Love, Law and Will: Thelema for the Confused

In the category of "wildly misinterpreted aphorisms", there are a few sources who could be considered masters of the craft ambiguous. Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Hassan i-Sabbah; the list goes on. But today, I would like to discuss Aleister Crowley's most-quoted maxim:

"Do as Thou Wilt shall be all of the Law... Love is the Law, Love under Will"

These words, taken as the foundational principle of the religion/ethical system/weird sex cult of Thelema, are taken from Crowley's Liber AL vel Legis, better known as "The Book of the Law". Supposedly dictated to him over the course of the days in April 1904 by a discarnate being of uncertain nature named Aiwass, this provides the underpinnings of Crowley's entire system of thought.

This phrase is often misinterpreted by detractors as meaning "do whatever you want", which is ironically just about the polar opposite of its generally-accepted meaning. To quote Crowley, in a rare moment of (relatively) plain speaking: "It
is the apotheosis of Freedom; but it is also the strictest possible bond."

There is a certain extent to which a definitive answer to the meaning of this aphorism is going to be impossible. Thelema is a religion of contradictions and paradoxes, in which there are frequently no right answers - the position that it requires one to take is that of the mystic, accepting that the most profound truths are impossible to articulate. To misuse Lao Tze and Wittgenstein: "the Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao"; "On that of which we cannot speak, we must remain silent".

There's also the matter that, within Thelema, there has historically been something of a taboo around discussing interpretations of the Book of the Law; indeed, the "Tunis Comment" can be read as an injunction against any attempt to analyse it. This being said, I tend to interpret the Tunis Comment as being more of a warning not to force one's own interpretation onto others in a dogmatic fashion - everyone should, ultimately, be free to read the text and come to their own conclusions. These, therefore, are my current thoughts on the matter - they are not authoritative, and will likely change and evolve as my philosophical paradigm does.

So, what is the Law? It is, at once, an ethical guide and a metaphysical statement. In the former aspect, it is positioned as being the sole authority by which any action may be judged; actions are neither a priori moral or immoral based on their intent or consequences, but are ethically contingent on the Will of the actor.

As a metaphysical statement, the Law is harder to define. Whether it is a fundamental of absolute reality, or merely an abstraction of that is in practice of little consequence, though it is worth noting that Thelema essentially advocates a form of "Qabalistic Realism" in this matter.

The Thelemic concept of Will must be understood not in the sense of "what one wishes to do", but as something far more fundamental. Often the phrase "True Will" is used to attempt to elucidate this fact, though attempts to explain exactly what this means frequently get lost in a mire of confusion.

It is not a simple case of there being a binary between doing one's Will and not; indeed, the idea that Will can be boiled down to a single action or drive is deeply flawed. Rather, it is perhaps better to think of Will as being an expansive term, which indicates a kind of authenticity to one's self. It is not, however, simply a matter of the ego, unrestrained by the chains of morality and the animal desires of the id - though this is undoubtedly part of it.

In some cases, True Will is compared to the Divine Will, and - without getting too far down the rabbit hole of the Thelemic attitude towards gods and divinity in general - this has a great deal going for it. One might consider all individuals as having a certain unique place in the great tapestry of the cosmos, a certain role in which they will naturally fall towards, and ultimately excel within. The achievement of such a state of harmony with the universe can be considered the ultimate manifestation of True Will, and of the Authentic Self.

It should perhaps be obvious that the majority of people do not have an intuitive grasp of their True Will. Even those who do are unlikely to be able to express it in words - for it is a fundamental orientation towards the universe that stretches deeper than the conscious mind. To understand this is a core part of the "Great Work" of Thelema, and is the basis of much of the ritual and mysticism associated with it.

In the context of Thelema, "Love" specifically refers to the Greek word "agape"; numerologically this word is equivalent to the number 93, which is also the value of "Thelema", meaning "will". As per the Greek, this can be interpreted as a "universal" form of love; in its Christian usage it generally describes the love of God for His creation. This places it as a self-sacrificing, selfless love that transcends the human condition. In another way, it can be compared to the concept of "chesed" in Judaism - a form of compassionate "loving-kindness".

More specifically Thelemic is the second meaning of "Love" in this context, which shares the transcendental basis of the former; it can be thought of as the uniting of the particular with the universal, the microcosm with the macrocosm. In general it is the union and subsequent synthesis of opposites that is indicated here, rather than any sentimental concept.

Putting it all Together:
Will = manifest destiny, purpose
Law = ethical source, metaphysical law
Love = transcendant love, union

Thus:
The only ethical source is the striving for one's manifest destiny; in all things this is to be taken with an ultimately selfless stance, but this selflessness being subservient to the aforementioned will.

And:
The most fundamental metaphysical truth is that all things have their purpose; otherwise and aside from this fundamental purpose, things tend to union.

The Locusts of Control

A friend and co-conspirator of mine linked me to a rather interesting article in the New Yorker today, which got me thinking about the ways in which we conceptualize the degree of control we have over our lives, and how belief and culture shape these.

The concept of a locus of control is a valuable one when it comes to thinking about the psychology of health, politics, religion and so on. The brainchild of the fantastically named Julian B Rotter, the theory describes loci of control as either being internal, signifying that one believes one's actions and circumstances are generally under one's own control, or external, and beyond one's control. Rotter's I-E scale is one way of measuring one's belief in the internal or external nature of one's locus of control - not the best one, admittedly, as it conflates a number of concepts, so is better described as a measure of one's assessment of societal loci of control.

There is a certain amount of evidence that having an internal locus of control is associated with a more "healthy" psychological state (whatever that means), and in particular with better outcomes in certain areas, such as smoking cessation and academic performance.

On an esoteric level, it is clear that the practice of ceremonial magick relies upon a conception of one's locus of control being internal - leaving aside, for the moment, discussions about the nature of ego-death and the interminable question of spirit guides, augoeides, Holy Guardian Angels and the like. The magician positions themselves as the fulcrum of the universe, and then acts by applying force through whatever method they choose. On this level, one might consider an internalised locus of control as being a factor in the Law of Attraction.

It is perhaps interesting to note the tendency that certain worldviews have on conceptualizing the general locus of control as being external. Indeed, the greater part of the philosophy and science of the historical-conceptual era that in Thelemic jargon is referred to as the "Aeon of Osiris" does exactly this. Consider how the ultimate formulation of Christianity and of materialistic science completely abolish the possibility of an internal locus of control - through the creation of an omnipotent God beyond all human understanding and morality, that punishes and redeems on His whim alone as in Calvinism; or through the models of biological determinism which reduce the human condition to nothing more than the interaction of neurotransmitters. Both are inimical to free will; both tend towards the creation of a kind of learned helplessness as an ultimate outcome.

"Oh, and we should have nuked the middle east into a
desolate wasteland as a response to 9/11... because science."
- Satoshi Kanazawa, alleged scientist

This is never applied evenly throughout society - indeed, one might see many social structures as dividing and classifying individuals into whether or not they are permitted to have an internal locus of control. All systems of oppression could be seen as taking their roots, or at least their justifications, from this fact. Consider the way in which the oft-dubious discipline of evolutionary psychology is practically a byword for misogyny and rape apologia (CW: misogyny and rape apologia, obviously), or the "scientific" racism that produced drapetomania and which still tiptoes around the fringes of scientific respectability - the theme that can be seen as running between all these examples is that people within oppressed groups are seen as not having the same intellectual or social capacity for having an internal locus of control as those of the dominant groups.
It has been noted that there is something of a political divide in the loci of control - those with more typically right-wing views tends to have a more internal locus of control, where as left-wingers tend towards a more external one - though this is by no means a simple relationship. It may be better to think of the difference between personal loci of control ("I am free to act" vs "I am controlled by outside forces") and societal loci of control ("people should be free to act" vs "people should be controlled by outside forces") - in such areas there is often a great degree of doublethink.

Authoritarians of all stripes seek to impose a paradigm upon society whereby the societal locus of control is externalised, whilst social liberals and anti-authoritarians tend towards a more internalised societal locus of control. Equally, self-styled Libertarians tend towards externalising the societal locus of control in much the same way that authoritarians do - creating the paradigm of Market-as-God - whilst at the same time preaching the doctrine of personal internalisation. Consider as an example of this the politician who promotes entrepreneurship and personal responsibility (personal internalisation) whilst implementing policies which lead to a decrease in social mobility and personal economic freedom of the masses (societal externalisation).

Even within the progressive left, which arguably sees as an end goal the internalisation of control, there can be seen some remnants of the externalist viewpoint - mostly as a Shibboleth whereby attempting to advocate for the internalisation of personal loci is seen as elitism and privilege. Indeed, this can often be the case - the well-meaning ally coming up with some preposterous rubbish about self-empowerment that entirely misunderstands the situation is practically a trope. However, this does also possibly point towards one of the reasons that such movements often struggle with significant inertia - the very idea that one might be able to change one's situation is somewhat taboo, and thus a sort of resigned apathy is the inevitable result.

It seems to me that there is a certain amount of reconciliation that needs to be made between the two positions of internal and external loci of control, recognising the external factors which influence one and simultaneously acknowledging one's capacity for action. As for societal loci, I shall end by quoting without comment Aleister Crowley (or Aiwass, or Whatever):

"Do as thou wilt shall be all of the Law." - Liber AL vel Legis, I:40
"Love is the Law, Love under Will." - Liber AL vel Legis, I:57