Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [sl] Re: John Michell/mark

Expand Messages
  • Barry Carroll
    Mark-- i was very interested in your comments on JM. I agree with Stephanie that you can t believe in a geometric grid then fudge the positions of power points
    Message 1 of 9 , Oct 19, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark--
      i was very interested in your comments on
      JM.
      I agree with Stephanie that you can't believe in a geometric grid then
      fudge the positions of power points that are supposed
      to lie along it. i never understood the idea of the circle of
      perpetual choirs anyway. maybe it is explained better in one
      of his books i don't have.

      Same as both you and Stephanie, JM is a hero of mine
      tho I have also criticized him in this forum and I think its tacky
      that he was smoking a joint outside the hall where he was speaking.

      I missed the Hip Pocket Hitler. Was this like an answer to
      the little Red Book, The Thoughts of Chairman Mao?
      I did dig up an old paperpack copy of The Flying Saucer Vision.
      This was his entry in the blitz of saucer books in the late Seventies
      ( ...before the invention of the "alien grey"-style sauceroid with
      the slanty eyes that is now the international cliche)
      The Flying Saucer Vision was mostly a European book with
      limited distribution here in the US.

      View over Atlantis introduced me to the theory of ley lines
      and the concept of "earth energies" and a bunch of other stuff.
      These were more European -- kind of neo pagan--ideas that at
      that time had not entered into the main stream of new age
      thinking in the US.
      Kind of like, Morning of the Magicians,
      before it, this was a newsflash from the other side of the pond.
      At this time devotion to Indian gurus and quasi-Hindu philosophy
      was a still a big fad in the post-Beatle/Maharishi era.

      Dowsing is something else that never took hold here.
      This particularly English preoccupation goes along
      with the "earth energies"package and also got covered in View over Atlantis.
      There is the persistant idea of a connection between the
      mysterious energy and underground streams as one source for it.
      However that does not seem to be the only source.
      Theories involving words like geomagnetism get thrown around.

      Fung shui got mentioned too. As at cottage industry
      it seems to be the big winner as the main vehicle for channeling
      the belief in earth energies.
      I don't want be too glib tho because there are places that do
      seem to generate a strong subjective response in many people,
      but talk about things like a universal energy matrix
      linking the world's well know ancient monuments seems unproven.

      Basically View over Atlantis is a compilation--a snapshot--of late-70s
      English thinking re "earth energies" Similar ideas were promulgated
      by folks like Paul Devereax and his pals at the Ley Hunter Magazine.
      They are guys who spent lots of time monitoring magnatomitors and
      the like at some stone circle to prove their theories--a deal known as
      the Dragon Project.

      One more bit that got mentioned were the archeo-astronomical
      theories of Alexander Thom re the uses of some stone circles.
      Not all of them proved out but all in all they had a bit more
      verifiable substance than the Dragon Project.
      Likewise they stirred up alot of interest in archeo- and ethno- astronomy
      generally. This lead to discoveries of indiginous systems of astronomical
      observation and timekeeping
      used in other regions of the world.

      City of Revelation lived up to its name for me,
      because JM's commentary introduced me to the
      work of the people in his bibliography.
      The bibliography is where the revelations came from.

      Tho he handles them poorly I think that there are
      a couple of kernels of real insight
      in JM's linkage of geometry and metrology
      in City of Revelation .

      Likewise, even if the Anti-Metrification Board was an action committee
      of right-wing S.O.B.'s, I think that it is consistent of JM to
      belong since he doubtless believes that adoption of the metric system
      obscures the 'English' units that are tied to an ancient
      geocentric and cosmological system of measure he writes about.

      One more thing makes me think he actually cares about the subjects
      he covers in City. He published its improved revised edition,
      The Dimensions of Paradise.

      This kind of revision almost never occurs in the field
      of sensational literature. This was a labor of love.
      Considering that The Dimensions of Paradise
      is basically a math book, how many people
      do you think actually read it?
      I bought 3 copies as loaners at the used book store
      in the months after it came out.

      Mark, you got hooked on magic squares.
      I got hooked on the
      geometry of geocentric metrology

      best wishes
      B

      >>
      >
      >Topics suitable for discussion in this e-list can be found at:
      >http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredland.html
      >
      >To UNsubscribe, send email to:
      >unsubscribe-sacredlandscapelist@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
    • Stephanie MacFarlane
      ... Well its no longer a criminal offense here. Plus the bunch of weiros and hippies young and old he was addressing (self included) had no issue with it. And
      Message 2 of 9 , Oct 20, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Barry Carroll wrote:

        >
        >Same as both you and Stephanie, JM is a hero of mine
        >tho I have also criticized him in this forum and I think its tacky
        >that he was smoking a joint outside the hall where he was speaking.
        >
        >
        >

        Well its no longer a criminal offense here. Plus the bunch of weiros and
        hippies young and old he was addressing (self included) had no issue
        with it.
        And as he is pretty ancient by now. It might have been purely medicinal.
        What bothered me most was the smoke from the very strong pipe tobacco he
        had mixed it with.

        S
      • Neil Fernandez
        In message , Stephanie MacFarlane writes ... It is! :-) My view is he s a combination acid
        Message 3 of 9 , Oct 20, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          In message <3DB27F0F.30701@...>, Stephanie MacFarlane
          <stephanie.macfarlane@...> writes
          >Barry Carroll wrote:
          >
          >>Same as both you and Stephanie, JM is a hero of mine
          >>tho I have also criticized him in this forum and I think its tacky
          >>that he was smoking a joint outside the hall where he was speaking.
          >
          >Well its no longer a criminal offense here.

          It is! :-)

          My view is he's a combination acid casualty and charlatan, and I don't
          let him off the hook for praising Hitler. I can't recall what service he
          once worked as a Russian translator for - was it the Army? Cf.
          background of say Timothy Leary.

          BTW has anyone read his book on Shakespeare?

          Neil
          --
          Neil Fernandez
        • Neil Fernandez
          In message , Barry Carroll writes ... Unfortunately I ve never actually held a
          Message 4 of 9 , Oct 20, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            In message <3.0.6.32.20021020010323.0094d140@...>,
            Barry Carroll <palladin@...> writes

            >Mark--
            >i was very interested in your comments on
            >JM.
            >I agree with Stephanie that you can't believe in a geometric grid then
            >fudge the positions of power points that are supposed
            >to lie along it. i never understood the idea of the circle of
            >perpetual choirs anyway. maybe it is explained better in one
            >of his books i don't have.
            >
            >Same as both you and Stephanie, JM is a hero of mine
            >tho I have also criticized him in this forum and I think its tacky
            >that he was smoking a joint outside the hall where he was speaking.
            >
            >I missed the Hip Pocket Hitler. Was this like an answer to
            >the little Red Book, The Thoughts of Chairman Mao?

            Unfortunately I've never actually held a copy, and the British Library
            hasn't got one. I posted bibliographical details to this list ages ago,
            I think. Apparently the thesis was that Hitler's early ideas were
            wonderful and deep and admirable, but they got corrupted later. (Since
            Hitler's first recorded formal expression of his ideas was when he was
            already an extreme-right anti-Semitic nutcase, this is getting into the
            realms of the totally ludicrous). Michell is deeply nationalist -
            English-nationalist - this comes through in most of his stuff. I'll try
            to get hold of a copy. He also openly praises the fascist-mysticist
            theorist Evola (as a Google search on "John Michell" and "Evola" quickly
            reveals) - which in itself surely puts him absolutely beyond the pale.

            I remember Baigent and Leigh saying - I don't recall which book, but I
            will look it up if anyone needs me to - in this case it's definitely in
            a book I've got in the house - that when they were at university some
            time around 1968 a left-wing student said to one of them that it's not
            the political right we've got to worry about, they've got no ideas that
            anyone will take seriously, it's you Jungians. This is basically how I
            read Michell - a 'get the would-be radical kids out of their heads on
            mysticism rather than rebelling against the authorities' operation. With
            the nationalism as a strong undercurrent. No way is this an off-the-wall
            suggestion. Lots of stuff has been written for example about quite
            conscious deliberate cultural manipulation via say the 'Congress for
            Cultural Freedom' and 'Encounter' (they even published a cover article
            on David McLellan's work on Marx's 'Grundrisse' - I've got a copy of
            that issue). In my opinion, Baigent and Leigh's story also shows that
            they themselves have a pretty good idea of what they are doing and where
            they are coming from. Lincoln I have a higher opinion of, although on
            more than one occasion he's shown that he's not very good at citing what
            he's trying to debunk. (The Andrews and Schellenberger book is amazing -
            shows what one can do with a huge publisher's advance :-) - definitely
            worth reading).

            The above is why I mention Michell's background - he was a Russian
            translator for an agency that I am 99% sure was the Army. With Devereux
            who is exceptionally arrogant and a nasty guy - which comes through very
            clearly in the 'Ley Hunter' magazine - nobody could read that stuff and
            seriously say he was nice - there is also monarchism. The truth of
            course is that at the time the megaliths were raised, there is no reason
            to believe there was any such thing as either nationalism or monarchism.
            What's happening is anachronistic projection, retroprojection.

            Something I sometimes say to people to see if it hooks their interest is
            that the 'Ley Hunter' is run from Cheltenham whereas the British Society
            of Dowsers is run from Ashford - HQs respectively of British
            communications intelligence and the army's intelligence corps :-)

            Another issue I raise apropos of this is the provenance of the idea that
            John Dee believed there to be an earth-zodiac in the Glastonbury area.
            The idea of the zodiac itself dates back to 1929 when Katherine Maltwood
            came up with it. The idea that Dee believed that such a zodiac existed
            is quoted in many sources, but if anyone can tell me of a source
            referring to Dee's so-called belief prior to the biography by Richard
            Deacon (published in, yes, 1968), I'd be very interested to know.

            And who is Richard Deacon? 'Richard Deacon' is the pen-name of Donald
            McCormick of British naval intelligence - a pen-name under which he has
            written numerous 'approved' works on intelligence. See his 'Truth
            Twisters' too where he talks about disinformation, all from outside the
            West of course - western propaganda agencies are mentioned only to say
            that they are great truth-lovers and the opposite of anything to do with
            propaganda.

            <snip>

            >View over Atlantis introduced me to the theory of ley lines
            >and the concept of "earth energies" and a bunch of other stuff.
            >These were more European -- kind of neo pagan--ideas that at
            >that time had not entered into the main stream of new age
            >thinking in the US.
            >Kind of like, Morning of the Magicians,
            >before it, this was a newsflash from the other side of the pond.

            In that sense his work has been valuable! :-) 'Morning of the Magicians'
            is also an amazing book, poorly organised but bulging with great
            insights. But let's not forget that Louis Pauwels became one of the
            leading right-wing 'philosophers' in France.

            >Dowsing is something else that never took hold here.
            >This particularly English preoccupation goes along
            >with the "earth energies"package and also got covered in View over Atlantis.
            >There is the persistant idea of a connection between the
            > mysterious energy and underground streams as one source for it.
            >However that does not seem to be the only source.
            >Theories involving words like geomagnetism get thrown around.

            Watkins, Underwood, Miller and Broadhurst are better reads than Michell
            on alignments IMO.

            >Fung shui got mentioned too. As at cottage industry
            >it seems to be the big winner as the main vehicle for channeling
            >the belief in earth energies.

            Agreed! A bit of 'eastern wisdom' goes a long way in certain circles in
            the West :-)

            Part of this is the concept of 'energy' which is often used with hardly
            any thought. E.g. to say ley lines are energy lines - what does this add
            to their understanding? Beats me, unless one can show energy or even
            information being communicated by means of a ley line. I should add that
            I believe dowsing to be very interesting and I strongly hold the view
            that there is a reality there. Same goes for alignments, including
            long-distance ones, too.

            >I don't want be too glib tho because there are places that do
            >seem to generate a strong subjective response in many people,

            This is definitely true. I know someone who got what he described as 'an
            electric shock' from one of the megaliths at Stonehenge - this was back
            in the days that one could go up to them and touch them. He had never
            read anything in his life about earth mysteries or megaliths or
            archaeology.

            >but talk about things like a universal energy matrix
            >linking the world's well know ancient monuments seems unproven.

            Usually if anything goes somewhere near Australia, it's described as
            going through Ayres Rock, and if it goes somewhere near the north of
            Britain it's described as going through the main stone circle at
            Callanish.

            >Basically View over Atlantis is a compilation--a snapshot--of late-70s
            >English thinking re "earth energies"

            It was first published in 1969.

            >Similar ideas were promulgated
            >by folks like Paul Devereax and his pals at the Ley Hunter Magazine.
            >They are guys who spent lots of time monitoring magnatomitors and
            >the like at some stone circle to prove their theories--a deal known as
            >the Dragon Project.

            Paul Devereux thinks he causes entire paradigms to shift about once
            every two years.

            >One more bit that got mentioned were the archeo-astronomical
            >theories of Alexander Thom re the uses of some stone circles.

            That was great stuff - first published in a statistical journal. IMO he
            proves his thesis of the megalithic yard (2.72 +/- 0.02 feet)...

            Neil
            --
            Neil Fernandez
          • Dan Washburn
            ... Fraid not, but the on-line looks great. Thanks for letting me know about it. ... Sorry, never heard of McFazdean. Vaastu is interesting, you might search
            Message 5 of 9 , Oct 21, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Stephanie MacFarlane wrote:
              >
              >
              > Dan
              > did you manage to get to Watkins Books? http://www.watkinsbooks.com/
              > Difficult to walk away without a bookshelf or two from that cave of
              > delights........;-)

              Fraid not, but the on-line looks great. Thanks for letting
              me know about it.
              >
              > On another topic:
              > There used to be someone on this list that was keen on Vaastu.
              > I would like to know if they/anyone is familiar with the work of Patrick
              > McFadzean?
              > I was at Megalithomania
              > http://www.stonehenge.uklinux.net/article.php?sid=2146410717
              > last week to hear John Michell speak and one of the book stalls had a
              > couple of books by him
              > http://www.pixie-inc.demon.co.uk/libra/cat.html and I just wondered if
              > anyone can recommend. They were sealed in cellophane so I could not
              > browse on the stall.

              Sorry, never heard of McFazdean. Vaastu is interesting, you
              might search the list archives if you are heating up on the
              topic.
              >
              > By the way, I managed to have a short tete a tete with John Michell
              > after he spoke. He lit up a spliff the minute we got into the foyer .....
              >
              > SLM

              I'm another person who has been hugely influenced by John
              Michell. Back in the 70s I read City of Revelation and
              wondered if it were really true that there was a whole
              secret side of early Christianity based on Gematria and
              Sacred Geometry. I bought an interlinear translation of the
              Greek New Testament and tried to verify his ideas by making
              discoveries of my own. It didn't take me long to reach the
              conclusion that he is correct. We already know from the
              writings of some of the Gnostics from the 2nd century and
              beyond that they were involved with gematria and geometry.
              It actually does go all the way back into 1st century
              non-gnostic Christianity. For my money JMs greatest
              contribution to historical research will be in this area.
              Course he does fudge around a bit to make things come out.
              One of his most impressive items is the identical geometry
              between glastonbury, stonehenge and the new jerusalem.
              Except that the size of the unit, the stadium, used in the
              New Jerusalem he takes to be 660 feet, when it is really 600
              (or vice versa, can't remember specifically right now).
              Also Mark Swaney and I have not found an ancient knowledge
              of magic sqaures in the historical sources, which
              contradicts JMs use of them in his speculative
              reconstructions.

              You can find the actual hidden gematria/geometry of the new
              jerusalem on my site at:
              http://netmastersinc.com/secrets/cube.htm

              I think of Michell as a bit of a mad scientist. He is way
              ahead of the rest of us on some topics such as
              gematria/geometry and sacred geography but is also cleary
              eccentric re ufos, straight tracks, earth energies, etc. I
              just take him for what he is and enjoy, marijuana and all.

              As to Nationalism and Evola, it may be true per Neil that he
              has some disgusting kinks in his psyche, but I have never
              seen any Nationalism/fascism in any of his books that I have
              read, and I've read quite a few, so he hides it well if it
              still exists.

              Dan
            • Barry Carroll
              ... Neil- I was very interested in your comments on JM but I trimed down my reply after reading Cat s post to avoid redundantcy. 1st,----------Yes, View over
              Message 6 of 9 , Oct 21, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                At 01:24 PM 10/20/02 +0100, you wrote:
                >In message <3.0.6.32.20021020010323.0094d140@...>,
                >Barry Carroll <palladin@...> writes
                >
                Neil-
                I was very interested in your comments on
                JM but I trimed down my reply after reading
                Cat's post to avoid redundantcy.

                1st,----------Yes,"View over Atlantis was first published in 1969."

                What a blunder.



                Next--------- I'm glad to hear a European perspective on
                some of these personalities since you are closer to them.
                For example, I knew nothing more of Louis Pauwels than as
                co-author of Morning of the Magicians. I was not aware of his
                political bias.
                As for Evola, I was certainly not familiar with him either
                but I am looking into this.
                It seems i've missed something
                I confess, I had never thought much about the mysticism
                of right-wingers, or monarchists and fascists .

                Moving on--
                You are certainly welcome to your opinion, reJM as an agent
                in a covert military intelligence disinformation campaign to
                'get the would-be radical kids out of their heads on mysticism
                rather than rebelling against the authorities', that is a bit too
                conspiratorial
                for me. I think i remember some people alleging the same thing about
                the Beatles in their day. Cat's remarks on the crossover of flying saucers
                and megaliths/ley lines added a good bit of historical perspective

                That John Michell is deeply English-nationalist and conservative is not
                exactly a surprise. I was recently out at Hunt, Texas NW of San Antonio.
                I went to see the Stonehenge replica some rancher has put up in a pasture
                by the roadside.
                As you may know, Texas tried to be its own country at one time.
                Many wealthly cattleranchers and oilmen--landed people--have homes in
                the area. Retired military officers too. A nostalgia for 'The Old Republic'
                is a widespread affectation. I see a sort of parallel with the way perhaps
                similar English conservative folks look at Britain's ancient past. Both sets
                of folks, I suspect, see themselves as the heirs in spirit, if not by blood,
                to a noble past. If this is true, then as you say,"What's happening is
                anachronistic projection, retroprojection."

                Re Donald McCormack's muddled history of John Dee and the Glastonbury
                Zodiac, i would only comment that I hate the confusion careless authors
                leave in their wake. Even worse if they dabble in deliberate myth-making.
                But you don't need Naval Intelligence background to play at it.
                However it does seem true that ex-military and goverment types have
                more interest in history than typical folk.

                that's my two cents worth
                Best Wishes
                B




                Michell is deeply nationalist -
                >English-nationalist - this comes through in most of his stuff. I'll try
                >to get hold of a copy. He also openly praises the fascist-mysticist
                >theorist Evola (as a Google search on "John Michell" and "Evola" quickly
                >reveals) - which in itself surely puts him absolutely beyond the pale.
                >
                This is basically how I
                >read Michell - a 'get the would-be radical kids out of their heads on
                >mysticism rather than rebelling against the authorities' operation. With
                >the nationalism as a strong undercurrent. No way is this an off-the-wall
                >suggestion. Lots of stuff has been written for example about quite
                >conscious deliberate cultural manipulation via say the 'Congress for
                >Cultural Freedom' and 'Encounter' (they even published a cover article
                >on David McLellan's work on Marx's 'Grundrisse' - I've got a copy of
                >that issue). In my opinion, Baigent and Leigh's story also shows that
                >they themselves have a pretty good idea of what they are doing and where
                >they are coming from. Lincoln I have a higher opinion of, although on
                >more than one occasion he's shown that he's not very good at citing what
                >he's trying to debunk. (The Andrews and Schellenberger book is amazing -
                >shows what one can do with a huge publisher's advance :-) - definitely
                >worth reading).
                >
                >The above is why I mention Michell's background - he was a Russian
                >translator for an agency that I am 99% sure was the Army. With Devereux
                >who is exceptionally arrogant and a nasty guy - which comes through very
                >clearly in the 'Ley Hunter' magazine - nobody could read that stuff and
                >seriously say he was nice - there is also monarchism. The truth of
                >course is that at the time the megaliths were raised, there is no reason
                >to believe there was any such thing as either nationalism or monarchism.
                >What's happening is anachronistic projection, retroprojection.
                >
                >Something I sometimes say to people to see if it hooks their interest is
                >that the 'Ley Hunter' is run from Cheltenham whereas the British Society
                >of Dowsers is run from Ashford - HQs respectively of British
                >communications intelligence and the army's intelligence corps :-)
                >
                >Another issue I raise apropos of this is the provenance of the idea that
                >John Dee believed there to be an earth-zodiac in the Glastonbury area.
                >The idea of the zodiac itself dates back to 1929 when Katherine Maltwood
                >came up with it. The idea that Dee believed that such a zodiac existed
                >is quoted in many sources, but if anyone can tell me of a source
                >referring to Dee's so-called belief prior to the biography by Richard
                >Deacon (published in, yes, 1968), I'd be very interested to know.
                >
                >And who is Richard Deacon? 'Richard Deacon' is the pen-name of Donald
                >McCormick of British naval intelligence - a pen-name under which he has
                >written numerous 'approved' works on intelligence. See his 'Truth
                >Twisters' too where he talks about disinformation, all from outside the
                >West of course - western propaganda agencies are mentioned only to say
                >that they are great truth-lovers and the opposite of anything to do with
                >propaganda.
                >
                ><snip>
                >
                >>View over Atlantis introduced me to the theory of ley lines
                >>and the concept of "earth energies" and a bunch of other stuff.
                >>These were more European -- kind of neo pagan--ideas that at
                >>that time had not entered into the main stream of new age
                >>thinking in the US.
                >>Kind of like, Morning of the Magicians,
                >>before it, this was a newsflash from the other side of the pond.
                >
                >In that sense his work has been valuable! :-) 'Morning of the Magicians'
                >is also an amazing book, poorly organised but bulging with great
                >insights. But let's not forget that Louis Pauwels became one of the
                >leading right-wing 'philosophers' in France.
                >
                >>Dowsing is something else that never took hold here.
                >>This particularly English preoccupation goes along
                >>with the "earth energies"package and also got covered in View over
                Atlantis.
                >>There is the persistant idea of a connection between the
                >> mysterious energy and underground streams as one source for it.
                >>However that does not seem to be the only source.
                >>Theories involving words like geomagnetism get thrown around.
                >
                >Watkins, Underwood, Miller and Broadhurst are better reads than Michell
                >on alignments IMO.
                >
                >>Fung shui got mentioned too. As at cottage industry
                >>it seems to be the big winner as the main vehicle for channeling
                >>the belief in earth energies.
                >
                >Agreed! A bit of 'eastern wisdom' goes a long way in certain circles in
                >the West :-)
                >
                >Part of this is the concept of 'energy' which is often used with hardly
                >any thought. E.g. to say ley lines are energy lines - what does this add
                >to their understanding? Beats me, unless one can show energy or even
                >information being communicated by means of a ley line. I should add that
                >I believe dowsing to be very interesting and I strongly hold the view
                >that there is a reality there. Same goes for alignments, including
                >long-distance ones, too.
                >
                >>I don't want be too glib tho because there are places that do
                >>seem to generate a strong subjective response in many people,
                >
                >This is definitely true. I know someone who got what he described as 'an
                >electric shock' from one of the megaliths at Stonehenge - this was back
                >in the days that one could go up to them and touch them. He had never
                >read anything in his life about earth mysteries or megaliths or
                >archaeology.
                >
                >>but talk about things like a universal energy matrix
                >>linking the world's well know ancient monuments seems unproven.
                >
                >>>Basically View over Atlantis is a compilation--a snapshot--of late-70s
                >>English thinking re "earth energies"
                >
                >It was first published in 1969.
                >
                >>Similar ideas were promulgated
                >>by folks like Paul Devereax and his pals at the Ley Hunter Magazine.
                >>They are guys who spent lots of time monitoring magnatomitors and
                >>the like at some stone circle to prove their theories--a deal known as
                >>the Dragon Project.
                >
                >Paul Devereux thinks he causes entire paradigms to shift about once
                >every two years.
                >
                >>One more bit that got mentioned were the archeo-astronomical
                >>theories of Alexander Thom re the uses of some stone circles.
                >
                >That was great stuff - first published in a statistical journal. IMO he
                >proves his thesis of the megalithic yard (2.72 +/- 0.02 feet)...
                >
                >Neil
                >--
                >Neil Fernandez
                >
                >Topics suitable for discussion in this e-list can be found at:
                >http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredland.html
                >
                >To UNsubscribe, send email to:
                >unsubscribe-sacredlandscapelist@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >
                >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >
                >
              • mswaney
                Wow, Lots of very cool information on JM. A little more of my own take on him and his books. He seems to my eyes to have lots of contradictions, but that s
                Message 7 of 9 , Oct 22, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Wow,

                  Lots of very cool information on JM. A little more of my own take on him
                  and his books. He seems to my eyes to have lots of contradictions, but
                  that's from an American perspective. One of the advantages of this list for
                  me has been to see the differences between American and British views on
                  these subjets. For example, in America, in my experience, you don't find
                  conservatives and hard-core right wingers smoking dope. Except among
                  certain degenerate Rednecks in the Deep South where the ignorance is so
                  thick you need scuba gear to avoid suffocation.

                  Also in this country I don't notice that the conservatives fancy themselves
                  up with a lot of mystical clap-trap - they tend to be orthodox
                  fundamentalist Christians who are so pathologically paranoid that they run
                  screaming into the distance at the slightest hint of anything that even
                  remotely smacks of "magic".

                  I don't think that JM's impact on the writers of this list is based on a
                  political point of view. We tend to be old hippies - not nationalists or
                  racialists.

                  You may thank me now for not posting a lot of stuff that you don't want to
                  read, but which I can't seem to help myself from writing. I think I've
                  deleted more than I've sent to this list.

                  I'll just state for the record that my history of investigation has brought
                  me some great benefits and some conclusions. The benefits are real and
                  personal. It took a long time and I'm not through yet, but I am in a much
                  better position psychologically than I would be without the exercise of my
                  JM enthusiasm. My conclusions are too simple to be thought of as profound,
                  but I have found that the implications and applications of these
                  conclusions, simple and cliché though they are, have led to some new ways
                  for me to look at the world. Now if I just had a girlfriend.

                  My Conclusions

                  I All reality is physical

                  II Either a. all reality is also mathematical or b. the mind is
                  mathematical

                  Mark
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.