[Part I: Thelemic Philosophy | Part II: Systematic Theology]

Part III: Thelemic Psychology

Prologue: Theoretical Orientation
Chapter 1: Alethiological (Cartography) Model
Chapter 2: Spectrums of Consciousness
Chapter 3: Methodologies of Therapy

Premises of a Thelemic Theoretical Orientation

Where do we start?

First, let’s start with the premise that Thelema and mental health are compatible and that mental health hygiene is important. If we go back to the Thelemic Cartography model, mental health falls under our upper left (subjective) or psychological quadrant. This is the quadrant of our mental states, emotional states, our perceptions. So long as we are incarnated and have a functioning Khu, our mental health is also “in play” as a part of this whole life experience just as much as our physical health.

Liber Librae offers some advice: “Worship, and neglect not, the physical body which is thy temporary connection with the outer and material world.”^[1] If we are advised not to neglect the physical body, then we can extrapolate that our mental body (the mind) is likewise to not be neglected. In fact, that text goes on to say, “Therefore let thy mental Equilibrium be above disturbance by material events; strengthen and control the animal passions, discipline the emotions and the reason, nourish the Higher Aspirations.”^[2] I think the rest speaks for itself in support of that same conclusion.^[3]

Next, I think it is important to premise that the goal of a Thelemic therapeutic orientation is not religious indoctrination but an approach to mental health that provides a solid foundation for successful cognitive and emotional hygiene. Therapy can be used in service of the Great Work, but therapy is not a replacement for the Great Work.^[4]

Finally, when I consider the ideas that might begin to formulate a theoretical orientation for a potential therapeutic approach, and when informed by my own understanding of Thelema, I find the following assumptions could be made:

1. Individuals are neither inherently broken nor inherently lack wellness; and

• The keyword here is inherently.

  • As psychoanalysis (Freud and the behaviorist schools) gave way to humanistic psychology, there was a shift from an inner sense of pathology and unconscious negativity to a sense of goal-oriented direction, self-actualization (Maslow), and holistic wellness. We have a decent foundation here, but it’s not quite a Thelemic view of the individual since it still assumes a sense of inherent brokenness (influenced by Abrahamic religious ideologies) under everything that needs to achieve actualization to be whole.

• We have to be careful here, though, because some could interpret this as a “nothing is actually wrong in your life; you’re just not leaning into your perfection” kind of spiritual and/or psychological bypassing. We absolutely want to refrain from doing that. Real people have real problems, no matter how essentially (or inherently) unbroken or perfect we may be.

2. Individuals cannot be separated from their environment, experiences, or expressions, but must be engaged in each of these areas intimately through love under will; and

• Existentially, we all have problems out here in the real world. Remember that Crowley tells us that we are here because we “suppose that the Perfect enjoys [the] experience of (apparent) Imperfection”^[5] Just because it is the “(apparent) Imperfection” is no reason to assume that it doesn’t have very real repercussions for us out here in the existential world.

• To this end, we are connected to our:

  • Environment: Each of us exists within a specific environment (or subset of several environments [ecosystem]—home, school, work, social circle, etc.). We are not separate from our environment but a vital part of it. We take shape from it as much as we actively shape it by participating in it.

  • Experiences: Our experiences are unique to us. No one else can have them. No one else can share them. Even when we “do the same things” as others, our experiences of those things are different from others. We cannot be separated from those unique experiences.

  • Expressions: In this case, I mean our presentation to the world around us, the literal expression of ourselves. The specific configuration of the four dimensions of our Khu makes each of us unique. Again, in an existential manner, we are connected to these dimensions in a way that cannot be separated from the “who we are” part of life.

• For the sake of our mental health, I believe that all three of these aspects must be considered. While this may seem obvious, you’d be surprised how many therapists I’ve seen leave out (or dismiss some aspect of) one or more of these when talking to their “clients.”

• When I say individuals must be engaged “intimately through love under will,” I mean in the sense of union (love) in relation to the individual (will) and their own complexes within each of the experiential domains. A therapist can assist in leading them through whatever appropriate techniques, but ultimately, the work is up to each individual to engage those experiences and complexes themselves.

3. Individuals are not static creatures but dynamic within objective, subjective, intersubjective, and interobjective dimensions of individual and collective perspectives; and

• Thelema does not posit static “creatures made by God” and placed on earth to just live and die. The Book of the Law says that “every man and every woman is a star” [AL 1.3] therefore, each of us has a dynamic orbit.

  • Along with this goes the whole construction of a Star (see Thelemic Cartography), including conceptions of the Self.

• We all exist within the four experiential domains, both individually (behaviorally and psychologically) and collectively (culturally and systemically).

4. Each therapeutic concern of the individual must be addressed in some manner across all four dimensions of the individual, even if one or more dimensions are predominant over others.

• When talking about mental health, so many practitioners leave out some important pieces of the puzzle when talking to a patient. We aren’t supposed to, mind you. But it happens more often than you might think. Food insecurity, poverty, and domestic violence are issues that can mimic mental health diagnoses that aren’t necessarily easy to solve but also aren’t mental health diagnoses! But it is also usually within our ability to help provide assistance for those issues. And we should.

Certainly, these are merely some initial thoughts, but I think they represent the start of a productive direction.

Thelemic Psychology: A Possible Theoretical Orientation

In putting this all together into a coherent Thelemic theoretical orientation, it might read something like this:

1. The human experience can be explicated simply as Perfection-experiencing-Imperfection for the purpose of accumulating change.

This provides us with the basis of pathology without demeaning ourselves in the process. Imperfection is life being experienced. The experience of joy is as imperfect and bodily as the experience of grief, yet both are necessary for life fulfillment. There is no difference save in degree and the experience we accept of each as necessary at that moment. I also have to be careful to note that this principle is not a moral value statement. Grief still sucks. New Relationship Energy is still elating.

This is one of the single most important keys of a Thelemic therapeutic approach. And, I think, it’s one of the most dangerous for someone who isn’t properly prepared to utilize it in an appropriately therapeutic and theologically accurate manner.

As mentioned previously, we have to be careful of spiritual and psychological bypassing. It is very easy to turn this into either (a) a sense of fatalism where nothing matters, so why bother, or (b) toxic positivity where we avoid or minimize negativity to avoid processing difficult situations and/or emotions.

2. There is only a single essential (authentic) self^[6] with a multiplicity of existential masks/garments or subpersonalities. There is no "higher" or "lower" Self/self dichotomy.

Both Assagioli’s Psychosynthesis and Schwartz’s Internal Family Systems explain the concept of subpersonalities. This concept assumes that every individual contains a diverse set of internal parts that embody distinct elements of personality, feelings, roles, and perceptions. I’ll approach this concept in a different essay. It’s far too complex for an introductory piece like this.

I continue to stand on the premise of there being no higher or lower Self/self dichotomy. Crowley also said as much, going so far as to call it one of only three “heresies” that I can find in all his writings.

3. Each individual and each experience of the individual is an existential composite of the four experiential domains—objective, subjective, interobjective, and intersubjective.

4. There are interior and exterior modes of individual and collective expression for the sole purpose of aggregating experience.

These two points go together, even if they are separate statements.

This provides our operational parameters (3) and objectives (4). From a therapeutic position, the domains can only be separated and examined categorically but not experientially. We exist within all four domains simultaneously.

Likewise, we are neither islands unto ourselves nor herds of mindless sheep.

5. Underlying these four domains is a sense of self-awareness and a sense of direction (True Will) that can be discovered and assimilated to best express our purpose (why) in life.

We cannot approach the individual in any therapeutic manner through a single lens. We must explore all aspects of the individual and the situation in which the individual finds themselves. All encounters of the Khu with external or internal stimuli are a matter of relationship. This is, in part, because our identity, our is/this-ness, is not formed through any kind of material or mystical substance but through relationships, or what we might call movement-in-relation, to other situations/circumstances, including other individuals. All of our complexes and experiences are best examined via those relationships. The Cartography model offers a map for this journey of discovery.

Defining Alethiology

Can we then come up with a brief description of what a Thelemic therapeutic orientation might look like? My personal term for this approach is alethiology, the study of [personal] truth.

• A form of psychotherapy focusing on the personal archeology of lived meaning and purpose via integral, dynamic relationships across four experiential domains.

While alethiology could be used in a more traditional therapeutic manner to help identify and change troubling thoughts, emotions, and behaviors, it is a more holistic approach to life exploration, adjustment, and balance than typical psychotherapy. Future essays will examine practical modalities and exercises utilizing aleithology that would not at all be surprising to the average occultist.

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.

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.