Talk:Sacred geometry/Archive 1

Archive of Talk:Sacred_geometry up to July 1, 2006
I removed the examples of Euler's identity and the collaboration graph, since they don't fit the given definition: they are precisely describably by geometry/algebra and not mere approximations of something deeper. AxelBoldt, Saturday, March 30, 2002

Removed this


 * and some modern physicists expressed similar ideas, especially Schr&ouml;dinger, Heisenberg and Bohm.

None of them to my knowledge has expressed the idea that there exist geometries which are beyond algebraic description or human comprehesive. This sounds to me like "Dancing Wu-Li Master"/"Tao of Physics" nonsense.

This whole article seems highly questionable to me (what on earth is "neo-Platonic geometry"???) and it either needs a serious overhaul, clarification, and references to some legitimate publications, or else deletion. Revolver 06:13, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

About Users Critical and CStar
For the record, the user Critical ( talk,  contributions), who slapped the "disputed NPoV" sticker on this page, has made his or her first edits tonight (or today) and within less than two hours has attacked eight articles for PoV, including (ironically given the CStar example given on the Logical fallacy talk page), Physical law. These were the only "edits" (plus weak justifications on talk pages in the same vein as this one). I don't think the PoV claim has merit. We may ask if this series of attacks is to be taken seriously.

For the following reasons I am thinking that these pages has been the victim of a tiresome semi-sophisticated troll and the PoV sticker should be removed sooner rather than later, if not immediately. We may note that CStar ( talk,  contributions) after making edits, paused during the period user Critical made edits, and then CStar took up responding to these edits after the series of user Critical edits ends, as if there is only one user involved, and the user logged out, changed cookies and logged back in. Further, user CStar left a note on Charles Matthew's talk page,  Chalst's talk page, and   Angela's talk page pointing to a supposed PoV accusation placed on the Logical argument page, when in fact no such sticker has been placed. Perhaps the irony regarding the Physical law page is not so ironic. Hu 05:18, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)


 * I have responded to this on the logical fallacy talk page, as well as on the pages of the above mentioned users. It does appear that these pages were as Hu suggests the victim of a tiresome semi-sophisticated troll.  But I wasn't the perpetrator.  This suggestion appears to have been an honest mistake, I consider the matter closed, and it appears that Hu does as well. CSTAR 01:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims
This does seem to be an odd page. At least three notions are conflated: the notion of sacred geometry as used in archaeology and the history of architecture; a rather vague idea that some mystical, semi-mystical, and other religious traditions use geometrical shapes in their teachings and literature; and an even vaguer gesture towards real philosophy of mathematics which isn't explained (the reference to Plato is extremely misleading). None of the the claims in the article is substantiated, the only source provided being a rather loopy &quot;Geomancy&quot; Web site.

Surely this article need to be substantially rewritten (or removed altogether, and any useful information added to articles on the subjects conflated here). I've added a rewrite template to the page itself. If I get the chance I'll do some of this myself, but if anyone were to beat me to it I'd not grumble. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 10:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Well, just be aware that the golden ratio seemed to play a variety of mystical roles in ancient greece. Whether or not any of this mysticism was expressed in actual architecture appears to be debatable, (from what I recall reading recently (some of this may have been wishful thinking by 19th century classics scholars)). Does it really make sense to split out the discussion of the golden ratio in greek mysticism from possible architectural manifestations?  linas 13:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Those with information out of the mainstream
Or those with information that does not fit Wikipedia's NPOV style. We would be glad to have you add it in to a conspiracy wiki site I run. There is a link to sacred geometry on the main page and I just copied the article over. You can find a link to the site on my page. Conwiki 02:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Important concept
I've added a book link (Robert Lawlor) to the main page. This excellent, popular and serious book could be taken to define what the concept "sacred geometry" really means. I think it's a very good concept capturing a certain aspect of various human cultures, and I think a good article on this belongs to a good modern encyclopedia. If nothing else, then a brief summary of the book would be good. Who can write that? --Niels Ø 12:29, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * That may be, nonetheless, the article is extremely poorly written, at least from an academic standpoint (as compared to...babbling standpoint). It makes vague or inadequately expressed assertions, gives little support or evidence, contains wild or speculation, and gives little reason why all these things should be considered simultaneously. The book may be better, but this article still is lacking and as it appears belongs on newagewiki.org, not wikipedia. Revolver 07:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Niels Ø 14:08, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

List of important topics

 * let it be known that I know nothing about this subject and just find it relatively interesting, however, I think maybe if we start a list of topics that either deserve sections or sub-sections we can work out an organization for this article gren 12:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * SG Definition
 * The Golden ratio
 * Mandala
 * Cymatics
 * Platonic solid

Example of Non-Sacred Geometry?
What would be an example of non-sacred geometry? Seventhpower 05:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this what is being said?

Geometry exists.

Observers observe geometry.

Discoverers discover geometry.

Geometry itself is not sacred.

The observer’s observation of geometry is sacred.

The discover’s discovery of geometry is sacred.

God exists.

Language exists.

Religion exists.

Sacred geometry is a language.

Sacred geometry communicates.

Sacred geometry communicates from God.

Sacred geometry communicates to people.

Language is composed of symbols.

Symbols represent ideas.

Geometry represents ideas.

Geometry is a written language

Graphic representations symbolize religious or cultural values.

Geometry symbolizes religious or cultural values.

Religious or cultural values are ideas.

Graphical representations represent mathematical relationships.

Geometry represents mathematical relationships.

...graphical representation of [the mathematical relationships and (of) the design] or ...value to [the graphical representation and (to) the design]?

...design [that symbolizes] or ... manmade objects [that symbolize]?

What’s the difference between geometry and graphical representations?

What’s the difference between geometry and designs?

What’s the difference between geometry and manmade objects that symbolize?

What is meant by “mathematical relationships?”

Mathematics is the science of measurement. In order to have mathematical relationships, you have to have two or more measurements, or a measurement and a calculation. What are you measuring?

Is the Golden Ratio sacred geometry to some and non-sacred geometry to others?

Are the examples of the use of the Golden Ratio sacred geometry to some and non-sacred to others?

What is the difference between the intrinsic nature of the universe and the extrinsic nature of the universe?

What is the difference between the mathematical order and the mathematical disorder of nature?

What is the difference between a discovered order and a rediscovered order?

What is the difference between a rediscovered order and a supposed rediscovered order?

Why do crop circles represent order, but crop straight-rows do not represent order?

Straight rows of wheat don't communicate anything.

Seventhpower 06:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

How is sacred geometry associated with meaning?

Does one association infer a pattern?

How are associations taught?

How are associations learned?

How are associations interpreted?

Are the associations interpreted differently by different people?

What is the difference between mentally healthy people who associate special meanings with sacred geometry, and people with mental illness who associate special meanings with sacred geometry?

Seventhpower 05:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
This article is pretty shocking NPOV-wise, I've added a template on the page and propose that unless someone is willing to give it a substantial re-write it be deleted. Graphia 08:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the text you are objecting to was added on 16-17 dec 2005 and should have been deleted at that time. Unfortunately, this article is a magnet for odder edits, and there does not seem to be anyone qualified who is watching it. If you still think its npov, add that sticker. linas 03:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd be willing to take this on (In fact, I started an account specifically because I would like to). I'm new to Wikipedia though, so let me catch up on style and such before I tackle it. --Blade 21:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Significant edits
I have inserted some material relating the topic to historical (ancient and medieval) ideas and beliefs, which is a large part of its significance, and explaining the links which were believed to exist between geometry, music, cosmology and temple design/religious art. Added in some refs to Pythagoras, Kepler and other historical believers in the cosmological significance of geometry. Hopefully I have been sufficiently NPOV and factual. Also added reference to Celtic design and the classic George Bain book. He doesn't discuss theory to a great degree but does demonstrate that the sacred art of both ancient and medieval Celts was closely based on geometric constructions. MikeRM 03:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice edits Blade 18:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I added edits of my own: some information on contemporary usage of sacred geometry, including information on the Flower of Life Workshops, the MERU foundation; Michael Schneider's book to the book list. I also removed the initial paragraph: 'Sacred geometry is geometry that is sacred to the observer or discoverer of the geometry. This meaning is sometimes described as being the language of the God of the religion of the people who discovered or used it.' This just seemed too fluffy without any real content. Blade 19:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Crop Circles
I removed 'Crop Circles' from Art and Architecture. I don't think it belongs in that section. Plus, it wasn't formatted correctly. Blade 17:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

More Edits
I removed the links to Soul Symbol until that article has more references/substance. Alsi, I re-organized the external links and removed the Kepler links, as the links in the text seem sufficient. Blade 18:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Architecture
Is there any need for the section regarding the Manitoba Assembly Building? There has to be a more relevant example of sacred geometry in Architecture.

Reversions
Removed link to Earthmandalakeepers.com as an ad link. Blade 02:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverted edits to the intro after 31 August 2006 for distinct lack of NPOV and not actually addressing the tone or content of the article. Blade 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Commentary
I don't know who wrote this page, but it would be well to inform him or her that scientific work established on geometries, symmetries and super symmetries are very much alive! keppler was certainly not the last of 'a dying breed' as the article suggests.

Further, this article is strangely critical of a mathematical and geometrical explanation of phenomena. very strange indeed. there is nothing 'superstitious or uneducated' about the golden ratio. the aesthetics of the golden ration is accepted by most including artists. Please do not attribute scientific knowledge to be unscientific!
 * However, this article is not about the scientific work based off of geometries. It is about sacred geometry, that is 'attributing a religious or cultural value to the graphical representation of the mathematical relationships'. The scientific validity of the concepts are not the perview of this article. Blade 02:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with the former. Upon a first read I felt the writer's sneer quite palpably. I would say that a good many of the folks interested in SG are drawn to it from a sense of wonder and an aesthetic appreciation for The Great Way of Things which does not have to imply a soft-headed, "New Age", sensibility. For some of us the "ordinary" is far more profound and inspiring (read: "sacred") than any promises of the transcendental. 8/10/07 earrach


 * Might add something about Buckminster Fuller

Music
Someone posted "This is not true" at the end of the music section. I have removed it. However, if anyone has citations for or against that section, please chime in! Blade 23:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"a ratio of 2/3 produced a fifth and 3/4 produced a fourth." I have no citation, but how does 2/3 produce a perfect fifth and 3/4 produce a perfect fourth? A fifth would be higher up on the string than the fourth.
 * Well, Pythagorean Tuning mentions the ratios as 3:2 and 4:3, so it looks like the original author got the order of the numbers wrong. I will correct. Blade 13:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Think of it this way. Imagine a string 12 inches long that, when plucked, produces the pitch C.  If you stop the top 1/4 of the string (by pressing on a fretted fingerboard, for example), the remaining 3/4 (that is 9 inches) will produce the pitch F, a P4 higher.  If you stop the top 1/3 of the string, allowing the remaining 2/3 (or 8 inches) to vibrate, the pitch G will be produced, a P5 higher than the fundamental C.  So, in that sense, 2/3 does produce a P5 and 3/4 a P4. OscarTheCat3 17:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

pyramids scientific sacred geometry - demand for adding link to links
http://users.pandora.be/kenneshugo/index.html is a website containing translations of representative topics out of the 10 books in Dutch of Prof. Thijs, Engeneering , Belgian University and High School of Hasselt. This books describe the pyramids sacred geometry as full compatible with the laws of our positive sciences. He gives a mathematical and astronomical explanation of the pyramidal model. He also decodes the explicit number metaphors in the Bible Ancient and New Testament, reflecting exactly the maths and geometry of the Great Pyramid model.

Quasi-meaningful sesquipedalian obfuscatoriationness for the epic win.
Sacred geometry may be understood as a worldview of pattern recognition, a complex system of hallowed attribution and signification that may subsume religious and cultural values to the fundamental structures and relationships of such complexes as space, time and form.

Am I the only person who notices that when bullshit artists are at work, sentences pop up that have no decipherable semantic meaning?

Let me just try to translate this into English. "Sacred geometry may be understood as... making shit up." I think I did a good job there. --75.63.48.18 (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your point caught my eye on the fly so (as per be bold policy I don't know the link to) I was bold. IMHO the overly detailed repetition, antiquely formal language (as per antique language policy), sweeping statements, and too much linking in the first two paras was obscuring, so they've been cut and changed around to make it less obviously pov than it was (I hope). The statements need citations and it needs a simple line saying what arts are involved in SG, who by and why which then gets fleshed out in the sections. Over to you 75.63. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is more wonderful text, "This value system is seen as widespread even in prehistory, a cultural universal of the human condition." What??  --P Todd (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, what is the subject? Are we talking about the motivation for some architecture (maybe true) or someone's off-the-wall new age theory (file under flake)? As I recollect, the proportions for Notre Dame de Paris were based on Suger's neoplatonist predilections, so there is a potential for an encyclopedia article there, but I suppose the best fate for the rest of it is to lose it. m.e. (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a small art school in London - The Prince's School of Traditional Arts - which teaches geometry in art as the central strand to all sorts of arts and crafts, across many traditions and cultures. So yes sacred geometry does exist as a 'real thing' across the artforms, not just church architecture. -- unsigned comment by User:82.108.141.34, 09:52, 4 July 2008


 * Hardly 'new age'. Sacred geometry is rooted in a contemplative practice tracing its origins to... at least as early as the Pythagorean mysteries (rather a lot older, and I agree with the plea to incorporate material from more cultures). Say what you like about ancient mystery cults, but the veneration of mathematics has radically altered our worldview and the face of the world. This article could stand to use a fresh introduction. One that is more comprehensive (and accurate). I would be delighted to try my hand.   [p.s. play by the rules. not constructive to cuss folks out who are actively ordering their lives by something they explicitly value as 'sacred']  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.82.6 (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Info on Moroccan/Islamic Design: link suggestion
It would be nice to have this article include more information on sacred geometry as expressed by Islamic Design. I was going to add a link to an article I wrote about Moroccan geometric mosaics, but saw no more links allowed on this page. Suggestions on how to fold the Islamic angle (geometric/non-representational art) into the article? Moroccan design, in my view, is even more primal/related to old geometric practices because of its location as an outpost of various empires (Roman, Phonecian, Arabic, Berber (not outpost, but "forgotten" culture))

Link I was going to add is: http://moroccandesign.com/moroccan-mosaics-the-art-of-zillij

165.13.206.230 (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. I would suggest that rather than simply adding the link, if the link contains reliably sourced material that is not already present in the article, you summarize the material and use the link as a reference.  thanks.TheRingess (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Quote & Reference
"Sacred geometry is the study of shapes and angles that appear in nature and represent the blueprint of creation. It is the pattern of energy that forms naturally in nature and has been studied by metaphysicians and architects, and was used by the builder's of Solomon's Temple and all the great Cathedrals. These patterns form naturally in molecules of water, snowflakes, pinecones, DNA, stars, galaxies and space, virtually everywhere... Sacred geometry is the silent language of the energy of the Universe... it is the building block of the entire Universe." - The Magdalene Awakening by L. Shannon Anderson (Sacred Escape, 2008) 64.136.26.22 (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Brad Watson, Miami, FL

Not enough content, not enough detail, not enough culture
This article is overly bland. My diagnosis is that it is too POV neutral! Less provocatively stated, there should be multiple articles on sacred geometry as it is practiced in the major cultures where (some form of) geometrical design is considered sacred. Within the context of a given culture, it should be possible to intelligently discuss in rich detail such concepts as celestial alignments, sky geometry replicated in sacred structures, land enchantment alignments (ley lines), tessellations, calligraphic designs, encoding of "lucky" or significant numbers or ratios in designs, as appropriate to the culture.

My Leopard Spot (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). shoy (reactions) 01:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a very poor article. I have altered the opening definition slightly by adding (1) and (2) on 31/10/2010 but it remains inadequate. N R Mann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.192.30 (talk) 10:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * See WP:LEAD. The lead is the summary of the article, and the article doesn't define sacred geometry the way you did in your edit. If you want to change the article, please read WP:VERIFY and make sure you source any changes. Dougweller (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Images
Some images we could include in article
 * No, I removed all the galleries since there were no explained relationship between them and the (confused and unsourced) text. They looked as images added just to decorated the articles. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Really? Sacred geometry is a relationship between the c. 500 BCE pythagorean geometry and c. 1900 CE quantum mechanics.
I have to repeat – Really? Sacred geometry is a relationship between the c. 500 BCE pythagorean geometry and c. 1900 CE quantum mechanics.

by a new user added pseudoscience to the article.

It is referenced with a link to an occult magic shop's website as the source. It is at least some kind of logical fallacy to claim that sacred geometries explain the fundamental laws of the universe or that there is a real relationship between geometry and quantum mechanics. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've removed it, reverted to an earlier version of the lead. Thanks for bringing this up. Dougweller (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)