Eratosthenes of Cyrene

Originally posted by Maegnas


Thank God Eratosthenes was NOT a mystic (or a Mason for that matter).

I do not believe that the Masons, as they are today, were around in his day. If he were a mason, he would be even more great as he would have conquered time travel.

But you are most certainly wrong in that he wasn't a "mystic". If he was a mathematician in the ancient times, he most certainly was a mystic.

If you take Hanslunes advice on everything to read, you will miss out on anything that isn't fitting a very rigid and narrow box (sorry hans, much respect to you, but you are not the most open minded person, even though i still love ya).

And this is the reason why i told you to just read the book. To understand what being a "mystic" means is key to this. We are talking about a time when the Caste system was in full swing, and priests were at the top of the totem. Anything worth knowing was controlled by the uppermost caste. To learn mathematics you had to prove yourself worthy of the knowledge as it applied to their concepts of spirit. "Science", "religion", "knowledge", and "information" were all under the same authority and interwoven during these times.

I believe Eratosthenes was a pupil of the Dionysian mysteries. If you want to Google it, you may.

Howdy BFFT

sorry hans, much respect to you, but you are not the most open minded person, even though i still love ya

Thanks for you kind regards they are most appreciated and returned.

Actually BFFT I'm open to almost thing and I studied the 'fringe' extensively when I was younger - but I also know nonsense when it appears. It has been my experience that those who use the term 'open minded' the most are those that are the most closed minded. The term is meant to mean 'those that believe as I do' while rejecting the scientific methodology.

Question about the snippet I posted from the book in question - what portion of that - to you - was believable?

Note on secrets. I suspect that few 'elites' had the slightest idea of how to smelt copper, make leather armour, build a bug proof grain storage bin, knew when to wean a domestic animal or how to build a fortification line.

Regards

Hans

Originally posted by Hanslune

Howdy BFFT

sorry hans, much respect to you, but you are not the most open minded person, even though i still love ya

Thanks for you kind regards they are most appreciated and returned.

Actually BFFT I'm open to almost thing and I studied the 'fringe' extensively when I was younger - but I also know nonsense when it appears. It has been my experience that those who use the term 'open minded' the most are those that are the most closed minded. The term is meant to mean 'those that believe as I do' while rejecting the scientific methodology.

Question about the snippet I posted from the book in question - what portion of that - to you - was believable?

Note on secrets. I suspect that few 'elites' had the slightest idea of how to smelt copper, make leather armour, build a bug proof grain storage bin, knew when to wean a domestic animal or how to build a fortification line.

Regards

Hans

Honestly, i cannot say what is true in that snippet you provided. I do believe that there was cement used, or something like it, and the extent of it used may be far, far greater than we have even imagined. But beyond that, the technical details of the Pyramid, as compiled by someone in the 1920's, are a poor litmus test for the value of the book.

There is some massive amount of inconsistency and confusion on so many fronts in Egyptology.

Regarless, the value of the book lies in its explanations of symbolism and esoteric traditions.

While there were very few kings working the bellows, I am absolutely positive that the ones who were smelting copper were wholly unaware of things such as the Pythagorean Theorum. And I guarantee you that the less mundane aspects (such as the alchemical processes and medicine) were known by a very small group. Of course, if you are even semisuccessful in medicine, you wield great power, even in modern times.

It is a simple logic tree. Information = leverage. Leverage can be used to gain power. Power then enable further control. Information is the start of the whole affair.

Look at the current global "elite". The CEO of Google, Bill Gates, these people leveraged their information for money, and were able to gain power.

The key here is information. There is a LOT of information hidden in symbolism. It isn't that there is some mystical power in this symbolism. It is that, throughout the ages, this symbolism has been used over and over by people who seem to have this information.

It isn't that it is important or meaningful to me. It is that it is important and meaningful to them.

This is the point where i find myself in love with Pythagoras. In the true spirit of "philosophy", i am one who "seeks to know". No stone will go unturned.

Howdy BFFT

Honestly, i cannot say what is true in that snippet you provided. I do believe that there was cement used, or something like it, and the extent of it used may be far, far greater than we have even imagined. But beyond that, the technical details of the Pyramid, as compiled by someone in the 1920's, are a poor litmus test for the value of the book.

Hans: They used gypsum mortar - it is not cement.

(the extent of it used may be far, far greater than we have even imagined)

We can imagine a great deal but there is zero evidence for the use of cement – in the modern sense – being used at the Giza pyramids. The vast majority of the book is this guys opinion - in the few instances he gives opinions of things we can check he is glaringly wrong. Why then would we believe the opinions which we cannot check?

There is some massive amount of inconsistency and confusion on so many fronts in Egyptology.

Hans: Define ‘massive’ LOL? I would observer that Egyptology as a consensus group of specialists has a vastly more consistent view of the Egyptians than any fringe group of theories – most of which outrageous contradict one another

Regarless, the value of the book lies in its explanations of symbolism and esoteric traditions.

Hans: How do you know these opinions of his are correct? Could you give an example of what you find valuable in this work please?

While there were very few kings working the bellows, I am absolutely positive that the ones who were smelting copper were wholly unaware of things such as the Pythagorean Theorum.

Hans: Yes and what does this king do with piece of information? Unless it is used for some partial purpose it has little value. Having the power of say black powder gives you individual power but to use it effectively you must mass produce it and ultimately use it publicly where the 'secret' will soon leak to others

And I guarantee you that the less mundane aspects (such as the alchemical processes and medicine) were known by a very small group.

Hans: Yes we would agree but these people would have most often not been the person in power

Of course, if you are even semisuccessful in medicine, you wield great power, even in modern times.

Hans: Oddly doctors tend to provide a service that has rarely seen them take over supreme power in many countries. There have been some exceptions but it is certainly not a trend.

It is a simple logic tree. Information = leverage. Leverage can be used to gain power. Power then enable further control. Information is the start of the whole affair. Look at the current global "elite". The CEO of Google, Bill Gates, these people leveraged their information for money, and were able to gain power.

Hans: Yes and what information do they/he has that is secret and know only to him? Does he hide this information in symbolism?

The key here is information. There is a LOT of information hidden in symbolism. It isn't that there is some mystical power in this symbolism. It is that, throughout the ages, this symbolism has been used over and over by people who seem to have this information.

Hans: Examples please

BFFT,

And this is the reason why i told you to just read the book. To understand what being a "mystic" means is key to this. We are talking about a time when the Caste system was in full swing, and priests were at the top of the totem. Anything worth knowing was controlled by the uppermost caste. To learn mathematics you had to prove yourself worthy of the knowledge as it applied to their concepts of spirit. "Science", "religion", "knowledge", and "information" were all under the same authority and interwoven during these times.

Before going on answering this, I need your verification that this is what you wrote.

I believe you are talking about Egypt or India or some other place, because in ancient Greece, at that time, "caste" system was not established at all. Access to knowledge, through education from the acknowledged "masters" of the time, was free to all that could afford it (kinda like today, aye?). Pythagoras had pupils that paid him, Plato had pupils that paid him, Aristoteles had pupils that paid him (Alexander the Great included!), Eratosthenes had pupils (the youths of the royal house of Egypt at the time, the Ptolemys) - not sure if they paid him or it was included in his job description as chief Librarian of Alexandria.

Examples are aplenty about men of power (kings, tyrants, generals) that were lacking in parts of knowledge - if what you say applies, they shouldn't be, no? One example is the Greek Pharaoh (I think it was Ptolemy the 3rd) who asked Euclid for an easier way to study Geometry, to receive the famed answer "There is not royal road". Another example is Archimedes who solved the famous problem for king Hiero II*, if the king had access to all allegedly suppressed knowledge he could solve it himself. (*) The problem was to determine if a crown was made by using all of the gold provided for it or if it was mixed, with bronze probably, to profit the maker some gold!

Check the family background of most philosophers, "scientists" and men of knowledge in general. Most of them did not come from power families.

Originally posted by Maegnas
BFFT,

And this is the reason why i told you to just read the book. To understand what being a "mystic" means is key to this. We are talking about a time when the Caste system was in full swing, and priests were at the top of the totem. Anything worth knowing was controlled by the uppermost caste. To learn mathematics you had to prove yourself worthy of the knowledge as it applied to their concepts of spirit. "Science", "religion", "knowledge", and "information" were all under the same authority and interwoven during these times.

Before going on answering this, I need your verification that this is what you wrote.

I believe you are talking about Egypt or India or some other place, because in ancient Greece, at that time, "caste" system was not established at all. Access to knowledge, through education from the acknowledged "masters" of the time, was free to all that could afford it (kinda like today, aye?). Pythagoras had pupils that paid him, Plato had pupils that paid him, Aristoteles had pupils that paid him (Alexander the Great included!), Eratosthenes had pupils (the youths of the royal house of Egypt at the time, the Ptolemys) - not sure if they paid him or it was included in his job description as chief Librarian of Alexandria.

Examples are aplenty about men of power (kings, tyrants, generals) that were lacking in parts of knowledge - if what you say applies, they shouldn't be, no? One example is the Greek Pharaoh (I think it was Ptolemy the 3rd) who asked Euclid for an easier way to study Geometry, to receive the famed answer "There is not royal road". Another example is Archimedes who solved the famous problem for king Hiero II*, if the king had access to all allegedly suppressed knowledge he could solve it himself. (*) The problem was to determine if a crown was made by using all of the gold provided for it or if it was mixed, with bronze probably, to profit the maker some gold!

Check the family background of most philosophers, "scientists" and men of knowledge in general. Most of them did not come from power families.

I was referring more to the era, than geographical area. Of course, there is varience in social systems used. I did not feel it needed to be parsed any further given the apparent knowledgbase of this forum in general and this thread in particular.

Access to "knowledge" was most certainly not free. While it may not cost much in money, it cost a lot in investment of effort. The greatest sages of the day would have found as much difficulty in making a horse drink from a pool as we do today.

"There is no royal road" is exactly what you would expect. Without putting in the time and energy to prove yourself worthy, you would not recieve this information.

And the key, anyway, is the subtle distinction between "information" and "knowledge". I can give you all the information in the world. but if you lack the intellect to contextualize it, it is worthless. It is in the mind of someone with a capable intellect that information becomes knowledge. Information is for the profane, knowledge is for the adept.

Of course, this is all laid out pretty explicitely in the book we are talking about. Manly Hall has already explained this...go read it.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Originally posted by Hanslune
Howdy BFFT

Honestly, i cannot say what is true in that snippet you provided. I do believe that there was cement used, or something like it, and the extent of it used may be far, far greater than we have even imagined. But beyond that, the technical details of the Pyramid, as compiled by someone in the 1920's, are a poor litmus test for the value of the book.

Hans: They used gypsum mortar - it is not cement.

Poe-tay-toe vs poe-tah-toe.

]quote]

(the extent of it used may be far, far greater than we have even imagined)

We can imagine a great deal but there is zero evidence for the use of cement – in the modern sense – being used at the Giza pyramids. The vast majority of the book is this guys opinion - in the few instances he gives opinions of things we can check he is glaringly wrong. Why then would we believe the opinions which we cannot check?

I doubt there would be much evidence of much technology being used relative to the "modern sense".

Much of that book is not so much his opinion as the opinion of others. Some of those opinions suck, some don't. All represent an understanding that is nearly a century old.

How about this: read it less for historical/archaeological accuracy, and more for esoteric teachings. The book was written from that perspective, not one of archaology.

For the archaeological slant, try De Lubicz.

There is some massive amount of inconsistency and confusion on so many fronts in Egyptology.

Hans: Define ‘massive’ LOL? I would observer that Egyptology as a consensus group of specialists has a vastly more consistent view of the Egyptians than any fringe group of theories – most of which outrageous contradict one another

A consistent view does nothing to speak to the validity of the view which is seen consistently.

A good example would be Robert Schock's findings related to the Sphinx. But we are straying too far from Halls book and more into the inaccuracy of various researchers and their respective beliefs.

Regarless, the value of the book lies in its explanations of symbolism and esoteric traditions.

Hans: How do you know these opinions of his are correct? Could you give an example of what you find valuable in this work please?

I am going to write a piece on this for my blog. I will come back and update a link when i have it published.

While there were very few kings working the bellows, I am absolutely positive that the ones who were smelting copper were wholly unaware of things such as the Pythagorean Theorum.

Hans: Yes and what does this king do with piece of information? Unless it is used for some partial purpose it has little value. Having the power of say black powder gives you individual power but to use it effectively you must mass produce it and ultimately use it publicly where the 'secret' will soon leak to others

No comment on this, really....but i didn't want to delete it. So i have just added in this placeholder quote.

And I guarantee you that the less mundane aspects (such as the alchemical processes and medicine) were known by a very small group.

Hans: Yes we would agree but these people would have most often not been the person in power

Would you say that George Soros is "in power"? Or Warren Buffet? Granted, they are not doctors. But they show that once you accumulate money you don't need to be the face of power.

"If i control a nations money, i care not who their leaders are".

A good example would be Imhotep. There is little doubt that this man had lots of power, without a crown.

Of course, if you are even semisuccessful in medicine, you wield great power, even in modern times.

Hans: Oddly doctors tend to provide a service that has rarely seen them take over supreme power in many countries. There have been some exceptions but it is certainly not a trend.

Physicians do seek political power, but the key point is that the "job" gives them money. money gives them the power.

In the days of old, when medicine was not a science, i would suspect that the power they would wield would be similar to what we see with top level nuclear physicists. Few people can do what they can do.

It is a simple logic tree. Information = leverage. Leverage can be used to gain power. Power then enable further control. Information is the start of the whole affair. Look at the current global "elite". The CEO of Google, Bill Gates, these people leveraged their information for money, and were able to gain power.

Hans: Yes and what information do they/he has that is secret and know only to him? Does he hide this information in symbolism?


Well, among other things. Yes. Hidden in plain sight, most often.

The key here is information. There is a LOT of information hidden in symbolism. It isn't that there is some mystical power in this symbolism. It is that, throughout the ages, this symbolism has been used over and over by people who seem to have this information.

Hans: Examples please

Look at our dollar bill.

I was referring more to the era, than geographical area. Of course, there is varience in social systems used. I did not feel it needed to be parsed any further given the apparent knowledgbase of this forum in general and this thread in particular.

So, if I want to follow your lead here, I will ask: "how was the social reform/revolution in Texas during the 1960s?". Did it produce a "democratic republic", or a "people's republic" or whatever else such regimes were called back then? I am not referring to geographical area, just the era. I feel there is no need, given the apparent knowledge base of this forum in general and this thread in particular, for it to be parsed any further, is there?

Originally posted by Maegnas

I was referring more to the era, than geographical area. Of course, there is varience in social systems used. I did not feel it needed to be parsed any further given the apparent knowledgbase of this forum in general and this thread in particular.

So, if I want to follow your lead here, I will ask: "how was the social reform/revolution in Texas during the 1960s?". Did it produce a "democratic republic", or a "people's republic" or whatever else such regimes were called back then? I am not referring to geographical area, just the era. I feel there is no need, given the apparent knowledge base of this forum in general and this thread in particular, for it to be parsed any further, is there?

Hmm...it would seem you think you have found an adversary. I assure you nothing is further from the truth.

I will allow you to play your games with someone else. If you are ever interested in ingenuous discourse, please let me know.

I will allow you to play your games with someone else. If you are ever interested in ingenuous discourse, please let me know.

Explain which meaning are you using please:

1. naïve and trusting
2. demonstrating childlike simplicity
3. unsophisticated, simple
4. unable to mask feelings
5. straightforward, candid, open and frank

I think I'd go with number 5, were I you.

Harte

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Of course, this is all laid out pretty explicitely in the book we are talking about. Manly Hall has already explained this...go read it.

I have read Hall's books, and was taken with them for a few years when I was a teenager. My impressions changed when I got to college and found that some of the "facts" were not correct. As a scholar and scientist, I find that his work is not "evidence based", but rather "evidence biased." He writes, for instance, that the Egyptians were taken over by "black (evil) magicans" from Atlantis who corrupted the system and controlled the Pharoahs and that they corrupted the "true religion" with idolatry.

There certainly was enough information available from Egyptologists at the time that would have enabled him to reach the correct conclusions. There were good scholarly historians and documents (the availability of them increased throughout his lifetime) which were ignored in favor of "channeled information" and sources that are easily debunked. Instead, he goes heavily into material from Theosophists and embroiders and elaborates on them... taking one idea and then leaping forward with it based on his own interpretation rather than actually looking for confirmation from other sources.

But don't take my word for it. Look for the original evidence for yourself (read the *original* Egyptian texts and translations. Read Herodotus and the other ancient Greeks. Read the evidence for history from historical documents.

reply to post by Byrd


Well....it certainly was a book written through the philolsophical lens of his time. It is heavily "tainted" by theosophical teachings.

But I don't reference it as a historical manual. I reference it as an esoteric information source. A "codec" for understanding the symbolism, if you will.

And this was the light that i had intended to present it in. The thing is, you have read the book and can understand what is of no value. The person i was talking to didn't even want to get that far.

Kind of like "tis better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all". Seize the experience and draft your own conclusion. You....you have done this. I was just asking someone else to do the same.

Again, in "defending" myself, I don't read religious books, period. Of any kind, period. Whatever their merit, whatever their worth. If you have any books based on something tangible, that deals with the topic at hand, I'd gladly give it a go.

To ignore is the root is ignorance. But that is beside the point.

It is no religious text. What it IS is a book that has some history (some bad history, too, due to the sources used being less than scientific), and a lot of symbolism.

He discusses the various levels of symbolism in esoteric teachings. Yes, these are religious teachings. but at the level that they are discussed they have less to do with religion and more to do with man.

Is it important? That depends. Do you want to understand the symbolism of the people you study? You may think it is silly, but they didn't. Understanding this aspect of their mindset makes for a different viewpoint of their purpose.

For example, the reason certain numbers are used repeatedly, and what the meaning of these numbers had to the people who used them. Understanding things like this gives a whole new perspective while reading Francis Bacon, for example.

So, it is a book that contains bad history, religion and lots of symbolism (I suspect, and correct me if I am wrong, that the author bases much of his interpretation of said symbolism either on religion or on bad history, right?).

Since religion is the weakest basis for anything scientific (if you can, prove anything concerning any religion, its dogma above all) and history can be bad, mediocre or "good" (aka verified), is there anything out there that has a better, stronger base?

You keep "pushing" this book as the sole source on symbolism, is there anything else written on the subject that least 80 years? Maybe something that has been met with some level of acceptance from the academic community?

Originally posted by Maegnas
So, it is a book that contains bad history, religion and lots of symbolism (I suspect, and correct me if I am wrong, that the author bases much of his interpretation of said symbolism either on religion or on bad history, right?).

Since religion is the weakest basis for anything scientific (if you can, prove anything concerning any religion, its dogma above all) and history can be bad, mediocre or "good" (aka verified), is there anything out there that has a better, stronger base?

You keep "pushing" this book as the sole source on symbolism, is there anything else written on the subject that least 80 years? Maybe something that has been met with some level of acceptance from the academic community?

I have no idea what has met with some level of acceptance from the academic community. I do not take my lead from others, and you shouldn't either.

We can continue discussing the parts of the book which you have read, when that time comes.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Of course, if you are even semisuccessful in medicine, you wield great power, even in modern times.

It's interesting that people in medicine were not considered professionals or esteemed members of society in the 1700s. Doctors and scientists were not considered respectable jobs in the 1700s. Buffon broke his father's heart by seeking a job as a scientist. I have no idea what the position was considered in ancient times, but it is known that different times give different levels of respect to professions.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Of course, if you are even semisuccessful in medicine, you wield great power, even in modern times.

It's interesting that people in medicine were not considered professionals or esteemed members of society in the 1700s. Doctors and scientists were not considered respectable jobs in the 1700s. Buffon broke his father's heart by seeking a job as a scientist. I have no idea what the position was considered in ancient times, but it is known that different times give different levels of respect to professions.

Hmm...Hippocrates seemed to fare pretty well. As did Pythagoras (until the suspicious villagers murdered him, anyway). And no one could argue that Imhotep was a very well accomplish man politically and scientifically.

What you say is true, depending on culture. The culture of medieval Christianity was suspicious of knowledge, to the point of burning each other at the stake.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I'm referring to the 1700s in which the French had established their royal society, the Royal Academy of Science (not sure of the French spelling). Think of the late 1700s here in the US. A doctor was not a looked up to position. Most doctors were on the order of today's electricians and plumbers. Not disputing skill here, just that society did not view it as a proper profession.

A few names have come down through history. A legacy does not mean they were respected in their own time.