ON THE MEANING OF "WILL" AND THE "LAW"
AND THE CONTROVERSIAL "IS" WITH WHICH I CONNECT THEM

by Llee Heflin/777

     Before getting into the discussion of the nature of "Will", the "Law"
and the controversial "IS" with which I connect them, I want to discuss
briefly the problem of "Proof".  Is it possible to ‘prove’ the truth or falsity of
a hypothesis/theory such as I will put forward here?  My studies of symbolic
logic and the epistemology of the scientific process have made it quite clear
that the concept of absolute proof, while very tantalizing, is in fact
unattainable.  The honest scientist and philosopher will acknowledge that this
is indeed the case.  My teacher/trainer put it thus: "That I am is all I know
[with absolute certainty].  Everything else is an inference."
     How then is one to approach such an existential dilemma?  Are whim
and caprice all there is to go on?  I suggest that the answer is ‘no’.  There is
an alternative, but one must be careful not to ask of it more than it can in fact
produce.  I cannot ‘prove’ in any absolute sense that what I have to say in this
essay (or in any other posted on this site) is "true".  On the other hand I can
demonstrate that what I have to say is a ‘valid theory’ and as such that it
meets all of the criteria by means of which scientific theories are validated:
(a) it is self consistent and free of internal conflict; (b) it fully describes the
phenomena for which it is given as a theoretical description in a consistent
manner, free of ad hoc ‘plug ins’ which are not an integral aspect of the
theory; (c) it satisfies the ‘test’ of  "Ockham’s razor" in that it is simple and
straight forward without unnecessary complexity; (d) it can be used as an
‘explanatory tool’ to resolve other relevant issues.  (This is not an exhaustive
list, but the reader should get the picture).  And my proposals meet yet
another critical test as well, one which many readers in the present context
might find the most significant of all: it is consistent with Liber AL.  Keeping
this caveat in mind, I now invite you to consider what I have to say on the
nature of "Will", the "Law", and "IS".

     In various places in Liber AL it says: "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be
the Whole of the Law", "Thou hast no right but to do thy Will", "The Law is
for all", and "There is no Law beyond Do What Thou Wilt".  Within the
Crowleyan magickal tradition this Law of "Do What Thou Wilt" is
considered to be the supreme law of Being within the so-called new Aeon of
Horus and was supposedly instituted with the giving of Liber AL to Crowley
in 1904.  I shall endeavor to show here that this law is in fact much more than
that, that it has the status of a so-called ‘natural’ law, e. g. like the laws of
thermodynamics, that it is and has always been the ‘lawful state’ of Absolute
Consciousness.
 What exactly is "Will"?  Is there a natural phenomenon for which this
term can be used as a name?  The OED gives the following definitions for
the word ‘will’:

 -desire, wish, longing
 -an inclination to do something
 -the action of willing or choosing to do something
 -the movement or attitude of the mind which is directed with conscious
 intention to some action
 -intention, intent, purpose, determination
 -the power or capacity of willing
    While all of this speaks about the nature of Will, I suggest that the actual
phenomenon of Will is only alluded to here.  The Actual phenomenon of Will
is that which desires, wishes, longs for; is that which has an inclination to do
something; is that which has intention, purpose, determination; that which has
the power or capacity of willing.  In other words, "Will" is synonymous with
Consciousness its Self.  To Will, to intend, to be purposeful, to desire, etc. is
fundamental to the nature of Consciousness.  ‘To Will’ is Consciousness in
action.  And since Consciousness is Being, then "Will" and Being are
synonymous.    I am that which desires, wishes, longs for.  I am that which
has an inclination to do something.  I am that which has intention, purpose,
determination,  I am the power or capacity of willing.  In other words, I and
my "Will" are one. I am "Will".
     In other papers (see Democritus Revisited, A NeoCartisian Approach
To the Mind/Brain Problem, The Medium Is Not The Message) I have made
the case that Consciousness is absolute.  Which is to say that it is, along with
Energy, one of the two fundamental constituents of universal reality.  Any
conscious entity/being is a ‘piece’ of Absolute Consciousness.  All pieces of
Absolute Consciousness are ‘equal’ in the sense that they are all equally
pieces of  Absolute Consciousness.  No piece is more absolute or
fundamental than any other piece.  Therefore no piece is ‘superior’ to any
other piece.  No piece is an ‘authority’ over any other piece.  Each piece is an
absolute authority unto its Self with regards to all things pertinent to its Self.
("None above you, none below you.")  Thus "Do what thou wilt" is the
natural condition or state, the fundamental condition or state, the absolute
condition or state of such an entity/being.  Thus "Do what thou wilt" is in
effect the natural ‘law’ for such an entity.  And since all so-called natural
‘laws’ are inviolable, a piece of absolute Consciousness is, by its very nature,
unable to transgress against the law of Do What Thou Wilt.  A piece of
absolute Consciousness cannot help but to do what it will do.
     At the website of the O. T. O. U. S. Grand Lodge one finds, behind a
link labeled "THELEMA", a tract called "And Introduction to Thelema".  In it
you will find the following:

According to Thelemic doctrine, the expression of Divine Law in the Aeon of Horus is "Do what thou wilt". This "Law of Thelema", as it is called, is not to be interpreted as a license to indulge every passing whim, but rather as the divine mandate to discover one's True Will or true purpose in life, and to accomplish it; leaving others to do the same in their own unique ways.
     I'm not sure what the author of this treatise means here by "Divine
Law" but in ordinary parlance the term ‘divine’ usually refers to some ‘higher
authority’ like ‘god’.  I would argue that for a piece of Absolute
Consciousness there is no such higher authority like god who is in a position
to issue a ‘divine law’ to which a piece of Absolute Consciousness would feel
obliged to submit. ("There is no god where I AM")
     I suggest that Liber AL did not announce a new ‘law’, rather that it
revealed into exoteric awareness the natural state of each and every piece of
Absolute Consciousness as it actually has been since before time began.  And
will be even when time has come to an end.  Thus the statements in Liber AL
referring to this ‘Law’ are descriptive rather than prescriptive.  If what has
just been said is indeed the case, then there would also be no ‘higher
authority’ to issue a "mandate" to which any piece of Absolute
Consciousness would feel obliged to submit.  According to the theory I am
presenting here, a piece of Absolute Consciousness is under no obligation but
to Do What it Will.  And then only because that is fundamental to its nature.
It cannot transgress against its own nature.  Any ‘doing’ whatsoever is an act
of Will.
    The proposals quoted above from the O. T. O. tract are not themselves
to be found in Liber AL.  Liber AL simply says, "There is no law beyond do
what thou wilt."  Liber AL also says that "the word for sin is restriction".  I
suggest that the Will of a piece of Absolute Consciousness is without
restriction.  The law of Do What thou Wilt is without qualification.  Whatever
is possible is permitted.  There are no restrictions.  Nothing is forbidden.  The
only criterion against which a piece of Absolute Consciousness must judge its
Will is, is this what I Will?  A piece of Absolute Consciousness is under no
obligation to any ‘ethic’ or ‘morality’.  It is free, absolutely, to be and do as it
will.  Without restraint or restriction.
    The French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre came to this ‘terrible’ realization.
 This is the essence of his version of ‘Existentialism’.  But he was unable
to sustain this awe-full ‘truth’ and in the face of it tried to extract from it
an ‘ethic’ which was to reduce his whole philosophical edifice to absurdity.
A piece of Absolute Consciousness is under no obligation to submit to
any ‘ethical’ or ‘moral’ code save that which it may set for its Self.
A piece of Absolute Consciousness is under no obligation to set for
its Self any code of ethics or morality.
For a piece of Absolute Consciousness there is no law beyond Do What Thou Wilt.
     "This ‘Law of Thelema’, as it is called, is not to be interpreted as a
license to indulge every passing whim, but rather as the divine mandate to
discover one's True Will or true purpose in life, and to accomplish it..."  As
far as I can see, "DO WHAT THOU WILT" goes unqualified in Liber AL.
No where have I found it to say, ‘DO WHAT THOU WILT BUT NOT...’
For a piece of Absolute Consciousness will is WILL.  Whatever it wills to do
is an expression of  its WILL, whether it is to go to the movies or build houses
for the homeless.  The above quote seems to suggest that ‘True Will’ is some
kind of  preordained ‘plan’ that is out there just waiting to be discovered and
that the ‘Great Work’ is to discover one's "purpose in life".  I would counter
that for a piece of Absolute Consciousness neither ‘life’, ‘existence’, or
‘being’ itself has a ‘purpose’ in any absolute fundamental sense.  Its existence
is without justification or necessity.  It simply is what it is and as such is free
to do what it wills to do.  The only restriction imposed on it is that it cannot
do what it cannot do.  Otherwise whatever is possible is permitted.
    One might counter that, even if it were the case that the individual piece of Absolute Consciousness has no 'purpose' in being, surely Absolute Consciousness as a whole has a 'purpose' for being.  And even more surely, the 'Universe' certainly must have a 'purpose' for being.  I can find no good reason for accepting either possibility.  If there were 'purpose' to existence, to being, either on the part of the individual, Consciousness as a whole, or the Universe, then I can see no clear compelling reason for not assuming that we would simply 'know' what it is.  The notion that there is a 'purpose' to existence, to being, but that it is 'hidden', something which we must diligently seek after, is, to me, absolutely ludicrous.  And if there were some 'purpose' to the existence of the Universe, then it would seem to me that Consciousness both individually and as a whole would be bound to serve that purpose.  And that would prove the so-called 'law' of DO WHAT THOU WILT invalid.  We would not be free to do what we will.  We would instead be 'slaves' to the 'purpose' of the Universe.
    To suggest that ‘True Will’ is a "purpose in life" is to trivialize it and
to trivialize the Law of Do What Thou Wilt, to reduce this law to the trivial
level of the so-called ‘ten commandments’.  If the notion of ‘discovering the
nature of one's true will’ is to have any validity, it almost certainly must refer
to the quest to discover the nature of TRUE SELF.  In other words to
discover the nature of my true Will is to discover the nature of my TRUE
SELF.  And that quest is the quest of CROSSING THE ABYSS.  (But here is
neither the time nor place to speak of that.)
     From a purely logical point of view, that the giver of The Book of The
Law made its first pronouncement about the Law in the future tense in no way
precludes the substance of that Law from having been in effect in the past.
As I suggested earlier, in this particular respect a new law was not being
enacted, rather what had been the law (an un-known law as it were) was
revealed to be the law that it was/is.  The previously un-known was made
known thru revelation.  If this were not the case then prior to 1904 there
could have been no such relation of Consciousness to its activities which we
refer to as ‘Will’.  Prior to 1904 Consciousness was not required to do what it
Will.  Then suddenly in April of 1904 Consciousness was required to do what
it will.  Were we not capable of doing our will prior to 1904?  And if such a
‘new law’ was declared in 1904 who or what declared it?  Who or what
‘authority’ has the power or right to declare any so-called ‘law’ to which
Absolute Consciousness would feel obliged to submit?  That way of
construing Liber AL is, to me, absurd.
     If Liber AL is to make sense at all, it has to be taken as a ‘revelation’
of previously un-known, un-seen, hidden ‘knowledge’ about the way things
are.  By and large Liber AL is not a ‘prophetic’ utterance.  It does not
prophesy about the ‘future’.  Therefore I suggest that "Do what thou wilt
shall be the whole of the law" need not be interpreted as a declaration about
the future.  Actually the word ‘shall’ is used interchangeably with the word
‘will’ as ‘tense’ or ‘time’ indicators with verbs.  We say "I will do it"  and "I
shall do it" interchangeably.  And we also quite frequently and commonly say
"I will/shall do it now".  I suggest that "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole
of the law" was intended to express the idea that henceforth, from this
moment forward, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.  To
support such an interpretation I have only to go to the final expression of the
Law in Liber Al "There is no law beyond do what thou wilt."  The giver of
Liber AL could have as easily said ‘There shall be no law beyond do what
thou wilt’ but didn't.
 Now I want to make the point as clearly and emphatically as possible
that when I declare "Do What Thou Wilt IS the Whole of the Law" I am not
deliberately misquoting Liber AL.  I am not ‘changing’ the text of Liber AL.
This is my own declaration based on my own experience.  What I have done,
and I freely admit this and feel perfectly justified in doing it, is interpret Liber
AL in light of my experience.  I certainly do intend that my declaration should
be taken as a reference to the similar declaration in Liber AL.  I do declare
that, not only is this ‘law’ in effect now, but that it has always been in effect.
If one is going to take the ‘shall be’ verb to be a reference to the ‘future’,
then I am saying that the future has arrived here now.  There is no future
like the present.
    When I have greeted people with "Do What Thou Wilt IS the Whole
of the Law" they have responded by saying that since they don't know what their True Will is how can they do it now.  And then they have blithely gone off to do whatever they wanted to do.  It strikes me that keeping the time for ‘doing thy Will’ always projected into some vague future tense, allows the
declarer (at least in his or her mind) to avoid the awe-some, awe-full
responsibility of being responsible for every thought and action she or he
commits.  It also allows them to avoid even the vaguest thought about the
awe-some, awe-full quest for True Self, the quest of Crossing the Abyss.