{Four Dimensions}[13th June 1988]

[Redbook5:153][19880613:1440]{Four Dimensions}[13^th June 1988]

.1440

'(Physicists) ...already have plenty of reasons for believing four dimensions have special properties. Inverse square laws (such as Newton's law of gravity) fail in more than three spatial dimensions, which means that atomic matter and planetary orbits would be unstable and would collapse.* Only in four dimensions, does the electron have a single corresponding antiparticle – the positron; we cannot explain the left-handedness of neutrinos in three or five dimensions. Now this new result from mathematics shows the unique mathematical nature of four-dimensional space. Coincidence, perhaps, but then who believes in coincidences?' ( – Andrew Watson, 'Mathematics of a Fake World', N[ew ]S[cientist ].1615, p45.

Although I don't understand Mathematics or this article in the New Scientist this week ( – I suspect that Maths is another expression of the Unconscious,** as it seem to express itself in symbols and rest on no actual external foundation,*** like Archetypes),** it prompts me to return to the speculative order of Separation:

[Text from ms diagram shown above:]

DIMENSION	ORDER	CONDITION		←→		?
0	THE ONE	Static				Spirit ↓
Time ****		Dynamic	Self-consciousness – any thought, intention &c.		?/	↓
Space 1	|	Duality			/or	/Father
Space 2	+	The Spiritual Kingdom	→	↑	'Devil'	↓
Space 3	☼	The Physical Universe	(4-Dimensional Space) →	(Man – Mental Zone) ↑ Construction		'Son' ↓

#

*(Inwards, presumably?)

**cf the young Indian mathematician (N[ew ]S[cientist ]1987/88?) whose ideas came to him in dreams/visions, from a Hindu goddess – literally, a genius? [Srinivasa Ramanujan FRS, 22 December 1887 – 26 April 1920); the goddess was Namagiri Thayar, a local form of Lakshmi the wife and energy of Vishnu.]

***& cf N[ew ]S[cientist ]1585, 42, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

<880614>

****(But cf +Mk in [0]: 'I have been through all times; Time is within me.') [Subject to revision; in the current ts of [0] this is given as: “I have been through all times: Time is with [sic] me.”]

#{cf [[Redbook5:194][19880625:0955]{Dimensions}[25^th June 1988],] 194

[[Redbook5:218-239][19880722:2307]{The Sphere}[22^nd June 1988],] 218-219}

[PostedBlogger2805for02062018]

{Heaven-sent}[13th June 1988]

[Redbook5:151-152][19880613:0930c]{Heaven-sent}[13^th June 1988]

19880613.0930

[continued]

In this* connection, I suspect – this has been a growing feeling over a long period – that the role of +C†I~ in the Transformation is to send the Individual back into the World – on the Inner Circle, dominated by +C†I~ (in a sense this is true for the Outer Circle as well: that +C†I~ sends Individuals on onto that Circle; this is perhaps only to be expected of an incarnated form of the Divinity). This is not entirely clear from [2], in which the role of +C is seen, but rarely spoken of, even by himself: when speaking to xS of +Mk, near the end of the book, +C tells her:

“Through him Men will find you, and die;

and through Death you will send them

on by me to [+Mk] again,

or through Love, back through him to me.”

Similarly xP tells [the Narrator], later that day:

"But you have to go back. Man or woman,

you need to come and find this love,

and learn it, and learn from it,

and then go back, taking our love with you,

taking us with you,

to the male side."

And xS says:

"...only through us: if

you come to us, and turn through me,

and go back with us."

"Then," says +K, "then, and only then,

may you learn a New Thing."

**

I think the technical answer to this may be that on the Inner Circle each Archetype is shifted qualitatively towards +C†I~ (but on the Outer, towards A~),*** so that Love, which has long been identified by Christians with God and Christ, when attributed to xS (R~) implies the presence of +C†I~: and xS acts perhaps as his Agent in this (R~ is 'Avenger of God, against the World of the Luminaries' (= those pertaining to Light).**** In practical terms, if +C†I~ is the key to the transformation beginning at R~, then they may be concealing his role so as not to confuse [the Narrator]'s understanding and his development. Poor [Narrator] has not even begun the Outer Circle rotation which ends with the Transformation (or not).

*[See last previous entry]

**[All subject to revision]

***{& cf [[Redbook5:44][19880311:2230]{A Dreamed Solution ?--Joint Tenancy}[11th March 1988](&f?),] 44

****(ref [[Redbook4:7][19870705:1745g]{Archangels (1)}[5^th July 1987] ] p7)

[PostedBlogger2805for01062018]

{Aquarius* (2)}[13th June 1988]

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

19880613.0930

[continued]

A television programme on musical development and possible regression, last night, highlighted the revolutionary/romantic cultural and political 'mix' at the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth centuries (complicating it with romantic heroes!). This could, I suppose, roughly fit Jung's Aeon of Pisces (I have just begun to read 'Aion', which I bought in 1977) in Outer Circle terms.

The cautions which I have applied to the 'Age of Aquarius' – the next 2,000 years – apply equally to this Aqaurius period within the present Pisces 2,000 years: that, if it means anything at all, Aquarius is a period of Transformation bringing many dangers (contra-rotation,** however, still applies).

Our present century certainly fits that pattern. Schizophrenia appears to be a danger now for the culture as well as the Individual. How we cope now may well set the pattern for the next 2,000 years – even for the next 24,000[-]year(?) cycle: could it be reversed, from the year 6,000 a.d., and run as the solar year runs (i.e. Inner Circle)? (Interesting that the Christian era began with the Astrological New Year, i.e. the Pisces/Aries meeting point, but of course running backwards).

*ref [[Redbook5:87-88][19880318:1005]{Aquarius}[18th March 1988],]

**[[Redbook4:62][19870820:1800i]{Circle Relationships [continued(7)] – Contra-rotation (1)}[20^th August 1987]]

[PostedBlogger28for31052018]

{A Dream: The Illustrated Girl}[13th June 1988]

[Redbook5:149][19880613:0930]{A Dream: The Illustrated Girl}[13^th June 1988]

19880613.0930

Reading Jung's memoirs* does seem to have had an effect. This morning ([W] having, unknown to me, taken [d] to sleep in the spare bedroom after [d] had had a disturbance in the night), I dreamt as follows: I was in a museum. In a broad recess, on a ledge on the right, lay a female museum attendant.** She was (in physical terms) perhaps in her mid- or late twenties, she had bright – glowing –*** yellow or golden hair, slightly wavy, not very long; and she was completely naked. My father (of all people)**** was talking to her: something about his personal experience of the prostitutes in South America,# where (after other statements he made) it appeared that they used to approach potential clients with the words: 'You want baby?' As might be expected, he was standing between us#*; so far as I could tell she was listening, but not reacting.

I walked alone to the next section of the museum, which appeared to be identical. There again in a broad recess, on a ledge on the right, lay an identical female museum attendant:#** I would say that she was the same person, except for one extraordinary difference: the whole of her naked body, up to the lower end of her neck, was covered in illustrations, after the manner of tattoos.#*** She was friendly towards me, and (so far as I recall) began explaining the illustrations, and (I think) the contents of the museum itself.

As I awoke, sexually aroused, this this dream became transformed into a brief sexual fantasy: but what survived into it were the emphasis on innocent nakedness, loving friendliness, and the girl talking, but perhaps now devoid of illustrations.

#****

I suspect that in this dream my father played the role of exemplar of what to avoid. I have the impression that he was chatting her up; but his emphasis on reproductive sex is interesting, especially as I am now a father.

*[See [Redbook5:145-148][19880610:1010]{Jung's 'Memories, Dreams & [sic] Reflections'}[10^th June 1988]]

**(Her head was raised – she was probably e.g. [sic] leaning on her elbow.)

***(The glow is typical.)

****{There was an undercurrent in my relationship with my father in the late teens/early twenties, of competition and jealousy over the same women [always very much closer to the writer’s age than to his father’s <20180528>].}

#[where he had worked for a while as a young man]

#*, his back to me

#**(in an identical position)

#***(Postman called, 0950)

#****Her physical attributes suggest that the girl is of a degree between xS and xK (R~ & G~).

{The film 'The Illustrated Man' [based on part of Ray Bradbury's story collection] was on TV at the end of this week, I think; after this date, anyway; and I may have read about this, although I had no recollection of that when the film was on.}

{See [[Redbook5:163][19880615:1642#]{A Dream: Of Exploring Hidden Chambers}[13^th June 1988],] p163}

[PostedBlogger28for30052018]

{The Great Divide* [continued (5)]}[11th June 1988]

[Redbook5:148A-D][19880611:0000e]{The Great Divide* [continued (5)]}[11^th June 1988]

11/06/1988

[continued]

I am not just knocking Science:** there is an analogy. This close contrast, the union of beginning and end of Science and Mysticism—the two disciplines which I take from New Scientist's own correspondents as the type of rationality and irrationality respectively—suggests that the means, method or "middle" of the two disciplines may not be so far removed as we think. If we ask what is the original guiding light of Western Science--and what motivates many pure Scientists even now—the answer may be idealised as the search for Truth in Harmony, the harmonious workings of the Universe: hence the importance of mathematics, and the preference for simplicity in theories of the organisation of the external world. In a mystical structure, the qualities of Love and Harmony may be linked close together, by Unity, which may be considered as the purest available manifestation of absolute and objective Truth. (This may become clearer if you consider carefully the meanings of the words and their relationships with each other). This suggests the possibility of a corresponding union of the irrational with the rational.

Such a union may not be so far-fetched as it seems. The Scientist's search for harmony in apparent chaos, although it has taken some hard knocks this century, suggests a motivating belief in the ultimate rationality of what appears irrational. Precisely the same belief motivates the Mystic: intuition and inspiration may appear irrational to us, but that is reckoned a symptom of our ignorance (the same ignorance which requires that all applied logic be based on assumptions). It seems intuitively self-evident to this writer that the union in mutual understanding of Rationality and Irrationality could help to heal a divided World. Considered more intellectually, it may be a coincidence that the triumph of Scientific methods has been accompanied by the rise of self-centred materialism, the loss of moral integrity, and (arguably) the decline of the Arts; but it doesn't look like it from here. Specifically, the Scientist who consciously accepts the limitations of his own methods has a far better chance of bringing an influence for good — by the application of a trained and rational intellect to problems of the irrational, without attempting to deny or destroy the irrational — against the undoubted evils capable of arising from both rational and irrational thought. But this depends on a recognition that Rationality is not identical with Good, nor Irrationality with Evil; and an ability to recognise Good and Evil when you meet them in the Market-place. Science cannot do these things; can Scientists?

[…]

11/06/1988

*[Short essay written speculatively for (& not accepted by) New Scientist; see [Redbook5:160-161][19880615:1642f]{Mysticism and Science}[15^th June 1988]]

**[See last previous entry]

[PostedBlogger28for29052018]

{The Great Divide* [continued (4)]}[11th June 1988]

[Redbook5:148A-D][19880611:0000d]{The Great Divide* [continued (4)]}[11^th June 1988]

11/06/1988

[continued]

I hope that New Scientist is not, as a recent correspondent seemed to suggest (Letters, 19 May), deliberately conducting an organised attempt to influence political and educational thought, and the public consciousness, in favour of a rational view of life rather than one based upon mysticism** and religion (my emphasis). I hope not because it isn't necessary and it wouldn't work. It isn't necessary because the overwhelming majority of people have learnt from instinct and experience to balance inward rationality and irrationality in exactly the right proportions to enable them to cope with their everyday lives. It wouldn't work because when people adhere to strange irrational cults and beliefs, they do not do so because they lack rationality: they do so because they choose to. I suspect that they choose to because they miss the irrational element which they intuitively feel that their external lives lack. Church surveys show, not that the majority of people do not believe in God, but that they do not believe in the Churches: and a common complaint against the Anglican Church is that it is too rational. It doesn't look as though a greater dose of New Scientist rationality is going to solve this problem. Rational and irrational modes of thought are only means—not ends. People use them as they perceive the need for them.

So what's to do? Can Science help? Possibly; but only, I suggest, after looking very closely at its own means and ends, and distinguishing them very precisely. All applied logic is founded on assumptions: the basic assumptions of Science change from one period to the next. These assumptions can only be justified as part of a working framework. We don't know that any of Science's explanations are true, and we never shall: but they are good enough to be going on with, until something better comes along. Science is very good at suggesting how instead of why: at describing events without meaning, and producing material results without moral weight. A little humility in acknowledgement of these facts would be welcome.

But the end of Science is the end of Mysticism: Truth, if it exists. The beginning is probably the same for both: the Man who gazes at the Stars and experiences Wonder. The Scientist explores the Stars, but the Mystic explores the Wonder. Science informs us that the Stars we see do not appear to us as they really are: like any external phenomenon, they can be perceived more "truthfully" (or fundamentally) by exploration and analysis of their inner material structure than by the immediate impact of their properties on our external senses. Mysticism, on the other hand, explores qualities which can only be perceived by the means by which we perceive them: that is, directly, in an inner sense. Love, for example, cannot be directly perceived externally, although we may search for evidence of it among other individuals. Love can only be conceived of as we perceive it, directly, and its truth, once it is perceived, is therefore beyond doubt to the one who perceives it. The same cannot be said of any of the phenomena which are the subject of experimental Science.

*[Short essay written speculatively for New Scientist; see [Redbook5:160-161][19880615:1642f]{Mysticism and Science}[15^th June 1988]]

**[See last previous entry]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger28052018]

{The Great Divide* [continued (3)]}[11th June 1988]

[Redbook5:148A-D][19880611:0000c]{The Great Divide* [continued (3)]}[11^th June 1988]

11/06/1988

[continued]

**Mysticism, like Science, is properly speaking a mental approach to the problem of reality, and a body of knowledge resulting from that approach. Like Science, Mysticism has a "sharp end" of "pure" practitioners interested only in the possibility of truth; and a broadening tail of individuals including those who are interested but relatively ignorant, those who are making money out of it, and charlatans. Many people call themselves "Scientist" or "Mystic" who are neither. If Science is experimental, Mysticism is experiential, and generally recognises the unattainability here of the pure and objective Truth which it seeks.

It seems to be permissible for the Scientist to make big money out of Science, although perhaps not quite respectable; it is quite impermissible for the seeker after truth to make more money out of Mysticism than allows a sufficient living and the continuation of the work, simply because the pursuit and care of wealth and the search for truth have been found time and time again to be incompatible: wealth obscures truth. There are sound logical explanations for this, given (as all applied logic is given) certain basic assumptions; but the rule is founded on experience, not logic. This may be of interest to Scientists examining, not only cults that call themselves mystical, but individuals, institutions and sponsors that call themselves scientific.

The most important practical difference between Science and Mysticism is that while the "sharp end" of Science is very much in the public eye, the "sharp end" of Mysticism has traditionally tended, so far as is practical, to keep itself invisible. This doesn't just mean remote monasteries in Afghanistan: you may well have met a practitioner of some form of Mysticism without realising it, as he or she is extremely unlikely to talk to you about it unless he is fairly sure that you have an open mind. It is a pity that most Scientists do not have a reputation, among non-scientists, for open-mindedness.

Christian Mysticism has been around for almost as long as Christianity itself. The relationship of Christian Mysticism to the main Churches may be compared with the relationship of Research Scientists or Departments at a University to big Pharmaceutical or Electronics Companies (In Medieval times, monks were known as "Religious Clergy" and Parish Priests as "Secular Clergy"). Mysticism is ultimately concerned with approaching the truth through the directly perceived quality of inner experience: not dreams, not voices, not visions—all these things are recognised but should be treated with caution—but quality. The frameworks developed and passed down over the centuries, for these researches, are intended as experiential guidelines, not doctrines or ideologies: they are a part of the mental construct through which the seeker may approach the truth, and are generally recognised as subjective. Christian Mysticism—in common with major strands of Sufism, or Islamic Mysticism—is particularly concerned with approach to the Truth through the inner quality of Love.

*[Short essay written speculatively for New Scientist; see [Redbook5:160-161][19880615:1642f]{Mysticism and Science}[15^th June 1988]]

**[See last previous entry]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger27052018]