{Fundamental Forces [continued(6)]}[22nd October 1979]

[Redbook2:159F-G][19791022:2255a]{Fundamental Forces [continued(6)]}[22nd October 1979]

19791022:.2255

[continued]

It is extremely tempting, having seen the electron as the negative part of the pair (and, presumably, the electrically “active” or “working” part, if I recall my schoolday electrics correctly – but I may well not), to identify it with Distraction and to look for signs of Attraction in the nucleus – 'extremely small, stable centres which constitute the source of the electric force and form the skeletons of the great variety of molecular structures' (Capra). But one should beware of too hasty construction. The nucleus, after all, is not the end of the matter. So, for example: 'The strong nuclear force … acts only when the nucleons come very near to each other, that is, when their distance is about two to three times their diameter. At such a distance, the nuclear force is strongly attractive, but when the distance becomes less the force becomes strongly repulsive so that the nucleons* cannot approach each other any closer***. In this way, the nuclear force keeps the nucleus in an extremely stable, though extremely dynamic equilibrium.'

And 'the nuclear force... could not be of electromagnetic origin since the neutrons were electrically neutral**' (Capra). Here's a pretty kettle of fish! (Perhaps Attraction and Distraction work more closely together the 'deeper' one goes, up to a point, as in the (strong) nuclear force; perhaps this co-operation might be made manifest in the Nucleus itself, between the electrically neutral Neutron and the (presumably) electrically charged Proton.)

*(Nucleons: protons and neutrons within the nucleus.)

**(i.e. because it bound them as well as the Protons.)

*** Can this really be right? Or does the Coulomb/electrostatic force hold (positively charged) nucleons apart? <921022>

[continues]

[PostedBlogger2911for01122014]

{Fundamental Forces [continued(5)]}[22nd October 1979]

[Redbook2:159E-F][19791022:2255]{Fundamental Forces [continued(5)]}[22nd October 1979]

19791022.2255

(?+Mk, again) – 'The basic force … which gives rise to all atomic phenomena is familiar and can be experienced in the microscopic world. It is the force of electronic attraction between the positively charged electronic nucleus and the negatively charged electrons. The interplay of this force with the electron eaves give rise to the tremendous variety of structures and phenomena in our environment. It is responsible for all chemical reactions, and for the formation of molecules, that is, of aggregates of several atoms bound to each other by mutual attraction. The interaction between electrons and atomic nuclei is thus the basis of all solids, liquids and gases, and also of all living organisms and of the biological processes associated with them.'

(The problem of Light may simply be that any sensory manifestation is likely to be based on these processses within the Universe and a part of Diversity made possible by Distraction. The effect of +C on those [+C] meets is an inner effect, an effect of the Spirit, linking directly with the Life? without the Universe (by “without” I mean the sense closer to “outside” than to “lacking”). The Light is merely a chosen manifestation, a symbol if you like).

[continues]

[PostedBlogger29for30112014]

{Fundamental Forces [continued(4)]}[21st October 1979]

[Redbook2:159C-D][19791021:2000c]{Fundamental Forces [continued(4)]}[21st October 1979]

19791021.2000

[continued]

'The two remaining forces are nuclear: they are powerless outside the miniscule confines of the nucleus.'

(This may symbolise the fact that, by contrast with +C and +Mk, whose power is universal and is of that kind which might once have been described as 'elemental', +M's and +K's effect is apparently mostly within the minds and actions of Men. But that appearance may not be completely representative: they together represent that principal of continuation arising between the other two).

? +M (Action), ? +K (Revelation) – 'The strong nuclear force binds neutrons and protons together inside the nucleus, while the much more feeble 'weak' force governs, for example, the radioactive decay of nuclei by beta emission.'

(So +M's power binds men together in organisation to Action, while +K's, appearing 'more feeble', works through Revelation in the Individual to bring about, in the long term, the decay of previous assumptions and orders. Interference occurs between electro-magnetic interactions and weak (nuclear) interactions – as +Mk tends to be strong in +K's influence (but in a way which may cast doubt upon old beliefs of the role of +Mk in relation to +C).)*

*Note also that the weak force is slightly handed or chiral (ie not even-handed). cf. The twist of the figures on the Cumaean Sibyl's side of the Sistine Chapel ceiling <871021>.

*Note that the Electro-magnetic force was unified first (by theorists) with the weak force, then with the strong force, finally (it is believed) with Gravity. This is also the order of unification, i.e. reverse differentiation, looking back in time to the Creation of the Universe. <19871021>

*Again note that the order of decreasing strength is Strong Nuclear, Electromagnetic, Weak (nuclear), and Gravity; but that only Gravity and Electromagnetism act at long range; and only Gravity acts on everything. [<19871021> (assumed)]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger29112014]

{Fundamental Forces [continued(3)]}[21st October 1979]

[Redbook2:159B][19791021:2000b]{Fundamental Forces [continued(3)]}[21st October 1979]

19791021.2000

[continued]

? +Mk (Distraction) -- Electromagnetic force. 'Much stronger but has a shorter range.'

(This obviously begs many questions which I cannot (yet!) answer, particularly as to what force or power is 'responsible' for 'carrying out' the 'Big Bang' and the subsequent expansion of the Universe. But the strength and short range are typical of +Mk by contrast with +C. Note also the significance of electricity (e.g. in chemistry (?)); and, in mythology, the importance of iron: faeries (simple folk?) were supposed to dislike it, and 'iron, cold iron, is master of them all'. Iron is the symbolic means of imposing political ends (whether military or economic), which, through disorder or dictatorship, means the opposite to the spiritual harmony of the Individual (symbolised by +C)).

BUT N.B. Light is part of the spectrum of electromagnetism....

[continues]

[PostBlogger28112014]

{Fundamental Forces [continued(2)]}[21st October 1979]

[Redbook2:159A][19791021:2000a]{Fundamental Forces [continued(2)]}[21st October 1979]

19791021.2000

[continued]

? +C (Attraction) -- Gravity. 'Much the weakest, but acts over enormous distances – literally across the Universe'*. (The implication is only that it is the weakest within the Universe – without, it may be a different story, and +C may represent the weakness of that force within the physical universe and its strength without – and potentially within the Human spirit.)

*I believe the quotes [throughout this speculative piece] may have come from Capra, ['The Tao of Physics']. <880805>

[continues]

[PostedBlogger27112014]

{Fundamental Forces}[21st October 1979]

[Redbook2:159A(-W)][19791021:2000]{Fundamental Forces}[21st October 1979]

19791021.2000

It is naturally tempting to allocate to each of the 4 [principles] one of the so-called basic forces in nature (cf. New Scientist 18/10/79 p163). Such an allocation – necessarily qualified and provisional – might be like this:

[continues]

[PostedBlogger26112014]

{National Religion}[9th August 1979]

[Redbook2:158][19790909:2155]{National Religion}[9^th August 1979]

19790909:2155

(In the context of the Ayatollah*)

Religion must never be concerned with territory, but with minds: and, more specifically, with the willing allegiance of free minds.

*(Khomeini of Iran, I presume <921020>)

[For the 2 following journal entries on ms p158 see below after 159A-W (entries are in ts so far as practicable in time order)]

[PostedBlogger25112014]

{Absence of Mind}[7th August 1979]

[Redbook2:158A][19790807:0000]{Absence of Mind}[7^th August 1979]

19790807

Absence of mind: Finding oneself (having been thinking out a problem) standing holding some totally inappropriate object – which one picked up instead of its appropriate neighbour – having completely forgotten what one was doing anyway.

[PostedBlogger24112014]

{All's fair [continued]}[3rd July 1979]

[Redbook2:151-157][19790703.2315]{All's fair [continued]}[3rd July 1979]

19790703.2315

[….]

[PostedBlogger23112014]

{All's fair}[1st June 1979]

[Redbook2:151-157][19790601:1540]{All's fair}[1st June 1979]

19790601.1540

[continued]

[….]

[PostedBlogger22112014]

{'What do you like?'}[1st June 1979]

[Redbook2:151][19790601:1540]{'What do you like?'}[1st June 1979]

19790601.1540

I think, following the Guardian [newspaper] yesterday (?), I might start asking people I meet, not 'What do you do?' – rightly castigated as an embarrassing and gauche question nowadays – but 'What do you like?'. While this may well throw some people off balance initially – especially those who like something unspeakable – it should be fun setting them right again. Perhaps I should only try it on girls? Will people think I am offering them another drink?

*

[PostedBlogger21112014]

{Word-Dance}[10th May 1979]

[Redbook2:150][19790510:1310]{Word-Dance}[10^th May 1979]

19790510.1310

In some ways dance might fit words – especially poetry – better than it fits music. Is it technically feasible for a dancer to speak while dancing? The dance, of course, would be special and a little peculiar. I have not seen this done, as far as I can recall – I am sure it must have been – but I should like to.

In a sense one is here on the borders of dance, mime, and a particular type of acting.

[PostedBlogger20112014]

{Materialism}[23rd April 1979]

[Redbook2:149][19790423:2150a]{Materialism}[23rd April 1979]

19790423.2150

[continued]

I have never yet met a living political socialist who did not set the threshold of practical socialism immediately above his own level – in other words, one who was genuinely prepared, without retaining security, to give away all that he had and reduce himself to the material level of the mass, or at least to the level at which the mass would be if complete redistribution brought about material equality. There is only one, very rare, kind of man who can do that, deliberately, for his ideals, and that is one who is so sure of his spiritual self that he has no need of material security: one of the Masters of spiritual experience. (Geniuses in other fields, such as science – Einstein is the classic example – will sometimes allow themselves to sink as far as their personal environment will permit; but that environment includes their work, whose external nature and material requirements will not allow such men the necessary positive action to reduce themselves beyond its boundaries.)

[PostedBlogger19112014]

{Reactionary}[23rd April 1979]

[Redbook2:148][19790423:2150]{Reactionary}[23rd April 1979]

19790423.2150

It's funny how people's opinions still matter. S tells me that TC, apart from talking freely about my [unit] (he was my referee for positive vetting, and the interviewer crassly told him before I had), stated that I was always a bit of a reactionary. However meaningless these labels seem, at least in his sense, they still have influence – and his attitude is particularly irritating because the last the last time I tried to get him to talk Utopian politics he explained that he simply was not interested in politic any more – he had no time – or at least, that was what I understood him to say. Perhaps he had decided already that, being reactionary, I was not worth talking to politically! So far as I know his only clues to my political beliefs are my [unit], and the short-lived idea of the '[…] Movement' at Cambridge. The only difference in our approach to the latter was that he said he would stay out until he could see what emerged, whereas I stayed in until I could see what was emerging – that is, a fundamental clash between my devolutionary utopianism and CB's superficially fascist centralism.

*

[PostedBlogger18112014]

{Relevance from Experience}[10th April 1979]

[Redbook2:147C][19790410:1340a]{Relevance from Experience}[10th April 1979]

1979.04.10.1340

[continued]

I suppose it may be – I suppose it must be – that in practice if not in theory not everyone can achieve the same extent of intellectual perception as can the furthest of thinkers. But what they nearly all can do, or should be able to do if rightly educated and motivated, is to assess the product of those thinkers in terms of relevance to their own experience; and in the case of ethical, philosophical, religious and political thought this must, for each individual, be the crucial yardstick. It may be so in other cases as well, even in the case of the 'objective' sciences. But education in this context implies depth of experience as much as of learning

[PostedBlogger17112014]

{Loveliness}[10th April 1979]

[Redbook2:147C][19790410:1340]{Loveliness}[10th April 1979]

1979.04.10.1340

'Your loveliness – true loveliness – lies not simply in the way you look, but in the way you are.'

[PostedBlogger16112014]

{[The Narrator]}[8th April 1979]

[Redbook2:147B][19790408:1400]{[The Narrator]}[8th April 1979]

19790408.1400

The Narrator […] feels [within] himself the influence of all 4 […] at various times, especially when they are present, but especially of +K, whom he 'follows' at least in wish.

[PostedBlogger15112014]

{Attraction and Distraction}[6th April 1979]

[Redbook2:147A][19790406:0045]{Attraction and Distraction}[6th April 1979]

19790406.0045

? In times of balance, there is no conflict of attraction and distraction.

When men attempt to force attraction within the Universe, e.g. by imposing unity, distraction occurs; and when they attempt to force distraction, attraction may arise.

But the power of distraction may be marginally predominant in the physical World; the counter-balancing power of attraction, coming from Totality outside the World, may be found within ourselves, but subject to our own choice.

[PostedBlogger14112014]

{The Gender Race}[4th April 1979]

[Redbook2:146-147][19790404:2300c]{The Gender Race}[4th April 1979]

19790404.2300

[continued]

It is odd, too, how just as adolescent and teenage girls are generally more mature than their exact male contemporaries; and, correspondingly, males from the mid-twenties to early forties tend to take the position of initiative in life-qualities generally [away] from their female contemporaries; so in late middle-age and old age women once again become generally the more admirable sex, in comparison with men. Or is this generalisation just an illusion of our changing times?

[PostedBlogger13112014]

{Love and Possession}[4th April 1979]

[Redbook2:146][19790404:2300b]{Love and Possession}[4th April 1979]

19790404.2300

[continued]

It occurred to me last night as a possibility that most young women, if they had to choose, would rather be possessed* than loved by a man. Since it is difficult, if not impossible, for a man of any nobility of spirit really to love what he possesses, a fundamental conflict may arise, leading to much unhappiness.

*(When I wrote 'possessed' above I was not using it as a euphemism for 'fucked' or anything else. I meant it literally.)

[PostedBlogger12112014]

{R*lex}[4th April 1979]

[Redbook2:146][19790404:2300a]{R*lex}[4th April 1979]

19790404.2300

[continued]

My wristwatch handle has come out again, again – dammit.

[PostedBlogger11112014]

{The Selfish Egg}[4th April 1979]

[Redbook2:146][19790404:2300]{The Selfish Egg}[4th April 1979]

19790404.2300

One of the alarming things about the 'egg creates hen creates egg' argument – which I came across for the first time yesterday, twice: once in Watson's new book, I think, just after I had been looking at a copy of Samuel Butler's 'Erewhon', and once in the New Scientist – is that if we are simply a product of the gene's desire to recreate itself, there is very little room (at least at first sight) for a World created for the value of Man's experience to God. The ultimate question behind the Universe remains, of course, unanswered.

I suppose it does at least knock on the head the view that nothing can create anything more complex than itself, if you take the genetic creator/survivor argument literally.

[PostedBlogger10112014]

{Chaos out of Order}[2nd April 1979]

[Redbook2:145][19790402:2315]{Chaos out of Order}[2nd April 1979]

19790402.2315

[continued]

This occurred to me again last night, as a possibility, and I may have recorded some of it before, although I think not all: that in 'The Beginning' there was Unity, and it created Diversity; so, reversing normal beliefs, in the beginning there was Order, and God created Chaos: and out of the tension of Order and Chaos, we came. So Entropy, which I (but not the C[oncise] O[xford] D[ictionary]) for this purpose regards as the tendency noted by scientists for the Universe to move from apparent Order to apparent Chaos, may in fact be a movement from Order-with-Chaos (us) through Chaos back to Order, since presumably perfect Chaos can only be perfect Order. Possibly the creative tension of Order and Chaos is decreasing, as they move together – or rather, as Chaos moves back towards Order, and so towards us, although to us it would seem as though we are moving towards Chaos. I am not sure why we should not seem equally to be moving towards Order, except that possibly by its nature Order cannot appear to move or be moved-towards.

[PostedBlogger09112014]

{'Real' Jobs}[2nd April 1979]

[Redbook2:145][19790402:2315]{'Real' Jobs}[2nd April 1979]

19790402.2315

Possibly the 'real' nature of any job, its degree of 'reality', may by judged by asking the question: 'if everyone stopped thinking about it, would the task still need to be done?'

[Like my writing, for example? <870811>]

[PostedBlogger08112014]

{God's Love}[31st March 1979]

[Redbook2:144][19790331:2320]{God's Love}[31st March 1979]

19790331.2320

Zephaniah III.17 refers to God's love, and it hits you in the face like a beam of sunlight.

[PostedBlogger07112014]

{Two Pre-rational Connections}[30th March 1979]

[Redbook2:143-144][19790330:2315]{Two Pre-rational Connections}[30th March 1979]

19790330.2315

Obviously it is one of those days. This morning I had one of those clear dreams (although perhaps not as vivid as the one I described some months ago) – this time of a 'site conference' concerning the [Railway] Extension, where men I had worked with on the sub-committee were optimistic and, to my surprise, friendly. I got up to find the [Society] magazine and accounts waiting for me, and a surprisingly kind comment on my leaving the committee.

This evening I was lying in the bath when for no reason that I can recall I began to speculate on my [...][unit], and how I would convince S that telling I[G] its name could be dangerous, through a suggested chain of events: I[G] might tell her boyfriend [P], who (for example) might have a friend in Time Out [magazine]: next time they run an article on […] [security matters], there is a picture of [Chelsea] Square (“a member's home in fashionable Chelsea, [...]”) and me coming out! – closely followed by a bomb from the I.R.A.. At that precise moment S came in to tell me that Airey Neave [M.P.] had been killed by an I.R.A. car bomb.

It is, of course, the upright that gets it: the noble, the high-principled, and the just. Right-wing he may have been, but a man of integrity and, clearly, of compassion.

I ran past the Houses of Parliament at about 7.30pm, and noticed some activity – and huge traffic jams. I wondered what the fuss was about, as I ran on.

[PostedBlogger06112014]

{Time and the Jews}[25th March 1979]

[Redbook2:143][19790325:2330]{Time and the Jews}[25th March 1979]

19790325.2330

It is a strange thing, that the Jews, who have produced more prophets, transcending Time, than any other race I know of, should also have produced the first man who appears to have taken the first clear steps towards a scientific understanding of the nature of Time, in Einstein.

[PostedBlogger05112014]

{Juries}[2nd March 1979]

[Redbook2:142A][19790302:0000a]{Juries}[2nd March 1979]

19790302

[continued]

(Note: the English jury seems to have its justification in some form of unsophisticated sampling theory – at least partly. How would this stand up in the light of modern statistical theory?)

[PostedBlogger04112014]

{Censorship}[2nd March 1979]

[Redbook2:142A][19790302:0000]{Censorship}[2nd March 1979]

19790302

Where censorship is essential, it may be preferable to introduce post-effective censorship with damages or penalties, 'judged' by a jury – as is the case with Defamation and Obscenity laws at the moment in England – rather than using less 'democratic' pre-effective censorship by administrative or quasi-judicial process (as is the case in England now for films).

[PostedBlogger03112014]

{Suppression}[26th February 1979]

[Redbook2:141][19790226:1750a]{Suppression}[26^th February 1979]

19790226.1750

[continued]

My notes in this Book are not frequent – except at times of change, such as the one I am now approaching. This is probably because I can only survive my normal work (such as auditing) by suppressing that part of my mind that gives rise to these notes. Obviously that course has its dangers: the suppression may become too successful. Why have I recently stopped thinking so much in image and concept, and found myself doing so more and more in monologue? Or is that nothing to do with it?

Company tax work is unlikely to be an improvement during its year, and I ought to stay a little longer in personal tax [work] after that. How long I stay, altogether, ought to depend on how little or how much I need to go on suppressing aspects of myself.

(On the other hand, if I pass these exams, there should be more time for myself....)

[PostedBlogger02112014]

{Blasphemy & Heresy}[26th February 1979]

[Redbook2:141][19790226:1750]{Blasphemy & Heresy}[26^th February 1979]

19790226.1750

In considering the extension of blasphemy laws to cover other religious beliefs than the Christian (F[inancial] T[imes] today), we should invite the proponents to distinguish, in practical terms (and not merely by definitions of each), between blasphemy and heresy.

*

[PostedBlogger01112014]