{Spiritual Fusion [continued]: Human Intermingling}[2nd October 1987]

[Redbook4:80-81][19871002:2245d]{Spiritual Fusion [continued]: Human Intermingling}[2nd October 1987]

19871002.2245

[continued]

So far as* Men are concerned, the achievement of 'mingling'* (the stage beyond [']touching[']* must depend on the degree of self-less-ness of the individual: which is another way way of describing what happens, or should happen, in love between individuals (discussed earlier***).

But this raises interesting possibilities. I intuitively see Fusion as a mutual process, and would prefer to see Intermingling [sic] also as requiring the consent of both individuals: and perhaps, in the Spiritual Kingdom, this is how it is for Intermingling (as I feel sure it must be for Fusion, which is restricted to the Spiritual Kingdom). But among Men, the imaginatively sympathetic entry into another's point of view might seem to require the selfless motivation and awareness of only one party: the object of this might not be aware of it at all. That is one theory.

But another theory suggest that, on a spiritual level, both parties participate, even if one at least may be unconscious of it. Two things support this theory: first, the difficulty of entering sympathetically into the mind of supremely selfish individuals (not to be confused with analysing and understanding their motives) – this difficulty, I think, is felt by both unselfish and selfish individuals; and secondly, the support or 'lift' felt by those subject to an intermingling empathy by another or others, without overt communication of it, whether as**** an actor in front of a 'live' audience, or a pedestrian in a street who turns to face the eyes of a complete stranger out of earshot behind him.

The last encounter, of course, need not always turn out selfless; but speaking for myself, although I have frequently attracted the attention of a stranger by unconsciously staring at his or her back when I was thinking of something quite different, I have never, so far as I recall, been able to do it deliberately, i.e. selfishly. Intention, benevolent or malevolent, it seems must follow the communication.# If this second theory is correct, it tends to support the religious view of the active power of Love.

*[See last two previous entries.]

**[See last previous entry but one.]

***[Possibly a reference to last previous entry but one, after the diagrams.]

****[for example (presumably).]

#That does not mean that it cannot be intended, of course – intention may precede the communication as well as follow it, but not accompany it.... <871003> [Nor does it mean to suggest that intention is necessary. <20160820>]

[PostedBlogger18102016]

{Spiritual Fusion [continued]}[2nd October 1987]

[Redbook4:79][19871002:2245c]{Spiritual Fusion [continued]}[2nd October 1987]

19871002.2245

[continued]

What I cannot now convey is the beauty of the vision* – a beauty not so much seen as felt, from without and within, the intense clarity of the fusion of two Spirits of the Spiritual Kingdom**, for a time within the Separation. (The reverse process, of course, might be a form of spiritual 'birth', although operating under laws and by processes which are unclear to me).***

*[See last previous entry.]

**or Realm.

***{cf. [[Redbook4:281][19880103:1211b]{Communion}[3rd January 1988],]281.

[continues]

[PostedBlogger17102016]

{Spiritual Fusion}[2nd October 1987]

[Redbook4:78-81][19871002:2245c]{Spiritual Fusion}[2nd October 1987]

19871002.2245

[continued]

This morning – and I have been wanting to write this all day, and may have lost some of the original intensity – I was aware of a property of the disembodied Spirit which might be visualised as as that of two clear, bright clouds or vapours which, coming together, may touch perimeters (as we do), or intermingle, overlapping (as Angels might), or fuse, as one (as God is): not, in the last case, as an amoeba or a cell (in reverse) might, i.e. becoming one which was neither of the two; nor, for certain, as the big fish eats the little fish; but as two Spirits voluntarily occupying the same point or dimension, so that both perceive with the same point of view of each, as though two (or three) in one, but able to move and remove as separate spirits again. Beyond this[,] logic and imagination find it hard to go.

The language of Venn diagrams may help: the three stages are:

(i) (Touching)**

(ii) (Mingling)

(iii) (Fusing)

The categories are not clear-cut: the Spirits of Men may perhaps through imaginative sympathy mingle, or something like it, even though the majority might only touch; the Spirits of Angels, at least disembodied, may fuse, or something like it, at least for a time, although presumably short of the ultimate Fusion which is God{:*}; and the implication of this for the One is that Spirits which have achieved Fusion (as we see it) of their Souls with the One may still appear individually to those still separated (If this is correct, it resolves a problem which had bothered me for some time, about subsequent manifestations: one way of comprehending it may be via the extra-temporal and intra-temporal essence of the One, i.e. as both transcendent and immanent, One and All).

*{although they might commonly intermingle;}

**[The typescript diagrams have not survived the transition to Blogger, which is a pity.  They can be described as follows:

(i) Two circles touching at their circumference but not overlapping;

(ii) Two circles overlapping by about 1/4 circumference;

(iii) One circle.]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger16102016]

{Personal Circles}[2nd October 1987]

[Redbook4:77-78][19871002:2245b]{Personal Circles}[2nd October 1987]

19871002.2245

[continued]

Since [s]'s birth, I have been dealing with various repairs and improvements to outbuildings* and vehicles, in a generally relaxed kind of way; but over the last day or two I have been aware of one of those periodic shifts in emphasis back towards the kind of thing discussed in this book, which renders formerly enjoyable occupations rather stale – until it is time for them again.

I find this alternation helpful; it is only as I write this that I realise what a perfect example it is of the vertical polarity alternation of the Circles. Presumably, if I force the diverse** external matters (as I used to (have to) do), my subsequent inner work will reflect Crisis arrived at through Revolution and Simplification, with all the agony that entails in one form or another. There have certainly been degrees*** of agonising in my past, but I cannot say how directly these have followed from forced distractions; although I have the strong impression that they have {done so}.

Presumably, if I allow the diverse externalities to arise intuitively, i.e. naturally, and deal with them in the manner which seems to fit, the keynote of the inner work arising (through Inner Action) will be, not so much Crisis (as we understand it), as +C Is.

*I have also had dreams of collapsing (but strange) outbuildings <871003> [& cf. [Redbook4:53][19870804:1320d:1407d]{Dreams: Of Collapsing Buildings}[4th August 1987]. About a year later one of the outbuildings, a mobile home, terminally unfolded itself in a storm; and the roof of the oldest outbuilding, the original farmhouse, needed securing in high winds on at least one occasion. <20160820>]

**or rather, distracting.

***[In a literary not a geometric sense, presumably.]

[PostedBlogger15102016]

{Dreams of a Department Store, and a Board Game}[2nd October 1987]

[Redbook4:77][19871002:2245]{Dreams of a Department Store, and a Board Game}[2nd October 1987]

19871002.2245

During recent nights – sleeping in the spare room to escape young [s]'s midnight feasts – I have had a couple of dreams of interest: one in which I was / there was a sort of tyro superman, in a department store – rather a good metaphor for life, I afterwards thought – and a second in which life was represented as a kind of zig-zag board-game progress (round a mountain which blocked the view straight ahead: *): a character** reaching the point marked *** protested that only a short time had passed, and was astounded to be told how old he now was.****

*[Very small simple sketch diagram inserted here does not appear to add much to the text.]

**Me? <871003>}

***[After the mountain and very near or at the end of his route (so far?), according to the diagram referred to above. <201608&20161013-14>]

****{NB}

[PostedBlogger14102016]

{“[0]”: Original vision [continued]}[23rd August 1987]

[Redbook4:76-77][19870823:2220b]{“[0]”: Original vision [continued]}[23rd August 1987]

19870823.2220

[continued]

Already,* though, it is possible to see a simpler and healthier '[0]' emerging – less bloated, more natural. So far as the 4 Archetypes are concerned, they (or at least +M and +K) also emerge as more natural, less forceful, even (in +K's case) more confused and confusing – less aware of their futures, as is proper given that most of [0] occurs before their 'fusion' or awakening to their roles.

'[2]' has given me the confidence to do this – not just confidence in the Archetypes themselves to 'speak' for 'themselves', but confidence in my own ability to provide a statement at any time, as '[2]' does for its time of writing, so that '[0]' need only speak for its time of writing, not (as I have tended to assume in successive amendments) for all time: i.e. I am allowed to be wrong then (and now).

Next step: [1].

*[See last previous entry.]

On 198709[...] our son [s] was born. <871003>

[PostedBlogger13102016]

{“[0]”: Original vision}[23rd August 1987]

[Redbook4:74-77][19870823:2220]{“[0]”: Original vision}[23rd August 1987]

19870823.2220

I have taken the original manuscript (as revised) and the latest typescript of '[0]' and am trying to the latter back into the former without losing the purely editorial work. The reason for this is that editing became an occasion for too-creative amendments and additions which (a) developed the original vision beyond its time (i) wrongly in places and (ii) rightly but anachronistically in others; and (b) muddied* it. It is this more creative editing which I am trying to cancel:** least in the case of background description, which is often fairly mechanical; more in the case of symbolic or potentially symbolic items (e.g. colours); most of all in the speech of the Archetypes, and descriptions of their actions.

Although this is based on what I did with '[2]', it is far less precise: rather a blunt instrument. I cannot simply use the manuscript (I believe) and re-key it because of the less 'creative' re-writing which I have done on typescripts (or print-outs), which I feel is beneficial and useful and do not feel able to do again. (Also, I don't wish to re-key it!)

I do about 55 typed pages a day, so I should finish within 4 working days: this tiring and headache-inducing rate is is because the work is so boring. I shall, however, have to read the pencil-amended t[ype]s[cript] through again.

*{“muddled”? – or “muddied”?}

**I became more sweeping, I think, as I proceeded in this.... <871003>

[continues]

[PostedBlogger12102016]

{Prudence}[21st August 1987]

[Redbook4:74][19870821:1730c]{Prudence}[21st August 1987]

19870821.1730

[continued]

No, I do not think that Prudence* is the same as Wisdom**: it is caution – more like – and involving an element of fear.

*[A Virtue. See e.g. [Redbook4:100-101][19871005:0940e]{Vices, Virtues, Principles[, Qualities] and Gifts}[5th October 1987].]

**[A Gift of the Spirit – see last previous entry.]

[PostedBlogger10for11102016]

{Wisdom, Understanding and Counsel... and Knowledge}[21st August 1987]

[Redbook4:73][19870821:1730b]{Wisdom, Understanding and Counsel... and Knowledge}[21st August 1987]

19870821.1730

[continued]

The distinction of Wisdom, Understanding, and Counsel (and Knowledge)* has puzzled me.

Actually, Knowledge is by its nature distinguished form the other three: it is, essentially, facts (defined broadly).

Understanding is, I think, closely related to Charity** – Caritas*** – and may be be the root of Wisdom and Counsel, as +K is the 'originator' (in one sense) of xS and xP.

The distinction between xS and xP in [2] is the distinction of Wisdom and Counsel.

xS is identifiable with Sophia, Heavenly Wisdom, believed by some to be the first consort of God the One and possibly shown at his side in Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel panel of the raising of Adam.

Counsel is exactly what xP describes herself to [the Narrator in [2]] as giving to (for example) Trades Unionists all over the Country.

*[Gifts of the Spirit. See [Redbook4:44][19870712:1840]{The Gifts of the Spirit (1)}[12^th July 1987]; & [Redbook4:45][19870712:1840d]{The Gifts of the Spirit (2)}[12^th July 1987].]

**[A Virtue. See e.g. [Redbook4:100-101][19871005:0940e]{Vices, Virtues, Principles[, Qualities] and Gifts}[5th October 1987].]

***{=?}

= affection, esteem (or high price) [excerpted from Smith’s Smaller Latin-English Dictionary, 1855, 3^rd Edn 1933 (1965) <20161010>]. <930429>

[PostedBlogger10102016]

{An acid-tongued Princess....}[21st August 1987]

[Redbook4:72-73][19870821:1730]{An acid-tongued Princess....}[21st August 1987]

19870821.1730

A remark by Christopher Hitchens in the T[imes] L[iterary] S[upplement] about having danced with a girl who danced with a fellow who danced with the Princess of Wales, reminds me that many years ago, my father impressed an au-pair girl who was living with us by saying that when I was older (I might then have been about 13), I would dance with Princess Anne.

She did appear impressed; but apart from the acute social embarrassment I felt at the over-reaching nature of the remark, I had a greater reason to fear this over-exposure because I could not dance. I knew my father's ambitious will, and perhaps over-estimated (as perhaps did he) his social influence: I had a vision of myself drawing the short straw (by design or chance), stumbling sweatily round some vast ballroom, encircled by Dowagers with scornful eyes, and an acid-tongued Princess (although this may be a later gloss).... Needless to say the opportunity did not occur; nor, I should guess, was it ever likely to.

– Praise be to the Lord!

[PostedBlogger09102016]

{Political Virtues, Vices and Gifts [continued(3)]}[21st August 1987]

[Redbook4:72][19870821:1020j]{Political Virtues, Vices and Gifts [continued(3)]}[21st August 1987]

19870821.1020

[continued]

Mrs. Thatcher* showed herself in a good light by her visit to Swindon and Hungerford**: although cynicism about political motives should not be entirely suspended. I do not think the acquisition of political capital was her primary purpose in visiting the victims. It was said that she simply held hands with some of the victims, in silence; and afterwards she came across as less raucous, less contrived, than I think I have ever seen her before. It may be that following her second election victory she is gaining the personal confidence necessary to allow her to temper authority (Ordination) with predominant Love. If so, the consequences could be significant for Britain (ref. earlier notes*** on Britain after the Falklands [War, 1982].

*[See [Redbook4:67-70][19870821:1020]{Evil at Hungerford}[21st August 1987]ff; Swindon is a larger town about fifteen miles away.]

**[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.]

***II.[Unclear to which notes this refers:

possibly [Redbook2:268-270][19830510:2030c]{Malvinas}[10^th May 1983]ff,

& especially [Redbook2:268-270][19830510:2030f]{Malvinas [continued (4)]}[10^th May 1983];

&/or possibly [Redbook2:285-287][19830612:1230]{Circles of History}[12^th June 1983]ff,

& especially [Redbook2:286-287][19830612:1230b]{Circles of History [continued]}[12^th June 1983].]

[PostedBlogger08102016]

{Political Virtues, Vices and Gifts [continued]}[21st August 1987]

[Redbook4:71-72][19870821:1020i]{Political Virtues, Vices and Gifts [continued]}[21st August 1987]

19870821.1020

[continued]

One might speculate on the position of Centre [political] Parties. One would expect them to show, or show interest in, Anger, Hope, Might* (not much of that in evidence){;} Truth, and Innocence.** The Liberal Party in general often seems more distracted in its policies than the two main parties; the Alliance*** more so still. The policies often seem rather innocent****, to the main parties' supporters. The Centre Parties live in hope. In David Steel# I detect increasing anger (born, perhaps, of frustration); in David Owen#*, I think, a real feeling for truth. Fortitude is certainly in evidence; might is sought. But this is mere speculation.

*(or Fortitude)

**{& Holiness?! (ref. [[Redbook4:67][19870820:1800cc]{The Eighth Gift of the Spirit}[20^th August 1987]] p.67)} [or Grace? <20160813>]

(cf.[(presumably)[Redbook4:45][19870712:1840d]{The Gifts of the Spirit (2)}[12^th July 1987]] p.45.)

***[Possibly a mistaken reference to the Social Democratic Party into which the Social Democratic Alliance (from the right wing of the Labour Party) had by this time merged itself; but more likely to refer to the alliance of that party with the Liberal party, which was I believe known as The Alliance. <20160813>]

****[In the (contextually appropriate) sense, naïve, presumably.]

#[Leader of the Liberal Party in the United Kingdom, 1976-1988.]

#*[Leader of the Social Democratic Party in the United Kingdom, 16/06/1983 – (NB) 06/08/1987.]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger07102016]

{Political Virtues, Vices and Gifts}[21st August 1987]

[Redbook4:71-72][19870821:1020h]{Political Virtues, Vices and Gifts}[21st August 1987]

19870821.1020

[continued]

On Politicians: the Virtues* and Vices* do apply to the stereotype political party activists, or at least MPs**; as, to some extent, do the Gifts of the Spirit*. The archetypal left-wing MP is motivated by, at worst, Envy of those better-off, and at best, a generalised Loving-care for those worse-off; at best, too, this brings Understanding of men***, and of Man, not often apparent on the other side of the House****.

The archetypal right-wing MP is motivated by, at worst, Avarice for his own (or, conceivably, his class or Country's) material betterment; at best, a Faith {in,} or faithfulness to[,] principles and leadership which sharply distinguishes the Conservative Parliamentary Party from the Labour Parliamentary Party [in the UK]; at best, too, this brings a Righteousness which should be understood as genuine uprightness and moral integrity, not confused with self-righteousness. Naturally in practice characteristics cross the floor of the House****.

*[See [Redbook4:65-66][19870820:1800y]{Willed and Pulled Vices}[20^th August 1987].]

**[Members of Parliament]

***[Despite the lack of a capital initial letter, this is definitely to be understood as including women, as was normal (depending on context) in the times when this was written. Syntax had not caught up with perception. <20160813>]

****[of Commons – the lower chamber (of the United Kingdom legislature), of which MPs are the Members.]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger06102016]

{Faith, Hope and Charity [continued] – [(3)] Hope}[21st August 1987]

[Redbook4:70-71][19870821:1020g]{Faith, Hope and Charity [continued] – [(3)] Hope}[21st August 1987]

19870821.1020

[continued]

At that* stage of forgetfulness, even the memory of what one had faith in disappears: all that is left is Hope, that one may one day get back to the Light: the awareness that there was something there, even if one cannot remember what it was. This is, of course, a personal view of a personal experience.**

*[See last previous entry.]

**& in retrospect! <891001>.

[PostedBlogger05102016]

{Faith, Hope and Charity [continued] – [(2)] Faith}[21st August 1987]

[Redbook4:70][19870821:1020f]{Faith, Hope and Charity [continued] – [(2)] Faith}[21st August 1987]

19870821.1020

[continued]

One might think that Faith was more useful than Hope down in Distraction; but Faith belongs with +M~ (and faithfulness) by his nature at least, I think. I know from experience that as you go down into distraction [sic], you lose the capacity for Faith: I don't know why; it seems that Faith is not blind, but does need a basis of certainty of some sort to underpin it in a way which does not seem possible in Distraction. It is, perhaps, a certain single-mindedness of purpose which Distraction attacks.

[continues]

[PostedBlogger04102016]

{Faith, Hope and Charity – [1] Charity}[21st August 1987]

[Redbook4:70-71][19870821:1020e]{Faith, Hope and Charity – [1] Charity}[21st August 1987]

19870821.1020

[continued]

Of Faith, Hope and Charity: Charity(, or Caritas?*), that generalised love of humanity is, surprisingly, apparent as one rises on the Outer Circle through the wreckage imposed by Revolution on Distraction (or Separation). It was for me, anyway, and as a result we rediscovered old friends and made new and diverse ones in a way which I had not done since University, and had not thought myself still capable of.

*[Brackets () and question mark are later additions.]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger03102016]

{Evil at Hungerford [continued(4)] – Hope}[21st August 1987]

[Redbook4:69-70][19870821:1020d]{Evil at Hungerford [continued(4)] – Hope}[21st August 1987]

19870821.1020

[continued]

What is the answer, the antidote to release a man from this Anger*, this pure Evil? The obvious answers are Temperance, self-control, or Prudence, but this might only bottle it up, leading to still worse explosions** later on. The answer provided by the order of Virtues on the Circles – and I think the right one – is Hope. I suspect that if Ryan*** had had Hope – that he would eventually rise from the depths, that there was light at the and of the tunnel – he could never have done what he did. There is a lesson in this for the Individual, and for the Community.

*[See last previous entry.]

**”Explosion”: an almost perfect image of the Separation process: cf. The Big Bang.

***[The perpetrator of the Hungerford massacre – see [Redbook4:67-70][19870821:1020]{Evil at Hungerford}[21st August 1987]]

{See also [[Redbook4:86-87][19871003:1650#]{Spirits}[3rd October 1987],]p.87.}

[PostedBlogger02102016]

{Evil at Hungerford [continued(3)] – Anger}[21st August 1987]

[Redbook4:69][19870821:1020c]{Evil at Hungerford [continued(3)] – Anger}[21st August 1987]

19870821.1020

[continued]

Anger is well placed (not by me: by the order of Vices) at the extreme point of Separation in the Circles – Distraction – because it is the only one of the active Vices (i.e. those on or below the horizontal line)* which is not** directed towards the achievement of a particular end:*** (it might be simply to restore a balance; I am not sure). Anger is the expression of pure Spiritual Separation, of pure Evil; this is one reason why the concept of Righteous Anger is so dangerous. (I recall that my own angriest moments have arisen out of the stress in the black depths of Distraction, e.g. during our 'self-' employment in London: terrifying, almost uncontrollable anger over ridiculous things.)

If I recall rightly, the children on Savernake**** said to the lady who found them: 'A man in black [has] shot our Mummy'; but all witnesses have said that he was wearing a camouflage jacket, i.e. shades of green#*. Whatever the reason for this image – even if it is only within my own recollection# – it once again symbolises the nature of the phenomenon:#** the gunman in black, the dark lord, is the symbol of extreme Separation on the Outer Circle, and thus of extreme spiritual Evil; but on the Inner Circle is Diversity, through whom we all must pass, perhaps the symbol of Separation within the Light of the Spirit: or at least I hope so, for his statuette stands on my dining-room window-ledge.#***

*cf.[[Redbook4:65][19870820:1800x]{Passive and Active [Virtues and] Vices}[20^th August 1987]] p.65.

**[{Underlining}]

***{cf. [[Redbook4:197-8][19871206:1235#]{Virtues and Vices (3)}[6th December 1987],]198.}

****[Forest. The children were aged 4 and 2.]

#[No; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre#Savernake_Forest. But Ryan might have been standing against the light.]

#*U.S style? i.e. dark green?

#**{cf.VI.126.}

#***Now in the living-room fireplace.... <891001>

Here at [AC], relegated to [outside] the back door, and getting rather rusty. <930425>

[continues]

[PostedBlogger01102016]