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

Michell, 666, Etc.

Expand Messages
  • baker b.
    Before the topic of John Michell fades away, I thought I d add my $0.02. Like some others here I was quite influenced by Michell s writings, initially View
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Before the topic of John Michell fades away, I thought I'd add my
      $0.02. Like some others here I was quite influenced by Michell's
      writings, initially View Over Atlantis but, later on, also City of
      Revelation. I was very interested to see the comments on Michell
      regarding his lapses in scholarship, and plan to check this out in
      more detail. Since this opinion is echoed basically all around here
      I feel that it must be true to some extent. This resonates with my
      own take on Michell's work: I have a great deal of respect for View
      and City, and feel they can add greatly to any person's knowledge of
      sacred geometry, gematria, etc. But at the same time my feeling is
      that you can't use Michell as a centerpiece for such study--only as a
      guide to inner truths. In saying this, I feel it makes a very good
      guide nonetheless. I don't have as much of a problem with the non-
      scholarly (and, by association, pro-intuitive) approach taken in this
      body of work. Intuition can get us to important places much faster
      than rational means any ol' day. To say that Michell's work is
      unimportant because its base is non-scholarly appears to present a
      bias attitude toward the present scientific method of analysis, which
      I feel has definite limits.

      Some additional comments on his research re the number 666. This
      number has fascinated a great many people, including me. For various
      reasons, mainly attached to the famous phrase in the Book of
      Revelation, it seems to have become a type of touchstone for the
      good/evil question in regards to gematria, and has surfaced, again,
      all the religious dogma attached to any type of polarized argument
      like this. Here's my basic take: 666 is the sum of numbers in the
      6x6 Magic Square of the Sun. I understand that there's no proof
      this square was known before the Renaissance, but, like someone else
      mentioned here, my hunch is that St. John probably knew about it,
      although the connection can't yet be proven to my knowledge (if I
      am understanding this correctly, Michell assumes a Biblical knowledge
      of the Mg. Square of the Sun and other 3-9 primary magic squares in
      View and City?) It doesn't really matter in a way, because,
      taking a somewhat Jungian approach here, the archetype that the Magic
      Square of the Sun creates and, at the same time, is a part of,
      already existed in the "non-time" of what he calls the collective
      unconscious (but is known by many other names). Exploration of
      "non-time" or "trans-time" is where intuition serves us much better
      than scientific methods for the most part, and this is an area where
      Michell excelled. If one sees Michell as more intuitive-based mystic
      than scientist, then I don't think his material can harm in any
      real way. I agree with him that 666 should properly be perceived as
      a neutral number, beyond the pull/push of moral bias. The number is
      coded in Revelation but is not exclusive to this passage, even within
      The Bible (witness another reference in the Book of Solomon).
      Instead, it is a part of something larger, and, I think, this is what
      people mainly react to when encountering this number: its
      uncapturable, archetypal nature. Like Michell, I believe it to be a
      solar number, with all the attached psychic luggage. And also like
      this author, I believe all people possessed by this number must be
      balanced by an opposite force before any inner truth can be found.
      This imbalance may also be applied to all those fascinated by
      its "evil" nature.

      I plan to keep monitoring this unique forum to see what else comes
      up. I'm very, very interested in gematria, magic squares,
      ancient landscape formations, crop circles, and other related topics.
      Like Michell, I personally believe there "was" probably an
      ancient "science" based more on intuition than the linear,
      rational science we currently depend on as whole -- but only traces
      of this "science" exist in present culture.
    • Barry Carroll
      baker b-- i just came upon your post please take time to read back thru the SL archives on yahoo groups. there are 4 years worth of stuff. i know you will find
      Message 2 of 2 , Nov 9, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        baker b--
        i just came upon your post
        please take time to read back thru the SL
        archives on yahoo groups.
        there are 4 years worth of stuff.
        i know you will find some dicussion of your pet topics

        if you have trouble finding your way in .
        check back here. someone will help you.
        barry
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.