Accepting the Law

What is a Thelemite?

Thelemites are, by nature, a fiercely individualistic breed. This has been latched onto by a particular demographic that works against the revolutionary nature of Thelema in favor of the continuance of mainstream normative values of modern consumerist culture. However, words actually mean things. Thelemite is no exception. A good baseline for identifying the enemy is through the nature of their antagonism to other people’s insistence of an actual definition for Thelema and Thelemites.

In one such altercation, I came up with a simple and straightforward formulation of what it means to be a Thelemite or a member of the Ordo Templi Orientis (which is a Thelemic organization to which I belong):

(1) A Thelemite is one who accepts the Law of Thelema

(2) The Law of Thelema is defined by Liber AL vel Legis (Liber AL, The Book of the Law)

(2a) Rabelasian Thelema is pure sophistry

(3) Membership in the Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO) requires acceptance of the Law of Thelema

(3a) Q.v. Point 2

(3b) This means to accept Liber AL without wanting to change it.

Below are the summaries of the long, and sometimes tedious, discussions that arose from this simple formulation.

A Thelemite is one who accepts the Law of Thelema / The Law of Thelema is defined by Liber AL

Since these are interdependent, it is easiest to address them at one. The word Thelemites appears in Liber AL in verse I:40, where it states “Who calls us Thelemites will do no wrong.” In the D Comment, Crowley states “We who accept this Law may rightly be called Thelemites.” Since the word, as it is commonly used, derives from Liber AL and the comment from the person designated by that text as authoritative on that text states point one in no uncertain terms, we can, for now, accept it as axiomatic.

Many alternative definitions revolved around some formulation of “A Thelemite is someone who is doing their will.” This leads to the second point. What is the Law of Thelema as defined by Crowley? He put forth three statements derived from the text which are meant to summarize the Law of Thelema, much as how Jesus summarized the Law of Christianity as “Love the lord, thy god, with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself.” Crowley’s summarized the Law of Thelema as follows:

• Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
• Love is the law, love under will.
• There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.

Given this summation, it seems obvious that any attempt to use the Will as the basis of the definition of Thelemite is actually a clandestine acceptance of the Law of Thelema. One might theorize that attempts to define Thelemite without reference to Liber AL derives from cognitive dissonance with the other portions of the text. Regardless, it is little more than claiming to disagree while affirming each and every point.

Much attention has been given to the definition of the word accept. The valid definitions of accept range from “to receive” to “affirm” to “agree to marriage.” While I personally love the image created by the last definition, I suspect that such an interpretation is not what Crowley intended (though Liber Astarte could make an argument in favor). Instead, let us look at the statement “Accept The Book of the Law” in context. Both the OED and Websters provide example sentences whereby the degree of affirmation changes due to the nature of the object being accepted. “To accept a present” gives a different meaning than “to accept a treaty” (which is also different from “to accept a proposal of marriage”). How did Crowley view Liber AL? Did he view it as a neutral item, akin to a pen or a sweater, or did he view it as a treatise for the emancipation of the human race?

In his preface to Liber AL (4 Jan 15), Crowley says, “This Book explains the Universe,” “This Book lays down a simple Code of Conduct,” and “The establishment of the Law of Thelema is the only way to preserve individual liberty and to assure the future of the race.” It seems clear that Liber AL is an object of such import that its acceptance cannot be a neutral act. Such acceptance necessitates some level of approval for the contents therein. Further, the language used in his description indicates a conformance to the Law one has accepted. One adheres to a code of conduct. I will leave further examination of the nature of Liber AL and what constitutes acceptance to the reader.

Rabelaisian Thelemites is pure sophistry

From time to time, people appear trying to lay claim to the title of Thelemite but rejecting the system put forth by Aleister Crowley by invoking Rabelais. Rabelais is an important figure, which is why he is mentioned in The Antecedents of Thelema (4 Jan 15). However, Rabelais work was a work of fiction. Neither did it involve magick, occult theory, Eastern traditions, Qaballah, or Knowledge and Conversation with one’s Holy Guardian Angel. These things derive from Crowley. If they are practicing a somewhat libertine monastic tradition rather than magick, we might lend some credence to their claims. Invariably, however, they are merely trying to justify their smorgasbord approach to Crowley’s Thelema.

Membership in the OTO requires acceptance of the Law of Thelema

Strangely, this assertion also causes a stir of controversy. This is a simple matter of stated policy. As per the FAQ on Blazing Star Oasis’s website, "If you decide to pursue full membership, as a I°, you will be stating that you accept The Book of the Law as written, without wishing to change it. Even in the Minerval degree, you will be expected to make a commitment to uphold the ideals of freedom set forth in The Book of the Law." (4 Jan 15)

Since this is listed on an official OTO website, I do not believe it is a violation of any oaths for me to state that I remember being required to do precisely this. It should be born in mind that the Minerval degree is a guest degree and actual membership is counted as starting from the First degree. It should also be mentioned that the requirement is an official policy regardless of whether it is enforced with any degree of consistency. The fact that it is a requirement but not adequately enforced is one of the reasons why this essay came to be.

We can also engage in debate on the meaning of the word accept. However, these arguments are the same as above and their resolution is also the same. In fact, the argument for the nature of Liber AL takes on more force as Liber AL is presented here as a foundational document around which the members of the order are meant to organize themselves.

Conclusion

As we can see, the points laid forth are supported by the internal logic and consistency of the materials referenced. Criticisms that the definition of Thelemites being derived from Liber AL is circular reasoning are not relevant due to fact that Thelema and Thelemites are defined by Liber AL and the other class ‘A’ material. To argue such would be like claiming that Rousseau’s idea of the “Social Contract” is invalid purely because it is referenced in Of The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right (Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique).

Given that these points are valid, one can also conclude that there are many people who profess to be Thelemites but are in violation of these points. It is obvious that they are mistaken. Anyone who ignores, rejects, or wants to change Liber AL vel Legis — i.e, anyone who does not accept Liber AL — is not a Thelemite. Given the stated policy of the Ordo Templi Orientis, anyone who is not a Thelemite is not qualified to be a member of that order.

Addendum

Such is the nature of the work, people who are within the Thelemic tradition but are not Thelemites will eventually fall prey to the cognitive dissonance inherent in working with a value system to which they do not subscribe. Such people will typically fall in one of two ways. One is to try and change Thelema into socially accepted cultural norms. The other is to leave the order. The first harms Thelema by subverting it into just another variation of the dominant paradigm which is, in itself, a carry-over of the previous aeon. The second merely means that the person has wasted time and effort in a system for which they are unsuited. For a list of the first, look at what people are saying and see how it differs from some strand of the dominant societal discourse. For a list of the second, look for “big names” within the order who are no longer active or are now antagonistic. They will often say things like “I was never really a Thelemite,” “I never liked Liber AL,” or “<group/religion> suits me better.” Far better to spend the time engaging in introspection now rather than finding out, a decade down the road, that you are happier being a Buddhist.