(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]