{Science and Stupidity [continued (3)]}[1st July 1988]

[Redbook5:195-196][19880701.0000c]{Science and Stupidity [continued (3)]}[1st July 1988]

19880701.

[continued]

'It was Flaubert who showed that stupidity is never simply the absence of knowledge, but “an inseparable dimension of human experience” – “the non-thought of received ideas”, as Kundera puts it.'*

Despite the overwhelming sensation of arrogance emanating from many (if not most) modern Scientists, my impression is that (as with most other fields of human endeavour) it is the middle rather than the top or the bottom which presents the problem: not so much the intellectuality of the theoreticians,** nor the ordinary humanity of the labourers of 'science' (mechanics etc.), but the vast bulk of Scientists properly called, whose immersion in the necessarily limited horizons of Science is so complete that they have forgotten everything else.

*Gabriel Josipovici, Review (Milan Kundera, The Art of the Novel) T[imes ]L[iterary ]S[upplement] 24-30/6/88, 696.

**{(But cf earlier [[Redbook5:194-196][19880701.0000]{Science and Stupidity}[1st July 1988], presumably])}

[PostedBlogger3107for01082018]

{Science and Stupidity [continued]}[1st July 1988]

[Redbook5:195][19880701.0000b]{Science and Stupidity [continued]}[1st July 1988]

19880701.

[continued]

The 'Lucifer' point at S~{-[+]C[†I~]} (on the Inner Circle) (or the start point of the 'Lucifer' fall from S~{-[+]C[†I~]} to A~) is probably more dangerous than the 'Death' point at R~ (on the Outer Circle) because it is unnecessary to the Individual's development (unless he makes it necessary); generally unexpected; and probably final: not a re-birth at all (Although when approached O.C.* via +C†I~, it may well be necessary).

*(O.C.: Outer Circle[;]

I.C.: Inner Circle)

[continues]

[PostedBlogger31072018]

{Science and Stupidity}[1st July 1988]

[Redbook5:194-196][19880701.0000]{Science and Stupidity}[1st July 1988]

19880701.

I suppose it is partly in consequence [sic] of the rejection of my article on p148* by New Scientist – with the inappropriate hope** that I might be able to publish it elsewhere – that I see science as potentially riding for a fall.

Science is an activity with strong inner and outer circle tendencies – unlike many other human activities, such as business. Being naturally M~ hemisphere (despite the importance of Innovation/Creation in the overall Inner Circle process), its chief gifts, virtues and vices are to be found there.

Its chief gifts are (per Inner Circle) Knowledge, Righteousness, Fear of the Lord (cf. Newton, Einstein). Its chief Virtues are Justice (or Balance, Fairmindedness), Faith, Prudence. Its chief Vices are Lust, Avarice and Pride. These three triplets are all in the (Inner Circle) order U~, M~, S~, reflecting, partly at least, the broad and overlapping division of Science into Craftsmen/Mechanics, Technicians/Technologists, and Research Scientists/Theoreticians (In the second and third of these pairs, the first title belongs partly to the previous pair).

*[[[Redbook5:148A-D][19880611:0000]{The Great Divide}[11^th June 1988]] p148A-D]

**[In the rejection note, presumably]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger28for30072018]

{Pascal's Triangle}[20th June 1988]

[Redbook5:194][19880625:0955b]{Pascal's Triangle}[20^th June 1988]

19880625.0955

[continued]

Pascal's Triangle

(Each number is the sum

of the 2 numbers

directly above it.)

						1								1
					1		1							2
				1		2		1						4
			1		3		3		1					8
		1		4		6		4		1				16
	1		5		10		10		5		1			32
1		6		15		20		15		6		1		64

Etc.

– Is this how the Circles pattern was constructed?*

**

*{See [[Redbook5:218-239][19880721:1600c]{The Sphere}[21st July 1988],] 218-219}

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

[PostedBlogger29072018]

{Dimensions}[20th June 1988]

[Redbook5:194][19880625:0955b]{Dimensions}[20^th June 1988]

19880625.0955

It might be that: –

God is 0-dimensional

?Truth is 1-dimensional (Time)

?Qualities are 1+1-dimensional (Time + 1 space)

Information is 1+2-dimensional (i.e. on a plane)

Actuality is 1+3-dimensional (the world we live in)

*(See [[Redbook5:200][19880701:1753]{Superstring Dimensions?}[1st July 1988],] 200)

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

[PostedBlogger22for28072018]

{[Inner and Outer Conflict]}[20th June 1988]

[Redbook5:193][19880620:1040k]{[Inner and Outer Conflict]}[20^th June 1988]

19880620.1040

[continued]

At the beginning of this period of writing – a little over a week ago, I think – I was undergoing inner conflict between the claims of client work, smallholding work, and this work. This produced outer conflict between me and the rest of the family, which was not resolved until I finished the client work, abandoned the smallholding work, and got stuck into this. The outer conflict was not about the cause of the inner conflict: [W] supports my priorities nobly, in conditions and circumstances which are not easy for her.

[PostedBlogger22for27072018]

{Horizontal Contra-Rotation [continued]}[20th June 1988]

[Redbook5:193][19880620:1040j]{Horizontal Contra-Rotation [continued]}[20^th June 1988]

19880620.1040

[continued]

This idea of horizontal contra-rotation* does imply some possibility of reversal at the cross-over points G~ and M~, just as vertical contra-rotation does for A~ as well as [+]C[†I~].

So far as the Formation Circle (or Knaves) is concerned, it makes more sense of the name Knaves and explains the ambiguities in [2] which gives roughly equal importance to J~ and R~ [sic] (as well as in [1] where +K fulfils both roles).

*[See last previous entry]

[PostedBlogger22for26072018]

{Horizontal Contra-Rotation}[20th June 1988]

[Redbook5:191-193][19880620:1040i]{Horizontal Contra-Rotation}[20^th June 1988]

19880620.1040

[continued]

I think one can incorporate this* into a development in Circles Theory, using Contra-rotation (a concept which I think I have used before,** probably in this context, possibly under another name). The term 'Contra-rotation' has previously meant vertical Contra-rotation as reflected in a vertical (C~-A~) mirror:

	←	C~	→
		|
–				–
		|
		A~

Horizontal Contra-rotation reflects in a horizontal (G~-M~) mirror:

	←	C~
		|
–				–
		|
	←	A~

As Horizontal Contra-rotation seems to be essentially a reflection in the 'lower' degrees, it is natural to expect it to be stronger in the earliest or formative circle (1), less strong in the Outer Circle (2), lest strong perhaps in the Inner Circle (3), and probably therefore non-existent in the final (static?) Circle 0, The Fool (4). (Perhaps the Fool begins as well, as Circle 0 – before 1 – revolving the other way? or not revolving?)

So:

(Unity Point)

.

Circle of the Fool

(Chess Kings)

Formative Circle

(Incorporates the 'Star Cycle'***

in its strong horizontal contra-rotation)

Knaves

Circle of Formation

Horiz. Contr.: Circle of Matter (Inorganic)

Vert. Contr.: Outer Circle (Part)

(= Circle of Life)

Outer Circle

****(Incorporates the

'Analysis-Synthesis' sub-Circle 1

in its less strong ('mild'?)/

weak horizontal contra-rotation#

(I speculate that the Vertical Contra-rotation,

relatively weak until now,

is now as strong as or stronger than

the Horizontal contra-rotation).

Knights

Outer Circle = Circle of Life (Organic)

V.C.: Inner Circle: Circle of the Soul

H.C.: Circle of the Mind? (Weak or mild)

Inner Circle

Incoroporates the 'Star Cycle'***

again in its very weak

horizontal contra-rotation.

Queens

Inner Circle = Circle of the Soul

V.C.: Outer Circle of (Organic) Life

(H.C.: Circle of (Inorganic) Matter)

(Very weak)

Circle of Union#*

(Static? – “complete” – no contra-rotations)

Kings

Circle of the Spirit

Unity Point

*[See last previous entry]

**ref III. /IV. ? [ref not found]

***[e.g. presumably [Redbook4:155][19871119:2312e]{Star Cycles (I) – Colours}[19^th November 1987]ff; [Redbook4:159][19871119:2312l]{Star Cycles (II) – 'Elemental' Sensations}[19^th November 1987]; & [Redbook4:162][19871121:1220]{Star Cycles (III) – Hot Metal Colours}[21st November 1987].

****ref [[Redbook5:170][19880618:0000]{Analysis and Synthesis}[18^th June 1988],] p170

#(But see [[Redbook5:208][19880708:1754]{Synthesis – Analysis}[8^th July 1988],] 208)

#*(Relative size of the 2 T.0 circles is unintentional)

[The text shown here immediately before and after each ms diagram is shown alongside it in the ms.]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger22for25072018]

{The Formative Circle}[20th June 1988]

[Redbook5:191][19880620:1040h]{The Formative Circle}[20^th June 1988]

19880620.1040

[continued]

The problem* of whether T.II-V (and thus the first or formative circle) run[s] like this:

(a)

[Text from diagram shown above:]

			T.0
			T.VI
T.II			C~		T.VII	T.V
High Priestess		R~		S~		High Priest
↓	G~		+		M~	↑
		J~		U~
T.III			A~			T.IV
Empress			T.I			Emperor
			→

(b) or like this:

[Text from diagram shown above:]

			T.0			←
			→
			T.VI
T.III			C~		T.VII	T.IV
Empress		R~		S~		Emperor
↑	G~		+		M~	↓
		J~		U~
T.II			A~			T.V
High Priestess			T.I			High Priest

has been discussed before.** On the whole, I still think that the disadvantages of (b) are greater than the disadvantages of (a), which is the system I have adopted. [System] (b) keeps pushing its way through until you try to adopt it, whereupon [system] (a) pushes its way through more strongly.

*Ref [last previous entry [Redbook5:190][19880620:1040g]{The Lord of the Rings [continued (5)]}[20^th June 1988],] 190([f]n)

**[e.g. [Redbook4:243-244][19871219:1055j]{The Mantelpiece (1) [continued (3)]}[19th December 1987];

[Redbook4:246-249][19871221:0000b]{The Mantelpiece (2)}[21st December 1987]ff;

[Redbook4:291][19880105:1222b]{Student Teacher [continued]}[5th January 1988].]

[PostedBlogger22for24072018]