{Literary Criticism}[29th May 1988]

[Redbook5:130-131][19880529:1818]{Literary Criticism}[29th May 1988]

.1818

I have just survived with reasonable equanimity the experience of having my novel [2] described as a mass of unrelated facts by the first person* (other then me) to attempt to read it! Fortunately the examples she gave could be shown easily to be related to 'facts' previously introduced and clearly related, which she had forgotten.

I plan to show [2] in draft to two sorts of reader (apart from publishers): those who have an interest in the subject matter – such as the Canon [XQ],** my uncle [U],*** and [SX],**** to whom I have already sent '[xS]ine extracts – whom I shall pick; and those who ask to read it, who will pick themselves. The reaction of the three above to the extracts has been appreciative; all that the reaction of the latter group tells me is what kind of person may or may not appreciate it.

This first reader has been reading it at great speed, skipping forward (and back?) to try to maintain her interest; she wants an answer to all her questions now, and is not satisfied to be told that the answer will be available later. She says that she needs to know now in order to give her the impetus to go on. I suppose that she must prefer straightforward narrative without the element of mystery or suspense present in (for example) detective stories. The lesson – as she is able to talk with moderate conviction about musical works, novels,# etc. – is that the superficial appearance of knowledge often hides a lack of cultural depth.#*

*[[DY], one of [d]'s godmothers; see [Redbook5:124][19880527:2240b]{Perceptions of Jesus Christ}[27th May 1988].]

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

***[See e.g [Redbook2:43-44][19740819:0000c]{A Trip to the Colonies [continued(4)]}[19^th August 1974], & al seq]

****[See [Redbook4:287][19880104:1622e]{Marital Crisis}[4th January 1988], & al seq]

#& Freud (but not Jung).

#*[This does seem a bit sweeping. She was an opera-lover; maybe an opera obsessive. There seems to be a particular type of female opera-lover, with another example of which the writer later had a brief and friendly affair, who is obsessive and knowledgeable about opera but not terribly bright. <20180309>]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger30042018]

{A Practical Dilemma}[29th May 1988]

[Redbook5:129-130][19880529:1222b]{A Practical Dilemma}[29th May 1988]

19880529.1222

[continued]

I am faced with a very practical decision regarding boundary fencing – which our neighbour agreed to instal but has put off to such an extent that we fear he is taking advantage of us. I am going to do it, or have it done. Doing it will take weeks and cost much less. Having it done will cost more and take very little time. Financial prudence suggest the former. Inner pressure strongly favours the latter. So, I think, do I!*

*{In the end, we did it together (my contribution was small) – the neighbour, his friend, and I – and it cost me three days and no cash.}

[There was a problem over the line of the fence, which had to be adjusted, from the neighbour's initial alignment, to one further away from [CH] as shown on the legal plan, as the pegs had mysteriously disappeared; this I think was a reason for personal involvement.]

[PostedBlogger23for29042018]

{The Colour of Action}[29th May 1988]

[Redbook5:129][19880529:1222b]{The Colour of Action}[29th May 1988]

19880529.1222

[continued]

The passing thought* that actions may be coloured by other spiritual degrees (i.e. degrees of the Circle) as well as stained by evil (the extreme spiritual separation, per [2],** hence, presumably, at A~, and black) – gives rise to a whole new range of interesting possibilities, while appearing entirely consistent with the rest of the Circles.

*[See last previous entry.]

**[‘"Separation arises out of Unity; and to Unity it returns, on the material and the Spiritual levels. Like the Universe itself, Animals, Men, Angels, all are born of Singularity; and towards the Unity they must return, although in different ways. Animals are born within the separating transformation of the Universe, as are the bodies of Men; even the bodies of Angels may be born this way. But the Spirit of a Man comes directly from God the Spirit, and is a part of God the Spirit, as is the Spirit that is an Angel; and an Angel is more usually created than born. It is the Spirit within a Man or an Angel that recognises the Spirit that is God, from which it came, of which it is a part, and to which it longs to return; and by recognition of God it is enabled also to recognise the extreme Spiritual Separation from God that we call Evil, and to have power over the material Separation. The ability to recognise Evil and to understand the Universe is directly dependent upon the ability to recognise God, by whatever name Men call it. To most Men, the material World is solid, opaque, and the Spiritual Kingdom is invisible; to Angels, the material Universe is transparent, and the Spiritual Kingdom is everywhere apparent. Many Men suppress the Spirit by the power of the Self, in which they are greatly assisted by the separated Universe; such Men generally require Faith if they are to believe in the existence of God, for whom there can be no proof within the Universe. Angels and Saints know God directly.’ (per xS in [2]]

[PostedBlogger23for28042018]

{Evil Mind and Action}[29th May 1988]

[Redbook5:128-129][19880529:1222]{Evil Mind and Action}[29th May 1988]

19880529.1222

Although I have dealt with this before,* I am not sure whether I have set it out in quite this way: that just as evil may be said to stain the Soul, so it stains the action, making it a 'sin' or otherwise** (I suppose that other degrees may also colour the action just as they colour the Soul).*** This is why evil is more clearly identifiable, and is felt to be more purely abhorrent by many, when its physical component is less (contrary to the usual analogy of physical and spiritual Separation).****

What I mean by this is that 'sins' (I use the word in the absence of any other which conveys no more and no less that what I want to say) where the emphasis is on the physical component – such as those involving killing – allow of [sic] greater flexibility in the motivation, in the Mind, which may be evil (murder) or may not ([voluntary] euthanasia); whereas sins where the emphasis is on the mental component – such as fraud – allow of [sic] less flexibility in the motivation, which may only be evil.#

*[See e.g.? from/after [Redbook3:42-43][19870327:2157](THE SELF, THE SOUL, AND THE SPIRIT)[27^th March 1987] ff (many).]

**So, as no action is evil in itself; and as 'sins' are actions; so no 'sin' is evil in itself! – This is not what I meant; the sin is the action and the (evil) intention together. <891009>

***[See next entry.]

****[Unclear what is meant by this; possibly simply that the physical Separation is more obvious and more clear-cut than the Spiritual separation. <20180309>]

#{→ VI. [] 125, etc.}

[PostedBlogger23for27042018]

{Elemental Spirits}[28th May 1988]

[Redbook5:127-128][19880528:1737]{Elemental Spirits}[28th May 1988]

19880528.1737

I was pleased – delighted – to read, first in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, then in Brewer* – where I must surely have read it before – that the Undine,** the spirit of the waters, (being presumably female) must bear a child to Mortal Man in order to gain a Soul. (I think I remember this from years ago, re mermaids). This symbolism exactly fits the position and role of R~ on the Tarot-Zodiac Circles: 'I am Undine....' [2]*** (– the progression from T.XIV to TXX has already been discussed in terms of Conception-to-Birth, etc.).****

I also note that Sylphs were connected with Coquettes in popular myth: this has some relevance as the most notable thing about a coquette from a man's point of view is that she is (so far as he is concerned) chaste: although she may well be affectionate and thus encourage him (obviously, much coquetry is more flirtatious and deliberately or negligently unkind). Affection (and attraction), as well as chastity, seem appropriate to S~, where Sylphs are.

For Salamanders, the lizard-like aspect is clearly appropriate to the Horned Beast/Dragon at J~.

For Gnomes, there is a curious and apparently accidental connection with the attribution “gnomic”, which I always imagined as burrowing deep into Knowledge: Knowledge being the Gift of the Spirit# at U~, where Gnomes belong.

These point simply serve to reinforce the attribution of the four Elements to the four diagonal points.

*[Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable]

**[cf. [Redbook3:28][19870326:1543i]{Recurring Image: Pre-[xS]}[26^th March 1987].]

***[‘"I am Undine, Spirit of the Water."’ (– xS in [2])]

****[[Redbook2:357][19850101:1225]{Birth and Rebirth}[1st January 1985];

[Redbook3:135-136][19870406:2300c](SEX AND GENDER [continued(3)]: {True Love and the Death of the Self})[6th April 1987]]

#See earlier Book [[Redbook4:45][19870712:1840d]{The Gifts of the Spirit (2)}[12^th July 1987],&c.]

[PostedBlogger23for26042018]

{The Burden}[27th May 1988]

[Redbook5:126-127][19880527:2240e]{The Burden}[27th May 1988]

19880527.2240

[continued]

There are times – let me say this only as a reassurance to others – there are times when the burden of existence seems insufferable: when my efforts to forgive seem to have failed, like everything else I have done, when money problems loom large, and the biggest of them is [CH (house)] itself.

These are the times when I have been too long – even a few days – involved in outer things not motivated or guided by the Inner Truth or Quality which pours through the gaps in my certainty as the rain poured through the holes in our conservatory roof: like an upside-down colander. The bigger the holes – the Uncertainty* – the greater the Truth: Truth not as fact, but as Quality.

The burdens come from certainties: that material things need to be done, that there is not enough money to do them, that nothing has outwardly succeeded, and that my parents have betrayed us.

Relief comes with that blessed Uncertainty: that I know little or nothing, that anything may be possible, that I may be called to do everything – or nothing. It is not my role to judge the truth or otherwise of what I have to say:** that is up to the listeners, the readers. *** I just have to say it, and my responsibility is simply to allow it to be said effectively.

'He has in mind

A bondage to a different kind,

To vacant force.'#

*[See last previous entry but one: [Redbook5:124-125][19880527:2240c]{Uncertainty[: The Presence of the Moment]}[27th May 1988].]

**[See last two previous entries.]

***This high ideal is remarkable difficult to adhere to when faced with (for example) The Church. <891009>

#Christopher Logue: 'The Poet Mandel'sh[t]am's Debut' (stuck in front of me on my desk).

[PostedBlogger23for25042018]

{Speak!}[27th May 1988]

[Redbook5:125-126][19880527:2240d]{Speak!}[27th May 1988]

19880527.2240

[continued]

And connected with this is the second* pressure, linked to the returning pattern of the Circles, to go back out from this secure theological and actual base and get involved: that is, Speak! If my fiction is published, and I am required to publicise it, I may take the opportunity which I thought I would reject. If it is not: maybe I shall have to do what I dread, and travel 'cold' like a public salesman. My frequent images of my lovely family dead from accident, leaving me alone, while no doubt common to angst-ridden parents, may also suggest a recognition of the need not to to let responsibility to them tie me always here; superstitiously, I begin to wonder if I should leave in order that nothing does happen to them.**

My strange reluctance to sell the troublesome Land Rover motor caravan is, I think, connected with this pressure. So is my inability to be really settled here, or to forget the past for which I have announced my forgiveness,*** except when I am involved in this sort of thought and writing etc. (i.e. on this Theme – not just this Book****).

*[See last previous entry.]

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

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

VI. [[[Redbook6:297][19891006:1513]{Speaking of [O]}[6th October 1989],] 297},<20190902>] 297,

[[Redbook6:139][19890630:2308b]{Searching for the Word to manifest the Spirit}[30th June 1989],<20190902>] 139.}

**[Blimey!]

***I rarely think of it, now <891009>

[Ref [Redbook5:66][19880316:1300]{Forgiveness}[16th March 1988];

[Redbook5:80][19880316:2143b]{Love and Forgiveness}[16th March 1988]]

****[i.e. these Journals]

[PostedBlogger23for24042018]

{Uncertainty[: The Presence of the Moment]}[27th May 1988]

[Redbook5:124-125][19880527:2240c]{Uncertainty[: The Presence of the Moment]}[27th May 1988]

19880527.2240

[continued]

Certain movements, pressures, influences are making themselves felt more and more strongly. One is the crucial importance of Uncertainty. I know nothing save the Presence of the Moment. (In practice, of course, I rely on everyday assumptions; but this is different.)

I neither believe, nor disbelieve, in the existence of God, Christ, history, science, or anything else: save the Presence of the Moment. (But this is the Uncertainty of Experience, not to be confused with the Uncertainty of Ignorance: I have come a long way to reach this point, even if I have further to go. Ignorance gives rise to Fantasy, and the possibility of Demons.)

It is the Uncertainty which justifies and authorises my Fiction. In an insert* near the end of [0], +K tells [the Narrator]: 'I do not know more of you than you know yourself. Your uncertainty of the World is mine of you, making us real.'** [The Narrator]*** replies: 'Am I then only my vision?' (I think I may have to return to this one.) And it is this expressed Uncertainty which gives me the confidence – the Authority – to put forward these answers, because (given my Uncertainty), as xS says in [2]: 'The Authority of the Answers is the Answers themselves.'***

*[in the [0] ms, presumably]

**[This response is not specifically attributed to the Narrator, in the [0] ts at least. In a later revision: '[+K] said: "I don’t know more of you than you know yourself. Your uncertainty of the World, and us, is mine of you, making us real." "Am I only then my vision?"]

***[Misattributed. In [2] the Narrator asks:“By what authority do you answer questions?" "By the authority of the answers." [xS] replied at once. [Later, after the Narrator objects,] "Nevertheless the authority of the answers is the answers themselves." [xS] replied. "If the answer does not carry its own authority to the questioner, then they are not fit for each other, and he had better disregard it." Later: "The authority of the answers is the answers themselves." [xP] said. "If you don't like them, you can leave."]

[The first two paragraphs come as something of a relief, after what has gone before. <20180302>]

[See [Redbook5:126-127][19880527:2240e]{The Burden}[27th May 1988].]

[PostedBlogger23042018]

{Perceptions of Jesus Christ}[27th May 1988]

[Redbook5:124][19880527:2240b]{Perceptions of Jesus Christ}[27th May 1988]

19880527.2240

[continued]

After the typing,* I had to do some client work, and our own annual tax;** then a week or so on the vegetable garden; now [D[Y]]*** is here, and I am hanging doors. But all the recent to-ing & fro-ing between Mrs. Thatcher,**** other Politicians, and the Churches has convinced me of my personal need to study and know the Gospels.

The three-stage ascension noted above# can be applied to perceptions of Christ: first, as an external (i.e. historical) phenomenon, Jesus; second, as an internalised perception or symbol or representation of an external phenomenon, i.e. #*Christ, the Son of God, taken into your life; third, and finally in this progression, as a Quality within the Mind. Christ is paramount over all Qualities; Christ as Quality.

*[Of [2]; see [Redbook5:114][19880509:1135]{Arche-typist}[9^th May 1988].]

**[computation &/or return form]

***[One of [d]'s Godmothers. See [Redbook5:130-132][19880529:1222]{Literary Criticism}[29th May 1988].]

****[Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS, FRIC (née Roberts; 13 October 1925 – 8 April 2013), was a British stateswoman who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990. (Wikipedia)]

#ref [[Redbook5:121][19880523:1212]{Phenomena, Representation, and Qualities}[23rd May 1988]] p121

#*{Jesus [Christ]?}

[PostedBlogger19for22042018]