{Theory and Verification [continued]}[18th June 1988]

[Redbook5:174][19880618:2242e]{Theory and Verification [continued]}[18^th June 1988]

.2242

[continued]

*That is not, I think, the problem with the testing of metaphysical (or parapsychological or even psychological) theories. The problem is that any theory dealing primarily with the structure of Human experience is concerned with matters of extreme fluidity: in their structure; and in their observable events; and even in the impression they make upon the mind of the observer, both immediately, and over a longer period in the form of preconceptions.

*[See last previous entry.]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger3006for01072018]

{Theory and Verification}[18th June 1988]

[Redbook5:173-178][19880618:2242d]{Theory and Verification}[18^th June 1988]

.2242

[continued]

----

The construction, by one means or another, of a theory of relations to fit the observed facts is a perfectly conventional activity, in science as in other fields. And while it may not always be possible to choose the time and place of an experiment to test it – in Astronomy, for example – such an 'experiment' should eventually become possible by waiting for testing conditions to occur.

It may be possible to predict events not previously or otherwise predicted, which will fit the theory. Alternatively, if such a prediction is not possible, it will be necessary to wait for events to occur unexpectedly which will give rise to facts which will fit the theory – as in the case of the recently perceived supernova. * One way or another, if the theory includes observable events or facts within its pattern, it must be testable, although never completely provable.**

*(?)

[Presumably SN1987A: 'SN 1987A was a type II supernova in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a dwarf galaxy satellite of the Milky Way. It occurred approximately 51.4 kiloparsecs (168,000 ly) from Earth and was the closest observed supernova since SN 1604, which occurred in the Milky Way itself, and close enough to be easily visible to the naked eye [in 1604] . Its light reached Earth on February 23, 1987, and as the first supernova discovered that year, was labelled "1987A". Its brightness peaked in May, with an apparent magnitude of about 3. It was the first opportunity for modern astronomers to study the development of a supernova in great detail, and its observations have provided much insight into core-collapse supernovae. SN 1987A provided the first chance to confirm by direct observation the radioactive source of the energy for visible light emissions, by detecting predicted gamma-ray line radiation from two of its abundant radioactive nuclei. This proved the radioactive nature of the long-duration post-explosion glow of supernovae.' (Wikipedia)]

**Because there must always be the possibility of another, better explanation. <880619>

[continues]

[PostedBlogger28for30062018]

{'He is dying....'}[18th June 1988]

[Redbook5:173][19880618:2242c]{'He is dying....'}[18^th June 1988]

.2242

[continued]

*On the edge of (going to) sleep … I 'heard' a voice say: He is dying'. I felt that I had heard this before, recently in a similar state;** but although it caused me concern, I did not take it as necessarily applying to me, or meaning literally what it said, at the time.

I don't now think that it necessarily mean anything at all. However, there was a time – last year and/or the year before, I think – ***when images and ideas of death occurred frequently. This could, I suppose, be a 'radial resonance' of those.

----

– &/or a circumferential resonance around the return Ͻ .#

The point is, of course, that at this stage anything in my own mind which tends to confirm the pattern may well do so because the mind is conforming to its own pattern simply because it has invented it, not because the pattern has any independent validity.#

*{cf I.[ref not found] 260A [Possibly [Redbook1:265A,297A-I;2:1A-1G][19730501:0000][The Wind, the Edge of the Sea, and Fusion Child][To 1st May 1973], especially the first two poems/sections, which are inserts and have been moved around as between the ms and the ts.]}

**{& [[Redbook5:164][19880617:1949]{Schizophrenia & Manic Depression (3)}[17^th June 1988]] p164fn [Presumably, the main original footnote now #***]}

***cf III{.[[Redbook3:28-30][19870326:1543j]{Recurring Image: Death and Dismemberment}[26^th March 1987] ] 28 (1986)}

****{[[Redbook5:164][19880617:1949]{Schizophrenia & Manic Depression (3)}[17^th June 1988]] 164fn [Presumably, the main original footnote now #***]}

#{Similar to the way the Mind will make other phenomena conform to its own pattern.}

[In the ms the Ͻ is curved so that the open end is more downwards.]

[PostedBlogger28for29062018]

{Tarot – Circle Attributions}[18th June 1988]

[Redbook5:172][19880618:2242b]{Tarot – Circle Attributions}[18^th June 1988]

.2242

[continued]

(I was also pleased to note* that the attributions in fortune telling of the four suits are as they should be on the Circles** rather than as their names suggest, e.g. Clubs or Batons are money, instead of Diamonds or Denarii, which are messages, and journeys (and business undertakings – you can't win them all). Heart or Cups are family, friendship, love; Spades or Swords are bad fortune, which they would be from the point of view of the Wheel of Fortune ('He's lost his fortune' meant money, normally). The Magician is also known as the Mountebank.)

*E[ncyclopaedia ]B[ritannica] [(15^th Ed)] [] ref Tarot.

**[See Tarot II, which does not seem to have been included as a circle diagram, except as an obscure part of the complex A3-size diagram at [Redbook3:217-222][19870502:1025b](EVOLUTION OF PATTERNS OF SYMBOLS)([&] DIAGONAL PERSONALITIES [continued]) [2nd May 1987], but can be seen in tabular form as part of [Redbook3:160-162][19870409:1345q](TAROT NUMBERING, AGES AND OCCUPATIONS [continued(4)])[9th April 1987] (& appears to be the finally settled version ); & numerous other refs <20180511>.]

[PostedBlogger28062018]

{Freud and the Tarot}[18th June 1988]

[Redbook5:172][19880618:2242]{Freud and the Tarot}[18^th June 1988]

.2242

I have been surprised by the complete absence from works by or about Jung which I have read so far* of any mention of the Tarot, and the lack of overall interest in Astrology (but there is still much left to read: about 97%!

But I am intrigued to read that Freud used to play Tarok, ***a card game which uses the Greater Tarots as well as some of the lesser (including all 16 court cards). Cards are laid out in 2 rounds of 8 (does this mean circles? – presumably not!), between which 6 are laid face down as a 'window' (=?).

****

*(Not very many!) <891010>

**E[ncyclopaedia ]B[ritannica] [(15^th Ed)] XIX.584ff Freud

***E[ncyclopaedia ]B[ritannica] [(15^th Ed)] [] ref Tarok.

****Did Jung play Tarok with Freud? <891010>

[PostedBlogger25for27062018]

{The Metaphysic of Metaphysics}[18th June 1988]

[Redbook5:171][19880618:1855]{The Metaphysic of Metaphysics}[18^th June 1988]

.19880618.1855

*'… The number of what may be called viable metaphysical insights is in practice limited: there are varying ways of taking the world as a whole, but not an infinite variety. In the outline account of metaphysical theories given above, six different kinds of view were distinguished, each of which may be said to be grounded in one or more areas of experience. It would be possible to extend the list, but probably not very far; further candidates might well turn out to be no more than variations on themes already considered.

… If these claims are true, they are certainly important; for the facts here adduced suggest that the experiences or visions on which different metaphysicians build are not peculiar to individual minds but occur commonly and regularly. They are not the product of passing moods, seized on and exploited for no good reason, but connect with thoughts that recur repeatedly in sensitive and intelligent reflection.'

The Metaphysic of Metaphysics.

[Text extracted from ms image shown above:]

			||||
	Idealism	{→?}	C~		Thomism
	(Hegel etc.)	\R~		S~/	(Aquinas)
Platonism	= G~		+		M~ =	Aristotelianism
		/J~	{-?---→ }	U~\
	(Des)Cartesianism		A~	←?--	Materialism
			|||

{??}

**

Bingo!

***

*E[ncyclopaedia ]B[ritannica] [(15^th Ed)] XXIV.18

**cf VIII. [[Redbook8:191][19910127:0013]{Socrates, Plato and Aristotle [– Socrates & Plato]}[27th January 1991]ff, & esp [Redbook8:191][19910127:0013c]{Socrates, Plato and Aristotle [continued] [– Arisototle]}[27th January 1991],<20230118>] 191

cf V. [[Redbook5:205][19880702:2002]{Aristotelian Art}[2nd July 1988],] 205,

VI. [[Redbook6:77][19890104:1933c]{Aristotelian Art}[4th January 1989],<20190409>] 77

[But cf [Redbook9:101][19910414:1104g]{Plato on Poets}[14th April 1991]<20240503(nyp>]

***BUT SEE [Redbook5:350][19880908:1730]{Faith and Reason}[8th September 1988]ff,] 350 – One of the problems is Descartes' rationality v. Empiricism. <880908>

[PostedBlogger25for26062018]

{Panentheism}[18th June 1988]

[Redbook5:171][19880618:1455]{Panentheism}[18^th June 1988]

.19880618.1455

I have just discovered the name of my 'belief' or theory about God's nature and purpose: panentheism seems to be what it is.

[PostedBlogger25062018]

{Analysis and Synthesis}[18th June 1988]

[Redbook5:170][19880618:0000]{Analysis and Synthesis}[18^th June 1988]

.19880618.

*'The Rationalist philosophers of the 17^th and 18^th centuries believed … that the philosopher … must first break down complex concepts into their simple parts; this was a matter of analysis. Then (they) must proceed to show how knowledge of these simples [sic, ms] would serve to explain the detailed constitution of things; this would involve synthesis.'

{I think this was the first use of the Inner Circle from and to A~ (cf Star Cycles, IV? [[Redbook4:155][19871119:2312e]{Star Cycles (I) – Colours}[19^th November 1987], ff] …)}

**

*ref E[ncyclopaedia ]B[ritannica] [(15^th Ed)] XXIV.[] Metaphysics

**{cf [[Redbook5:191-193][19880620:1040#]{Horizontal Contra-Rotation}[20^th June 1988],] p192 }

{See [[Redbook5:208][198708:1754]{Synthesis – Analysis}[8^th July 1988],] 208}

[PostedBlogger24062018]

{Inner Truth: Love [continued (9)]}[17th June 1988]

[Redbook5:169-170][19880617:1949j]{Inner Truth: Love [continued (9)]}[17^th June 1988]

.19880617.1949

[continued]

['2'] statement (2) above* arises experientially – speculatively out of this sort of statement.** It is, however, beyond logic or, I should guess, direct observation, arising perhaps out of intuition.*** Although it implies that Love is a quality with independence, it is not necessarily the case that this re-introduces**** the possible mutual independence of perception and object# applicable to external phenomena: because this is an independence within the Mind, a Mind which may have expanded to 'include' all non-external objects (and ultimately, perhaps, external ones too); a Mind which may may exist at or comprehend or operate on or be linked intimately with levels of existence#* of which we are consciously almost unaware. We are now entering Archetype Country. Take Courage!#**

(Especially if you're thinking of writing anything like that in the New Scientist).#***

*[See last previous statement but 2: [Redbook5:168][19880617:1949g]{Inner Truth: Love [continued (6)]}[17^th June 1988]: 'Pure Love is indivisible: it falls equally (but not identically) on all the Spirits it encounters.']

**[The final para of the last previous entry, presumably.]

***Hence particularly (but not exclusively) suitable for fiction.

****vs. III [[Redbook3:118-131][19870405:1057](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1})[5th April 1987]ff, &seq, probably] ….

#(& thus the uncertainty of existence of object)

#*cf [[Redbook5:163][19880615:1642h]{A Dream: of Exploiting Hidden Chambers}[15^th June 1988]] 163 (Dream).

#**[Many years ago I heard from an ex-wine-merchant (who had become my Latin teacher) of what may even have become a legal case: Courage and Strong were two brewery companies. Courage's advertising slogan was “Take Courage!”. Strong, being particularly local to the West Country, put up advertisements on roadsides leading into its area of operations: “You are now entering the Strong Country”. Courage put up signs following the Strong signs along the same roadsides: “Take Courage!” <20180504>]

#***{I think this whole piece [[Redbook5:165-170][19880617:1949b]{Inner Truth: Love}[17^th June 1988]ff.] is rather laboured.}

[PostedBlogger23062018]

{Inner Truth: Love [continued (8)]}[17th June 1988]

[Redbook5:169][19880617:1949i]{Inner Truth: Love [continued (8)]}[17^th June 1988]

.19880617.1949

[continued]

I know Love as I write about it: I know it in the only way it can be known, in an inner sense; yet I do not apply it or feel it, as I write,* in relation to any Individual or group of Individuals or anything else; therefore I must presume that the Love I know is pure and undifferentiated: yet I realise that it is not the full quality of Love that I know, but Love-at-a-distance, the distance of mental detachment necessary for the writing of this kind of stuff.**

Introspection indicates that the distancing factor is in me, not in the Love; just as the differentiating factors in my love for any individual arise in me, out of my perception of her or him, and (and including) his or her response.

But at some point I have left logic for observation.

To take this further, I recall the generalised love I felt as a young man,*** living in London, at times, for all people, in the street for example as I walked;**** and I recall that it was a purer and fuller – less particularised – love than I can recall ever having felt for an Individual (not more intense, however!).

*[i.e. in the precise moment and action of writing]

**Perhaps this is what makes the idea.

***Dammit, I'm still a young man! [of 36....]

****cf III [[Redbook3:58-59][19870329:1210g](DEVELOPMENT [continued(4)])[29^th March 1987]] ….

[continues]

[PostedBlogger20for22062018]