(BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE (2) [continued(4)])[14th April 1987]

[Redbook3:187][19870414:1003d](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE (2) [continued(4)])[14th April 1987]

19870414:1003

[continued]

There can be no doubt that Statement (A)* (if not mendacious nor misunderstood by the hearer) is absolutely true as a statement of what was perceived but there must be some doubt as to whether it tells us anything absolutely true about the objective world beyond its 'face value', i.e. that there was / I had a vision of blue eyes.** I would not seriously suggest that there really were blue eyes where I saw them with an inner sense. Blue eyes are external objects. What I saw was an image or vision of blue eyes, and this is clearly understood when one claims inner perception of an outer phenomenon: it was absolutely true to say that I saw blue eyes, but not to say that blue eyes were there.

*[(A) ' “If I say that as I write I ... see ... blue eyes, with an inner sense: then this will be absolutely true” as a statement of what was perceived.' (See last previous entry.)]

**How does this differ from Direct Outer Knowledge: 'I saw a blue flash in the Sky' (p123 [[Redbook3:122-123][19870405:1057e](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(5)])[5th April 1987]]) – subjectively true? Because it is claimed that there was a blue flash in the Sky but there may not have been. Here, nothing is claimed which may not have been.

[continues]

[PostedBlogger3004for01052016]

(BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE (2) [continued(3)])[14th April 1987]

[Redbook3:185-186][19870414:1003c](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE (2) [continued(3)])[14th April 1987]

19870414:1003

[continued]

This* brings me to my second attempt to qualify and extend the concept: if the first was 'Outwards' to the Inner [sic] Circle, this is perhaps 'Inwards' towards the Centre, the Absolute Truth, which is (the) Objective**. This is extra-ordinarily difficult. While I was grappling with it I had a feeling that I ought to begin distinguishing between types of Inner Direct Knowledge: between those that were analogous {to} or based on external perception senses, such as Visions, and those that were only experienced with an Inner Sense, such as Qualities.*** I got tangled up and resisted this, mainly I think through being too tired to distinguish any more. Re-considering, however, I do feel that the distinction is probably valid. In the passage quoted above, I can distinguish between the two types of Inner Direct Knowledge as follows:

	General		Analogous to External Sense	Unique to Inner Sense
	(e.g. introductory)		(e.g. Visions)	(e.g. Qualities)	(Are there any other?)
(1)	****'(If I say that as I write)
(2)	I			feel the quality of xP's presence
(3)	or		see
(4)				the intense, dynamic innocence of xS
(5)	's		blue eyes
(6)	with an inner sense:....
(7)	(then this will be absolutely true....)'
(8)	(as a statement)

I think (4), the intense dynamic innocence and the identification of xS, are both qualities rather than inner visions, even though they attach themselves to a particular part of the vision (the blue eyes). I suspect that the analogy with external sense of (say) Inner Vision brings with it a similar possibility of objective error, and that this is why the 'ghost at the banquet'# keeps appearing and disappearing: because the perception of quality doesn't carry this possibility. Before discussing this further, let me split the last statement along these lines:

(A) 'If I say that as I write I ... see ... blue eyes, with an inner sense: then this will be absolutely true' as a statement of what was perceived.#*

(B) 'If I say that as I write I feel the quality of xP's presence, or ... the intense, dynamic innocence of xS ... with an inner sense: then this will be absolutely true' as a statement concerning independent (or objective) reality.

*[See last previous entry.]

**[i.e. (the) Objective in the sense opposite to (the) Subjective, not in the sense of the object, goal or purpose. The “(the)”, which was added, is in this respect unhelpful here. <20160229;20160429>]

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

****{ref.123-4[[Redbook3:123-124][19870405:1057f](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(6)])[5th April 1987]]}

#[William Shakespeare, 'The Tragedy of Macbeth': Act III, Scene IV.]

#*(A) (cf.p123[[Redbook3:123-124][19870405:1057f](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(6)])[5th April 1987]]) Without the statement: I see blue eyes with an inner sense. That is what I think I see. It is also what I am really perceiving. What is it? – a vision or image.

[continues]

[PostedBlogger30042016]

(BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE (2) [continued])[14th April 1987]

[Redbook3:184-185][19870414:1003b](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE (2) [continued])[14th April 1987]

19870414:1003

[continued]

I then attempted, speculatively and not altogether successfully, to extend and qualify this* in two directions. First, I envisaged the Artist or other imaginative person who more-or-less deliberately reforms the inner experience according to his own nature, and suggested that although this was an Inner Experience, it was not absolutely true in the way that Inner Direct Knowledge (which is also an Inner Experience) was absolutely true.** This distinction immediately qualifies or limits Inner Direct Knowledge in a new way, whether absolutely or by degree: it may be subjective

(1) in the sense*** that it may**** not be directly observable outside the unique observer;

but it must not be subjective,[--]

(2) in the sense# that the observer

(a) must not influence it, or

(b) must not influence it in a particular way.

I do not know which of [(2)] (a) and (b) is correct, or indeed what exactly the distinction is: I suspect it has to do with the presence or absence of (own) will, or self, [thus#*] analogously classifying Inner Experience as including Outer (and Inner) Circle, but Inner Direct Knowledge including Inner Circle only. Beyond the level of the Self I suspect it may be impossible fully to disentangle or distinguish the 'subjective' influence from the 'objective' influence, where subjective has (I think) the meaning (2) above.

*[See last previous entry.]

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

***(Subjective, as Internal)

****i.e. might? <891001>

#(Subjective, as influenced) [This sentence is confusingly worded, with a conceptual crossover mid-way. Definition (1) defines a meaning of being subjective; Definition (2) defines a (quite different) meaning of not being subjective, in two alternative ways. <20160229>]

#*[presumably]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger29042016]

(BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE (2))[14th April 1987]

[Redbook3:184-193][19870414:1003](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE (2))[14th April 1987]

19870414:1003

Reconsidering my arguments on Belief and Knowledge* – throughout the final 'non-speculative'** section on Inner Direct Knowledge***, there was a 'ghost at the banquet'**** phrase which kept trying to insert itself at the time or afterwards: 'as a statement': e.g. 'If I say that as I write I feel the quality of xP's presence, or see the intense dynamic innocence of xS's blue eyes, with an inner sense: then this will be absolutely true' 'as a statement' (Underlined words not originally included). I resisted this because it seemed too wide a limitation, equating Inner Direct Knowledge with Outer Direct Knowledge (where the speaker may have misinterpreted what he has seen): so far as Inner Direct Knowledge is concerned, provided the speaker is truthful (which we have assumed all along) and the statement is not misunderstood by the listener, the statement encompasses# the full reality of the experience, so far as the experience is, although real, entirely subjective.

*Ref. 118-131 [[Redbook3:118-131][19870405:1057](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1})[5th April 1987]].

[& cf. [Redbook3:169-172][19870411:2200]{Archetypes and Qualities(1)}[11th April 1987] <20160409>]

**(or more 'logical')

***[[Redbook3:123-124][19870405:1057f](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(6)])[5th April 1987], presumably.]

****[William Shakespeare, 'The Tragedy of Macbeth': Act III, Scene IV.]

#{(so far as a statement can!)}

[continues]

[PostedBlogger28042016]

(THINKING [continued])[13th April 1987]

[Redbook3:182-183][19870413:1450c](THINKING [continued])[13th April 1987]

19870413.1450

[continued]

Article in The Times re Dr. David Lewis, psychologist, 'Mind Skills', who has identified four ways of thinking: intellectual, intuitive, innovative and implementative. It seems to me that these can be fitted* as diagonal aspects to the four cardinal aspects [of the Circles]: cerebral + manufactural[,] and analytical + inspirational (two polarities). These two polarities were identified partly out of / along with the attempt to fill in gaps in the statistical occupations survey result, but they are strongly in line with the four original Cardinal Qualities on the Inner Circle. The significance is that, although subjective, the four ways of thinking represent the deductions of a qualified mind which fit not only the basic patterns of the Circles but also the astrological location[s] given by the survey results, and thus provide further evidence towards the basic soundness of the whole pattern.

A sketch is given overleaf: [below, represented as a table, including] <Survey results>

				December/ January
				(ATTRACT-ION) UNITY Cerebral				<Schizo-phrenics Jan-Mar>
	<Extraverts>							<Musicians, Comedians>
<Army officers>		(ORDIN-ATION)	Intellectual HARM-ONY		Intuitive LOVE	(SIMPLIF-ICATION)	(hence 'simpleton'?)
<Doctors, Lawyers>
October/ September	(OUTER ACTION)	Analytical INNER ACTION		↑ ←☼→ ↓		Inspirational REVELAT-ION	(REVOL-UTION)	March/April
<Army officers>
		(COMPLIC-ATION)	Implement-ative EVOLUT-ION		Innovative CREAT-ION	(FRAGMEN-TATION)		<Anxious dispositions>
								<Artists, Introverts>
				Manufactory**** DIVERSITY (DISTRACT-ION)
				July/June

[The central square & diagonal cross in the ms. diagram does not have arrowheads (the diagonal arrows not being available in Blogger), and the diagonals are more centred.][Bold emphasis and underlining added at transcription.]

The Outer Circle Qualities suggest the negative aspect of these characteristics – as one would expect. The impression I have is that the diagonal characteristics or ways of thinking depend upon the interrelationship of the cardinal characteristics – as indeed the diagonal archetypes [have] developed in '[2]' from the interrelationship of the cardinal archetypes. I had already placed the 'Intellectual' approach with xA, and I think considered xS to be Intuitive (as +K had been in earlier [fiction] books)**; but 'Innovative'*** and 'Implementative' (the last being a new word to me) are wonderful gifts.

The statistical finding of two areas for Army Officers was curious. However, my [relatively] brief experience of Army Officers at close quarters suggest[s] that there are two broad types of successful Army Officer, both analytically minded, one being generally more intellectually oriented to the other's generally more implement[at]ive/action orientation. Perhaps this reflects the old tension between Staff and Line Officers? – each of whom tends to flatter and despise the other. I do not know whether the same division is found in other occupations, or even in other Arms of the Forces.

*ref. p.162 [[Redbook3:160-162][19870409:1345q](TAROT NUMBERING, AGES AND OCCUPATIONS [continued(4)])[9th April 1987]] Diagram [Final two columns].

**[i.e before xS developed out of +K & +C, both conceptually and in the fictional narrative. <20160229>]

***for 'Creation'. <891031>

****[Later, 'manufactural' <20160425>.]

[PostedBlogger25for27042016]

(THINKING)[13th April 1987]

[Redbook3:182-184][19870413:1450b](THINKING)[13th April 1987]

19870413.1450

[continued]

The distinction between various types of inner experience is crucial, and comes only with sensitivity, practice and humility. I am not sure that it is possible to analyse these distinctions for brief description: writing about the experiences may help. For instance, in trying to follow 'inner promptings' in choice of action, one must learn to identify wishful thinking, affected by self-will; also, one must distinguish the sense of oppression or depression induced by a wrong course from the sense of nervousness and reluctance induced by a difficult course.

[PostedBlogger25for26042016]

(FITS)[13th April 1987]

[Redbook3:181][19870413:1450](FITS)[13th April 1987]

19870413.1450

'And it was not only his memory that suffered after each attack; he was overwhelmed by “a feeling of terrible guilt” just as though he had committed some dreadful crime. But his feeling before the onset of the fit (as he described it in The Idiot) seemed to compensate for its terrible aftermath. “For a few moments before the fit,” he wrote* to the critic Nicholai Strakhov, “I experience a feeling of happiness such as it is quite impossible to imagine in a normal state and which other people have no idea of. I feel entirely in harmony with myself and the whole world, and the feeling is so strong and so delightful that for a few seconds of such bliss one would gladly give up ten years of one's life.' (David Magarshack, Translator's Introduction to Dostoyevsky's 'The Idiot') (Should or could it have been entitled 'The Fool'? Is the word the same in Russian?)

Somewhere in an earlier volume**, I believe, I described how a lad next to me at the London College of Printing suffered an epileptic fit, and the curious cork-screwing*** motion with which he fell. On the same day I read an account in The Times(?) of what appeared to be epileptic-type fits induced by contact at charismatic religious meetings.

I was intrigued to read that Dostoyevsky made eight attempts to plan 'The Idiot', and that he originally intended it to be in eight parts. I have not yet begun to read the book itself.****

*(Letter to Nicholai Strakhov) <900825>

**II,202-3 [[Redbook2:202-203][19810914:1900a]{An Epileptic Fit}[14^th September 1981]]

(cf. Also II, 35 [[Redbook2:35-36][19740121:0035]{Fits}[21st January 1974]]).

***This exact description is not in the original [journal entry]. <870811>

****{cf. VII.239ff.}

[PostedBlogger23for25042016]

{Qualities and Developments (?) – Patterns of life}[13th April 1987]

[Redbook3:180A][19870413:0000]{Qualities and Developments (?) – Patterns of life}[13th April 1987]

19870413

Non-fiction?*

	TAROT	CIRCLES QUALITIES etc.; & Chapter names?
A
0	Fool	Man					Preface		The Individual
I	Magician	The Treadmill					Introduction		The Pattern	'The Wheel of Fortune'
B		(?Framework)	[Single-circle symbol here]
0	Fool	(The Unborn?)	Summary & Preface				Link
II	High Priestess	The Child	Childhood (School & Family)	– Love,	not Ordin-ation			Water	(Nurture) The Family	(Intuition)
III	Empress	The Youth	Youth (Student)	--Creation,	not Complic-ation			Fire	Neigh-bours. The Com-munity	(Innovat-ion)
IV	Emperor	The Adult	Adult-hood	– Evolution,	not Fragmentation			Earth	Nations	(Implem-entation)
V	High Priest	The Old	Age	– Harmony,	not Simpli-fication			Air	Nature	(Intellect-ion)
C			Summary & Preface		[Single-circle symbol here]
(0)	(Fool)	Selfishness					Knave or Knight?			(Spades)
VI	Lover	Attraction	Choices			Cupid/Sag-ittarius (or Capricorn)	Link		Extra-version	(Cyren-ians)
VII	Chariot	Ordination	Discipline & decision			Scorpio	?Hercules?	Air	Eagle. (Staff Officers)	(The Law)
VIII	Justice	Outer Action	Willpower & action			Libra Virgo	(Scales of Justice) (Astrea, Goddess of Justice)		Doctors & Lawyers	(Finance etc.?) Diamonds
IX	Hermit	Complic-ation	Expansion & complic-ation			Leo	The Crow & The Cup	Earth	Lion (Line Officers)	(The Army)
X	Wheel of Fortune	Distraction	Distract-ions			Cancer Gemini	Crab bit Hercules		(Human (1))	([????]) Clubs
XI	Fortitude	Fragment-ation	Break-downs			Taurus	Perseus (& Gorgon)	Fire	Dragon (Artists & Introverts)	Lion overcome. [CH]
XII	Hanged man	Revolution	Defeat			Aries Pisces	(Jason & The Golden Fleece).		(Anxiety)	Hearts (Bus. & Property)
XIII	Death	Simplific-ation	Resign-ation		Cup (Gethsa-mane).	Aquarius	Androm-eda etc. & Pegasus. Cup-bearer, Gany-mede.	Water	(Musicians, Comedians) (Human (2))	Schizo-phrenia
D					(+ Summary & Preface)		Link
(0)	(Fool)	Selflessness	Crises	[Double-circle symbol here]		Capricorn	Pan escaping Typhon's fire by water.	+I~?(Raphael/St. Christ-opher)		Spades (Blades)
XIV	Temperance	Love				Aquarius	Queen	The xS?		Water
XV	Devil	Revelation				Pisces Aries	Cup	+G~
XVI	Tower	Creation				Taurus		xP??(/)		Fire
XVII	Star	Diversity				Gemini Cancer	Rod	Pan – +Az~
XVIII	Moon	Evolution				Leo		xL		Earth
XIX	Sun	Inner Action				Virgo Libra		+M~
XX	Judgement	Harmony				Scorpio	– Ophiuch-us (End)	xA		Air
XXI	World	Unity					Sword	+I~
E				[Single circle here]		Writing in the Stars – Constellations?
0	Fool	The Perfect Fool? The Perfect Nobody?	Perfection				Summary	King	Christ

*[Or possibly not. This is an inserted page, i.e. a note not originally part of the Journal ms. Possibly unfinished (e.g. lower part of fourth column). Some tidying-up and re-arrangement has been inevitable here in order to fit the ms to the table format. <20160325>]

[PostedBlogger23for24042016]