Orange reflecting glass

On the relation between the finite will and the infinite will

Orange reflecting glassIt’s in the nature of the human mind to always be in the process of bringing about some new state of affairs. There is a general, indeterminate desire to live, to be, to become, that exists outside of conscious choice. You can call it “conatus” as Spinoza did, “fabrication” as the Buddha did, or “true will” as Crowley did, but I think they’re pointing at the same basic phenomenon. This is why, even though so many people have noticed that life is miserable and full of suffering, suicide is (relatively) rare. Even a person who kills themselves out of despair is operating under the illusion that doing so will bring about a state of affairs better than the one they currently occupy.

But the will does not operate in a vacuum. It operates in a body, through a nervous system, in a context established by genetics and environment. So when we look upon ourselves, we never find ourselves just doing nothing at all. It’s always under some description. We’re usually desiring something at the moment.

(The exceptions—like ennui or angst—are interesting. I don’t know if anyone has ever tried giving a Thelemic interpretation of those experiences.)

“This will (as such) is not conscious. We can only become aware of it, and thus enjoy and learn from the Event, by making an Image of it. Reason is the machine whose function it is to do this.” (Djeridensis Comment on AL II.28-31)

Will informs the Ruach in two senses. Will is the content given to the Ruach, and then the latter must make sense of the former, turning it into concrete programs of action. And then in a deeper sense, the Ruach itself is willed, i.e., it is an expression of true will (as any occurrence of life is). This means that the discovery of one’s true will—or more accurately, the understanding of the operation of true will in one’s own life—requires self-reflection and self-consciousness.

Now when the Ruach reflects itself and attempts to form a concept of this true will, from a certain perspective, it has to fail. For one thing, the very act of reflecting is itself willed and not adequately captured in the reflection. For another, if you’re looking for a representation of the true will, you’ll never produce it, because the true will is infinite. But you can form an idea of it, and that idea consists in what one ideally wants.

There are two senses of this concept. In one sense, you’re thinking about who you would like to be. This is the aspirational concept of will, what Crowley bashes as the “higher self” concept. But there’s another way to use the concept, and that’s in a descriptive capacity. You look at what you actually do and generalize a statement or a word from it. This is hard to accomplish, because we’re not set up to be objective about ourselves. But if you work with another person, you might be able to distill this operation of will in the context of your life—your reason for existing, so to speak—into a statement. And then you can use that statement to help filter your choices in life.

For the individual formulating it, such a statement must, to use Plato’s words, be a moving image of eternity. It has to give a sense or a feeling in the here and now of the basic urge of Hadit toward Nuit, which is beyond all concepts. But it also has to get at that dimension of finite action that strives for the indeterminate. In order to serve this function, it must be (a) actionable but (b) not aimed toward any particular thing like a set of steak knives or a Cadillac El Dorado. It’s a gift you are naturally bringing which has the power to transform the world.

So for example, my own statement along these lines is, “To guard against what is arbitrary so that the true light may shine forth.” At a deep level, I want and have always wanted to live in a world where things and people are free to show themselves exactly as they are, where they are released to themselves to be themselves. But there are many ways to bring this about. The characteristic way I do this is by clearing away what is arbitrary and keeping it at bay. Sometimes this comes out as listening carefully and not judging; other times it comes out as irreverence toward the sedimented layers of custom. But I do it naturally, basically without thinking, thus fulfilling the Thelemic idea of the relationship between the will and reason:

When reason usurps the higher functions of the mind, when it presumes to dictate to the Will what its desires ought to be, it wrecks the entire structure of the star. The Self should set the Will in motion, that is, the Will should only take its orders from within and above. It should not be conscious at all.  (Ibid.)

So my claim is that, in the context of this nervous system, in the context of what we conventionally call “Frater Entelecheia,” this is how infinite will operates. This is how the impersonal pulse of life manifests as a particular person. It takes a different form in other bodies, for other lives, on other planets, etc.

Technically speaking, the world could change such that things and people were always showing themselves for what they are. But it’s not feasible. So in effect, the statement describes an infinite task, a never-ending project which is nevertheless enjoyable, and so it functions as a moving image of eternity, which again, gives an adequate feeling (at least) of the interaction of Hadit and Nuit.

So in a nutshell, that’s how I imagine the philosophical or mystical dimension of Thelema linking up with the practical dimension. If you have no interest in things like Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel, but you wanted to know how the concept of true will could help inform your life, this is sort of the stereo manual version of that.

Though it’s worth pointing out, in conclusion, that the two things are not disconnected, either:

“Far better, let him assume this Law 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.” (New Comment on AL III.60)

For more on the process of formulating a statement of your finite true will, see my article on Thelemic Union about individual why discovery.

Star spiral

The ground of the distinction between the finite will and the infinite will

Star spiral1. “[Hadit] hath no Nature of His own, for He is that to which all Events occur.” (Djeridensis Comment on AL II.2)

2. The nature of something is its characteristic behavior, the way it tends to act.

3. Actions are intelligible in terms of their ends. Running and cooking are differentiated by the results they tend to realize. (It’s not necessary for the result to be separate from the doing. Consider the action “standing up.”)

4. Having no nature, Hadit has no characteristic end. (“For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect.” AL II.44)

5. But Hadit is not for that reason without activity. (“‘Come unto me’ is a foolish word: for it is I that go.” AL II.7)

6. Hadit is pure going—action done for its own sake. This is the same thing as Hadit having Nuit for his end. “But to love me is better than all things” (AL I.61) “Now Hadit knows Nuit by virtue of his ‘Going’ or ‘Love.’ It is therefore wrong to worship Hadit; one is to be Hadit, and worship Her.” (New Comment to AL II.8)

7. Hadit is the true self of the aspirant. (“Thou who art I beyond all I am, who hast no nature and no name…” Liber XV)

8. The activity of the true self is the true will. (“…the Adept will be free to concentrate his deepest self, that part of him which unconsciously orders his true Will…” Liber Samekh)

9. My true will being infinite—having no goal other than Nuit—it cannot be captured by any finite expression, not even a single word.

10. This is the ground for the distinction between finite will and infinite will which Crowley makes in Liber CL: “And to each will come the knowledge of his finite will, whereby one is a poet, one prophet, one worker in steel, another in jade. But also to each be the knowledge of his infinite Will, his destiny to perform the Great Work, the realization of his True Self.”

11. But the distinction between the finite will and the infinite will is a distinction of thought, not a real distinction. In other words, the difference between the infinite will and the finite will is a difference made only by the finite will. This is because the infinite will—almost by definition—can’t have anything to do with other than itself or its own pure activity.

Thelema and truth

People argue constantly over whether Thelema is a religion, a philosophy, a spiritual path, or total bullshit. In my opinion, Thelema is first and foremost a challenge. It is a challenge to each individual’s spirit. It is a challenge to live differently from how we are used to living. Unlike New Age spirituality, Thelema does not pander to us by merely reflecting back at us the things we already believe by virtue of having been born and raised into consumerist culture. In other words it is not ideology. Thelema first and foremost has to do with Truth, and Truth is rarely if ever comfortable.