Jiri Mruzek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I thought this was not a political board. What I
> just read is political,

We do not discuss contemporary politics. In this review, Irwin mentioned that the author of the book on Schwaller had stated that he found Schwaller's politics objectionable. As Schwaller died in 1961, this is hardly contemporary political comment.

> it is a personal attack on
> Lubicz as a man.

The review attacks Schwaller's theories and ideas, many of which the author of the review finds objectionable. An attack on theories and ideas cannot be construed as a personal attack.

> Quoting the article you recommend: "R. A. de
> Lubicz went to Egypt, where he spent years
> studying the temple at Luxor. ''Le Temple de
> l'Homme,'' published in 1958, was his exposition
> of the inner meaning of Pharaonic architecture,
> which boring mainstream Egyptologists with their
> profane readings had failed to penetrate."
>
> Translated into simple English, Lubicz had
> documented geometry as applied science in
> Egyptian art and architecture. Geometry is
> apolitical. Therefore Lubicz's geometrical
> analyses deserve to be judged on their own merit.

As, only too evidently, they were ...

> More quoting from the article - "This is all quite
> interesting, but the reader has to work hard to
> extract the interest. The book is clogged with
> abstruse lectures on secret harmonies, mystical
> chemistry and whatnot. The style is rigorous, but
> the content is ultimately meaningless."
>
> Here, Hermione, you can see a classic example of
> how the baby went out with the bathwater. Geometry
> is never meaningless.

It is you who seem to be confusing baby and bathwater here, by treating the term "geometry" as if it were synonymous with the phrase "the content (of this particular book)".

> Quote continues: Eventually, Mr. VandenBroeck left
> the temple of mysteries at Grasse. It is to his
> credit that an important motive for his doing so
> was that he found de Lubicz's political ideas
> objectionable. It would have been even more to his
> credit if he had gone further and had recognized
> that most of de Lubicz's theories were junk. "

> How easy it is to say 'junk'.

The term "junk" here encapsulates the long-term conclusions of many people - Egyptologists and others - on Schwaller's work, conclusions which have not been revised during the twenty years since the publication of the review.

> Nice article - a classic character assassination -

Er, no. As I said previously, the review cannot be discredited on those grounds. The substance of the review consists of a discussion of this account of Schwaller's work and those aspects of Schwaller's personality that might have impinged on, or influenced, his work. That is not the same thing as a "classic character assassination".

> Schwaller's factual geometrical observations ... belong to the same side of the scale with my evidence.

Whilst on this point, if on no other, we are thoroughly agreed, it should be pointed out that the ability to construct geometric figures using existing man-made sites in a landscape or a smaller area is no proof that such geometric figures were ever intended by the original builders of such sites.

Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at

Rules and Guidelines

hallofmaatforum@proton.me