Within psychology, a long question has been "what is the self?" Starting in the 1940s, a view started to emerge which advocated the existance of a "true self." For the most part, this "true self" was defined by what it was not. Back then, "neurosis" was all the rage, and the idea was that the authentic self was that which wasn't neurotic. In other words, a lot of vague langauge. But it did point to the idea that somewhere in each of us is an authentic, genuine self.

Both from my studies in psychology and in my own mystical explorations, I'm coming to believe that there does indeed exist a true self. This true self cannot, in normal states of consciousness, be brought into awareness as a whole. Like the sub-atomic paradox, the more you are aware of one part, then less you are aware of another. This is because the true self IS the self, although it can most easily be thought of in seperate terms (e.g. "I have a true self that is hidden under all this me-ness"). There are other reasons why it cannot be wholly brought into awareness...such as our social context; our way of judging and measuring things is inescapably colored by our acculturation, such as the language we speak, the scientific knowledge we have, our life experiences, and the values and mores we grew up with.

This true self is never dormant. It is constantly attempting to express itself, which, when done fully, is experienced as a wholehearted genuineness. This experience is a positive one, meaning that it is a distinct sensation, not simply the lack of another sensation (e.g. phoniness or off-ness). Some psychologists have referred to this sensation as "flow" (although I do not know if the state of flow is always an authentic expression of the true self).

I said that the true self (if such a thing exists) cannot be experienced in its wholeness in a normal state of awareness. However, theoretically, there are other states of consciouness wherein it could be experienced as such. Such a state would have to be characterized by, suprise suprise, the ability to hold multiple points of view simultaneously. Such would include the experience of the self that is observing the self within the whole (i.e. not as a seperate I-ness). I am beginning to suspect that this true self is no less than what Crowley amusingly referred to as the Holy Guardian Angel.

I believe "True Will" is poorly named, because it implies a "false" will. Therefore, I now see it as the Authentic Will (even though I'll probably continue to refer to it as "True Will" for the sake of consistancy). There is no "inauthentic will"...rather, there are inauthenic (or more precisely, less-than-perfectly-authentic) expressions of Will. By achieving an increased awareness of the True Self (i.e. through mystical states, psychological exploration, etc), one can become an ever more genuine person. To my mind, this is the purpose of attainment...to be the most true to the self as is possible, to most fully BE one's self.

My personal exploration into these ideas is by no means over...please accept this post as a work in progress.

When studying Crowley specifically and Thelema generally, should one take context into account? In other words, I think there are two frames regarding context. Either....

(1) what Crowley produced in toto is a Truth unto itself, with all of his individual characteristics (race, gender, wealth, education, class, personality traits, language, talents, prejudices, childhood experiences, etc) and his environment (country, politics, scientific understanding, social/economic structures, cultural trends, etc.) being themselves factored into Thelema itself,

OR

(2) Crowley received some kind of fundamental Truth, which was then filtered and interpreted through those characteristics and his environment.

In #1, context plays no role, since Crowley's characteristics and circumstances were factored directly into Thelema (including his frame of mind, level of sobriety, amount of rest, etc.). In this frame, studying Crowley means taking everything he wrote at face value. All apparent contradictions are due to lack of insight on the reader's part. All current contexts (whether personal, social, or scientific) are irrelevant, except insofar as they can be used to support Crowley's ideas. The difficulty with this frame is not in challenging the validity of Crowley's ideas (since they are beyond question) but to work towards a better understanding of them.

In #2, context plays a role as something that needs to be addressed and adjusted with both the individual student and modern circumstances in mind. It requires working towards understanding both Crowley's contexts and current ones, and then finding ways to reconcile the two. The difficulty with this frame lies in the danger of losing any and all inherent principles of Thelema, since it is possible to explain away anything as a matter of context.

I myself lean towards frame #2. Every now and then I do glance over the precipice where Thelema no longer has any inherent meaning at all. However, I seem to find a way to step back a bit from that chasm of nihilism and realize that my core understanding of Thelema gets stronger every time. But hey, I guess I'm just an old-fashioned heretic. :)