Part I: Thelemic Philosophy

Prologue: Foundations
Chapter 1: Epistemology
Chapter 2: Metaphysics
Chapter 3: Ethics
Chapter 4: Politics

Politics

Blindness is rarely a matter of lack of eyesight. Revolutionaries are blinded by their ideals. Radicals are blinded by their slogans. Rulers are blinded by their egos.

Introduction

[The Book of the Law] may therefore be regarded as indicating a complete revolution in human affairs, for it advances mankind in the most radical manner. (Crowley, NC on AL 1.4)

It boggles me that so many want to talk about Crowley’s politics. I want to know about Thelemic politics. Where Crowley is helpful, let him help. Where he is a prig, well, let’s leave him to it.

Keeping in mind that the foundation of any Thelemic discussion on the sciences should be the Law of Thelema revolutionizes "philosophy, religion, ethics [and] the whole nature of Man",[1] where do we begin.

The first question of politics is: in what do you ground your politics; that is to say, on what foundation do you base your political commentary, your political views, your political decisions?

What is politics? Maybe it helps to define that first.

Politics is the collective decision-making process of two or more individuals joined together within a particular social construct (i.e., a nation, state, society, organization, tribe, family, etc). Politics comes to us, ultimately, from a conjoining of words that translates loosely to 'city of citizens.' In other words, politics is the function of a group of individuals within defined borders. It doesn’t matter if your borders are between two sovereign nations of millions of people or the fence between you and your neighbor. The decision making process that goes on to elucidate the terms of engagement over those borders and fences is politics.

In short, ethics is about the value structure underlying individual choices and personal accountability. Politics is about boundaries and social responsibility. Politics is both the lowest common denominator between two or more sets of ethics and the equilibrium between conflicting ethics.

Institutionalizing this engagement over borders—among other issues, of course—on a large scale is the foundation of government.

With this we have some basic working definitions.

I think it’s fair to say that most people will tell you that Thelemic politics starts with "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." I mean, in the end, isn’t that the response that most give as the foundation to every question asked about Thelema?

But I want to show two things here:

The Foundation

Politics does not exist in a vacuum of human interaction. I used to discuss politics in conjunction with ethics, but we’ve already covered ethics in previous chapters. Ethics, that which defines individual behavior, is very individual. However, unlike some approaches, for me, ethics is not about 'if a man cuts down a forest and no one is around to witness it, is it still deforestation,' but more along the lines of 'if the last man on earth sets out on a mission of deforestation, is it still a violation, an abuse, of the natural qualities of that forest' (Cf. "Duty").

But ethics is still further defined by our epistemology. The manner in which we define information gathering, the acquiring and validation of information—the ability to discover truth, if you will—is the foundation of our ethics. Why? In short, if one cannot know anything at all, then how do you understand or even define ethics in the first place? Even further, though, our epistemology is defined by our metaphysics.

So where does this leave us today with Thelemic politics.

The question: what is the foundation of Thelemic metaphysics and why is it important to politics?

Every man and every woman is a star.

That’s it. While it is not the core of Thelemic metaphysics—it is a bit more complicated than that in the end—it is the expression of metaphysics that most directly impacts our study of politics and is intelligible to the "common man," so to speak.

Why is that?

Well, what are the basics of Street Theology?

Street Theology (Abbreviated)

Metaphysics leads to epistemology, epistemology leads to ethics, Ethics leads to politics (and aesthetics).[2]

You will find that each of the particular frameworks associated with these philosophical categories builds on the previous in a logical manner:

individual authenticity leads to self-discovery; self-discovery leads to personal accountability; Personal accountability leads to social responsibility.

Here we find our political philosophy succinctly defined as social responsibility.

Political Philosophy

Politics is grounded in ethics, in personal accountability, raised to the level of social responsibility—whether that is between two individuals or two million individuals—to any given situation brought up by today’s political drama lamas. Anything at all. Gun control. Police brutality. Nationalism. Racism. Corporate rights. War. Death penalty. Borders. Immigration. Minimum wage. Banking. Deforestation. Gender identity. Gender disparity in just about every aspect of society.

The first hard reality about politics with which we need to grasp is this: laws to not determine behavior. While behavior does not determine law either, it is only a fool that believes a law will suddenly create a society in which all actions contrary to that law will cease. The strawmen of the Right over gun control ("Well, Chicago …" or "So much for Australia ") are perfect examples of this type of vacuous argument.

However, this is not an argument against laws. It’s a reality check that laws serve a purpose that is not always about the elimination of a behavior but the reduction of and consequences for a [socially maladaptive] behavior.

When you apply the principles of philosophy across the board, you don’t find any kind of weird hard Right or hard Left principles that you can tack down. Thelemic society, and by extension Thelemic politics, is not a libertarian free-for-all. Such idealism gives way to a whole lot of posturing about individual liberty, isolationism, and jingoism about states and force. Not that such idealism is entirely inaccurate; but it is the manner in which it is approached that makes the difference between someone that looks at Liber Oz and shouts, "Ooooo. Freedom! Rights! Me! Me! Me!" and someone that looks at "Duty" and contemplates, "How shall I then live?"

Social Vectors (Core Points) of Engagement

For Freedom is not found in looseness and lack of governance, but in the right ruling of each individual of the common weal so as to assure his own well-being no less than that of the whole.[3]

There are seven Core Points of society that have to be addressed in order for "a complete revolution in human affairs" to be accomplished through the application of the Law of Thelema. This does not have to be in some kind of overt domination or some kind of theocratic regime. It would, however, be a coup d’état of epic proportions should the values of Thelema become the underlying values of an entire social system much less all of civilization itself.

Attribution

No part of this publication may be used or redistributed for any purpose without the express prior written consent of the author.

Canons of Thelemic Philosophy & Religion © 1996-2024 by Qui Vident.

QuiVidentLogo2.png|300

Comments

If you wish to comment about the materials here, feedback is welcome. Feel free to email questions, comments, and concerns regarding the Canons to curate@quivident.co.

  1. Crowley, A., Desti, M., & Waddell, L. (1997). Magick: Liber Aba. Weiser Books. p. 429. ↩︎

  2. Also, this particular breakdown is borrowed from Yoda out of one of the Star Wars movies, but the basis in actually found in an anecdote by Ayn Rand who was "explaining her philosophy while standing on one foot." I find it to be useful when explaining philosophy to non-academics. ↩︎

  3. Crowley, A. (1997). The heart of the master & other papers. Tempe, AZ: New Falcon Publications. ↩︎