{The Hero and the Committee (1)}[14th February 1988]

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

19880214.2326

I am not sure to what extent I have noted this before, but television coverage of a 'presidential'-style election campaign in the Young Conservatives brought it to mind: how the Right wing (blue, M~) tend to go in for hero-worship, the Left wing (red, G~) for committees ('Right' and 'Left' are general and relative descriptions). This of course fits the characterisation of single-mindedness as more to the Right (M~), and of multiplicity of personality as more to the Left (G~) of the Circles.*

*In organisations of the Right, committee work is perhaps seen as a female speciality; in organisations of the Left (and of the Right), heroes are almost invariably males (or, in **Mrs. Thatcher's case, perhaps [‘]male[’] in her heroism, [‘]female[’] in her revolutionary inspiration).
[The gender descriptions refer to Circle archetypes; no conclusions should be drawn about individuals. <20180111>]

**[Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS, FRIC was a British stateswoman, who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990 and as Leader of the Conservative Party from 1975 to 1990 (– Wikipedia)]

[But what about e.g. the teamwork of soldiers? <20170918>]

[& see [Redbook5:18-19][19880217:1945]{The Hero and the Committee (2)}[15^th February 1988].]

[But see [Redbook5:295][19880815:1628]{Leaders, Heroes & Committees}[15th August 1988] <20181105>]

[PostedBlogger2611for01122017]

{Multiple Viewpoints and Single Minds [continued (9)]}[12th February 1988]

[Redbook5:15-16][19880212:1155i]{Multiple Viewpoints and Single Minds [continued (9)]}[12^th February 1988]

19880212.1155

[continued]

However, the second part of the answer* is that although U~ (whose original quality on the Inner Circle was Stability/Stabilisation, later Evolution) is diametrically opposite to R~, S~ is the contra-rotational equivalent** and the culmination of the Circles dynamic (short of +C†I~). S~ is near to Fusion, and is Harmony, the co-existence of parts (as in Three-in-One and One-in-Three?),*** whereas single-mindedness represents, I suspect, the suppression of other parts. This is why single-mindedness represents specialisation, one part of Diversity (or Distraction), and not the all-embracing wholeness of Unity.

The numerical correspondence (Single-mindedness with Unity) is misleading: single-mindedness represents acute division of the whole, and specialisation in one part. Multiplicity of personality, by contrast, represents an attempt to embrace the whole (which is ultimately One): being unfused, it can give rise to acute conflict at R~. Fusion*** occurs only after Harmony at S~.

*[See last previous entry.]

**[to R~, presumably.]

***{Crikey! (See TXX-TXXI.)}

****{-- Into One, of course!}

[PostedBlogger26for30112017]

{Multiple Viewpoints and Single Minds [continued (8)]}[12th February 1988]

[Redbook5:15][19880212:1155h]{Multiple Viewpoints and Single Minds [continued (8)]}[12^th February 1988]

19880212.1155

[continued]

*But the diagonal points are, I think, generally dynamic: and Unity is at +C†I~, Diversity at A~. Why, then, is multiple personality at R~ (near +C†I~), and single-mindedness at U~ (near A~)?

The answer has two parts.*** First, I think, we are looking at static points of a dynamic process: the analogy may be with Quantum Physics, in that it may be impossible to specify position (static) and velocity (dynamic) at the same moment. Multiplicity (of mind) and single-mindedness must be seen not only in the context of the essentially static cardinal points, but within the dynamic structure of the two Circles. The Outer Circle is, overall, a separating Circle,** even though it comes back to +C†I~; the Inner Circle is, overall, a fusing Circle, even though it passes through A~. The positions of Multiplicity and Single-mindedness, in relation to Unity and Diversity, must be understood in this context, on each Circle. I find it difficult to put it more clearly or more precisely than that.

*[See last previous entry.]

**cf. IV [[Redbook4:325-326][19880113:1503e]{Opposites (6)*}[13th January 1988]?] (end).

***[See next entry for 2^nd part.]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger26for29112017]

{Multiple Viewpoints and Single Minds [continued (7)]}[12th February 1988]

[Redbook5:14][19880212:1155g]{Multiple Viewpoints and Single Minds [continued (7)]}[12^th February 1988]

19880212.1155

[continued]

The great virtue of the single-minded (I guess) is that they keep things going and get things done. Their drawback, as I have said,* is that they may not be good at the initiation of change, or discovery. But a great problem which the single-minded pose for the 'multiple-minded' is that although the latter can make some attempt at understanding the former, often with some success, the former rarely can (or wish to) understand the latter.**

Most of these latest comments*** apply strongly to U~, which is diametrically opposed to R~ and therefore should be the most intensely single-minded.

*[[Redbook5:12-13][19880212:1155d]{Multiple Viewpoints and Single Minds [continued (4)]}[12^th February 1988]]

**{cf [[Redbook5:67-76][19880316:1300#]{False Christs; True Christ}[16^th March 1988],] 68}

{But see [[Redbook5:47][19880312:1915]{Purpose and View}[12^th March 1988],] p47.}

***(i.e. in the last para.)

[continues]

[PostedBlogger26for28112017]

{Multiple Viewpoints and Single Minds [continued (6)]}[12th February 1988]

[Redbook5:13-14][19880212:1155f]{Multiple Viewpoints and Single Minds [continued (6)]}[12^th February 1988]

19880212.1155

[continued]

R~ is supposed also* to be the point of Intuition and (per my own suppositions)** of 'Horizontal' E[xtra] S[ensory] P[erception] (as contrasted with the 'vertical' E[xtra] S[ensory] P[erception] of S~ – prophecy*** etc.). By 'Horizontal ESP' I mean everything from telepathy to mediumistic clairvoyance, and in this connection I think particularly of those who seem to hear 'spirit' voices giving practical information for or about other Individuals. This is not all that different from controlled schizophrenia: or fiction.

(By contrast [SX]'s tendency to see 'ghosts' as if with the outer eye strikes me as partly due to eidetic vision, the ability to visualise internal images as if they were external images: [SX] also states that he has a photographic memory. The images may still represent truth, for example by symbols: the knowledge behind them may be a form of 'Vertical ESP',** and certainly does not seem to represent multiple sources of the 'I have another voice coming through' type, at all.)

*[See last previous entry.]

**IV. [[Redbook4:199-200][19871206:1235e]{Sense and Sensibility (2)}[6th December 1987],] 199

***Not now – see VI: [] 256. <891006>

[But/& see [Redbook4:200][19871206:1935]{Sense and Sensibility (2) [continued]}[6th December 1987]: '“Prophecy” above* does not necessarily mean telling the future. It is the direct and clear link between God and Man. Natural Scientists, concerned with predictability, and with approaches to objective reality, belong at S~.' ]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger26for27112017]

{Multiple Viewpoints and Single Minds [continued (5)]}[12th February 1988]

[Redbook5:13][19880212:1155e]{Multiple Viewpoints and Single Minds [continued (5)]}[12^th February 1988]

19880212.1155

[continued]

I had thought that this* might clash with earlier ideas on Generalisation v. Specialisation.** However, I don't think it does(!).*** That polarity was Generalisation at +C†I~ and specialisation at A~: this polarity at its extremes is Multiple Personality at R~ and Single[-]mindedness at U~.****

I guess that in this context, R~’s Multiple Personality can be seen as a {“}lean{”} one way from +C†I~'s Generalisation, of which S~'s Harmony (Inner Circle) (and I suppose Ordination on the Outer Circle) can be seen as a “lean” the other way: in 'mystic tarot' terms, the #point at which the different aspects of the Individual (three, in TXX) are all fully developed and learn to live #* in harmony as one (TXXI). J~ (Outer Fragmentation, Inner Creation) is the 'opposite' of these states.#**

*[See last 4 entries, from [Redbook5:9-16][19880212:1155]{Multiple Viewpoints and Single Minds}[12^th February 1988].]

**ref IV.[[Redbook4:124][19871014:2155b]{Generalisation and Specialisation}[14th October 1987],]124

***(I started off seeing xS as single-minded: R~'s multiplicity altered that view; and see below [2^nd para. above].)

****{But see [[Redbook5:15][19880212:1155h]{Multiple Viewpoints and Single Minds [continued (#)]}[12^th February 1988] &f,] 15.}

#Inner Circle

#*{or [are] living}

#**i.e. [the state(s) at] at S~ <891006>

[continues]

[PostedBlogger26112017]

{Multiple Viewpoints and Single Minds [continued (4)]}[12th February 1988]

[Redbook5:12-13][19880212:1155d]{Multiple Viewpoints and Single Minds [continued (4)]}[12^th February 1988]

19880212.1155

[continued]

The concept of 'willing suspension of disbelief'* is, I suspect (from observation) incomprehensible to some minds. These are the single-minded: not necessarily single of purpose** (although it may be easier for them to be so), but single of mind. Something either is true, or it isn't. If it isn't, there is no point in it. This reliable and in many ways commendable attitude to life has one big drawback as a working rule: it makes change difficult for Humans to initiate.

*[See last 3 entries, from [Redbook5:9-16][19880212:1155]{Multiple Viewpoints and Single Minds}[12^th February 1988].]

**{cf. [[Redbook5:18-19][19880217:1945]{The Hero and the Committee (2)}[14th February 1988],] 18}

[continues]

[PostedBlogger23for25112017]

{Multiple Viewpoints and Single Minds [continued (3)]}[12th February 1988]

[Redbook5:11-12][19880212:1155c]{Multiple Viewpoints and Single Minds [continued (3)]}[12^th February 1988]

19880212.1155

[continued]

*This multiplicity (or at least duplicity) of mind is, I think, a creative process related to the creative processes involved in literary Art; and to the psychiatric disorders often characterised by apparent 'split' or multiple personalities. It is possible to see Visual Art, with its single (artist's) viewpoint spreading into the multiple imagery of some works, as more characteristic of J~;** Literary Art with its tendency towards multiple viewpoints as existing along the arc through G~; and Musical Art, with its virtual lack of viewpoint (in the highest, at any rate)*** at R~.****

Art, of course implies Artifice, or at least Artefact: the term 'Art' sits most happily with Visual Art, nearer to the Manufactoral sector of A; moderately happily with Literary Art;# and least happily as Musical Art, nearer to the Cerebral sector of +C†I~.#*

*[See last two previous entries.]

**where [visual] Artists were found by birthdate.

***{cf. [[Redbook5:25-26][19880301:2152#]{The Letter and the Spirit}[1st March1988],] 25;

[[Redbook5:22-23][19880301:2152]{Open-ness and Compartmentalisation}[1st March 1988],] 23}

****where Musicians were found by birthdate.

#[more happily with Dramatic Art, perhaps; and cf. Performance Art, which I think most frequently tends to involve elements of dramatic performance such as movement, (e.g. mime or dance), speech (prose or poetry), but less often music. <20170915>]

#*{cf. [[Redbook5:25-26][19880301:2152#]{The Letter and the Spirit}[1st March 1988],] 25}

[continues]

[PostedBlogger23for24112017]

{Multiple Viewpoints and Single Minds [continued]}[12th February 1988]

[Redbook5:10-11][19880212:1155b]{Multiple Viewpoints and Single Minds [continued]}[12^th February 1988]

19880212.1155

[continued]

*However, certain ground rules must be observed – particularly the work's own rules. I remember my shock when I came across [J.R.R.] Tolkien's version of his early world with its ground-based Suns, and the later creation of the moving Sun. My shock was because at that point, for me, his world-myth, which I had never believed to be historically true, became unbelievable: it was possible to believe that it could have been a myth, which as what I think he as an academic stated his intention to be, but it was no longer possible to believe that it could have been historically true (could have been – not was), which was what I think his literary theory required (bearing in mind that it was conceived as our World at an earlier stage), because it broke away from the fundamental organisation and structure of physics** as we*** see it.

Oddly enough, the different versions of well-known Tolkien legends did not bother me: I could explain this away within the fiction-believing part of my mind as different received versions of an original (potential) history, although closer examination (which was not required) might have caused problems. But with the Suns, my controlling part suspended disbelief; and I think it was from that time that I really lost interest in**** Tolkien, although the habit took some time to die away.

*[See last previous entry.]

**[It might be asked: What of dragons, magic rings, and magic generally? Don't these break away from physics? – The answer is: Not necessarily to anyone who reads science fiction; and it is worth pointing out that science at the time of writing this note makes almost everything in The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings possible (e.g. doors opening on a spoken password) or at least potential (e.g. genetic manipulation to produce orcs, wargs, elves, hobbits and possibly even -- with a dash of artificial intelligence and mechanical technology -- talking, flying, fire-breathing dragons), with the rest based on collective Human anecdotal experience (e.g. ghosts, telepathy). ’It’s really super science-fiction’, per Naomi Mitchison in the orginal dustwrapper blurb to the Lord of the Rings. But the creation of the Sun after the creation of what is specifically stated to be our own planet does, as in Genesis, somewhat complicate the suspension of disbelief: even if one can accept the change of the World at and after the Fall of Numenor as being as much on a spiritual plane as physical <20170915>]

***{(or rather, I)}

****{reading}[especially H.O.M.E. – the multi-volume History of Middle Earth <20171123>]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger23112017]

{Multiple Viewpoints and Single Minds}[12th February 1988]

[Redbook5:9-16][19880212:1155]{Multiple Viewpoints and Single Minds}[12^th February 1988]

19880212.1155

The obvious counterpart of schizophrenia, multiple personality, fictional characterisation, etc. – which may be located round the J~-G~-R~ quadrant, and most intensely around R~ – is single-mindedness, which one would expect (therefore) to find around U~-M~-A~, and most intensely at U~.

I have noticed at (and since) Cambridge that some of my technical friends – not, on the whole, the high-flyers so much as the methodical plodders, although that may be unfair – do not read novels, [or] attend dramatic performances, etc. (although they are more likely to enjoy music, and possibly some films). I recall one friend* at Cambridge, when I innocently brought up the subject of plays or a play, telling me that (words to the effect of) he had not the time for entertainment.** It was a remark whose force stuck in my mind because it set me thinking for the first time why it is not entertainment – by its purpose at least, whatever its method or effect.

When reading a novel or watching a play, I know with one part of my mind that it is fiction – but with another part of my mind, I believe it wholly. The second part of my mind is subsidiary or subject to the first. The 'willing suspension of disbelief' over a limited context [sic] in time and material occurs by permission of the first part. The two parts (and I do not imply – or deny – any physical compartmentalisation of the brain) operate side by side, or at least interleaved: I may make critical comments to my neighbour about the play as a play, tell someone else to shut up, eat an ice cream, and still follow the dramatic action as though I was within the room which the stage represents.

*[Possibly a College contemporary who went on to become a Professor of economics, business or similar.]

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

[continues]

[PostedBlogger22112017]

{Crisis [continued (3)]}[7th February 1988]

[Redbook5:8-9][19880207:2345d]{Crisis [continued (3)]}[7^th February 1988]

19880207.

.2345

[continued]

I should love to know in what way the secular Hebrew scholars understand “mishpat”;* but one can assume that the Greek translators,** if they were not Jews themselves (which they probably were), at least had access to Jewish Christians who knew what it meant. I should also like to know how often the word 'judgement' in our N[ew] T[estament]s translates “mishpat”/“κρισις”.***

The implications are tremendous. Christianity as we have received it is, and has been practically since the beginning, a judgement-based religion. This is one of the less satisfactory aspects to the mind of modern Man. Could it be that we have been under a misapprehension – that scholarship might reveal Christianity to be a religion, not of moral judgement but of separation, of turning points?

Although in Circles Analysis A~ is the Archangel of the Separation, I don't think it is stretching the point to say that the separating process – the Circle itself – begins and ends with +C†I~; and in the Circle eschatology, the separating of Self, Soul and Spirit in various combinations occurs with the Second Death**** at R~-+C†I~, approaching Crisis. A similar reversal is possible under different circumstances at #S~-+C†I~, also approaching Crisis.

A~ is the Archangel#* of the Separation because he keeps the furthest point of the Separation, and thus sets the conditions, static and (I think) dynamic, in which separating can occur.

*[See last previous entry but one.]

**presumably, for the N[ew] T[estament] is meant here – and what of the Septuagint? <891006>

***A[uthorised] V[ersion]: Judgement 39 times from “κρισις” per Y[oung's] C[oncordat]. <891006>

****[cf. [Redbook3:172-173][19870411:2200e](RECALL)[11th April 1987];

[Redbook4:110][19871006:1020f]{Death on the Line}[6th October 1987];

[Redbook4:111-113][19871006:1020h]{Ghosts}[6th October 1987]ff; & '[2]'.]

#[The ms. has xA here, but this use of the fictional name is presumably a mistake for S~.]

#*or Chief Agent <891006>

{cf. [2]}

[PostedBlogger19for21112017]

{Crisis [continued]}[7th February 1988]

[Redbook5:7-8][19880207:2345c]{Crisis [continued]}[7^th February 1988]

19880207.

.2345

[continued]

In '[0]' [the Narrator] finds at [the Castle] a curious message around the fireplace:

	(Eagle)
MARK STIR		CHRIS IS
CRISIS	(Human	MASTER
(Lion)	Face)	(Horned Beast)

[The bracketed words describe free-standing stone, metal or wooden sculptures. The capitalised words represent text carved into the Mantelpiece.]

By an inspired misinterpretation he understands the meaning “Crisis Master” and applies this to the dark hooded figure between the lower words – which, given the shift of the Human Face between A~ and R~,* isn't a bad shot. My present understanding of the words reads them, first, vertically; and then, horizontally:

Mark Stir ∙ Crisis

Chris is ∙ Master

Mark Stir ∙ Chris is

Crisis ∙ Master

*{ref III.[[Redbook3:217-222][19870502:1025](EVOLUTION OF PATTERNS OF SYMBOLS)([&] DIAGONAL PERSONALITIES) [2nd May 1987]] 219-220}

[& see also [Redbook3:27-28][19870326:1543g]{Circles: Crisis and Contra-rotation [continued(3)]}[26^th March 1987].]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger19for20112017]

{Crisis}[7th February 1988]

[Redbook5:6-9][19880207:2345b]{Crisis}[7^th February 1988]

19880207.

.2345

[continued]

But* one point which has just resurfaced is the aptness of the word 'crisis' in the light of its Greek meaning as in: 'I will send my Spirit upon him, and he will present judgement** to the nations'.***

[‘]Crisis... (a.L, a. Gr κρίσις, f. κρινειν to decide)

1. Pathol. The point in the progress of a disease when a change takes place which is decisive of recovery or death; also, any marked or sudden change of symptoms, etc..

(Obsolete) 2. Astrol. Said of a conjunction of the planets which determines the issue of a disease or critical point in the course of events – 1663.

3. transf. and fig. A turning point in the progress of anything; also, a state of affairs in which a decisive change for better or worse is imminent. 1627.

(Obsolete) 4. Judgement, decision – 1715.

(Obsolete) 5. A criterion, sign – 1657 <or token, point by which to judge>.[’]

– Shorter Oxford English Dictionary <& Oxford English Dictionary>.

(There is no entry for crisis or krisis in my Smith's Smaller Latin dictionary, that I can find.)

' “κρισις”, separating, event' (?)

' “κρισις” – originally the process of separating, distinguishing. Its translation 'judgement' in the N[ew] T[estament]**** disguises the true meaning of the word, which contains no idea of condemnation, but means “separating” (e.g. sheep from goats). So “crisis”, frequently wrongly used in English, should be kept for “turning points that necessitate a parting of the ways”.'#

*[See last previous entry.]

**'This gives a meaning of the Hebr.[ew] term “mishpat” (and of its LXX translation “Krisis”), often rendered “judgement”, which signifies the divine statute governing the relationship of God with humanity insofar s it is known through revelation and the religion founded on it.' (N[ew] J[erusalem] B[ible], M[at]t[hew] 12.18, fn.e)

Confirmed in Young's Concordance. <891006>

***(Matthew 12.18, after Isaiah 42.1-4.)

****(But what of the Hebrew [of the Old Testament, presumably – see fn** above]

#{Teach Yourself Greek [Smith and Melluish, 1968]}

[continues]

[PostedBlogger19112017]

{Silence}[7th February 1988]

[Redbook5:6][19880207:2345]{Silence}[7^th February 1988]

19880207.

.2345

I have observed journal-silence for another while: during which I have lost a few points or ideas. I do this when I seem to be getting carried away with complexity.

[PostedBlogger16for18112017]

[Extract from Letter to [XQ] (1)][26th January 1988]

[Redbook5:5A][19880126:0000][Extract from Letter to [XQ] (1)][26^th January 1988]

Tuesday 26^th January 1988

'Although it sounds rather arch to credit some fictional characters with a degree of independence of mind from their writer, it is psychologically true: I don't always understand them, let alone agree with them. But I do sometimes find them interesting....'*

*[A photocopy of a letter to Canon [XQ] inserted in the ms here, which accompanied extracts from [2] (xS's 2 meetings), includes the words above.]

[& see [Redbook5:23A][19880301:0000][Extract from Letter to [XQ] (2)][1st March 1988].]

[PostedBlogger16for17112017]

{Denial}[15th January 1988]

[Redbook5:4][19880115:1258]{Denial}[15^th January 1988]

19880115.1258

[continued]

I have never tried to fit my life* to these patterns, or decided when** to do anything by relation to them. I have occasionally speculated on what sort of experience the future might bring within particular timescales – years rather than days – with some success; and this seems to have eased my mind when those sorts of experiences have occurred as expected, and perhaps to have prompted me in how to deal with them.***

*[Prospectively, presumably; there are several attempts to do so retrospectively, e.g. in the last previous Volume or two.]

**or where

***This is rather a relative statement; I consider my life a great deal in terms of Outer/Inner Circle at present. <880307>

[PostedBlogger16112017]