{Opposites (2)}[4th January 1988]

[Redbook4:288-290][19880104:1622f]{Opposites (2)}[4th January 1988]

19880104.1622

[continued]

Returning* to the types of 'opposites' (that is, of course, the 'opposites' of types) – so far (from the Horsemen)** we seem to have got something like this:

(Outer Circle)			(Inner Circle)
/			/
X	….	….	X
\			\

– no, I have started this wrong!

The problem is that different tendencies operate in different directions across the Circles. I suspect that it is only by taking these into account that one can begin to understand, first, the radial and diametric relationships (i.e. along lines through the centre); and, then, the “circumferential” and chord relationships (i.e. along lines across the Circles but not through the centre) (Outer lines are beyond my range at present, if they exist).

The words used for these relationships are necessarily vague and imprecise as we do not have the proper words for these concepts. But, basically (and as I have mentioned before, I think), the radial relationship between a point on the Inner Circle and the same point on the Outer Circle is the relationship of Inner and Outer aspects of the same quality [sic].

But this is complicated by the orientation of the line. Inner – Outer is similar to Union – Separation, but not quite the same: this unsolved (by me) confusion accounts for the idea of the Skewed Cone.*** 

*[Ref [Redbook4:286-287][19880103:1211g]{Opposites (1)}[3rd January 1988]]

**[Ref [Redbook4:285-286][19880103:1211f]{The Christmas Horseman}[3rd January 1988].]

***III.[[Redbook3:211-214][19870419:1050h](THE STRUCTURE OF TOTALITY)[19th April 1987]ff]

{Compare T:AS,ACl.}{=} [Possibly 'Tarot: Ace of Spades, Ace of Clubs'.]

------

[continues]

[PostedBlogger27for29082017]
[ms. image inserted in ts. and postedBlogger 21092017]