{Aristotelian Art [continued (3)]}[2nd July 1988]

[Redbook5:205][19880702:2002c]{Aristotelian Art [continued (3)]}[2nd July 1988]

.2002

[continued]

*This now seemed incomplete. The Inner Circle suggested the old principles (underlined), and new principles as well:

[Text from diagram above:]

			Unity
		Love		Harmony		(=Balance?)
	Revelation		+		(Inner) Action	(=Theme?)
		Creation		Evolution		(=Development)
			Diversity

Interesting, that the Aristotelian analysis** has given us only the principles on the Analytical hemisphere – where Aristotelian Metaphysics may be found.***

The first half is the 'submerged' hemisphere. Love carries all the connotations of self-less detachment, temperance (self-control), love of work and object, etc..

*[See last previous entry]

**ref [[Redbook5:170][19880618:0000]{Analysis and Synthesis}[18^th June 1988], ] 170

***ref [[Redbook5:171][19880618:1855]{The Metaphysic of Metaphysics}[18^th June 1988],] 171

[PostedBlogger21for22082018]

{Aristotelian Art [continued]}[2nd July 1988]

[Redbook5:205][19880702:2002b]{Aristotelian Art [continued]}[2nd July 1988]

.2002

[continued]

*But this seemed closer:

[Text from diagram above (the word written anti-clockwise round the circle is 'THEME'):]

			C~
			Unity
G~			Balance?			M~
				Evolution	(Development)
			Diversity
			A~

This now seemed incomplete.

*[See last previous entry]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger21082018]

{Aristotelian Art}[2nd July 1988]

[Redbook5:205][19880702:2002]{Aristotelian Art}[2nd July 1988]

.2002

The formal principles of Art, stemming from Aristotle, are given so:

Organic Unity

Complexity, or Diversity

Theme & Thematic Variation

Development, or Evolution

Balance.

I first tried this fit:

[Text from diagram above (the word written anti-clockwise round the circle is 'DEVELOPMENT'):]

C~

Unity

TH[-]

Balance

[-]EME

Diversity

A~

But this seemed closer [See next entry]:

[continues]

[PostedBlogger20082018]

{God at the Centre [continued (7)]}[2nd July 1988]

[Redbook5:205][19880702:0914i]{God at the Centre [continued (7)]}[2nd July 1988]

19880702.0914

[continued]

----

*But, like Jung's God,** it does not logically necessitate a God the Spirit who is the same Quality existing independent of experience: as one would expect, such a Quality could not be logically proved, only rationally inferred.

*[See last 6 previous entries, [Redbook5:202][19880702:0914c]{God at the Centre}[2nd July 1988]ff]

**[Presumably, a reference to Jung's Answer to Job and/or the thinking behind it.]

[PostedBlogger19082018]

{God at the Centre [continued (6)]}[2nd July 1988]

[Redbook5:204][19880702:0914h]{God at the Centre [continued (6)]}[2nd July 1988]

19880702.0914

[continued]

I also* suspect that the Inner Circle progress involves coming closer to that inner Spirit,** so that over time I would hope to see more clearly, and more intensely, and more; until, eventually, Union (post Mortem Tertiam).***

<.0214>

*[See last previous entry, last para, presumably]

**[See last previous entry but one]

***[=After the Third (i.e. final) Death. See eg:

[Redbook4:105][19871005:2320f]{[The Mind [continued (3)]] – The Three Deaths}[5th October 1987] ; & [Redbook4:110][19871006:1020f]{Death on the Line}[6th October 1987]; & [2]]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger18082018]

{God at the Centre [continued (5)]}[2nd July 1988]

[Redbook5:204][19880702:0914g]{God at the Centre [continued (5)]}[2nd July 1988]

19880702.0914

[continued]

What is interesting is the relationship between this experience* and the R~-C~-R~ Transformation.**

*[See last 4 previous entries, [Redbook5:202][19880702:0914c]{God at the Centre}[2nd July 1988]ff]

**(I hope!)

[continues]

[PostedBlogger17082018]

{God at the Centre [continued (4)]}[2nd July 1988]

[Redbook5:204][19880702:0914f]{God at the Centre [continued (4)]}[2nd July 1988]

19880702.0914

[continued]

*So what kind of God is this? Well, I guess it to be what is described in [2]** as the Spirit of God in Man, distinguished by our relationship with (and perception of) it from God the Spirit.*** I think this because it fits, but also because my perception of it is still that of an 'independent' Human Being, a Being of Free Will: perception at a 'distance'. I can be distracted (as I was), and even become irritable at the intermittently persistent and penetrating nature of the distraction (a three-year-old trying to cry).

But in the back of my mind now is the awareness of that Quality. Nor do I think it has been created in response to the speculation in [2]**** – because the experience is familiar, from somewhere a very long way back in my memory: I don't know exactly when. The Quality gives rise to a kind of quiet confidence: as you would expect, of the Comforter.#

*[See last 3 previous entries, [Redbook5:202][19880702:0914c]{God at the Centre}[2nd July 1988]ff]

**[Throughout [2] (subject to revision); but e.g. +C: '”...return as a Spirit of God to God the Spirit...”']

***God the Spirit is the same Spirit but dynamic? – moving? – certainly experienced dynamically <891010>

{cf III. [[Redbook3:113-114][19870404:1821h](DEVELOPMENT (2): {Invocation and Inspiration})[4th April 1987], ]113}

****[Presumably, as referred to in the last previous para above]

#cf I.[not found] 86? (verse)

[continues]

[PostedBlogger16082018]

{God at the Centre [continued (3)]}[2nd July 1988]

[Redbook5:202-203][19880702:0914e]{God at the Centre [continued (3)]}[2nd July 1988]

19880702.0914

[continued]

*But it is interesting that the words** which seem appropriate to the Quality of the Centre*** seem to have an application at all levels, from the Inner Individual to the Outer Cosmological (even in present Mathematics and Physical Science) – as Love, at present, in these disciplines, does not.****

*[See last previous entry]

**[Presumably as in the first para of the last previous entry, i.e. Rest, Indivisibility (i.e. Unity), and Truth]

***[i.e. 'the Quality ... which I shall call God' (per last two previous entries).]

****[But cf earlier speculations about the pure scientist's love for Science, in the form of the work &/or its subject. <20180629>]

[eg probably[Redbook3:210][19870419:1050g](MORALITY AND ETHICS [continued(9)])[19th April 1987];

& [Redbook4:39-43][19870712:1000g]{Research and Development}[12^th July 1987]ff,
& especially [Redbook4:41][19870712:1000i]{Research and Development [continued(3)]}[12^th July 1987];

& cf [Redbook4:178][19871125:1630e]{Contra-rotation (3) [continued]}[25th November 1987] <20180815>]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger15082018]

{God at the Centre [continued]}[2nd July 1988]

[Redbook5:202-203][19880702:0914d]{God at the Centre [continued]}[2nd July 1988]

19880702.0914

[continued]

The Quality associated with this experience* – which I shall call God simply because that is what seems to apply to it, which seems appropriate to it, what fits it and nothing else so well – may be described with words such as Rest, Indivisibility (i.e. Unity), and Truth. Truth in the sense that I cannot conceive of it being other than it is: although at times I perceive it, and at times I do not, when I do see it, it is always the same; and in this differs from less centred qualities or emanations, even of the Inner Circle: of which, although I believe them to be the same from one perception to the next – to exist in an ideal form of which I am aware – my perceptions differ in detail,** in a way which I believe to be due primarily to my own nature.***

There is an implication that there is a secondary explanation in the nature of the Circle quality – not necessarily in having changeability, but in the way it relates to my awareness: the implication arises out of the fact that the Centre does not seem capable of change**** (but surely, rationally, I could expect to know it better?)[.]#* I am over-theorising, losing my ground[ing] in experience.#

*[See last previous entry]

**cf [[Redbook5:165-170][19880617:1949b]{Inner Truth: Love}[17^th June 1988]ff;

& especially [Redbook5:166-167][19880617:1949d]{Inner Truth: Love [continued (3)]}[17^th June 1988]] 167

***Phew, what a sentence!

[But is it, strictly?]

cf [presumably, [Redbook5:167][19880617:1949f]{Inner Truth: Love [continued (5)]}[17^th June 1988],] 167

****(even in my perception)

#(But cf [[Redbook5:108-109][19880320:1650f]{The Experience of the Trinity}[20th March 1988], ]108

#*There may be a distinction between distortion qualitatively and revelation (as it were) 'quantitatively': both being by the observer; in the second case I see the Centre with a greater or lesser intensity, but the same in outline; in the first case I actually distort what I see as well, so that the Circle quality appears different. This makes some sense given the geometry of the Circles.

[continues]

[PostedBlogger14082018]