Happy Bloomsday 2014

Of the first was he to bare arms and a name: Wassaily Boos-

laeugh of Riesengeborg. His crest of huroldry, in vert with

ancillars, troublant, argent, a hegoak, poursuivant, horrid, horned.

His scutschum fessed, with archers strung, helio, of the second.

Hootch is for husbandman handling his hoe. Hohohoho, Mister

Finn, you're going to be Mister Finnagain! Comeday morm and,  

O, you're vine! Sendday's eve and, ah, you're vinegar! Hahahaha,  

Mister Funn, you're going to be fined again!

--Finnegans Wake

Mailbag: Why I Am Not a Supernaturalist

Following my predictable banning from the Fruitcake Factory (aka The Temple of Thelema forums), a relatively new regular engaged with me briefly in private message correspondence regarding my lack of belief in the supernatural (by the way, to be fair to Eshelman, he tolerated the presence of critical questions on his forums much longer than I thought he would, even if he refused to answer them. So, credit where credit’s due. I definitely made my point).

In the thread right before the banning took place, I was explaining how I didn’t start off life as some rabid materialist: for a time, I even believed in supernatural things. And, as I said on the thread, one of the reasons I don’t believe in this stuff anymore is that I wised up and realized that daydreams and subjectively trusting how it all feels to me doesn’t demonstrate the actual existence of “powers” or “other worlds.

This prompted a question from my interlocutor: “How did you go about ‘wising up’? What was your process of ‘realization’?

He follows this up with speculation about me, musing that perhaps I was “not able to manifest results and so [I] determined that results are not manifestable.” Ah, classic believer script "you aren't doin' it right!"...

The question he asked, though, is a really good one, and one I’m not sure I’ve written about on the blog before. My response to him resembled an answer I gave to a similar question elsewhere on those forums, so for this post, I’m editing my responses together to give as comprehensive an answer (and hopefully as instructive an answer) as possible.

Read on for my answer to this question.

The Teleological Trap of the Mind

I’ve long been a fan of Alan Watts, and I recently picked up a copy of Become What You Are, which is very enjoyable. I would encourage people to read Watts if they get a chance (and if you can, purchase one of his books from a real, honest-to-goodness bookstore, preferably a small, local bookshop).                                                                                                                                                
Below is an excerpt from one of the chapters that I very much enjoyed and found to resonate with AL I:44 and the concept of the “lust of result.” Underneath this quote, I briefly relate this idea to some passages in Crowley’s writings.

Gems from the Forums: Three Kinds of Restriction on Love

Since one of the key slogans of Thelema is “Love is the law, love under will,” we can conclude that the concept of love is vital to understanding this philosophy. But this conclusion immediately raises the question of what exactly this phrase means. Looking through various “Thelemic discussions” online, one can see that there’s no shortage of self-proclaimed Thelemites willing to blather on about their mushy feelings and pretend it has something to do with the writings of Aleister Crowley.                                                                                                                            One gets the impression that a lot of these jokers think that love in Thelema has something to do with “love” in the sense of mystical Christianity – love of God, or selfless love for all of mankind. Others seem to think that this “love” refers primarily – or even only –  to the kind of “free love” that came into popularity in the 1960s. Still others seem to think that the teary eyes they get when watching Marley and Me has something to do with Thelema.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                          The “under will” part presents even more problems. The most common misreading of this line of Liber AL is to treat “love” as “underlying” the True Will, as if the True Will springs from the emotions that commonly get called “love” in our colloquial speech. The theory, it would seem, is that as long as you’re experiencing some kind of emotion that you can label “love” in some way, then hey, all you have to do is act and viola! You’re doing your will.                              
                                                                                                                          Worse, there are even those alleged “Thelemites” committed to using their misunderstanding of the concept of “Restriction” in Thelema as an excuse for obnoxious or vile behavior. “The word of Sin is restriction,” reads the Book. So, naturally, it should come as no surprise that dumbasses read this verse as implying that any woman with enough standards and self-respect to reject their socially inept advances is “restricting” them. Others accuse anyone who expresses a dissenting opinion – particularly anyone who dares express a dissenting opinion with conviction (and particularly anyone who can support this dissenting opinion with compelling evidence) – of “restricting” them (presumably on the grounds that they “love” being idiotically wrong).         
                                                                                                                         But what is love in Thelema? How can love be “restricted”?
                                                                                                                           The answers to those questions were the subject of a forum post I wrote several years ago and will reproduce below.
                                                                                                                           Read on for more.

The Soldier and the Hunchback

Aleister Crowley’s classic essay “The Soldier and the Hunchback” (1909) is a fun read that provides some interesting insights into Crowley’s take on skepticism and how it relates to Thelema. Throughout the piece, Crowley’s wit is on full display, as is his keen intellect. Students would do well to familiarize themselves with the ideas set forth in this short document.

The goal of this blog post will be to serve as a guide to Crowley’s essay in order to facilitate study of it. Below the cut, I provide an overview of the essay’s argument, along with some close readings of important pieces of the essay. It is my hope that a beginner will come away from this blog post with a greater understanding of Crowley’s essay and be better prepared to tackle the source material, which may be confusing to those who encounter it for the first time.

Read on for more.

Mailbag: Thelema and Zen

In the comments section of a recent post, I addressed a question about why I expound Thelema as opposed to Buddhism or esoteric Christianity. The unspoken assumption there is that Thelema (that is, the way I present Thelema, which is the way that Thelema actually is, as opposed to the fantasy weirdness that many others present it as) is awfully similar – or perhaps even essentially identical – to those other systems.


The assumption reminds me of a private exchange I had many moons ago about the differences between Thelema and Zen. My response illustrates Thelema’s unique characteristics by contrast.


My correspondent writes:

Hi Los,

I just read Shun-Ryu Suzuki's "Zen Mind: Beginners Mind". And I was wondering, in what ways, practically speaking, would you say Thelema differs from the Zen approach? Because really, they seem very similar to me. That is when we define Thelema in the way you and Erwin do, as being something other than the practices and dogmas which are often bundled with it.

To quote Suzuki, "Zazen practice is the direct expression of our true nature. Strictly speaking for a human being , there is no other practice than this practice; there is no other way of life than this way of life."

 Isn't that there the essence of Thelema, the true will, our "true nature" manifesting in the moment? Doesn't what is generally understood as Thelema lack for the simplicity of the Zen approach? Isn't much of it distractionary and even counter-productive? In short what does Thelema offer that Zen does not?

An excerpt from my response appears below the cut.

The Value of Crowley

A reader posed a few questions last month in the comments section of this post, and it prompted an interesting and somewhat lengthy response from me. It’s worth reading the whole thing, but there was one piece of it in particular that I thought I would pull out and make its own post. It has to do with the question of why I spend my time explaining the works of Aleister Crowley and Thelema, as opposed to some other spiritual teacher or tradition that might equally be useful to communicate what I’m trying to say without the baggage.

Here’s how the commenter phrased it:

What is valuable enough to you about Crowley's perspective and the practices he developed that you think worth keeping despite both his own shortcomings and the additional shortcomings of his followers?

This is a really good question, as it allows me to reflect on the advantages of Aleister Crowley and his teachings specifically.

My answer to this part of the comment appears below the cut.