Neural Nets Galore

(Repost) Thelema Revisited: A Critique

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:37:08 GMT

Apologies to those who have already seen this entry. I am posting this for two reasons: lots of people seem to think I'm still a Thelemite and I wanted to explain why I no longer am. I have no interest in insulting anyone and I am happy for all those who find Thelema to be rewarding. At the moment, I don't have much time for drama, so I'm only willing to reply to thoughtful, even-handed comments. Knee-jerk reactions, especially ones clearly not based on what I actually wrote (hint: read the essay before attacking me), will either be ignored or deleted. If reading critiques of your belief system upset you, then I recommend skipping this post. Otherwise, I welcome your feedback.

It has been a couple of years now since I formally bid farewell to Thelema. Since that time I haven't thought much about it, my attention being largely given to my academic studies and my new-found interest in Religious Naturalism (not to mention my family). A few days ago, however, I did find myself pondering Thelema and noticed that my thinking was different now that I'm emotionally detached from it. Like breaking up with a lover, once the painful fire of separation cools, it is possible to look back and get a clearer picture of who that person really was and what the relationship was really like.

First I want to say that I don't begrudge anyone being a Thelemite. Thelema provided an important developmental stepping stone in my own life and I am not qualified to judge another's experiences or needs. This does not mean that I don't have honest critiques of Thelema, I simply hope that they aren't mistaken for scoldings of individual adherents or any claim that my views represent a single objective truth generalizable to everyone. These are simply my impressions as they currently stand, and people are welcome to consider or dismiss them as they will.

First, keep in mind that at one point I was a True Believer. It isn't that I accepted anything that Aleister Crowley wrote without question, but I was happy to believe in the general outlines and the myths that Crowley wove. I bought all his books and practiced his rituals. I joined and was highly active for thirteen years in his quasi-masonic fraternal organization, Ordo Templi Orientis, rising in rank to Fifth Degree and taking orders as an ordained priest in the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica. I was really, really into it.

So what happened? In about a two-year time span I went from being a zealot to an apostate. This essay is not going to retell that tale, however, since my primary interest is in offering a critique rather than a biography. I will say that it primarily involved a project that required examining many of Crowley's core documents with an analytical eye. Although I initially went into that project fully expecting the examination to support my Thelemic faith, it was eventually to dissolve it. I fought it tooth and nail until the very end, performing all kinds of theoretical contortions to justify holding on to Thelema, but it just wasn't enough. I came out of that tunnel a non-believer.

The Problem with Will

I begin with the core doctrine of Thelema—the concept of Will. In terms of Thelemic doctrine, Will is not a well-defined structure. In fact, many theological debates within Thelema involve the proper definition of Will, what it means, how it works, and what it implies. At the bottom of Will, however, is the notion that every person has within them a central drive to action that is either externally derived—most often from a being called the Holy Guardian Angel—or internally provided by an unconscious "silent self". However, humans are generally blinded to this Will, in part due to egoism (a too-strong sense of "I") and in part due to cultural contamination. The main duty of a Thelemite, therefore, is to work through the veils of blindness so to achieve a clear understanding of their own unique Will. Moreover, he or she must develop certain skills (i.e. "magick") and personal traits that will allow that Will to be manifested via action.

I reject this general concept of Will on several grounds. First, its definition is vague enough to be without any real utility; if we were talking about something real, a nominal definition would be more clear. In ontological terms, I cannot accept the idea that a single way of being or acting is ideal in every given situation or that we all have a potential destiny for us to fulfill. Ethically, I detest the notion that manifesting one's Will is of higher priority than any social obligation or that it requires overriding one's inherent sense of compassion, fairness, or emotional attachment (I address ethics more fully below). Psychologically, I see no evidence to believe that there are thoughts or behaviors originating from any process other than normal neural activity, based on innate mechanisms and data perceived from the physical world using the five sensory inputs. Further, the notion of a discrete "ego" and "unconscious" has been long abandoned scientifically—meaning that, objectively speaking, there is no hidden authentic mind privy to occult truths that could be accessed consciously if only the ersatz "I-mind" could be quieted or eliminated. This simplistic idea does a great disservice to the complex functions of the brain and the way humans maintain a sense of self and experience the world.

Continue to original post....

Thelema Revisited: A Critique

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:44:02 GMT

I am posting this for two reasons: lots of people seem to think I'm still a Thelemite and I wanted to explain why I no longer am. I have no interest in insulting anyone and I am happy for all those who find Thelema to be rewarding. At the moment, I don't have much time for drama, so I'm only willing to reply to thoughtful, even-handed comments. Knee-jerk reactions, especially ones clearly not based on what I actually wrote (hint: read the essay before attacking me), will either be ignored or deleted. If reading critiques of your belief system upset you, then I recommend skipping this post. Otherwise, I welcome your feedback.

Wikipedia has a great overview of the various theories of human motivation.

The cognitive drive to action is an amazingly complex function employing deep-seated mechanisms, including assessment of physical needs, homeostasis operations, the fight or flight instinct, pleasure and pain reactions, interpersonal attachment processes, personality and comportment set, lifetime experience and memory, language, cognitive frames and heuristics, and conscious reasoning. There is no reason to assume that an external Will (i.e. HGA guidance) or internal unconscious Will are either needed or existent. More to the point, all of our psychological mechanisms have developed via natural selection over hundreds of thousands of years and are both self-sufficient and self-sustaining. Further inquiry shows the absurdity of the HGA construct: did our HGAs evolve along with humankind (i.e. did we used to have ape-like HGAs and little furry HGAs before that?), or did we acquire them at some exact point in our evolution? Is any possible answer to this kind of question more rational than the assumption that HGAs are merely anthropomorphic projections? And even if we deny the idea of an objective, external HGA, exactly which part of the complex web of cognitive functioning cut human motivation off from its proper, natural, Willful state? Was it the acquisition of language, which some theorists believe gave rise to modern mind? Or is the entire idea of Thelemic Will constructed on a cognitive foundation, the one that needs us to feel special, to feel in control, to feel powerful? I can't say with complete assurance either way, of course, but the psychological explanation is compelling enough for me to reject the belief of a perfect Will.

Yes, it is very much possible and admirable to work towards gaining clearer insight, assessing situations more accurately, establishing a stronger sense of agency, acting with greater effectiveness, extending one's capabilities, and being more open and present in the now. But there is no "on switch" for these things, nor any state where they manifest in a perfected way. Rather, it is a long, hard struggle with no end zone, only an ongoing journey towards ever more authentic living.

The Problem with Magick

Magick shares one problem with the concept of Will—it is sloppily defined. However, for this essay I will use three arbitrary branches of Thelemic magick: mystical, paranormal, and practical. The mystical branch of magick is focused on achieving certain states of mind with the ultimate aim of apprehending Will; the paranormal branch involves things such as divination, change at a distance, and astral travel; and practical magick attempts to cause change in the self or environment using pragmatic, physical means. I'll take these one at a time.

Mystical magick includes those practices intended to prepare the mind for apprehension of Will. There are two key milestones: Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel and the Crossing of the Abyss. Of these, Crowley wrote: "It should never be forgotten for a single moment that the central and essential work of the Magician is the attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. Once he has achieved this he must of course be left entirely in the hands of that Angel, who can be invariably and inevitably relied upon to lead him to the further great step—crossing of the Abyss and the attainment of the grade of Master of the Temple". He further explained: "The Adept will be free to concentrate his deepest self, that part of him which unconsciously orders his true Will, upon the realization of his Holy Guardian Angel. The absence of his bodily, mental and astral consciousness is indeed cardinal to success, for it is their usurpation of his attention which has made him deaf to his Soul, and his preoccupation with their affairs that has prevented him from perceiving that Soul."

I recommend this fun YouTube video on open-mindedness and the empirical attitude.

The notion of angels, souls, and different orders or parts of self (higher, lower, astral, etc) are artifacts of a pre-scientific era. As already discussed, consciousness and motivation are highly complex operations; that which we experience as "self" is a product of the brain, not of an inhabiting soul. Angels, demons, spirits, gods...these are primitive constructs that arose as psychological byproducts, no matter how complex they became over time. For example, humans have a danger-sensing function that errs on the side of intentionality; from this, we might have developed early animism, the idea that all objects have inhabiting spirits. Similarly, we also tend to see things out of the corner of our eye for the same reason, and this could have contributed to the idea of free roaming ethereal beings. Since it appears that I'm looking out of my head through my eyes, it seems inevitable that a theory of inhabiting souls would arise. These are all reasonable conjectures absent scientific knowledge.

An elegant video on the price of superstition.

So, do souls, Holy Guardian Angels, or higher selves exist? They are no more likely to than similar constructs found in any other religion. What's more, science continues the process of naturalizing the universe, so that where souls and angels once provided explanations, we now have the fields of neurology and physics. True, science cannot explain or test everything. But if a scientific instrument is unable to detect a spiritual construct, then neither can the brain, which is itself also a physical object. In all of the minute examinations of the brain, we have never found a mysterious neuron that seems to react to otherwise undetectable signals, such as data transmitted from a soul or angel. I suppose it's possible that one day we might, but until that day, I see no reason to assume they exist.

A common perspective says that the issue of objective reality is irrelevant—all that matters are the results. It is certainly true that many people will have physiological and/or cognitive experiences if they undergo regular ritual practice; this general phenomena is well established. What is not established is the effect of Will-based Thelemic practice. We have a general description from Crowley, of course, but no empirical data to back it up. In itself this is no reason not to try it if one is attracted to the system, but considering the lack of evidence, neither is there good reason to have faith in a reliable outcome. If Will, souls, HGAs, and higher selves do not actually exist, and any real effects are restricted to cognitive sensation, then what exactly is the benefit of the practice? The answer depends on the individual, of course, and their own goals. It is very possible that a practitioner's given predispositions and aims combine with Thelemic practice to produce an outcome that is worthwhile, which says more about human variety than about the objective efficacy of Thelemic mystical magick. And then there is the real question—does Thelemic mystical practice lead to real changes that make life better? Does it, in any real sense, increase happiness? Wisdom? Freedom? In my fifteen years of involvement, I saw no evidence that magick did so.

Paranormal magick, the next branch, makes two fundamental assumptions: that (1) there exists forces, beings, and/or dimensions that do not conform to known physical laws, which (2) the human brain can both detect and interact with. Since scientific methods cannot be used to test these claims, it is impossible to disprove them. At the same time, the only evidence in their favor is anecdotal.

Much of what people experience as evidence of magick is really just coincidence.

The key problem for me is how the brain, which is a physical object, can somehow interact with and manipulate non-physical information that no other known instrument can detect. Since conscious impressions are products of neural activity, how can the exchange of neurochemicals between brain cells result in consciousness leaving the body to visit astral planes, communicate with non-physical personalities, directly influence the outcome of distant events, or control the hands to pick out cards or a page out a book that describe external or future situations? Our known five senses have physical inputs (eye, ear, nose, tongue, skin)...what mechanism picks up information from spirits or astral planes or the future? Another question: our five sensory input mechanisms developed via natural selection over the course of many hundreds of thousands of years—how would the brain develop the ability to sense non-physical information and how would that be an advantage to survival or reproduction? I'm sure that it's possible to come up with answers to these questions, and I'm equally certain none of those answers would be testable. At the same time, I do know about confirmation bias, base rate fallacies, illusions of control, selective perception, the semmelweis reflex, apophenia, psychic intrusions, and many other empirically supported cognitive errors and distortions that can adequately explain the experience of paranormal magick. Occam's Razor demands that I accept psychological explanations over occult ones.

The final branch of magick is practical. At its most basic level, it describes intentional change; Crowley used examples such as writing a book or potato farming. There is nothing really to critique here—obviously people can increase their sense of agency and level of effectiveness in the world to great profit. I see no advantage to using the term magick to describe intentionality, but people are free to use whatever language they want. Further, no one has to be an adherent of Thelema, or any spiritual system, to act intentionally or to live more authentically. But if being an adherent of Thelema inspires you to examine and challenge yourself, then I call that a good thing.

The Problem with Ethics

It would be very easy for me to collect a lot of quotes from Aleister Crowley that present Thelemic ethics in a very poor light. I won't do that because the fact is there are a lot of positions he advocated that I fully support, such as freedom of expression, sexual freedom for consenting adults, teaching children to be curious freethinkers, and most of the "rights" articulated in Liber Oz. However, this is reflective of an underlying problem: there really is no such thing as a coherent or internally consistent system of "Thelemic ethics"...there are, instead, a wide variety of documents and statements (many that contradict each other) resulting in an unfocused hodge podge of ideas. This is why adherents generally look at the material with their own biases and adopt a cohesive set of ethical positions that make sense to them.

With that said, I propose that Thelema does have some central ethical themes or implications. Perhaps the heart of Thelemic ethics, if such exists, could be worded thusly: the highest ethical obligation a Thelemite has is to act according to his or her own Will; conversely, the highest obligation society has to the individual is to remove obstacles to the fulfillment of Will, and to provide assistance when possible. When Will conflicts with preexisting concepts of right and wrong (both personal and cultural), the Thelemite must be able to give the Willful action the highest priority. For this reason, a kind of so-called "strength" is necessary; strength to overcome internal objections (i.e. conscience), to resist social pressure to conform to expectations, and to win any fight when Will brings one into conflict with another. It is appropriate to say that Thelema is, first and foremost, "the Law of the strong", not of the wise, the beneficent, or the just. As Crowley wrote, "There are many persons who are naturally slaves, who have no stomach to fight, who tamely yield all to any one strong enough to take [what they will]. These persons cannot accept the Law [of Thelema]."

This is the framework within which Thelema operates—the strong and the weak, the masters and the slaves, the enlightened and the troglodytes. Although Thelema claims that people are born naturally into one of these two classes, there are many potential masters who can shed their chains by accepting the Law. As it states in The Book of the Law:

Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve. There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was. Yet there are masked ones my servants: it may be that yonder beggar is a King. A King may choose his garment as he will: there is no certain test: but a beggar cannot hide his poverty. —II:58

This is why it is inappropriate to help a slave become a master: if they have adequate strength, they can and should rise on their own; if they are a natural slave, there is nothing to be done for them anyway. To prop up a slave artificially to the status of master (i.e. so they have the same benefits and privileges of the strong) would weaken the foundations of a healthy society, eventually leading to disaster. Therefore, in a Thelemic world it is pointless to have moral systems: either one can apprehend their Will or not, either one has the strength to fulfill that Will or not. Crowley articulated this idea in his Commentaries: "There are no 'standards of Right'. Ethics is balderdash. Each Star must go on its own orbit. To hell with 'moral principle'; there is no such thing."

To be fair, Crowley did draw some lines. For example, he considered murder and theft to be crimes because they restrict "the freedom of the individual" (what about stealing from a corporation or the government I wonder?). I think it is safe to say that he would not have approved of rape or child abuse. It would be wrong to say that Thelema gives license to perform any and all acts without consequence. There is a common assumption that no authentically Willful act would involve committing such crimes, implying that there exists some higher system of order or justice to which Will automatically conforms. It is not clear if Crowley intended two systems of earthly justice, one for the masters (who know their Will) and one for the slaves (who do not), or if qualified people would judge both using the same standards, which doesn't seem fair if some have access to divine wisdom and others do not. Perhaps masters would not be answerable to society, since they are only answerable to their own Will. Or maybe all judgments would be based on a determination if an act was Willful or not, using no other moral guidelines. Of course, it would be challenging to determine who or what is genuinely Willful. The only articulated standard is "success", but this is not clearly defined—after all, many people succeed in their endeavors; are they all Thelemic masters? Probably not, which means that some kind of testable standards must be established by someone with authority. How do we choose who gets such authority, and how do we create a test for something that is not observable and is, by definition, unique to every individual?

A rational examination of these questions would conclude that such a Thelemic system would be a practical impossibility. Any Thelemic social system would, at some point, depend on judgments regarding values, ideals, and goals. Without them, it becomes impossible to agree upon ideas like social progress, the acquisition and transmission of knowledge, and how to spend our collective resources. And without these, we are left with nihilistic barbarism. Of course, Crowley's solution to the problem was "benevolent despotism", which is no solution at all.

For myself, this entire construct breaks down at the foundation, because I do not have faith in Will or the spiritual authority from which it derives (any more than I believe in the Word of God as recorded in the Bible or the Koran). Without a sacred Will that conforms to a superior system of cosmic order, all that is left is what I believe we actually have: our own human reason and emotion, as flawed as they are. There is no perfect system, no ideal social structure, no higher wisdom upon which we can draw. If I am right, and I maintain I am, then the Thelemic notion of putting one's own welfare above that of others is merely selfish and narcissistic.

Even without a divine Will, I also see problems with the ideal of strength as Crowley discussed it. Yes, it is good to be strong in the sense of being physically healthy, cognitively coherent, and developing courage, fortitude, and perseverance. But I profoundly disagree that it is a sign of strength to ignore or act contrary to one's deepest sense of right and wrong. Yes, it is very good to question our own values and priorities, and I encourage that. But there is a name for people who regularly disregard the welfare of others and lack remorse for their harmful actions—we call them sociopaths. I certainly do not claim that Thelemites are sociopaths, not because their dedication is inadequate, but because orthodox Thelema is poorly suited for functional human relationships (a fundamental human need).

Finally, Thelema suggests that there are essential differences that determine the fundamental value of individuals—some people are inherently worth more than others based on objective standards; some people are masters and some are slaves, some are strong and some are weak. Trying to help the inherently weak be anything other than what they are is a waste of resources, claims Thelema: "We should not protect the weak and the vicious from the results of their inferiority," as Crowley wrote in his Confessions, "By doing so, we perpetuate the elements of dissolution in our own social body." Thelema's solution to larger social problems is to let those at the bottom suffer their lot or die off (I won't bother commenting on Thelema's suggestion that "we" should actively "stamp down the wretched & the weak").

This general idea was not unique to Crowley—the underlying theory was a popular one in Britain at the time. What is unfortunate is that anyone still takes it seriously today. It is certainly true that personal traits—such as intelligence, attractiveness, and personality—play key roles in how people move through life, and a just society includes stressing the importance of personal responsibility. But what we know now about cultural and economic dynamics, the systemic roots of poverty and discrimination, and social psychology make Crowley's simplistic Victorian-era social theories seem quaint by comparison. The fact is that poverty, poor health, and lack of education are not simply due to individual inferiority, but are much more strongly correlated with larger social forces. Letting those at the bottom (the poor and uneducated, say) suffer and die is not only inhumane, it doesn't even work—the problems don't go away; they just fester, rotting out the heart of society.

Thelema says "You're on your own"; I stand with those who say "We're all in this together." Thelema says that some have inherent worth and others do not; I stand with those who say that everyone is equally deserving of prosperity, dignity, opportunity, and fairness. Thelema claims that compassion is a vice; I stand with those who say that compassion is one of the most noble and necessary of human virtues. Thelema says that the only true obligation is to fulfilling one's own Will; I stand with those who say that the search for meaning and fulfillment in life is best served by serving others.

Conclusion

I want to reiterate that my critique has been aimed at the system of Thelema, not at individual Thelemites, who certainly hold a wide variety of interpretations of Crowley and his system. My object is not to admonish anyone or to somehow prove them wrong. I have every reason to believe that Thelemites are so because they find it worthwhile; plus, I know how strong the bonds of affiliation can be.

As I think I've made clear in the essay, there are still many Thelemic perspectives that I advocate. For example, I strongly support aspiring to personal excellence and reaching beyond our comfort zones, the search for meaningful, transcendent experiences, and the journey towards self-discovery and authentic living. I certainly agree that all humans should have the freedom to work, play, think, create, and love as they deem fit (so long as it is not at the expense of the welfare of others). I encourage critical thinking, the questioning of cultural values and norms, and working towards becoming a more effective and intentional person. These are all wonderful values and goals and I am happy to continue sharing them with my Thelemic friends.

My essential break with Thelema came when I fully acknowledged two things about myself: I am a naturalist and I am a progressive humanist. Naturalism is a monistic stance, meaning the universe is understood as consisting of one stuff; nothing exists apart from Nature and all physical phenomena are caused by other physical phenomena. Nature is self-sustaining and self-sufficient; it is its own cause, requiring no purposive agent. As a naturalist, I do not believe in forces, beings, or places that operate outside of known physical laws, nor do I believe that anything exists, in principle, beyond the reach of objective human understanding (not including limit questions, such as "why is there something rather than nothing?").

Said another way, I lack faith in things for which there is no empirical evidence, including gods, angels, demons, souls, spirits, astral planes, mystical essence/energy, or what I affectionately call "Z-waves", the occult force that powers astrology, divination, ESP, sigils, magic spells, or any action causing change-at-a-distance (I later discovered that Z-wave is also the name for an actual communication standard for remote controls. Coincidence?). I admit that this is an epistemological choice—I place a higher value on verifiable, cumulative knowledge based on shared observation, replication, and testable prediction. This method, popularly known as science, is not infallible and cannot answer all questions with perfect confidence. But the choice does have merit: science has a rather impressive track record for making unimaginable discoveries and building an accurate, if incomplete, model of the universe. Compared to science, no other method comes close.

But naturalism is not the same as "scientism", although it is certainly informed by the scientific method—it can also offer a reverent attitude towards the natural world. Religious Naturalism proposes that Nature is worthy of awe and gratitude and that the naturalistic story of the universe—as told by the discipline of cosmology and theory of natural selection—is far more grand and beautiful than any myth ever invented by humankind, while having the extra benefit of being true. From within this orientation, the ability to face the mysteries of reality and to cope with the hardships of life, all on their own terms, without appeal to personal gods or benevolent forces, is the ultimate expression of human strength and existential maturity.

But is Nature enough? No, of course not. Nature alone does not provide a complete sense of meaning, it does not fulfill all our longings, and it does not provide clear answers to ethical dilemmas. This is part of the human condition, to explore what it means to exist and to struggle with a world that refuses to answer all our questions or meet all our needs. These two vital activities—developing meaning and coping with an imperfect world—are frequently conducted in a religious context, often employing the cornerstones of spiritual practice: ritual, celebration, contemplation, and meditation. Symbols are often used to represent complex or mysterious forces that affect us and it is in our nature to use heuristics to comprehend the world. There is little difference in these respects between Thelema (and its adherents) and any other religion, and I respect the underlying psychological needs that drive spiritual aspiration.

My own problem with most religions, Thelema included, is that in their quest for meaning and relief from anxiety they too often establish models of the universe that are, frankly, wrong. Further, when moral authority is surrendered to imaginary beings (or, rather, to a few real humans), established dogmas frequently develop. Taken together, these invented reality models and moral dogmas eventually become inflexible, intolerant, and irrelevant to a rapidly changing world (there are possibly some exceptions, but I do not see Thelema as one of them). At its core, there is no fundamental difference between dedicated adherence to the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, or Liber Legis—I have no objection to finding inspiration or solace in their pages, only to depending on them for defining reality or dictating moral judgment.

Because Nature is not enough, I acknowledge the common need for the spiritual quest, which I recognize as a fundamentally human activity. But since Nature is all we have, it is up to us to create meaning and find fulfillment and joy. As such, I also affiliate with the general philosophy of humanism, which had its origins in ancient Greece and flourished during the Enlightenment, largely as an argument against supernaturalism. There are multiple articulations of humanism, but I agree with the IHEU Minimum Statement of Humanism:

Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.

My personal take is articulated in my own progressive humanism, which I define in the following statement:

Progressivism is a worldview that recognizes the inherent worth of human life and seeks to optimize freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and fairness in society. It aspires towards improving the well-being of all while also balancing human interests with those of the natural world. A progressive vision, therefore, seeks to enhance the liberty and fulfillment of every human while simultaneously cultivating social responsibility and environmental stewardship. Progressives seek to manifest this vision through the promotion of scientific inquiry, pragmatic policy, cultural tolerance, and social justice.

I was recently asked by a theist why, without a belief in God, I should bother with having morals or caring about anything at all. I answered: "Because it gives meaning to our lives, and provides fulfillment and joy. Because it is ultimately in our best interest to do so...it is better to live well than to live poorly, to be healthy than to be sick, to have knowledge than to be ignorant, to care for the planet than to abuse it, to expand opportunity and fairness rather than limit them. Ultimately, the purpose is to continually make the world a better place for our children, so that every generation can more completely fulfill their human potential."

Although not a formal declaration of humanist principles, I really like the Alternative Ten Commandments offered by Richard Dawkins:

Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you
In all things, strive to cause no harm
Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.
Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
Live life with a sense of joy and wonder
Always seek to be learning something new
Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.
Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.
Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.
Question everything

As a final witty bit of humanist wisdom, I quote Josh Wheden:

"The enemy of humanism is not faith. The enemy of humanism is hate, is fear, is ignorance, is the darker part of man... Faith is something that we have to embrace. Faith in God means believing absolutely in something with no proof whatsoever. Faith in humanity means believing absolutely in something with a huge amount of proof to the contrary. We are the true believers."

I am certain that some Thelemites might say that there is significant overlap between my worldview and Thelema. Others will say that I am a blind and foolish slave, fearfully clinging to a past Aeon. Maybe they're right—perhaps Thelema really is the one true religion. Perhaps it is true that the angel Aiwass spoke the new Law to Aleister Crowley in 1904, anointing him as the Prophet of the New Aeon for all Mankind, establishing the heavenly rule of Ra-Hoor-Khuit, His Will administered by the Secret Chiefs and sanctified by His divine parents, Nuit and Hadit, who ordained The Great Beast and His Scarlet Women (O! Holy Concubines of Babalon) that they might open the doors to the Palace of Wisdom for all who are Strong enough to partake of the fiery Sacrament. I can't prove that those ideas aren't true, just as I can't disprove that perfect faith in Jesus will bring me salvation, that killing infidels will earn me 72 virgins in heaven, or that the form of my next reincarnated life depends on the karma I gather. Others will say that it doesn't matter if you believe these things to be objectively true, all that matters is if "working the system" produces a "successful outcome"—which is interesting, because that's exactly what Hubbard said about Scientology.

Hey, life is hard. It is filled with anxiety, confusion, despair, grief, fear, and pain. If being a Thelemite, or a Christian, or a Buddhist, or a Scientologist helps your life to be more joyous, more fulfilling, and more meaningful, then I am the last person who would want to stop you (okay, maybe not Scientology, which I consider to be a scam). Naturally I am bothered when religion becomes judgmental, self-righteous, close-minded, or hard-hearted, and I am especially disturbed when it gets in the way of healthy human relationships or attempts to bring about social change through force or fear. Culturally speaking, Thelema is most certainly nowhere near the worst offenders; it is filled with too many thoughtful, creative, and open-minded people. But let's face it, it isn't at the other far end of that spectrum, either. Profound enmity has developed over various teachings of the A.'.A.'. or over the proper preparation of the Cakes of Light or over interpretations of the Tunis Comment—and unfortunately there are plenty of Thelemites who are malicious, selfish, and sanctimonious, even if they are but a small minority. For myself, part of what inspired my defection was that the positive cultural aspects no longer made up for these negative ones, especially when I believe they are so often grounded in things that aren't even real.

I find it is worthwhile to articulate one's own worldview on occasion, so for that reason alone I'm happy I wrote this essay, even though I fully expect that it will change no minds; it will either validate people who already agree or harden dedicated adherents. If I'm lucky it will inspire a handful of people to examine their assumptions and beliefs. As a final note, I owe a lot of my personal development to Thelema, and for that I am grateful to Uncle Al and the many excellent Thelemites I have encountered in my journey. Whatever your destination, I wish you success.

Happy News

Wed, 06 May 2009 01:33:53 GMT

I have had little motivation to post to LJ in a long time (obviously), but a great deal has been happening in my life lately. As many here already know, mobyjane and I are getting married soon, on May the 22nd. It will be a simple ceremony held at her workplace, which happens to be the beautiful headquarters of the UUA in Boston.

The primary reason we are getting married so quickly is because of our other happy news: we are now 14 weeks pregnant. That's right, we're going to be the parents of a bouncing baby boy sometime in early November!

We have waited to make the general announcement until we got back all the genetic testing, and we can happily say that the kid has no genetic abnormalities whatsoever (that the test can screen for). In all, this has been a textbook experience for a normal, healthy pregnancy.

We are wildly happy about this new little human, and can't wait to meet him.

Job Update

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:51:58 GMT

I thought I'd give a brief update about my new job. It's with The Center for Community Independence in Revere, MA. This agency works with folks who have brain damage to help transition them as close to independence as possible. Although a few clients have congenital damage, most of them are there due to a traumatic injury. As you might expect, there are a wide range of issues, including motor, emotional, and behavioral. Some clients live with family but most live in nearby condos that are owned by CCI.

I am one of the staff members who help them live their lives and offer what therapy might be possible. Every client has a different program, but nearly all of them need some form of serious assistance, such as transportation, money management, domestic routines, and even basic self care, such as hygiene. So far, what that means is making sure they take their meds, driving them around for chores and whatnot, helping them prepare meals, and provide whatever therapeutic services they might need, such as cognitive or physical exercises.

I haven't met all the clients yet and have worked with only four (out of 17). However, I'm sure that that will change as they break me in. I think they are starting me out on the "easy" clients who have been in the program a number of years, are physically able to care for themselves, and have already made some good progress. Again, I'm sure that will change.

So far, I really enjoy the work. It isn't exactly in my line of training, but I think it will nevertheless provide invaluable experience for me. Right now I'm just part time, but if I continue to like it, I will eventually ask to go full time.

Public Service Announcement

Sun, 25 Jan 2009 02:12:53 GMT

My yearly post outlining my journal's rules.

Essentially, there is only one real cost to having my journal remain public—it must remain a place for adult behavior.

I do not mind disagreement. You are welcome to comment on my journal and offer an opinion different than or contradictory to mine. If you are so inclined, please note the three standing rules:

1) You must be respectful of me and other commenters (i.e. no personal attacks or aspersions).
2) You must have a willingness to exchange information, meaning listening to it as much as giving it.
3) You must engage with good faith, meaning the object is not to twist or use my words to attempt injury to me or another.

EDIT! I've decided to add a fourth rule:

4) Verbal diarrhea is not allowed. Granted this is a bit vague and so will initially earn a warning, but most people can recognize this kind of comment when they see it.

Clear violations of any of these rules will get your comments deleted. Repeated violations will get you banned. If a situation flares up, I might ban for a short period for things to cool off. Asking me later to unban will likely succeed.

That is all. Have a nice day.

Snowy Video

Thu, 22 Jan 2009 01:13:35 GMT

Here's a little video from the other day here in Salem...

Why I am no longer a Thelemite

Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:49:05 GMT

Since declaring my separation from Thelema, many have asked me for my reasoning. I am writing this entry for my own convenience, as a place to refer such inquirers in the future instead of having to rewrite my reasons each time. Please note that I am not putting this up here to anger anyone or dissuade anyone from Thelema. It is simply a catalog of my own reasons for moving on.

1) I am a Naturalist. Naturalism is a philosophical orientation that does not acknowledge the existence of supernatural beings, forces, or places. It's motto is "The natural is real and the real is natural." Thelema is predicated on supernaturalism, from it's basic cosmology to its origins (i.e. the "reception" of Liber AL). As a naturalist, I do not believe in "elemental" or "planetary" forces, the soul or body of light, holy guardian angels, personal god(s), change at a distance, astral or enochian "planes", reincarnation, clairvoyance, gematria, talismans, divine "offices", or divination.

More importantly, I do not believe in True Will as a construct. This is because I do not believe that there is a divine plan or destiny for us to adhere to, nor do I believe in ascending spiritual states of clarity regarding hidden layers of reality. I have no doubt that people can experience such things, but those experiences are subjective with no meaning outside of the individual's personal set of beliefs and expectations. In other words, such experiences do not lead to any objective or even pragmatic changes in a person, unless as a byproduct (eg. the ability to focus the mind can be useful in many circumstances).

I do understand the appeal of transcendence, and Thelema does offer techniques to create intense experiences that significantly shift one's state of awareness. But in all, the general goals of Thelema are better achieved by such things as learning practical skills, experiencing novel things in the world, becoming better educated, making strong interpersonal connections, staying physically fit, increasing one's personal integrity, and going to psychotherapy to clear up any emotional tangles. And I find the natural world to be far more awe-inspiring, beautiful, and worthy of reverence than anything described in a holy book or vision.

2) Maturity. As I've grown as a person, I am no longer attracted to the ethics or culture of Thelema. I consider both to be essentially adolescent in nature—specifically, Thelema promotes individuation, rebellion, and experimentation, which are things that are common to the teen years. These are not necessarily bad things and can even be very valuable to a person depending on one's emotional state. I myself needed those things when I found Thelema in my early 20s, and I'm thankful for it.

But as a whole, Thelema is very limiting in this regard. As one moves through the adolescent stage one comes out at a place where the individuated self needs to reconnect with others and move priorities beyond strictly personal interests. It is a more complex arrangement, balancing personal wholeness with social interconnection and responsibility, which is something that Thelema does not address (and often rails against). For a time I was assuaged by the pro-social principles of Ordo Templi Orientis, but the growing attitude of literalistic supernaturalism, preoccupation with semi-taboo sexuality, and a chronic lack of social stability finally broke me. In the end, I had many wonderful friends, but had lost all faith in the Order as a vehicle for social transformation or my own personal fulfillment. (Edit: I fully support members of OTO who find their participation to be meaningful and fulfilling. I'm not attacking OTO so much as explaining those elements that I myself could no longer tolerate. I still adhere to many of OTO's core principles, such as fraternity, harmony, honor, and nobility. Understand, I left OTO primarily because I left Thelema, not the other way around.)

Mix adolescent morality with magical thinking, and you get my primary reason for leaving Thelema. I am not claiming that Thelema is without any virtue, but what there is eventually became swamped by what I could no longer stomach. I am now a strong proponent of Religious Naturalism and explore those ideas at my site, SacredRiver.org.

Although I'm sure I've offended people, please know that that was not my intention. I simply hope that this post makes clear my reasoning for moving beyond Thelema.

Perfect Summary of Bush

Sun, 18 Jan 2009 01:55:16 GMT

The most perfect one line description of the Bush administration I've come across:

An epoch of unmitigated misery, an era of bunglefuckery.

Man on Wire

Fri, 02 Jan 2009 03:24:43 GMT

I have seen many movies, and of those, only a small handful have I considered to be perfect. The 2007 documentary Man on Wire has joined this small list. It chronicles Philippe Petit's 1974 walk across the Twin Towers on a thin wire illegally strung up by a small group of friends and accomplices. The story itself is astounding, but everything about the movie is flawless, from the score to the editing to the cinematography. Man on Wire is funny, riveting, and beautiful. See it at your earliest convenience.

Warm Greetings

Thu, 25 Dec 2008 16:27:15 GMT

Excepting this cold I can't kick, this has been one of the best holiday seasons I've ever had. Being here with Janet, watching the snow come down, seeing the Revels and the incredible Boston Nutcracker, well, it's been magical for me. There's a bright blue sky out today, lots of sweets around the house, and music in the air. Xmas for me has always been about celebrating life and love, and with all the wonderful people in my life, I have much to celebrate. I hope your own season is as bright and warm as my own.

Slut Survey

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 18:27:20 GMT

A huge international survey by David P. Schmitt at Bradley University looked at sexual attitudes around the world. Part of this was ranking attitudes and behaviors in regards to sexual promiscuity, number of partners, casual sex, marital fidelity, sexual freedom, prostitution, and divorce. The researchers call this the Sexual Permissiveness scale. The rankings are as follows:

Finland
New Zealand
Slovenia
Lithuania
Austria
Latvia
Croatia
Israel
Bolivia
Argentina
UK
Estonia
Germany
Netherlands
Morocco
Switzerland
Serbia
Fiji
Brazil
Czech Rep
Australia
USA
France
Turkey
Mexico
Slovakia
Peru
Canada
Italy
Poland
Spain
Belgium
Congo
Greece
Ukraine
Romania
Philippines
Malta
Portugal
Lebanon
Botswana
Ethiopia
Japan
Hong Kong
Zimbabwe
South Korea
Bangladesh
Taiwan

You can find a PDF of the entire study here. It is a large read.

Top 15 Teen Movies

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 03:02:33 GMT

1) Ferris Bueller's Day Off
2) Sixteen Candles
3) Fast Times at Ridgemont High
4) Dazed and Confused
5) Grease
6) Say Anything
7) American Grafitti
8) Heathers
9) Fame
10) Napoleon Dynamite
11) Back to the Future
12) Breakfast Club
13) Risky Business
14) Dead Poets Society
15) Weird Science

Edit: I have replaced WarGames with Napoleon Dynamite. This was a hard choice, but I was compelled. I still love WarGames and do consider it a teen movie, but J. pointed out correctly that the central events in the movie could have been played by people other than teens, which put it on the edge. Also, even with all the teen issues in it, the core concern was about war, which goes beyond a teen-centric concern.

Edit #2: I want to add an honorable mention that isn't a movie, but a television show: Freaks and Geeks. The show was so good that I put it up there with the best movies.

Edit #3: Other movies that don't rank or don't quite fit but that I still want to mention include: WarGames, Adventures in Babysitting, Revenge of the Nerds, Pretty in Pink (there ya go, S.), Donnie Darko, Ghost World, My Bodyguard, Foxes, Pump Up the Volume, The Lost Boys, Footloose (I know, I'm sorry), Hairspray (the original), Big, Peggy Sue Got Married, Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure.

Edit #4: For anyone who cares, the criteria I use are:
* all lead characters are teens
* central story addresses core teen issues
* events are seen primarily from the perspective of the teens
* has an element of fun or humor
* something about the movie became infused into popular culture
* the x-factor, that special creative something that sets it apart

Edit #5: OOPS! Better Off Dead gets a huge honorable mention (although I still don't put it in my personal top 15). Thanks for the reminder, folks.

FIrst Obama Fireside Chat

Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:12:50 GMT

Obama will be doing these weekly. It's such an obvious thing to do, but it took BHO to make it happen.

Begich Pulls Ahead + Garbage news

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:47:15 GMT

Well, it looks like Begich might win in Alaska after all. I think the Dems can chalk up one more win...

Edit: From the "About Fucking Time Department"...

Plasma Turns Garbage into Gas

Every year 130 million tons of America’s trash ends up in landfills. Together the dumps emit more of the greenhouse gas methane than any other human-related source. But thanks to plasma technology, one city’s rotting rubbish will soon release far less methane—and provide power for 50,000 homes—because of an innovation in plasma technology backed by Atlanta-based Geoplasma.

And finally, the best fucking roundtable on the planet...the Black Man is now the master race.

Ash93 + Psykhosis = Ashkosis

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:43:55 GMT

Okay, I've made up my mind. Right now I have three journals and that makes no sense. So, I am combining my personal Psykhosis LJ with my Ash93 account, giving you Ashkosis. Ash93 will automatically forward to this new account, which I will use for all personal updates as well as any Thelema-based ideas I feel like expressing. Psykhosis will no longer be updated, so you can unfriend that one if you want.

My other journal, sacred_river, will continue to be used only for my Sacred River writings. The purpose of that journal is to explore the nature of religion and to develop an approach to spirituality that is (a) progressive, (b) in harmony with natural science, and (c) beneficial to the health and well-being of individuals and communities. I will be drawing from many models, including religious naturalism, process theology, emergence theory, neurotheology, and other schools of thought that focus on personal and social development. It is not a Thelemic approach, although Thelemites will certainly recognize many similar principles, such as self-reliance, human sacredness, and critical thinking. Everyone is welcome to join in the conversation.

Thelema and Discomfort

Sun, 09 Nov 2008 00:09:38 GMT

There is within Thelema a strong adherence to the notion that spiritual advancement is tied to various forms of discomfort, such as social isolation or persecution, dissolution of identity coherence, aggressive conflict, loss of reason, and the endurance of phenomena that tests one's physical, emotional, and cognitive fortitude. On the flip side, attempts to achieve greater well-being, coherence, and tranquility are often seen as unworthy or even detrimental.

Now then, it is beyond doubt that growth is frequently painful. For some, pain itself becomes a marker of spiritual advancement, whereas a lack of discomfort implies a lack of advancement. A standard of spiritual measurement can become the degree to which one can endure discomfort rather than other things such as agency, character, or wisdom. This form of Thelema is embodied by a kind of sadomasochistic ethos—a common aspersion of these adherents involves accusing another of seeking cowardly comfort rather than noble pain as motivating a particular belief or practice they happen to disagree with. In their view, few people have the strength or skill to handle a wide-aperture view of reality (although they, of course, do). In the end, the true motivation here is to feel powerful—a not uncommon drive, even if this manifestation is particularly annoying.

Even setting aside this extreme, to which most Thelemites certainly do not ascribe, there does remain a general ethos that says it is better to move towards discomfort than away from it. This is not surprising—Crowley himself tended towards sadomasochism, and this occasionally leaked into his writings. At the same time, he agreed with those who thought that winding one's way through to an understanding of Ultimate Reality is a painful and frightening journey. The assumption here, of course, is that there exists an objective, discoverable spiritual reality and that it's nature is somehow at odds with everyday or common beliefs and behaviors.

It is certainly possible to embark on a spiritual program designed to induce great discomfort. It is also reasonable to suggest that taking such a journey can have many beneficial effects in one's life, depending on the circumstances. That is not in question. But what I question is the belief that such a journey is inherently better than one that is not designed to produce pain. Again, all growth is uncomfortable to one degree or another, but it doesn't follow that discomfort necessarily leads to growth.

The key comes down to what one is trying to accomplish. This is something that Thelema does not answer, leaving it to the individual to figure out. I have, however, observed several categories—many Thelemites seek power, some want a sense of specialness, and others want an escape from everyday life without feeling ignoble. This is certainly not an exhaustive list, but I think it does cover the majority of Thelemites. What connects this batch of adherents is a sense of exceptionalism, that ordinary conditions do not apply to them, that they are somehow different than most people.

In a society that deifies pleasure and comfort, it makes sense that some who seek specialness would plant their flag in discomfort. This is not unique to Thelema; many religions have a similar ethos. Thelema goes further by explicitly claiming adherents that are "kings" or "masters". But again, this is not uncommon—many religions claim that their adherents are the "chosen ones" or "the elect" or some such thing. It's amazing how similar Thelema is to most Western religions in this regard.

Another similarity is how some adherents suppress critical thinking. When a Christian expresses that something in the Bible might be nonsense, a common reply is that he did not have adequate faith or strength to resist satanic reason. Similarly, comfort has become the latest bludgeon against anyone who questions Crowley (or, more commonly, questions that person's opinions about Crowley). The implication, again, is that truth is painful and difficult, and requires a special strength that the questioner or dissenter clearly does not have. It is the natural end result of a religion that idealizes pain, dominance, and conflict.

I will end by acknowledging again that discomfort often accompanies growth. Certainly no one disagrees with this. But those who attack (a) the desire for increased well-being or (b) any questioning of Crowley or them as being equal to a comforting retreat from truth or personal improvement only show themselves to be without meaningful argument. As far as I'm concerned, it is akin to Godwin's Law, where the first person to make a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis automatically loses the argument—call it Ash's Corollary to Godwin's Law: "the longer a Thelemic argument goes on, the probability that someone will be accused of retreating fearfully towards comfort approaches one." As such, from now on, the first person to accuse someone of this automatically loses the argument.

A Conversation

Sun, 02 Nov 2008 01:15:15 GMT

An interesting conversation...in thykaaba's journal, I wrote the following:

Now then, with all the above in mind, it makes sense to me that Thelema would initially appeal to liberal humanists. After all, human sacredness, self-rule, the right to develop as unique individuals, empiricism and anti-superstition, "There is no god but man", and so on, all reflect humanist values. But then Thelema is also filled with anti-humanist principles as well—anti-compassion, pro-conflict, a master/slave ideology, and so on. It is no surprise that many liberal-minded people either leave Thelema after a time or hold on only to those elements they are attracted to, making them a kind of pseudo-Thelemites (both of which happen to describe me). As such, liberal humanists do not seem to be an ideal choice when it comes to cultural continuity, especially since humanism is a much deeper and more well-established worldview than Thelema.

In the 1970s, Thelema had a boom with American counterculturists. I think that their attraction was two-fold: the psychedelic parallels with magick, and Crowley's own countercultural bohemianism (AC at his most liberal). But as the general countercultural movement faded, so did Thelema's growth. And what was left was really a lot of hippies who were hippies first and Thelemites second. So, rather than Thelema converting the countercultural movement, the counterculturists converted Thelema.

Since the print publication of AC's major works in the mid-1990s, along with them being digitized on the web, there has been a whole new audience for Thelema. Although there is variety, of course, the larger Thelemic community seems to consist of bright young men who are social outcasts (this is not as prominent within OTO, due to its social nature). These guys like Thelema because it helps them to feel powerful and special. They are attracted to the master/slave morality and believe that Magick can make them rise above "normal" people. But they have the same problem as the liberals, with the opposite polarity—they like the conservative aspects of Thelema, but want to ignore the liberal elements, again leading to a quasi-Thelema (and one that cannot thrive as a movement, since many of these people cannot work well with others and are characterized by their oppositionality).

So, Thelema as a vehicle of cultural continuity does not work well with liberals or conservatives, because both can only accept half of the package. You mention secularists, but there is a challenge here. Secularists tend to be pragmatic and anti-superstition—few will be interested in Magick, holy books, or the Beast 666. Of course there will be some, but politically centrist secularists do not make up a large percentage of the population and do not have an established discrete culture that Thelema could replace.

These inherent challenges are one reason why Thelema has failed to thrive in 100 years. It is unclear to me how it will overcome them.

idolater718 responded with the following:

You bring about interesting points and the overcoming of this political dichotomy will be a tremendous task for Thelema, at least in America where this black-white division is marketed as a merit badge for a person's humanistic considerations.

I argue that philosophical and religious movements place something within the centre of their universe and the consideration and protection of that thing is central to their ideology. The varying schools of humanism have placed some aspect of the human at the centre. Political ideologies have developed around what that inherent 'human' quality is that deserves our attention.

An important contrast between humanistic movements and religious movements is that religions often appeal to some more abstract, even trans-personal, aspect of man such as the soul, spirit, totem, karma, etc.. Similarly, Thelema tends to place the "will" before the "want" and thence the higher calling or purpose before the person's animal nature. Humanism often addresses the animal qualities of a human such as their mutual right to health, happiness, and freedoms. Secular humanism in particular rejects intangible notions of man's nature. Take for instance Rand's claim of altruism's inherently fallacious nature insofar as man can only act for his own good. It's a very material claim in that it prefers empirical observation (of animals and mob psychology) over exceptional cases. Perhaps this is why religions often appeal to the few rather than the many.

Anyway, I'm hoping that Thelemic culture will do more than find a middle-ground in the political landscape and will instead burst as a volcano and cover that landscape in ash. Meaning: I hope the weltanschauung market won't buy up people's rights to spirituality.

I wanted to answer this thoughtful comment. Something to consider is that, although the secular humanist movement is the most prominent, there is also a strong Religious Humanism movement (as evidenced by the Unitarians), as well as humanistic movements within the Abrahamic religions. As such, one cannot draw a strict dichotomy between humanism-as-such and religion. A related movement that is growing is Religious Naturalism, which I've written about over in my sacred_river journal, which combines secular components (e.g. non-acknowledgement of the supernatural) and spirituality. One organization is active in developing these ideas—The Institute on Religion in an Age of Science. In all, my point is to say that a humanistic outlook is fully compatible with a religious orientation, and in fact argue that it is growing. Nearly all major religions, at least in the West, acknowledge some form of fundamental human rights and aspire to promote basic human dignity.

There has been a major propaganda and revisionist effort against humanism and liberalism within the Thelemic community, and many people have adopted radically incorrect ideas about the history and nature of those schools of thought. Even my otherwise intelligent and educated friend over at thykaaba has done so, parroting the idea that liberalism is "the bastard child of Protestant Christianity." I wrote a brief answer to clear up the fog:

It is more accurate to say that Protestantism is rather the child of humanism, which had begun to flourish back during the Renaissance when scholars rediscovered Greek and Roman texts. These humanists were originally teachers of Roman topics and were in opposition of the scholastics of Thomas Aquinas. Their central social values were human worth, individual dignity and diversity, and that man has the right to choose his own nature—ideals which largely remain unchanged to this day. The iconic leader of humanism at this time was, of course, Galileo, while the original humanism godfathers of Greece include Thales ("Know Thyself") and Anaxagoras (the first "free thinker").

Liberalism is itself a child of the Enlightenment, led by thinkers such as Thomas Paine ("Common Sense"), Voltaire ("If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him"), Jean-Jacques Rousseau ("The Social Contract"), John Locke ("government with the consent of the governed"), and David Hume (atheist, empiricist, "freedom of the human will"), although the origins can also be traced back to Rome. Although the ideology of liberalism borrowed from humanism, it was originally more focused on the pragmatic issue of self-rule, opposing both absolute monarchy and religious orthodoxy and clericalism.

And since that time, liberalism and humanism have continued to become more mature, so that most branches of liberalism and humanism as they exist today have very little in common with their distant Protestant scion. So, rather than being descendants of Protestantism, Liberal Humanists are descendants of ancient Rome, the early republics of Italy, and the free thinkers of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

With this more accurate picture of liberal humanism, which indeed dominates mainstream Western thinking, it is no wonder that so many have difficulty accepting Thelema fully. For Thelema to thrive, it is going to have to make a choice—to fully adopt its humanistic elements or to abandon them. Either humanity is a good thing or a bad thing...Crowley himself could not make up his mind and simply defaulted to "mind your own business" (as detailed by this highly recommended essay). This ethically vacuous position is a poor blueprint for a vibrant, caring, and just society (a humanistic set of goals that most people would agree upon as being desirable). The other option is to come right out and say that humanity is a bad thing, and set Thelema up as a kind of resistance force against it, focusing on reshaping the world in Crowley's image by any means necessary. The hazy middle ground that Thelema now possesses guarantees a tepid, small, and conflicted membership.

While Thelema has the potential to be a great member of the Religious Humanism movement, it so far has resisted that path. As long as it does, it will languish in the fringes.

For ThyKaaba (or anyone else)

Sat, 11 Oct 2008 18:40:14 GMT

A question for thykaaba (and anyone else who wants to answer)...

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that you are absolutely right, that Thelema offers a scaffolding that provides for cultural continuity, at least for people you describe as secular. I have posited in another post that, as an example, a major reason why Wicca has been so successful is that it tapped into a growing feminist movement. By doing so, it fulfilled a need, which, simply said, was for women to have power and authority within a religious tradition. Since that time, Wicca has also tapped into the growing eco-movements, providing a spiritual component to a largely secular structure.

You argue that the success of OTO/Thelema is being limited, in part, by a lack of adequate proselytizing. I think it is safe to say that effective proselytizing addresses a need that people have—it solves a problem or offers some attractive benefit not available elsewhere. What needs do you see Thelema addressing, especially any that already have existing secular movements to tap into as Wicca has done?

EDIT: Alas, no one was able to offer a social need that Thelema/OTO might fill with a positive cost/benefit ratio. I hypothesized as much, although I'm still open to suggestions. A larger question becomes, what does Thelema have to do to overcome this? Some say that a structure needs to be set up between the public and Crowley, and I agree that that might increase recruitment. But retention will still be a problem as soon as most people are introduced to Crowley (and such a filter will be ineffective anyway, since a quick Google search will bring up every detail). I agree with those that say that Thelema as it is will never be much more successful than it is now, and I predict it will decrease in popularity over time (except with fringe emo males).

Thelema and Cultural Continuity

Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:24:28 GMT

[I know that this journal was recently "archived", but this is a Thelemic topic, so I'm briefly reviving it...]

I have been having an interesting discussion with omphalos111 in his thykaaba journal where he is discussing Thelema in the frame of sociology. In his series, he has been arguing that Thelema can be a successful New Religious Movement (NRM) because it conforms with Stark's list of 10 traits that describe successful NRMs. In this entry, he posited that Thelema conforms to this theorem: "New religious movements are likely to succeed to the extent that they retain cultural continuity with the conventional faith(s) of the societies in which they seek converts."

One group that he mentioned as a potential target are people with "low religious and social investment into competing ideologies." Further down in the discussion, I wrote,

And in your post you write, "The reason is simply that new movements that gradually replace old ones will only succeed in doing this, as far as they retain a cultural continuity with the culture that they seek to dominate." But Thelema is radically different than secular Western thinking, even for those who do not strongly associate with a particular religious or political ideology.

First of all, at least in America, there are very few people that this statement describes—neither strongly liberal nor conservative nor religious (including atheist). It is reasonable to suggest that people who are, as you call them, secular, are so out of a personality tendency, and will be highly resistant to recruitment efforts (they are, after all, barraged by religious and political recruitment efforts that have far more resources than any Thelemic organization). And if we are talking about adults, there is a huge leap from having no strong ties to any religion or political ideology to accepting the philosophical and religious writings of Crowley.

My point is that if you think the primary challenge here is a "lack of good proselytizing" and "lack of socializing of the young", then you are underestimating how bizarre Thelema is in comparison with normative Western thinking. Even if we agree that ideology doesn't matter (which I don't think is true at all), someone who has resisted "religious and social investments" into adulthood seems an unlikely candidate to accept the Book of the Law as their sole and guiding rule in life. Thelema is a strange religion: it is heavily Victorian, it is 99% based on the writings of one man who called himself The Beast 666, it is dominated by social misfits, it has no substantial property or artistic accomplishments, it has no influence in society and can prevent upward mobility in most places, and so on. How does Thelema overcome that with people who are naturally resistant to joining anything?

I wanted to write more, but I was blocked from commenting, alas. What I wanted to say was that I was willing to modify my position by looking at Scientology. This is a group that has what I consider to be ludicrous beliefs that are little more than bad 1950's era sci-fi, and yet they are wildly successful. My friend wants to argue that the only real problem with Thelema in terms of recruitment and retention is a lack of "good proselytizing" and insufficient strictness. But there are too many other successful groups that have similar or less strictness, such as branches of Wicca and neopaganism, neither of which has any central leadership. So, there must be something else at play. EDIT: I want to add an hypothesis about this: I think that Wicca/Witchcraft was able to succeed, in part, because it very effectively merged with the feminist movement while adding an explicit spiritual component (which secular feminism generally lacks).

I have in the past maintained that a key to recruitment is having a low threshold for investment. Scientology does this not by targeting "conventional faith(s)" but by mimicking a culturally acceptable secular practice: psychotherapy. Scientology is originally built upon the (bullshit) self-help system of Dianetics, which eventually grew to include thetans, e-meters, Xenu, and more. As bizarre as the core beliefs are, the front-line presentation is not: just take a "stress test". That is pretty non-threatening, and it suckers in enough people to keep Scientology healthy.

I maintain that Thelema is different enough from normative Western culture and carries enough anti-incentives (e.g. being open about being a Thelemite can and has led to occupational and even legal troubles) that the initial threshold to investment is very high. That is one reason why so many Thelemites are already living in some way on the fringe of society or otherwise keep their affiliation a secret (of course there are a few exceptions). If Thelema ever wants to thrive beyond the few thousand affiliates it has at any given time (and I'm not suggesting it has to; I suspect many people like it being very small), it will have to do something like the Scientologists do. Maybe not fake therapy, but some kind of construct that does two things: provides a low-threshold to investment that then leads easily into the explicit teachings of Crowley.

This is a fascinating topic. I suspect that Thelema is destined to being a very small group (<10,000) unless it does something to radically change in some way. What are your thoughts? Can it thrive without changing? Are there any "conventional faith(s)" within modern society that Thelema can "retain cultural continuity"? If it does have to change to grow, what might that change be? Is it best kept small?

UPDATE:

Most of the conversations agree that Thelema as it currently stands (i.e. bounded by the works of Crowley) simply cannot link into any existing cultural norms in a way that leads to increased membership, resources, or influence. I offer the issue of cost/benefit. As it stands, Thelema's purported benefits simply do not justify the huge cost to joining. Such costs include the time, energy, and money needed to collect and decipher Crowley's works, as well as the dangers of social damage, including occupational and legal troubles. I and others agree that Thelema might be able to overcome these things and develop a working cost/benefit balance if it added a non-Crowley entry system that could interface with some segment of modern society. But that leads to the issue of changing Thelema to being more than Crowley, and too many Thelemites find this unacceptable. In all, therefore, NRM success for Thelema much beyond its current state seems highly unlikely.

Endings and Beginnings

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 20:11:56 GMT

I have been in a state of transition for quite some time now in many areas of my life. Such transitions are rarely simple or smooth. In my Thelemic life, it perhaps began when I wrote the Oct 2005 essay, Compassionate Thelemite. As I continued to explore Crowley's writings in a more critical way, Thelema began to unravel before my eyes, culminating in my essay, Aleisterianism. At this point I had largely abandoned what most people call Thelema.

In Aleister and Me and Psychotherapy and Thelema: An Analogy, I attempted to set up a framework for seeing Thelema in a larger context than the works of Crowley. Although I still feel that my ideas here were sound, I also felt that my ties to Thelema as it is and to the community of Thelemites had become so thin as to be more effort than it was worth. In other words, I was going to spend more energy on maintaining the link than in developing my ideas. The momentum was against me, and in that time the final embers of Thelema that burned within me had finally become extinguished.

This does not mean that my spiritual life has faded...far from it. Leaving behind Crowley has liberated me, and I finally feel completely free to develop myself in a genuine and fulfilling way. I still am developing many of the ideas that you've seen in my Ash93 journal, but I am no longer trying to fit them within a Thelemic context. As such, I can finally be true to myself rather than trying to be true to Crowley. Whew!

And so, I am officially archiving Ash93 as a memorial to my Thelemic life. I will keep it up and all the essays will remain open to the public. Keep in mind that nearly all of those essays also exist on Eidolons of Ash, many with updates and small improvements.

Anyone wishing to join me in my continuing explorations, you are welcome to friend me at my new LJ account, sacred_river.

I want to say thank you to everyone here who offered ideas, encouragement, and honest critiques of my writings. For those who do not follow me to my new journal, I wish you joy, fulfillment, and the accomplishment of your wills.

Coming to Cafe Thelema tonite

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:21:45 GMT

I'll be at Cafe Thelema tonight...I hope to see you there...

Satanic Bondage

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 02:11:34 GMT

I simply have to share this email that I got from "Sharada Kaplan" today:

Don't you agree that it's the worst kind of shame that this perverted piece of evil crap mesmerized his followers into a life of satanic bondage and not to mention taking away the innocence of little boys by sodomizing them and destroying their spirit forever. I pray for Jesus to help all of the lost souls and the hurts of those children.

I am tempted to ask how she can say that the spirits of the boys that Crowley sodomized are destroyed forever but then say she is going to pray for Jesus to help them. I mean, if Jesus can heal them, then their spirits aren't really destroyed "forever", are they?

So, I'm asking all of you folks that are still in bondage to Satan, what do you think?

Ash in Austin, Aug 19-25

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:22:08 GMT

Just to let my Austin peeps know, I'll be in Austin for another visit from August 19 through the 25th. I'd love to see you all. So, maybe a get together or outing of some kind? If anyone is feeling socially industrious, let me know!

Selling my occult books on Ebay

Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:40:11 GMT

If anyone is interested, I am selling many of my Crowley books on Ebay as a single set (too much trouble to sell each individually).

14 Crowley - Magick - Thelema Books

Magick, Book 4
The General Principles of Astrology
The Book of the Law (2004 hardcover centennial edition)
Commentaries on the Holy Books and Other Papers, Equinox IV(1)
The Vision & the Voice With Commentary and Other Papers, Equinox IV(2)
The Goetia the Lesser Key of Solomon the King
Konx Om Pax
The Equinox III(10) (The "Blue Equinox")
Magick Without Tears
Enochian World of Aleister Crowley
The World's Tragedy
Do What Thou Wilt : The Life of Aleister Crowley, by Lawrence Sutin
The Golden Dawn, by Israel Regardie
Secrets of Sex Magic, by Frater U.D.

Psychotherapy and Thelema: An Analogy

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 05:02:26 GMT

In the field of clinical psychology and psychiatry, there are several main domains of theory and practice, including the biggies: psychoanalysis and its derivative psychodynamic therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), existentialist/humanistic therapy, and family or systems therapy. There are numerous others, of course, such as narrative therapy, gestalt therapy, play therapy, and feminist therapy, just to name a few. Some of these are relatively similar, and others are wildly different.

Now then, it is arguable that someone going to a classic psychoanalyst will have a very experience than someone going to, say, a therapist trained in CBT. In the former, the client will likely be asked to lie on a couch and verbally free associate, with the analyst offering the occasional interpretation (not as simple as that, of course, but this is for illustrative purposes). The cognitive-behavioral therapist will most likely have the client sit up while they work together to examine his or her thought processes and behaviors that are influencing the symptoms or events that the client wants to change, often using worksheets and at-home exercises as central tools. Very different experiences.

It is again arguable, and I would agree with this, that not only would the in-session experience of therapy be different, but that the end results would be significantly different as well. Someone completing psychoanalysis (a process that can take years) might come away with a great deal of insight relating to their deepest personality traits and how their early childhood experiences have impacted their adult lives, whereas a client completing a course of CBT (which is generally short-term, often less than 20 sessions) might come away with only those thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors that relate to a specific set of symptoms (e.g. depression or anxiety) having been explored or changed. Very different outcomes.

And yet, everyone agrees that both psychoanalysis and CBT are forms of psychotherapy. True, there are passionate and persuasive arguments on all sides regarding such issues as efficacy, efficiency, and validity. Many CBTers see psychoanalysis as turn-of-the-century witchdoctory while many analysts see CBT as shallow and cold. Both of them largely ignore the humanists.

And yet, everyone agrees that both psychoanalysis and CBT (and client-centered humanism) are legitimate forms of psychotherapy. While an average CBTer might argue that psychoanalysis is outmoded and inefficient, very few would argue (I believe) that it constitutes malpractice, while many analysts would concede that there is strong empirical evidence that CBT is highly effective in reducing many distressing psychological symptoms. Added to this are recent and compelling studies that suggest that a large chunk of what affects change is the relationship between therapist and client, regardless of theoretical orientation.

The key point that I want to make here is that even though all these various forms of psychotherapy provide different theories, approaches, and even outcomes, they are held together by the common goal of improving psychological well-being grounded in a common practice, that of two (or more) people talking to each other.

And finally, this brings us to Thelema. Just as the analyst and cognitive-behaviorist have very different theories about human psychology and methods designed to bring about change, so is it that many adherents of Thelema will have different conceptions of reality and techniques to promote spiritual development. Rather than focusing on specific theological beliefs or spiritual practices as strict measures of a global definition, Thelema is best served by defining it according to a basic set of principles and goals.

Now then, the nature of those principles and goals are open to discussion. I would offer the following as a possibility:

Thelema is a spiritual path that has the central goal of increasing awareness of and expressing one’s unique (True) Will, generally defined as one’s deepest nature or destiny. While the methods for accomplishing this Great Work are many, they focus generally on expansion of awareness, discipline of thought, celebration of the sacredness of humans and nature, and the gnostic uniting of consciousness with all other things. Adherents of Thelema commonly attempt to promote and embody the principles of individual liberty, critical thinking, self-reliance, self-efficacy, harmonious balance, and the virtues of courage, integrity, beneficence, and open-mindedness.

While the above statement is far from perfect, I believe that many adherents would agree with the basic precepts. Moreover, it is general enough to allow for a wide range of Thelemic articulations while being specific enough to differentiate it from other religious traditions.

I am not naive—I understand that there will always be those who will define Thelema strictly as the product of Aleister Crowley as embodied in his holy books (just as there will be those who define psychotherapy as the product of Sigmund Freud). I have no interest in locking horns with such folks: they are free to believe as they will. But I suspect that there is a large quantity of people interested in a broader, principle-based view of Thelema with more room for individual differences in belief and practice. Just as a person seeking therapy should have multiple options available to him, so should the Thelemic adherent have a choice.

Regardless of whatever impact (or lack thereof) I might have on the greater discussion, I am satisfied at least for myself in this orientation towards Thelema. I always have been and continue to be uncomfortable with narrow and rigid definitions of nature, whether corporeal or spiritual, especially when based on supernatural intervention. Perhaps due to my UU upbringing, I am far more comfortable with principles rather than supernatural beliefs. But more than comfort, a principle-based path is, in my experience, more pragmatic as well...it allows for greater flexibility as I grow and mature. Rather than trying to squeeze myself into an ever-more-narrow box of rigid beliefs, I am able to find new and ever-more-sophisticated interpretations of principles as I gain experience and perspective. Staying true to myself seems much better than staying true to Aleister Crowley. And, ironically, I'm not sure he would disagree with me.