One of the limiting aspects of Thelema is Crowley’s insistence upon self-transcendence at the expense of the transcendence of being or the superior transcendence of God. While there’s no system in Thelema, he pursues this bias systematically. It’s why Thelema is tilted so heavily in the direction of self-actualization, self-overcoming, self-interpretation, private experience, individualism, an interpretation of deity in terms of Self, conditions of reflexivity, autonomy, etc.
It’s not as though the other two kinds of transcendence don’t show up at all. The transcendence of being can be found in AL, and Crowley thought enough of it to include it in the Gnostic Mass.
“O Nuit, continuous one of Heaven, let it be ever thus; that men speak not of Thee as One but as None; and let them speak not of thee at all, since thou art continuous!”
The “none” is what is adumbrated by but which exceeds finite being. But it’s not as though you ever catch Crowley pondering the mystery of external being. For instance I can’t think of a single passage where he’s in wonder at the fact that there is anything rather than nothing. He has no Heidegger moment. His whole attitude toward magic reflects this. It’s about causing (really imposing) change on reality in conformity with will.
The superior transcendence of God also shows up. That’s the Qabalistic Zero, which is in excess of either subject or object. But again, there’s no mystery. His idea of it is mathematical: nothingness extended in no categories. And owing to Crowley’s holistic monistic assumptions, there’s no real difference between the 0 and the sum total of being. In other words the superior transcendence is folded back into the inferior transcendence, either of nature or of self-overcoming. It tends to be made manifest by “balance,” a concept which it would be difficult to overuse more than it has been already in New Age spirituality.
The result is that being—whether ours or the world around us—isn’t a gift. Who or what would give it? And since it’s not a gift, there’s nothing to appreciate. If you want something, “actualize” it. “Manifest” it. Reality is what you choose it/will it to be. And as such, there’s very few cosmic resources to model generosity and love toward other people at the microcosmic level. There’s actually very little agapē in Thelema.
What you get instead is a lot of érōs—and not even the sexy kind. It’s eros turannos. There’s very little in Thelemic sex magick that I would characterize as sexy. It’s just another opus as Crowley called it.
Which isn’t to say that all people who call themselves Thelemites follow this way of doing things. But I think you would be hard pressed to find an alternative to what I’m talking about within Thelema. As far as I can tell, no one has done the immanent critique on this, meaning, alternatives, where they exist, are brought in from outside.