Thanksgiving Thoughts Thelema in the World

Thanksgiving was never a major holiday in my family. Growing up, Christmas was the big occasion when everyone gathered for celebrations. Thanksgiving was … “nice.” It was just a meal. Sometimes we spent it with my best friend’s family, either at their place or ours. Other times, it was just us. Rarely did we have extended family visiting, as they’d be in town for the winter holiday soon enough.

Besides, Thanksgiving was always the same week as my birthday, and who needs two celebrations in one week, right?

Thanksgiving often brings an influx of memes about gratitude and giving thanks. To me, they’ve always felt more like shallow marketing ploys aimed at dopamine engagement rather than meaningful expressions of any kind of holiday spirit. But after Marco Visconti’s Why Thelema, I’ve been rethinking about ‘Why Thelema’ myself. It’s not particularly a new question either. It’s something I’ve asked myself—and others—over the decades.

I’ve been trying to spend this time in 2024 slowly swimming out to the deep end of the conversation pool. I don’t know if that is the right way to build up Substack, but I just felt info-dumping had an air of wasted breath to it, a lack of voice that needed to be felt as much as heard. We’ve spent so much time on social media not being social that I wanted to build a place where the theological and philosophical pursuit of Thelema felt personal rather than commercial, for you and for me rather than for YouTube and for yet another fucking meme collection. And I’m not all that eager to jump into the shark tank either.

But in the ‘spirit of thanksgiving,’ one might say, I thought I would express what I believe Thelema brings to the table that no other formal worldview in occulture does. I guess, you could say, I’m answering the question of “why am I thankful for having found Thelema as my ‘way of life’ all those decades ago?”

My Own ‘Why Thelema’ List

I believe Thelema offers each individual:

• Genuine Fullness

• Radical Freedom

• Real Flourishing

• Full Functioning

Genuine Fullness

Genuine fullness is a state of being, though in Thelema this can also be expressed as a constant state of becoming.¹This is a tough doctrine to inhabit despite what the neo-Nietzschean knuckle-draggers want you to believe. While they promote spiritual and psychological bypassing right along with the grifters, you can smell the fear of the real world wafting between the WordHippo-enhanced sentences competing with the body odor filling their momma’s basement where they’re holed up writing these terrible missives. This state of becoming, this daily²It is more of a constant state of change, but let’s not push ourselves quite yet. sense of inhabiting change, is because of our essential nature defined through our relation with this ground of Being. It can be hard to describe sometimes, but it is what Teilhard would define as Being-in-itself “everywhere in the process of formation.”³Pierre Teilhard De Chardin, Hymn of the Universe (Harper & Row, 1961), 50.

Coming to grips with this is a beautiful epiphany. The first chapter of the Book of the Law gives voice to the persona of that Being-in-itself and says, “I am above you and in you. My ecstasy is in yours. My joy is to see your joy” [AL 1.13].

We are no mere “spark of God.” We are not crawling our way back to a Godhead from which we are separated. We are not cosplaying Adepts scrambling up some imaginary “ladder to God” through pathetic titles of antiquated secret orders. We are not lost. We are not forsaken. We are not miserable specks of dust and mud and shit on a blue dot in the universe.

The nature of our ontological construction is paradoxical: it is the ground of Being (ipsum esse, -1) from which all things—both being and non-being—are manifested, and it is the ground of Becoming (ipsa existentia, +1) through which all things change. The genuine fullness of Thelema is that we hold both of these in tension—that is, every star is essentially identical while existentially in constant change and different from every other star.

We are that. We are—each of us is—The Fullness-itself of Divinity Incarnate. You can make this narcissistic if you wish (and the neo-Nietzschean knuckle-draggers try, of course), but if you really think about the insignificance of a “center” of a boundless universe, and especially one where the center is “everywhere,” then it is staggering how insignificant any one star is in the grand scheme of things. In other words, it ain’t all about you and your tiny Übermensch-ing ego, champ.

In any case, here’s the rest of the key to fullness—and my point: each of us is the entirety of this Being/Becoming tension. This is our genuine fullness. Crowley understood this. He wrote, “Each ‘Star’ is connected directly with every other star [and] any one star is as much the Centre as any other.”⁴Aleister Crowley, The Law Is for All: The Authorized Popular Commentary to Liber AL vel Legis sub figura CCXX, the Book of the Law (New Falcon Publications, 1996), 27. But he really grasped the implications of this when he added, “To me, even another Khabs is only part of my Khu.”⁵Crowley, The Law Is for All (New Falcon Publications, 1996), 33. (emphasis in original) In other words, even the outermost “layer” (for lack of precision here) of another individual’s Being⁶And even this isn’t entirely accurate as this would be the innermost layer of Becoming, quite frankly. Crowley calls it the first veil, or the “least untrue formulation of the Ego.” [Aleister Crowley, The Law Is for All: An Extended Commentary on The Book of the Law. Edited by Israel Regardie (New Falcon Publications, 1983), 325.] And I won’t pontificate on the inaccuracy of “the Ego” model here. is merely a part of my own Becoming (or experience of change). We are wholly ourselves while still being only a part of another.⁷cf. Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine. (Penguin, 1990). There is no separation between Stars. There is no “radical individualism” here. This is why Crowley called this “one of the most difficult yet important doctrines”⁸Crowley, The Law Is for All (New Falcon Publications, 1996), 58. in the Book of the Law.

The genuine fullness of Thelema isn’t in the artificial collective (or collection?) of individuals thrown into a mess of fraternities and factions but in the realization of our organic inheritance of essential connectivity to all else that exists. I think the implications of this are just incredibly profound from the simplest to the most complex levels of our understanding.

Radical Freedom

We hear constantly that Thelema “does not mean ‘Do what you like,’”⁹Aleister Crowley and Hymenaeus Beta, The Equinox: The Review of Scientific Illuminism : The Official Organ of the O.T.O.: The Equinox. Vol. III (10) (Weiser Books, 1990), 25. “90 % of Thelema, at a guess, is nothing but self-discipline,”¹⁰Aleister Crowley, “Morality (1).” In Magick Without Tears (New Falcon Publications, 1994), 423. (emphasis in original) and more—and all this is accurate, of course—but our freedom is a radical freedom. This is the problem with the illusion of the “mystical” approach to True Will or one’s Holy Guardian Angel—it’s garbage. When we tie our freedom to specific behaviors, to rituals, to things and titles, we miss the freedom itself.¹¹There is a talking head out there right now who continues to produce videos in which he claims that ‘True Will’ and ‘Love under Will’ are bounded and restricted rather than boundless and free. There is a difference between restriction and discipline. This is the problem with nonprofessionals trying to talk about psychology without the slightest clue outside of Wikipedia entries.

Crowley wrote

Far better, let him assume this Law [of Thelema] to be the Universal Key to every problem of Life, and then apply it to one particular case after another. As he comes by degrees to understand it, he will be astounded at the simplification of the most obscure questions which it furnishes. Thus he will assimilate the Law, and make it the norm of his conscious being; this by itself will suffice to initiate him, to dissolve his complexes, to unveil himself to himself; and so shall he attain the Knowledge and Conversation of his Holy Guardian Angel.¹²Crowley, The Law Is for All (New Falcon Publications, 1996), 184. (emphasis mine)

This is as simple—and as radical—as it gets. Radical freedom is the essence of applied Thelema in our daily lives, that the simple notion of living itself was enough for the most important initiatory crisis of the individual (the so-called “next step of humanity”). This is Crowley’s definition of magick, quite frankly. Not all this wand-waving and qabalistic number crunching. Crowley’s offered a simple—and sometimes not so simple—explanation of magick. He meant it to be radically simple. We’ve complicated it over the years. We’ve turned it into a grift. We’ve turned it into a “system.” We convince people to buy into courses and retreats and books and binders or pages and ‘how tos’ and ‘how not tos’ and plans within plans. And for what? To avoid, to escape, to turn a blind eye to life out there, out in the real.

But the reality of magick, through Crowley’s original meaning, is simply applied Thelema.

As a mentor of mine once said (and I’m paraphrasing), the general assumption of occultists is that ‘because Crowley was a magician, all people should be magicians.’ This just isn’t the case. What did Crowley write in Liber ABA?

But MAGICK is for ALL. I have written this book to help the Banker, the Pugilist, the Biologist, the Poet, the Navvy, the Grocer, the Factory Girl, the Mathematician, the Stenographer, the Golfer, the Wife, the Consul—and all the rest—to fulfil themselves perfectly, each in his or her own proper function.¹³Aleister Crowley, Magick: Liber ABA (Weiser Books, 1997), 125

We can certainly argue that Liber ABA isn’t “for all” by any stretch of the imagination. The point isn’t about Crowley’s use of technical terms beyond the scope of most of these listed here. It’s the list itself. Thelema offers us the radical freedom to be precisely ourselves. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Is all the wand-waving and Crowleyan mumblerap necessary? Of course not. But it can be a tool, a means to an end. Magick, as Marco Visconti said to me the other day, is the tool of the Law. I won’t argue semantics with him at the moment (maybe later! hah!), but I think he has a point here. Magick—when using the definitions provided by Crowley—is the tool that helps us “to fulfil [ourselves] perfectly, each in his or her own proper function.”

That “proper function”—no matter how great or small, no matter how civilization-altering or insignificant to anyone but ourselves—without expectation from anyone or anything else is our radical freedom via Thelema. “Do that, and no other shall say nay” [AL 1.43].

Real Flourishing

If anything, Thelemites are proud of our accoutrements, our systems, and our wand-wavings. Too often, we are focused on the wrong things, earnestly led astray by the spiritual bypassing of YouTube gurus and talking heads. We are invested in our superstitions of rightness that limit the success of transcendence. However by “transcendence,” I don’t mean some kind of supernatural existence or state of mind or “peak state of consciousness.”

Real flourishing is transcending the daily bullshit while acknowledging the bullshit is there. It is the removal of the glamour that inhibits life to its fullest. Thelema isn’t some kind of escapism. This is one of the problems with “occultism,” and with identifying Thelema with “the Occult™.” People come to assume—and the grifters then promote—all kinds of “secrets” and “techniques” and “mysteries” of Thelema that are capable of being packaged and marketed and sold to the unsuspecting public as remedies to attain the “good life.” It’s Amway Thelema (“As Seen on YouTube! And my FREE file. Click here! But WAIT! Click here for my $666 program that is 93% off only for you for the next 31 minutes!”). It’s Country Club Thelema (“Pay-to-Play 18 Rounds [or our First Three Degrees]!”). Pick your poison. It’s all the same in the end. It’s all marketing fluff.

Thelema needs none of it.

Multiple studies have been done—and several different assessments have been created—to measure well-being over the last two decades, even though flourishing has been a concept of human study in various philosophies and religions for the past 2300 years or so. One of the better studies¹⁴Carol D.Ryff and Burton Singer, 1998. “The Contours of Positive Human Health.” Psychological Inquiry 9 (1): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0901_1. utilizes six dimensions to determine well-being and flourishing:

• autonomy,

• environmental mastery,

• personal growth,

• positive relations with others,

• purpose in life, and

• self-acceptance.

And this study, like Thelema, does not dismiss struggle and sorrow as part of life’s positive well-being. There is no spiritual or psychological bypassing here!

However, and this is more to my point, Thelema provides for personal well-being in all these dimensions. Or, at the least, encourages well-being in all these dimensions. Granted, it’s up to you to make the most of it as it would be in with any worldview. But I think Thelema offers this far more simply than other worldviews.

I’m not going to go through each of these here for the sake of time, but I want to hit a couple of highlights that I think are important to note.

Thelema starts with a metaphysical assumption of autonomy right out of the gate. We cannot have the Law itself without this assumption. Crowley tells us this in his Commentaries. The message of the Law is not “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.” That is Thelema’s epistemological truth claim. The primary foundation of the Law of Thelema is “Every man and every woman is a star.” Without this axiomatic beginning, there is no Law at all. Without the autonomy of the individual, all else falls away and is impotent. Without the acceptance of this truth, well-being is an ephemeral chase of an insubstantial faith. From there, all else flows.

When we look at the tasks of the A∴A∴ grades, when we look at the lessons of the O.T.O. initiations, and when we examine the advice of those adepts that have led the way before us, they all point in the direction of environmental mastery and personal growth. All of these systems are about coming to a full understanding of ourselves—and, if you understand them carefully enough, grasping the details of how we affect the world around us and how it affects us.

One of the fallacies of the neo-Nietzschean knuckle-draggers is the idea that we are alone, that we are isolated from the world, that we are “lone wolves” to be separated from “the herd” (not that wolves roam in herds, but don’t let the facts stop them from massacring the metaphors), that we need to rise “above it all,” whatever “it” is.

But what you find in all these systems is immersion, not isolation. Even in the A∴A∴ teacher-to-student system, the systemic nature of the program is environmentally immersive rather than disassociative from the world at large or even just one’s immediate society.

Flourishing—real flourishing—is multidimensional for the individual within their sphere of influence, and that means organically, psychologically, culturally, and systemically. We just don’t exist in a vacuum. Nor can we develop good health in one either.

Full Functioning

Full functioning concerns our personal equilibrium in all four validity domains¹⁵The integral framework used here follows the quadrant model of the four primary domains in life through which all individuals experience the world, gather experience, and gain knowledge: objective: the external, observable world, including behavior, actions, and physical phenomena; subjective: the internal, subjective experience of the individual, including consciousness, emotions, and personal/spiritual growth; intersubjective: the collective, cultural, and social aspects of human experience, including values, norms, and shared meanings; and interobjective: the social and institutional structures that shape human experience, including politics, economics, and technology. as defined through integral theory and how those domains shape each of us, and all of us, through our interactions with them.

The Book of the Law offers us a glimpse into all four areas of functioning: physically, psychologically, culturally, and systemically. It doesn’t neglect our full faculties. It fosters our pursuit of joy through these domains without an expectation of perfection (because we are already essentially perfect and the point of incarnation is the pursuit of experience via the illusion of imperfection).

Yes, Thelema does all of this right out of the gate.

Thelema is a complete and balanced life all the way around—if it is embraced as such.

Thanksgiving

For me, the why of Thelema, the perfection of Thelema as a worldview, is to function in all of life’s domains, flourish in life through the freedom to be ourselves—precisely ourselves, nothing more and nothing less—and bask in the fullness of our existence.

My list may not be as eloquent as Marco’s. It may not convince you to jump the fence to Thelema as your personal worldview, philosophy, or religion. But as I move into this Thanksgiving season, as I turn a year older this week, I’m looking at nearly forty years of my life as a professed Thelemite. I can’t see myself as anything else. Thelema speaks to me, speaks to the way I view the human condition, and speaks to the solutions I feel are relevant and important to the world I see crumbling around me. Frankly, I’m thankful for this worldview and the sense of meaning that I derive from the principles I find within it.

Love is the law, love under will.