{‘Albion?’}[5th November 1989]

 [Redbook6:344][19891105:1145]{‘Albion?’}[5th November 1989]

10891105.1145

The resurrection of (inner-arising) interest in fiction-writing* – co-incident with its complement, a decreasing attraction towards the ordained, institutionalised Church – brings this pattern for fitting another book into the pattern already revised:**

***

Then again, there is a case for inserting L at g~, and R at m~, (say) between I & II, or (less happily) in the series II – L – III – IV – R – V. (Is [2] then L?!) I am inclined to think that neither iof these is necessary: that L and R, being my speculative addition to the pack as 2 Jokers – represented by the 2 publishers’ cards, ie instead of attributing the Joker(s) to the Tarot Fool – should remain ‘hidden’, moving or omnipresent ‘cards’ – wild cards, able to appear anywhere on the Circle to varying effect, according to one’s degree.

The influence of a~ is also felt according (this is an over-simplification) to one’s degree; the same is true of C, but (being numberless) it is felt at the beginning, at the turning-points in the middle(s), and at the end (inwards from XXI, representing the whole of the 4^th Circle).

So what is the difference? I have an idea that g~ and m~ are less predictable than a~ and C. This would fit the ‘maths’ of creation, by which the diagonals would be less predictable still; but then, they have been fixed in this framework.**** Haven’t they?#

*ref [[Redbook6:224][19890830:1424g]{Renaming ‘[2]’}[30th August 1989],] 224

**Phew! What a sentence. I feel incredibly tired.

***[ms diagram omitted for planning reasons]

****!

#{cf [[Redbook6:357][19891208.0935]{‘L’ – The Booklet’}[8th December 1989],] 357}

[PostedBlogger16092020]