{Manipulating Zodiacs}[8th August 1988]

[Redbook5:265][19880808:2005]{Manipulating Zodiacs}[8th August 1988]

19880808.2005

The Constellations of the Zodiac can loosely be fitted to the Circles progressions in both directions (which should not be surprising, as in one way of looking at them each Circle progression is the reverse of the other). But it may be helpful to alternate them, starting logically with Sagittarius on the Outer Circle:

[Text extracted from ms image shown above:]

			+C†I~
				Sagittarius →
			Capricorn
		Aquarius		Scorpio
			↓		Libra
[G~]		Pisces	☼			M~
		Aries		Virgo
			Taurus	↑	Leo
				Cancer
			← Gemini
			[A~]

There are inconsistencies in this – eg Pisces seems particularly appropriate near the end of the Outer Circle – and on the whole I do not think it is tremendously helpful.

[PostedBlogger30112018]

{Knowledge}[8th August 1988]

[Redbook5:264-265][19880808:1253]{Knowledge}[8th August 1988]

19880808.1253

Just been reading the introduction to Thomas à Kempis’ “The Imitation of Christ”, which came this morning. One thing which stands out is the caution against Knowledge – secular, worldly knowledge – in place of the search for God.* Knowledge is the Gift placed at u~: and presumably comes as required. Although Maths and Philosophy (and Music and Welsh!) are not simply knowledge but also tools – the point is timely.

On the other hand, I’ve just received an acknowledgement card from Bloomsbury – a most beautiful thing, for which I could forgive them almost anything (and not many publishers acknowledge mss, these days). The figure might be a female Sagittarius (the pattern of stars is similar, perhaps) but reminds me strongly of Diana,* the Huntress (and Virgin), who may be between u~ and m~.

(The chaotic determinism pattern for Newton’s Method*** shows strong influences on diagonals from opposite cardinals, ie on u[~] from c and g[~]. (Does this mean that T.II and T.III should be horizontally transposed with T.V and T.IV respectively?!**** I hope not – and I think not, as the Sistine [Chapel] Ceiling# suggests that the solution is to infill with both sexes, the sex of the other side first).[)]

*[Which in contemporary terms might encompass (or for an atheist scientist might even equate to) the search for fundamental knowledge, contrasted with possession of knowledge of relatively superficial matters for its own sake...? <20181129>]

**See IV [[Redbook4:296-298][19880109:0947e]{Birth dates [continued (5)] – Great is Diana}[9th January 1988], ff] 296

***[[Redbook5:250][19880803:1949b]{Chaotic Determinism (+ Extracts) [continued (6)]}[3rd August 1988]; &

[Redbook5:252-253][19880803:2317]{Chaotic Determinism (+ Extracts) [continued (10)]}[3rd August 1988]]

****[[Redbook5:236][19880727:1120h]{The Sphere [continued (32)] – Inside the Sphere [continued (4)]}[27th July 1988]]

#[[Redbook4:4-6][19870705:1745d]{Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel}[5^th July 1987]ff]

[PostedBlogger29112018]

{Dryness and Dis-ease}[8th August 1988]

[Redbook5:263-264][19880808:1005]{Dryness and Dis-ease}[8th August 1988]

19880808.1005

Having made two starts at the booklet(s) – the latest of which I could certainly continue – I am struck by (a) the contrast between the way in which I write – not just the style, but the ease – in fiction and in this journal, on the one hand; and, on the other hand, the un-ease of writing the booklet(s). It is the contrast between fluidity and dryness:* between r~-g~ and u~-m~, perhaps. It may be that it is unwise of me to try to beat the dries at their own game, as they have been practising their style skills for years; and as I am not writing for experts in received wisdom (although sometimes I seem to think I am) the style may well be inappropriate. I seem to vary between the patronising (for the unlearned) and something that aspires to academic dryness* but doesn’t quite make it (thank God). Apart from the absurdity of this, it is more important that it marks an unease (or dis-ease) in my thinking and comes between me and the pen.

It may be that, having made my mammoth categorised lists of relevant journal entries – I should leave it all a few days (I have other work to do), “forget” the lists, and start yet again!

*[Aridity might be a better word here than dryness, which has connotations of dry humour. <20180924>]

[See [Redbook5:266][19880808:2229]{The Beat of Angelic Wings}[8th August 1988]]

[PostedBlogger28112018]

{Boring}[6th August 1988]

[Redbook5:263][19880806:1030b]{Boring}[6th August 1988]

19880806.1030

[continued]

I am going through my journals quickly again (much of it rather boring* now) in order to note ref[erence]s and the new framework of the booklet(s).

*[And some of it just plain wrong, or maybe otherwise wrong-headed – but that isn’t the point of blogging it now, as this was always a personal, private and speculative journal. The point is the process, which includes the experience. See also [Redbook5:266][19880808:2229]{The Beat of Angelic Wings}[8th August 1988], fn3 <20180924>]

[↑]

{<880806>}

{------------}

{<880904>}

[↓]

[PostedBlogger26for27112018]

{2 Dreams: Of a Murky Past*}[6th August 1988]

[Redbook5:263][19880806:1030]{2 Dreams: Of a Murky Past*}[6th August 1988]

19880806.1030

On 2 successive nights, ending the night before last – dreams of [C] in darkness, with some of my family, mostly in the garden, with strange visitors approaching unexpectedly, unrecognisable in the darkness, and potentially dangerous. It was that thick, almost suffocating darkness which is quite different from the darkness of areas about to be revealed of [sic] a dream a few weeks ago.**

*[The assumption in the title (which was added later) that this dream refers to the past may well be incorrect <20181125>]

**Ref [[Redbook5:163][19880615:1642h]{A Dream: of Exploring Hidden Chambers}[15^th June 1988],] {163}

[PostedBlogger26112018]

{Chaotic Determinism (+ Extracts) [continued (26)]}[4th August 1988]

[Redbook5:262][19880804:1705m]{Chaotic Determinism (+ Extracts) [continued (26)]}[4th August 1988]

.1705

[continued]

It is worth remembering that mathematically and scientifically, the discovery of Chaotic Deterministic patterns has brought conceptual problems.

Mathematically, I believe, there was often no proof: merely a kind of experiment with computers.

But scientifically, I presume, given that Chaotic Determinism is generally non-predictive in practice (eg after the 4th/5th bifurcation), the only ‘evidence’ often rested on the fitting of a computer-generated pattern to a series of observations of the physical world.

If this is still the case, what it presumably means is that there is no scientific theoretical basis for this link at all: the only reason why such a natural process should be expected to conform to such a pattern – ie to comply with those particular equations – in the future, is that it has always done so in the past. Bluntly, no one knows why, or even how except in terms of the equations themselves: if suddenly the process ceased to conform to the pattern, it would be impossible to advance any reason why it didn’t, as no one would know why it previously did.*

This hardly seems like Science, in the sense that the prediction of specific results from analytic [sic] theories (eg of the sub-structure of atoms) seems like Science. But perhaps it is only a difference of degree: the shift to computer-assisted Intuition.

*(Simply that it previously did)

[PostedBlogger25112018]

{Chaotic Determinism (+ Extracts) [continued (25)]}[4th August 1988]

[Redbook5:261][19880804:1705l]{Chaotic Determinism (+ Extracts) [continued (25)]}[4th August 1988]

.1705

[continued]

Of course, I may be wrong:* even Individual Human choices may be theoretically deterministic;** the fact that Scientists know that in practice they cannot predict them, is irrelevant. In this case, of course, ‘randomness’ is also an illusion, an approximation to allow some predictability of unpredictably determined events.

It would be quite unfair to try to force Scientists to attempt universal prediction in order to prove determinacy: the matter must be settled, if it can be settled, on a philosophical basis. But until it is settled, I shall follow my Intuition – as Scientists and (particularly) Mathematicians do – in behaving as though there really is a freedom of the Spirit in Man, frequently influenced, but ultimately not constrained, by the deterministic nature of the Physical Universe.

*[See last previous entry]

**Some comments of +M in ‘[1]’*** and +C in ‘[2]’*** may be read as supporting this, although I do not think so myself; the co-existence of Human Individual (& collective) freedom with Divine omniscience is not the same as the conflict of the former with Physical Determinism.

***[Subject to revision]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger24112018]

{Chaotic Determinism (+ Extracts) [continued (24)]}[4th August 1988]

[Redbook5:260-261][19880804:1705k]{Chaotic Determinism (+ Extracts) [continued (24)]}[4th August 1988]

.1705

[continued]

I think that the difference* is this:

The Principles on the Outer Circle seem broadly to be relatable to Deterministic Chaos patterns of Distraction.** The relationship of the 2 Circles – Outer Distractive or Separating, Inner Harmonising or Unifying – is also analogous to patterns studied in O[uter] C[ircle] (eg Jupiter’s Red Spot;*** and cf the opposite cyclonic rotation directions above and below**** the Terrestial Equator).

But the Principle or Qualities on the Inner Circle seem to me to owe nothing to Deterministic Chaos (so far), little to other areas of Deterministic Science, and much to fundamental concepts arising from Man’s inner experience. (This applies most to those at the top of the Circle, least to those at the bottom – which is entirely to be expected). I would be impressed, but unsurprised, to find the Outer Circle changes mathematically described; I should be amazed and incredulous if the same could be done precisely# for the Inner Circle changes.#* (A numerical factor for diversity is possible, I suppose, and of course exists for Unity; but Scientists have a way of distorting the meanings of words they quantify. I do not think that the ‘Quantum of Action’ quantifies the Inward Action of the Inner Circle.)

*[Between the Outer and Inner Circles as regards Deterministic Chaos – see last previous entry.]

**ref [[Redbook5:253-254][19880804:1354b]{Chaotic Determinism (+ Extracts) [continued (12)]}[4th August 1988],] 254

***ref [[Redbook5:251][19880803:1949c]{Chaotic Determinism (+ Extracts) [continued (7)]}[3rd August 1988],] 251

****[ie north of and south of, respectively]

#[Word inserted]

#*But it’s not absolutely impossible to conceive of – and it might say something about the nature of Mathematics.#** After all, in a broad sense, isn’t it what I’m doing?

#**[[Redbook5:207][19880704:0000]{(Extract, & Comment:) The Nature of Mathematics}[7th July 1988]]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger23112018]

{Chaotic Determinism (+ Extracts) [continued (23)]}[4th August 1988]

[Redbook5:260][19880804:1705j]{Chaotic Determinism (+ Extracts) [continued (23)]}[4th August 1988]

.1705

[continued]

I prefer* to look for a genuine non-determinism at the Individual human level. I don’t assume that I am going to find it. I guess that Science and (almost certainly) Mathematics can’t find it – probably can’t even begin to look for it: necessarily, it will produce observations without pattern, which are scientific failures.

It may be that it does require an input which does not originate within this Physical Universe: the Circles Pattern (in its 3-dimensional Sphere model)** does allow for that, and even attempts to begin to model it, on the Inner Circle. But, interestingly, the Inner Circle and the Outer Circle are closely related, and therefore any pattern of Deterministic Chaos discernible in the Outer Circle (and, of course, in the creation of the structure) must be related to the Inner Circle as well.

*[See last previous entry]

**[[Redbook5:218-239][19880722:2307]{The Sphere}[22nd July 1988], * esp [Redbook5:226-227][19880724:2355b]{The Sphere [continued (14)]}[24th July 1988]f, & [Redbook5:234][19880727:1120e]{The Sphere [continued (29)] – Inside the Sphere}[27th July 1988]ff]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger22112018]

{Chaotic Determinism (+ Extracts) [continued (22)]}[4th August 1988]

[Redbook5:259][19880804:1705i]{Chaotic Determinism (+ Extracts) [continued (22)]}[4th August 1988]

.1705

[continued]

If the Universe started and continues (for example) in a bifurcative way, according to the patterns of Chaotic Determinism, then by this time the interference of different patterns – like waves arriving from many different angles at the same point on a beach – would certainly produce a convincing illusion of chaos; but it would only be an illusion: even the way in which the patterns interfered with each other would be traceable to the starting conditions of the Universe, in theory.*

*[But cf last previous entry, inc fn****]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger20for21112018]