During a recent conversation I had with Dutch poet Martijn Benders we talked about the “path of least resistance” idea of will that I have previously discussed in The three dimensions of will and on the occasion of the Sun’s 2008 entrance into the cadent decan of Pisces. It is same idea that Aleister Crowley presented on several occasions, most notably in his new comment to AL I, 22:

We are asked to acquiesce in this Law of Nature. That is, we are not to oppose resistance to the perfect fluidity of the “Becoming” of Nature.

and in Liber Aleph:

Learn this also, that even the Will to the Great Work may be misunderstood of Men; for this Work must proceed naturally and without Overstress, as all true Works.

During that conversation, Martijn hypothetically asked how, if the path of least resistance were to be followed, would anyone undertake any works of significance, such as the production of an artistic masterpiece, since the obstacles to such an accomplishment are legion? It soon became clear that we were talking about exactly the same thing, but in different words, and it occurred to me that this idea of will as the “path of least resistance” could be misconstrued, and some clarification may be in order.

We can remark, for instance, that while I find it physically difficult to, say, walk 30 miles over the mountains, I don’t find it mentally difficult to do so, and a very simplistic view of “resistance” is therefore not appropriate.In the same way, we can observe that a river encounters some very significant resistance indeed on its downward path – i.e. from the ground – but seems to have little problem continuing its downward path nonetheless.

We may imagine that one has some kind of inner “urge” to create the kind of artistic masterpiece that Martijn was talking about. While it may seem easier to loll around the house idly and avoid putting the effort into such work, the frustration of such an urge itself encounters resistance. It is as if such an urge “wants” to “come out” but is prevented from doing so. Thus, although the need to expend significant effort to create such a masterpiece may indeed constitute “resistance”, the constant gnawing regrets, sense of lost opportunity and feelings of lack of fulfillment may constitute even greater resistance.

In other words, the inertia created by such “urges” itself encounters resistance from attempts to subdue or otherwise direct them, and that resistance may be greater than the resistance posed by the practical difficulties of fulfilling them. Thus, the “difficult path” may indeed still be the path of least resistance if even greater resistance is required, over time, to suppress the expression of those urges. The “path of least resistance” therefore does not necessarily translate to “a life of ease” if one’s nature inclines one towards difficult tasks and if the difficulty of those tasks is less of obstacle than is needed to frustrate that nature.

The idleness inherent in failing to follow such a nature can seem attractive because the difficulties inherent in accomplishing such tasks are often concentrated in a relatively short space of time, whereas the resistance arising from attempts to frustrate that nature can be less severe but continuous over a long period of time. A gnawing doubt and pang of regret is not a severe resistance on any given day, but when accumulated over a period of say, thirty years, it can amount to much greater resistance overall than the significant but concentrated effort that would have been required to accomplish – or attempt to accomplish – the task in the first place.

What really happens here is that the mind seduces one with thoughts such as “wouldn’t life be so much nicer if you didn’t have to struggle like this to achieve your goals? Why not just let it go?” The mind seduces the self into something resembling a financial loan, where a significant amount of resistance is avoided up front but it ultimately paid for, with interest, by many cumulative small amounts of resistance in the days to come. Accomplishing the task, on the other hand, might require an upfront investment of effort, but this investment frees one of having to incur the greater cost of meeting those repayments, with interest, into perpetuity.

On a practical level, then, “discovering the will” involves discerning these genuine “urges” from the false urges presented by the mind. The mind tries to tell you that life would be better if you avoided this effort, but the mind’s misrepresentation can be discovered by simply observing the ongoing commitment of resistance that remains present after the decision to refrain from action. If one acts and finds that such residual resistance is no longer present, however, then one knows one is ahead. It is equally possible, of course, that one does not really want to create a masterpiece – to continue the example – at all, and that this is merely a phantasm created by the mind. In such a case, the accomplishment – if it is even possible – will not remove this residual resistance. Thus, by observing critically the effects of one’s actions on the amount of residual resistance – or restriction – remains, one can infer something about the will. If one is on the right track, then one would expect that, over time, the overall level of resistance and restriction in one’s life would decrease, even if physical and practical difficulties in accomplishing one’s tasks remain. It is the difference between the joyous exercise of energies, and the grudging exercise of them; even if the actual exercise of those energies does not seem particularly pleasant at the time, the satisfaction – or lack of it – which comes from completion will reveal the difference.

The Thelemic concept of “will” as presented by Aleister Crowley really is as simple as this. Occultists delight in making the subject more complex, with talk about “cosmic plans”, or “subtle occult forces”, or the “magickal will”, or whatever else, but it really is neither a complex nor a confusing concept. The critical component, as always, is the lack of anything other than the nature of the individual which is held to be an appropriate guide to action. The “resistance” or “restriction” described above always arises as a result of following the suggestions of the mind that an alternative guide to action would be more appropriate, whether this proposed guide is a belief in morality, or a false claim of the attraction of physical ease, or whatever else. The Thelemic concept of will always comes down to following the inclinations of one’s own nature instead of some arbitrary alternative standard, and the “restriction” referenced in AL I, 41 is the resistance the nature encounters when being coerced into some different direction that the one it is inclined towards.

With respect to this, Crowley made a comment in one of the letters in Magick Without Tears that “about 90 percent of Thelema, at a guess, is nothing but self-discipline.” Many self-professed Thelemites take this as an injunction to “do the work”, to engage in endless hours sitting in their asanas or bellowing Goetic charges to the spirit, but as usual when people misinterpret Crowley, this unthinking misconception arises from a failure to read what Crowley says both before and after the quotation in question (as well as tending to reduce Thelema to easy and egalitarian nonsense, by proclaiming that anybody can succeed if they only follow a few simple steps that an idiot could manage). Let’s look at what Crowley said immediately after this quote:

Concentrate on “Thou hast no right but to do why will.” The point is that any possible act is to be performed if it is a necessary factor in that Equation of your Will. Any act that is not such a factor, however harmless, noble, virtuous or what not, is at best a waste of energy. But there are no artificial barriers on any type of act in general. The standard of conduct has one single touchstone. There may be – there will be – every kind of difficulty in determining whether, by this standard, any given act is “right” or “wrong”; but there should be no confusion. No act is righteous in itself, but only in reference to the True Will of the person who proposes to perform it. This is the Doctrine of Relativity applied to the moral sphere.

In Thelema, libertarianism and politics we drew a sharp distinction between Thelema and libertarianism by remarking that the latter allows one to perform acts which are not in accordance with will if one so chooses, whereas the former does not (as well as the fact that libertarianism would prohibit willed action which impinges on the freedom of another, whereas Thelema would require the performance of such an action). The “self-discipline” of which Crowley speaks is nothing whatsoever to do with a commitment to following a given “magical” or “mystical” system, but merely the self-discipline to avoid performing those acts which are not in accordance with will, no matter how alluring a picture of them the mind might present: “Any act that is not such a factor, however harmless, noble, virtuous or what not, is at best a waste of energy.” Because there are a vastly greater quantity of potential actions which are not in accordance with will than those which are, “90 percent of Thelema, at a guess” consists not in performing those willed actions, but in not performing those unwilled actions. Self-discipline is indeed required because, for many of those unwilled actions, the mind paints a very attractive but ultimately illusory pictures of how nice those actions would be to perform. The discipline comes from the confidence gained from knowing that the mind is only presenting illusions, from knowing that following one’s own natural inclinations, while not necessarily easier in the short-term, will nevertheless be the best in the long term, and sticking to them.