Thoughts on True Will
Hairetikos: So I’m curious to know what other Thelemites think about this. Is television antithetical to the discovery of your Will?
I don’t care, but I’m going to hijack your topic, in an attempt to get some sort of substantive technical discussion going.
The concept of will, or the “true” will, is obviously fundamental to Thelema. It should come as a bit of a surprise, therefore, to reflect that there is very little — if any — substantive discussion or analysis as to what true will actually is. The lack of such an understanding is completely fatal to any attempt to implement Thelema on any level whatsoever.
There are a variety of possible definitions which are true on their own plane.
1. The true will of an individual is defined by what he actually does. Under this definition, whatever the individual does is by definition, and by necessity, his true will. The fact that he has done something — and by implication has not done everything else — is what makes it “true”.
“If a man like Napoleon were actually appointed by destiny to control Europe, he should not be blamed for exercising his rights. To oppose him would be an error.” — Magick in Theory and Practice — Introduction
“There are much deeper considerations in which it appears that ‘Everything that is, is right’. They are set forth elsewhere; we can only summarise them here by saying that the survival of the fittest is their upshot.” — Magick in Theory and Practice, Chapter I
“‘Slay that innocent child?’ (I hear the ignorant say) ‘What a horror!’ ‘Ah!’ replies the Knower, with foresight of history, ‘but that child will become Nero. Hasten to strangle him!’ There is a third, above these, who understands that Nero was as necessary as Julius Caesar.” — Magick in Theory and Practice, Chapter XXI
The truth of this definition is practically impossible to deny. If we are to discuss “right” (as in, “thou hast no right but to do thy will”) then its only sensible meaning can be equated with “ability”. All talk of “natural rights” outside of this context is arbitrary, and contains no truth value. Thus, if one has the ability to do something, one has the right to do it. Ability is only ultimately confirmed by manifestation, and is the only reliable arbiter of “truth”.
Truth notwithstanding, the chief difficulty with this definition is that it is almost completely useless from a practical sense of determining which action to perform at any given moment. Its self-evidence can be apprehended in the “higher flights of consciousness” but in terms of guiding action it has very little value.
2. The true will of an individual is his tendency to action when free from all internal restrictions. This is the theory implied in the KCHGA, that when a man is freed from the self-imposed restrictions of his mind, he will “act naturally”. Under this definition, there is no single act or state that constitutes the true will – “acting naturally” may describe any one of a possible number of actions.
“[KCHGA is] nothing else but the integration that occurs when the conscious and subconscious are no longer separated by repression and inhibition” — Paraphrase of Frank Bennett’s report of Crowley’s words in The Confessions
“The Khu is the magical garment which it weaves for itself, a ‘form’ for its being beyond form, by use of which it can experience through self-consciousness … Our minds and bodies are veils of the Light within. The uninitiate is a ‘dark star’, and the Great Work for him is to make his veils transparent by ‘purifying’ them. This ‘purification’ is really ‘simplification’; it is not that the veil is dirty, but that the complexity of its folds make it opaque. The Great Work therefore consists principally in the solution of complexes.” — Commentaries to Liber AL
Note that this definition does, of course, imply that it is impossible for one individual to infringe on the will of another (as does the first definition). All external constraints are merely conditions of the environment — you may imprison a man, but free from internal constraints he remains perfectly free to act according to his nature in the circumstances he finds himself in — he can “act naturally” according to his circumstances within the confines of a prison cell just as much as he can outside of it. There is a Zen-like quality to this definition inasmuch as it pertains primarily to “the moment”.
3. The true will of an individual is his tendency to action when free from all internal and external restrictions. This appears to be clearly the least useful of all the definitions. Gravity, for instance, is an external restriction, as is the inability to withstand temperatures in excess of 1,000 degrees Celsius and the inability to breathe unaided underwater. Since we can never be free of all external restrictions, we can never fulfil our true will under this definition, and it is completely useless. It is extremely difficult to justify restricting “all external restrictions” to only that class of restrictions imposed by another human being or beings, since there is no rational reason for treating restrictions imposed by fellow man any differently than any other external restrictions. For this reason, I discount this definition.
4. The true will of an individual is defined in accordance with his “proper place” in his environment, considering his own nature in juxtaposition with the nature of the environment he finds himself in.
“The most common cause of failure in life is ignorance of one’s own True Will, or of the means to fulfill that Will. A man may fancy himself a painter, and waste his life trying to become one; or he may really be a painter, and yet fail to understand and to measure the difficulties peculiar to that career.” — Magick in Theory and Practice — Introduction
“A man may think it is his duty to act in a certain way, through having made a fancy picture of himself, instead of investigating his actual nature. For example, a woman may make herself miserable for life by thinking that she prefers love to social consideration, or vice versa. One woman may stay with an unsympathetic husband when she would really be happy in an attic with a lover, while another may fool herself into a romantic elopement when her only pleasures are those of presiding over fashionable functions. Again, a boy’s instinct may tell him to go to sea, while his parents insist on his becoming a doctor. In such a case he will be both unsuccessful and unhappy in medicine.” — Magick in Theory and Practice — Introduction
“Thou must (1) Find out what is thy Will. (2) Do that Will with a) one-pointedness, (b) detachment, (c) peace.” — Liber II
This is probably the most common and most simple of definitions. “It is my true will to be a pop singer”. “It is my will to take drugs — don’t oppress me!” It is also probably the most practical of all. It is also, of course, the most imprecise of all, and the most open to misunderstanding and abuse. This is the only one of our three definitions (discounting the previous one) in which it is possible to impinge on the will of another — hence it is the only definition which allows for the existence of the beginnings of morality. This is the definition from which Liber OZ etc. derives. The chief practical difficulty with this definition of “true” will is that man has no grounds to assert his “right” to such an existence (or to secure such a right, unless he has the power to do so) other than the fact this is how he wants to be able to live. Serious questions must therefore be raised over whether the use of the word “true” is warranted and/or justified in this context, although it may be proposed as an arbitrary ideal by those who value this form of liberty.
Discounting definition number 3, therefore, I see three possible sensible definitions of true will. It is no coincidence that these three definitions correspond with the three “grades” and ordeals outlined in Liber AL, and therein is the key to their reconciliation — once more, it cannot be stressed strongly enough that each of these three definitions is perfectly true upon its own plane.
4 Comments on “Thoughts on True Will”
93 Erwin,
>2. The true will of an individual is his tendency to action when free
>from all internal restrictions. This is the theory implied in the KCHGA,
>that when a man is freed from the self-imposed restrictions of his
>mind, he will “act naturally”. Under this definition, there is no single
>act or state that constitutes the true will – “acting naturally” may
>describe any one of a possible number of actions.
In this sense, the actual will of the individual can only approximate or come close to the limit of the ‘true’ will. Just as it is possible to overcome some external circumstances (i.e. opening a door) but not others (the law of gravity), I assert there are some internal circumstances that one may be overcome (the dominance of reason, the infringement of morality, etc.) and there are some internal circumstances that one may not be overcome (the structure of the psyche itself, the nature of the unconscious, etc.) These, as gravity is externally, less ‘restrictions’ than ‘conditions’ of existence. We can never get beyond the fact that all we can perceive of the unconscious is that which is reflected into the conscious part of the psyche – in this sense, we can never ever know whether we have fully eliminated ALL restrictions.
This is so simply because it is a negative defintion, i.e. the will is that which is NOT all this, and becaues there is potentially infinite and unknown areas that we cannot judge whether they are restrictive or not.
I believe it makes more sense to perceive gravity & the structure of the psyche as conditions of manifestation, as elements of the Khu that help determine the practical course of action of hte individual (as you explain in definition 4).
I also believe there should be two definitions of Will: the theoretical and the practical, the absolute & the relative. The theoretical/absolute is that “Everything is right,” confirmed by determinism and mystical trances, etc. The second definition is the practical definition. In this, I think we need to combine both definitions 2 and 4:
The true will of an individual is defined in accordance with his “proper place” in his environment, considering his own nature, free from internal restrictions (as many as possible), in juxtaposition with the nature of the environment he finds himself in.
65 & 210,
IAO131
I assert there are some internal circumstances that one may be overcome (the dominance of reason, the infringement of morality, etc.) and there are some internal circumstances that one may not be overcome (the structure of the psyche itself, the nature of the unconscious, etc.) These, as gravity is externally, less ‘restrictions’ than ‘conditions’ of existence.
I concur, this should have been spelled out more clearly. Not only that, but this must be so, or when we eliminated all the “restrictions”, there would be nothing left, i.e. no “true will”.
These things of which you speak are indeed conditions, and not restrictions.
in this sense, we can never ever know whether we have fully eliminated ALL restrictions
No, we cannot. Neither do we need to. All we need to do is to remain vigilant and to develop the ability to identify and remove restrictions, and we will become progressively more free of them. Whether or not we make it 100% of the way there is unimportant; the critical stage is when the ability to perceive the true will becomes stronger than the restrictions which remain, at which point the job becomes relatively easy.
and becaues there is potentially infinite and unknown areas that we cannot judge whether they are restrictive or not.
This actually turns out to be less of a problem than it sounds. The correct approach is to investigate the self and to identify and remove any restrictions that you find. It’s not necessary to give too much thought to all the other stuff in there, unless it starts making itself known to you.
In this, I think we need to combine both definitions 2 and 4
I don’t like this idea. If we restrict the “relative” definition to requiring than a man be in his “proper place”, then it becomes impossible for him to fulfill his will whilst, for instance, being incarcerated. Which in one sense, is true. But in another sense, is false. To make this easier to accept, we could replace “whilst being incarcerated” with “after losing all four limbs”, so as to removal the element of him being forced by other individuals.
I think the search for a single “relative” definition of true will is probably a lost cause, since there appears to be a very good reason for distinguishing between internal and external restriction.
93 Erwin,
I didnt mean that the approximation to the ideal of ‘true will’ was a problem, merely that it was just that – an approximation to an ideal, with nothing ‘positive’ about it, only defined by what it is not.
>If we restrict the “relative” definition to
>requiring than a man be in his “proper place”,
>then it becomes impossible for him to fulfill
>his will whilst, for instance, being
>incarcerated. Which in one sense, is true. But
>in another sense, is false. To make this ?
>easier to accept, we could replace “whilst
>being incarcerated” with “after losing all
>four limbs”, so as to removal the element of
>him being forced by other individuals.
How does this change ‘proper place’ at all? In a jail, one’s proper place is to sleep on the particular cell just as in life one is to sleep on a particular bed… if you want to survive, you will follow certain rules, etc. A quadripelegic (or whatever) isnt thwarted from his proper place any more than someone with their appendix taken out – it simply means they have “less” potential avenues of experience than the average person. That person will never be able to run a marathon, for example. But this is no different than being born in a different country – for in some countries, a woman may never have the chance to get higher education and become, say, a physicist, whereas in America it may be quite normal and possible. The body is just one aspect of the Khu (that is dealt with constantly).
65 & 210,
111-418
How does this change ‘proper place’ at all? In a jail, one’s proper place is to sleep on the particular cell just as in life one is to sleep on a particular bed
Well, we’re talking about two separate things here. When I employ the term “proper place” in the original essay, I am not using it in the “it is the proper place of man to eat when he is hungry” sense, but in the “my proper place is with NASA, flying space shuttles and collecting moon rocks, not frying burgers in this god-forsaken hellhole” sense. I am using it in the sense used by Crowley when he ascribed to the hero of Diary of a Drug Fiend the true will to design a new helicopter. In this sense, if he were to be incarcerated, or to have his hands tied behind his back, then he would not be able to fulfill his will. And yes, under this definition, your hypothetical uneducated woman would be prevented – either by compulsion or by circumstance – from fulfilling her will if it was for her to become a physicist.
“If you want to survive, you will follow certain rules” indeed, but this particular definition of “true will” goes beyond survival into preference. It presupposes that there is a more-or-less objective “proper thing for us to do” at any given moment if we could engineer the circumstances to enable us to do it. The fact that we may or may not actually be capable of doing it at the current moment is irrelevant under this definition.
So, “a quadriplegic isn’t thwarted from his proper place” at all, in one sense, but if he considers his proper place to be an Olympic high jump medallist, then he certainly is thwarted. You can reply with “that cannot actually be his proper place, then”, but this definition says that it can be.
So why even bother with this definition (I hear you cry) when the “internal restriction” definition of “proper place” enables him to be in his “proper place” all the time, which we may justifiably assume to be a more preferable situation. Because that’s just the way people work. It’s an undeniable fact, for instance, that I like living in the country far more than I like living in a city. I can live in the moment and make the moves that the position demands as well as anybody else, but it doesn’t change the simple fact that my self has preferences (on account of it being an individual) and that those preferences have an effect on the quality of its life.
To draw an analogy with chemistry, the potassium molecule reacts violently with water. Now, in the presence of water, it will react violently, and without the presence of water, it will not. It will, without consciousness, always make the moves its position demands. Yet, it is in its nature to react violently with water, and we can personify it and state that this is what it “wants”.
Similarly, we can suppose that each individual self is constituted to as to be able to survive in all manner of situations, but to be capable of thriving in a small subset of those. This “proper place” definition of will that I describe boils down to determining what that subset of situations is, and positioning the self within them. From the perspective of Thelemic cosmogony, we could say that the will in this sense consists of seeking out the “chances of union” most particularly suited to the nature of that individual.
Naturally, this subset can and does change over time. If an able-bodied man considers his “proper place” to be an Olympic high jump champion, and then becomes a quadriplegic, then what he needs to be doing is finding a new “proper place” for himself, preferably one that is reasonably within his abilities. The “proper place” for a self depends upon the nature of that self, and as that nature changes (which it does, constantly) then so will that “proper place”.
In short, any self will have a variety of “potential avenues of experience” available to them, but it will consider some of those avenues to be objectively better than others, and the theoretical “optimal avenue of experience” will constitute his true will here, at least as far as he understands it. In reality, it is unlikely he will be able to narrow it does to a single avenue of experience in this way.
The point is, we can talk about focusing on the now until the cows come home, but what I have described is still an important part of how the self works, and a complete set of definitions of “will” needs to take this into account. Without this “proper place” definition of will, he is unable to plan for the future; we could argue that this might be a good thing, I suppose, but it is the nature of mankind to do it.
As I said somewhere else, we can imagine:
1. The “absolute” definition of true will to relate primarily to the past – everything you have done is your true will;
2. The “internal restriction” definition of true will to relate primarily to the present – to carry out your true will right at this moment; and
3. The “external restriction” definition of true will to relate primarily to the future – to plan to bring about the most optimal set of circumstances given the nature of your self and its capabilities.
This neat arrangement is in itself enough to suggest that the threefold definition of will is the “right” one, since it manages to encompass everything between its three parts.