Friday, 12 May 2017

{Playing the Game [continued (4)]}[12th December 1987]

[Redbook4:215][19871212:2250d]{Playing the Game [continued (4)]}[12th December 1987]

19871212.2250
[continued]

There are many international sportsmen – including, apparently, the Pakistan cricket captain* – who believe and state that cheating is acceptable in international sport in order to win. (This might be the distinction between sport and games: [that] there is no such thing as cheating in sport,** where winning is everything; [but] there is no game if cheating occurs, since playing is everything).

This is why the impossible distinction between amateur and professional was crucial.*** (It is another linguistic give-away of our own corruption that whereas 'amateur' was once a word of praise and 'professional' slightly suspect, the position is now exactly reversed.) So far as I can see, all you can do when a game loses its 'spirit' and is taken over by competition, is to abandon it to the cheats and invent another one.

So far as the Pakistan umpire**** is concerned, there must come a point where incompetence can no longer be excused, in the light of the truthful man's necessity always to seek and speak the Truth. What's good for Science, for Business, and indeed for Religion – for the life of Man in general – is certainly good for Games.


*It seems that this may have been a sarcastic comment on England's attitude last time in England. <880114>
[& cf. Bodyline? See next entry.]

**('Sport' did not always have this connotation: cf. 'sportsmanlike'.)
[& cf. The answer by an Oxford undergraduate sitting her final exams who ran out of time to answer the last question: “What is the difference between sport and play?”, so wrote simply: “To play with Amaryllis in the shade# would be unkind”. I think it may have been William Rees-Mogg who recounted this in an essay, article or review, adding: “The examiners awarded her a First, and quite right too.” – a remark which (whoever was the author) has always seemed to this writer to border on the sententious.]

***(i.e. the love of money is the root of all evil.)

****captain? <930607> [& see fn * above.]

#[
Alas! what boots it with uncessant care
To tend the homely slighted Shepherds trade,
And strictly meditate the thankles[s] Muse,
Were it not better don as others use,
To sport with Amaryllis in the shade,
Or with the tangles of NeƦra's hair?
Fame is the spur....

John Milton (1608–1674),
Lycidas: A Lament for a friend drowned in his passage from
Chester on the Irish Seas, 1637 (lines 64-70 (part)).
]


[continues]


[PostBlogger12052017]

Thursday, 11 May 2017

{Playing the Game [continued (3)]}[12th December 1987]

[Redbook4:214-215][19871212:2250c]{Playing the Game [continued (3)]}[12th December 1987]

19871212.2250
[continued]

The *linkage of artifice and competition comes about because within the artificial framework or sub-creation of the rules of the game, it is possible by deception to increase one's success in the competition. The deception may involve breaking the rules, or exploiting the rules (or lacunae in the rules) contrary to the 'spirit' or concept of the game.** The deception is perpetrated on one's opponents and on (or, sometimes, by) the umpire, referee or other local (game) judge.

Deception, like competition, is essentially a separating activity: the greatest Deception known to us is the Separation itself (which certainly suggests that games are not necessarily evil or wrong in themselves). Within the sub-creation of each game, two (or more) individuals or two teams generally play against each other. *** But within the sub-creation of games-playing in general, as within the Separation itself in Human terms, the struggle is between those who play to win by deception; and those who play the game by (and for) truth, win or lose. The former are players of the Separation, the latter are players of Union.

Although the conduct of games-playing in general is being decided between those two types of player, there is in fact no possibility of a meaningful game between Individuals or Teams of the two types. One is for lies: the other is for Truth. One is for evil: the other is for Good (or God).**** The only meaningful field of battle for these two opposing forces is the Separation itself.


*[See last previous entry.]

**[Or, of course, it may be the whole point of the game.... <20170309>]

***You noticed?

****[The antitheses in the two preceding sentences were swapped on <891003>, presumably to match those in the last two sentences of the last previous paragraph.]



[continues]


[PostedBlogger11052017]

Tuesday, 9 May 2017

{Playing the Game [continued]}[12th December 1987]

[Redbook4:213-214][19871212:2250b]{Playing the Game [continued]}[12th December 1987]

19871212.2250
[continued]

The element of artifice,* and the element of competition*, are intimately linked.** In this, they parallel the outer, actual and Separated World.

It may be argued that competition stimulates the pursuit of excellence and demonstrates its achievement. In truth, competition does nothing of the sort. Excellence is the approach to Perfection. Perfection is Union with the One.*** Competition is Separation, from each other (Spirits of God) and so from the One (God the Spirit).


*[in games – see last previous entry.]

**{(See [next entry] below.)}

***The passing of limits, however – e.g. in athletics – may be an imitation or an aspect of the approach to Perfection as Union with the One.


[continues]


[PostedBlogger09for10052017]

{Playing the Game}[12th December 1987]

[Redbook4:213-216][19871212:2250]{Playing the Game}[12th December 1987]

19871212.2250

I've never been a games-player: I've always found games boring, or unpleasant, or both. That goes for business games as well as sports: board games as well as role-playing. (There were one or two exceptions: rugby, very briefly, at [primary-level boarding school]; hard-court hockey at [secondary-level school boarding] House; Monopoly.)*

I don't know why I don't enjoy games. It is tempting to think that it may be because all games involve an element of artifice, a “let's pretend” element necessary for the acceptance of local (i.e. game) roles etc.. But a writer of fiction (and these journals)** is hardly in a position to reject sub-creations***.

I think it may be because all [sic] games are**** about winning for its own sake – an essentially pointless activity. It is possible, of course, to reduce the importance of winning and increase that of playing. Although I'm not desperately keen on Charades, I don't mind acting (when I can get over my shyness). Charades is a competition (just): acting isn't.


*[& Scrabble?]

**[NB!]

***[ref. JRR Tolkien, “On Fairy Stories”, &c.]

****{(or tend to become)}
see below. <891003>



[continues]


[PostedBlogger09052017]

Monday, 8 May 2017

{Intuition, Intellection, and Conscience}[10th December 1987]

[Redbook4:212][19871210:2315j]{Intuition, Intellection, and Conscience}[10th December 1987]

19871210.2315
(Thursday)
[continued]

*'Intuition', of course, is a process of judgement at a largely unconscious level requiring (among other things) a good background of experience – the sort of knowledge of the World acquired on a good Outer Circle development. There is no direct way of knowing whether a particular intuition is reliable or not – for indirect evidence, consider the **Individual's experience, and his manner.

'Intellection', notoriously, requires virtully no Outer Circle experience at all. Logic is probably a good example.*** Intellection may, I guess, be Outer{-} or Inner{-}based. Outer is Academic: Inner is Prophetic.****

'Conscience' is, I guess, probably developed on the Outer Circle (Knights) and refined on the Inner Circle (Queens). It is, of course, centred on +C†I~ (Crisis).


*{ref [[Redbook4:199-200][19871206:1235e]{Sense and Sensibility (2)}[6th December 1987],] 199.}

**[the intuiting Individual, presumably.]

***(Outer?)

****Modified later. <930617> (But presumably a Prophet would have Outer Circled?)
[See [Redbook4:200][19871206:1935]{Sense and Sensibility (2) [continued]}[6th December 1987]: '“Prophecy” above* does not necessarily mean telling the future. It is the direct and clear link between God and Man. Natural Scientists, concerned with predictability, and with approaches to objective reality, belong at S~.' ]

19871211.0210



[PostedBlogger08052017]

Saturday, 6 May 2017

{The Transfer of Burdens and the Forgiveness of Sins [continued (9)] – (3) The Knowledge of God and Evil [continued (4)]}[10th December 1987]

[Redbook4:211][19871210:2315i]{The Transfer of Burdens and the Forgiveness of Sins [continued (9)] – (3) The Knowledge of God and Evil [continued (4)]}[10th December 1987]

19871210.2315
(Thursday)
[continued]

This analysis* is important to me personally in view of my situation with my parents. If the analysis is reliable, it seems to suggest that I have arrived intuitively** at what is broadly the right course of action.***


*[See last previous entries from [Redbook4:206-211][19871210:2315b]{The Transfer of Burdens and the Forgiveness of Sins – (1) Transfer}[10th December 1987], presumably; perhaps particularly [Redbook4:209-211][19871210:2315g]{The Transfer of Burdens and the Forgiveness of Sins [continued (6)] – (3) The Knowledge of God and Evil}[10th December 1987]ff.]

**(& sometimes partly for the wrong reasons?)

***In fact, though, I did other in the end.... <891003>

{Although this general analysis tends (I still believe) in the right direction, its difficulties arise from its method of working from the outside inwards, instead of from the inside outwards. We should not try to define evil in practice by nice distinctions of behaviour (e.g. Ought he to have known...?), but absolutely[,] in a spiritual sense. See VI.[]140.}




[PostedBlogger06for07052017]

{The Transfer of Burdens and the Forgiveness of Sins [continued (8)] – (3) The Knowledge of God and Evil [continued (3)]}[10th December 1987]

[Redbook4:210-211][19871210:2315h]{The Transfer of Burdens and the Forgiveness of Sins [continued (8)] – (3) The Knowledge of God and Evil [continued (3)]}[10th December 1987]

19871210.2315
(Thursday)
[continued]

This* could be set out as follows:

Development and refinement of Conscience:
1-10?
((1)
Destroyed Conscience
Psychopath? – as an animal)
Knaves?
(2)
Undeveloped Conscience
Individual does not distinguish God and Evil
Knights?
(3)
Developed Conscience (ignored)
Individual distinguished God and Evil but does Evil (& Good)
Queens?
(4)
Refined Conscience
Individual actively seeks God and avoids Evil
Kings?
((5)
Perfect Conscience
Individual has perfect or near-perfect knowledge of God).

The subjects of Jesus' Crucifixion prayer ** were, I guess, at stage (2) [above], the Undeveloped Conscience. It may be that (as forgiveness requires repentance) persons at Stage (2) are easier to forgive (in the divine sense), once they are aware of the position {–} than are persons at stage (3), the Developed Conscience (Ignored), who are already aware of the position: simply because the latter have built up mental defences, whereas the former have not.

'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do'*** therefore becomes less of a pious intercession than a clear psychological insight into the precise Spiritual state of Individuals**** – like most of Jesus' statements.


*[See last previous entries from [Redbook4:206-211][19871210:2315b]{The Transfer of Burdens and the Forgiveness of Sins – (1) Transfer}[10th December 1987], presumably; particularly [Redbook4:209-211][19871210:2315g]{The Transfer of Burdens and the Forgiveness of Sins [continued (6)] – (3) The Knowledge of God and Evil}[10th December 1987]ff.]

**[As footnoted ***; see last previous entry.]

***Luke XXIII.34
[
32 And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.
33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.
34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
(Authorised/King James Version of the Bible)
]

****{and the consequences for them}


[continues]


[PostedBlogger06052017]

Friday, 5 May 2017

{The Transfer of Burdens and the Forgiveness of Sins [continued (7)] – (3) The Knowledge of God and Evil [continued(2)]}[10th December 1987]

[Redbook4:209-210][19871210:2315h]{The Transfer of Burdens and the Forgiveness of Sins [continued (7)] – (3) The Knowledge of God and Evil [continued(2)]}[10th December 1987]

19871210.2315
(Thursday)
[continued]

'Jesus said: “Forgive them, Father! They don't know what they are doing.”'* As one might expect – this Crucifixion prayer shows a greater awareness of the Divine Order of things (according to this**theory). At the same time it raises difficult questions about the exact nature of the whole process.**

The obvious implication is that because they did not know that they were doing wrong***, they will**** be forgiven (and e.g. go to Heaven, or whatever). But the ***wrong-doing is not made wrong only by the knowledge of it: it is always wrong-doing.

Then again, as no act is evil of itself,# the evil must exist in their minds even if they are not aware that it is evil.#* Evil is therefore both inward (mental) and real (objective).#** If evil stains the Soul, it must do so objectively, i.e. whether or not the wrong-doer is aware that it is evil. His ignorance is due, not so much to innocence, as to an undeveloped Conscience, i.e. a failure to know God and Evil.

(Knowledge of God and Evil comes, incidentally, I guess, at the Transformation point of Cycles – any Cycle#*** – at R~; Everlasting Life is at S~: the Serpent,#**** then, may be the Circles.)

The fate of the ignorant Man's Soul will be the same as the fate of the {Soul of the} Man who has been warned – with one crucial## qualification. The Man who has been warned of the danger, and persists in evil, cannot be forgiven for so doing as long as he##* persists. The initiative therefore rests primarily with him. The Man who has not been warned is awaiting the initiative of God {(i.e. Christ)}. He has the best opportunity to repent and clear his Soul, as soon as he is made aware of the true state of affairs. It is perhaps to this that the prayer – 'Forgive them, Father! For [sic] they don't know what they are doing.'* – refers.


*Luke XXIII.34
[
32 And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.
33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.
34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
(Authorised/King James Version of the Bible)
]

**[See last previous entries from [Redbook4:206-211][19871210:2315b]{The Transfer of Burdens and the Forgiveness of Sins – (1) Transfer}[10th December 1987], presumably.]

***'wrong' = ? <891003> [cf. Earlier entries re the righting of wrongs which suggest that a wrong can be something done to someone who is wronged by it, which presumably if so defined can be done without any evil intent or even perhaps any awareness of the wronging act; e.g. [Redbook3:101-102][19870404:1005k]{The Righting of Wrongs}[4th April 1987], ff.]

****[or should?]

#ref [(presumably)[Redbook4:181][19871129:2107g]{The Weight of Sin (1) [continued (4)] – Staining the Soul}[29th November 1987],] p181

#*So an act can be wrong in itself, but not evil in itself? <891003> [& see fn *** above. <20170504>]

#**[cf.? [Redbook3:118-131][19870405:1057](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1})[5th April 1987]ff;
[Redbook3:184-193][19870414:1003](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE (2))[14th April 1987]ff;&c.]

#***(often very early – not just when the Individual's main life-cycles transform.)

#****[?Serpens ,& Ophiuchus (sometimes referred to as the 13th sign of the Zodiac, between Scorpius and Sagittarius)?]

##[As it were.]

##*[{Underlining} added later.]



[continues]


[PostedBlogger05052017]

Thursday, 4 May 2017

{The Transfer of Burdens and the Forgiveness of Sins [continued (6)] – (3) The Knowledge of God and Evil}[10th December 1987]

[Redbook4:209-211][19871210:2315g]{The Transfer of Burdens and the Forgiveness of Sins [continued (6)] – (3) The Knowledge of God and Evil}[10th December 1987]

19871210.2315
(Thursday)
[continued]

The martyr Stephen's final prayer was: 'Lord, do not remember this sin against them!'* It is an interesting question whether such a prayer can directly affect the fate of the Souls of those who stoned him, if this theory is correct which suggests that all such processes operate according to Divine Law**, not Divine Whim. On the other hand, the effect of his words on one at least of the bystanders may have been profound.***


*Acts VII.60
[
57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.
59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
(Authorised/King James Version of the Bible)
]

**[Presumably, ‘Law’ needs to be understood here in the same sense as in laws of nature, rather than (e.g.) parliamentary or judge-made law, i.e. a fundamental mechanism of the order of things rather than something which can be flexibly applied. <20170504>]

***[v58 in fn* above.]



[continues]


[PostedBlogger04052017]

Tuesday, 2 May 2017

{The Transfer of Burdens and the Forgiveness of Sins [continued (5)] – (2) Forgiveness}[10th December 1987]

[Redbook4:208-209][19871210:2315f]{The Transfer of Burdens and the Forgiveness of Sins [continued (5)] – (2) Forgiveness}[10th December 1987]

19871210.2315
(Thursday)
[continued]

The New Testament teachings {on} forgiveness and repentance sometimes seem difficult to reconcile. Taking Matthew:

V.21 &[sic] 25 {–} I think explains the duty of the wrong-doer to make reparation.

V.38-42 (Turning the other cheek) {–} as stated, explains the duty of the victim not to take revenge. It covers only actions, not states of mind or intentions.

V.43-48 {–} Love your enemies.

XVIII.15-17 {–} The victim (or any neighbour? (“brother”) must confront the wrong-doer privately; then with witnesses; then in the community; then, if the wrong-doer still will not listen and be won over, he must cut contact.

XVIII.{21-35} {–} Always forgive – the parable of the King's debtor and the debtor's debtor{.} In both cases, the debtor begged for mercy: he acknowledged the debt, asked for forgiveness, and promised to repay if given time {–} i.e. was aware of his wrong-doing, repented of it, and promised to make reparation: and was forgiven, in the first case.


*[
{Underlining added later}

The Gospel According to St. Matthew:

V.21 - 26:
21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

V.38-42:
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

V.43-48:
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 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;
45 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.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

XVIII.15-17:
15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

XVIII.21-35:
21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.
24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.
25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.
29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.
31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.
32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?
34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

(Authorised/King James Version of the Bible: The Gospel according to St. Matthew.)
]


[continues]


[PostedBlogger02for03052017]