You owe no one any apology The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. I am proud to be
your clansman outburst to your hearts content it gives rise to discussion. I
do not even think that the human brain is that well established as a fact.
Decartes' Methodical Doubt is a real concept
Sinclair
----- Original Message -----
From: "K.W.S" <kensin66@sk.sympatico.ca>
To: <sinclair@matrix.net>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: sacred geometry
> Hi All
> I do not need anybody to apologize for me. I do apologize for my outburst.
I
> understand very well the dedication and intelligence that is involved in
> studying an involved subject like sacred geometry. But the fact is
anything
> outside of the Human Brain is not an established fact.
> Ken/SK/Canada
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Toni Sinclair" <asflwr@cujo2.icom.ca>
> To: <sinclair@matrix.net>
> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 4:48 AM
> Subject: Re: sacred geometry
>
>
> > 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:
> > > 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.
>
>
> [ 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