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

symbols of the mind

Expand Messages
  • Chris
    Interesting discussion though hard to locate a focal point. Thought I d change tactic and try to suggest a way to bring this more on topic. I had an inner
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 1, 2005
      Interesting discussion though hard to locate a focal point. Thought I'd
      change tactic and try to suggest a way to bring this more on topic.

      I had an inner trip once that brought me to the edge of sleep, the basic
      awareness one finds on the outer fringes of consciousness. Drugs were
      involved but I need not go into that. Lying there, eyes closed eyes opened,
      I just sort of saw these symbols (mostly L-shaped and intersecting-cross
      pieces) floating before my eyes. And I had a bit of a vision experience
      that there were two kinds of people in the world: those that connect (the
      cross symbols) and those that support or carry the weight (the L-shaped
      corner pieces). I decided I was one of the cross-symbols as I often feel my
      role is more to connect folks than to remain silent and contained (much as I
      might like to).

      But asking, Where do these symbols come from is a bit like asking, Where do
      dreams come from? Or the mythologies of the world? They are the
      inner-workings of the mind and they come *before* reason, in my opinion.
      What is the well-spring of reason anyway? Funny to think that the
      foundations of logic are necessarily illogic. Bubble consciousness on a sea
      of things unknown.

      But I don't consider my experience "sacred" or "sacred geometry". I
      personally feel sacred geometry is more about the geometry used in sacred
      architecture, pure and simple. It is about the design that architects feel
      best suits religious structures.

      On the other hand, I am flexible with symbolism: my background is with
      poetry mainly and you will note that poets are a less likely to "stick" to
      their symbolism as religious people do theirs. I guess you might say that
      religion is forced poetry. I don't even like the term "sacred geometry".
      For one thing, it confuses people more than enlightening them. For another,
      it presupposes the fact that there is such things as sacred and secular
      geometry. On the other hand, I find the term "sacred architecture" much
      more helpful. I love studying the history of religious architecture--there
      is so many compressed stories in it.

      I would like to know how other people define "sacred geometry" and/or the
      sacred symbols of their mind.

      -Chris
    • C. Y.
      They are the inner-workings of the mind and they come *before* reason, in my opinion.
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 1, 2005



         They are the inner-workings of the mind and they come *before* reason, in my opinion.                                                                                                                Such a condescending statement! It is not because your concept of "reason"  or world view differs from lets say Australian aborigines that there is no logic involved. Other cultures have different ways of understanding their worlds; that does not make them illogical or unreasonable.


        What is the well-spring of reason anyway? Funny to think that the
        foundations of logic are necessarily illogic.                                                   According to whose standards?

         I personally feel sacred geometry is more about the geometry used in sacred
        architecture, pure and simple. It is about the design that architects feel
        best suits religious structures.                                                                           The question is: who is the architect? Is it a supreme god creator of mountains, caves, life, etc... or the fellow who actually designed and built the sacred sites? Regardlessit is all about symbols. Check out the churches and their symbolic/sacred spaces, especially the older ones shaped like a cross. Sacred geometry is not a new concept, it is only a new label.

        Since you do not like the term, would you be more comfortable with the terms Mythical Geography or Mythical Landscape?


        For one thing, it confuses people more than enlightening them.                                 Of course, one needs to understand the intended symbolism of each specific place.There is a logic to it, the trick is to find it. To find it, one needs to know the culture in which it was conceived.  When you do, you will realize that, more often than none, the symbols contain profound wisdom.

        Regards.                                                                                                             Claire





         

      • Chris
        ... You entirely missed my point (and were out of line). Not everyone s use of the word logic or reason is an automatic affront on pre-literate societies. My
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 2, 2005
          > They are the inner-workings of the mind and they come *before* reason, in my
          > opinion.
          > Such a condescending statement! It is not because your concept of "reason" or
          > world view differs from lets say Australian aborigines that there is no logic
          > involved. Other cultures have different ways of understanding their worlds;
          > that does not make them illogical or unreasonable.

          You entirely missed my point (and were out of line). Not everyone's use of
          the word logic or reason is an automatic affront on pre-literate societies.
          My own meaning was closer to the irrational forces at work in the creation
          of poetry prior to the formation of the actual poem. This is the gestation
          of the symbol I am talking about. If you cannot understand that statement,
          refrain from commenting. Or at least rephrase your statements so as not to
          wrongly provoke another's ire.
          >
          >
          > What is the well-spring of reason anyway? Funny to think that the
          > foundations of logic are necessarily illogic.
          > According to whose standards?

          Before one argues logically or coherently there is a time when those
          thoughts were less well formed or less well thought out. That is the
          "foundation of logic" I was referring to. I really don't see how that is
          condescending or ethnocentric.

          >
          > I personally feel sacred geometry is more about the geometry used in sacred
          > architecture, pure and simple. It is about the design that architects feel
          > best suits religious structures.
          > The question is: who is the architect? Is it a supreme god creator of
          > mountains, caves, life, etc... or the fellow who actually designed and built
          > the sacred sites?

          You can only bring god into the equation if you believe in one. If one does
          not than your "question" is meaningless. God-as-architect is a rather bland
          and limited concept of the ineffable--real architects are restricted by so
          many things. My concept of the ineffable goes a fair bit beyond this.

          >Regardless, it is all about symbols. Check out the churches
          > and their symbolic/sacred spaces, especially the older ones shaped like a
          > cross. Sacred geometry is not a new concept, it is only a new label.

          >
          > Since you do not like the term, would you be more comfortable with the terms
          > Mythical Geography or Mythical Landscape?

          Mythical landscape and sacred geometry are not the same thing. The one is a
          topography for belief; the other, a specific instance within it. I have
          fewer problems with a cultural framework for locating one's experiences:
          the sacred landscape is simply that which shows how not only temples and
          such but also the land around meaningfully fits within a belief system.
          Sacred geometry, on the other hand, is only one aspect of the this. It is
          the difference between context and content.


          >
          >
          > For one thing, it confuses people more than enlightening them.
          > Of course, one needs to understand the intended symbolism of each specific
          > place.There is a logic to it, the trick is to find it. To find it, one needs
          > to know the culture in which it was conceived. When you do, you will realize
          > that, more often than none, the symbols contain profound wisdom.

          I didn't say the symbols confused people, I said the term itself did. Have
          you actually tried explaining this term to one of your non-initiated
          friends? Good luck.
        • Ambrose Hawk
          Actually, I d argue that a certain basic of simple figures are universally effective .... as in their very simplicity they incorporate features readily
          Message 4 of 4 , Feb 5, 2005
            Actually, I'd argue that a certain basic of simple figures are
            universally effective .... as in their very simplicity they incorporate
            features readily deducible to folks who would experiment with them ....
            Thus I'd include the circle and various ways of interconnected circles
            ... especially the two overlap which word was on the tip of my tongue a
            second ago and now is irretrievably lost in the fogs of a Saturday
            morning ....
            I'd also include simple closed regular figures such as the triangle and
            the square.
            There is a large class of figures built by combinations of these which
            involve repetitively patterned protrusions from the regular figure ...
            usually star figures, but I'd balk at looking past the Magen David ...

            You'll find these figures occurring in almost all societies and used
            largely in related ways .... consider the triangle and circle
            combinations, for instance.

            Another primal figure seems to be the cross or the X ... derived from
            numerous kinds of observations it seems ....

            A.

            --
            IN HOC MODO MILLIS FRANGITVR .
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.