Just dropping by with this one, as I thought it might be of interest to you good folk over here.
I'm in touch with the independent scholar, John Feliks, who has been researching early human cognition for the past 15 years. His first paper, The Graphics of Bilzingsleben, shows the advanced mathematical capabilities of Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, the Neanderthals and Homo Heidelbergensis. But it is being suppressed.
At the same time, his second paper, Phi in the Acheulian, which builds on the work of Bednarik (1995) and Mania and Mania (1988), to show the use of Phi in microliths and engravings 400,000 years ago, has been published. But because the first paper is being held back, which builds the case for the second, his Phi in the Acheulian seems to have come out of the blue, and thus not to make a sense to an academic community that hasn’t been mentally prepared for such paradigm-busting theories - such as our ancestors were not monosyllabic grunting apes.
I’m not saying that the academic establishment has done this deliberately. (Fingers crossed behind back!) But by publishing Part 2 first, it has certainly produced the effect of casting doubt on the credibility of this researcher, making his claims look far fetched when they’re not.... and this is an old trick of The Club's.
So I will be promoting John’s work on my forum, Ishtar's Gate and I hope that others do too.
Here are some extracts from his email to me:
I had asked him what he thought was the significance of our ancient ancestors using Phi in their tools and engravings. Because of my own viewpoints on this, I am always thinking in terms of sacred geometry, and looking for evidence of it, especially as we know that the use of Golden Mean in sacred sites goes right through from the Vedic fire altars and the Egyptian pyramids to the Greek temples and early Christian churches.Part of the reason I am disappointed in academia for suppressing the Part 1 paper is due to the very fact that it is the Part 1 paper.
Graphics [Part 1] is the paper that introduces all of the artifacts (and final proofs for straight edge theory and the earliest duplicated motif) and that clearly demonstrates the intelligence of early people. It is understandable by everyone.
By suppressing the Part 1 paper and publishing the Part 2 paper first, they caused the effect on readers as some kind of heavy math-type claims for Homo erectus coming out of nowhere, i.e., according to the reader in the standard paradigm that means Phi is leaping from "ape-people" to mathematicians. That was obviously never my plan.
Everyone knows Part 1 should be first. If the public were allowed to see the Part 1 paper first, like it was intended to be, they would not think it that far-fetched that early peoples could have an understanding of geometry.
But John’s reply put the point of view that the use of Phi was actually more fundamental than that. It was about the way ancient man thought. In other words, his cognition was very different to our own in that the very building blocks of his thinking took a different shape, which he calls phi-based conceptual units.
If this is true, it means at one point we stopped thinking in phi-based conceptual units and started to think the way we do today.
You can see more of John’s work on his site I also have his paper, Phi in the Acheulian, if anyone wants it emailed to them.I believe that a lot of what has to do with human awareness actually grew out of unconscious awareness of Phi. Another way to say it is that it grew in the medium of Phi (a pre-established natural medium). In the paper, I refer to Phi as one of the earliest cognitive archetypes. So I see it as one of the most natural ways to be and to think. For the sake of making it possible to access possible phi awareness in the archaeological record, I invented the idea of "phi-based conceptual units." That would mean a natural option to our standard modern science approach where measurements are often based only on equal-increments or a Cartesian grid, which is not the only scientific way to think.
I also relate phi to understanding analogy or how one thing can be related to another thing by way of its relationship to phi. Although many other ideas about early human thought are no doubt true, they usually don't offer a way to access them archaeologically so I can relate to your mentioning the importance of sacred geometry.
Again …. you know how the Acheulian is typically regarded as a static and unchanging and so, "unintelligent," culture by the standard paradigm? Well, I see it more as a culture that had an appreciation of subtlety. Another way I see the long period of subtlety relates to the old saying, "If it ain't broke don't fix it."
We seem to think that if people are intelligent then they will always keep changing and progressing toward more and more advanced technology. It is only our modern hyper style of change that makes conventional scientists want to see us as more advanced and these earlier people as inferior. So, I try to understand early people for who they were in their natural settings and try not to project onto them all our modern values.
I think that discovering a broader than expected use of phi in early times is something like discovering an early alphabet. You don't necessarily know what it means but you can tell for sure that something is there.
Best wishes,
