Shaving With Two Razors: On Truth and the Apprehension of Truth

Introduction

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Truth is repeatedly referenced in Occult literature. The quest for Truth, the pursuit of Truth, or otherwise understanding Reality (or the Truth about Reality) is a common theme in Occultism. Wisdom is derived from the application of truth. Affecting desired change on a thing necessitates knowing the Truth of a thing. Scientific Illuminism attempts to understand Truth via the scientific method. Thelemites are Scientific Illuminists.

As Liber AL tells us, ”Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown; & all their words are skew-wise.” (AL II:32). In other words, reality is fundamentally irrational, it is important to learn how to identify the Truth, in as much as we can grasp it, so as to avoid Delusion. The current of Mysticism is always present within Magick. A siren’s lure leading us to destruction through self-delusion (q.v. Dangers of Mysticism). The Magician acts, the Mystic receives.

What is Truth?

To begin we must ask, “What is Truth?” This is a rather difficult question. Certainty has oft led mankind astray. History is littered with various mistakes. As Chantel Delsol tells us in Icarus Fallen, modernity is the traumatized remnants of failed certainties of the past. Given that “unknown factor”, it is far easier to highlight the truth by shading out that which is not truth.

Innocence, another unprovable condition, is defined as the absence of guilt. Merriam-Webster tells us that Innocence is defined as (a) “freedom from legal guilt of a particular crime or offense” or (b) “freedom from guilt or sin through being unacquainted with evil : blamelessness”. This is why American courts have to prove guilt, rather than forcing the defendant to prove their innocence. In a sense, one could argue that innocence is the baseline and that guilt is the failure to meet that baseline.

In a similar manner, Truth is the absence of falsehood. This is a scientific way of pursuing Truth. One falsifies premises until one can no longer falsify a premise. That premise is then held as true until it is falsified. Further, one never ceases in their attempts to falsify a premise. As we are told in Terrier-Work, “Doubt all. Doubt even if thou doubtest all.” Only in this way do we persist in truth rather than falling into the pit of dogma as have other attempts at ascertaining the truth, both sacred and secular.

Obviously, one must know and understand the basic principles of logic (& its limitations). One should endeavor to be clear and concise with one’s speech and actions. However, there are some useful tools one can use in the search for truth. Some of the more helpful ones are the Scientific Method, Occam’s Razor, Hanlon’s Razor, and a knowledge of logical fallacies, both their use and misuse.

Tools for Finding the Truth

The Scientific Method is a constantly evolving doctrine. In reading Crowley, I feel that he was thinking of a more Humean version, however the modern version is more than enough to assist one in the pursuit of truth. I’ve linked a beginner’s description below. One thing to point out is the concept of the Null Hypothesis. The null hypothesis proves that your hypothesis is wrong. If I believe that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects, a simple example of a null hypothesis would be that objects fall at the same rate regardless of their mass. The use of a diary and the setting of concrete goals is integral to the Thelemic system so that an analysis of the record would confirm or deny our hypotheses. Another important concept is Falsifiability. There must be a way to say ’This is true’, or ‘this is false’. A statement such as “all is Buddha nature” is not falsifiable. Anything not falsifiable is logically irrelevant. 

It should be mentioned that not everything is testable. Given the factor infinite and unknown, this should not be surprising. However, the scientific method will let us properly identify and account for these. As they are untestable, we can just accept them provisionally until something better comes along. After all, the fact that I cannot prove the efficacy of logic (proving logic would be a self-referential fallacy) does not mean that I am unwilling to utilize logic and accept its validity on a provisional basis. The utility of a provisional axiom lay in whether the conclusions drawn from that axiom match with what is known, observable, and testable.

Now, in day to day life, there are some handy tools for determining the probable validity of any hypothesis or chain of events. The first of these is the more commonly known Occam’s Razor. Officially, it states “entities should not be multiplied without necessity”. More simply, “the simplest solution is most likely the right one”. Ensure that every item is necessary in your hypothesis. While it is possible that the plant was knocked off the shelf by trespassers sneaking into your home, it is more likely that the cat (who is already known to be present) did so.

The second is known as Hanlon’s Razor. For some reason, the occult community is rife with conspiracy theorists and shadowy secret cabals. To counter this, we have Hanlon’s Razor, which states “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”. Large chunks of convoluted arguments can be dismissed by virtue of these two razors. Keep them sharp.

Finally, we get to Logical Fallacies. Knowing logical fallacies is a poor substitute for knowing logic, but it quickly becomes apparent that many people have done just that. Some fallacies to keep in mind are equivocation (especially in its Motte and Bailey form), Appeal to Authority (whether popular or elite), and ad hominem.

Equivocation is the switching of a term’s definition mid argument. An example I recall was on the word “accept”. While it was being used in the sense of “agree with”, someone switched it to mean “received”. They claimed that because Liber AL had been physically handed to them, they had “accepted” the Book of the Law. Another form of the equivocation fallacy is termed Motte and Bailey. This is used quite often in political discussions where people will push for some radical policy but pretend that the opposition is attacking the non-radical core. A current example would be someone questioning the need to stockpile a month of supplies being told that they are dismissing the seriousness of the corona virus.

The Appeal to Authority is where someone perceived as an authority basically says “because I said so”. Now, this appeal should not always be discounted. If a medical doctor gives his assessment on a medical condition within their field of authority, it should be considered seriously. This is actually a common form of its misuse, to discredit the knowledgeable because it does not pander to one’s prejudice. It should be noted that the “Authority” does not have to be a single person or thing. “Everyone agrees” postulates that “everyone” is an authority and that the claim is true for no other reason than that agreement. Likewise, referencing an elite group sets that group as an Authority. These last two variations are commonly misused. Just because “everyone agrees” or “the cool kids like it” does not mean that the claim is automatically false, either. Egalitarians like to dismiss inconvenient claims by pointing out their appeal to the snobs and elites do so by pointing out their appeal to the vulgar masses.

Next is ad hominem. Attacking the person rather than their arguments does nothing to discredit the validity of their arguments. Hakim Bey’s (support for) pedophilia does not discredit his commentary on Cop Culture. Neither does Marx’s inability to handle money discredit Communism. It probably explains their motivations, but the truth or falsity of the arguments stand on its own. Ad hominem is commonly misused by people over-identifying with their argument. This is especially a problem if you analyze their logic. Another misuse is due to insults. If someone says “My god, you are so stupid,” that is not an ad hominem. It is an insult. It is totally separate from the argument. If they provide nothing else, the proper response is “and?” or “that’s nice, can you actually address the argument.”

Conclusion

To lay this out as a train of thought : Innocence is the absence of guilt. Likewise, Truth is the absence of Falsehood. By learning to identify the false, the invalid, the lie, one is able to remove that falsehood. If one were to remove all falsehoods, what remains would be truth. Therefore, what one holds to be true must be tested and tried. Ultimate Reality is likely irrational, or at the very least, vast enough that we will never encompass it all. However, where we live is governed by the Ruach (or if you prefer, the Mind). Thus, Logic, Data, and Facts allow us to strike down the falsehoods. Like a sculptor chipping away at a block of granite, the true shape of reality will eventually be brought forth. Truth is found in the rubble of falsehood.

By ascertaining the Truth, we can then progress along the path of perfection. The path of perfection, or, as I think of it, the accomplishment of one’s will, is an ongoing process. By conceiving of one’s perfected self, one creates a goal. When one achieves this goal, the imperfections in one’s prior conception of the Perfect become readily apparent. Thus, one formulates a new conception of perfection and the process repeats. Perhaps, one will achieve an objective manifestation of perfection. Perhaps, we will become mired in Zeno’s paradox. Though I feel that overcoming this paradox is a suitable target for perfecting the self.

Truth is found in the rubble of falsehood.

Love is the law, love under will.

Citations, References, and For Further Information

AL II:32
M-W “Innocence” (04 APR 2020)
Book of Lies, ΚΕΦΑΛΗ ΝΑ “Terrier-Work” p112
Six Steps of the Scientific Method (04 APR 2020)
Occam’s Razor (04 APR 2020)
Hanlon’s Razor (04 APR 2020)
Common logical fallacies (04 APR 2020)
Motte and Bailey (04 APR 2020)
Zeno’s paradox (04 APR 2020)