(MENTAL STATES)[28th March 1987]

[Redbook3:47][19870328:1627](MENTAL STATES)[28^th March 1987]

19870328.1627

Is it an obsession? I feel at all times the ability to reject the whole thing, quite freely. It is a way of looking at the World; its validity must at all times be measured by its ability to to stand and understand the World. It has perhaps progressed within my mind from the status of hypothesis (to be tested) to theory (is being tested, and may be used within the World, but always subject to modification).

I try to preserve the 'scientific' or intellectual detachment necessary for critical examination; at other times, I am willingly sucked in, but out of the consequent experiences new information and ideas often arise.

These experiences are only possible, I suspect, as a result of a belief that they are possible: not a belief that they must be, but a belief that they may be: an open mind, and an interest therein. The experiences are strong: their existence as experience is indisputable. Their validity in terms of the external world can only be measured against the external world.

[PostedBlogger16112015]

{Separation [continued (3)]}[27th March 1987

[Redbook3:45-46][19870327:2157f]{Separation [continued (3)]}[27^th March 1987]

19870327.2157

[continued]

We are all separated to a degree from God; but we are all free to choose the extent and the intensity of our adoption of separation. Separation has consequences for the Soul, which is our hope of immortality. Simply, Separation is not capable of Union with God, which is Immortality for the Soul; but the pure, unstained Soul and certain types of impression on it, arising out of the Separation tending towards God, are capable of Union with God. The stains of Separation vanish in the Clear Light of the Spirit.

If you are all Stain of Separation: if the way you see yourself*, the things that matter, are things of the Separation, staining the Soul – you (as you see yourself) will not achieve immortality. But if you see “yourself” as the impressions on the Soul tending towards God, and develop these and reduce the things of the Separation, you (as you see you) may achieve immortality in Union with God. The Soul is the vehicle: the Spirit is the Driver: you are the passenger, not the driver!

Inward separation is reflected in outward separation: separation from spouse, from children (or parents), from neighbours, all tend to reflect inward separation. I am not necessarily talking about geographical outward separation: time in the wilderness may be essential. We are often most intensely separated from those to whom we are geographically closest.

All separations are part of the Great Separation. This is why the state of society is worrying: not just because of the suffering inflicted by crime, exploitation, and other anti-social behaviour, and the danger to useful organisation; but because of the extreme danger to the prospects of 'personal' immortality of those perpetrators who, by living out the Separation so intensely in their own persons, make their own persons incapable of immortality through Union with God. As below, so above.

19870327.2335

*This is not a subjective test: you have to see yourself as you really are. It is what you are that counts. <890925>

[But (having read this several times) I think the point of it is that each Individual's concept of himself is the way he sees himself, the things in him that he thinks matter in defining his identity; what happens to these, which is indeed terrifyingly objective, defines how he sees what happens to him. Concepts such as “God”, “Spirit” and “Soul” are defined elsewhere.

<20151115>]

[PostedBlogger15112015]

{Separation [continued]}[27th March 1987]

[Redbook3:45][19870327:2157e]{Separation [continued]}[27^th March 1987]

19870327.2157

[continued]

Seeing them* in terms of Separation and Unity, I feel very sorry for them. “Pity”, of course, can be wielded as a weapon or as a consolation; but I am sorry for them because I believe them to have lost themselves completely within the extremes of Separation; and because, knowing their reactions to clergymen who 'preach', I suspect that they are unlikely to be able to listen enough to discover how to recover themselves from their Separation.

*[See last previous section]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger14112015]

{Separation}[27th March 1987]

[Redbook3:44-46][19870327:2157d]{Separation}[27^th March 1987]

19870327.2157

[continued]

There was a time, in the flat in Chelsea, when I realised that my parents had betrayed us, and were preparing to leave us – myself, [W], and our small daughter – to the mercies of Landlord-developers, with the crooked lease which my [father] had imposed [on us]*. I went through a certain agony** of mind.

In the evening our front window was open, on a calm and warm night. Unexpectedly, a quiet but purposeful movement of Wind blew the curtains so that they streamed into the room, without noise, but with great strength; then they fell back against the window, and remained still afterwards. But I felt that a presence had entered the room, to help us: a strong Spirit of a female quality, whom I identified with the archetype +K; and I told [W] something of this.***

Not long afterwards, the presence being within my mind, I came to a decision that we would have to give in to the demands of [his] crookery: the important thing being that we now knew it for what it was. This we did; and that is how we came to be here, in [Scotland], now: I presume.

*and for which I had paid. <871006>

**Some would say that the feelings of this section are responsible for the feelings of the previous section – but even so, are they any less valid? <930120> [It is unclear what sections are referred to here, as the {section headings} were added later than the text (but probably earlier than the note).]

***[When asked about this years later, [W] had no recollection of it. <20151116>]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger13112015]

{Qualities}[27th March 1987]

[Redbook3:44][19870327:2157c]{Qualities}[27^th March 1987]

19870327.2157

[continued]

Qualities become significant. I have used the term 'qualities' to describe certain characteristics attached to points on the Circles – e.g. [xS]*: 'My qualities are Love, and Simplification; or, as others have called them, Temperance, and Death'. But qualities are also inner senses or feelings of an unfamiliar kind, which may be of a richness and texture difficult to describe externally, like subjective colours; but unlike colours, there seems to be no obvious limit to the possible extent and variety of these inner qualities. They come, and go, and return again, each according to the moment, and are like blessings.

*[In [2]]

[PostedBlogger12112015]

{Providence}[27th March 1987]

[Redbook3:44][19870327:2157b]{Providence}[27^th March 1987]

19870327.2157

[continued]

What is Providence? Simply a shorthand for the workings of God's purpose for Man in all possible ways, inward and outward, I think.

[PostedBlogger11112015]

(THE SELF, THE SOUL, AND THE SPIRIT)[27th March 1987]

[Redbook3:42-43][19870327:2157](THE SELF, THE SOUL, AND THE SPIRIT)[27^th March 1987]

19870327.2157

Thinking about what I wrote yesterday* – I do not wish to imply that my Self is wholly dead**; but I do believe that at present it does not control my life (or attempt to do so) in the way it did – until very recently. I do not presume that this condition is irreversible. I have to keep, as it were, reminding myself. I must remember to remind myself. Catch phrases – such as 'I shall go where I'm told' – assist.

What is this Self? It is (like many other things) easier to recognise than define. 'Selfishness' is a useful recognition-feature: and all the personal qualities and conditions which tend to go with selfishness: ambition, competitiveness, power-seeking, the imposition of the will on other people and on the external world; even too much planning. It is all about attitudes, and little to do with circumstances (although externalities may well evidence internalities). Providence can take care of these things.

Do not force things: listen to the inner promptings. Do what seems right (but avoid the voices of madness). If it is right for you to make a million pounds, Providence will show the way: if you force it, you will pay in other ways. If Providence provides riches, live richly in Spirit. If Providence provides poorly, live poorly and count your blessings: be rich in Spirit.

If danger threatens, listen to the inner voice. Providence will provide the way out – in the end. If the way out is Death, so much the sooner will you return to God. In the end, only one thing matters: the condition of the Soul which the Spirit carries back to God.

I fear Death most when the Self is greatest, least when the Self is least. Still I fear suffering, bereavement and pain – of all of which things I have known little, and expect to know much more before the end. All these are manifestations of the Separation, essential to it and to us, but we suffer them nonetheless. What can we say of them? Providence provides them: sometimes in response to our own actions, or in consequence of the actions of others; sometimes in fulfilment of the purpose through blind Separation.

Our bodies are wracked, our minds wrung dry – but our Souls need not be touched***, unless we allow them, and our Spirits are beyond all earthly things. Our Souls are in our own care and the care of God; our Spirit is the Spirit of God. Only we can stain our Souls; and the Spirit will draw a veil around itself. Our bodies and our minds may be battered with earthly things, or consumed by flames of agony; we may shed bitter tears, or wander in airy vacancy; but the Spirit of God remains within us, however veiled, and however stained the Soul.

Draw back the veil, as you can: let the clear light of the Spirit shine out, and all stains will vanish from the Soul, and the Soul will shine out in the Clear Light of the Spirit of God!

And in the end, Providence will release all from all things of the Separation, through the Agency of Death.****

*[[Redbook3:37-38][19870326:1543r]{Corruption and Aridity: The Dark Night of the Soul}[26^th March 1987]?]

**[Indeed!]

*** impressed, though, maybe? <871006>

**** As I read this, I am trying to persuade – cajole – threaten a small son to go up and tidy his room (putting way the farm he has made) so that I can hoover it, because if I don't, [W] (who is due back from work) will be upset and do it herself, and will then be exhausted, and will then get depressed.... If I can learn to live spiritually with and within this, that will be something worth learning. <930120>

[PostedBlogger10112015]

{Gospel Circles [continued]}[26th March 1987]

[Redbook3:40-41][19870326:1543u]{Gospel Circles [continued]}[26^th March 1987]

.1543

[continued],

I can offer no pattern for the middle (or lower) stage of Jesus' mission, which seems fairly confused by the Gospels; possibly further study will clarify it a little. But the beginning and end hint at a possibly planned series of events exploiting the “dynamic” effect of equal and opposite inner and outer circles. This could have been effected by Jesus himself (with or without assistance); or it could have been superimposed by the Gospel historians. If this seems far-fetched (which it is), compare the famous ring dance in the Apocryphal Gospel of John, written probably about the same time (? – I don't have my copy* at present):

… The number twelve dances on high...

… The number eight dances below....**

Whether it was historically true or not, the remarkable thing is that it was written at all.

*[of MR James' translation (of the Acts of John at 95: the words are attributed to Jesus standing at the centre of what appears to be a circle dance <20160124>).]

**Correctly:

'….

'Grace danceth. I would pipe; dance you all. Amen.

'I would mourn: lament you all. Amen.

'The number Eight*** singeth praise with us. Amen.

'The number Twelve danceth on high. Amen.

'The Whole on high has part in our dancing. Amen.

'Whoso danceth not, knoweth not what cometh to pass. Amen.

'....'

<19870831>

***(lit.: 'One Ogdoad') <19870831>

[PostedBlogger09112015]

{Gospel Circles}[26th March 1987]

[Redbook3:40-41][19870326:1543t]{Gospel Circles}[26^th March 1987]

.1543

[continued]

I have looked for this pattern in the Gospels. This may seem rather heretical, but given that they were put together after the event, when Gnosticism had connections with Christianity, it is not impossible. It is complicated by the fact that even Matthew, Mark and Luke vary considerably, not only in their treatment and selection of events and teachings, but in the order of them; while John, of course, stands mostly alone. However, the beginnings of Jesus' life and of his mission, and the end of both, are treated reasonably consistently in the larger matters and, of course, place themselves in relative order. Very tentatively, it is possible to hypothesise a (planned?) pattern, giving both circles equal emphasis.

The outer (action) circle starts with ordination of Disciples, and proceeds through healing actions (of which there seem to be more at the beginning) incurring the attention of the authorities and making eventual revolutionary martyrdom and death almost inevitable (the later doctrinal disputes may or may not have been an essential factor in this). The inner (revelation) circle starts with baptism (and in John, water turned to wine, the Bethesda pool, and walking on water), fishermen drawn from the water as Disciples, and revelations in the Sermon on the Mount, and leads to a controlled inner action, harmony and eventual Unity with God at the time of martyrdom, death (and attraction?) on the outer circle. These last stages on the outer circle are marked by the cup symbol (twice) (and a man bearing a water pitcher) where one would expect it, and eventually the Cross itself uniting both circles. The last stages of the Inner Circles are less easily symbolised, particularly as the action is inward, but the idea seems to fit the pattern.

*[Unclear from this why the symbolism of water and cup/pitcher should be treated differently. <08112015>]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger08112015]

{Pilgrim's Progress: as Outer Circle? [continued]}[26th March 1987]

[Redbook3:38-39][19870326:1543s]{Pilgrim's Progress: as Outer Circle? [continued]}[26^th March 1987]

.1543

[continued]

Pilgrim's Progress shows a much stronger possible correspondence, with the dark passages (the Valley of the Shadow of Death) and Vanity Fair in the middle of the bottom [of the Outer Circle]; the rest is fairly clearly Outer Circle, although the Palace Beautiful's gels have to be seen as more Virginal than Female in order to support this interpretation, and the topography is not exact. The Wicket Gate, the House of the Interpreter and the Cross are at the top; in this interpretation, the City entrance (also at the top) marks only the start of the Inner Circle. The number of routes referred to before the City support a circular pattern.

(Incidentally, if one cannot enter along the route, but must start at the beginning (a point made more than once), why can Hopeful join at Vanity Fair? Is it because Faithful is dead, and Hopeful replaces him – the two representing aspects of Christian's qualities as a pilgrim at different stages?)

In any case, I doubt whether Bunyan was aware of any such pattern consciously.

Pilgrim's Progress Part II (Christiana) seems to be less rigorously constructed: an early example of 'Son of', perhaps. It contains one of the most tactless remarks ever to be unintended by author or character: 'Then said Gaius (of Christiana and her young friend Mercy): “Whose wife is this aged matron? And whose daughter is this young damsel?” ' The reactions of poor Christiana, who thought she had left the Valley of Humiliation, are not recorded. Perhaps this isolates* one of the sadder features of the Puritan outlook....

*[i.e. identifies?]

[PostedBlogger07112015]

{Pilgrim's Progress [and Hobbit/LotR]: as Outer Circle?}[26th March 1987]

[Redbook3:38-39][19870326:1543s]{Pilgrim's Progress [and Hobbit/LotR]: as Outer Circle?}[26^th March 1987]

.1543

[continued]

It is satisfying to find parallels between the Circles and other relevant works. It is too easy, perhaps, given the multiplicity of events in such works and the different options on the Circles. Only the strongest pattern should pass consideration as a conscious or unconscious choice by the writer.

It could be argued that the Hobbit/Lord of the Rings starts tentatively with Air (Eagles and Smaug), proceeds through much Earth travel to destroy the ring in Fire, and ends with Bilbo and Frodo passing over the Water to a new Circle. But I think that is stretching it a bit.*

*[!]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger06112015]

{Corruption and Aridity: The Dark Night of the Soul}[26th March 1987]

[Redbook3:37-38][19870326:1543r]{Corruption and Aridity: The Dark Night of the Soul}[26^th March 1987]

.1543

[continued]

I probably learnt more in the period 1982 to 1986 (during which we ran our own computerised services business and developed our basement [flat]), about people, than in many years before; or at least more intensely (referred to above) about the corruptibility of humans, including myself: not in the obvious sense of taking* bribes, but in the tendency to lie, to cheat, to betray trust and friends, and above all to forget what one believes in under the pressure of [everyday] affairs.

My chief memory of the quality of those years was of their dryness. I complained to [W] more than once that my whole being felt dry, like dust, and I felt I had lost the creative and spiritual touch.

This genuine and strongly-felt quality seems to correspond exactly with the 'aridity' of St. John of the Cross (ref Times 19870323, Longley). I do have, and have read parts of, The Dark Night of the Soul, but remember little of it consciously. I believe a greater understanding has resulted from the experience; as a caution against believing myself necessarily to have passed through St. John's Dark Night of the Soul, however, I should record that when I first read the book, I seem to remember thinking I had already been through it myself, at a time when (if I remember rightly) I had not even begun (or had I?). Vanity is an abiding problem.

“Ascent to Love”, however, describes the second half of the Outer Circle, from the middle of the blackest part of Distraction, pretty well. (It could, of course, be stretched to describe the second half of the Inner Circle.) Self-abnegation is precisely what needs to occur at the point where Love must be followed: the “death throes of the ego” is [sic] also precisely placeable. It is not so clear (from the Article) that more follows on the way to Unity, on the Inner Circle – if it is the Inner Circle. It is perhaps silly to make a comparison with one newspaper article written about an interpreter of the original.

*[or giving, presumably]

[PostedBlogger05112015]

{God's Love}[26th March 1987]

[Redbook3:36-37][19870326:1543q]{God's Love}[26^th March 1987]

.1543

[continued]

Very recently, within the last week or so, I felt that strong sense of being cared for, which intuitively one ascribes to God's love, and which seems to be associated with – perhaps to follow from or after – “I shall go where I'm told”. This seems to be associated in my mind with the archetype +C, as in [2].

This is one example of the exaggeration of tendencies which is one way in which the [0] series of books is less autobiographical and more (perhaps) exemplary. When I was at Cambridge I did indeed write about +C, if I recall correctly, in the first version of '[0]', called 'The Gift': but my perception of +C has developed since then, and I wrote of him in [2]* as I perceived him when I was writing it, rather than when I was at Cambridge. The book shows a strong tendency (see above) to drift round to where I see myself now, partly excused by the need to cover matters which could not be covered in [1] (which observes, at least in theory, from the same radial angle as I now believe myself to be in or near**).

*[which is set in Cambridge]

**I think now that this was incorrect. <930120>

[PostedBlogger05for04112015]

{Quest Romances}[26th March 1987]

[Redbook3:35-36][19870326:1543p]{Quest Romances}[26^th March 1987]

.1543

[continued]

(LITERARY COMPARISONS)

Philip Howard's comments in The Times recently regarding [J.R.R.] Tolkein's works seem in general quite to the point (unusual for P. Howard) although perhaps a little unfair in emphasis: he give the impression of someone trying to grow out of Tolkein (as I have tried).

But The Lord of the Rings is a romance of a Quest – in a long line, quite deliberately I suspect. The underlying religion -- which is present in all Quest Romances, at least in theory – is very strong; the original clarity of religious vision may have been muddied by being overlaid with too much imaginative mythological interest. The result is convincing in terms of external realities (the material world picture) but not always in terms of internal realities, although often intensely moving (I am thinking of the background histories at this point, as much as of the Lord of the Rings).

But The Lord of the Rings is unique, as far as I know, among Quest Romances (of which I am not sure that the Niblunglied is one) in this respect: in others the Quest is to find something (Treasure, Princess, Grail); in The Lord of the Rings, the Ring having been found by accident, the Quest is deliberately to lose it. This may be seen as a Tolkeinian quirk, or as a (probably unconscious) development of immense sophistication in religious terms. Or do the knights, giants and dragons of other quests, which have to be killed, fulfil the same function? If so, they are not given nearly the same emphasis, and The Lord of the Rings may be said to speak more appropriately to our own times and pre-occupations.

[PostedBlogger03112015]

(PURPOSE OF THIS JOURNAL [continued])[26th March 1987]

[Redbook3:33-34][19870326:1543o](PURPOSE OF THIS JOURNAL [continued])[26^th March 1987]

.1543

[continued]

At this point I have begun to be more than usually self-conscious. I believe that I should be rather disappointed if I knew that no one else were ever to read my books (i.e. fictions): although I use them to discover matters of interest to myself, which I believe I should not have discovered in any other way even to myself [sic], they are designed to be of use and interest to other readers, and I hope that some day they will be. I believe, though, that at this stage I should continue to write those books (with a small 'b')* even if it was proved that no one else would read them – because they serve a purpose to** me: not just self-discovery, but discovery. I believe*** I should.

But this Book (with a big 'B' – of which this is “Volume III”) is written to suit me and I don't care a jot if no one reads it, even though I am sometimes pulled up a bit short or otherwise influenced by the thought that someone might. Its format and purpose vary. I vaguely recall (Vols I* & II are in store in Ealing) that I did start this Book as a diary and social commentary, but it didn't last long. Stray thoughts continued: mostly, I seem to remember at that early stage, about my Self and my Troubles. Political and philosophical ideas, I recall, became predominant; after a while these came full circle (?) to a form of “philosophical” system(s) using myself and my life as a primary exemplar (?), but dealing also with persons and matters other than myself, both in the specific terms of this “philosophy”, and in more general comment (I don't think the Circles have quite taken over yet, although they may). It is possible that the use of myself will decrease.

*[i.e., presumably, fictions]

**{for?}

***[Underlining inserted later]

****[And presumably Volume 0, which does not seem to have been considered to be part of the series at this time.]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger02112015]

(PURPOSE OF THIS JOURNAL)[26th March 1987]

[Redbook3:32-34][19870326:1543n](PURPOSE OF THIS JOURNAL)[26^th March 1987]

.1543

[continued]

The usefulness of a Journal or Notebook for me is that it provides, first, a method of expressing, more easily (for me) than in vocal speech, stray ideas and ponderings which do not come in a form or at a time appropriate for inclusion in some larger work. (The point is that thoughts etc. can to some extent be saved up for writing here or in some other book at an appropriate point, and might even benefit by further development while waiting). If these notes seem to involve ME rather excessively, it is I suppose in the nature of the game at the moment: also, I am experimenting with myself because I know more about myself. There is more than one way to write about oneself.

If there has been little social observation in general or particular it is not because I don't observe but perhaps because I don't make observations* all that much (although more than I used to): I like to think I notice things but expression is indirectly, not directly, linked with the things noticed. So far as particular social observation is concerned, about identifiable personalities, I only really enjoy the company of friends (old and new), and I should hate to write about them; I wouldn't mind writing about those who are not my friends, if I had to, only I can never remember their names.

But as a record, these Books have been extraordinarily useful in enabling me to cross-refer different ideas from different times, compare them with each other and with subsequent events, and develop them.** This outweighs the considerable embarrassment felt by one's later reading self at one's earlier writing (and for that matter at one's later writing....)

*[i.e., presumably, in the sense 'comments','notes'] <Underlining – 870331>

**[They have also turned out to have another function: a type of letter to the future writer/reader, in a way which was, I think, sometimes foreseen, at least in principle. A few days before the time of adding this note and posting this entry, the writer of this note was uploading the blog entry at [Redbook3:28-30][19870326:1543j]{Recurring Image: Death and Dismemberment}[26^th March 1987], and found it directly applicable to the difficult personal situation he found himself in then and since then; and it was, after some difficulty, so applied, and rightly so.] <20151031>

[PostedBlogger01112015]