One of the implications of Crowley’s commitment to holistic monism is a two aspects view on reality.
Again, holistic monism is the view that (a) empirical items must be such that all their properties are determinable only within the context of a totality composed of other items and their properties (i.e., you can never unequivocally say S is P, since anything is what it is relative to the context it exists in); and (b) the first principle of the totality is immanent within the totality as its principle of unity. For Crowley this principle is the Qabalistic Zero, and there is no real distinction between it and the totality it grounds.
And yet there is the distinction in Crowley’s spirituality between what is below the Abyss and what is above the Abyss. If there is no real distinction to be made between these two realms—if in other words we’re not dealing with two worlds—then what sort of distinction is to be made between them?
There is some evidence Crowley viewed this distinction as a distinction of perception on one and the same reality. There is an empirical, unenlightened, naive realist view, and there is an enlightened, transcendental view. I believe the two aspects or two perspectives interpretation helps make sense of passages like the following from Liber Aleph.
Moreover, say not thou in thy Syllogism that, since every Change soever, be it the Creation of a Symphony, or a Poem, or the Putrefaction of a Carcass, is an Act of Love, and since we are to make no Difference between any Thing and any other Thing, therefore all Changes are equal in Respect of our Praise. For though this be a right Conclusion in the term of thy comprehension as a Master of the Temple, yet it is false in the Eyes of him that hath not attained this Understanding. So therefore any Change (or Phenomenon) appeareth noble or base to the imperfect Mind, according to its Consonance and Harmony with the Will that governeth the Mind. Thus if it be thy will to delight in Rhythm and Economy of words, the advertisement of a Commodity may offend thee; but if thou art in need of that Merchandise, thou wilt rejoice therein. Praise then or blame aught, as seemeth good unto thee; but with this Reflexion, that thy Judgment is relative to thine own Condition, and not absolute. This also is a Point of Tolerance, whereby thy shalt avoid indeed those Things that are hateful or noxious to thee, unless thou canst (in Our Mode) win them by Love, by withdrawing thine Attention from them; but thou shalt not destroy them, for that they are without Doubt the Desire of another.
Liber Aleph, DE MYSTERIO MALI (emphasis mine)
I think what Crowley is getting at in this passage is that it is possible to view one and the same phenomenon from two different perspectives. On the one hand, we can view it from the every day perspective. This is a normal, realist perspective from which objects and their values are mind independent. From this perspective both objects and their moral or aesthetic worth appear as mere givens. The world from this perspective is ultimately illusory, since every being is in fact determined by every other being which it is not.
On the other hand, it is possible to view the same objects from the perspective of their ultimate grounding in the Qabalistic Zero. From this perspective—the perspective of NEMO or the Master of the Temple—objects and their properties (including whatever value or worth they may have) are not mere givens. They are necessary expressions of an underlying, absolute unity. As such, every occurrence is as necessary and as valuable to the self-production of the whole as any other.
The purpose of Thelemic soteriology (path of liberation) is to achieve the transcendental perspective of reality. It’s not to escape this universe into another one on the other side of the Abyss. Such an escape is impossible, since reality is ultimately One. Rather it is to “invert” one’s perspective on the one, shared reality. This “animadversion” does not negate suffering, impermanence, and non-substantiality. Rather, it transforms one’s perspective on those qualities so that they are clearly seen as expressions of (and identical with) bliss, stability, and self.