{Circle of Epilepsy}[25th August 1990]

[Redbook7:239-243][19900825:1212c]{Circle of Epilepsy}[25th August 1990]

.1212

[continued]

‘“My first impression was a very strong one,” the prince repeated. “On my way from Russia, passing through many German towns, I just looked about me in silence, and, I remember, I never asked questions. This was after a long series of violent and painful attacks of my illness, and I always relapsed into a state of complete stupor when my illness became worse and I had several attacks on the same day. I lost my memory, and, though I was fully conscious, the logical sequence of my thoughts seemed to be broken. I could not follow the course of events consecutively for more than two or three days. That’s how it seems to me. But when my attacks abated I became well and strong again, just as I am now. I remember I felt terribly sad. I even felt like crying. I was in a state of constant wonder and anxiety. The thing that affected me most was the thought that everything around me was foreign. I realised that. The fact that it was foreign depressed me terribly. I completely recovered from this depression, I remember, one evening at Basel, on reaching Switzerland, and the thing that roused me was the braying of a donkey in the market-place. I was quite extraordinarily struck with the donkey, and for some reason very pleased with it, and at once everything in my head seemed to clear up.”’

– Fyodor Dostoyevsky, ‘The Idiot’ Part I Ch[apter] 5 [See next journal entry, fn=***]

(cf earlier Dostoyevsky extracts re epilepsy,

ref III [[Redbook3:181][19870413:1450](FITS)[13th April 1987],] 181)

[continued]

[PostedBlogger31102021]

{The Green Shift, Good and Evil, and Holiness [continued]}[25th August 1990]

[Redbook7:238][19900825:1212b]{The Green Shift, Good and Evil, and Holiness [continued]}[25th August 1990]

.1212

[continued]

In summary,* we can talk about good spirits and evil spirits and still describe the Soul (in a Man) rather than the Spirit; but Holiness is a description of the Soul’s clarity to the Spirit.

Goodness and evil describe the voluntary movement of the Soul towards or away from the Spirit, Holiness describes the voluntary existence of the soul in complete subordination to and love for the Spirit, not moving at all except as the Spirit moves it.

(By Spirit here is meant what is commonly understood by ‘Holy Spirit’: the Soul is clear to the spirit and has no will of its own, so this is not what is commonly meant by ‘as the Spirit [sic] moves’ one, which is invariably coloured by the Soul’s own characteristics.)

And green – yes, green represents an upward shift along the polar axis.**

*[See last previous entry; &

[Redbook7:233-235][19900824:2328c]{The Spirit; Doing Good; and the Shape of the Circle}[24th August 1990]ff]

**[See [Redbook7:231-232][19900824:2328]{The Green Shift}[24th August 1990]&f]

-----

[PostedBlogger30102021]

{The Green Shift, Good and Evil, and Holiness}[25th August 1990]

[Redbook7:238][19900825:1212]{The Green Shift, Good and Evil, and Holiness}[25th August 1990]

.1212

The conclusion of yesterday’s ramblings* (as revised) on greenness, good and evil, etc., seems to be that good and evil are both manifested in the incarnate form, not in the Spirit; but that good represents voluntary movement towards, and evil [represents] wilful separation from, the Spirit.

(‘Movement’ on the circle is what we understand as action: not narrowly defined as at the M~ degree (sometimes!), but anything that one does in an outer or inner sense, which can be broadly defined to mean any voluntary change.)**

*[[Redbook7:231-232][19900824:2328]{The Green Shift}[24th August 1990]ff,

to [Redbook7:233-235][19900824:2328c]{The Spirit; Doing Good; and the Shape of the Circle}[24th August 1990]ff,]

235 →

**(The question of involuntary change is too complex for the time being)

[continued]

[PostedBlogger27for29102021]

{Islamic Cycles (2) [continued]*}[25th August 1990]

[Redbook7:237][19900825:1102]{Islamic Cycles (2) [continued]*}[25th August 1990]

19900825.1102

*

**

What*** is quite remarkable, looking at it like this, is how closely**** the Islamic cycle coincides with that of the Germanic peoples in Europe over the same period, although as we see the most recent period in greater detail it becomes apparent that the European dependency# was marginally later and of a different kind than the Muslim.

In-migration was not so keenly experienced in Europe as in the Muslim regions: this is the major outside influence, which as it had a common origin#* might have been expected to be most obviously a common experience.

*[Continued from entry before last, [Redbook7:235-236][19900825:0048b]{Islamic Cycles (2)}[25th August 1990] →;

& see last previous entry]

**‘Headings’ per E[ncyclopaedia] B[ritannica] 22:102-3 [‘The Islamic World’]

***[See last previous entry]

****(in outline!)

#{ie on external powers}

#*{ie Central Europe?}

[PostedBlogger27for28102021]

{The Circles of the World}[25th August 1990]

[Redbook7:236-237][19900825:1102]{The Circles of the World}[25th August 1990]

19900825.1102

The real question* is whether the C.E.**2048 year cycle is a self-contained period – or part of a self-contained European series – or whether it arises as part of a notional ‘World series’.

The phenomenon of the ‘Axial Age’(?) of religious prophecy*** [c.]800 to [c.]200 b.c.e.,**** which took place in widely scattered areas of Eurasia simultaneously and gave rise to Judaism (the Prophets), Mazdeism, Buddhism and Confucianism, and thus to the three Religions of the Book among others, strongly suggests that for Eurasia and North Africa at least – by extension now including the Americas and Australia – there is only one ‘World Series’ [sic] of interrelated cycles. While we may be seeing now a convergence of cycles, they also had a common origin; and what we know or suppose about the origin of Man makes this quite plausible.#

*[See last previous entry]

**[Christian/Common Era]

***[sic]

****[Before Christian/Common Era]

#{cf [[Redbook7:330-331][19900924:1315]{4,096-year cycles (2)}[24th September 1990],] 330ff,

[[Redbook7:345][19900930:1108]{4096[-]year cycles (3)}[30th September 1990],] 345}

[See next entry]

[PostedBlogger27102021]

{Islamic Cycles (2)}[25th August 1990]

[Redbook7:235-236][19900825:0048b]{Islamic Cycles (2)}[25th August 1990]

(24)

25.0048

[continued]

*My analysis of Islam’s 2048 year cycle in isolation may be misconceived – if you read its beginning at c[irca] M~ on the CE** 2048 year cycle, its early military success is more clearly explained. It is, after all, one of the three Religions of the Book. Islam’s current crisis should then be analysed in terms of its own cycle and the CE** cycle.***

19900825:1102

It is not clear what the effect of this would be. One possibility is that the influence of the CE’s** 2048 year C degree and the Muslim cycle’s approaching G~ degree would produce an R~ effect for Islam. Or one or other cycle could be dominant.

If the Muslim cycle was dominant for Islam, things would be much as I have analysed them before,**** ie G~ degree approaching and another 500 years or more until the end of the cycle.

If the C.E.** cycle was dominant, clearly Islam’s future would be bound up more strongly with that of the West.

*{[[Redbook7:208-210][19900811:2250]{Islamic Cycles (1)}[11th August 1990]ff,] 210 →}

**[Christian/Common Era]

***{(This is much of what was said or implied at [[Redbook7:208-210][19900811:2250]{Islamic Cycles (1)}[11th August 1990]ff,] 210)}

****{ref [[Redbook7:208-210][19900811:2250]{Islamic Cycles (1)}[11th August 1990],]] 208}

[Continued in entry after next – & see next entry]

[PostedBlogger25for26102021]

{Gerard de Nerval}[25th August 1990]

[Redbook7:235][19900825:0048]{Gerard de Nerval}[25th August 1990]

(24)

25.0048

I note* that according to last week’s T[imes] L[iterary] S[upplement], Gérard de Nerval** suffered at the age of 33 a mental breakdown brought about by anguish at his compromise of the imagination in the interests of a literary career.***

*(from memory)

**[Nom-de-plume of Gérard Labrunie, French writer, poet & translator, 1808-1855]

***{& [[Redbook7:277][19900906:2000]{Can I believe my eyes?}[6th September 1990],] 277}

[PostedBlogger25102021]

{The Spirit; Doing Good; and the Shape of the Circle [continued (5)]}[24th August 1990]

[Redbook7:235][19900824:2328g]{The Spirit; Doing Good; and the Shape of the Circle [continued (5)]}[24th August 1990]

19900824.2328

[continued]

Jesus, on the other hand,* the +C† incarnate, did good: he went about doing good. That the good he did was the expression in Human form of the Creator-Soul of god the Spirit, I do not doubt; but it does not follow from this, that the Creator-Soul does ‘good’ in any Humanly recognisable sense, or that the pure Spirit alone does anything at all.

**And this, in fact, fits in rather well with the common Human perception that the Creation itself, Nature, does not, in any Human understanding of the term, do good at all: it just does.

It does what it has to do.

*[See last previous entry]

**I am too tired to continue this!

→ [[Redbook7:238][19900825:1212]{The Green shift, Good and Evil, and Holiness]}[25th August 1990],] 238

[PostedBlogger24102021]

{The Spirit; Doing Good; and the Shape of the Circle [continued (4)]}[24th August 1990]

[Redbook7:234][19900824:2328f]{The Spirit; Doing Good; and the Shape of the Circle [continued (4)]}[24th August 1990]

19900824.2328

[continued]

The implication* is that as +C† moves towards the Centre – the Spirit – he becomes less good, which sounds astonishing: nevertheless, if you compare the Jesus Christ of the Synoptic Gospels** with the Archetypal Christ of St. John’s Gospels, and especially with the risen Christ and the Christ of the Last Judgement in European painting, it becomes clear that goodness is a matter of human manifestation, what we in fact now often call humanity: when we say to our children: ‘Be good’, we actually mean: Do good; or at least, do not do wrong.

Is it actually possible to ‘Be good’? And is it meaningful to describe God as good?*** God – the Spirit – is: God is not anything, it just is. God the Creator – the Soul of the Spirit – does, but it would I suspect be an irrelevance if not an impertinence to say that God the Creator does good.

*[See last 3 previous entries, [Redbook7:233-235][19900824:2328c]{The Spirit; Doing Good; and the Shape of the Circle}[24th August 1990]ff]

**[Matthew, Mark, Luke]

***[As in [Redbook5:103-104][19880320:1650]{Signs of God}[20th March 1988], where it is possibly defined simply by being of God]

[continued]

[PostedBlogger23102021]

{The Spirit; Doing Good; and the Shape of the Circle [continued (3)]}[24th August 1990]

[Redbook7:233-234][19900824:2328e]{The Spirit; Doing Good; and the Shape of the Circle [continued (3)]}[24th August 1990]

19900824.2328

[continued]

But* it is also correct to describe the Spirit ensouled and embodied in the +C† as the Holy Spirit, since the Archetype of +C† is the zenith of holiness incarnate;*** just as it is correct to describe the Spirit ensouled and embodied in a man of evil, as an evil spirit. The evil is in the Man, not in the Spirit; this is not so obvious in the case of Holiness, which is where the ‘real’ shape of the circle and the calvary cross come in:

**

*[See last two previous entries]

**[The figure to the right of the vertical line, after ‘x+’ is more likely to be a z than a 2.

The slight slant of the ms diagram is probably accidental.]

[continued]

[PostedBlogger22102021]

{The Spirit; Doing Good; and the Shape of the Circle [continued]}[24th August 1990]

[Redbook7:233][19900824:2328d]{The Spirit; Doing Good; and the Shape of the Circle [continued]}[24th August 1990]

19900824.2328

[continued]

Nevertheless* evil arises out of separation from the Spirit, so that in this sense the Circle diagram may be misleading. It is perhaps best to understand it as dynamic rather than static, as evil is wilful separation ** from God (the Spirit): this is movement, a dynamic process, not a static condition of being.

As everything that goes out from God must return to God – whether on the ‘level’ of the Spirit; of the Soul (from the Creator); or of the Embodiment or Incarnation of the Soul (from and to the +C†): so it is correct to perceive the +C† as the incarnation of the Creator (which is itself the ensouled Spirit) within the Universe, from and to which all embodied, incarnate ensouled Spirits must go out to return, one way or another.

*[See last previous entry]

**ref III? [eg [Redbook3:84-85][19870331:1825h]{Capital Punishment [continued]}[31^st March 1987]],

IV [(eg [Redbook4:99][19871005:0940d]{[The Dynamic Independence of Angels [continued (3)]] -- Good Spirits, evil spirits, and Men [continued]}[5th October 1987] fn=****],

[Redbook4:181][19871129:2107g]{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (4)] – Staining the Soul}[29th November 1987],] ff [eg VI [[Redbook6:140-141][19890630:2308c]{Evil (4)}[30th June 1989]]

&c.

[continued]

[PostedBlogger21102021]

{The Spirit; Doing Good; and the Shape of the Circle}[24th August 1990]

[Redbook7:233-235][19900824:2328c]{The Spirit; Doing Good; and the Shape of the Circle}[24th August 1990]

19900824.2328

[continued]

This* forces me to face up to what would presumably be a great heresy in Christianity, which is that the Spirit – the ultimate – is neither good nor evil in a strict sense, and its Creator Soul is beyond good and evil.

*[See last two previous entries]

[continued]

[PostedBlogger18for20102021]