{A Writing Career? [continued]}[26th October 1988]

[Redbook6:156][19881026:1617b]{A Writing Career? [continued]}[26th October 1988]

19881026.1617

[continued]

A curious impression came across, of the TV panellists,* and later of many of the Booker congregation – an impression of deathly unhealthiness: pale, tired, dyspeptic, sick, not enough fresh air, noses buried in books, etc; and, more significantly, of a curious unreality, a lack of experience of things, events and people, a willing divorce from, and assumed superiority over, the networks and interstices of everyday life as it is lived by everyday people.

This is a surprising thing for me of all people to say about them of all people, if it is accepted not to arise out of jealously or frustration; but it is true that this is how they came across to me. Nor was there any jealously or frustration on my part that I was aware of, merely an awareness of the barriers these people by their nature, assumptions and behaviour constitute in my path; but although I am slightly embarrassed to record that I felt a little superior to them, I recall with no embarrassment that I felt detached and at ease. Television does not, on the whole, suit book persons.

*[See last previous entry]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger26for31052019]

{A Writing Career?}[26th October 1988]

[Redbook6:15-17][19881026:1617]{A Writing Career?}[26th October 1988]

19881026.1617

‘Increasingly the term “postmodern” is being used by Hungarian critics to describe Esterházy’s* work. Whatever one’s reservations concerning the usefulness of this term, there are fairly obvious reasons for associating aspects of Esterházy’s work with the self-proclaimed postmodernism of much contemporary American, French and German fiction –

the fusion of high and low culture,

the incorporation of quotations and cultural “ready-mades”,

the subversion of subjectivity,

and the loss of any representative sense of the “real”.’**

This, and Anthony Burgess’ article on J.B.Priestley*** a fortnight later, gave me the happy thought that I might have classified myself at last: as a middle-brow postmodernist whose time has been and gone and might just be coming back again.

I was, therefore, disconcerted, switching on the television accidentally to the pre-Booker Prize T.V. panel yesterday, to hear one of the panel say that he hoped not to read any more books about angels (among other things). I think that was what he said: it is terrible to think that my time may not only have come and gone earlier in the Century, before I was born, but have come again during my writing lifetime and gone so fast that I was not even aware of it: between books, as it were. You certainly have to have your wits about you nowadays, if you want to make a career out of writing.

*{Who he?}

[Presumably: ‘Péter Esterházy (14 April 1950 – 14 July 2016) was a Hungarian writer. He was one of the best known Hungarian and Central European writers of his era. He has been called a "leading figure of 20th century Hungarian literature", his books being considered to be significant contributions to postwar literature…. He wrote in a style that can be characterised as postmodernist.’ (Wikipedia)]

**Richard Aczal, T[imes] L[iterary] S[upplement] Oct[ober] 7-13, 1988 p1122.

***T[imes] L[iterary] S[upplement] Oct[ober] 21-27 1988, p1163.

[continues]

[PostedBlogger26for30052019]

{Love and Sex (1) [continued (4)]}[23rd October 1988]

[Redbook6:14][19881023:1754d]{Love and Sex (1) [continued (4)]}[23rd October 1988]

19881023.1754

[continued]

This analysis* should make it perfectly clear that sexual intercourse with children can never be Inner Circle,** once it is accepted that children cannot benefit from the act; and that sexual intercourse with adolescents is difficult to see as other than Outer Circle, once it is appreciated that an adolescent cannot achieve sufficient independence of mind to make the act anything other than an act of Ordination and Will on the part of the older partner.

*[See last two previous entries]

**[& (for the avoidance of doubt) is always wrong]

{→ [[Redbook6:173-176][19890731:1141b]{Love and Sex (2)}[31st July 1989],] 173}

[PostedBlogger26for29052019]

{Love and Sex (1) [continued (3)]}[23rd October 1988]

[Redbook6:14][19881023:1754c]{Love and Sex (1) [continued (3)]}[23rd October 1988]

19881023.1754

[continued]

I hope this* is the resolution** of a long series*** of frequently rather agonised appraisals of sexual morality – most of which, as I now realise, related to Outer Circle sex, where the final quarter’s attribute of Revolution, Death, etc. are still relevant. I imagine that this series does indeed relate to my own conception**** of my own position on the Circles,# in general (ie Life Cycle) terms.

*[See last previous entry]

**{Not a chance!}

[See eg [Redbook6:173-176][19890731:1141b]{Love and Sex (2)}[31st July 1989];

[Redbook6:177-178][19890801:1013]{Love and Sex (3)}[1st August 1989]]

***[eg in the last previous volume alone: [Redbook5:161-162][19880615:1642f]{Sex}[15^th June 1988];

[Redbook5:279-282][19880814:1540b]{Sexual Intercourse (& Dream Nakedness)}[14th August 1988]ff;

[Redbook5:303-305][19880817:1703]{Sexual Love}[17th August 1988];

& see fns to those journal entries for references to earlier volumes.]

****[Hope not….]

#[More likely related to the writer’s problematic relationship with the Church at around that time.]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger26for28052019]

{Love and Sex (1) [continued]}[23rd October 1988]

[Redbook6:13-14][19881023:1754b]{Love and Sex (1) [continued]}[23rd October 1988]

19881023.1754

[continued]

Perhaps I can attempt a clarification of sexual morality?* On the whole, I think that sexual intercourse is as morally neutral as every other action, in itself; the moral weight is in the associated mental state(s). In Circle terms, treating each act** as a Circle, sexual intercourse commencing through Ordination, [the] will to Outward Action and so forth is Outer Circle and disintegrative; sexual intercourse commencing through Love – self-less Love – is Inner Circle, and Integrative, leading to Harmony and Unity.

It will be noted that although Evil is still passed through at (or near)** the bottom of the Outer Circle, the emphasis is not on morality so much as on psychological effects.

This analysis applies to homosexual intercourse as well as to heterosexual intercourse. The difference is that, on the face of it, a homosexual partnership has not the balance of a heterosexual partnership, and therefore must lack some of the latter’s integrative power (because it lacks some of the sources for integration).***

*[See many, many earlier journal entries….]

[& See next entry]

**[It seems quite likely (given former journal entries) that ‘or near’ applies to where Evil is, rather than where it is passed, ie that ‘or near’ and ‘at’ should be the other way round, although this would be inelegant.]

***[Presumably this assumes that psychological gender elements are always biologically determined or at least consistent, which clearly is not the case.]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger26for27052019]

{Love and Sex (1)}[23rd October 1988]

[Redbook6:13-14][19881023:1754]{Love and Sex (1)}[23rd October 1988]

19881023.1754

I am not sure whether I have mentioned before this, the extraordinary intensification of libido and sexual sensation which occurs just before I become ill – and just before I realise that I am going to be ill. It has happened too noticeably and too often to be co-incidence [sic]. Perhaps it is an attempt to ensure genetic survival in the face of an increasing perceived risk of death. It might also account for the common belief that sex is debilitating.

I must say I don’t think so highly of the little rats as they scuttle to abandon the sinking ship: ‘Hey, chaps, Dad looks like a gonna* [[sic] this time, no point in sticking around, the old boy’s obviously had it….’

*goner?

[continues]

[PostedBlogger26052019]

{Classes and Societies [continued (5)]}[20th October 1988]

[Redbook6:12][19881020:1415]{Classes and Societies [continued (5)]}[20th October 1988]

19881020.1415

With the exception of the first stage,* Aristotle’s five stages of development of civilisation (‘On Philosophy’)** show a clear Inner Circle development:

[Text extracted from ms diagram shown above]

	(1) Creation of necessities	|	(5) Divine Philosophy:#
		C		(Natural Philosophy: study of the material causes of existing things[)]
				Leisure for intellectual adventure
				Emergence of well-regulated state
(2) The Arts that refine life		+	M~	(4) Knowledge of proper use of the necessities and refinements of life
		(3) The art of Politics

#Divine Philosophy: above the material world – formal and final causes – ineffable[?] aspect of reality – & purpose that informs all change.

I hope that the attempt to fit patterns to Circles is not becoming ‘too much’. What is interesting about this one is that with the exception of the first stage, I cannot for the life of me see how in practice this development is found in the history of Civilisation, or of civilisations. Perhaps that is why our civilisation leaves something to be desired.

*or does that correspond to the Creation itself? (ie of the Universe)

**(per E[ncylopaedia] B[ritannica] XIV.61 Aristotelianism)

[PostedBlogger25052019]

{Classes and Societies [continued (4)]}[19th October 1988]

[Redbook6:11][19881019:1605d]{Classes and Societies [continued (4)]}[19th October 1988]

19881019.1605

[continued]

If (ignoring the inconsistent Virtues) we correct these defects,* we get something not unlike the Circle patterns of Society, etc:

[Text extracted from ms diagram shown above]

				‘Philosophers’	#
				C
↑								↑
(Vocations)	(People of Inspiration)			☼		M~	‘Men of Action’	(Professions)
↓								↓
			J~
				‘Votaries of (material) enjoyment’
				←(Trades)→

#(– these would I think be interested in a fusion of Western (right) and Eastern (left) philosophies)

– which brings us back to the earlier point** about providing a place for left-semi-circle types in modern Societies.

What is interesting is whether the previous assumption of approximate equality of numbers across the circle holds good – or whether the mathematical doubling series applies: either regularly throughout the Circle, or unpredictably after the Point of Accumulation (near J~).***

----

Presumably, if the statistics on occupations by birth-date**** were well-founded, there must be an equal distribution of Individuals around the Circle.

*[See last previous entry]

**(ref Book V [[Redbook5:171][19880618:1855]{The Metaphysic of Metaphysics}[18^th June 1988]])

[[Redbook6:10-11][19881019:1605c]{Classes and Societies [continued (3)]}[19th October 1988];

[Redbook5:205][19880702:2002c]{Aristotelian Art [continued (3)]}[2nd July 1988]&ant;

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

***[[Redbook5:248-262][19880803:1017b]{Chaotic Determinism (+ Extracts)}[3rd August 1988];

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

[Redbook5:274][19880812:0025b]{Angelic Degrees}[12th August 1988]]

****[See many previous references to the Times report of the original statistical survey report(s) by Professor Alan Smithers in 1978(ff?)]

#[This footnote is above, immediately under the text extracted from ms diagram above]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger24052019]

{Classes and Societies [continued (3)]}[19th October 1988]

[Redbook6:10-11][19881019:1605c]{Classes and Societies [continued (3)]}[19th October 1988]

19881019.1605

[continued]

The classification of societies, whether organised along these lines* or in successive deviations from them, can be better fitted:

**

[Text extracted from ms diagram shown above]

		C
		→ Tyranny
		Aristocracy →	– Rule of the best
	Democracy	+	Timocracy	M~
	– subject to an irresponsible or criminal will		– Benign military state
		Oligarchy	– dominated by merchant princes

In Circle terms, the flaws in Plato’s analysis of classes are much the same as our own, ie[:]

(1) Philosophy – the pursuit of wisdom – is identified solely with reason; and

(2) The whole of the left semi-circle is wound up into the single category, Votaries of enjoyment (in practice I have an idea that poets had some place, but I can’t recall where).

*[See last previous entry]

(& see above, V? [ref unclear])

**(Combined per E[ncylopaedia] B[ritannica] XXV, 884

& Plato ‘The Republic’ tr[anslated by] D. Lee (Penguin) (Introduction)

***cf V.[[Redbook5:171][19880618:1855]{The Metaphysic of Metaphysics}[18^th June 1988],]171.

This right-handedness may seem surprising in view of the assignment of Plato’s Metaphysics to the left (G~) – but this inconsistency may help to explain why Plato’s views do seem generally inconsistent.

[continues]

[PostedBlogger20for23052019]