Wednesday 31 December 2014

{Ritual and Self-discipline}[14th February 1980]

[Redbook2:164C][19800214:0000]{Ritual and Self-discipline}[14th February 1980]

19800214

It may be that the necessity for ritual and self-discipline in traditional methods of loosing the hidden powers of mind is not designed to constrain or limit us, but to protect us.


Self-discipline – yes, quite possibly; but the ritual is I think designed to detach us. <921108>


[PostedBlogger31122014]


Tuesday 30 December 2014

{Fact and Opinion}[13th February 1980]

[Redbook2:164B][19800213:0000a]{Fact and Opinion}[13th February 1980]

19800213
[continued]

There might be no such thing as an absolute matter of fact, if whether something is or is not a matter of fact is a matter of opinion.


[PostedBlogger30122014]

Monday 29 December 2014

{“Honi Soit....”}[13th February 1980]

[Redbook2:164A][19800213:0000]{“Honi Soit....”}[13th February 1980]

19800213

It might be rather an acceptable idea, for an attractive girl to 'have your guts for garters'!


[PostedBlogger29122014]

Sunday 28 December 2014

{Tied Aid}[6th February 1980]

[Redbook2:163][19800206:2150b]{Tied Aid}[6th February 1980]

19800206.2150
[continued]

If, as Peter Bauer says in The Times yesterday, overseas aid tied to donor's products is no better for the donor than would be having his own shop till burgled by a burglar who then spent the money in the shop (which, of course, assumes ability freely to sell elsewhere), then (leaving aside balance of payments considerations) it might seem in theory that a monetarist inflation-suffering donor should give substantial overseas aid to donees forbidden to use it in the donor economy: so the money supply decreases relative to the static amount of goods, leading to a deflationary rise in the internal value of money. This would be incredible. (But of course the external value would fall, leading, in a high-importing economy, to increased import prices and cost-inflation, or to a decrease in the number of goods relative to money!)


[PostedBlogger28122014]


Wednesday 24 December 2014

{The Dreamer}[6th February 1980]

[Redbook2:163][19800206:2150]{The Dreamer}[6th February 1980]

19800206.2150

It is perhaps important to bear in mind that the 'I' of such dreams as I have recently described is not necessarily the me of everyday, even I who describe the dreams.


[PostedBlogger24for27122014]

{A Dream of +K}[30th January 1980]

[Redbook2:161-162][19800130:0015b]{A Dream of K}[30th January 1980]

19800130.0015
[continued]

In the third [dream], last night, I was in a large Church or Chapel, probably at [my old (secondary) school], and [it was] filled with people (probably the pupils). I had been invited to play the organ, but spent some time deciding which one to play – there seemed to be two. I found myself sitting, by the side organ I think, watching a girl standing in the central aisle answering questions – crisply, decisively, yet with such sympathy that I was filled with love for her: she wore a patterned and rather shapeless dress, and had unexpectedly red lips, but by her luminously golden hair and by her authority I knew her to be +K, and I yearned for her, my creation who creates me.


[PostedBlogger24for26122014]

{A Dream of Innocence}[30th January 1980]

[Redbook2:161-162][19800130:0015a]{A Dream of Innocence}[30th January 1980]

19800130.0015
[continued]

In the second [dream], just before the September exams, I* wandered naked and alone in a beautiful country – by a waterfall, under a cliff – and my complete nakedness and utter aloneness accompanied my innocence: I was as pure within and without as it is possible to be, like light. I was pure me.


*[See the entry following the third dream]
[continues]

[PostedBlogger24for25122014]

{A Dream of Healing}[30th January 1980]

[Redbook2:161-162][19800130:0015]{A Dream of Healing}[30th January 1980]

19800130.0015

Three of those vivid narrative-type dreams I have had within the last year:

In the first, I* was the Healer, divinely inspired, who raised two men from the dead; and certain details (of which only the effect is perhaps now fully remembered) in the behaviour of the crowd and the two dead men made this extremely convincing: specifically that this was done by me, not with the crowd aware of what I did, but discreetly, so that they did not attribute it to me: when the crowd looked elsewhere, (but under my gaze) the bodies stirred, and lived, and knew that I had done this, and regarded me with suspicion. The conviction is in the fact that there was no glory in it for me, no worship from the crowd, but my own knowledge of wholeness and the divinity of All which had given this power to me for that time.

I awoke and thanked God, almost in tears.


*[But see the entry following the third dream]
[continues]

[PostedBlogger24122014]

Tuesday 23 December 2014

{(Religious Prophecy [continued(3)])}[24th November 1979]

[Redbook2:160A][19791124:1210]{(Religious Prophecy [continued(3)])}[24th November 1979]

19791124.1210

“If I could predict with certainty the future effects of present causes, I should not be today advising you what to do: I should be doing it myself.”


[PostedBlogger23122014]

Monday 22 December 2014

{Religious Prophecy [continued]}[23rd November 1979]

[Redbook2:158-160][19791123:1850a]{Religious Prophecy [continued]}[23rd November 1979]

19791123.1850
[continued]

Jesus' own prophecies are mostly of the second kind* – public – as they are generally understood today: he tells the World what signs to look for at the particularly important time to which he refers. Those signs seem, of course, particularly familiar to many now, as never before (cf. The last prophecies he made to his disciples before his crucifixion): false prophets, worldwide communication and disruption, persecution of the Church, nuclear activity and the threat of nuclear War. As Tippet** says, the Age of the Fish (the Christian Church's symbol) closes, to be replaced by the Age of the Water Carrier, perhaps of Peace; the real or mythical Irish Bishop who gave us our Pope 'de labore solis' gives us only two (?) more; Nostradamus, after correctly forecasting the duration of the British Empire (when there was none), seems to warn us of war at the turn of the Century; both Daniel and Revelations (the latter with great ambiguity, the former perhaps a little more precisely) may be read as referring to events in our time; and the same Muslim tradition*** states that the Mahdi will go on to Jerusalem and be united with the Prophet Issa (or Jesus), to defeat the false Mahdi from Persia.

The most significant event or sign (although one may argue that it has occurred before) is the cultural 'return' of the Jews to their historic homeland; and it seems doubtful whether those responsible the decisions involved, for example in Britain, can have been unaware of the religious or prophetic significance of what they were doing.

All this, of course, is to prove nothing in an area where proof of that kind is probably impossible. Things rarely turn out exactly as expected.


*[See last previous entry]

**prob. Michael Tippett, 'Moving into Aquarius', 1959 & 1974 <921020>

***(i.e. referred to [in the last previous entry] above) <870811>


[PostedBlogger22122014]

Sunday 21 December 2014

{Religious Prophecy}[23rd November 1979]

[Redbook2:158-160][19791123:1850]{Religious Prophecy}[23rd November 1979]

19791123.1850

It is possible that the validity of religious prophecy may not be as prediction, but as instruction, within the World. Naturally the two may turn out to be the same: or one may be the means to the other. But there is much that does not seem to occur as predicted by the voices of those who have predicted much that does, and this (or errors or misinterpretation!) could be a reason. It is, of course, still true that much prophecy or Sight is of events which cannot be (or are not) altered or influenced by those expressing the vision, or by their audiences. But in other cases, especially in the case of Old Testament prophecy apparently fulfilled by Jesus, it seems likely that he knew of it and deliberately fulfilled it in his adult life as a sign to those who could see. Similarly the Bedouin who attempted to fulfil the Muslim tradition/prophecy in Mecca by having their leader proclaimed by* the Ka'aba after Dawn prayers, apparently at gunpoint, can be seen as following an instruction concerning initiation or authorisation, for whatever motive. These are instructions in two senses: personal, to the individual believing himself referred to; and public, to the World, so that it should know what to expect and what to accept.


*[i.e. 'next to'. (See The Times 23/11/1979, pp1,6)]
[158B & 158C are insertions from The Times for 19791123:1 & 6 respectively, reporting on the attack on the Great Mosque at Mecca by Beduin gunmen, & the tradition of the “expected Mahdi” who will appear in the fifteenth century in Mecca (whose people will try to kill him) and go on to liberate Jerusalem, be united with Issa (Jesus), and defeat the false Mahdi from Persia.]
[& See [Redbook9:78][19910411:1858]{The Mahdi}[11th April 1991]]


[continues]

[PostedBlogger21122014]

Saturday 20 December 2014

{Oppression}[9th November 1979]

[Redbook2:158][19791109:0130]{Oppression}[9th November 1979]

(197911....)
19791109.0130

They are the most oppressed
who do not know their own oppression.

(I am not sure where this comes from).


[PostedBlogger20122014]

Friday 19 December 2014

{Fundamental Forces [continued(23)]:The Complexity Table}[23rd October 1979]

[Redbook2:159W][19791023:1645]{Fundamental Forces [continued(23)]:The Complexity Table}[23rd October 1979]

19791023.1645

So perhaps I am saying that +Mk carries within him the seed and knowledge of his own ending.


[PostedBlogger19122014]

Thursday 18 December 2014

{Fundamental Forces [continued(22)]:The Complexity Table}[23rd October 1979]

[Redbook2:159V][19791023:1345e]{Fundamental Forces [continued(22)]:The Complexity Table}[23rd October 1979]

19791023.1645

Given the sense of dissolution that +Mk produces, it is important to remember that while it is Distraction that immediately gives rise to our complexities, it is the balance imposed on Distraction by Attraction which enables those complexities to remain, for the time being, stable (else they might become too complex: mutant, perhaps, without recognisable pattern?). When Attraction prevails, the complexities revert towards Simplicity and Order, and (for example) our physical life ends; but it is also apparent that if the balance is tipped the other way – if Distraction prevails – the complexities become too great for our own physical life to continue. Attraction triumphs again: in the reduction of complexity to simplicity in the normal physically degenerative way, and perhaps using a mechanism by which the reducing* **force of Attraction increases as Complexity moves further from it (as for example, in the case of the Strong Nuclear Force in its effect upon Nucleons).


[*i.e. reductive? **power to reduce? Literally, leading back?]


[continues]

[PostedBlogger18122014]

Tuesday 16 December 2014

{Fundamental Forces [continued(21)]:The Complexity Table}[23rd October 1979]

[Redbook2:159S-T][19791023:1345d]{Fundamental Forces [continued(21)]:The Complexity Table}[23rd October 1979]

19791023.1345

If we were to look at things from a global physical point of view we should be inclined (incorrectly) to see the +Mk of Distraction as our 'friend' and the +C of Attraction as our 'enemy' – because it is Attraction, not Distraction, which will bring to an end the life of the Universe. Instead we have identified all Death with our physical deaths, as being +Mk's, forgetting that [+Mk's] is also our physical life; and by contrast we have identified all physical life with the Life of the Spirit, as +C's, which is in fact attained ultimately through physical death (Is that the third time I have made that point?). Particularly within our own slim envelope of physical survival, upon which the physical consequences of too much Distraction elsewhere could be as fatal as too little (the imposition of too much Distraction can cause a reversion towards Order as can too little), we need to keep our minds firmly in tune with the balance of Attraction and Distraction, of +C and +Mk.


[continues]

[PostedBlogger16122014]

Monday 15 December 2014

{Fundamental Forces [continued(20)]:The Complexity Table}[23rd October 1979]

[Redbook2:159S][19791023:1345c]{Fundamental Forces [continued(20)]:The Complexity Table}[23rd October 1979]

19791023.1345
[continued]

(In Political Society, too, we come to identify the good-+C type with Order and the bad-+Mk type with disorder; but this analysis is upset by the need and motivations of the Individual*, who must balance Attraction and Distraction within himself in the context of his social and general environment; and no one knows better than the thinking creative artist the importance for the Individual of Distraction within the structure of Society. Because of individual factors, it is difficult and misleading to draw quick conclusions from or about human society in these terms.)


*and by the words and deeds of Jesus in the Gospels <921022>


[continues]

[PostedBlogger15122014]

Sunday 14 December 2014

{Fundamental Forces [continued(19)]:The Complexity Table}[23rd October 1979]

[Redbook2:159R-S][19791023:1345b]{Fundamental Forces [continued(19)]:The Complexity Table}[23rd October 1979]

19791023.1345
[continued]

Our place in, and view of, the World imposes a highly distorted view: our lust for physical Life for ourselves, together with our reluctance to accept the essential part of our own physical deaths in the general physical Life Cycle (and some dim recognition and striving for the ideal of the Absolute), leads us to suppose that the +C-principle of Attraction is our 'friend' and the +Mk-principle of Distraction our 'enemy' (although the absurdity of this imbalance is made apparent by the many paradoxes and confusions that arise in, for example, our symbolism and mythology: one of the most obvious being the misrepresentation of the Christ-figure on the one hand as against the Satan (ex-Pan) development – the 'personification of evil' – on the other).


[continues]

[PostedBlogger14122014]

Saturday 13 December 2014

{Fundamental Forces [continued(18)]:The Complexity Table}[23rd October 1979]

[Redbook2:159R][19791023:1345a]{Fundamental Forces [continued(18)]:The Complexity Table}[23rd October 1979]

19791023.1345
[continued]

(I should make the point again that the death and corruption of a living organism only seems to us to be a movement from simplicity towards complexity, from order to disorder, because we see ourselves as one physical unit being replaced by many in death; but in fact our bodies in death experience the collapse of a highly complex system, in hierarchical terms, into its simpler component within the Universe. (I say 'component' not 'components' deliberately to make the point, given that All is One.))

[continues]

[PostedBlogger13122014]

Friday 12 December 2014

{Fundamental Forces [continued(17)]:The Complexity Table}[23rd October 1979]

[Redbook2:159Q-R][19791023:1345]{Fundamental Forces [continued(17)]:The Complexity Table}[23rd October 1979]

19791023.1345

Men long for the ultimate Order, Attraction, Love from which they are exiled, made manifest in +C: +C in turn made manifest in their sense that All is One, but (in sensory terms) also inevitably by the particular aspects of the electro-magnetic phenomena, representing +C, to which +Mk immediately gives rise. This paradox itself is essential, and symbolically significant: if +C is the One of “All is One”, so +Mk (as we see it) gives rise to the All: the infinitely dimensioned pulse acting on (and from) +C's none-dimensional point. The only ultimate attainment of +C is through Death, hence +C is the spiritual aspect of Death, and Men love [+C]; but Death is a physical process, part of the physical Life-cycle of +Mk, and +Mk thus represents the physical nature of (and reaction to) Death, so Men fear [+Mk]. This is ironic and perhaps unfair, since the physical Death process itself seems to represent the effect on Distraction's diverse complexity of Attraction's counter-acting tendency towards simplicity. Perhaps this is why the dying, recognising this, often become reconciled to Death at the last moment.


[continues]

[PostedBlogger12122014]

Thursday 11 December 2014

{Fundamental Forces [continued(16)]:The Complexity Table}[23rd October 1979]

[Redbook2:159P][19791023:1335]{Fundamental Forces [continued(16)]:The Complexity Table}[23rd October 1979]

19791023.1335

The implications of all this for the [4] are alarming – particularly for +C and +Mk (+M and +K, being less fundamental, may be treated more flexibly). The ambiguity has always been there: it is natural to see +C as Light and Life, +Mk as Darkness and Death, but it has always been clear that the complexity of their relationships is such as, in one sense, to reverse their positions: +Mk gives rise to physical life, through essential physical death, whereas the absolute nature of +C is only ultimately attained through physical death and release of the Spirit. Now these ambiguities – so clear throughout all interpretations of religious philosophy, etc. – are reinforced by these interpretations of modern physics. Is Man's interpretation of his own instincts confused by his viewpoint? The ambiguities may in fact lend strength to the interpretations and to my narrative.


[continues]

[PostedBlogger11122014]

Wednesday 10 December 2014

{Fundamental Forces [continued(15)]:The Complexity Table}[22nd October 1979]

[Redbook2:159O][19791022:2255j]{Fundamental Forces [continued(15)]:The Complexity Table}[22nd October 1979]

19791022.2255
[continued]
(23.0135)

So what of this scheme, if true? If true, as a mechanism* for enriching and developing the spirit of the omnipotent and Alone Originator, its conceptual simplicity is far more striking than the complexity of its detail (and I can understand it, too). The intriguing question is where the apparent abandonment of Cartesian dualism leaves the Spirit which is allowed for without the Universe but not – no, not really, not even by Capra (at least not yet – p.90) – within. Now, I know it within as he recognises it, but he does not account for it (yet). It is possible that we have swung a little too far if we insist that Spirit and Physics are, within the Universe, one; even though they are One.


*(Yes, yes, I know it is no longer a mechanistic Universe).


[continues]

[PostedBlogger10122014]

Tuesday 9 December 2014

{Fundamental Forces [continued(14)]:The Complexity Table}[22nd October 1979]

[Redbook2:159M-N][19791022:2255i]{Fundamental Forces [continued(14)]:The Complexity Table}[22nd October 1979]

19791022.2255
[continued]

So if Energy is itself a manifestation of Space-time, this too fits into the Complexity Table without doing violence to the inner 'logic' of the scheme.

(23.0130)

(But a note of warning: by two analogies, for two different types of people.  It is possible to build vast edifices of the imagination which, while not 'wrong', have little real connection with the 'reality' which they inhabit or even attempt to describe. To one kind of person, I would offer Tolkein's fantasy as a possible example; to another, I would suggest the income tax system of this country; in each case I should offer them in a spirit of curiosity rather than of didacticism (I hope that word means what I think it means). I know the difference, and it is not merely a question of which enriches us more.)


[continues]

[PostedBlogger09122014]

Monday 8 December 2014

{Fundamental Forces [continued(13)]:The Complexity Table}[22nd October 1979]

[Redbook2:159M][19791022:2255h]{Fundamental Forces [continued(13)]:The Complexity Table}[22nd October 1979]

19791022.2255
[continued]
(23.0120)

Clearly the 'linear' approximation, although useful for visualisation, may be misleading in this respect. I am so used to the idea that a one-dimensional line cannot turn into a multi-dimensional structure that I cannot easily see our complex Universe growing from the polarisation of two forces. But the 'polarisation' is not linear: the tension is better visualised by the contrast of a none-dimensional point (Absolute physical Order) and an infinitely-dimensional (and directional) impulse (Distraction), both being creations of the same genius (the dimensions, or directions, are a part of the principle of Distraction....).


[continues]

[PostedBlogger08122014]

Saturday 6 December 2014

{Fundamental Forces [continued(12)]:The Complexity Table}[22nd October 1979]

[Redbook2:159L][19791022:2255g]{Fundamental Forces [continued(12)]:The Complexity Table}[22nd October 1979]

19791022.2255
[continued]
(230110)

Certain ground rules may be deduced.... for example, the power of Distraction is not solely dependent on the 'nearness' to the physical origin in terms of lack of complexity; or how should one explain the readiness of matter and antimatter, when re-introduced, to revert towards Order through Energy? Energy itself, 'before' the Matter/antimatter split in the 'complexity table', seems to be relatively stable or 'balanced' throughout the Universe (I am using 'stable' here in the other of the two senses I have used, not to mean reverting towards Attraction); the nuclear structure appears, within the 'restricted' circumstances of our own World, to be equally balanced although 'after' the M/A-M* split on the C.T.**. So why are our circumstances so restricted (or how?)?***


*[Matter/Antimatter]
**[Complexity Table]

***I don't understand myself.... <921022.2215>


[continues]

[PostedBlogger06for07122014]

{Fundamental Forces [continued(11)]:The Complexity Table}[22nd October 1979]

[Redbook2:159K][19791022:2255f]{Fundamental Forces [continued(11)]:The Complexity Table}[22nd October 1979]

19791022.2255
(230045)
[continued]

So the path leads: (?Spiritual Attraction => (?Inject pulse of Spiritual/Physical Distraction Quality) =>) Absolute Physical Order => (with) Big Bang (effect of Distraction) => Physical Energy (intermediate effect of Distraction on Physical Order) => Particle, Nuclear, Atomic Physics, Molecular Chemistry, Biology, Psychology, Sociology, Art (?Spiritual experience) … (the continuing effect of the initial 'pulse' of Distraction) => (As Distraction fades and Attraction re-imposes Stability) – Reverse process to (/through?) Absolute Order.


[continues]

[PostedBlogger06122014]

Friday 5 December 2014

{Fundamental Forces [continued(10)]:The Complexity Table}[22nd October 1979]

[Redbook2:159K][19791022:2255e]{Fundamental Forces [continued(10)]:The Complexity Table}[22nd October 1979]

19791022.2255
[continued]
(230045)

So what to us seems like disintegration, Death, and the corruption of our physical bodies, is in fact a return to stability*: the 'disintegration' was in our Births. Entropy is not the tendency to chaos, but part of the history of the Universe: from absolute Order through apparent Chaos to the peaks of Diversity, and so through Entropy back to Order**. (Actually I've never been too sure what Entropy was supposed to mean in the first place.)


*'When you reach an equilibrium in biology, you're dead.' A. Mendell, in Gleick: 'Chaos: Making a New Science' (Heinemann), 1988. <880805>

**Surely all of the process is Entropy; 'Chaos' is the transitional state. <921022>


[continues]

[PostedBlogger05122014]

Thursday 4 December 2014

{Fundamental Forces [continued(9)]:The Complexity Table}[22nd October 1979]

[Redbook2:159J][19791022:2255d]{Fundamental Forces [continued(9)]:The Complexity Table}[22nd October 1979]

19791022.2255
[continued]
(23.0025)

Do we start with the Absolute Order (or Attraction) (Spiritual Energy) – creating (/created into), at the Big Bang/Creation (by Order?!), the Disorder (or Distraction, or Chaos) of Physical Energy (so near to Order in origin that to us it must sometimes appear as absolute Order) – on which the near-balance of Attraction and Distraction acts, each modifying the other's effects – Distraction still constructing outwards, Attraction still stabilising – Distraction tending in early stages to have the leading edge – to produce synthesis: perhaps initially, in the formation of 'matter' and 'antimatter' particles out of Energy (with Attraction so strong that, if re-introduced, they revert to Energy); seen again in the maintenance of the nucleus by the near perfectly-balanced Attraction and Distraction of the strong nuclear force, at least within the context of our World; and again in the production by Distraction of 'higher' (or outer) life-forms such as ourselves: but here Attraction's power has the ultimate edge: we, being more complex creations of Distraction's leading edge over Attraction, are 'less' stable, and will return to a more stable state under the influence of Attraction.


[continues]

[PostedBlogger04122014]

Wednesday 3 December 2014

{Fundamental Forces [continued(8)]}[22nd October 1979]

[Redbook2:159I][19791022:2255c]{Fundamental Forces [continued(8)]}[22nd October 1979]

19791022.2255
[continued]
(2350)

'The whole Universe appears as a dynamic web of inseparable energy patterns.' (Capra). If matter (e.g. “of” particles) is merely 'a form of energy' … and if 'the forces between the particles – that is[,] their mutual attraction or repulsion – are pictured as the exchange of other particles', so presumably the forces are themselves a form of energy …. Capra puts it another way round: 'both force and matter are now seen to have their common origin in the dynamic patterns which we call particles.'

As Capra says, we should not look for fundamental building blocks.... but two words (and words, as he says, are insufficient) recur continually and leave question-marks of (at least temporary) finality on the mind: 'Energy', of course, and 'properties'.


[continues]

[PostedBlogger03122014]