{National Cycles [continued (4)]}[6th March 1988]

[Redbook5:39-40][19880306.0000c]{National Cycles [continued (4)]}[6th March 1988]

19880306. (a.m.?)

[continued]

It is arguable* that what we are living through now is the final end of Norman rule in Britain (and Ireland). Why such a significant cycle – for if it is a cycle, it is certainly significant – should be limited or defined by an arbitrary round figure of natural time-units – i.e. 1,000 years – I do not know: the derivation of the natural unit is obvious, but I suppose the reasons for the decimal system are rooted in the arcane art of Mathematics (if not in the number of our digits)**.

What it does suggest, whether or not the Bi-millennium also has significance,*** is a genuine Crisis around 2,000 a.d., and the possibility of a turning-point in the way World affairs are ordered. Ordered? No, surely that is the point: Ordination (or Organisation) must be the sub-ordinate (no getting away from it), if external, part of the new World order (oh dear, oh dear). The inner part – and the predominate influence at the start – must be Love: The Love of People and of Peoples for each other, for the Spirit of God in each other. This turning point can only come about through +C†I~.****

*(& I have argued before, I think [– not found])

**[The latter, surely. <20171027]

***{cf. [[Redbook5:150-151][19880613:0930b]{Aquarius (2)}[13th June 1988],] 150}

****[See next entry.]

[PostedBlogger31122017]

{National Cycles [continued (3)]}[6th March 1988]

[Redbook5:38-39][19880306.0000b]{National Cycles [continued (3)]}[6th March 1988]

19880306. (a.m.?)

[continued]

Clearly, it is arguable that this* sort of analysis depends on arbitrary definitions. For example, the British empire is seen in a Bi-centennial cycle as a process of Ordination-Action etc; in the Millennial and Bi-millennial cycles it becomes a stage of Fragmentation-Revolution-Simplification. Two points have to be borne in mind: first, that Contra-rotation always operates to a greater or lesser degree** (i.e. the Outer Circle is echoed by an Inner Circle); and second, that a great deal depends on the length of perspective.

In the (relatively) short term, the British Empire in the 19^th Century may be seen as a process of organisation and conquest (outer action) of imperial territories and peoples; in the (relatively) long run, British Imperialism as a whole, from (say) 1600 to 2000, may appear more like the fragmentation of the populations and cultures of the British Isles into wide geographical areas, with accompanying political, economic and social revolutions, leading in the end to great simplification of the British national entity (which is where we are now – and there may be more to come).

*[See last previous entry.]

**{Probably a lesser degree in these cases!}

[continues]

[PostedBlogger30122017]

{National Cycles [continued]}[6th March 1988]

[Redbook5:37-38][19880306.0000]{National Cycles [continued]}[6th March 1988]

19880306. (a.m.?)

The cycle identified above* looks like a two-century cycle, or thereabouts. No doubt the phrase 'fin-de-siècle' suggests century cycles as well, arising, perhaps (like the week-cycle) more from Man's awareness of his own chosen units of time than from any natural time-span (such as the day or the year).

Millennia, thousand-year-periods, have since Christ (well, 'has' – there's only been one millennium so far, after all, just) inspired imaginations: several mediaeval European societies were converted to Christianity in the years approaching 1,000 a.d. in anticipation, it seems, of the Big Breakthrough.** But it is certainly possible to identify two 1,000 year cycles in British history since the time of Christ. The first begins, naturally enough, with Christ – and the imposition of order by the Romans.

Perhaps a chart would show better the fits*** and misfits of these cycles:

Millennia					Bimill- ennia
+C†I~ Attraction	0 (CHRIST)	55BC/ 43AD	Romans arrive		+C†I~
Ordination	100	(Some	\
M~	200	Conversions)	Roman Rule
Outer Action	300		/
Complication	400		Romans leave
Distraction A~	500		English invasions and settlements: separate kingdoms	\
Fragmentation	600		((2nd) Conversion of the English begins)	\
G~	700			Seaborne invasions
Revolution	800	871-901	Alfred the Great	/
Attraction	900		\ Danish invasions	/	A
+C†I~	1000	1042-60 1066-87	/ [–] Edward the Confessor Norman Conquest – Imposition of order.
Ordination	1100	1154-89	Henry II – Government machinery & laws.
Outer	1200	1272-1307	Conquest of Wales & Invasion of Scotland (Ed. I)
Action	1300	\
Complication	1400	Plague	Loss of French territories. Rise of Merchants, Wars of the Roses
A~ Distraction	1500	/	Reformation. Break with Rome, Dissolution of the Monasteries.	Foundation of Royal Navy.
	1600	/ 1558 [1603]	Elizabeth I ascends throne. Union of Crowns.
	1700	1640-9 1688	Civil War Glorious Revolution (→William and Mary) Union of English & Scots Parliaments. (Enlightenment &) Science.
Revolution	1800	c.1759-76	Pinnacle of British World power (Red Coats NB)	(1789 French Revolution[)]
	1900	1832	Reform Bill. INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.	Missionary activity. Maritime Empires.
+C†I~	2000				+C†I~

[Some of the precise positioning of text against years in the ms. is lost in this ts. Table.]

****

*[See last previous entry.]

**(I may have covered this before, e.g. II. [? – not found; but see [[Redbook1:208-210][19710621]{Prophecy}[21st June 1971]].)

***Curious word, 'fit'.

{Like many English words, it has contradictory meanings – depending, perhaps, on the viewpoint.}

****{cf. VI. [] 244}

[And/but see later entries.]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger28for29122017]

{National Cycles}[5th March 1988]

[Redbook5:36-40][19880305:1846]{National Cycles}[5th March 1988]

19880305.1846

The Bishop of Worcester's comment in The Times today* that 'Some have described our society in the past two decades as having suffered a corporate nervous breakdown' – places that society at or after J~ in terms of Circles Analysis.

This suggests that the end of a longer cycle** may be approaching: the Crisis point at which decisions may be made. I would tentatively mark this cycle as having begun during the first quarter of the last century, or possibly a little earlier in some respects: such cultural cycles are bound to show 'ragged edges'. I would guess that the A~ period was about 1914 to 1945.

It also suggests the possibility that J~-G~-R~-type people may be capable of greater insight into the nature of their Society at such a time.*** It is not unusual for a culture in its politically and economically declining years to produce a sudden rash or flush of artistic brilliance.

*T[imes] 880305, [p]10.

**(for our Country)

***{Spot on. See VI. [] 255.}

[continues]

[PostedBlogger28122017]

{The Beginning and the End}[3rd March 1988]

[Redbook5:35][19880304:1835f]{The Beginning and the End}[3rd March 1988]

19880304.1835

[continued]

I was struck again* (yesterday) as to how to start my booklets*... there came to mind the curiously mixed-up order: **'Speak, and words will be given to you.' (or something of that sort). The next thing that occurred to me was the obvious and only starting point: +C†I~. So I did.***

*[See [Redbook4:47][19870714:1052b]{Past and Future [continued]}[14^th July 1987];

[Redbook4:126-127][19871014:2155d]{Generalisation and Specialisation [continued (4)]}[14th October 1987];

[Redbook4:233][19871215:2232e]{Booklets?}[15th December 1987];

[Redbook4:292-293][19880105:1222d]{Student Teacher [continued (4)]}[5th January 1988]]

**{cf. [[Redbook5:125][19880527:2240d]{Speak!}[5^th May 1988],] 125;

IV. [[Redbook4:48-49][19870730:0010]{“Speak!”}[30^th July 1987] ] 48.}

***As it happened, this seems to have been a false start....

or perhaps not!

<880323>

– I think I went wrong later: the starting (and ending and turning) point was and is correct <880929>

But see VI. [] 297: Perhaps 'speak' is meant literally. <891006>

[PostedBlogger26for27122017]

{Epilepsy}[3rd March 1988]

[Redbook5:35][19880304:1835e]{Epilepsy}[3rd March 1988]

19880304.1835

[continued]

In New Scientist also* this week,** in a review of 'The origins of modern British psychiatry{'}, is a fascinating remark on the origins of Electro-Convulsive [sic] Therapy (a treatment which [S E-T]*** told me, if I recall correctly,**** seemed to have stopped her writing (I would ironically say 'cured her of writing'))#. Apparently ECT came into use in an attempt to induce fits after it was noted that 'soon after an epileptic fit, schizophrenic symptoms disappeared'.

Somewhere#* I think I discussed epilepsy in relation to other mental illnesses more easily placed on the Circles; I may have tentatively placed it at A~ or +C†I~. #** This#*** linkage however seems to place epilepsy precisely at +C†I~, whether continuing on the Outer Circle or turning on the Inner Circle. This does tie in with the place of epileptic-type symptoms in extreme religious ecstatic rituals:#**** no other mental illness or 'dis-ease' so far as I know has this aspect of epilepsy.##  Interesting word' 'ecstatic'.

##*

*[See [Redbook5:33-34][19880304:1835b]{Occupational Gender (2)}[3rd March 1988]]

** N[ew] S[cientist] 1602,[p]71.

***[Formerly a successful published author in the U.S.A.. See e.g. [Redbook2:117-119][19780430:1500a]{Occupational Hazards}[30th April 1978]]

****II/III[?]? [I have been unable to find this.]

#{Recently, though, I read of a poet who suffered ECT and continued writing – was it [Sylvia] Plath? If so it doesn't seem to have stopped her dis-ease either.}

[Sylvia Plath underwent electro-convulsive therapy on a number of occasions. She suffered from depression, and committed suicide (after a number of attempts) on 11^th February 1963. There is a view that some of her ECT treatments were successful: http://journals.lww.com/ectjournal/Citation/2017/09000/Sylvia_Plath_Recovered_Completely_by.24.aspx;

but this view of ECT is not universal. <20171017>]

#*IV. [[Redbook4:226][19871214:2010d]{Schizophrenia (1) [continued]}[14th December 1987], fn2] near end?

#**{Not A~, I think: that is Depression [sic] (including manic depression) and Anger?}

[Elsewhere (& currently) depression is seen I think as more characteristic of M~ than of A~; but manic depression – bipolar disorder – possible more characteristic of A~. <20171017;(20171223)>]

#***[{Underlining} added later.]

#****ref II.[[Redbook2:203-204][19810914:1900b]{An Epileptic Fit [continued]}[14^th September 1981]]….

##But cf. earlier schizophrenics as shamans? <891006>

[If 'earlier' refers to this Journal, rather than to schizophrenia in history, I have been unable to find the reference; but somewhere I seem to recall a reference to earlier societies possibly regarding the hearing of voices as a gift rather than an affliction.]

##*##*{II.[[Redbook2:35-36][19740121:0035]{Fits}[21st January 1974],] 35,

[[Redbook2:202-203][19810914:1900a]{An Epileptic Fit}[14^th September 1981],] 202;

III.[[Redbook3:181][19870413:1450](FITS)[13th April 1987],]181}

[PostedBlogger26122017]

{Trades, Professions and Vocations}[3rd March 1988]

[Redbook5:34][19880304:1835d]{Trades, Professions and Vocations}[3rd March 1988]

19880304.1835

[continued]

I am not sure that I have covered this, at all or in this way, before – but the Inland Revenue's* classic division of occupations into Trade, Profession or Vocation brilliantly analyses the categories of occupation:

[[Text of ms rough diagram of which an extract is shown above:]

G~	VOCATION	+	PROFESSION	M~
		TRADE
		A~

[In the ms diagram of which an textual extract is shown above, the three categories are shown curved round the lower three-quarters of an invisible circle, and the central square cross extends to that perimeter.]

+C†I~** presumably has no occupation: he is the beginning and the end, Being*** not Becoming***

****

*[Principal UK direct taxation authority, now part of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. <20171013>]

**[which would be at at the top of the diagram, but is not shown.]

***[[{Initial capitalisation inserted later}]]

****My own Outer Circle progress, as it happens, has been precisely through Profession (The Law, Accountancy), Trade (Computerised Services, [Personal] Property Development) and Vocation (Decision to give priority to writing and what is behind/beyond writing). I am at Vocation now; I expect in due course to Trade again (in books etc.). What then?

[PostedBlogger23for25122017]

{Occupational Gender (2) [continued]}[3rd March 1988]

[Redbook5:33-34][19880304:1835c]{Occupational Gender (2) [continued]}[3rd March 1988]

19880304.1835

[continued]

I am in danger of changing the emphasis of Circles Analysis to suit my convenience. For example, I have (earlier)* seen committees as characteristic of the G~ hemisphere (perhaps towards the A~ pole?); it is misleading to talk about institutions as though they were an M~ hemisphere characteristic. I should perhaps be talking specifically of hierarchies on that side.** The institutional procedures and peer approvals which may distort the male-female balance should be seen as occurring within hierarchical structures,*** whether Companies or Associations: the phrase used in the N[ew] S[cientist]**** – 'at the top of certain professions' – indicates this most strongly.

*[[Redbook5:16][19880214:2326]{The Hero and the Committee (1)}[14^th February 1988]]

**[i.e the M~ side, presumably.]

***{(Committees are, in theory, composed of equals....)}

****[See last previous entry.]

[See [Redbook5:30-31][19880303:1101]{Occupational Gender (1)}[3rd March 1988].]

.

[PostedBlogger23for24122017]

{Occupational Gender (2)}[3rd March 1988]

[Redbook5:33-34][19880304:1835b]{Occupational Gender (2)}[3rd March 1988]

19880304.1835

[continued]

A reference in this week's New Scientist* to why women are (or were) not found at the top of certain professions does not, unfortunately, state which professions; the article is about the lack of women in chess. Circles Analysis might place chess as an S~-type game, and suggests that women would be in short supply at the top of medicine, law, the Army, and probably science. This is inconclusive: women are being found more at the top of the legal profession (as judges); the Army has effectively barred them institutionally;** I have no knowledge of the situation in medicine.

The fact is*** that in any occupation where promotion depends on institutional procedures or peer approval, the situation is likely**** to be distorted: either by discrimination against one sex, or by discrimination for it.# Only where individuals can work now with relative independence and where their success is measured directly by the market (for example), can this distortion in practice#* be avoided. If women tend to do well perhaps more often in these occupations,#** men may still predominate at the top; this can be seen as part of the Circle pattern, as well as reflecting institutional tendencies.

*(N[ew] S[cientist] 1602 p72)

**[Except from women-only units such as the Women's Royal Army Corps. The slow overturning of this bar in the British Army was finally completed in or about 2017 with the admission of women to front-line roles.]

***or seems to be!

****at present

#Clearly discrimination against one sex implies discrimination for the other, & vice versa; but in practice the impact on each sex depends on the relative numbers involved (e.g. applying [for a position, presumably]).

#*[The probable meaning of this might have been better conveyed by placing the underlined words at the end of the sentence. <20171013>]

#**ref [[Redbook5:30-31][19880303:1101]{Occupational Gender (1)}[3rd March 1988],] p30-31

[See [Redbook5:30-31][19880303:1101]{Occupational Gender (1)}[3rd March 1988].]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger23122017]