Monday, 10 April 2017

{Spiritual Darkness}[2nd December 1987]

[Redbook4:192-193][19871202:0005]{Spiritual Darkness}[2nd December 1987]

19871202:0005

Watching an ‘Everyman’ programme on the divisions within the British Sikh community, I was struck by the darkness of one speaker – the most extreme supporter of Khalistan interviewed. As he described the conspiracy between the Indian and British governments which had resulted in imprisonment of British Sikhs for (?)homicide-related charges, and denied their guilt – not because they had not done what they were charged with but because he did not recognise the British courts – the darkness was very much apparent. I do not recall that he was darker in skin than others; I think he was wearing a dark suit. But the darkness was most definitely in his eyes, supported by and/or colouring his expression.

It was a frightening thing: I have seen it occasionally in the eyes of the Provisional Irish Republican Army's spokesmen (although not recently).

If you are a follower of what I have just labelled 'tactical relativism',* you will say that this reflects my own politics. I do not think so: I have also seen it elsewhere, although never in quite such an intense form: in a convicted criminal (forgery or fraud, I think) whom I knew casually for three years before I learnt of his conviction; perhaps in a local ne'er-do-well who once shot up the bar at the [local pub] (I later discovered); possibly, more faintly, in the odd businessman, although I can't think who; most definitely and quite intensely on occasion in part-time and full-time [special forces] men {with} whom I worked on exercises from time to time.


*'Tactical Relativism' consists in throwing accusations, made against you, back at the accuser: in the hope of undermining his position, irrespective of truth.
[An example of this was reported within the last few days at the United Nations, were the Russian representative apparently countered challenges from the U.K. representative on the Russian annexation of Crimea and invasion of Eastern Ukraine, by identifying the Falklands, Gibraltar, and Diego Garcia as matters were it not for which the UK would be in a better position to criticise Russia. <20170219>]


[continues]


[PostedBlogger10042017]

Sunday, 9 April 2017

{Cardinal Influences: Male and Female; Physical and Spiritual}[30th November 1987]

[Redbook4:191][19871130:0920f]{Cardinal Influences: Male and Female; Physical and Spiritual}[30th November 1987]

19871130.0920
[continued]

The chart on p188*, in Circle form:

**

Key:
Influences:
Driving
(Start of Circle)
STATION
(Location)
Leading
(End of Circle)
(in gender terms only!)
[The diagram failed to load/publish in Blogger.]

[Text of ms diagram shown above: (May be inserted later)]



(These ‘analyses’ should be treated with caution: I once*** did something similar, if I recall rightly, using a Fibonacci-type series or spiral development of years. They can’t all be right. (Can they?))


*[p188 incorrectly numbered, renumbered [Redbook4:189][19871130:0920b]{The Weight of Sin (2) [continued (3)] – Male and Female Influences*}[30th November 1987], p189.]

**but cf. [[Redbook4:147-148][19871020:2058f]{Women and men (I)}[20th October 1987]f,] p147-8

***[Not (yet) found.]




[PostedBlogger09042017]

Saturday, 8 April 2017

{The Weight of Sin (2) [continued (6)] – Homosexuality: Summary}[30th November 1987]

[Redbook4:190][19871130:0920e]{The Weight of Sin (2) [continued (6)] – Homosexuality: Summary}[30th November 1987]

19871130.0920
[continued]

In summary, Circles Analysis seems to suggest that genital homosexuality is riskier than genital heterosexuality because (a) it lacks the extra clarifying selflessness arising at least potentially from the prospect of conceiving children; and (b) it seems to be static rather than dynamic, tending to keep the Individual stationary on the Outer Circle. To the extent that this is correct, genital homosexuality is likely to be the greater sin.*


*I disagree fundamentally [sic] with much of these analyses [[Redbook4:180][19871129:2107d]{The Weight of Sin (1)}[29th November 1987]ff, & [Redbook4:188][19871130:0120]{The Weight of Sin (2)}[30th November 1987]ff.] of sexual morality. <930511>
[Most of this on the subject of sexuality in general, and (mostly male) homosexuality in particular, with the exception of [Redbook4:188-189][19871130:0920]{The Weight of Sin (2) [continued] – Sexual Intercourse and Love}[30th November 1987] which seems the better approach in terms of both Circles analysis and general compassion, is probably best understood in the context of the writer’s complicated and developing relationship at the time with the Church. <20170403>]




[PostedBlogger08042017]

{The Weight of Sin (2) [continued (5)] – Immaturity}[30th November 1987]

[Redbook4:190][19871130:0920d]{The Weight of Sin (2) [continued (5)] – Immaturity}[30th November 1987]

19871130.0920
[continued]

I think this* also identifies another aspect of homosexuality: that it generally masks a static position at an immature station, e.g. boyhood (4 - 8/9)** or early manhood (21/22 – 25/27)** for which genital homosexuality is not particularly appropriate. By the time the Inner Circle phases come round – 42/44 – 46/49**, and 59/63 – 63/66** – genital homosexuality is even less apposite: in the final case, Kings Uriel (sounds like a Hampshire village***), I should guess that genital sexuality in general should be receding in importance.


*[See last previous entry.]

**[See last previous entry but one.]

***[Or a mediaeval STD. <20170406>]

[This paragraph, like so much of what has preceded it on the subject of what appears in fact to be male homosexuality, seems now to be misconceived in so many ways. & See next entry. <201701-03c>]


[continues]


[PostedBlogger07042017]

Thursday, 6 April 2017

{The Weight of Sin (2) [continued (4)] – Conception}[30th November 1987]

[Redbook4:190][19871130:0920c]{The Weight of Sin (2) [continued (4)] – Conception}[30th November 1987]

19871130.0920
[continued]

It is worth bearing in mind that, in a sexual context, the Transformation Point (Love, to Selflessness) at R~ initiates an Inner Circle progression of gestation of a Child: I have commented some time ago* on the 9-month** sequence from T.XIV Temperance (female transferring fluid) through (e.g.) T.XVI (Lightning striking tower) to T.XX Judgement (third person arising out of hole between Man and Woman). This clearly is not even “conceivable” in a homosexual relationship.*** I suggest that this is an important element in the Transformation to Selflessness in this context.


*II. [[Redbook2:357][19850101:1225]{Birth and Rebirth}[1st January 1985]; &
[Redbook3:135-136][19870406:2300c](SEX AND GENDER [continued(3)]: {True Love and the Death of the Self})[6th April 1987]] [...]?

**[When the Tarots are mapped (per Tarot 2, the finally accepted version) onto the Zodiac. <20170406>]

***[See last previous entry, &[Redbook4:183][19871129:2107k]{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (8)] – Homosexuality}[29th November 1987],ff.]


[continues]


[PostedBlogger06042017]

Monday, 3 April 2017

{The Weight of Sin (2) [continued (3)] – Male and Female Influences*}[30th November 1987]

[Redbook4:189][19871130:0920b]{The Weight of Sin (2) [continued (3)] – Male and Female Influences*}[30th November 1987]

19871130.0920
[continued]

So far as homosexuality** is concerned, the answer may be found more in the dynamics of the Circles.** If I read it aright, close dependence on Men would occur only at the beginning of the Outer Circle and the 'end' of the Inner. These correspond to the approximate ages 0-8, 17/18-c.25, c.45-****54, and c.60+. I would expect the most male-oriented phase to occur in the middle of each period, and the most physical at the end (Outer Circle) and the beginning (Inner Circle).# I suppose 4-8 may be a male-dominated time of childhood.... Let me try this as a linear chart:

(This is only partly successful)
OUTER

Approx Ages
Cerebral/
Physical
Domination
Male orientation? Female orientation?
Knaves
S~
0 - 4
Cereb.
Male
This seems wrong – Mum i/c, surely – but see 158#* re mother influence.

U~
4 - 8/9
Phys.
Male
Boys dominate with rough stuff

J~
8/9 - 12/13
Phys.
Female
Girls mature faster, boys follow.

R~
12/13 - 17/18
Cer.
Female
Boys become interested [in] girls, girls in older men; both in peer groups? Girls are the ‘target’: men expected to follow.






Knights
S~
17/18 - 21/22
Cer.
Male
Students.

U~
21/22 - 25/27
Phys.
Male
Early manhood.

J~
25/27 - 31/32
Phys.
Female
Early marriage (ideally – in most views)

R~
31/32 - 34/36
Cer.
Female
Young family.
INNER





Queens
R~
34/36 - 38/40
Cer.
Female
Family.

J~
38/40 - 42/44
Phys.
Female
Family – leaving home [sic].

U~
42/44 - 46/49
Phys.
Male
Male tendency to drift off – female still attached to him.

S~
46/49 - 51/54
Cer.
Male
[As above]






Kings
R~
51/54 - 55/58
Cer.
Female
Male physical deterioration faster?

J~
55/58 - 59/63
Phys.
Female
[As above]

U~
59/63 – 63/66
Phys.
Male


S~
63/66 – 68/72ff
Cer.
Male


(but all this should be seen in the context of the dynamic 'leadership' on each Circle: this is static.)


*<891003>

**[Ref. [[Redbook4:183][19871129:2107k]{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (8)] – Homosexuality}[29th November 1987],ff]]

***cf. [[Redbook4:147-148][19871020:2058f]{Women and men (I)}[20th October 1987]f] p147.

****{?}

#I really don't understand all this now <930511>

#*... but see [[Redbook4:158-159][19871119:2312k]{Women and men (II)}[19th November 1987],] 158 re mother influence.



[continues]


[PostedBlogger02for05042017]

Sunday, 2 April 2017

{The Weight of Sin (2) [continued] – Sexual Intercourse and Love}[30th November 1987]

[Redbook4:188-189][19871130:0920]{The Weight of Sin (2) [continued] – Sexual Intercourse and Love}[30th November 1987]

19871130.0920

*And yet, and yet... there is something missing from this* analysis, at least as far as sexual behaviour is concerned: it gives me the uneasy feeling of having been distorted to fit the prejudices. I think the missing link is Love, the motivation of the Transformation from Selfishness to Selflessness (cf. [TXIV] Temperance). **If instead of Love there follows Attraction, no Transformation will occur – this time round. Selflessness is a litmus test of true Love. The question – 'Am I prepared to procreate with this person?' – may well be an indicator of Love and Selflessness in this context (although not always – people {may} have children for selfish reasons, I think).

But applying Circles Analysis strictly to the problem (instead of, as yesterday,**** applying old tests) does not suggest quite the same solution. It suggests to me now that sexual intercourse is by its nature an Outer Circle and therefore soul-staining# process which can, however, acquire an Inner Circle clarity by the transforming power of Love.

*[See last previous entry, & [[Redbook4:180][19871129:2107d]{The Weight of Sin (1)}[29th November 1987],ff].

**WRONG! cf. XVI:60ff: Attraction is in one sense neutral; the cycle can turn either way, through Love, or by Ordination (Will). <930511>

***ref. {[[Redbook4:185-186][19871129:2107o]{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (13)] – Sexual Selflessness]}[29th November 1987],] 186}

****[[Redbook4:180][19871129:2107d]{The Weight of Sin (1)}[29th November 1987],ff]

#i.e. 'Sinful'
No; this is to confuse the material (or physical) with the wrong. Like any other activity, sexual intercourse is morally neutral <930511>

[See [Redbook4:190][19871130:0920e]{The Weight of Sin (2) [continued (6)] – Homosexuality: Summary}[30th November 1987], fn ult. <20170403>]


[continues]


[PostedBlogger02for04042017]

{The Weight of Sin (2)}[30th November 1987]

[Redbook4:188][19871130:0120]{The Weight of Sin (2)}[30th November 1987]

(19871130).0120

Saying that something is evil, or sinful (as for certain kinds of sexual* or homosexual intercourse**, above***) does not forbid it. It simply means that to commit that evil risks staining the Soul, with potentially very serious consequences for the Individual. The consequences may build up their effect slowly, bit by bit; and they may be reversible, in certain circumstances. But to commit Evil in the expectation of Forgiveness is cynical, and I suspect that cynicism precludes the Transformation necessary to repentance and forgiveness.


*[[Redbook4:183-184][19871129:2107l]{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (9)] – Sexual Intercourse}[29th November 1987],ff]

**[[Redbook4:183][19871129:2107k]{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (8)] – Homosexuality}[29th November 1987],ff]

***[[Redbook4:180][19871129:2107d]{The Weight of Sin (1)}[29th November 1987],ff]


[continues]


[PostedBlogger02for03042017]

Saturday, 1 April 2017

{Sense and Sensibility (1)}[29th November 1987]

[Redbook4:187][19871129:2107s]{Sense and Sensibility (1)}[29th November 1987]

19871129.2107
[continued]



(+C[I~])


(R~)

**
(or GRACE? <871130>)
TRUTH

(S~)
*(Also “E.S.P.” etc.) The “Sixth” Sense?--
Intuition

Conscience”
Ability to recognise God (& Evil?)
(G~)
Hearing
Sight***
(M~)

Taste

Smell

(J~)

Touch

(U?)


(A~)

****
*?
**The Inner Sense of Innocence? (or is that Conscience?)
***(?/?)
****cf. [[Redbook4:144-145][19871020:2058b]{Angelic Hierarchies [continued (20)]}[20th October 1987],] p145.
BUT see [[Redbook4:199][19871206:1235e]{Sense and Sensibility (2)}[6th December 1987],] p199.


The same sort of division of above-the-line v. on-or-below-the-line is found as for Vices.# Truth, of course, ultimately encompasses everything: in terms of the other seven, it would flood the Mind.#* I am uncertain about relative left-right polarity,#** e.g. of Hearing and Sight, although this does seem the most satisfactory solution at present.


#ref. [[Redbook4:65][19870820:1800x]{Passive and Active [Virtues and] Vices}[20th August 1987],] p65-66.

#*as Grace? <871201>

#**(NB 'The Voice of Conscience'?~~) (but 'The Vision of Glory'!)

.0100




[PostedBlogger01for02042017]

{Pin-Man}[29th November 1987]

[Redbook4:187][19871129:2107r]{Pin-Man}[29th November 1987]

19871129.2107
[continued]

Pin-Man:

[Text of ms diagram of pin man:]



+CI~
[](Brain?)


(Right senses?)

S~
O
R~

(Left senses?)
(Right hand & arm)
M~

/----|----/

G~
(Left hand) (Heart)



|






/\



(Driving foot?)

U~
A~
J~

(Leading foot?)



(Bowels, genitals, etc.)




a cheerless fellow!







[PostedBlogger01042017]