(DISTINGUISHING THE CIRCLES [in Action])[7th April 1987]

[Redbook3:139-140][19870407:0940e](DISTINGUISHING THE CIRCLES [in Action])[7th April 1987]

19870407.0940

[continued]

The distinction between the start of the two Circles* – Inner: Revelation before (Creation and) Action; against Outer: Ordination leading to Action – is not always easy, and often leads to the uneasy awareness that that one is justifying the distinction by later events (even Action and Revolution may be confused: much depends on the point of view).

It is unusual for Action to be entirely unconsidered beforehand (and a tactical reflex action may be highly successful – especially if the result of training and forethought).

I think the important point is the nature of the Revelation required for Inner Circle development (e.g. of Institutions). **First, it must be preceded by Love, which is the motivating or driving force of the Inner Circle. Love of subject would presumably qualify: but like all True Love (see above, various)*** it must be Self-less, detached, disinterested (we have almost lost the real meaning of the last two words nowadays: will we lose the first as well?). The Revelation that springs from this Love is essentially an inner, reflective process, and is thus distinguishable in quality from Ideology as a predecessor to Action.

Ideology when it is first forming may be a form of Revelation, depending upon the way in which it arose; but as soon as it becomes a set of intellectual rules, a substitute for reflection, it takes on the quality of Ordination (e.g. the imposition of outer-circle order by rule).**

*[This description is presumably in the context of Action; otherwise it would seem to be technically incorrect. <20160309>]

**[There appear to be no second or subsequent points here.]

***[Unclear to what this refers; maybe e.g. [Redbook3:135-136][19870406:2300c](SEX AND GENDER [continued(3)]: {True Love and the Death of the Self})[6th April 1987], 1^st para..]

[PostedBlogger09032016]