Darwin - Whenever you open your "big-mouth", I know I will read something
intelligent, with understanding and experience (and an open mind)behind your
statements. To all of you on the list, I humbly apologize for my Canadian
cousin. 'Nuff said.
Toni S.
darwin ramsey wrote:
> Hello everyone! Did you miss me? You all had to be waiting for my
> big-mouthed input on this topic since I irritated so many of you over Pohl!
>
> First, Rory, I would like to point out that though you are Canadian, you
> still have a 4th of JULY. You don't have US Independence Day. Send me
> Bushmills :)
>
> Now to the Sacred Geometry thing... Wasn't it on this list a few years ago
> that I met a mathematician who specialized in studying sacred geometry? If
> not, it was on the archaeology list I subscribed to at the time. Anyway, he
> sent me his web address and there is considerable information out there on
> this subject. It is a real field of scientific inquiry.
>
> However, to address Ken's statement, it doesn't matter whether one believes
> the subject of sacred geometry. When one is studying motives and behaviors
> as expressed in the historic architectural and archaeological record one
> must try to understand the knowledge and belief system of the individuals
> under study.
>
> When I was doing archaeology, I didn't need to believe that the human
> sacrifices of the Maya actually brought about a fantastic harvest. I only
> needed to understand that the Maya felt that way.
>
> Studying the Chapel in these terms makes perfectly good sense. Sacred
> geometry was/is very important to such groups as the Masons. They built the
> Chapel as they did every other religious structure in Europe. Their beliefs
> have a much greater influence over the construction of that building than
> Prince Henry's voyage or even the sponsor of the project.
>
> For those of you who know my skepticism over the whole carved corn thing and
> wonder how I can accept sacred geometry so willingly... Sacred geometry is a
> know fact. The Masons are a known group. Accepting that they influenced the
> Chapel's construction is easy. As to the the voyage to North America, yes,
> I can accept the fact that it was possible, I can accept the fact that it
> was even likely, however, my problem is with the rock structures and items
> being the only "evidence". Rocks can't be dated. Marks on the rocks and
> rock structures can be fabricated by modern people. To make me a believer,
> I want a European femur, or a European trade item in situ with an aboriginal
> inhabitant's grave of the right time period, I want information that can't
> be faked. I want known facts rather that supposition.
>
> Sacred geometry is a known fact not a supposition.
>
> Now I'll be quiet...talk to y'all later :) Darwin
>
> P.S. As I was reading this I found I wrote about scared geometry...please
> forgive me if I missed any of those. Geometry shouldn't be scary!
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> [ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
> [ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html