(ANOTHER RELAPSE [continued])[30th April 1987]

[Redbook3:215-216][19870430:2210](ANOTHER RELAPSE [continued])[30th April 1987]

19870430.2210

... but *to have returned again frequently. I think what this (acknowledgement of current failure) means is that one of the following must happen before I can put it all behind me:

(1) My parents convince me that I am wrong.

(2) My parents admit that they were wrong, genuinely.

(3) I cut my parents out of my life completely.

I had intended to do (3) last September: only my mother's tears and pleas and apparent admissions (later retracted) persuaded me – rightly, I think – to give them the chance to put themselves right.**

But it is now four months since I wrote, and there has still been no reply: I am not strong or detached enough to wait for ever. I may write one more time, if nothing happens shortly after we reach [CH].***

*[i.e. 'relapse'-type symptoms of pre-occupation with parental property deals (See last previous entry).]

**(i.e. morally – or to put me right on facts.) <870502>

***{cf. IV.8.}

[PostedBlogger31052016]

(ANOTHER RELAPSE)[25th April 1987]

[Redbook3:215][19870425:1348](ANOTHER RELAPSE)[25th April 1987]

19870425.1348

During the past week we have exchanged contracts on [the purchase of the new house] [CH] (completion on 12^th May) and have been occupied with arranging our move, thinking about what we do when we get there, etc..

Up until the previous entry, for some time (a matter of a week or weeks), I had felt myself becoming drier and more exclusively analytical in my approach to the subject: an uncomfortable feeling. The break of a week or so* was therefore welcome. During this break, however partly due to the arrival from [M] of an Easter card for [d], partly perhaps to our impending return South and to contact with my family – I suffered 'relapse'-type symptoms of pre-occupation with parental property deals, for a few days; they seem to have faded now, as we plan for the future.

*[Since the last previous entry, presumably.]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger30052016]

(THE STRUCTURE OF TOTALITY [continued(4)])[19th April 1987]

[Redbook3:214][19870419:1050k](THE STRUCTURE OF TOTALITY [continued(4)])[19th April 1987]

19870419.1050

[continued]

(A note on method: this* (currently) final version came when I had switched off concentration and was playing with different ideas.)

I think on the whole I like this last version* best. (Although I am rather sorry to lose the nice compact sphere version of 3-D[imensional] circles: I don't think it will do.(?)) The central perpendicular line is the three-dimensional [sic] centre perpendicular of the solid. The cone can usefully be presented as a four-sided (i.e. square-based) pyramid: I should guess that the sloping edges would represent the Cardinal points, and the sloping faces the diagonal points.

The curious and slightly alarming feature of this drawing* is that the 'Father' aspect of the One emerges as in line with creation and evolution and diversity (inner) (which one might expect) but also of [sic; = with?] complication and fragmentation and distraction (outer) **– these all being the area of the archetype +Mk, who is at (outer) times identified with Satanic aspects or Devilish work. While this may be entirely logical (cf. [William] Blake's and [Carl] Jung's rather different versions, and the Old Testament God), it is disconcerting to have it presented so clearly. I do not suggest that +Mk is the Father: the Trinity is almost as much hidden from us as the One from which the Trinity is manifested. But the link between the Prince of this World and the Creator of the World is logically, as well as diagrammatically, a close one. The Devil is the Father of Lies; but the Creation itself, in Theology as in Physics, may be viewed as a monumental deception.***

*[See last previous entry.]

**{See [[Redbook3:213][19870419:1050j](THE STRUCTURE OF TOTALITY [continued(3)])[19th April 1987]] 213n[ote] [Not clear which footnote is being referred to here, but the handwriting suggests the third, which is dated <890930>.}

***{& seeS&C:R-1.}

But see the Sphere model in V.... <880806>

[PostedBlogger29052016]

(THE STRUCTURE OF TOTALITY [continued(3)])[19th April 1987]

[Redbook3:213][19870419:1050j](THE STRUCTURE OF TOTALITY [continued(3)])[19th April 1987]

19870419.1050

[continued]

Both cones* show a closer relationship of Unity with Union than of Diversity (or of the Centre)(-- is this misleading?).

Any cone can show in the same way that these do the possible relationship of the Union/Separation movement with the Unity/Diversity and Attraction/Distraction relationships. A straight cone (or [a] pyramid) would do this without the complications!

There are lots of other possibilities, e.g.

	UNION
	SPIRIT
Son				Father
				Diversity
Unity/Attraction				Distraction
Here's another:
(The Straight Cone with Angled Discs)
*** FATHER?				SON
****				↑Spirals up?
				Inner Circle (Spiritual)
'Angels' (Spiritual Kingdom)				UNITY	CHRIST
DIVERSITY				ATTRACTION
'Men' (Mental Zone)				Outer Circle (Material)
DISTRACTION
'Animals' (Physical Realm)
Spirals down?↓
	↓←	REVELATION	←←
↓←	←Creation		↑Love←	←
DIVERSITY		→	Simplification↓	↑UNITY
→	Evolution ↓	REVOLUTION↑	→Harmony ↑	↓ATTRACTION
→	Fragmentation ↑	INNER ACTION	↑ ↓Ordination	←
↑DISTRACTION	←Complication	← OUTER ← ACTION	←
	[Text above is as written around circles on diagram.]

*[See last two previous entries.]

**[The original diagrams on pp.211-213 (& 218-220) are in pencil, requiring scanning adjustment which has darkened the background.]

***That would be a Gnostic/Manichaean? Belief. <890930>

****cf.VIII.207: 'Ellipse...; figure produced when a cone is cut by a plane making a smaller angle with the base than the side of the cone makes....' (Conc[ise] O[xford] D[ictionary].).

[continues]

[PostedBlogger28052016]