{Capital Punishment}[31st March 1987]

[Redbook3:83-84][19870331:1825g]{Capital Punishment}[31^st March 1987]

19870331.1825

[continued]

Remarks about the Sikh Sants ordering executions have some bearing on the hanging debate*. As a Society, we do accept death: both avoidable (on the roads) and deliberate (in Defence policies). Our conventional deterrent – and our use of it – shows readiness to order men to go out and kill other and morally innocent men who get in their way. We use this to protect our own vital interests, or those of our allies and dependent peoples. Our nuclear deterrent depends on our **willingness to order destruction of millions of innocents who are not even in the way, if our own or some allies vital interests are threatened in particular ways (how it is now I don't know, but at one time the NATO strategy relied on first use of battlefield nuclear weapons against moving military targets). Compared with this, capital punishment may seem rather small beer, even if (as I see the greatest practical argument against it) the wrong people are bound to be hanged from time to time. I suppose the individual scale, and the existence of an option, lead to all the fuss.

Perhaps what we should ask is: Is the threat to our Society (or to ourselves) sufficient – or sufficiently comparable in seriousness compared to other threats, to protect ourselves against which we do allow deaths – to justify deaths, if they are really likely to reduce the threat? (Whatever people say to the contrary, and I have heard some pretty silly arguments, I am inclined to think capital punishment will reduce the number of murders: in the end it is not a matter of proof but of judgement; but one of the shocking aspect of so many of contemporary murders is their casual nature, and very few men, I should guess, are able to remain casual when considering their own execution as a real possibility.) On the whole, and despite appearances, I am inclined to think that the threat is not sufficiently serious, or not yet; but I am not sure: and the victims and their friends and relatives might give a different answer.

*(cf. Letter in [The] Times 870401) <0401>

**perceived <930331>

[continues]

[PostedBlogger31122015]

{Methodology – Fictions}[31st March 1987]

[Redbook3:82-83][19870331:1825f]{Methodology – Fictions}[31^st March 1987]

19870331.1825

[continued]

Perhaps this is an appropriate moment to distinguish again this Book and [my] other books. The initial capital letter is solely to distinguish, now: once, I saw this Book's Volumes as a “core”, more significant than the other books' fictional and more veiled level. Something rather strange has happened. In the books, starting with [0], a fictional environment based on my own experience (of one kind or another) is constructed; in it, fictional characters operate, generally within the framework of a set of rules*. Some of these characters are incidental, some stereotypical; some archetyp(ic?)al.

The archetypes speak, often, when discussing 'inner' matters (which tend towards the 'real' as against the books' environmental 'fiction'), with a flow and authority which is distinguishable from the generally (and deliberately, or at least consciously) rather un-self-confident style of the fictional narrator. Having, in [2], deliberately expunged my revisions of these didactic passages – I find they seem to offer perspectives and knowledge (if believed) not directly available, even as hypothesis, to my non-fictional self. This Book (or journal) is then reduced (if that is the right word) to a commentary on the information acquired through the writing of fiction, and on the testing of it by private experiment and public observation.**

{But in fact several views from [2] do seem to have been seen in (e.g. ) Vol[ume] II [of this Book] – perhaps 'censored' by Reason!}

*(i.e. the more-or-less rigid structure of the plot.)

**[It has also turned out to have another function: a type of letter to the future writer/reader, in a way which was, I think, sometimes foreseen, at least in principle. A couple of days before the time of writing this note, the writer of it was uploading the blog entry at [Redbook3:28-30][19870326:1543j]{Recurring Image: Death and Dismemberment}[26^th March 1987], and found it directly applicable to the difficult personal situation he found himself in then and since then; and it was, after some difficulty, so applied, and rightly so.(This footnote also added with variations at [Redbook3:32-34][19870326:1543n](PURPOSE OF THIS JOURNAL)[26^th March 1987])] <20151031>

[PostedBlogger30122015]

{Sainthood}[31st March 1987]

[Redbook3:81][19870331:1825e]{Sainthood}[31^st March 1987]

19870331.1825

[continued]

I was a bit concerned, that I thought I remembered xS in [2] saying (in her final session) that at this point one became a Saint. On re-reading, I see that she says (or implies) that that the self having found Death through simplification, and Temperance through Love, may possibly become one of the Saints on Earth. I am relieved at this: Saint may mean different things to different Men (the Sikh Sants apparently order men's deaths for political insubordination) but I think I know what I mean, and I am no Saint.

What did strike me with some force, though, was that xS's words imply that the Self, despite having found Death and Temperance, still continues towards possible Sainthood. I had thought that complete annihilation of the Self was the complete transformation whether before or after physical death; but these words suggest (as one would expect) that, so far as Earthly existence is concerned*, the Self continues, presumably in modified form or emphasis. This makes sense, as xS later defines: '… all that is of the Physical Universe – the Self, tending towards Separation....' (This is after the death of the physical body, which is therefore excluded). It would be hard to conceive of Earthly existence continuing, i.e. within the Separation, without anything 'tending' towards it at all. Nevertheless, experience suggests that this aspect is, as it were, de-emphasised, to a degree, giving rise to an altered perspective, the possibility of detachment, and, in place of driving emotions, the substitution of qualities.*

{– Contra-rotation, again....}

*[“What we have lost

Cannot be accounted;

What we have gained,

We have lost.”]

[PostedBlogger29122015]

{Re-affirmation of Free Choice}[31st March 1987]

[Redbook3:80-81][19870331:1825d]{Re-affirmation of Free Choice}[31^st March 1987]

19870331.1825

[continued]

But* it seems to me that the Individual's choice of God, being and remaining free (at least until full Union), does have to be continually re-affirmed**: this is certainly my experience. I have backsliding tendencies: re-affirmation requires a re-invocation of the Christ figure – no, not so much the Christ figure as the Christ feeling, the Christ quality of light and depth? or something indefinable. This is now easier than it was (say) four months ago. The writing of notes such as this in this Book is an enormous help. Without doubt – and I speak as one who is 'experimenting' now – that Quality is a significant improver of state of mind, family relationships, and, I think, ability to concentrate beneficially: and without trying; invoke the Quality, and the rest follows, generally.*** I think it might also reduce dyspepsia (sitting up straight, expanding the chest, and eating at table seem to help); but I still got me [sic] piles. Where should I be without them?

(Years ago, [FF], the Vicar of [VG]****, was told by a Scientologist villager that she could cure various ailments, including piles, by the laying on of hands.)

(I can't quite put me finger on it, but...)

*[See last previous entry]

**(as mentioned in the ARCIC Report.) <0401>

***There were lapses; but to date there has been an overall gradual improvement in all these, corresponding to reduction in Self. <890930> [Not, alas, continued, <20151026>]

****[Near to [C]. He specifically wanted to know where she laid on the hands.]

[PostedBlogger28122015]

{SELF, SALVATION AND SAINTHOOD}[31st March 1987]

[Redbook3:80][19870331:1825c]{SELF, SALVATION AND SAINTHOOD}[31^st March 1987]

19870331.1825

[continued]

I have been interested to read (and to try to understand) the ARCIC* report 'Salvation and the Church' (as extracted in The Times); and Clifford Longley's** mention of Pelagianism***, in the context of the Masons****. It looks (in a no-doubt over-simplified perception) as though the Protestants thought the Roman Catholics were Pelagians. Perhaps I am a neo-Pelagian: I should have expected slightly more overt recognition of the freedom of the Individual to choose Christ, or not, in the ARCIC view. If one were to suggest two elements: God's gift (of Christ), and Man's choice (of Christ), would either side reject this (I mean, either of orthodox# and Pelagian)? But I may be talking of what they describe as Sanctification, or Justification and Sanctification#*, rather than simply Justification, which I'm not sure that I really understand the meaning of.

*[The Anglican—Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC)]

**[Also in The Times, presumably, as Longley was its religious affairs correspondent.]

***[The belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. (--Wikipedia)]

****[Freemasons]

#[Note, orthodox not Orthodox.]

#*{[Justification:] ?The putting right of the Individual with God?} [Sanctification is the act or process of acquiring sanctity, of being made or becoming holy. Justification, in Christian theology, is God's act of removing the guilt and penalty of sin while at the same time declaring a sinner righteous through Christ's atoning sacrifice. In Protestantism, righteousness from God is viewed as being credited to the sinner's account through faith alone, without works.(--Wikipedia)]

[PostedBlogger27122015]

{Contra-rotation}[31st March 1987]

[Redbook3:79-80][19870331:1825b]{Contra-rotation}[31st March 1987]

19870331.1825

[continued]

It is possible that if a predominant Love governs a subordinate Ordination, the result could be an Inner Harmony and an Outer Simplification: meeting presumably in a Unity incorporating a beneficial Attraction (not all Attractions are beneficial. It depends what they are towards. This one would be towards Unity; and Love?).

[PostedBlogger26122015]

{Detachment}[31st March 1987]

[Redbook3:79][19870331:1825]{Detachment}[31st March 1987]

19870331.1825

One of the troubles with the Separation is that it brings out the reactions of Separation, in reaction to the actions of Separation. When I feel detestation of separatist political violence I am reacting in a separatist way out of too close an involvement* with the Separation. I think the trick is to cultivate detachment – a disinterested (not uninterested) approach to such matters. Detachment does not mean, or result in, lack of sympathy or empathy with the subject. The furthest point of detachment from the Separation is the Unity (on the 'Spiritual' level; on the Inner Circle). From an identification with Unity through the (Attraction of) Christ, one may perceive the Separation with a sufficient degree of detachment to approach it through Love. The result, in due course, should be Harmony (on the Inner Circle).

* = “identification”? <890930>

[PostedBlogger24for25122015]

{Racial Separation [continued]}[30th March 1987]

[Redbook3:78-79][19870330:0950d]{Racial Separation [continued]}[30^th March 1987]

19870330:0950

[continued]

I think that the reason why I keep coming back to this* is because it seems to represent a dramatic representation of extreme separation right in our midst in a way we have never seen before. Not just to kill a Policeman simply because he is a Policeman – blinding themselves to the intuitive perception that there is a Human Being within each of us, who can be saved or reformed – but to hack him, living, to pieces; not just that, but to plan to raise his head on a stake!**

If ever there was a symbol of the Separation, surely that was it: and I wonder what would have been the consequence for race relations? (I don't know). And many of the black political leaders still support this, or seem to, and seem by their statements, analogies, and demands to want to inflame the situation still further, to create expectations among black people higher than the rest of the community entertains, and to create a no-go State within the State where the only protection available to the unfortunate Individual comes direct from its political leaders. Love, yes, to deal with this: but Resolve also.

Somewhere recently, I think I implied that Outer-Circle Top qualities (Attraction, Ordination, Simplification) were not appropriate***. I am not sure that this is quite correct; but they must presumably be motivated, or driven, by their Inner Circle counterparts: Unity, Love, Harmony, in order not to be corrupted by the Separation and thus made useless or harmful. From Unity, Love is always the starting point.

*[See last previous entry]

**This was during the riots in Broadwater Farm [housing estate] in north London, which [estate], if I remember correctly, drug dealers tried to make a no-go area for the police. <930331>

***(p66, foot [[Redbook3:66-67][19870329:1210q](RACIAL POLITICS (1))[29^th March 1987]; but see p70 mid [=?] and p80 [=?]. <[87]0401>

[PostedBlogger24122015]

{Racial Separation}[30th March 1987]

[Redbook3:77-79][19870330:0950c]{Racial Separation}[30^th March 1987]

19870330:0950

[continued]

Although in its purest form the a-political approach dictates that they should*, it would be hard to expect Churchmen not to speak out against the evil practices arising from Apartheid. Churchmen are Human, after all, and we all feel the need to speak out against. But it is, I suspect, itself a symptom of Separation – this need to criticise: as soon as the Church takes sides, it loses its unifying position at the top (or bottom**) of the Circles. Another way of looking at it is that Apartheid is so obviously a product of the Separation that the teaching of Christ's message of Unity – with Love, and Harmony – is of itself subversive, and requires no political examples.

The reason why I, in my Separated way, have criticised*** some black leaders here, and not Apartheid, is partly because everyone else is already criticising Apartheid, but no one seems to have grasped the nature of our Black racial politics here (in England). Also, of course, our problem is our problem, nearer to home; and once again what gets up my nose is that I sense on one side a great deal of good will and concern to do the right thing, from spokesmen and politicians, even if betrayed by individual actions; and on the other, unfair speech.

Unfairness in speech – by which I basically mean, I think, well-targeted lies – always seem to upset me even more than foul actions. If we are not true, we are nothing. Or do they believe it? If they believe what is not true, and demonstrably not true, then they are in trouble: has extreme Separation worked its way right into them?

*i.e. should … not? <930331>

**[depending how you look at it]

***[[Redbook3:66-67][19870329:1210q](RACIAL POLITICS (1))[29^th March 1987];[Redbook3:76][19870330:0950a](RACIAL POLITICS (2))[30^th March 1987].]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger23122015]

{Political Error}[30th March 1987]

[Redbook3:76][19870330:0950b]{Political Error}[30^th March 1987]

19870330:0950

[continued]

Why do I discuss political matters, when I criticise the Church for lobbying*? Because the Church is an institution set up to teach Christ's** message, which was not political but underlay an outlook on the World; I am an Individual who, like any other, must face and try to understand the World, in the light of these (and other) teachings. I am entitled to make mistakes. Most of these notes are (relatively) isolated attempts to grapple with and make sense of the outer and inner Worlds, in the light of each other.

Each other? What does that mean?***

But this [journal] is in no sense a seamless web: more a rag-tag of jottings. Each one is capable of being wrong all on its own, without the help of (or help to) any of the others. I say this because I am aware of the dangers. I must say that, looking back, it reads at times more like the Secret Diary of Adrian Mole, 13¹/₂ (?).****

*[Redbook3:73-74][19870329:1210w](Church Material)[29^th March 1987]

**[?/Jesus'? cf. [Redbook3:69-70][19870329:1210s](THE BIBLE AND CHRIST/JESUS [continued(4)])[29^th March 1987]]

***-- the outer and inner worlds, presumably. <930331>

****[Sue Townsend: The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole Aged 13 ¾.]

[PostedBlogger22122015]

(RACIAL POLITICS (2))[30th March 1987]

[Redbook3:76][19870330:0950a](RACIAL POLITICS (2))[30^th March 1987]

19870330:0950

Looking back over yesterday's writing on racial politics: it is, I think, the violence, aggression, divisiveness and hatred – the separatism – of some black leaders and activists which produced a separatist detestation in me. It is now nearly nine months since we had a television, and it tends to be the tone of voice and expression on T.V. which adds these emphases to what is said. I don't know for certain what my reaction would now be. The proper reaction should probably be Love for the Individual, allied with firmness in support of – of what? – of the Christ-centred principle of Unity**, which is not an Outer Circle imposition but an Inner Circle springing-forth from within; and understanding based (if they are proved workable) on the operation of these Circles. I do know that when a black leader appeared on television and spoke in terms of reason, of moderation and love, love was very quick to respond. But if Love is to triumph in the end, it must learn to respond not only to love, but to hatred. Not easy then: interesting to see whether it is any easier now.

*[[Redbook3:66-67][19870329:1210q](RACIAL POLITICS (1))[29^th March 1987] ]

**This emphasis on Unity is psychologically interesting; I now see in the Circle degree +C Crisis (separating) and conversion (returning). <930331> [An important distinction here being, presumably, between separating and separated. <21122015>]

[PostedBlogger21122015]

(Church Material [continued(3)])[29th March 1987]

[Redbook3:74-75][19870329:1210x](Church Material [continued(3)])[29^th March 1987]

19870329.1210(BST)

[continued]

When every Man in the World is aware of the Christ within him*, there will be no avoidable starvation, no apartheid, and no-one will be in prison: wealth will be a burden, and poverty a blessing. The transformation could happen very quickly; but there are no short cuts.

Teach Christ: Teach Christ's Love, and the Harmony will come round. Then, through Men's love of Christ, the Holy Spirit of God will shine out in the centre of all Men, and they will abjure Evil, and walk with God.

But there are no short cuts.

*[See last previous entry.]

[PostedBlogger20122015]

(Church Material [continued])[29th March 1987]

[Redbook3:74-75][19870329:1210x](Church Material [continued])[29^th March 1987]

19870329.1210(BST)

[continued]

Compassion for the truly wretched* arises naturally out of the knowledge of Christ within the Individual. Compassion produces pressure for action to help the wretched be less wretched. There are two ways to do this. {1} One is to change their attitude to fit their circumstances. This is not popular in politically conscious times: but it may do more for spiritual awareness. {2} The other is to change their circumstances to fit their attitude. [2]{a} This may be done by direct action: help the wretched, heal him, lift him up, give him your money and clothes. This satisfies the Unifying urge of the Christ, eases the burden of your own wealth, and may alleviate a little of the wretchedness. [2]{b} Or it may be done by indirect action: put pressure on others to help the wretched, or take away their** resources in order to help the wretched. The net result of this is likely to be more of Separation than Unity, as it will give rise to resentment instead of Love.*** Only those who put material considerations above Spiritual development will regard this as the right way.

What if people are dying of starvation? If you care, go and help them yourself, or give your help to those who can, if you think not enough is being done; show others what is happening, and what needs to be done, and let Love and Harmony work on them. If they are immune to Love and Harmony, if Christ is not in visible to them within themselves, and you cannot awaken that inner sense in them, the starving will die, and go back to God; but you, oh Church, have failed in your task, which was to awaken every man to the presence of Christ within him. There are no short cuts.

*[See last previous entry.]

**[i.e. the others']

***I do, however, think that compromise is indicated here: starving adults and sick children are likely to be distracted from God, so {1} and {2}{a} must go together. My query is against {2}{b}. <890930>

****My own circumstances, and those of Britain, have changed since this was written. I should have thought it was permissible to vote for tax increases which one would oneself be prepared to pay if one was taxable. Also, current poverty and policy involves very real distress of a kind which can hardly be alleviated by the individual (e.g. Health Service delays, fuel taxes). <930331> [I believe that this entry with the last previous one is addressed to the Church, so does not suggest that individuals should not lobby governments (or indeed that the Church itself should not alleviate poverty). The question was whether the Church as such should specifically lobby governments to alleviate poverty.]

[cf. [Redbook3:152-153][19870409:1345g](SPIRITUAL ETHICS)[9th April 1987].<20160124>]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger19122015]