desirable ways, it can be beneficial (e.g. doing a "get a job" ritual that results in a calmer and more confident demeanor during an interview). But when one believes that objective change is possible at a distance (in space or time), and comes to depend upon it, then it can result in neglecting one's actual ability to be an agent of change in life.

I believe that the stereotype of the occultist who is socially awkward, behind on rent, and works at a miserable job exists for a reason. It is probably common for people who feel ineffective and inadequate to be the most attracted to occultism, which promises great power and wisdom. And because of our natural ability to seek patterns, almost anyone can "succeed" at it. When this is done as a platform leading to an increased sense of agency, then occultism can be beneficial—when it leads to narcissism and a belief that the powers and knowledge are objectively real, then it can too easily exacerbate the underlying problems.

I do think that occultism in general can provide a marvelous metaphorical language. This is likely why many folks of an artistic bent are also attracted to occultism. Also, we want to feel special, and occultism makes it easy to feel that way. But the occult universe has no reality outside of the mind. It is a human construction which largely uses the language, perspectives, and scientific understandings of people who lived centuries or millennia ago. This gives occultism an exotic, substantial aura that is attractive to many. Also, certain occult tools, such as Tarot, can provide fantastic projective tools for digging out deeper elements of the personality making them available for examination.

On the whole, I've come to the conclusion that occultism has limited utility in developing a mature sense of self and meaning. While it can play a beneficial transitional role, as it did for me, in the end occultism's tendency to induce apophenia prevents seeing actual patterns in the environment and within the self, overcoming any issues of inadequacy, developing personal agency, and living a fully genuine life. Moreover, occultism doesn't solve real problems, whether global, social, or personal.

I believe we can borrow from the tradition of occultism to help provide some romance and adventure that can give spirituality a sense of aliveness, depth, and vibrancy. Also, the idea that spiritual development requires refining the ability to see clearly plus the willingness to explore ideas and experiences that are not immediately apparent is certainly a valuable one. But it is no longer useful or reasonable to insist that there is a Big Secret out there whose discovery is only awaiting the right awareness of the Grand Pattern. The old adage says it best—life is not a mystery to be solved, but a reality to be experienced.

* Bell, V., et al. (2007). Relative suppression of magical thinking: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Cortex, 43 (4):551-7.
** Philips, H. (2002). Paranormal beliefs linked to brain chemistry. New Scientist, July 2002.

Originally published at Thelema Philosophia.

Retirement

Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:50:50 GMT

I have just retired from active participation in Ordo Templi Orientis.

This has not been an easy decision. The Order has been of vital interest to me since 1994 when I joined, and I owe much of my personal growth to my involvement. Further, I have made numerous friends of quality beyond measure, many of whom I consider family.

Unfortunately, I've reached a point where my involvement is no longer rewarding or beneficial, either to me or to the Order. My radically changing views on Thelema have effectively broken away from some of the key teachings within the initiatory system, and I can no longer work within them with any kind of integrity. Further, because of all my recent changes, I am largely unable to provide service to the Order or to promote harmony amongst the brethren, both of which I consider a duty as a Prince of the Rose+Croix. It has therefore become clear that it is time for me to go.

I want to say that I am very proud of the many things I've done with the Order, including (but certainly not limited to) my work in the SWL Rites of Eleusis, my brief editorship of The Scarlet Letter, my countless graphic design jobs, founding Thelemapedia, and of course being an active EGC priest and MoE initiator. I also continue to stand by all my essays regarding OTO, including Structure of Core OTO Aspects, An Examination of Liber CI, The Four Functions of a Local Body, The Principles of Fraternity, Building OTO Communities, and Getting to Fifth.

However, it is time for me to move on. My beliefs regarding Thelema continue to change and mature, and OTO is no longer a fit environment for me to develop either these ideas or myself. I will continue to post my alchemical changes to this journal for all to appreciate or ridicule.

I wish the members of Ordo Templi Orientis success and happiness. I consider my fraternal bonds to be active and I will uphold them as best I may, regardless of my relationship to the Order as a whole. I also offer my good wishes and good luck to the leadership...you have no easy task and I look forward to seeing how you pilot the ship through the shoals.

Adieu.

Aleisterian Addendum

Sun, 06 Jan 2008 21:05:18 GMT

The following entry is an email reply to someone inquiring about my latest essay regarding Aleisterianism. I'm posting it here because I think it does a decent job of covering certain points that I hadn't before.

I think I still haven't been clear about something. Let me try it this way. Control, isolation, and conflict are, in and of themselves, neither detrimental nor sociopathic. There are appropriate times for all three. What is striking about Aleisterianism is how they are so ubiquitous throughout the system. Rather than being conditional, they lie at the very root of both praxis and belief.

My critique presumes that these themes, rather than being dangerous (I don't think they're dangerous because I don't see Aleisterianism as being robust or influential enough to lead to extreme behavior) they instead result in limits that weaken it. Such limits include the number of people who will be attracted to the system, the degree to which the system can be beneficially integrated into real life, it's ability to galvanize group action, and how relevant it is to modern circumstances.

Further, Aleisterianism is based in large part upon assumptions about human history, psychology, and biology that are either wrong or profoundly outmoded, mostly because they are grounded in Victorian-era science and politics, as well as in AC's personal prejudices and preferences. Unfortunately, because AC made himself the final arbitor of his system, it is too rigid to make up for lost time...at least, not without making substantial modifications that either ignore or change many of his teachings (those who do this are what I refer to as either liberal or heterodox Aleisterians).

The good news is that the truly profound and robust elements of his system exist independently of him. The idea that people have a unique Will that stems from God is hardly new...it exists in some form in nearly every major religion. The same goes for the Qabalah, Yoga, transcendental meditation, divination, ceremonial ritual, and many of the other tools that AC used. What AC did was wrap it all up in a thin coating of mythology that made him the sacred Priest-Father-Teacher-Prophet-Beast for all of mankind.

If that mythology is meaningful and beneficial for someone on their spiritual journey, then I honestly think that's great, and I have no interest in talking them out of it. Similarly, I've always maintained that sacred texts can be wonderful for inspiration and guidance, and AL is no different. But no one needs AL in order to live a more Willful life. AL is not needed to develop critical thinking, an independent spirit, a zeal for living, or the desire to fight for freedom against the forces of tyranny and superstition. If we accept that Will is a universal force of nature, then adopting a small book simply isn't needed to manifest that force via personal exploration, the development of one's talents and abilities, the strengthening of good character, or the mystical expansion of one's consciousness.

If a single person, or even a single group, chooses to emphasize the "importance and primacy of Liber AL", I can make no argument as to why they should not. After all, I am a strong advocate of religious freedom, and I support people believing in whatever they want to believe in, whether it be a guy with a hawk's head, an intergalatic space tyrant, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster. My position, however, states that Thelema as a meta-system does not require the primacy or even the existence of AL—I propose instead that AL be seen a single example of Thelemic expression by a single Thelemite....again, potentially wonderful for inspiration and guidance, but not necessary for spiritual legitimacy. It is a branch, not the seed.

To summarize, I do not think Aleisterianism, as a system and movement, is dangerous; I think it is anemic. It is weak because it is constrained by the work of a single man who died 60 years ago who grounded his ideas in control, isolation, and conflict. Those themes simply will not inspire more than a handful of people, most of whom will be folks on the edge of society but with enough resources and interest to buy and study arcane texts. Yes, there are always exceptions, but not enough to make Aleisterianism a robust movement (example: after a full century, the largest and most powerful Aleisterian organization in the world barely maintains 3000 or so members with rapid turnover, owns no real property, has no paid staff, and has virtually zero influence culturally or politically...I do not blame the leadership for this, I blame Aleisterianism).

And because AC was misogynistic, anti-family, and focused on emotionally-detached sex, there is no generational growth—too many people leave the system when they get older or have kids. Let's face it—the main reason Aleisterianism is still around is because of Crowley himself; his large and curious personality draws just enough people to keep his books in publication. If the same basic precepts had been written by someone who had lived a fulfilling, drama-free life, I suspect no one today except Rabelais scholars would recognize the word Thelema.

To reiterate, I'm drawing a strong distinction between Thelema as a meta-system and the systems adopted by individuals and groups. My focus is on the former; the latter is not my business, except insofar as I support people's right to believe whatever they want. If you want AL at the center of your personal system, great! If OTO wants that, then so be it. But I maintain that Thelema as a whole does not require it, and my future work will be building on that proposition.

Aleisterianism (Part III of III)

Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:01:51 GMT

Part three of a series. If you will, read Part I and Part II

Commentary

As we have seen, Aleisterianism can be defined as a set of ideas, beliefs, and practices derived from the life and works of Aleister Crowley. In its purest form, it has three primary aspects: (1) it is rooted solely in the person and mythology of Crowley, (2) it is characterized by the meta-themes of control, isolation, and conflict, and (3) it is comprised of a loosely bound and slightly tweaked set of philosophies, cultural memes, religious traditions, and mystical esoterica that were popular in Victorian-era Europe. Finally, there is a wide spectrum of possible adherent affiliations with Aleisterianism, including the broad categories of orthodox, liberal, heterodox, secular, and magical—each of which offers its own approach to Crowley’s works.

While some have used the word “Aleisterian” as an invective, I do not. I consider the term (which I did not originate) a respectful description of a legitimate school of religious and philosophical thought and practice. By legitimate, I mean Aleisterianism is as worthy of adherence as any faith, and I honor the choice of anyone to adopt it. To state otherwise would be terrible hypocrisy, since I was a dedicated liberal Aleisterian for over a decade.

However, it is not necessary to be an Aleisterian in order to be an adherent of Thelema. How is this possible? It is first necessary to understand that, with apologies to my Aleisterian friends, Thelema does not rise and set with Crowley. As already outlined, the essential concepts he addressed were already long in existence and will continue to exist long after him. True, he added a structure of personal divinity and myth in order to bind those concepts to him, but one does not need to accept his status of prophet or Beast (or secret chiefs, talking angels, Aeons, etc) in order to integrate Thelemic principles, beliefs, and practices into one’s life. After all, there is no longer any threat of eternal damnation hanging over our heads requiring faith to prevent...the only threat we recognize is the possibility of living a life that is not fully Willful.

My friend omphalos111 has argued that “all roads do not lead to Rome” in that one who does not work the system that Crowley laid down will be doing something, but not Thelema. With due respect, all roads DO lead to Rome, IF Rome is where one is trying to get to. If one is trying to align their consciousness with their own unique True Will, they will eventually do so (to some degree), whether or not they perform Reguli daily or if they ride a unicycle in a circle while eating peanut butter. Moreover, since Rome (Will) is different for everyone, it follows that every path to it will be equally unique. It is also reasonable to acknowledge that not every road will be equally efficient or enlightening or any other quality—certainly some roads will be more “right” for one person than another (including, yes, the roads paved by Crowley).

At the same time, while Aleisterianism is as legitimate a path as any other, it does come with its own set of challenges. Perhaps the central difficulty lies in the incongruence between the promotion of universal liberty to manifest each individual’s unique will by requiring a concentrated focus on someone else and adherence to his personal beliefs, experiences, and preferences. Similarly, like any system tied to a central deceased person, Aleisterianism has become relatively static and focused more on the development of the founder rather than on the development of adherents. And because the system is closed (i.e. authorship of doctrine is limited to Crowley), it remains stuck in an historical period that makes it increasingly difficult to keep it relevant to modern times. This is one reason why we will probably see an increasing general shift to Crowley’s mythological aspects—his prophet-hood, his divine office of the Beast, and the myths pertaining to his writing of Liber Legis—as well as a requirement of faith in those things in order to be acknowledged as a Thelemite. After all, the less relevant a religion is to the real lives of adherents, the more that system has to rely on the fantastical to maintain integrity.

True, scholarly-types willing to study history might be able to keep up with his more subtle in-the-times comments, but even so, the issue of a receding context makes Aleisterianism far less viable as a growing, movement-based religion. This becomes exacerbated as Aleisterian conceptions are simply proven wrong by modern science or historical record, which then requires the awkward transformation of assumptions of fact into esoteric statements requiring mystical interpretation—which again requires an increasing level of faith in Crowley as a divine agent beyond reproach. While faith itself is no stranger to religion, Crowley made strong claims that his system is incompatible with faith and in full alignment with the natural sciences—a claim that unravels under scrutiny.

When we look at the Aleisterian meta-themes of control, isolation, and conflict, we see a whole new set of challenges. While increasing mastery over one’s conscious mind is a beneficial task, Aleisterianism goes much further by promoting power over others (i.e. the “slaves”) and developing the “strength” to ignore one’s own social conscience. As pointed out, this requires isolating the self from emotions, from friendship and kinship, and from society in general. While multiple religions require some version of this task, the fact remains that humans are intrinsically social creatures that use emotions to help us make good decisions. When people begin cutting themselves off from these things (as opposed to simply silencing them momentarily for the sake of hearing the ineffable), it is the rare individual that comes out on the other side healthy and whole. Even Crowley himself became less stable and more sociopathic as he worked his own system. Of course, this worked for him, because conflict is another central theme in Aleisterianism. But this also explains why the general Thelemic movement today is characterized by egoism, contention, and chaos. It is no wonder that after a century of Aleisterianism’s existence, it has failed to accomplish much of note—no architecture, influential or robust organizations, or major works of art, literature, or music.

Even considering all this, it is possible to experience anxiety when pondering Thelema outside of Crowley...after all, without his canon of holy books and philosophical opinions, doesn’t it dissolve into meaninglessness? Fortunately, no. Although the concept of divine Will exists in many world religions, Thelema is the first to put individual human Will at the spiritual center. From this, many fundamental principles follow that serve to differentiate Thelema from other systems of thought and belief. Yes, the boundary can be fuzzy in some areas, but this is good—such a boundary allows for multiple compatible beliefs and distinct sects, which would mirror a core strength found within Nature herself: variety.

Let us explore a few of these general principles very briefly. If we acknowledge that divine Will is an outflow of being—each being a microscopic projection of the macroscopic Universal All—then it follows that every person and every part of nature is inherently divine and without flaw (in the Judeo-Christian sense). As such, there is no original sin and so no need for salvation, making Thelema incompatible with orthodox Abrahamic religions. Further, since manifested being is seen as inherently sacred, human existence is equally sanctified, and the human drive for living becomes a potential source of deep joy and fulfillment. Since the will to be is seen as such—and not the source of suffering or corruption—Thelema starts from a different fundamental premise than both Buddhism and classic Gnosticism.

Finally, since Thelema acknowledges that every person has a Will unique to him or her, then certain concepts flow from this—such as tolerance for difference and maximizing the liberty to manifest it; harmony between all the parts of the whole and maintaining a balance between competing needs and desires; the effort to strengthen one’s character and abilities in order to become a more capable vehicle for one’s Will; the courage to engage life fully; openness to experience; the integrity to be fully genuine; the beneficence to assist others in the Great Work; and the critical thinking, rational examination, and healthy skepticism necessary for effective problem solving, spiritual exploration, and personal development. This list is certainly not given as a definitive outline of Thelema—rather, it is an example of how Thelema can be articulated based on fundamental principles, without relying on such mythological structures as prophets, secret chiefs, or revealed texts to legitimize it.

Please note, I say relying, not integrating—there is certainly nothing inherently negative with adopting such concepts into one’s personal belief system if they provide meaning. But when a system depends on such items of faith, it can potentially take on some of the worst elements of dogmatic religion—righteousness, intolerance, and rigidity. Indeed, it takes great effort to avoid them.

Yet, it is important to acknowledge, again, that Aleisterianism is a legitimate path. But it is not the only path one must travel to find the way to a willful life, lived in harmony even with many of Crowley’s more noble precepts: liberty, balance, personal excellence, tolerance, and the age-old Work of uniting the Self with the Universal All. Moreover, the many practices and philosophies he adapted—along with all those he did not or that came after him—remain for anyone to draw from. And in the grand tradition of Crowley himself, every Thelemite has the right to collect their own interlocking stones of belief and practice, to pave their own roads to Rome. In this way, every Thelemite becomes a temple of Will unto him or herself, each with a singular system of personal attainment and celebration designed to realize their own unique and glorious destiny.

...thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay. —AL I:42-43

When one desires to take in hand the empire and make it, I see him not succeed. The empire is a divine vessel which cannot be made. One who makes it, mars it. One who takes it, loses it. —Dao De Jing, Ch. 29

The Mind is of God's very essence—if such a thing as essence of God there be—and what that is, it and it only knows precisely. The Mind, then, is not separated off from God's essentiality, but is united to it, as light to sun. This Mind in men is God, and for this cause some of mankind are gods, and their humanity is nigh unto divinity. For the Good Daimon said: "Gods are immortal men, and men are mortal gods." —The Corpus Hermeticum, XII

Aleisterianism (Part II of III)

Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:50:31 GMT

For your holiday reading pleasure...part two of a series. Part one is here...
---------------

Definitional Categories of Aleisterianism

There are many ways to look at religious traditions, and it is the height of hubris for anyone to claim they have the one and only definion of any system. That said, it can be useful to make the attempt, even knowing that any such outline will be incomplete and arbitrary. In this case, we shall try to look at Aleisterianism from a large scale perspective. From a more internal perspective there are some decent attempts, such as A Guide to the Study of Aleisterian Thelema at Eidolons of Ash or The Law of Thelema at ReligiousTolerance.org.

As one way of organizing it, we can define Aleisterianism as having three essential components. The following are large-scale categories, not absolute positions. Indeed, it is possible to find quotes from Crowley that contradict each of these conceptions—in fact, Crowley is so often contradictory that this could almost be it’s own definitional category. However, the ones listed below are summaries of the general characteristics that emerge out of the totality of Crowley’s works.

1) Aleisterianism is rooted in the being of Aleister Crowley.

Aleisterianism is deeply enmeshed with this one individual—his personality, writings, experiences, beliefs, interests, attitudes, prejudices, education, culture, class, and psychology. The subjects he studied, the people he admired or hated, his sexual preferences, his wealth, his emotional wounds and resultant narcissism, his natural talents, his ambitions—these shaped, inspired, and became infused within each and every one of his works. Moreover, he kept his system closed, making sure that his would be the last and only word of authority on the subject of Thelema. This extended to the point of making himself a sacred figure—the one and only priest, prophet, and teacher of Thelema, personified within the divine “office” of the Beast 666.

2) Aleisterianism is characterized by the themes of control, isolation, and conflict.

The Aleisterian perspective sees the world largely as an impediment to spiritual development—it is filled primarily with people who are slaves and/or oppressors, who do not think for themselves, who want to eradicate individual uniqueness, and who only take from society without contributing anything in return. This conservative position, similar to the modern day version, sees little inherent value in any given human being—the worth of a person, in the case of Aleisterianism, is based upon how well he conforms to Crowley’s view of how things should be.

The result is the emergence of three themes. The first theme is control—which is contained within the concepts of power, strength, and manliness. Aleisterianism desires complete mastery over all things—over one’s emotions and thoughts, one’s conditions, and one’s fate. This desire requires the second theme of isolation. Aleisterianism sees the ideal Thelemite as separate from all others, and seeks to sever emotional bonds and social obligations (including with friends and family). This theoretically frees one to act in the way that Will dictates, even if this requires manipulating or disregarding others, without the spiritual obstacles of guilt or compassion. However, achieving this level of control and detachment is not easy, and both the internal and external forces that seek to connect people must be aggressively fought. This leads to conflict, the third major theme in Aleisterianism. This conflict takes several forms, including fighting individuals to solve disagreements, rebellion against mainsteam culture, the struggle against one’s internal “social programming,” and the great war against the malevolent forces of the Old Aeon.

3) Aleisterianism includes a system of spiritual attainment derived from practices and ideas popular in Victorian-era Europe.

Although Aleisterianism is here defined as a sect or denomination of Thelema, it contains within it a kind of system of practice intended to do two primary things—(1) to lead one to the apprehension of “True Will” and (2) to develop the qualities necessary to fulfill the three traits listed above—control, isolation, and conflict. This system has all the components we’re now so familiar with—astrology, the Qabalah, invocatory ritual, automatic writing and psychography, tarot, Eastern yoga and meditation, Renaissance grimoires, astral travel, Hermeticism—all the occult staples that were, at the time, the playthings of the European upper crust and the new middle class.

Indeed, what many believe to be unique to Crowley has its origin in folks like François Rabelais, Eliphas Lévi, and Helena Blavatsky; in organizations such as The Golden Dawn and the Freemasons; and in Eastern religions that were re-introduced to the imperial West: Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam. Of course, all of Crowley’s philosophical and cultural concepts were “borrowed” from others too—he took inspiration from the Bohemian poets, the Social Darwinists, the fad of Egyptomania, Friedrich Nietzsche, and even Sigmund Freud. In all, what we call the “system” of Aleisterianism is ultimately a loosely-bound and slightly tweaked collection of Victoria-era countercultural ideas, establishment propaganda, religious traditions, and occult practices that were of personal interest to Aleister Crowley.

Go on to part three...

Since this post is two of three, comments will be turned off until the third installment.

Aleisterianism (Part I of III)

Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:39:16 GMT

Aleisterianism is one name for a loose affiliation of beliefs, ideas, and practices based on the writings of Aleister Crowley. Aleisterianism is difficult to define in any strict sense because there is little agreement over what is considered salient Aleisterian doctrine and even less agreement over the possible interpretations of Crowley’s works. Further, little effort has been made to even begin outlining the larger context of Thelema wherein Aleisterianism rests, much for similar reasons.

It is important to state up front that the structure of Aleisterianism is an abstract one, meaning that it is here presented as a convenient model to promote a common language, even if particulars are disagreed upon. Also, every attempt will be made here to avoid strawman arguments—although several conceptualizations will be presented, in no way are those conceptualizations given as implications of any given set of beliefs of real individuals. They might be, of course, but in the chaotic realm of Thelema, the exception is nearly always the rule.

Affiliation Categories

With this in mind, let us first define some broad affiliation categories. Most Thelemites will fall somewhere in between these, but such definitions will be useful when addressing broad groups in the future. These categories are offered up front because it is useful to recognize that for any given model—in this case, Aleisterianism—there are multiple relationships between that model and the people who work within or around it.

1) Orthodox Aleisterianism. This position maintains that Thelema is contained solely within the personality and writings of Aleister Crowley, and that the totality of his ideas constitute a discrete, complete, coherent, irreducible, and universal system of thought and practice applicable to all areas of life. Further, Crowley’s personal interpretations and opinions are considered both perfectly accurate and paramount (with perhaps a few exceptions, such as in cases where elements have been clearly overturned by science). Complimentary non-Crowlian sources can be integrated, but always secondarily to his.

2) Flexible or Liberal Aleisterianism. Although some set of Crowley’s works—such as the Holy Books and/or Book 4, for example—remains of central importance in defining the nature of Thelema, more latitude exists in allowing personal interpretations to take precedence over Crowley’s own and also in judging which elements of his work are more relevant than others. However, in most cases, Crowley’s opinions will be considered the default position and given greater weight. Also, it is more acceptable to integrate ideas, beliefs, and practices outside of Crowley’s canon.

3) Heterodox Aleisterianism. Although personal interpretations can vary wildly from those of Crowley and even other Aleisterians, the general context of those interpretations remains rooted in his works. It is also more likely for non-Crowlian works to be integrated.

4) Secular Aleisterianism. An affiliative sub-set that minimizes, rejects, or ignores the religious aspects of Crowley’s works and focuses solely on his philosophical, political, and social ideas.

5) Magical Aleisterianism. The opposite sub-set of #4—a position that minimizes, rejects, or ignores the secular elements within Crowley’s works and focuses rather on his presented cosmology and the mystical/magical elements of spiritual celebration and attainment.

[Naturally the Secular and Magical sub-categories can also have their own Orthodox, Liberal, and Heterodox positions.]

6) Non-Aleisterianism. This category (which is here offered simply for the sake of comparison, not as an enduring label, since this category does not represent any discrete “system”) includes every other Thelemite who does not accept or recognize Crowley’s works as being central or perhaps even relevant to Thelema. As with Aleisterians, there is a wide range of relationships between these individual Thelemites and Crowley’s works—some integrate many of his ideas, some adapt them into radical new forms, some simply ignore Crowley, and others reject him outright. The key here is the stance that Crowley and his works form neither the single core nor the only context for defining or practicing Thelema. The idea that one can be both a non-Aleisterian and a Thelemite will be discussed in part three.

Since this post is one of three, comments will be turned off until the third installment. Part two is here...

The Death of Duke

Sat, 24 Nov 2007 02:52:31 GMT

For azael93

The Tunis Comment

Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:13:46 GMT

I find it very strange that any modern-day free thinker would accept a brief document written in 1925 that (a) forbids the study of a book, (b) discourages people from discussing the contents of that book, and (c) prohibits all but one source of guidance for scriptural interpretation.

I have heard, and indeed have myself argued in the past, that what the Tunis Comment is really trying to do is prevent people from interpreting AL for other people. I've come to realize that this is a bad argument. First, individuals are responsible for their own beliefs; outside of oppressive measures, no one can force another to believe something against their will. Second, if certain people are willing to believe anything anyone says to them, then they are very unlikely to come to any meaningful understanding of AL or Thelema on their own anyway. Third, people don't need to be protected from my interpretations; I believe that most folks are perfectly capable of making up their own minds about things and that my opinions present little danger to them.

Now then, the notion of respecting the right for people to independently interpret AL is a fine one— but the Comment doesn't literally say that and isn't needed to promote it anyway. The idea that we should eliminate dogmatic religious authorities is also a good one...but makes no sense if we then give Crowley a pass (and again, the Comment doesn't say that). Ultimately, the notion that the Comment promotes religious freedom by restricting study, conversation, and interpretation is ludicrous.

Another concept I've heard is that because the Comment was "inspired" in the way AL supposedly was, then it too is interpretable beyond its literal meaning. Of course, anything can be interpreted beyond its literal meaning. But the Comment is pretty concrete...I don't see a lot of wiggle room there. I think this argument is often used as a hedge; it's a way of saying "I accept the Comment, but I'm going to make up my own mind about what it actually means." In other words, "I accept the Comment, but I'm going to ignore what it's telling me to do."

In the end, I see no benefit to the Comment—not to my spiritual development, to the integrity of the Thelemic movement, nor to religious liberty in general. I do not require a Comment to tell me to make up my own mind about things. I do not accept a Comment that tells me what to study, what to talk about, or what sources I should use for insight, inspiration, or guidance. I do not respect a Comment that informs me who has spiritual authority and who does not. I do not follow a Comment that tries to threaten or intimidate me.

I will study AL if I so choose, regardless of any dire "risk and peril".
I will discuss the contents of AL if I so choose, with no fear of being "shunned" by those I care about.
I will interpret AL however I choose, with or without appeal to the writings of anyone.

Site updated

Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:13:30 GMT

Recently I moved my site over to a new hosting service, hostmonster.com (which I recommend). I also took the opportunity to upgrade the wiki backend I was using. As predicted, this caused a lot of problems. I have been home sick a couple of days, so that gave me an opportunity to finally fix it up. So, if anyone was wondering, the site is back up and seems to be working okay. If you come across any bugs, please let me know. Thanks.

Rumors

Mon, 05 Nov 2007 02:15:00 GMT

Rumors of my retirement from OTO have been greatly exaggerated.

That is all.

There is no "moving beyond" Crowley

Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:22:16 GMT

It is not an uncommon thing to hear the phrase "moving beyond Crowley" within the Thelemic community. On one side are those who generally recognize that times have changed since AC's day and that we need to continue developing Thelema to be relevant for the modern adherent. On the other side are those who use it to disparage anyone who questions any statement made by him—no matter how ludicrous, contradictory, discriminatory, or scientifically unlikely—generally as an accusation that they are trying to eliminate AC from Thelema altogether. Although I am a proponent of the former and a common target of the latter, I do not believe that the phrase "moving beyond Crowley" is apt. We need another way of framing what's going on.

Crowley was able to create a compendium of East and West religious traditions, spiritual practices, occult technologies, political philosophies, and cultural constructions (e.g. secret societies) and boil them down to a reasonably coherent system of thought and practice. He was certainly not the only one doing this during his day, but he did it better than most and with a great deal more flair and notoriety. It is useful to remember that Crowley really created nothing new—it was the combination of elements that was original. The reason this is useful is because all of those components remain "available" in their original state...we do not need to have them filtered through Crowley in order to integrate them into one's Great Work. Further, beneficial ideas, discoveries, and technologies have manifested since Crowley's day, some of which fit nicely within his system, and others that do not.

The good news is that there is no need to throw out the Beast with the bathwater. It is certainly possible to go with Crowley's system precisely as he laid it down a la A∴A∴—with not even an ounce of snark, I call this system Aleisterianism, and consider it to be a sect within the larger domain of Thelema. At this time, there are no other Thelemic sects that are nearly as robust (although a Maatian might disagree with me). But that doesn't mean there couldn't be.

The other result of seeing AC from this angle is that it is possible to use a modular approach. Although some Aleisterians see their system as the only legitimate form of Thelema, I suspect that others are far more flexible. For many of the members of this silent majority, the one indisputable, requisite element is Will—as long as there is a recognition of a unique, personal Will, along with a desire to apprehend and express it, then you've got Thelema.

Of course, Will is but the spine (or might we say the brain?)—fleshing out the rest of a Thelemic system requires elements similar to what Crowley used (i.e. practices, philosophies, etc). Naturally, there is no reason why a Thelemite couldn't integrate as many aspects from Crowley's work as she sees fit. The first priority will always be the personal Work, not the conservation of a single system of thought. Through this process, some constructions will look very similar to Aleisterianism, and others will look quite different—but as long as Will remains at the center, it will be Thelema.

But this is not "moving beyond" Crowley, any more than the Roman Catholics have "moved beyond" Paul or than Buddhism has "moved beyond" Siddhartha. It is simply impossible for any healthy religion to stay bound to the teachings of a single individual without turning into a static, fundamentalist cult. Crowley is instead being integrated into a movement larger than himself. As certain of his ideas, especially his social ideas, become more and more dated, there will be increasing pressure to make adjustments to Thelemic beliefs and practices to keep it relevant, meaningful, and useful...not only is this unavoidable, it is necessary to keep Thelema a dynamic, potent movement. At the same time, more and more Thelemites will bring in new or modified ideas, both from before and after AC.

This process can be seen both as destructive and creative, and indeed, it is both. Along the way, individual Thelemites will find a comfortable position along the spectrum, from the conservative to the bleeding edge. Sometimes the need to form or align with clans will lead to conflict among various social clumps along this spectrum, but this too can serve the important purpose of generating new ideas.

Thelema is a relatively new system, and even adherents who don't recognize Crowley as the final or only authority are rarely inspired to openly challenge the Aleisterian hegemony. Such is the way of things. But as with all dynamic systems, change is inevitable, and soon someone will cry, "Thelema is dead! Long live Thelema!"

Thelema is not a political ideology

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 04:06:27 GMT

Thelema is neither liberal nor conservative. In fact, to reduce Thelema to any political ideology is both to demean it and to fundamentally misunderstand it. And yet, much of the turmoil within the Thelemic community and within OTO in particular is grounded on this very thing, to the detriment of all.

This does not mean that Thelema and political ideologies can have no relationship. Clearly they can. What's important to understand is not only are they not the same things, but that Thelema does not objectively lead to any given one. Even if we were to limit the boundary of Thelema to the literal words of Aleister Crowley, there is more than enough material to support practically every existing political ideology there is. He touted ideas that fit comfortably within fascism, communism, libertarianism, socialism, feudalism, classical liberalism, monarchism, conservatism, and progressivism.

But of course, many do not limit the definition of Thelema to a strict reading of Crowley—when people integrate other schools of religious thought (or *gasp!* their own), it gets even more complicated. Add to this the fact that Crowley lived in a particular place and time with social dynamics very different from our own, and it becomes difficult to square his political and cultural references to our modern circumstances. Like it or not, there simply is no direct translation from Crowley to modern politics.

Besides this fact, there remains the reality that Thelema is deeper than a political stance. It is a fundamental way of being. This way of being requires a general outlook, and most Thelemites are familiar with the basics—genuineness, tolerance of variety, harmony of forces, truth-seeking, liberty of Willful expression, self-reliance, critical thinking, personal excellence, etc. A worldview that contains all of these elements, combined with the ongoing spiritual task of the Great Work, is far more profound and primordial than a modern political orientation.

As one becomes more self-aware, it is possible to find that one political ideology is more or less aligned with True Will (although this is certainly not necessarily so...the exact opposite might also occur). In other words, the way one is in the world might match the general outlook and aims of a political orientation. Even in this case, alignment with a political movement remains incidental, not mandatory. In other words, entering into a political context is but one manifestation of Will. This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes of AC—"There seems to be much misunderstanding about True Will [...] The fact of a person being a gentleman is as much an ineluctable factor as any possible spiritual experience; in fact, it is possible, even probable, that a man may be misled by the enthusiasm of an illumination, and if he should find apparent conflict between his spiritual duty and his duty to honour, it is almost sure evidence that a trap is being laid for him and he should unhesitatingly stick to the course which ordinary decency indicates [...] I wish to say definitely, once and for all, that people who do not understand and accept this position have utterly failed to grasp the fundamental principles of the Law of Thelema." Of course, it's important to also grasp that "common decency" is different from community to community and era to era—and what is law but codified rules about what common decency is and what we do when it is violated?

It is a common complaint to say that some given ideology is not "Thelemic". Any person who says this, in my opinion, is more worried about politics than Thelema. In other words, the complaint isn't really about whether or not someone is doing the Great Work or is interested in others doing the same, but is really about not liking a political position, and is choosing to use tidbits of Thelema (read: Crowley) to attack it. This is an insult to both Thelema and Crowley, not to mention being intellectually lazy and dishonest.

Something I might add to Liber Oz if I could:
Man has the right to promote social policy as he will—
to study political philosophers as he will;
to inspire fellow citizens as he will;
to run for office as he will;
to vote as he will.

Liber Legis and the !Kung

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:06:44 GMT

One of my favorite questions to ask Christians when I was younger was, "Are people who have never had access to the Bible doomed to damnation?" The pat answer is that Christ has made himself known to all peoples at least once. Of course, this isn't written anywhere in the gospels, and you'd think that if a red-headed olive-skinned guy dropped by the !Kung tribe to explain that they need to have faith in him or suffer for all eternity, well, that someone would have made a note of it. But even if they didn't, why should all the thousands of children afterwards be doomed to damnation just because their ancestors didn't have the good sense to drop everything they believed and pick up a new faith? Naturally, the person's head would explode by this point and I'd have a nice chuckle at their expense.

But now I ask a similar question. Many consider the basic requirement of being a Thelemite as "acceptance" of Liber Legis and Crowley's interpretations thereon. (To me, "acceptance" is just one tick away from "faith", but I won't insist on it here). But what about that poor !Kung tribe? Are they doomed to live a True Will-less life? Deprived of the writings of Aleister Crowley, are people like them to be left out in the Old Aeonic cold? Or did the Beast somehow also make his Law known to all the peoples the world over?

Snark aside, there is a deeper question in both these cases...what is the relationship between a "spiritual formula" and a book that talks about that formula? It is an interesting question, because if a spiritual formula, or Universal Force if you will, truly is in play, how necessary is the book that describes it in order for that Force to be made manifest? After all, English text can only go so far in explaining the nature of spiritual reality, and AL is about as non-literal a sacred text as I've seen. And since AL is therefore intended to be interpreted differently by each individual, it seems fair to say that it isn't meant to provide a set of concrete rules or descriptions of reality that can be objectively applied to all people in all cases.

That being said, is AL, as a text, relevant to anything outside of itself? See, if AL is intended to be interpreted by each individual alone, then isn't it the individual interpretations themselves that are ultimately relevant? The magic is not in the words of AL, but in the alchemy of your interpretive mind that happens between those words and real life. Spirituality is rooted in this human ability, to form representations about the self and the world that are independent of immediate sensation.

Of course, AL also serves, as all sacred texts do, to define the clan (AL does this literally in I:40, II:18, and II:21 for example). True, it is possible to form a religion based on the interpretation of a 4th century shopping list if you want, but the texture of that religion would be substantially different most likely. When multiple people interpret the same text, there might be enough overlap to create some sense of unity. What are our values, how do we behave with each other, how do we see the world, what methods do we use to interpret phenomena, what are we trying to accomplish, what makes us different from others, et cetera. If there are enough people and enough overlap, a clan will form...it's human nature to do so.

And so we are left with a difficult question. Is a Thelemite defined primarily as someone who does her Will or as someone who has interpretations of AL that are in close-enough alignment with others in the clan? The !Kung probably have not and never will read or accept Liber Legis. Moreover, they are not at all individualistic—they are highly communal, which has effectively served them for many hundreds of years. Can they nevertheless do their Will? I suspect they can and, to varying degrees, do so. It is the height of arrogance to believe that only adherents of Crowley can lead genuine lives in concert with their deepest selves and experience "the free function of [one's] essential nature". But it's certainly true that their worldview probably lies far outside that of most so-called Thelemites. Which is the more important?

I have been accused many times of not being a Thelemite. Based on what? That I question the spiritual authority of Aleister Crowley? That I harbor interpretations of AL that are too far outside that of the clan? Well, I'll tell you how I manage to sleep at night—because I do my Will. And in my book, that makes me a Thelemite.

EDIT: This has been, so far, a stunningly polite comment thread, regardless of strong disagreement. Thank you to everyone who is helping to make Thelemic debate equitable with cordiality and respect.

Crowley Mad-Lib

Wed, 22 Aug 2007 01:09:07 GMT

Okay, open up a text editor or something. Then create a list of words based on the following list—really use your imagination. Then open the post past the cut, fill the words into the blanks, and see what you created. If you want, please post your list (or the whole text with your words) so others can see. Have "fun".

1) A geographic location
2) Exclamation
3) Adjective
4) Transitive Verb, future (e.g. I will comb your hair.)
5) Adjective
6) Plural noun
7) Noun
8) Noun
9) Sound
10) Emotion
11) Event
12) Adverb
13) Adjective
14) Transitive Verb
15) Verb

Aleister Crowley was walking along in _____(1) one day when he ran into a young woman. "____!(2)" he cried, "you are the most ____(3) creature I've seen all day. I simply must ____(4) you. What do you say?" Upon her ____(5) agreement, they went back to his flat. Within minutes they were wrappred in each other's ____(6). Finally he rammed his ____(7) in her ____(8), producing a ____(9) of ____(10). After they were both satisfed, he bid her adieu and called for a taxi. In his journal he wrote, "Magical working for a successful ____(11) today. Results were ____(12) ____(13). Plan to ____(14) some hashish next and ____(15) for the rest of the evening."

Three notes

Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:11:37 GMT

1) Never underestimate the power of a phone call to mend fences.

2) Reminder to self: always visualize a friendly grin on the face of any person that I'm debating with on LJ, no matter how angry or insulting they sound.

3) Nothing beats a good sex joke. Except sex.

A clarification session

Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:23:40 GMT

I'm a little surprised that I need to write this, but I do.

There is only one context in which I speak directly for US Grand Lodge, and that is as USGL Correspondence Secretary. In that role, my job is to answer letters of inquiry, usually about very basic issues, such as how to join or requests for literature. When people write about their beliefs regarding Thelema, Crowley, or the Order, I generally send polite boilerplate text that neither confirms nor denies their ideas. When they have a detailed question, I will point them to where they can get accurate information.

The other times I represent USGL is when acting either as initiator or priest in a formal setting. And those duties are scripted.

In any and all other cases, I do not speak for USGL. I do not represent USGL. I do not even reflect USGL in a general way, unless by accident. I am not a member of any governing body. I am not on any ad hoc committees, such as the education committee or the planning committee. Officers of USGL do not ever consult me or inform me of policy before announced...I generally know things when everyone else does. When it comes right down to it, I'm completely out of the USGL loop, and I'm willing to bet that at least half of them wish I would shut up and go away.

Anyone who takes my personal opinions and beliefs as anything other than my own is making a serious mistake. I apologize if I have ever given the impression that I'm a person of consequence...I've often stated that I have no real influence within the Order, unless perhaps as a conversation starter, and that remains the limit of my importance.

For a while now I've inhabited an uncomfortable position. I always have and likely always will remain a cheerleader for OTO as an organization. I have absolutely no interest in bashing OTO leaders, although from time to time I'm willing to call out what I think are misjudgments. But that alone does not constitute disrespect. I'm also willing to share what I think are institutional limitations and weaknesses in the structure of the Order. Again, this does not constitute insult. I am not a shit-stirrer...I have no interest in causing discord or distress. I despise drama, in fact.

At the same time, I also dislike status quo for its own sake—this is one of the things that inspired me to write about L101. I think it is useful to constantly ask ourselves what we believe, what we are doing, and what we are trying to accomplish. If you are interested in this conversation, you are welcome on my blog. If you are threatened or insulted by it (and no, I'm not referring to you), then perhaps your time will be better spent elsewhere.

Finally, a request—please stop using my posts as ammo for your personal agendas and battles. If you agree with me, okay. If you disagree, that's okay too. But don't take my words and say something like, "Ah ha! Ash is siding with our team. See, he says this!"...when usually "this" is a somewhat modified version of what I actually wrote. Or the reverse, something like "Ah ha! Ash said this! His words perfectly represent some group we dislike, proving they are wrong!" Both instances are lazy at best and dishonest at worst. If you want to use something I wrote to back up some argument of yours, please ask first and at least get my opinion.

Thank you.

The OTO Archipelago

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:22:05 GMT

I agree with Jaron Lanier who wrote in the latest Discover that religion is ultimately about clan definition. After all, we don't need religion anymore to explain the material world for us...empirical science does a much better job. We don't need religion to maintain a stable, just society—we've seen that humans can choose effective rules of behavior without divine providence (moreso, even). We don't need religion for individuals to achieve fulfilling, dynamic, and meaningful lives...a good psychologist will serve better than the average minister in this regard. True, a religious structure can provide a template for achieving transpersonal states of awareness, but it's arguable that religious dogma can get in the way of it as well—besides, psybocilin can arguably give one the same results as a year sitting in an asana, if that's what one is looking for. No, religion is no longer needed for these things...however, it is, as Lanier argues, very good for defining clans.

It's funny that Crowley talked about Thelemites as being somehow evolved from humans stuck in the "Old Aeon", but here is the head of USGL indulging in old-fashioned clan politics (even if he did so with intelligence and grace). He spoke of Thelema as if it were a plot of land—"This is our island! Your meaningless and impostrous islands are over there! We spit on you... ptui, ptui!"

But then again, that same speech insinuates that our island is not perfect and might need some renovation. We should look to modern science to update our plot of land, neverminding that some of the basic foundations are rotting away because they were built upon already outdated materials. That outcropping of "Women have no Truth"...let's paint that over with a nice coat of feminism. Oh, and that patch of Social Darwinism grass...maybe we can pave that over with some modern evolutionary biology. How many fix-em-ups are required before it's no longer the same island? Because there are already folks saying, "That isn't Thelema island! You've built a whole new place, and now you are out of the clan! We spit on you... ptui, ptui!"

One good thing about OTO is that it is very well defined. We can all agree that it is a fraternal organization that has specific initiations and ceremonies. Members all take the same oaths and are expected to keep them (right?). We have a set of reasonably clear public documents that outline the structure of the organization and its basic goals. Yeah, the island isn't really finished yet...the entire profess-house quadrant is still in the blueprint stage. But what we've got is solidly built and habitable.

But Thelema is a mess. Say what you want about it being well-defined, it isn't. No, really, it isn't. I know you might want it to be, and maybe you have a good definition in your head, but objectively, it isn't. Crowley was so often inconsistent, contradictory, vague, unrealistic, and sometimes plain wrong in his four decades of Thelemic writing, that to even suggest that Thelema is a well-defined construct is somewhat, er, screwy. That doesn't make it bad...not at all! In fact, I think that's what makes it good! See, by providing us with a such a system, the individual is forced to find their own way through the muck...to construct his own island of strength and beauty. And our islands float about... see, I can sometimes park my island in the OTO archipelago, in the Open Source GD archipelago, or frankly in any damn cluster of islands I want.

And really, that's the thing. There is no Thelema island—only a bunch of individual Thelemite islands, each one unique...some are very similar and some are very different. To try to define which islands are properly Thelemic or not is ultimately futile. The ones that are naturally similar enough can sometimes bunch up in the OTO archipelago, which is wonderfully defined by it's oaths, principles, and rites—and therein lies the key to our unity. Let me say that again—it is our shared oaths, principles, and rites that unite us. It provides us with a fantastic clan, one filled with beauty and strength; but a clan whose members can reside in other archipelagos as well. That is the freedom of Thelema....to be free of dogma, to be free of prophets, books, and priests telling us how to build our islands or which archipelagos I get to join.

At the same time, it's perfectly reasonable for OTO to say, "If you want to park your island in this archipelago, here are the requirements..." I have no problem with that. But we are straying if one of those requirements is purity of faith. That road leads to nowhere good.

We no longer need religion to explain the world, to create a just society, to live fulfilling lives, or to achieve enlightenment. We choose to indulge in religion because it helps define our clan, not because it provides anyone with the Truth. Truth is discovered along the way—in quiet meditation, in orgasmic ecstacy, in the twinkle of a baby's eye. We cannot find those things in any page that Crowley ever wrote. But here is what I've found in OTO—a crucible for spiritual development, a society of creative, loving, and intelligent people, a series of rituals that expanded my range of awareness, and a set of principles that encourages personal excellence. In these areas, let us be diligent indeed, fellow soldiers, and keep our swords sharp and fidelity pure! Let us use our treasure to build strength and spray beauty. Let us build this santuary so that we can work and celebrate in joy.

But there is no "our Thelema". There is only "our archipelago". And by recognizing and celebrating that, we can start to redefine what religion means for a new Aeon.

Dogmatists

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:27:04 GMT

"The error of all dogmatists...lies in trying to prove too much, in defending themselves against critics by stretching a probably excellent theory to include all the facts and the fables, until it bursts like the overblown bladder it is." —ABA, ch. 18.

A Note of Support for OTO

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:27:18 GMT

A quick note. Despite the brouhaha about my recent post, I want to go on record that my love and admiration of OTO/USGL has remained unchanged. While it's true that I believe that it has structural barriers to becoming much more than it is now, I also believe that it is a highly valuable organization even at its current size. In those valleys where love, creativity, and energy are in abundance, I congratulate you and celebrate your success. For those individuals who work Crowley's system to the letter and find fulfillment and joy, I honor you and proudly give my hand in sure relation as a true brother. While I am prevented from attending this year's NOTOCON, I want to offer to all attendees my heartiest well-wishes...may you experience wild abandon, thoughtful erudition, and impassioned connection.

Transitions

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:47:04 GMT

I realize that it has been quite a while since I've updated my LJ. I am fine and incredibly busy with school. I'm also transitioning out of my current practicum site and into the next, where I will be working with kids. I'm both excited and terrified of it, but I know it will be both educational and rewarding. Even so, letting go of all my current clients is proving to be somewhat heart-wrenching, so I've been a little melancholy the last couple of weeks. All part of the process I presume.

I've also been going through major transitions in my relationship with Thelema. I'm not ready to really lay it all out, but I can say that I've largely abandoned the Victorian-era occult/social elements, which I interpret as mostly coming from an adolescent desire to feel powerful. I won't deny that occult practice contains some excellent techniques to achieve altered states, but I see legitimate spirituality as connecting with something larger than oneself via love. Thelemic occultism pays lip-service to this idea but I don't often see it embodied. More often than not, I see it as a method of spirital bypassing, either of the armchair magician variety or, worse, of the self-righteous, holier-than-thou uber-magician breed. While everyone is different, of course, keith418 is a perfect embodiment of that latter brand of Thelema, and he has maximized those Crowlian elements that are so contemptuous, cynical, and isolating.

While Keith is an extreme example of an entire spectrum, the fact remains that those elements do exist within the Crowlian version of Thelema, and I have come to utterly reject them. This has led me to examine Thelema from a broader perspective—as a fundamental worldview and way of living—rather than as a specific system developed by Victorian-era occultists and bohemians. I can say that the more I do this, the further away I get from many of the general attitudes, practices, and mores that currently exist within the larger Thelemic culture. It is a big shift for me, and even though it feels very right, it is also disorienting as I give up over 14 years of dedication to a very specific system of thought and practice. Eventually I will find equilibrium as I work towards developing my own genuine spiritual path. The only thing I am sad about is that it is also drawing me away from so many great people.

So, lots of transitions going on for me right now. But I am fine and doing well.

10,000

Fri, 18 May 2007 21:57:55 GMT

Cool...my stat counter registered the 10,000th unique visitor to Eidolons :)