In chapter 43 of Magick Without Tears, Aleister Crowley dealt with the question of what order of existence “angels” belong to, and particularly “whether they are liable to accident, misfortune and the like.” This chapter has caused some of the most mischief in terms of encouraging fanciful and supernatural interpretations of Crowley’s work than almost any other.

As soon as we reach the second paragraph of that letter we are instantly hit with a problem we have discussed several times on this site, that of the distinction between “subjective” and “objective”. This distinction can have many shades of meaning, and it is important when dealing with this subject not to confuse those shades; in other words, not to take a statement couched in those terms in the context of one shade of meaning, and then inappropriately extend it to falsely cover others.

Crowley says that:

for the purposes of this letter I propose to use the word “angel” to include all sorts of disembodied beings, from demons to gods—in all cases, they are objective; a subjective “angel” is different from a dream only in non-essentials.

Let us first not get too caught up in the term “disembodied”, particularly let us not make the mistake of thinking that this necessarily entails the existence of actual living beings without bodies in the sense that Christians believe their god to exist, for instance. For illustration, let us take the example of Zeus. Zeus fits the description “disembodied being” – in the first place, he is known to be the King of the Gods in Greek mythology, who rules the sky, consorted with Hera, had at least two elder brothers, fathered children, and performed all manner of other individual acts consistent with, well, being a “being”. In the second place, he is clearly “disembodied”, if for no other reason that the obvious fact that he doesn’t actually exist in a physical sense.

So what means “objective” in this sense? Simply that anybody so inclined can independently discover any number of qualities, characteristics and stories about Zeus by simply consulting a large body of literature. Regardless of the fact that he doesn’t physically exist, in this sense he has “known” characteristics and there are relatively definite legends about some of his antics. The same can not be said of Crowley’s “subjective angel” which is “different from a dream only in non-essentials” and is accessible only to one particular individual.

This is important to grasp. “Objective”, in this sense, does not mean that one can grab hold of Zeus and give him a sharp slap to the back of the head. It simply indicates the existence of objective qualities which exist independently of any one given individual. If a given individual claimed that Zeus was not the King of the Gods, but rather a lowly cabinet maker from Nuneaton, that individual’s error could be relatively easily demonstrated. Yet with Crowley’s “subjective angel” who is known only to one single perceiver this cannot be done. “Objective” can mean something existing entirely separately from anybody’s consciousness, but in this case it does not in fact mean that. To take the above quotation and argue that Crowley was necessarily implying that some angels actually do exist entirely separately from anybody’s consciousness is to argue that the Book of Genesis doesn’t really describe the “Fall of Man” because it contains no account of Adam stumbling over a rock and bruising his knee. Neither is it any escape to argue that Genesis does not describe the “Fall of Man” because no such thing actually happened; Conan Doyle’s stories describe something of the life and times of Sherlock Holmes, and this statement loses none of its truth from the observation that Sherlock Holmes never actually lived. It is very easy to become confused over terms in such a manner, and those who argue that one should shut off one’s reasoning faculties because “reason is a lie” (AL II, 32) are more susceptible to this than most.

With this in mind, Crowley continues to distinguish between “angels” which are “microcosms”, and angels which are not. With regards to the first:

some angels are actually emanations of the elements, planets, or signs to which they are attributed.  They are partial beings in very much the same way as are animals.  They are not microcosms as are men and women.  They are almost entirely composed of the planet (or what- ever it is) to which they are attributed…In the above case, evidently his existence depends on that of the planet Venus; and one might suppose that, if that planet were stricken from the solar system, there would be no more Qedemel.  But this is to judge too rashly; for Venus himself is only an emanation of the number 7, and is therefore indestructible…It is some such idea as the above which is at the back of the conventional idea that elementals are immortal, that they incur mortality when their ambition and devotion causes them to incarnate as human beings.

The “some such idea as the above” to which Crowley is referring is the fact that these “non-microcosmic angels” are merely representations of something else, and when that “something else” is eternal, so are the “angels” which are actually merely labels for them. Crowley says that “many Eastern stories of the destruction of dryads or Nats by the cutting down of the tree in which they have made their habitation” – naturally, because the spirit in question is defined entirely as being the spirit of that tree, and when that tree is gone, it cannot have a spirit. On the other hand, a “spirit of thunder” is going to be far less susceptible to harm, because you can cut down as many trees as you like, you won’t be able to get rid of thunder so easily.

Thus, a “non-microcosmic angel” can be “objective” in the sense that it is a personification of a definite thing – such as thunder, or a specific tree – which qualities can be reliably detected by anyone who cares to look, and it can still be “objective” even if there is no actual physical spirit, since it’s merely a label for something that is physically “out there”, and this is what is meant by “some angels are actually emanations of the elements, planets, or signs to which they are attributed”. They are actually “emanations” of those things, because they are, in fact, nothing more than convenient labels for those things, or at least for particular aspects of those things. These spirits are inseparable from those aspects, because this is how they are defined.

Then, on the other hand, we have “microcosmic angels”, who:

are microcosms in exactly the same sense as men and women are.  They are individuals who have picked up the elements of their composition as possibility and convenience dictates, exactly as we do ourselves.  I want you to understand that a goddess like Astarte, Astaroth, Cotytto, Aphrodite, Hathoor, Venus, are not merely aspects of the planet; they are separate individuals who have been identified with each other, and attributed to Venus merely because the salient feature in their character approximates to this ideal.

Zeus would be an example. Zeus is not just a personification of the sky, or of thunder – he is a definite individual with his own personality, foibles, tendencies, and characteristics, all of which are defined by legend, and this conglomeration of attributes is larger than any specific object or phenomenon with which he is associated. Once more, this description survives the observation that Zeus isn’t “real”, in the same way that the statement “Sherlock Holmes was a man” survives the observation that he wasn’t “real”, either. Such imaginary individuals “have picked up the elements of their composition as possibility and convenience dictates” because those elements are created over time by people, and over time these elements change, are added to, are blended with those of other mythological individuals, so as to make those personalities alter and grow over time, in exactly the same way that the personalities of real living individuals do.

The presentation of this type of “disembodied being” as an “objective individual” should, therefore, in no way be taken to mean that this type of angel is an actual existing being in the same way that the people walking the earth today are. This type of presentation is entirely consistent with a wholly imaginary being, and all that is required for the “objectivity” that Crowley is talking about is that the characteristics of that imaginary being be more or less agreed-upon and determinable. To argue that Crowley actually thought that “Astarte, Astaroth, Cotytto, Aphrodite, Hathoor [and] Venus” were real existing beings is foolishness and sentimental wishful thinking in the extreme, especially when we have passages such as:

Thus, when we say that Nakhiel is the “Intelligence” of the Sun, we do not mean that he lives in the Sun, but only that he has a certain rank and character; and although we can invoke him, we do not necessarily mean that he exists in the same sense of the word in which our butcher exists.

in Magick in Theory and Practice telling us what Crowley actually did mean.

The real significance of this chapter to today’s gullible Thelemite is, of course, the following paragraph which occurs towards the end of that letter:

I have tended rather to elaborate this theme, because of the one personally important question which arises in more recent letters; for I believe that the Holy Guardian Angel is a Being of this order.  He is something more than a man, possibly a being who has already passed through the stage of humanity, and his peculiarly intimate relationship with his client is that of friendship, of community, of brotherhood, or Fatherhood.  He is not, let me say with emphasis, a mere abstraction from yourself; and that is why I have insisted rather heavily that the term “Higher Self” implies “a damnable heresy and a dangerous delusion.”

It it were not so, there would be no point in The Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage.

This paragraph is jumped on, particularly by the extra-terrestrial-mongerers of the Thelemic community, as evidence that Crowley believed the Holy Guardian Angel to be some actual existing being “out there” in the universe somewhere which could be contacted in exactly the same sense that our butcher can be contacted, and that Crowley’s presentation of the Holy Guardian Angel as an “objective individual” requires that Thelema be relegated to the same supernatural cesspool that most other religions have ended up in. As we can see, this is clearly not true, since the term “objective individual” can quite clearly be appropriately applied to imaginary individuals, and Crowley’s use of that term need not be taken as suggesting that he was a supernaturalist in the way that the vast majority of his body of work clearly indicates that he was not.

So what is the significance of the concept of “objective individuality” to that of the “Holy Guardian Angel”? Simply that there exists a real individual, outside of the conscious mind, to which the conscious mind should aspire. To regard the “Holy Guardian Angel” as the “higher self” is merely to place it in the same category as the conscious mind which, as regular readers of this site will know, is actually not a self at all.

We see this clearly in the gibberings of modern-day self-styled Thelemites. As an illustrative example, a relatively recent post on Lashtal.com supposedly referenced a hilarious text by the name of “The Principles of White Magic”:

one of the most common questions posed by aspiring mystics and magicians is, ” But how do I know if this is real information? How do I know if the message is coming from my higher self or some advanced being, or is it simply a product of my wishful thinking and power of imagination? It could be that I am just kidding myself

With apparently no hint of irony whatsoever, this question about “kidding myself” is followed up immediately with the statement that “This is a valid point and a well-founded question that every person who indulges in telepathy must ask”. The answer, in reality, is simple: the “message” is “coming from your higher self” if it conforms to whatever fanciful idea you have about how you ought to be acting, and it isn’t if it contradicts such a fanciful idea. This is an inevitable outcome from any nonsense talk about “higher selves”, that “higher” really just means “stuff I think is neat”, and “lower” means “stuff I don’t like much”. Anyone who thinks it’s all good and virtuous to be humble, or “righteous”, or charitable, is going to attribute that type of inclination to their “higher self”. The same text continues “If a message intuitively internally ‘rings true’ it should be accepted as being true”. This is always going to happen if you consider the Holy Guardian Angel to be your “higher self” – you’re going to base “truth” on what you already think is true.

What the person seeking the “Holy Guardian Angel” really needs to be doing is not investigating what they already think their nature is, but investigating what it actually is. This requires going beyond self-image and what “internally ‘rings true'” and actually observing the self to find out what actually is true, because an awful lot of the time doing this will reveal things about yourself that not only did you not suspect, but which you would rather not be true. You may well find things that don’t accord with your pet views about morality, and which offend the sense of propriety and righteousness which you have built for yourself in your mind, but if you do then you have to choose between either accepting those qualities about yourself or continuing to merely pretend that you’re interested in finding out about yourself and to focus on reinforcing the delusions you hold about yourself by insisting on referring to them as “higher”.

This is really what is meant by the idea that the “Holy Guardian Angel” is an “objective individal” – you only have one self and your mind may not have a great picture of what that self is like, and the only option is to actually look at it, instead of worshipping your self-image. The self, and not the mind, really is an “objective individual”, and you learn about the nature of that individual by observing it instead of judging perceptions against some standard of what you mistakenly believe to be “higher”. Self-styled Thelemites are often very proud of supposing that their own “religion” is superior to others on the grounds that it places the self in a position into which other less enlightened religious fools place arbitrary standards of morality, but this false standard of “higher vs lower” is just as arbitrary and restricting as any “external” standard of morality is, and when you start believing that the “Holy Guardian Angel” really is a real live being watching over you in the same way as some gods of popular legend are supposed to do then the identification becomes even more striking. Whether you are deluding yourself into believing that you are following “God’s will”, or deluding yourself into believing that you are following the inclinations of your “higher self”, you are still following random notions about right conduct that your mind is inventing for you instead of paying attention to the actual inclinations of your actual self, whatever they might be.

It’s unquestionably too much to hope that occultists are at any risk of being guided by some actual sense, but we provide it here nonetheless. The doctrine of the “Holy Guardian Angel” as an “objective individual” does not mean that the “Holy Guardian Angel” is some real “disembodied being” out there in the universe for you to contact, and it is overwhelming unlikely that Crowley ever thought it was. Incidentally, the other notorious footnote from Magick Without Tears, namely:

My observation of the Universe convinces me that there are beings of intelligence and power of a far higher quality than anything we can conceive of as human; that they are not necessarily based on the cerebral and nervous structures that we know; and that the one and only chance for mankind to advance as a whole is for individuals to make contact with such Beings.

actually never links this concept back to the same type of “objective individual” that the “Holy Guardian Angel” is described as in the other letter, although the two are often groundlessly connected in this way. Similarly, the concept of the “higher self” should be clearly seen as a mere device for continuing the role of the mind in arbitrarily guiding conduct against the promptings of the self when the concept of an overriding external “god” is abandoned. The doctrine of the “higher self” really is Christianity under a different name, as both require the subordination of the actual interests of the self to some make-believe standard of conduct based on conditioning and tradition.