{Love and Sex (2) [continued]}[30th July 1989]

[Redbook6:174-175][19890731:1141b]{Love and Sex (2) [continued]}[30th July 1989]

19890731.1141

[continued]

Why so anti-sex?* Well, the answer is: not at all: I anticipate that either or both of the spiritual lovers may well be happily or contentedly married to another, and/or may even have boyfriends or girlfriends in a sexual relationship. I do not see such relationships as lacking in spiritual content,** at their best, but they are inevitably compromised by the requirements (present or future, actual or potential) of Diversity: reproduction, and all its consequences in the need for material and general security.

[Text extracted from ms diagram reproduced above:]

	C
	|
G~	– + –	M~
	|
	A~

[Text extracted from ms diagram reproduced above:]

	C
	|
G~	– + –	M~
	|
	A~

The spiritual meeting-ground between the sexes is above the line:*** the sexual, below the line. (This does not, incidentally, mean that close physical intimacy as a primarily loving, rather than sexual, expression, is ruled out at all in spiritual love: I should place it on the line, having the potential to go up or down.)

Relationships of either kind may still be inner- or outer-circle. If an apparently spiritual relationship is outer-circle (for example, selfish), it will find itself moving downwards and disintegrating – probably through domination, exploitation, and sexual intercourse. On the other hand, a below-the-line sexual relationship can still be inner-circle if it is founded (for example) on willing self-sacrifice, detachment from self, and disinterested Love. Such a relationship might be a marriage, which after reproduction and raising of a family should tend in time to ascend towards a spiritual love.****

*[See last previous entry]

**So marriage partners, for example, should not be jealous of the other’s spiritual lovers. Some hope! – Mutuality of experience & faith is the key.

***[The G~-M~ line, presumably]

****(as, indeed, it may have begun)

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

[PostedBlogger29for31122019]

{Love and Sex (2)}[30th July 1989]

[Redbook6:173-175][19890731:1141b]{Love and Sex (2)}[30th July 1989]

19890731.1141

[continued]

*I am moving towards an understanding of a spiritual Love: which, while between two of the same sex would tend to be more relaxed, probably less spoken; between two of opposite sex would generate, and creatively thrive upon, the tension inevitable in the natural and complementary opposition of the sexes.** Such a relationship between opposite sexes would have many of the characteristics of a love-affair, but without sexual intercourse. It need not, indeed should not, be monogamous: it should be one of a plurality, a net linking the Community in the Spirit not only through the relationships themselves, but through shared knowledge of other such relationships involving one or other or neither*** of the lovers.

Since any such Love must include trust, it would be as well for both adult lovers of opposite sex to make clear and understand, perhaps through private declarations {by each}****[,] that what he or she intends is a spiritual relationship but that he or she will, if the other asks, have sexual intercourse with the other – once. This is binding in honour only. The result of a request to have sexual intercourse is very likely to be the end of the spiritual relationship: either immediately, if the other party does not accede (there being no enforcement or penalty); or immediately after sexual intercourse, if as is quite likely the requested party desires to terminate; or gradually, through a process of descent or disintegration.

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

**(I do not mean hostility, or even obstruction: just being opposite.)

***[or both, presumably…?]

****<am[ended] 890802>

[continues]

[PostedBlogger29for30122019]

{Christian Communities [continued (3)]}[30th July 1989]

[Redbook6:173][19890731:1141]{Christian Communities [continued (3)]}[30th July 1989]

19890731.1141

– I say* a Christian community, whereas fifteen years ago I would have planned for a secular one (but, judging by ‘Report from Treganella’,* imagined a Christian one), because the bricks and mortar are not what make the community, although they help; the community exists by the social, ethical and moral mind [sic] of its members, which spring from their spiritual depth [sic], and the only proper channel or focus of the Spirit for this purpose, for this community, of which I know, is Christianity: intelligently understood, sensibly applied Christianity.

*[See last previous entry but one (&f)]

[PostedBlogger29122019]

{Christian Communities [continued]}[30th July 1989]

[Redbook6:172][19890730:1801b]{Christian Communities [continued]}[30th July 1989]

.1801

[continued]

[A larger version:]*

Population c2,400 = c500 homes in c48 Clusters of c50 in c10 homes [per cluster].

 

(I have not drawn a stream but there might well be one!)

In older expanded villages, the church might not be exactly where it is now but should be North of Centre. The layout of churches, with door at West and altar at East end, fixes the horizontal orientation of these Villages, since attenders should enter (outer circle) from, and exit (inner circle) to, the g~ (left) side of the circle, which must therefore be in the West. <890803>

In other applications, however, the orientation of g~ & m~ may still be reversed. (eg? The Eastern & Western Churches) <890803>

*[See last previous entry]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger26for28122019]

{Christian Communities}[30th July 1989]

[Redbook6:171-173][19890730:1801]{Christian Communities}[30th July 1989]

.1801

I think that it may be time to start thinking again* about communities – Christian communities, like Treganella:** the original Ward-Villages.***

Population c2,400 = c500 homes in Clusters of c50 = c 10 homes [per cluster].

****

*[See earlier Vols.]

**[A fictional community of an unpublished (unsubmitted) short story, ‘Report from Treganella’, dated 19750105]

***[‘Original’ as a fundamental part of a total living system designed in some detail by the writer in (?)the 1970s which was later deliberately destroyed, but parts of which survive in earlier circle diagrams relating to communities &c]

****[For larger version see next entry]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger26for27122019]

{The Spirit and the Word}[30th July 1989]

[Redbook6:171][19890730:1409b]{The Spirit and the Word}[30th July 1989]

.1409

[continued]

I vaguely recall – but cannot now find where* – I may have suggested that the Logos** of St. John might be the same as the Holy Spirit; although even at the time I was doubtful. Other have worked this out before me: clearly, it seems, and I agree, it isn’t.

*{ref [[Redbook6:154][19890715:1035]{The Harvest Parables}[15th July 1989]fn#**,], 154

**[The Word]

[PostedBlogger26122019]

{Dream: Of a Girl’s School}[30th July 1989]

[Redbook6:170-171][19890730:1409]{Dream: Of a Girl’s School}[30th July 1989]

.1409

In a dream this morning I had to raise the alarm with [W] in a girls’ school or home, at night, perhaps for fire: I was, I think, the Warden. Young girls poured out of their dormitory into corridors in various states of undress.

As my sleep came nearer to the edge of wakefulness, the nature of the dream changed: I was walking among their bunk beds in the dormitory, chatting with the girls: for the most part, I think, answering their questions. Despite their lack of inhibition regarding dress, I was (and was conscious that I was) sexually unmoved: my function was that of a teacher.

This purpose continued into the final phase of the dream, when I was merely dozing and the narrative framework was (at least to some extent) consciously controlled by my own propensity towards sexual fantasy: I entered a hayloft and found two of the girls, dark-haired and nubile, lying naked in the hay, waiting for me.** My reaction to their sexual attentions was to sit down between them and talk with them at length in great love about the relationship of sex, love, nakedness etc.*** – retaining their complete attention throughout.

These young girls are, I would guess, like those of former dreams, souls around the Spirit; but unlike those of the past year,**** which I think were Angelic (being more purposeful), these I believe are Human.#

*(I had had [presumably, the previous evening] my first bath for over a week (we are short of water), and the sense of being washed clean had been particularly noticeable.) <890731>

**[The writer of these journals as a young boy (of about 12/13, and rather innocent) did have the good fortune to play in a hay barn more than once with an attractive dark-haired Maltese girl of about 17/18, much to the amusement of the neighbouring farmer whose permission he asked; but all clothes remained firmly in place with this nicely-brought-up Roman Catholic girl and physical contact was minimal.]

***[cf eg [Redbook6:173-175][19890731:1141b]{Love and Sex (2)}[30th July 1989]ff]

****[eg presumably [Redbook5:275-276][19880814:1130b]{Two Dreams: Of swimming with fair-haired girls [continued]}[14th August 1988];

& cf [Redbook5:93-94][19880318:1955b]{Dream of Inner xS}[18th March 1988]]

#{(cf [[Redbook6:304][19891012:1612]{A Dream of Youngsters}[10th December 1989],] 304)}

[PostedBlogger26for25122019]

{The Suffering Christ Within}[26th July 1989]

[Redbook6:169][19890726:1836]{The Suffering Christ Within}[26th July 1989]

.1836

This matter of Christ bearing our sins, and suffering for our iniquities: when you look at the evil in the World, does it not pain you? It is the Christ within you that suffers for the stains on the Soul of the World.

[PostedBlogger23for24122019]

{Guilt [continued]}[26th July 1989]

[Redbook6:168][19890726:1323]{Guilt [continued]}[26th July 1989]

.1323

[continued]

More than this,* Christianity imposes no obligations in action, nor even in thought: it simply says, as I read it: If you are not of this mind, you will not achieve the Kingdom of God; and if you are of this mind, you will want to, and will, do these things. Guilt, and feelings of guilt, do not enter into it.

*[See last previous entry]

[PostedBlogger22for23122019]

{Guilt}[26th July 1989]

[Redbook6:168][19890726:1323]{Guilt}[26th July 1989]

.1323

‘Guilt’ has (or should have) nothing to do with Christianity. ‘Guilt’ (by which we mean nowadays the feeling of being guilty)* arises out of having failed to fulfil our perceived social obligations, which normally occurs because we do not want to perform the actions which would fulfil them. If we see ‘being a good Christian’ as fulfilling our social obligations (or vice versa) then we may feel guilty at failing to do things which we feel as Christians that we ought to. But in practice the range and nature of the failures for which we feel guilty generally fall far short of what Christianity teaches us is necessary.

For example, many of us might feel guilty at being foul to a relation or friend; but not at being foul to someone who had carelessly inconvenienced us in the street, even less to (for example) a convicted child-murderer. But Christianity tells us to love our enemies;** and although love may involve a measure of detachment from object as well as from Self, it precludes foulness.

*{(Just as ‘superior’ has come to mean ‘feeling superior’)}

[and cf the change of meaning of ‘condescend’ from something for which the person being condescended to is grateful – “he condescended beautifully” (an actual quotation, not necessarily word-perfect, from, I think, the early 19^th century, though I cannot now find it; & cf Jane Austen ‘Emma’, Chapter 27: “Emma did not repent her condescension in going to the Coles.”) – to the modern meaning for which the person being condescended to would be not at all grateful. What all three of these interesting shifts in use have is that they represent as much, if not more, a change in attitudes as a change in meaning.]

**[Matthew 5:44 (Part of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7).

‘Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

(Matthew 5:43-48 (KJB)]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger22122019]

{Historical Circles (1) [continued (5)]}[26th July 1989]

[Redbook6:167][19890726:1118c]{Historical Circles (1) [continued (5)]}[26th July 1989]

19890726.1118

[continued]

On the whole, although these accelerating and decelerating series in chronology* are fun to investigate and play around with, I have not found anything significant in them in this context.

On the other hand, the basic principle

(a) that chains of events** tend to move in the circle patterns; and

(b) that these may be of a more-or-less constant speed, on the one hand, or

accelerating (or possibly decelerating), on the other,

seems still worthy of consideration.***

*[See last 4 previous entries, [Redbook6:165-167][19890726:0019]{Historical Circles (1)}[22nd July 1989] ff]

**[cf [Redbook0:13-21] [19680218] [18^th February 1968] [Age 16]…!]

***{See [[Redbook6:240-248][19890912:1002#]{Historical Circles (3)}[12th September 1989],] 240ff}{[,] 244}

[PostedBlogger17for21122019]

{Historical Circles (1) [continued (4)]}[26th July 1989]

[Redbook6:167][19890726:1118b]{Historical Circles (1) [continued (4)]}[26th July 1989]

19890726.1118

[continued]

Compare* Latourette’s periodicity of Christian expansion:**

Advance (1)	0 - 500	500
Recession (1)	500 - 950	450
Advance (2)	950 - 1350	400
Recession (2)	1350 - 1500	150
Advance (3)	1500 - 1750	250
Recession (3)	1750 - 1815	65
Advance (4)	1815 - 1914ff	100+

It is also* not obvious why one should take the (approximate) year of Jesus’ birth rather than (say) his crucificion – except for convenience in a very approximate pattern.

*[See last previous entry]

**(E[ncyclopaedia] B[ritannica] 16:291)

[continues]

[PostedBlogger17for20122019]