{Dream of Alien Warfare}[6th April 1987]

[Redbook3:133][19870406:2225]{Dream of Alien Warfare}[6th April 1987]

.2225

I have been meaning for a few days to recount elements of a “creative” dream a few nights ago, in which 'we' suffered unexpected airborne attack by masked and armoured aliens; after initially losing ground, and by intricate guerilla-style warfare, we eventually turned the tide; and in the final stages of victory I found myself in the enemy's *heart-complex [sic] where, shooting aliens dead, I found myself on the point of shooting dead an un-armoured and un-masked alien who turned out to be a human girl: who, biting her lip and looking away, told me (I think) to go on and do it: whereupon an uprising of such intense grief (comparable to that in the dream on p51-52**) overcame me that I abandoned my weapon. I was at once surrounded by un-masked and un-armoured men and women aliens, all human: who, after a brief moment of residual snarling and cat-clawing hatred towards me (but without touching me), began to explain quite reasonably the disaster to their own civilisation which had brought them to attempt conquest of us.

I suppose that this may have owed something to [U.K. Prime Minister] Mrs. Thatcher's visit to Russia, and possibly to the anniversary of the Falklands War.

*Usually a symbol of the Left semicircle/the Soul. Probably ?the former in this case, so is this symbolic of (a) Right v. Left (e.g. 118-133 [[Redbook3:118-131][19870405:1057](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1})[5th April 1987] to last previous entry]) or (b) G~ v. A~ progression on O.C.? (a) seems more likely). <890930>

**[[Redbook3:51-52] 19870328:2207 {A Dream: Of Loss}[28^th March 1987]]

[PostedBlogger29022016]

(RATIONALITY)[6th April 1987]

[Redbook3:132-133][19870406:1710b](RATIONALITY)[6th April 1987]

19870406.1710

[continued]

The exercise of rationality and logic is still immensely important. First, it is important to discuss these matters in a manner which is, basically, rational: I say 'basically' because I have the impression that not everyone* would be able to agree precisely on what rationality meant or involved.

But secondly, rational and logical argument applied rigorously in a reductionist manner produces a curious result: at the end of it all, when remorseless paring has reduced the possibility of the Objective Unseen to a useless pile of scattered phrases – there it still stands, the Objective Unseen itself, a shining mountain [sic] beyond the wreckage. I suppose one moral of this is that if you are going to attempt to determine the existence or non-existence of objective phenomena by mental logic, it is not entirely logical to exclude other 'mental' phenomena such as inner experience, and the conclusions to which it gives rise, from a role in that argument.

*claiming to exercise rationality

**Is this rather like those scientists who from time to time refuse to accept the existence of phenomena which other people have observed but which the scientists cannot explain? <890930>

[PostedBlogger28022016]

(MORBIDITY))[6th April 1987]

[Redbook3:132][19870406:1710](MORBIDITY))[6th April 1987]

19870406.1710

Examination of moods and possible reasons for them: Writing the 19870405 note* was extraordinarily tiring. At about p.124** I began to wander***. My mood also changed subtly: I became emotionally as well as mentally confused. This morning, with boring accountancy work to do for our one remaining client (notice the small [hand]writing? – but I'm at a desk: I usually write in an armchair), some confusion remained: bringing(?) traces of old depression and morbid recollections. It was easy to pull myself out of this, once it was identified; and now, writing these notes, that mood seems far away.

I hazard guesses at what may contribute to this sort of 'trace' experience:

• Simple tiredness.
• Chemical and physical input – I ate more than usual at supper (about 2 x main course).
• ?Concentration on rational argument (i.e. temporary avoidance of irrational experiences etc.); and/or
• Attempts to employ rational and logical procedures to prove what I already know, and know cannot be proved.
• Mental involvement in work like our figure-work for client(s), which in its insignificant way is very much 'of the Separation'.

*(pp.118-131[[Redbook3:118-131][19870405:1057](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1})[5th April 1987] i.e. entry, not footnote.])

**[[Redbook3:124-125][19870405:1057g](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(7)])[5th April 1987]].

[And see [Redbook3:184][19870414:1003](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{2})[14th April 1987]].

***[mentally, presumably.]

[PostedBlogger27022016]

(BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(16)])[5th April 1987]

[Redbook3:131][19870405:1057p](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(16)])[5th April 1987]

19870405.1057

(Sunday)

[continued]

Validation of indirect knowledge comes from direct knowledge, inner or outer, i.e. evidence. A system such as the Circles, inspired by the search for God, is validated by the absolutely true inner qualities which arise in conformity with it* and by the subjectively true external experiences which occur in conformity with it (and, of course, by the non-arising and non-occurrence of qualities and experiences which contradict it).** It is hard, but vital, to remember that the inspiration of the search for (and awareness of) God does not validate such a system. This is because of the transcendent(?) nature of God outside all systems of proof, and because of the distorting effect of Human frailty and separation. Systems claiming validation by divine inspiration – i.e. Inner Indirect Knowledge – should, I say again***, be viewed with grave suspicion.

*{But what if the Inner Qualities were the result of 'suggestion' by the System of Circles? {as above}. While still absolutely true, the Qualities could not then validate the System – which is perhaps to re-inforce the point that such systems always remain provisional.} [<890930> probably]

**and by its own inner logic, or 'fit'. See [Vol.] ?VI. <890930>

***ref. p. 123 [[Redbook3:122-123][19870405:1057e](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(5)])[5th April 1987] antepenult. Para.].

{But see p184. [[Redbook3:184][19870414:1003](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{2})[14th April 1987]].}

[And see [Redbook3:132][19870406:1710](MORBIDITY))[6th April 1987] (next entry).]

[PostedBlogger26022016]

(BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(15)])[5th April 1987]

[Redbook3:130-131][19870405:1057o](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(15)])[5th April 1987]

19870405.1057

(Sunday)

[continued]

The awareness of a Divine sense or awareness within*, also described on p59**, is another matter altogether***, although quite likely to have been prepared for, or led to, by the sense of underlying unity. I have no idea at all whether this usually happens at an early stage, or if, when it does happen, it usually only happens once. I do not know for certain what it was. (Once again, a statement could have been made along the lines of that on p.59** which would have been absolutely true). I deduce that it is related to, or is a forerunner of, the awakening (?) or unveiling of the Spirit of God within the Individual. I do recall that it had a considerable effect on my own sense of purpose.

Indirect knowledge (such as my knowledge of the Circles) is not, of course, necessarily untrue: it is just that it may be inaccurate, and may be changed. It may be divinely inspired, inspired by an awareness of and love for God, and still be inaccurate.****

A correct account of the experience of (say) the quality of xS is absolutely true for ever; the quality itself may develop and provide a slightly different experience and account later, and both accounts will remain absolutely true for ever. This is important because it explains why indirect knowledge (such as systems of Circles) should be dependent upon direct knowledge (such as qualities), and not vice versa, even if the systems are constructed provisionally first to give structure for the qualities.

*Curious that is is not exactly described in Vols I & II (per p113[[Redbook3:113-114][19870404:1821h](DEVELOPMENT (2):{Invocation and Inspiration})[4th April 1987]Second Foot]Note); if it in fact appeared gradually giving the eventual appearance described on p.59[[Redbook3:59][19870329:1210h](DEVELOPMENT [continued(5)])[29^th March 1987]], in memory, can it still be described as an Inner Direct Experience, i.e. absolutely true, so far as the basic quality (the Divine Sense or awareness within) is concerned? I think the answer is Yes. <870816>

**[[Redbook3:59][19870329:1210h](DEVELOPMENT [continued(5)])[29^th March 1987]]

***[See last previous entry.]

****One of the usefulnesses of the model of Spiritual Light and Soul Colour [described elsewhere in this journal] is that it allows absolute Spiritual truth to be distorted by personal imperfections and yet still to have been divinely inspired (and see below). <930418>

[continues]

[PostedBlogger25022016]

(BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(14)])[5th April 1987]

[Redbook3:129-130][19870405:1057n](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(14)])[5th April 1987]

19870405.1057

(Sunday)

[continued]

Nevertheless* the sense of underlying unity is an inner-sensed quality, affecting perceptions of the whole external World including oneself; in this it is distinguishable from wholly inner qualities such as that of xP, or +C. It is also distinguishable in that it seems to happen much earlier. The quality comes across strongly as being of God. I speak from memory of long-ago experience.**

(If I am right – if my memory is correct – if I were to write truthfully: 'As I write I feel with an inner sense the strong quality of Divine unity underlying all things', then if I had made a correct account, this statement would be absolutely true)***.

Its effect is to turn, or draw, one strongly towards God. Perhaps that is its purpose. I am not sure that I made this clear enough on p128****. It seems clear now that that it is a relatively early-stage manifestation, perhaps available to anyone who can forget his cares for a time while (say) walking in the country. I am not at all certain that it is likely to re-appear#, particularly as it seems to be essentially a manifestation of Divine quality of [sic] the external World.

*[See last previous entry.]

**cf p59 [[Redbook3:59][19870329:1210h](DEVELOPMENT [continued(5)])[29^th March 1987]] (but see I.88[[Redbook1:88][19691029:0000a]{Visions of imperial transcendence }[29th October 1969]]?)(&II.217[[Redbook2:217][19811228:1330]{Realisation}[28th December 1981]])

***{of “Divine” also? – Yes if describing a quality?}

****[[Redbook3:127-128][19870405:1057k](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(11)])[5th April 1987]]

#(i.e. to me).{v.p128[[Redbook3:127-128][19870405:1057k](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(11)])[5th April 1987]]}

[continues]

[PostedBlogger24022016]

(BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(13)])[5th April 1987]

[Redbook3:129][19870405:1057m](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(13)])[5th April 1987]

19870405.1057

(Sunday)

[continued]

The last three paragraphs* left me with a curious sense of something omitted. I went for an exploration-drive** with [W] and [d] and wondered if it would sort itself out. Since returning I have made one or two amendments, some of which restored what I had first written.

I think the source of the sense of omission (or commission) may be to do with the sense of underlying unity*** and its place in the scheme of things. So far as the Belief/Knowledge discussion is concerned, the absolutely true inner direct knowledge is O.K.:**** almost everything after that is really speculation or supposition.

The sense of underlying unity is a quality classifiable as inner direct knowledge as a quality: as evidence of underlying unity, it is not inner direct knowledge (and therefore it is not necessarily absolutely true), but the knowledge of underlying unity which resulted would be Indirect Knowledge#, I suppose. Nor is the sense, or the indirect knowledge, of underlying unity necessarily conclusive evidence of God (I didn't say it was); nor is it necessarily a quality manifested by Absolute Truth (which I said it was#*), nor, for that matter, is Absolute Truth necessarily God#**. This is all in terms of the Belief/Knowledge discussion#***, which I should not have continued so long. God is the truth beyond proof, or not.#****

*[Probably 3 last previous entries, from [Redbook3:126][19870405:1057i](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(9)])[5th April 1987].][And see [Redbook3:132][19870406:1710](MORBIDITY))[6th April 1987].]

**[through the Highlands of Scotland.]

***ref p59 [[Redbook3:59][19870329:1210h](DEVELOPMENT [continued(5)])[29^th March 1987]].

****so far? <[87]0414>. p.124 [[Redbook3:123-124][19870405:1057f](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(6)])[5th April 1987]]

#[[Redbook3:121-122][19870405:1057d](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued[4]])[5th April 1987]ff]

#*[[Redbook3:127-128][19870405:1057k](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(11)])[5th April 1987] 

– described as the quality of All-in-One-ness and the Unifying Principle]

#**[As claimed: 

[Redbook3:127-128][19870405:1057k](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(11)])[5th April 1987][Redbook3:128][19870405:1057l](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(12)])[5th April 1987]]

#***[[Redbook3:118-119][19870405:1057](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1})[5th April 1987]ff]

#****[2]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger23022016]

(BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(12)])[5th April 1987]

[Redbook3:128][19870405:1057l](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(12)])[5th April 1987]

19870405.1057

(Sunday)

[continued]

Summing up* in terms of the Belief/Knowledge analysis,** in relation to God as the Absolute Truth: there is a class of inner experience, inner direct knowledge of Qualities, which we may describe as absolutely true; one of these Qualities is the Quality describable (poorly) as All-in-One-&-One-in-All; this Quality proclaims itself to be of the Absolute (Truth), has the Quality of Absolute (Truth), has the Quality we should both intuitively and logically expect the Absolute Truth to manifest. (Bearing in mind that a complete knowledge could be expected to be an end to all Separation – ) It is hard to imagine more convincing evidence that it is possible for us to have an absolutely true knowledge of the Quality manifested by Absolute Truth, the All-in-One-and-One-in-All, or God.

Leaving the discussion of Belief and Knowledge – it remains to be said that development of the Individual's Inner Direct Knowledge of God, the One-in-All, leads towards the unveiling of the Spirit of God within him; and the ultimate end of this development is the complete Union of the Individual with God, the All-in-One.

*[See last previous entry.]

**{This is wrong? – see p.128.} This is page 128. <930418>. [See p.129?]

(I believe this argument to be flawed, from somewhere after the middle of p.124 [i.e. from [Redbook3:124-125][19870405:1057g](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(7)])[5th April 1987] to this point.]) [– Believed to be a contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous note.]

[And see [Redbook3:132][19870406:1710](MORBIDITY))[6th April 1987].]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger22022016]

(BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(11)])[5th April 1987]

[Redbook3:127-128][19870405:1057k](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(11)])[5th April 1987]

19870405.1057

(Sunday)

[continued]

This* is important in relation to God, or the Absolute Truth. The Absolute Truth must be, by definition, the All in One.** We should not therefore expect to be able to see God with an Inner Sense as we might see Christ so. But we might expect to be able to experience the quality of God as Totality, the All-in-One quality, in the same way that we experience the quality of Christ or (in my case) xS or xP. ***And indeed we can experience the quality of All-in-One-ness /****(within ourselves, within the natural world for example, as a Unifying Principle)****/.

Poets, particularly of the Romantic kind#, have testified to it on many occasions and in many ways; and I have felt# it myself#* on many occasions before (oddly#** enough) all the systematisation of Circles etc., – lost it when I went down into dryness and darkness, and hope to find it again#***. This leads towards (an acute awareness of) the Quality of God the Spirit within, as the Spirit of God.#* (This last sentence attempts to express something almost impossible to define; but I hope to try again later).

*[See last previous entry.]

**(hence approachable through the Christ Archetype Inner Circle quality of Unity – among others.)

***{But see p129 [[Redbook3:129][19870405:1057m](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(13)])[5th April 1987]].}

/****(Insert[ed])****/ <[87]0405>

#ref. Wordsworth! [[Redbook3:59][19870329:1210h](DEVELOPMENT [continued(5)])[29^th March 1987](1st fn)]

#*(0329 p59 [[Redbook3:59][19870329:1210h](DEVELOPMENT [continued(5)])[29^th March 1987]]).

(But see [[Redbook3:130-131][19870405:1057o](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(15)])[5th April 1987]] p.130.)

#**(No – not oddly.)

#***(Maybe, maybe not.) {NB}

[continues]

[PostedBlogger21022016]

(BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(10)])[5th April 1987]

[Redbook3:126-127][19870405:1057j](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(10)])[5th April 1987]

19870405.1057

(Sunday)

[continued]

There is a link here* with the Archetype Christ, which is historically external and also internal to many people. My inner perception of (internal) +C is qualitatively strong (see above)** and is sufficiently similar to other people's recorded experience of the external Christ archetype (in various contexts) to convince me that we are basically perceiving the same thing.*** 

My knowledge of (internal) +C is absolutely true; the differences between my knowledge of (internal) +C and other people's experience of (internal) Christs may be due to variations from the (external) Christ archetype, or to some or all of us having deliberately distorted our perception to produce a relatively true perception of internal Christ.**** (This seems to be easier or more likely when the inner perception is an analogy of an external sense – e.g. vision, sound – than when it is a 'pure' communication of inner direct knowledge, e.g. a 'quality' felt in a way not possible externally. Thus, my image of +C is different from most other people's images of Jesus (although it has more in common with others' images of the Christ archetype); but my real inner experience of the quality# of +C seems to be the same as that experienced by others#* in relation to Christ or Jesus.)#**

*[See last previous entry.]

**(ref 0326 [[Redbook3:36-37][19870326:1543q]{God's Love}[26^th March 1987]] p.36)

***[But/& see [Redbook2:355-356][19841208:2300c]{Christ-Bearer}[8^th December 1984].]

****(Bear in mind that a complete knowledge is an end to all separation.)

#(ref. 0326 p.36) [[Redbook3:36-37][19870326:1543q]{God's Love}[26^th March 1987]].

#*Not all others, surely? <930418>

#**{cf. [[Redbook3:184][19870414:1003](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{2})[14th April 1987]],185-186.}

[continues]

[PostedBlogger18for20022016]

(BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(9)])[5th April 1987]

[Redbook3:126][19870405:1057i](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(9)])[5th April 1987]

19870405.1057

(Sunday)

[continued]

How can we make the leap* from the absolutely true to the Absolute Truth? So far we have managed to pare knowledge down to the only type which must be absolutely true – Inner Direct Knowledge, such as my inner perception of xS (I think I have shown that she pre-dated my interest in writing about her**; and I do not force or will these experiences). If this is the only way we can be absolutely certain about anything, it is the only way we can be absolutely certain about God, which is our name for the Absolute Truth.*** The problem is that xS is (for the sake of this discussion) purely internal: I can only say 'This quality is xS' without fear of contradiction because xS is the name I have chosen for this quality etc., and I recognise it when it comes up again (I suspect that others see her under other names, but I cannot know this absolutely).

God, or the Absolute Truth, on the other hand, presumably exists (if he exists) both externally and internally: I should expect my perception of God to be similar to that of others who have gone about things in the same way.

*[See last previous entry.]

**(e.g.) 105-6 [[Redbook3:105-106][19870404:1005n](INNOCENCE{:[xS]})[continued (3)])[4th April 1987]] <930418>

***cf. Aquinas? <890930>

[continues]

[PostedBlogger18for19022016]

(BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(8)])[5th April 1987]

[Redbook3:125-126][19870405:1057h](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(8)])[5th April 1987]

19870405.1057

(Sunday)

[continued]

The implication* that inner vision can only be relatively true is not necessarily correct. To avoid it, one has to make the connection between the absolutely true and the Absolute Truth, the former being manifestations of aspects of the latter. In other words, one has to believe in God,** in order to come to know God by Inner Direct Knowledge. It is perhaps no coincidence that the heyday of contrived imaginative painting – in Victorian times (as I understand it) seems to have coincided with the apparent formalisation and externalisation of God in Victorian Christianity; and that the reaction away from inner vision in Arts coincided broadly with the general loss of belief in God. It also perhaps explains why to many modern minds, seeking for that lost inner dimension, so much 'modern' art seems so superficial: the worst is meaningless, the best is merely excellent; rarely is there any sign of inspiration.***

*[See last previous entry.]

**(or at least in the possibility of God – I should think.)
[See next entry, final para. <20160218>]

***Rothko? <930418>

But 'modern' (i.e. recent) abstract art may be seen as a legitimate part of the development from blank page back towards blank page. <880806>

[continues]

[PostedBlogger18022016]

(BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(7)])[5th April 1987]

[Redbook3:124-125][19870405:1057g](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(7)])[5th April 1987]

19870405.1057

(Sunday)

[continued]

*Inner Direct Knowledge is therefore** a process or part of Inner Experience (and incidentally, recognition is not generally a problem: I know it is xP because of her quality). Inner Experience is a broader term, however, and may be misleading***. A crucial element of of Inner Direct Knowledge is that it may be invited (one way or another) but is never willed, or forced. This is presumably why it is particularly characteristic of Inner Circle developments or types of Individual (to whom it may occur elsewhere): the reduction of self-importance, at least at the time of experience, allows it to occur.

Inner Experience is at the root of all true Art – and some Scientific discovery.**** It includes# [sic] Inner Direct Knowledge but may involve an element of deliberate shaping or forming (which Inner Direct Knowledge does not), to which extent it detracts from the absolutely true and becomes, perhaps, relatively true. It is still possible for the Artist to say truthfully: 'I have painted a girl I saw in my mind's eye', but the chances are that he imagined the girl in order to paint her, rather than painting what he saw without thought of painting.#* Possibly this is why painting from the imagination became so unfashionable, because contrived, and therefore, although relatively true (to the Artist's own willed imagination), not absolutely true.#**

And here we come to the impossible leap – not for the first time. Faced with this dissatisfaction with relative truth, Artists seem to have reacted by abjuring all inner vision as subject matter: by concentrating on interpretation and re-interpretation of external scenes, or of form and technique.#***

*{Speculation starts here.}[See [Redbook3:132][19870406:1710](MORBIDITY))[6th April 1987].]

**[See last previous entry.]

***in a religious context.

****Why all true Art and some (true) Science? Perhaps because there is more room for accident in Science. <870816>

#[In the sense, I think, that the concept of Inner Direct Knowledge is a subset or type of the concept of Inner Experience: not that all Inner Experience includes Inner Direct Knowledge. <20151206>]

#*{Nature of fantasy?}

{cf. [[Redbook3:184][19870414:1003](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{2})[14th April 1987]]185}

#**{This is rather a harsh judgement: is the statement not, still, absolutely true? Or is external validation of absolute truth creeping in??? No. It is not absolutely true because it omits acknowledgement of the deliberate influence of the Artist in what he 'saw'. To be literally true is not necessarily to be absolutely true. The whole truth is required.}

#***Have they? <890930>

[But see [Redbook3:132][19870406:1710](MORBIDITY))[6th April 1987].]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger16for17022016]