{Love}[16th April 1977]

[Redbook2:100][19770416:2117]{Love}[16^th April 1977]

19770416:2117

Christ's emphasis on Love must cease to communicate its meaning where the translation of the word is applied chiefly to intercourse between the sexes.

[PostedBlogger31082014]

{Experience}[15th April 1977]

[Redbook2:100][19770415:2230]{Experience}[15^th April 1977]

19770415:2230

The extraordinary thing is that we have allowed the existence of Communism to blind us to the faults of our own system. We are used to point at Communism and say: 'There is the system which oppresses, which crushes, which destroys the Individual in his relationship with God'. All this is true; but because we see Communism as our threat, in opposition to our own system, it has blinded us to the effect of our own system, which is exactly the same.'

[PostedBlogger30082014]

{True Stories}[23rd March 1977]

[Redbook2:99C][19770323:0000]{True Stories}[23rd March 1977]

19770323

(A story recounted)

'Is it true?'

'What do you mean, true?' (not angrily).

[PostedBlogger29082014]

{The Purpose of the Net}[22nd March 1977]

[Redbook2:99B][19770322:0000]{The Purpose of the Net}[22nd March 1977]

19770322

 

The purpose of the […] Net Here might be defined in this way: 'To help people to save themselves and each other'.

This can be broken down into two major ends.

I. ACTION: To save the World's culture from the threat of imminent destruction – from Man's activities directly.

II. REVELATION: To save the World and Individuals from cessation, from being unacceptable in terms of their purpose here. This basically involves teaching on three interrelated fronts:

(i) Administrative: A possible framework of social government.

(ii) Ethical: A system of guidance in relationships.

(iii) Religious: the Purpose Here.

The fact of each individual's choice is emphasised by the partial division of the One into certain aspects Here: in particular, 

 

(1) […] Action and Revelation – the means available to Man

and, above all

(2) […] Attraction and Distraction – the forces within Man (and Nature) -- each of which has to be brought into harmony with its opposite (just as (?) the two pairs have to find their proper relationship), a harmony which is in fact present above all in [Attraction].

[PostedBlogger28082014]

{Why God? Why Here?}[11th March 1977]

[Redbook2:99A][19770311:0000f]{Why God? Why Here?}[11^th March 1977]

19770311

This* does not solve that old problem posed by continually asking 'Why?', but it does offer a logical explanation of God and Here based on the evidence provided by our own perception of our own experience.

*(Reference, I think, to earlier notes on Totality etc., especially the inserted sheets, with which it was filed <19820912>)

[PostedBlogger27082014]

{Intuition and Intellect [continued]}[11th March 1977]

[Redbook2:96-98][19770311:0000e]{Intuition and Intellect [continued]}[11^th March 1977]

19770311

[continued]

Consideration of the relationship of intuition to conscious analysis – for example in some of the greatest research scientists and scientific thinkers – could be extremely interesting.

One would also need to consider the nature of information, and the practical and theoretical limits on its division, sub-division etc.

(I realise that this may not be original, but cannot at the moment recall my sources!)

[PostedBlogger26082014]

{Intuition and Intellect [continued]}[11th March 1977]

[Redbook2:96-98][19770311:0000d]{Intuition and Intellect [continued]}[11^th March 1977]

19770311

[continued]

(Equally, I suppose it might be possible in theory to take each variable in turn and accept or reject it as relevant or irrelevant, by conscious analysis. But this would be tedious and time-consuming. One would be left with something short of the full range of variables – either before consciously analysing for relevance (inevitably) or after – unless these could be given to intuition for 'processing'. Equally, would the process of instantaneous consideration of the relevance of each variable be, in most people, conscious analysis – or, in fact, intuition?)

[continues]

[PostedBlogger25082014]

{Intuition and Intellect [continued]}[11th March 1977]

[Redbook2:96-98][19770311:0000c]{Intuition and Intellect [continued]}[11^th March 1977]

19770311

[continued]

This may also explain why people who are exceptionally good at 'human relationships' can be exceptionally bad at academic problem solving, and vice versa; and, for example, why there is generally so little love lost between the academic and the practical lawyers; and why the greatest innovative research scientists sometimes performed badly in their academic scientific education.

[continues]

[PostedBlogger24082014]

{Intuition and Intellect [continued]}[11th March 1977]

[Redbook2:96-98][19770311:0000b]{Intuition and Intellect [continued]}[11^th March 1977]

19770311

[continued]

Intuition has a bad reputation, being (often justifiably) associated with guessing, jumping to conclusions, superstitious thought, and other apparently unreliable manifestations.

But it need not be so. The key lies in the realisation that the intuitive process is not magic – whatever it may be or do. It can be developed and used like other faculties. In particular it can most usefully co-operate with the conscious analytical process. There is some evidence to suggest that the greatest innovative minds in various fields – e.g. scientific research, legal practice, and literature – have each found their own balance and framework for co-operation between at least these two faculties, for the purpose of their art. Simple examples might be the use of conscious analysis to check, so far as it may, the conclusions of intuition in creative planning; and the use of intuition to present a coherent pattern of relevant factors comprehensible to conscious analysis in legal practice. (For example, it is always easier consciously to grasp large numbers of variables when they are linked in a pattern than when they are not.)

[continues]

[PostedBlogger23082014]

{Intuition and Intellect [continued]}[11th March 1977]

[Redbook2:96-98][19770311:0000a]{Intuition and Intellect [continued]}[11^th March 1977]

19770311

[continued]

However, in life – in the practice of the Law, for example, or in simple social relations – problems tend, for practical purposes, to involve a potentially infinite number of relevant variable factors – in the sense that there number is beyond the grasp of the finite analytical faculty at any one time. But there is a 'part' of the mind which is able to cope with these large numbers in some way – whether by some form of synthesis(?) or by approximation of synthesis, or perhaps induction, or what, I do not know – and produce workable solutions, often without the solver being directly aware of the chain of reasoning involved at the time it was being formed. One might call this 'infinite analysis' by the name 'intuition'.

[continues]

[PostedBlogger22082014]

{Intuition and Intellect}[11th March 1977]

[Redbook2:96-98][19770311:0000]{Intuition and Intellect}[11^th March 1977]

19770311

While sitting a short written interview test the other day, there occurred to me a possible reason why such tests can be highly misleading.

Each question in the test seemed to call for a logical analysis of a problem with a finite (and very small) number of relevant variable factors. (Sometimes the process of reasoning involved may be so simple as to pass scarcely noticed: this may be where the other *process is used). This analysis may be called finite or conscious analysis. Its use is commonly required in those academic examination problems which call for more than mere memory.

*[See next]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger21082014]

{The Symmetry of Contrast}[9th February 1977]

[Redbook2:96K][19770209:0000]{The Symmetry of Contrast}[9th February 1977]

19770209

The Symmetry of Contrast

is the Unity of All.

So that Opposites in Balance show

Totality as One.

[PostedBlogger20082014]

{True Knowledge}[4th February 1977]

[Redbook2:96J][19770204:0000]{True Knowledge}[4th February 1977]

19770204

In the [future Utopian] land, people's awareness of the knowledge of the Net can lead to them being 'true with themselves'.

[PostedBlogger19082014]

{'All is One'}[4th February 1977]

[Redbook2:96I][19770204:0000]{'All is One'}[4th February 1977]

19770204

'All is One.'

'Be true with yourself,

and to all others;

and care for all.'

----

'Loving care' (– 'caritas'? – a more modern Latin meaning)

[PostedBlogger18082014]

{Angeli}[3rd February 1977]

[Redbook2:96H][19770203:0000]{Angeli}[3rd February 1977]

19770203

'Non Angli, sed Angeli.'*

*[Yeah, right]

[PostedBlogger17082014]

{The Difference}[2nd February 1977]

[Redbook2:96G][19770202:0000]{The Difference}[2nd February 1977]

19770202

Is there a difference between wishing that a man had never been born and wishing that he were dead?

[PostedBlogger16082014]

{A Dream: Of Four River-Nymphs}[29th January 1977]

[Redbook2:96F][19770129:0000]{A Dream: Of Four River-Nymphs}[29^th January 1977]

19770129

(WII)(Dr.)

The growing up of four sister river-nymphs.

[PostedBlogger15082014]

{Attraction}[14th January 1977]

[Redbook2:96E][19770114:0000]{Attraction}[14^th January 1977]

19770114

The problem of 'where' people are in relation to [C]?, i.e. what would happen to them if they became completely subject to the attractive principle.

[PostedBlogger14082014]

{Quote on Conscience}[11th January 1977]

[Redbook2:96D][19770111:0000b]{Quote on Conscience}[11^th January 1977]

19770111

'There is a natural standing court within us, examining, acquitting, and condemning at the tribunal of ourselves, wherein iniquities have their natural thetas*, and no nocent** is absolved by the verdict of himself. And although our transgressions shall be tried at the last bar, the process need not be long; for the Judge of all knoweth all, and every man will nakedly know himself; and when so few are like to plead not guilty, the assize must soon have an end.'

Sir Thomas Browne

Christian morals, Vol IV, pp69,70

ed. Pickering

*(A theta inscribed upon the judge's tessara, or ballot, was a mark for death, or capital condemnation.)

**(Judice nemo nocens absolvitur*** – Juv. Sat. XIII.2,3.)

(from Heard, Oddities of the Law)

***[No guilty man is acquitted if judged by himself.]

[PostedBlogger13082014]

{Quote on Law}[11th January 1977]

[Redbook2:96C][19770111:0000a]{Quote on Law}[11^th January 1977]

19770111

'The grand division of law is into the divine law and the law of nature; so that the study of law in general is the business of men and angels. Angels may desire to look into both the one and the other; but they will never be able to fathom the depths of either.'

Preface to Fortescue's Reports

(from Heard, Oddities of the Law, p61).

[PostedBlogger12082014]

{Quote on Justice}[11th January 1977]

[Redbook2:96B][19770111:0000]{Quote on Justice}[11^th January 1977]

19770111

Justice is Truth in Action.

Joubert

(from Heard, Oddities of the Law, p66)

[PostedBlogger11082014]

{Computers, Animals and Man}[9th January 1977]

[Redbook2:96A][19770109:0000]{Computers, Animals and Man}[9^th January 1977]

19770109

(1) Conventional computer (programme): Reacts within programmed stimuli.

(2) Animal: Can change reactions to new stimuli (as part of programme?)

(3) Human: Can acquire reactions in advance of appropriate stimuli and can chose which stimuli to react to i.e. can program self.

[PostedBlogger10082014]

{Messiahs}[23rd December 1976]

[Redbook2:95][19761223:0010]{Messiahs}[23rd December 1976]

19761223.0010

People who look for an absolute Messiah are generally trying to avoid responsibility for themselves.

[PostedBlogger09082014]

{Intermediaries}[12th December 1976]

[Redbook2:94A][19761212:0000]{Intermediaries}[12th December 1976]

19761212

You should understand that, when you interpose man, ritual, institution or any other thing between yourself and God, you do so of your own choice. Every one has the power to know the One.

[PostedBlogger08082014]

{The Infinite Genius [continued] – Creative Freedom}[25th November 1976][&{The Standing Stones]]

[Redbook2:93][19761125:1904c]{The Infinite Genius [continued] – Creative Freedom}[25th November 1976]

(19761124)

19761125.1904

[continued]

On the other hand, it one were to say that to any man human behaviour had the appearance of infinite variety within this finite Universe solely because the scope – the range – of that variety is outside the quantitative range of his understanding, it is not all that easy to explain – as one must – how any one man can, within that and at the same time, have and apply a sufficient range of understanding to produce in his audience the parallel illusion of an infinite variety of human 'behaviour' within his own creative work. Since at least in Shakespeare's case no one has so far as I know ever realistically claimed completely to have 'got to the bottom of' even one of his plays, I am not really satisfied by any suggestion that a simply superior understanding of people, perhaps aided by a computer-like 'unconscious' mind, could have achieved these results. And 'great' music is often not 'about human behaviour' at all: it may be 'about' ideas, or it may be about nothing but itself: self without end, so far as out potential understanding is concerned, it appears. Nor is there any particular evidence that the creators of works of greatness showed in their daily life any superior understanding of human behaviour: in fact, rather the reverse, in some cases. Their true greatness generally lay in their creation: the rest was simply a reflection of that greatness, from those who appreciated it, back to them.

[NB unrelated entry dated 19761124 inserted at [Redbook2:102][19770728:1305][28th July 1977]]

[PostedBlogger07082014]

 ****

[INSERTION]

[Redbook2:91B][19761124:0000]{The Standing Stones}[24th November 1976]

19761124

The significance of the [Trililithon]Standing Stones – Π - is not only e.g.

(1) A door

(2) A frame (e.g. limits)

(3) Infinite Number (π)

but also

(4) the [4] themselves – the forces represented – 4, but in 2 different (but related) pairs:

2 pillars; and 2 'faces' or 'entries'/'exits'/'directions' which are in fact one.

(5) Gemini – the Twins – +M & +K – II.

[PostedByInsertionBlogger03102014at07082014]

{The Infinite Genius [continued] – Human Freedom}[25th November 1976]

[Redbook2:92][19761125:1904b]{The Infinite Genius [continued] – Human Freedom}[25th November 1976]

(19761124)

19761125.1904

[continued]

Perhaps all this is just to say that human behaviour does not obey the same rules as this Universe seems to: is not susceptible to scientific investigation. But then, if not, why not? If there were no other phenomena which were not measurable, human behaviour too should be measurable – eventually, but within the measurable Universe – i.e. scientifically predictable. I should like to think that I have conclusively shown the variety of human behaviour to be immeasurable, but of course I have not.

(Of course I am purely for the sake of convenience now defining this Universe as what the scientists can (or think they can?) measure in all aspects. There must be limits and borderlines by the logic of this Universe, but it does not necessarily follow that interaction is as rare as I imply for the sake of clarity.)

[continues]

[PostedBlogger06082014]

{The Infinite Genius [continued] – Illusion}[25th November 1976]

[Redbook2:91-92][19761125:1904a]{The Infinite Genius [continued] – Illusion}[25th November 1976]

(19761124)

19761125.1904

[continued]

I suppose some would say that all this is nonsense at least so far as Shakespeare is concerned, since the appearance of infinite variety within a work of creative art can only be an illusion, since it is 'finite' or at least produced via a 'finite' medium. But the point, of course, is that within a Universe which is in all aspects measurable an appearance of infinite variety can itself only be an illusion.

[continues]

[PostedBlogger05082014]

{The Infinite Genius [continued] – Music and 'Mysticism'}[25th November 1976]

[Redbook2:91][19761125:1904]{The Infinite Genius [continued] – Music and 'Mysticism'}[25th November 1976]

(19761124)

19761125.1904

One should perhaps continue these thoughts by remembering that one of the most commonly acknowledged ways into the 'mystic' (i.e. immeasurable) within the mind is through music – or maybe one should say by music.*

Nor, interestingly, does it seem to be the case, either that the music which provides the way must be 'great' music as defined above, or that 'great' music necessarily provides the way. The implication of this is that the process by which the 'immeasurable' within Man's mind produces a creation of genius or greatness (such as those described above) is not the same as, or the reverse of, the process by which certain creations in music (or certain other stimuli) seem to provide a way into the 'immeasurable' within the mind. I suppose there is no logical reason why it should be; indeed, it might be surprising if it was: but it would be neater. One should beware of making too many connections(!).

*(In some people other 'arts' can provide such a way; in a few, direct perception of reality or even the conscious workings of their own imagination can achieve the same effect. Presumably the correct procedures or stimuli may be learned.)

[continues]

[PostedBlogger04082014]

{The Infinite Genius [continued] – The Conscious and the Immeasurable}[23rd November 1976]

[Redbook2:90][19761123:1820f]{The Infinite Genius [continued] – The Conscious and the Immeasurable}[23rd November 1976]

19761123.1820

[continued]

But Shakespeare, in writing in the way McKellen describes, cannot only have used this external aspect of his mind. It may have guided him – he might (although I doubt it) have thought that that was all there was to it. But this aspect is relatively logical, and operates within a Universe with logical limits – despite its appearance of infinite variety. It seems unlikely that such a logical and limited outlook could on its own convey the apparently infinite variety and illogicality of this Universe, without invoking the aid of the immeasurable within Man's mind (that part which, unlike our conscious external awareness, may perceive the lack of 'inner' limits) – whether to perceive the patterns of the Universe, or to perceive the patterns of our minds, or in some other way inconceivable to my conscious external awareness.

This is, of course, a suggestion merely, and should be treated as such.

[continues]

[PostedBlogger04for03082014]

{The Infinite Genius [continued] – No Inner Limits}[23rd November 1976]

[Redbook2:90][19761123:1820e]{The Infinite Genius [continued] – No Inner Limits}[23rd November 1976]

19761123.1820

[continued]

Similarly to find some part of the Immeasurable, we, being within this Universe, must in some way or other seek within ourselves for the inner limits and find that they do not exist. Perhaps in the interests of sanity within the Universe, we generally find it difficult to do this directly – with our conscious or external awareness.

[continues]

[PostedBlogger02082014]

{The Infinite Genius [continued] – Non-Finite God}[23rd November 1976]

[Redbook2:89][19761123:1820d]{The Infinite Genius [continued] – Non-Finite God}[23rd November 1976]

19761123.1820

[continued]

So we may draw the line between the rest and the Divine: it seems that there is nothing of this Universe – despite what I said about our perception of it as individuals – which cannot in theory be measured by someone, and its outer or physical limits defined. (Surely there can be no one and nothing existing within this Universe which could at once hold and be aware of all that knowledge). But it may be that God is not definable – not measurable – indeed it must be so: for God who is All to be infinite is to us inconceivable, but for him to be finite (despite the tricky appearance of language and logic here) is impossible.

[continues]

[PostedBlogger01082014]