{Quality relationships (3): Dynamic Independence [continued(4)]}[16th April 1987]

[Redbook3:199-201][19870416:1730d]{Quality relationships (3): Dynamic Independence [continued(4)]}[16th April 1987]

19870416.1730

[continued]

The answer to the problem* (rather than trying to show that hatred and anger do not have objective reality or the quality of absolute truth** – which may be so, but I cannot really demonstrate it) is that we are passing beyond the limits of “logic” and entering the realms of experience, to find the experiential God: the Living God.

“Logic” indicates, through the existence of

(1) States of Mind such as emotions,

and through the existence of

(2) (Inner) Qualities

(I have a feeling that (2) may be considered to be independent of (1), not a sub-group of (1); but it is a question of labels)

that Absolute Truth exists as a Quality.***

However, experience of the independence of Qualities (such as Innocence and Love) from control by the Self indicates strongly that giving rise to each of them is a dynamic, not simply a static, force. If they are experienced as operating in a pattern (as they do seem to), as opposed to randomly or simply in accordance with with the varying day-to-day needs of the Individual, this would suggest that a single Dynamic Principle is behind all of them. If (as seems to be the case) other Individuals also experience the pattern of operation, this would suggest that the Dynamic behind all the Qualities has Objective Reality (as do, of course, the Qualities themselves), i.e. exists independently of the particular observer.

I am not absolutely certain whether inner direct knowledge of the Independence from Control of the Qualities**** is implied by experience of the way they operate; if it is, the Quality of Absolute Truth must presumably attach to the Independence of Control of each Quality.

However, even if by a form of logic we can demonstrate that the Dynamic is (or is likely to be) the same Dynamic for all Qualities and for all Individuals, it is, of course, not a matter of inner Direct Knowledge that this is so, only of Indirect Knowledge, being inferential and (at least partly) external. We accept Indirect Knowledge, once properly validated, as Knowledge, in our external affairs. It cannot be proved that the Dynamic is not (say) the result of Evolution and genetic coding.

We are back in the realm of Probable Truth, which is all that Indirect Knowledge can produce.

*[See last previous entry.]

**(e.g. that they are inner experiences ([[Redbook3:184-185][19870414:1003b](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE (2) [continued])[14th April 1987]] p184-5) but not inner direct knowledge, because controllable and creatable by the Individual if not necessarily controlled or created) (i.e. not quite like the Artists' [sic] [inner experience?]).

***[Line breaks added in typing.]

****[i.e. Independence of the Qualities from Control, presumably.]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger13052016]