I have always had a problem coping with the last paragraph of Liber OZ, to be honest I have not been quite sure as what to do with that paragraph. Let me start by citing the five paragraphs making up the thelemiteethics:

“the law of
the strong:
this is our law
and the joy
of the world.” AL. II. 2

“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.” –AL. I. 40

“thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay.” –AL. I. 42-3

“Every man and every woman is a star.” –AL. I. 3

There is no god but man.

1. Man has the right to live by his own law–

to live in the way that he wills to do:
to work as he will:
to play as he will:
to rest as he will:
to die when and how he will.

2. Man has the right to eat what he will:

to drink what he will:
to dwell where he will:
to move as he will on the face of the earth.

3. Man has the right to think what he will:

to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
to dress as he will.

4. Man has the right to love as he will:–

“take your fill and will of love as ye will,
when, where, and with whom ye will.” –AL. I. 51

5. Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.

“the slaves shall serve.” –AL. II. 58

“Love is the law, love under will.” –AL. I. 57

Let me make it clear: Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights. This is a very fundamentalist perspective on morality: Either you are with me or you are against me – put short that is the Old Testament way with the opponent. This, however, seems to be exactly how Israel Regardie understands Crowley, as he criticizes some of the young, idealistic kids of the sixties. Crowley would not, he says somewhere, be part of a movement whose motto was Make love, not war. No, he says, Crowley would rather say: Make love and war. Would he now?

It is true that Heracleitus says that war is the Father of all, but this is not a cosmologic, but rather an ontological conception of reality, which probably is also what Regardie points at, but it is a bad reading of Crowley, as the latter, and with great emphasis, puts forth that disease is a dis-ease of the whole of man’s system. A being at war with itself is not creative or remotely capable of willing anything, nor is it balanced, it is in a state of destruction of the True Will.

Now compare

Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.

With

Men of “criminal nature” ar simply at issue with their true Wills. The murderer has the Will-to-live; and his will to murder is a false will at variance with his true Will, since he risks death at the hands of Society by obeying his criminal impulse.

In other words if we react against self-preservation we react against will-to-life and thus against the True Will. Now to kill those who would thwart the Law of Liberty is to put one at risk of being persecuted and sentenced to death or life in prison. So what does it mean this right?

Something else baffles me. The comment to the fifth paragraph is: The slaves shall serve. Now we cannot kill them, that would be an act of self-destruction, but can we enslave our opposers? Would that not be an act of equally dire consequences as we would then prevent a number of persons from doing their wills? Hence we would ourselves be guilty of thwarting the liberal rights of thelema.

A third possibility, which does lack all active reaction against persecutors and has a very Christian flare to it, is to lean back and let the so called slaves serve under their own delusions. That would not help very much preserving oneself from one’s persecutors. All readings are unsatisfied.

What does it all mean? One could try to cut the knot simply by saying to hell with Because. But honestly, that would not get us very much further, would it? One could start by asking oneself, what is actually said. There is a right put forth that one cannot conform to action. What then? The mere putting forth of the right is an epideictic act pointing towards the sublime gap showing itself in the above readings. The right is not an ideal, so that we could dream of an utopian thelemic community of free love and killing orgies, but neither is it real. The gap showing itself also puts forth the exact place in which it is possible for us to enjoy this right.

Let me exemplify. When the Slavonian contemporary philosopher Slavoj Zizek argues that a can of shit (the Merde d’artista) can only disgust and provoke us it is because that it shows that the sublimework of art is still very much alive in our consciousness. In the same way Crowley shows us by means of this right that there exists a right and wrong, the art of just living, but in the same time he pulls the carpet from under the feet of contemporary law. Contemporary law has removed man from just living, thus advocating a law of excrements, whereas the Law of Liberty is the answer to the provocation.

Reality is made up of particulars, which is unique, singular and subjective, hence it cannot be reexperienced either by me or anyone else, partly because the experience making up reality is a particular, partly because that n individuals experiencing the same thing never experience the same thing.

What happens, of course, is that similar, though not identical, Point-Events happen to many of us, and so we are able to construct a symbolic language. My memory of the mysterious Reality resembles yours sufficiently to induce us to agree that both belong to the same class. (Magick Without Tears p. 46)

Put differently, Crowley actually reasons that reality is symbolically construed so as the particular is substituted by its class, which, of course, is very Aristotelian as what is actually happening is that in defining reality we move towards the general or we conceptualize in such a way that the generic level is sustained by differences and similarities. But this also means that the symbolic order of magic is defined by its generic levels.

This, of course, is quite ordinary reasoning in philosophy if one is reckoning philosophy to be metaphysical in the pseudoreligious way we discover in Plato and Aristotle both of whom were inspired by Pythagoras. However, this can hardly be the conclusion of it all.

I mentioned both Lacan and Deleuze in an earlier post. Lacan sees the symbolic as what is constituted as reality, i.e. reality is symbolic. Crowley thinks the same as he holds that both life and language is symbolic. So far so good. The problem with the symbolic is that it is always not quite that which can get a grip of reality as reality is made up of the real of which the symbolic is the excremental communicational order. Hence the symbolic can never be anything else but reflective. In trying to communicate the Lacanian real it fails and has to find something else, what Lacan calls objet petit a. We live in a world of excrements, which curiously is what the gnostics described this world as being. So being a gnostic what should one do? What can one do? Crowley’s transgressive philosophy might very well be the answer: either that or nihilistic celibacy.

Very well the symbolic is left with the excremental real. Being impossible to communicate the Lacanian real causes the symbolic order to be a pure signifiant, i.e. a signifiant without any signifié. As it is impossible for the symbolic to signify the real and as the excremental real is but a reflection of itself it is left with being a pure signifiant – a pure abstract, a pure concept.

The idea is as follows. Reality is excremental as Reality, the crowleyan real is nothing but the symbolic order which is trying to get a grip of the Lacanian real. The symbolic, then, cannot be anything like the generic levels of Aristotle’s semantic metaphysics of definition. Being pure signifiant the symbolic cannot signify anything outside of itself, its (ever so Freudian) desire cannot be anything but excremental, always not the Lacanian real. The Crowleyan symbolic defines a knot in the underground, only as being solely abstract is it possible for the symbolic to let loose of the excremental Reality. The symbolic is the rhizomatic (cf. Deleuze) knot and only in this way is it possible as gnosis. At least that is what I think.

I have read texts by thelemites who have discussed Liber AL, but prior to this and with great piety they have also referred to the comment that was later attached to the book. One, I remember, took on himself all the perils and the risk of being “shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.” All very la-di-da. How come then that Crowley himself urge his pupils to study Liber AL? Who should we trust? The pious or the teacher himself? Enough with the ridicule and the rhetoric questions.

The comment is there for anyone to read, but why put in a comment which forbids the study of a book Crowley prompts his students to read? Because Crowley was a great humorist would probably be the easiest answer.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.
All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself.
There are no law beyond Do what thou wilt.
Love is the Law, love under will.

The priest of the princes,
ANKH-F-N-KHONSU

First of all: to study Liber AL is forbidden and furthermore it is “wise to destroy” one’s copy “after the first reading”. On the other hand people are urged to study the book in Magick Without Tears because of its qabalistic contents. The comedy of it all of course is that people are told not to study the book if they know what is good for them, and three lines below they are told, when studying the book, to “appeal to” Crowley’s writings alone and by himself.

Please do study the book. But why the drama then? Because of Because. To discuss is to put forth an argumentation which by rhetorical means primarily serve to convince someone about something, to communicate an insight. This cannot be done without applying the curse of Because to one’s means. Put differently: one cannot discuss anything without catching the dis-ease of Because. And Because is the great ruinor, it is what Nietzsche described as άνθρωποζ θεωρητικόζ, the theoretical man, and one cannot do what one will if one does not act according to that True Will. The Law does not say think what thou wilt or theorize upon what thou wilt – it says do what thou wilt. Become an agent (cf. the Latin agens) in your own life.

The moment one says because, one is either explaining or convincing. Habermas might very well think of communication as an open and free endeavour between equals, but Crowley does not seem to think so and he has the history of religion to back him up. All three religions of the book has succumbed to the will of a few great rhetoricians, all three religions has become watered out because of Because. The thought is, I think, that if one studies the book and does not discuss it, one will gradually own that book, make it one’s own.

The άνθρωποζ θεωρητικόζ is the centre of pestilence. The pious slaves of Because are the centres of pestilence. Not the sincere student who is trying to become a magician, i.e. one who by meditative and ritualistic means try to become him- or herself, i.e. act according to his or her True Will.

Last night I dreamt I was reading a book by Aleister Crowley in which a sentence stood out talking about the subjectivity of magick; this is intimately connected with the placement of the circle in thelemic ritual in which there are two agents: Had and נו (NV) – hence the headline of this article.

In the objective episteme of magic(k) the magic circle serves a protective or even better a conservative purpose against the enemy without. In this episteme one calls forth actual demonic, angelic and/or godly forms/entities and one does so that the given entity manifests itself in the triangle of art. Should it break through the boundary of the triangle of art then only the magic circle would hold the entity back from attacking the magician. This is what happened to Crowley and Neuburg when Crowley confronted Choronzon in an attempt to cross Da’ath; that story reveals the classic purpose, the conservatism of a magic circle.

However Had reveals some quite happy news as he says “I am alone: there is no God where I am.” What does this mean? That there can be no monotheism, that only polytheism is applicable? Crowley does demonize the Christian God and understandably so thinking of his adolescence in the care of an ignorant and fundamentalist mother. I think not this is it. I actually think that Had is revealing something quite different from that, which is the basis of subjectivity in magick: there are no demons, no angelic hierarchies, and no gods, there is only the geometric point and the circumference, only Had and נו, and the circumference does not set a limit or a boundary beyond which is un-knowledge, it defines all as ecstasy (cf. AL I:27). If נו truly is ecstasy and omnipresence (AL I:26) it leaves no room for intellectual and/or precautious manoeuvres concerning the proper caging of fictitious powers. Such precautions manifest a ‘because’ in ritual, an ever so little residue of preoccupation in ritual which however otherwise willed is an active opposition against נו (keep in mind AL II:27-28).

The thelemic magick circle has its own philosophy defining practice. The answer to the requirement of נו (i.e. “Be thou ever as Hadit unto me”) is: “I shall be a burning red in thy gold”, both sentences stems from a series of meditations I did a couple of years back and obviously they are derived from diverse places in Liber AL vel Legis. They talk of ecstasy and of course they do so by figuratively speaking of the intercourse between man and woman, Had and נו. Here is my claim: there is no magick beyond sexmagick whether that is autosexual or not. Not the manifesting of demonic entities, but the connection with נו is the true meaning of ritual – in other words transgression. This also means that the magick circle is meditative in nature, sexual in practice and, Lacanian speaking, real in meaning, i.e. ultimately speaking the crossing of Da’ath from the foundation of Tiphareth.

The above needs a little explication. Whereas e.g. the Buddhist Nibbana is a negative definition of enlightened freedom, i.e. free from suffering and individuation, נו being purely abstract as the circumference is beyond definition, beyond a goal let alone an aim. The ‘because’ of nibbana belittles it. To say נו is All to miss the point entirely, as all only can serve as a metaphysical generalisation connecting to and derived from finite amounts. Nor can one understand נו from a Platonic point of view, where e.g. the ideal form of the circle is what makes possible the infinite numbers of particular circles. Hence one cannot think of נו as a universal as opposed to a particular.

The beauty of נו as I see it is the abstractness of it, it being נו understood as a concept, for I think that neither נו nor Had objectively can be thought of as entities, but rather they serve as rhizomatic structures for thinking and practice. Hence נו cannot be narrowed down to a dichotomy, it is not one, i.e. anything positive, from which everything else can be deducted (cf. Kether), nor is it the negative number, which does have ontological autonomy, but nevertheless is a simple mirroring of the positive – a flat confirmation of the dichotomy. Have this in mind when rereading the aforementioned AL I:27,

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!

But the revealing is a speaking out. There is a rather subtle difference on stake here: נו is created in the speaking of (avarahadavara), but in being created it is particularised in letters and ‘it’ becomes a ’she’ and is thus fictionalised. The symbolic order of Liber AL vel Legis is not it then, but on the other hand the only way it can be revealed. In letters, then, do not speak of her “as One but as None” although she is not revealed at all in letters in spite of their communicative endeavours. It is not communicable, it is not possible to fathom it by lettering it. It is the dialectics of One and Naught. Again referring to Lacan, the real which is our actual desire, cannot speak out outside of a symbolic order, but it can be experienced through the ecstasy of e.g. orgasm.

Now, is it possible to live continuously in ecstasy? “Be thou ever as Had unto me”. I seriously doubt it. נו again and again uses the phrase always or ever unto me. It means let every action be a willed action (cf. Lon Milo DuQuette’s definition of magick), which on the other hand means that every conscious action will and is always directed towards נו, but most of the time by way of the symbolic in which the real lies dormant as objet petit a. Being conscious about that we can actually act as Had unto נו by way of the symbolic. This is the actual circumference of being. The circle is the meditative reminder of the real and in the symbolic (i.e. most of our non-ecstatic actions) of the presence of objet petit a. That is why I can talk about the thelemic circle as being a progressive circle as opposed to the conservative circle of objectivism. Hence I set forth subjective magick as meditative and objective magic as manifestational.

The role of Had I will try to put forth in a later post.