{Yin-Yang [continued]}[14th October 1987]

[Redbook4:128-129][19871014:2155f]{Yin-Yang [continued]}[14th October 1987]

19871014.(2155c)

[continued]

What the Chinese* have done, I think, is to take a basic bipolarity sensed in life and try to unify its many manifestations by allocating symbols to one pole or the other:** the development and practice of this system has become an end in itself.

Other people have done this too. I tried this; almost immediately it became a square system, borrowing symbols from Middle Eastern square systems; even that was insufficient to describe actuality, so an eight-pointed system developed, borrowing from Middle Eastern systems of 7+”1”;*** although this also is insufficient, it (a) identifies relationships between many polarities and (b) implies the infinite possibilities of such polarities. In this system the symbols are an aid to comprehension; in the Chinese I think they were (or are) an end in more ways than one.

****I do not for one moment think that Circles Analysis is right; the question is, does it work? If it follows its own logic, it will sufficiently describe actuality for a time before being supplanted by a more accurate analysis, and quite right too.

*[See last previous entry.]

**(cf. III.[[Redbook3:217-222][19870502:1025](EVOLUTION OF PATTERNS OF SYMBOLS)([&] DIAGONAL PERSONALITIES) [2nd May 1987],] 219 [upper], which differs even as a bipolarity.)

***Really? I don't remember this at all. <891002> [Surely this describes the development of the Circles, as shown and occasionally summarised in this journal?]

****[N.B.]

[PostedBlogger20122016]