{World Circles [continued(3)]: ((2) Vertical))}[8th July 1987]

[Redbook4:21][19870708:1245c]{World Circles [continued(3)]: ((2) Vertical))}[8^th July 1987]

19870708.1245

[continued]

There is also* an ambiguity with regard to North and South. I tend to draw [+C]I~ at the top as a matter of hierarchy, and [+Mk]A~ at the bottom. Our map-making conventions then suggest North as top and South as bottom.

In fact, most (or virtually all) symbols, indications and myths make it the other way round: [+Mk]A~ in the North (?as King of the World; industrialised materialistic North; famine?; [the Biblical Book of] Zechariah's black chariot going North; even the [...]land itself in the North, and its internal structure); and [+C]I~ in the South (the undeveloped/fully developed Fool; plague?).

Whereas there is an inbuilt and permissible ambiguity in terrestial East-West, given the Earth's rotation – go far enough West and you reach east, and v[ice-]v[ersa] – the ambiguity of North-South is far less noticeable: we do not say that if you go far enough North you come to South: you actually change direction to start going South again;*** if you go West you carry on going West****. These are mental concepts but crucial to the difference between the two polarities.#

*[See last two previous entries.]

**(cf. also the Southern Cross & the Northern Pole – ref. Sistine Chapel/Last Judgement interface.)[=?]

***{As on the Circles!}

****{Not as on the Circles?}

#{cf. the mirror correspondence in New Scientist, early 1987?}

[continues]

[PostedBlogger07072016]