{The Polarisation Shift [continued(4)][: The Kabbalists’ Tree}[23rd June 1990]

[Redbook7:157-158][19900623:1455]{The Polarisation Shift [continued(4)][: The Kabbalists’ Tree}[23rd June 1990]

.1455

Apparently,* the Kabbalists as a part of their Tree, placed Michael at the top of the cardinal Archangels, Gabriel at the bottom, Raphael on the left, and Haniel in the fourth position on the right.**

Neverthless the mental attributes correspond to C[ircles] A[nalysis] & S[ynthesis], with interesting differences:

This seems to be in line with the Old Testament emphasis on the predominance of Law (and Conquest): an emphasis which despite Jesus’ attempts to correct it, has bedevilled Christianity and European culture ever since.

Note how what C[ircles] A[nalysis] & S[ynthesis] calls ‘Inspiration’ is simply ‘Passive Intellect’ on the section of the Tree shown here.

*ref earlier Vol[ume](s) []

**Source; ‘Kabbalah, Tradition of hidden knowledge’, Z‘ev ben Shimon Halevi, p41.

[continued]

[PostedBlogger12for14062021]

{The Polarisation Shift [continued(3) ]}[23rd June 1990]

[Redbook7:157][19900623:0925c]{The Polarisation Shift [continued(3) ]}[23rd June 1990]

19900623.0925

[continued]

It is not clear how long this* will continue. It may be the essential preparation for a possible change of predominance in circle rotation centred on the approaching 2048 year cycle end: ie the Left and Right would be linking up for the coming Crisis.

*[The change in emphasis from a vertical polarisation (Top v Bottom, Religious v Secular, Cerebral v Manufactoral) to a horizontal {opposition}** (Left v Right, Socialist v Conservative, Inspirational v Analytic) – see last previous entry]

[continued]

[PostedBlogger12for13062021]

{The Polarisation Shift [continued]}[23rd June 1990]

[Redbook7:156-157][19900623:0925b]{The Polarisation Shift [continued]}[23rd June 1990]

19900623.0925

[continued]

The fundamental change which has been occurring over the last few hundred years* in European (and probably Global) culture may be represented as a change in emphasis from a vertical polarisation (Top v Bottom, Religious v Secular, Cerebral v Manufactoral) to a horizontal {opposition}** (Left v Right, Socialist v Conservative, Inspirational v Analytic).

***

In former times, for example, the fundamental battle was considered to be for Men’s Souls; but the place of artists alongside the secular and religious hierarchy was generally appreciated. Nowadays, the battle for Souls is for the most part forgotten; but inspiration has no officially recognised place in Society, and the revolutionary struggle of Left v Right has achieved an unprecedented intensity, replacing the generally more evolutionary cycles (this is a superficial judgement) of earlier times, at least in Christian Europe.

*perhaps since c1700,

ref TS Eliot’s ‘Disassociation [sic]**** of Sensibility’, re Thought v Feeling

{(ref VI:[[Redbook6:42-43)][19881128:2046c]{Literary Circles [continued (3)]}[28th November 1988],] 43)}

**[Originally, ‘polarisation’]

***[‘fundamental’ is not a part of the ms diagram but an insertion into the text following it]

****[correctly, dissociation]

(Like the rest of the family, I have Hay Fever/Flu, which may account for the mess here [in the ms])

[continued]

[PostedBlogger12062021]

{The Polarisation Shift}[23rd June 1990]

[Redbook7:156-158][19900623:0925]{The Polarisation Shift}[23rd June 1990]

19900623.0925

On the edge of sleep last night – in [s]’s bed, he being sick and in mine with [W] – I had the experience of imaginatively inhabiting the superficial minds of both a modern right-wing military type of mind and a contemporary left-wing artistic-radical type of mind, repeatedly in quick succession.

This experience (drawing on my own waking life) introduced an insight into the modern division which is not original but may be originally envisaged:*

*[No diagram follows immediately in the ms so the colon may be intended to introduce the text immediately following it, for which see next entry.]

[continued]

[PostedBlogger11062021]

{(Extract) Limitations of Art Criticism}[21st June 1990]

[Redbook7:155][19900621:1242]{(Extract) Limitations of Art Criticism}[21st June 1990]

19900621.1242

[continued]

‘“Russian Faces”* in particular suggests the limitations of an art criticism which is chiefly alert to formal excellence and innovation. Such notions cannot accommodate the unfamiliar, often beautiful figurative paintings which we are now beginning to see from Russia and Central Europe. What do we make of Kustodiev, whose picture** manages to be simultaneously memorable and almost mawkishly sentimental?’

– Tanya Harrod reviewing ‘Leningrad in Manchester’,

a festival of Soviet art and design.***

*(an exhibition)

**[A cutting from The Independent article by Tanya Harrod consisting mainly of a reproduction of ‘“Festivities marking the Opening of the Second Congress of the Comintern in Palace Square in Petrograd in July 1920” by Boris Kustodiev’ is attached below this entry in the ms]

***Ind[ependent] 19900621, 14

[PostedBlogger10062021]

{Insane Souls [continued: Person of Pain]}[21st June 1990]

[Redbook7:154][19900621:1242b]{Insane Souls [continued: Person of Pain]}[21st June 1990]

19900621.1242

[continued]

{In the main car park in Llan[....] (the old market) I passed an old lady sitting in somebody else’s car, with a look on her face which made me think of the description ‘Person of Pain’ for the state of many of our old people. Why can’t we share their pain, to some extent, by getting them to reveal it to us?}

[PostedBlogger09062021]

{Insane Souls}[21st June 1990]

[Redbook7:154][19900621:1242]{Insane Souls}[21st June 1990]

19900621.1242

‘His physical deterioration accelerated, and in October 1986 he died. Although he had not known who I was for more than a year, during his dying I know that he knew who I was, and could understand something that I wanted to say to him before we parted. His dying brought us back together again after many years of difficulty and much distress.’

– Elizabeth Forsythe, ‘The Longest Goodbye’/My Husband the Stranger’,

on her husband’s slow death from Alzheimer’s disease.*

This extremely subjective observation offers the faint possibility of evidence to overcome one of the greatest objections to life after death – what happens to the Soul/Psychic Records/Personalities of those who lose their ‘presence of mind’ in insanity or other mental disability some time before death? There are, of course, other possibilities: such as the non-existence of Time ‘after’ Death (so that the record can be gathered from the whole of an Individual’s life ‘simultaneously’, not just at Death); or the unpalatable answer, Nothing.**

*[The] Ind[ependent] Sunday Review, 19900617, p3,5.

**ref [] earlier Vol[ume]s [of this Journal].

[Or, of course, that those whose minds have gone do not pass over – which seems impossibly random, and indeed wasteful]

[continued]

[PostedBlogger07for08062021]

{Child abuse: statistical claims}[19th June 1990]

[Redbook7:153][19900619:1225]{Child abuse: statistical claims}[19th June 1990]

19900619.1225

I keep coming across Esther Rantzen’s* estimate that Childline receives 10,000 calls a week from abused children (of whom only 1,000 get through). But if each call represents an abused child,** between the ages of 5 (old enough to call) and (say) 15 (able to leave home etc.), and if the average lifespan is 70, then every year, of our c(15-5)/70 x 50,000,000 = c7 million children of 5-15, 10,000 x 365*** = c3,500,000, or one half, are abused. Can this be?****

*[A TV show presenter with her own show]

**otherwise why make the claim? <900621>

***[The correct figure here should of course be 52 not 365, so 10,000 x 52 = 520,000; 520,000 / 7,000,000 =c7.5%, still a surprisingly high figure though nothing like as implausible as the original mistake suggested.]

****{??}

[No. See last previous fn=***. above]

[This does assume that there are no repeat attempts to get through, which seems unlikely but was, I think, rather the implication of the estimate and the way it was presented.]

[PostedBlogger07062021]

{The Circle of Conflict [continued (4)]}[18th June 1990]

[Redbook7:153][19900618:1755d]{The Circle of Conflict [continued (4)]}[18th June 1990]

19900618.1755

[continued]

‘Blocking-out the Distinctive Response[:]

‘In presenting a distinctive-response, follow the sequence of subordinate steps:

(C[ircles] A[nalysis] & S[ynthesis] pattern is by me)

*[See [Redbook7:152-153][19900618:1755]{The Circle of Conflict}[18th June 1990]ff]

**[WSCC BP 4-1,2]

[See * above]

***ref [[Redbook7:134-135][19900516:0916]{Conflict Circles [continued (4)]}[16th May 1990],] 1[3]5

[ms has 185 but that page does not appear to include anything relating to this, whereas 135 has a reference to these pages]

[PostedBlogger04for06062021]

{The Circle of Conflict [continued (3)]}[18th June 1990]

[Redbook7:153][19900618:1755c]{The Circle of Conflict [continued (3)]}[18th June 1990]

19900618.1755

[continued]

A~(3)*

‘In the “open struggle”,* the Key Character and the obstacle should be shown – vividly, intensely – in full opposition to each other.

G~(4)*

‘In the “result” step, you show the opposing force winning the struggle.

C[5]*

‘In the “effects” step, you show:

‘1: How the result affects the opposition

‘2: How the result affects the outcome of the Key Character’s basic purpose in the story.

‘3: Hints – and only hints – of one or more conflicts to come.’

*[See last previous entry but one]

**[WSCC BP 4-1,2]

[See * above]

[continued]

[PostedBlogger04for05062021]

{The Circle of Conflict [continued]}[18th June 1990]

[Redbook7:152-153][19900618:1755b]{The Circle of Conflict [continued]}[18th June 1990]

19900618.1755

[continued]

M~(2)*

‘In the “aim” step,* you show what the Key Character wants to achieve in the particular conflict-test with which he or she is faced. In this connection, you may find it useful to know that Gallishaw*classified aims into the following:

(C[ircles] A[nalysis] & S[ynthesis] pattern is by me) **

*[See last previous entry]

**[WSCC BP 4-1,2]

[See * above]

[continued]

[PostedBlogger04062021]

{The Circle of Conflict}[18th June 1990]

[Redbook7:152-153][19900618:1755]{The Circle of Conflict}[18th June 1990]

19900618.1755

*‘The Know-How method of presenting a conflict-test – it is a development of the work of John Gallishaw – is to follow the sequence of subordinate steps:

(C[ircles] A[nalysis] & S[ynthesis] pattern is by me)

C(1)

‘In the “meeting” step,** you show the Key Character coming into contact with with the opposing force: you show that the character is coming up against some opposition.’

**

*ref [[Redbook7:134-135][19900514:1135]{Conflict Circles}[14th May 1990],

& Redbook7:136][19900516:0916b]{Plot Circles}[16th May 1990],] 134-136

**[WSCC BP 4-1,2]

[See * above]

[continued]

[PostedBlogger03062021]

{...and Music [continued (3)]}[15th June 1990]

[Redbook7:151][19900615:2340]{...and Music [continued (3)]}[15th June 1990]

15

16.0021

This unpredictability of effect *– which must necessarily imply impossibility of, ie collapse on,** analysis – is not a feature of other major art-forms – certainly not of Literature, nor I think of Visual Art.

If we know the recipient so far as one can practically know someone, we can normally predict the effect of a story or painting on him in line with his characteristics, and see how the one relates to the other. This is not true of Music, so far as I know: we may make a stab at predicting the effect of a particular piece of music on a particular Individual whom we know, but we are quite likely (or at any rate, I am quite likely) to get it wrong; and even if the prediction turns out to be correct, I cannot see how anyone can analyse the connection in any particular instance.*** There are too many variables: not only in the music – piece, and performance – and in the mind of the Individual, but also externally acting upon performer and listener to bring about their mood. Mechanically-minded musicians may question this; but I should think that they might have missed the point.

*[See last previous entry]

**[ie contrary to last previous entry]

***See [The] Ind[ependent] 19900714:31[:] Northcott, ‘The way we hear now’: ‘...Most analysts [of music] would now agree it is impossible to encompass all aspects of a work in a single methodological approach.’

[PostedBlogger01for02062021]

{...and Music [continued]}[15th June 1990]

[Redbook7:150][19900615:2340]{...and Music [continued]}[15th June 1990]

.2340

And (I meant to add this at the time)* Music certainly does not collapse on analysis.**

There may be a parallel, though, (noted earlier)*** in the unpredictability of Music’s effect on Individuals – how the same**** piece of Music can induce, in one, religious ecstasy; in another, nationalist imperialism; and today, it seems, accompanied by suitably banal monologues, a desire to buy consumer goods.

This function or effect of Music as ‘neutral’ opener or mover of Minds is appropriate to its position at R~, ie immediately before the point of Crisis and individual freedom at C.

*[See last previous entry]

**[See last previous entry but one; but see next entry]

***VI? []

VII? []

****(or merely a similar?

[continued]

[PostedBlogger01062021]