Two Questions on Historic Debate on Law and Property (Quora)

Q

What is the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? What are some examples?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-right-to-life-liberty-and-the-pursuit-of-happiness-What-are-some-examples

A

The right to life is the right to be not unjustly killed.

The right to liberty is the right to be not unjustly held in captivity or servitude.

The right to the pursuit of happiness is the right to seek one’s happiness in ways that are legal.

Negative examples of what these rights not are:

The right to life is not a right not to be executed if condemned justly for first degree murder with no extenuating circumstances.

The right to liberty is not a right to not be submitted to prison if you steal or certain types of (at least) community service if you vandalise.

The right to pursuing happiness is not the right to guarantee you are in fact happy, nor is it the right to murder your rich aunt because you would be happy with the heritage.

Positive examples, not doubted by anyone:

The right to life is or includes the right of your rich aunt not to be killed by you, or, if you kill her, for you to be punished for it, including by death penalty.

The right to liberty is or includes the right of an innocent man not to be drafted into unpaid servitude under a master rather than employer.

The right of pursuit of happiness includes your right to study at university (provided you can pay for it or it is paid for and your grades are good enough for entrance) if you think a doctors degree will make your pursuit of happiness well served or your right to be apprenticed with a baker if you think a bakery is where you would like to work and be happy working.

Then there are debatable and even dubious examples.

Later comment

I think the full quote from “Declaration of Independence” says sth like “life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness”.

What happened to “property”?

I’ll give a parallel treatment.

The right to property does NOT mean a right to be given someone else’s property just because you don’t have any.

It DOES mean that once you do acquire property, it is legally protected against damage and thefth.

And it means a right to such property as gives real independence, that is why it is placed right after “liberty” and before “pursuit of happiness”.

In other words, the fact that your property is productive and people are buying goods produced from it does not mean it has to be collective property.

The fact that your property is a house and you are sleeping in it without paying rent does not mean you have to collectivise it so you can pay rent like most other people.

You have a right to property which is legitimately and legally acquired and that right does not depend on it being goods for immediate consumption. It includes very certainly the right to acquire or keep property which you can live on without paying rent or produce goods or services on without doing so for someone employing you, and it does not include the “right” to take over such property from someone having more than he needs just because you have none.

Why was “right to property” left out of the question? Is questioner a Marxist?

Q

In 19 century Europe liberalism in the economic sphere stood for freedom of markets and free movement of goods and capital. Explain?
https://www.quora.com/In-19-century-Europe-liberalism-in-the-economic-sphere-stood-for-freedom-of-markets-and-free-movement-of-goods-and-capital-Explain

A

I will give an example which is of the less joyful kind.

1860’s was generally a triumph for liberalism in the economic sphere.

In Sweden this was implemented by abolishing two useful restrictions on sales of property.

For certain types of property you had a so called “återköpsrätt” - a right to buy back - during one year.

I think this was both so for country and for town.

For one type, then, some, for other type, others, also had a “förköpsrätt” - a legal option of being offered to buy before it was going to the general market.

For town property, that would be the colleagues, thus butchers for a butcher selling his slaughterhouse, for a baker selling his bakery, a baker. And the neighbours - or at least, only, the neighbours. [Or perhaps rather, neighbours in case of housing, colleagues in case of business property.]

For country side property, however, the “förköpsrätt” was that of your family.

Both of these rights, that of the seller and that of certain buyers, protected the seller and his community, insofar as making it either less easy to loose property by temporarily being in such a fix one has to sell or at least making sure the property goes (or might go) to people having some reason to mean well with the seller. Combined they meant a very good protection for fixed property rights.

These rights were however abolished in Sweden in two years during the 1860’s.

Obviously, other aspects of liberalism would be favourable treatment of moneylenders.

Speaking of Drinking Problem for Georgians? That is Anachronistic.

1) Answering William Savage's Cleanliness and Class · 2) "If you wanted bacon you had to make it yourself—and what a lengthy, laborious job it was!" · 3) Fridge Logic · 4) Speaking of Drinking Problem for Georgians? That is Anachronistic. · 5) A Distinction and a Gratitude to William Savage

Nevertheless, William Savage poses the question in those terms:

Pen and Pension : Did the Georgians have a Drink Problem?
Posted on November 16, 2016
https://penandpension.com/2016/11/16/did-the-georgians-have-a-drink-problem/

Compared with water, alcohol produced by fermentation contained fewer contaminants; the heating involved usually removed the main sources of infection.

Before you say that, how about proving water was generally infected?

Wine, also, was, unlike beer, not heated before the fermentation. However, both alcohol and polyphenols would likely eliminate most.

That said, drinking is not just for hydration. If you prefer lemonade, coffee or tea over water, it is because you need energy. Alcohol is a carbohydrate as good as sugar.

And getting your carbohydrates mainly through solids might clog the digestion apparatus.

Hogarth’s famous illustration ‘Gin Lane’ is often produced as evidence of disapproval of alcohol. Yet it needs to be remembered that gin was a ‘foreign’ drink, brought over by the Dutch soldiers in William of Orange’s army. If you compare the poverty and degradation shown in ‘Gin Lane’ to its companion piece, ‘Beer Street’ (a solid, English drink) Hogarth’s message isn’t so clear. It seems less about alcohol than a typical crusty English aversion towards foreign food and drink. Beer Street is clean and prosperous, everyone looks healthy and happy — and the pawnbroker has gone bankrupt!

If you drink beer, you hydrate yourself about the pace you get alcohol as energy drink, besides you get a lot of sugars in it too. Before you get VERY drunk, you will have to get a pee. And if you're in for it for the energy, without express intention of getting drunk, you are better placed to slow down before actually getting so.

And if you drink beer, you drink what your neighbour or yourself has brewed.

Obviously more so back then than now.

Do you know that besides grapes, they grow excellent barley in Reims?

But if you want a beer in Reims, from the barley of Reims, it has generally been brewed in Belgium somewhere. The drink that is produced from field to bottle in Reims is of course Champagne.

That has made beer in Reims less likely to keep you out of debt, compared to drinking stronger, though of course Champagne is not very strong either. However, it is expensive, since exported very widely. Local bar visitors do need to compete somewhat to foreigners buying Champagne as a luxury. And some politicians and some Muslim security guards want it that way.

Yep, Chesterton has a better part in Hogarth than teetotallers have.

Beer was good because it was a do it yourself drink. As mentioned, the kind of cook and household book which teaches you to make bacon (that is, to pickle porc) probably also teaches you to brew beer.

It’s fair to say that contemporary attitudes to heavy drinking were class-based — linked to the economic need to keep people productive, especially the ‘working classes’.

Chesterton mentioned the saying "drunk as a lord" - and sometimes alluded to the fact that building workers don't get that by using beer as an energy drink.

Waiters in restaurants don't get that if using wine as an energy drink either (see Down and Out in Paris and London, George Orwell), it is when they get laid off and drink as much as when they were working that they may (in fairly rare cases even so) become really drunk people.

However you explain it, it seems likely that a good part of the population of 18th-century Britain had, in modern terms, a significant drinking problem, greater the higher up you look on the social scale. Gout was everywhere amongst the rich and the gentry, especially in men, who were the heaviest drinkers. Men boasted of their ability to drink huge amounts and remain able to function.

Oh, certainly. Real drunkenness is as horrible as Teetotalism to a gentleman.

Not meaning just someone of the gentry. (I happen to be proud of a distiller grand pa.)

To qualify as a rake virtually required you to consume up to three bottles of port a day.

To qualify as a rake required you to consume so much you didn't function and still not go to bed, and be observed doing so.

An observation easier to make in lower classes, because they have fewer places to hide in either loneliness or the kind of company which is entirely understanding.

With lower class, some "observations" may be supplemented without adding alcohol by the person's mouth. Like sleep privations and steady offers of sugar-filled both drinks and foods. Like stinginess about the money he could use for washing in laundries (except on Sundays, when I don't wash, generally, holding the Sunday to be free from house chores as well as heavy work - unless emergencies force me).

Note, in Catholic parts of Europe, generally, even lords and gentry (or what corresponds roughly to these English titles) were, especially after the Counterreformation, expected to not get drunk, to drink with moderation, to set an example.

This has not been entirely lost on at least middle class, but actually also lower classes in cities like Vienna or Paris.

Excepting of course recent Muslim immigrants, who are stuck in the choice between Teetotalism or becoming rakes.

During his time as Prime Minister, William Pitt the Younger was said to take up to six bottles daily.

I think Napoleon was more sober.

You have to wonder what effect this had on his decision-making during those years.

If he was used to that quantity without getting drunk (which is possible, if you keep in training), presumably none. Or perhaps as much as drinking six bottles (large ones) of Coke, what with the sugar involved.

It certainly shortened his life.

But on the other hand kept himstrong and healthy while he lived.

There is a thing called the Salerno diet. It was given as medical advise to English kings, by the physicians at the faculty of Salerno.

Since neither they nor the kings wanting their advise were Protestants, they presumably did not foresee six bottles a day, but it included more alcohol than bankers are supposed to drink these days.

It also included much meat.

Obviously, the pious Catholics would abstain from both on Wednesdays and Fridays. And lighten the work burden accordingly, especially in Lent when fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays was more compulsory.

Bad Catholics and after them Protestants would on the other hand not do so, so, if following Salerno diet (which remained popular in the time of Hogarth) they would probably have this health balance:

• on the one hand, no infections, or infections very soon cured, no or very few days off (more important if you are a king or a worker who can be laid off any day, than if you have an employment where a replacement is temporary)
• also, bright wits (but that effect is especially such if actually fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays, otherwise Salerno diet would probably clog you down a bit)
• and on the other hand, accumulating a health problem which takes you off to the graveyard at about 60.

But if Savage thinks the six bottles of wine affected William Pitt's decision making? No, I think he was used to it.

Or, perhaps it did, making him adverse to adopting the Catholic religion, which would probably have cut even him down to five bottles per day (getting drunk being a mortal sin, getting tipsy a venial one).

To think of it, some have considered Chesterton and Belloc as drunks because they enjoyed at certain times three bottles a day - wonder what they would have said about William Pitt ...

I suspect such constant drinking produced some lessening of the immediate effects of alcohol on mind and body — or at least a greater ability to conceal them.

Here is what I learned in school. If you are a teen and you start drinking, you don't need much to get drunk. If you keep drinking, you heighten your tolerance. The danger is when the tolerance doesn't rise more, but breaks.

Obviously it lessens the immediate effect on your mind, if you have a liver reacting promptly.

Obviously it heightens the immediate effect on your mind, if you have a liver which has given up the task of keeping you sober.

But the same is in fact also true for sugar. Or so I ahve found.

I have encountered alcoholics who seemed able to function quite normally most of the time, despite the amount they drank. It caught up with them in the end, of course, but usually the social impact came before the physical one.

If so, perhaps the physical impact catching up with them is due to the social one? Like offering much sugar? Like adding more stress?

What first limited the Nation’s drinking was the spread of evangelical Christianity, especially in the middle class, who had always been more puritanical than those above them.

Er, no. Catholicism had limited the drinking before that. And in the 16th Century, Puritans were MORE liberal with wine and beer than Catholics. Especially as being opposed to taking Lent off.

It is not by chance that Cromwell was a brewer, nor did he in any way discourage anyone from drinking, as long as he didn't get positively drunk (as opposed to just tipsy or simply unaffected because used to it). Brewers may have enjoyed the Reformation, because the time between Christmas and Easter is better business than if you have a Catholic clientele.

Of course, Puritans do loose you a few extra days on the Twelve Days of Christmas or in Easter Octave. But the regular, non-festive fare would make up for that, if you are the kind of brewer and inn-keeper who wants to earn as much money as possible.

During the first 1700 years of the Church, there was not one denomination who thought every faithful should abstain from alcohol all days and not even drink a glass of wine at night. There were people who thought monks should abstain - and St Benedict laments they did not keep the upper hand. BUT he limits a monk's consummation of wine to 1 measure (a little greater than a pint*) of wine per day. Probably a little less of it at lunch (the days there was one) or divided in the working hours, and a little more of it at the refectorium after Vespers. ALONG with soup and beans and perhaps even meat.

Unless of course you count Mahomet as a Christian heretic rather than as a Pagan. His words are by now famous: "if a large amount intoxicates, even a little amount is prohibited", with the word for prohibited being in Arabic original probably "haram".

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Saint Gertrude
16.XI.2016

* If pint is 50 cl in France, and perhaps less in England, the measure given by St Benedict is supposed to have been 66 cl.

Update, 21.XI.2016:

Here is a dialogue in combox under William Savage's post:

noelleg44

Interesting post, William. I discovered that the Pilgrims drank beer pretty exclusively, although children might drink water, if not fouled. That was one of the reasons why they settled where they did – on a site with a brook with clean water. The children also drank small beer, especially on the Mayflower when the water became fouled.

I wonder that the death rate was from cirrhosis in Georgian England? The rich might have been able to handle their liquor with practice, but their livers wouldn’t!

William Savage

No answer to that, since medical science at the time wouldn’t have known what it was. I suppose people reckoned there were so many things around that would kill you, why worry about one more — especially if it was enjoyable while it did it!

noelleg44 is correct - taking liquor without getting drunk is not the same as taking liquor without charging, overcharging or really harming the liver. Hence the wisdom of the monks who were taking far less than William Pitt.

William Savage is incorrect about at least one thing, medical science back then. Or perhaps correct about English version of it, but if so English were behind the times.

English wiki has nothing, but German wiki says: Die erste makroskopische Beschreibung einer Leberzirrhose in der Medizingeschichte findet sich in den Anmerkungen zur Zeichnung del vecchio von Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519). Die Zeichnungen zur Gefäßanatomie der Leber basieren auf einer Autopsie, die Leonardo da Vinci 1508 in Florenz an einem über 100-Jährigen vornahm.

Georgian England is after all a few centuries after Leonardo, and if their doctors had no clue what cirrhosis was, they were severely behind the times, compared to the continent./HGL

Sungenis, this is weak.

New blog on the kid :Ultra-Brief Reply to David Palm on Observational Evidence for Strict Geocentrism · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica :Sungenis, this is weak.

OK, up to here, that is up to page 15 of a total 18 on this view of the pdf, it is good.

But this is weak:

Mr. Palm doesn’t like the fact that, if he relies on his “the Fathers were merely following Aristotle” argument, he must then explain why none of the Fathers chose to follow an equally prevalent philosopher in Greek times who believed in heliocentrism, such as Pythagoras (d. 495 BC), Philolaus (d. 385 BC), Hiketas (d. 450 BC), and Ekphantus (d. 450 BC) or Aristarchus (d. 230 BC). In fact, Pythagorus was the very individual who was condemned by name at Galileo’s confrontation with the Church in 1616 and 1633 as the originator of the heliocentric view.

The Pythagorean school did not survive to the times of the Christian Fathers.

They had the choice between Aristotle (Geocentric), Plato (less noted but probably Geocentric), Stoics (as per Seneca agnostic about Geocentrism vs Heliocentrism, quoted by Sungenis himself), and Epicureans (Geocentric). Or rather, Stoics and Epicureans were also lost schools, like ... see following:

The Pythagorean school was dead, though it had left real scientific traces everywhere in Music Theory (yes, Pythagoras, an octave is indeed 1:2 and a really pure Fifth is 2:3, no Aristotelian, no Platonic, no Stoic and even no Epicurean will dispute you that!) and real more or less superstitious traces of the Feng Shui type (saying that good, limited, masculine, odd number, light, light and four more belong together, saying that bad, feminine, even number, dark, heavy and four more belong together). But the school as such was no more.

The Ancients did not do history of philosophy in school in that way which would have made them equally familiar with Pythagoras in all respects and with Aristotle in all, or both in fewer ones. If Aristotle's view was a school in your time, you could be familiar with it at first hand. If Pythagoras' school was not a school in your time, you might know abut it from adversaries, from oblique allies, but not at first hand.

The Pythagorean school has a history which ended BC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoreanism#History

According to historians like Thomas Gale (based on Archytas account), Thomas Taler (based on the work of Iamblichus), or Cantor, Archytas (428 BC) became the head of the school, about a century after the murder of Pythagoras.[5] According to August Böckh (1819), who cites Nicomachus, Philolaus was the successor of Pythagoras.[6] And according to Cicero (de Orat. III 34.139), Philolaus was teacher of Archytas of Tarentum.[1]

According to the historian's from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Philolaus and Eurytus are identified by Aristoxenus as teachers of the last generation of Pythagoreans" (D. L. VIII 46).[1]

A Echecrates is mentioned by Aristoxenus as a student of Philolaus and Eurytus. (p. 166)

notes

[1] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "Philolaus". Retrieved 30 May 2015.

[5] Walter William Rouse Ball (2013). A Short Account of the History of Mathematics.

[6] August Böckh (1819). Philolaos des Pythagoreers Lehren nebst den Bruchstücken seines Werkes. p. 14.

[7] Sandra Peterson (2011). "Socrates and Philosophy in the Dialogues of Plato".

There was also a Neopythagorean school, "Neopythagoreanism was influenced by Middle Platonism and in turn influenced Neoplatonism. It originated in the 1st century BCE and flourished during the 1st and 2nd centuries CE."

And ended before Constantine and therefore before the post-Nicene Fathers, while the ante-Nicene ones seems to have been less interested in philosophy as such.

Its names do not seem to include Heliocentrics, unlike the original Pythagorean school:

"In the 1st century BCE Cicero's friend Nigidius Figulus made an attempt to revive Pythagorean doctrines, but the most important members of the school were Apollonius of Tyana and Moderatus of Gades in the 1st century CE. Other important Neopythagoreans include the mathematician Nicomachus of Gerasa (fl. 150 CE), who wrote about the mystical properties of numbers. In the 2nd century, Numenius of Apamea sought to fuse additional elements of Platonism into Neopythagoreanism, prefiguring the rise of Neoplatonism. (Iamblichus, in particular, was especially influenced by Neopythagoreanism)"

Publius Nigidius Figulus (c. 98 – 45[1] BC)

was a scholar of the Late Roman Republic and one of the praetors for 58 BC.[2] He was a friend of Cicero, to whom he gave his support at the time of the Catilinarian conspiracy.[3][4] Nigidius sided with the Optimates in the civil war between Julius Caesar and Pompeius Magnus.

Among his contemporaries, Nigidius's reputation for learning was second only to that of Varro. Even in his own time, his works were regarded as often abstruse, perhaps because of their esoteric Pythagoreanism, into which Nigidius incorporated Stoic elements. Jerome calls him Pythagoricus et magus,[3] a "Pythagorean and mage," and in the medieval and Renaissance tradition he is portrayed as a magician, diviner, or occultist. His vast works survive only in fragments preserved by other authors.

...

Lucan concludes Book 1 of his epic Bellum civile (also known as the Pharsalia) with a portrayal of Nigidius uttering dire prophecies, based in part on astrological readings. Johannes Kepler discusses the astronomical implications of the passage with Herwart von Hohenburg in their correspondence of 1597. An English translation of the relevant letters is available online.

Apollonius of Tyana

(Ancient Greek: Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ Τυανεύς; c. 15 – c. 100 AD),[2] sometimes also called Apollonios of Tyana, was a Greek Neopythagorean philosopher from the town of Tyana in the Roman province of Cappadocia in Anatolia. Being a 1st-century orator and philosopher around the time of Jesus, he was compared with Jesus of Nazareth by Christians in the 4th century[3] and by other writers in modern times.

Note 3

Eusebius of Caesarea, Contra Hieroclem discusses the claim.

Moderatus of Gades

was a Greek philosopher of the Neopythagorean school, who lived in the 1st century AD, (contemporary with Apollonius of Tyana). He wrote a great work on the doctrines of the Pythagoreans, and tried to show that the successors of Pythagoras had made no additions to the views of their founder, but had merely borrowed and altered the phraseology.

He has been given an exaggerated importance by some commentators, who have regarded him as the forerunner of the Alexandrian School of philosophy. Zeller has shown that the authority on which this view is based is unsound. Moderatus is thus left as an unimportant though interesting representative of a type of thought which had almost disappeared since the 5th century BC.

Stobaeus, in his Eclogae, preserves a fragment of his writings; further extracts survive in the form of quotations in Porphyry's Life of Pythagoras and Simplicius's commentary on Aristotle's Physics.

Simplicius of Cilicia
[Not a Neopythagorean, but citing the
previous one while commenting on Aristotle]

(/sɪmˈplɪʃiəs/; Greek: Σιμπλίκιος; c. 490 – c. 560[2]) was a disciple of Ammonius Hermiae and Damascius, and was one of the last of the Neoplatonists. He was among the pagan philosophers persecuted by Justinian in the early 6th century, and was forced for a time to seek refuge in the Persian court, before being allowed back into the empire. He wrote extensively on the works of Aristotle. Although his writings are all commentaries on Aristotle and other authors, rather than original compositions, his intelligent and prodigious learning makes him the last great philosopher of pagan antiquity. His works have preserved much information about earlier philosophers which would have otherwise been lost.

List of Aristotle loci

which he commented on, limited to On the Heavens and Physics and to where an English translation is extant, simplified:

Simplicius: On Aristotle, On the Heavens 1.1-4, 1.3-4, 1.5-9, 1.10-12, 2.1-9, 2.10-14, 3.1-7, 3.7-4.6, translated by Robert J. Hankinson (2001) and by Ian Mueller (2011).

Simplicius: On Aristotle, Physics 1.3-4, 1.5-9, 2, 3, 4.1-5, 4.10-14, 5, 6, 7, 8.6-10, translated by Pamela M. Huby and C. C. W. Taylor (2011) and by Han Baltussen (2011), and by Barrie Fleet (1997) and by James O. Urmson (2002, 1992, 1997) and by David Konstan (1989) and by Charles Hagen (1994) and finally by Richard McKirahan (2001).

Publishers vary between only two, Cornell University Press and Duckworth London, some parts appearing in both.

Nicomachus,

or Nicomachus of Gerasa,[1] (Greek: Νικόμαχος; c. 60 – c. 120 CE) was an important ancient mathematician best known for his works Introduction to Arithmetic and Manual of Harmonics in Greek. He was born in Gerasa, in the Roman province of Syria (now Jerash, Jordan), and was strongly influenced by Aristotle. He was a Neopythagorean, who wrote about the mystical properties of numbers.

[an Arithmetician between Pythagoras and Boethius, truly a scientist, not a trace of Pythagorean astronomical aberrations like Heliocentrism]

Numenius of Apamea

(Ancient Greek: Νουμήνιος ὁ ἐξ Ἀπαμείας) was a Greek philosopher, who lived in Apamea in Syria and flourished during the latter half of the 2nd century AD. He was a Neopythagorean and forerunner of the Neoplatonists.

... Numenius was a Neopythagorean, but his object was to trace the doctrines of Plato up to Pythagoras, and at the same time to show that they were not at variance with the dogmas and mysteries of the Brahmins, Jews, Magi and Egyptians. ... His work on the apostasy of the Academy from Plato, to judge from its rather numerous fragments,[3] contained a minute and wearisome account of the outward circumstances of those men, and was full of fabulous tales about their lives, without entering into the nature of their skepticism.

His books On the Good (Peri Tagathou - Περὶ Τἀγαθοῦ) seem to have been of a better kind; in them he had minutely explained, mainly in opposition to the Stoics, that existence could neither be found in the elements because they were in a perpetual state of change and transition, nor in matter because it is vague, inconstant, lifeless, and in itself not an object of our knowledge; and that, on the contrary, existence, in order to resist the annihilation and decay of matter, must itself rather be incorporeal and removed from all mutability,[4] in eternal presence, without being subject to the variation of time, simple and imperturbable in its nature by its own will as well as by influence from without.[5] True existence is identical with the first god existing in and by itself, that is, with good, and is defined as spirit (nous).[6] But as the first (absolute) god existing in itself and being undisturbed in its motion, could not be creative (demiurgikos - δημιουργικός), he thought that we must assume a second god, who keeps matter together, directs its energy to it and to intelligible essences, and imparts its spirit to all creatures; its mind is directed to the first god, in whom it beholds the ideas according to which it arranges the world harmoniously, being seized with a desire to create the world. The first god communicates its ideas to the second, without losing them itself, just as we communicate knowledge to one another, without depriving ourselves of it.[7] In regard to the relation existing between the third and second god, and to the manner in which they also are to be conceived as one (probably in opposition to the vague duration of matter), no information can be derived from the fragments which have come down to us. ...

... His chief divergence from Plato is the distinction between the "first god" and the "demiurge." This is probably due to the influence of Jewish-Alexandrian philosophers (especially Philo and his theory of the Logos). According to Proclus,[12] Numenius held that there was a kind of trinity of gods, the members of which he designated as "father," "maker," and "that which is made," i.e. the world. The first is the supreme deity or pure intelligence, the second the creator of the world, the third the world. Numenius also claimed that the three gods, the "Father", the "Creator" and "Creation" were actually one.

[In other words, as much supernatural stuff as Giordano Bruno accepted after his apostasy from Orthodox Christianity - but he didn't add Heliocentrism to it or apostasising from baptism.]

Iamblichus,

also known as Iamblichus Chalcidensis, or Iamblichus of Apamea (Greek: Ἰάμβλιχος, probably from Syriac or Aramaic ya-mlku, "He is king"; c. 245 – c. 325 AD), was a Syrian[1][2] Neoplatonist philosopher who determined the direction taken by later Neoplatonic philosophy.

[Nothing about astronomical disputes.]

In other words, Neo-Pythagoreans have some in common with Christians and with New Agers, but they did not forcefully revive the Pythagorean tendency to Heliocentrism, for what we know.

This means, Palm has a point in Church Fathers following Aristotle. Pythagoras was no more around, except mainly in the sanitised version of mathematics and music theory.

The real answer is turning the point around and also follow Aristotle, except of course where he disagrees with Holy Bible and Fathers, or where he disagrees with more recent real discoveries.

This was the plan of today's Saint, Albert of Cologne, and of his famous disciple, Saint Thomas Aquinas. Both of whom were, like Aristotle, Heliocentric, both of whom were, like Aristotle, proving existence of God as first mover from Geocentrism.

Obviously, what you wrote about other things, Sungenis, on pages 1 to 14 and most of page 15, is a bit not my own subject but seems all right. On this one, I think you should trust a Classicist. A Medievalist. A - formally at University - Latinist and, a little less, no longer functional, Grecist.

Now I'll return to the last three pages of your work, hoping they are better than this weak paragraph, but will give a little hint about method.

None of these schools except Epicureans who up to Tycho Brahe had one, would have cared for Gravitational models for Geocentrism working out. And they were, as mentioned, as dead as a doornail by the time of the Church Fathers.

When Church Fathers all agree with Aristotle and Plato on Geocentrism and on ignoring gravitation as irrelevant, there are two options.

One can either say they were all misled by Aristotle, which is what Palm is saying. Or one can say that this happened by providence. Which is what I am saying.

You seem to shilly shally - ignoring their take on Angelic movers (yes, St Augustine mentioned such) because Fathers didn't know modern science yet (which Palm would agree on), while accepting their take on Geocentrism, which I do agree on. But, with above paragraph in mind, are you doing it for the right reason? Or are you simply wrong about what Church Fathers had access to?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Albert*
15.XI.2016

* Coloniae Agrippinae sancti Alberti Episcopi et Confessoris, ex Ordine Praedicatorum, cognomento Magni, sanctitate et doctrina celebris, quem Pius Papa Undecimus Doctorem universalis Ecclesiae declaravit, et Pius Duodecimus cultorum scientiarum naturalium caelestem apud Deum Patronum constituit.

PS, when starting to read on:

Following two paragraphs
on page 16

I

Mr. Palm doesn’t like the fact that when the Church was arguing against Galileo, it didn’t once make the argument that the Fathers’ view was either weak or irrelevant because some of them had the same geocentric view as Aristotle, and it never once made the argument that the Fathers were devoid of Scriptural evidence for their view.

Comment

Very correct.

II

Mr. Palm doesn’t like the fact that the Church, despite the competing views from the Greeks and Indians who were promoting heliocentrism from 600 BC to 900 AD, never deviated from its geocentric understanding of the universe.

Comment

Very incorrect.

As for Greeks, Pythagorean school was dead as a doornail and had been so for centuries, even among Pagans (Seneca allowing agnosticism between views was probably last death gasp of Heliocentrism in Antiquity), as shown above.

If Sungenis believes the opposite, he must have gotten it from some really bad source on Classics, like probably some Historian of Science.

As for Indians, apart from the Churches founed by St Thomas, these were pretty irrelevant for nearly all dioceses and the Church Fathers who usually were not living in or even visiting those Churches, and the promotion of Heliocentrism was also very probably limited to Brahmin caste, and irrelevant both to non-Hindoos and to Hindoos of other classes.

Also, if the number 900 AD is cited, we are getting close to Arabic precursors of Tycho Brahe - and yes, there were such.

PPS, And the final paragraph from St Basil is a good enough argument to consider any ivestigation into Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitational factors as possibly rather irrelevant - even if done for Geoecntrism. That was a good one!

9. You do not reflect that the idea of the earth suspended by itself throws your reason into a like but even greater difficulty, since from its nature it is heavier. But let us admit that the earth rests upon itself, or let us say that it rides the waters, we must still remain faithful to thought of true religion and recognize that all is sustained by the Creator’s power. Let us then reply to ourselves, and let us reply to those who ask us upon what support this enormous mass rests, “In His hands are the ends of the earth.” It is a doctrine as infallible for our own information as profitable for our hearers.

St. Basil : Nine Homilies of the Hexaemeron, Homily I.

He's got the whole world, in his hand ...

The leper

somewhere else : Was Lack of Autographs a Major Problem to Bart Ehrman? · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : The leper

I was listening to J. P. Holding on this one:

Bart Ehrman: Deceit and Cunning - J. P. Holding
Theology, Philosophy and Science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe3ICj7U8P4

J. P. Holding (in his arguments with Bart Ehrman on the variant readings of presumably Mark 1:41) presumes (not quite as presumably) that there was:

• a possibility the old alternative reading about (presumably) Mark 1:41 "And Jesus being angry with him, stretched forth his hand; and touching him, saith to him: I will. Be thou made clean." Instead of And Jesus having compassion on him, stretched forth his hand; and touching him, saith to him: I will. Be thou made clean. Was correct.
  
  
• And motivates correctness thereof with saying the leper can't have been really suffering from Hanssen's disease and be in a bad shape if he was in a position to approach Jesus. If he did so anyway, it wasn't because he strictly needed the miracle, but because he wanted to plank Jesus, put him in a socially vulnerable spot.

Know what? I am not sure which of the Gospels JPH was speaking of. Not with these criteria put together.

Let's check the text.

Matthew 8:1 And when he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him . 2 *And behold a leper coming, adored him, saying: Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. 3 And Jesus stretching forth his hand, touched him, saying: I will. Be thou made clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. 4 And Jesus said to him: See thou tell no man: but go, *shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift which Moses commanded for a testimony to them.

Here the meeting is in public. This corresponds to the description in video for publicity of meeting - but the situation is unusual, since after a mass meeting outside town, so that regulations concerning lepers were not quite as easy to enforce then and there.

However, it doesn't say the leper touched Jesus. It says that Our Lord touched the leper. And was still in a position to ask for discretion.

Here is Haydock comment:

Ver. 1. And when he was come down from the mountain. St. Matthew says, that Jesus Christ ascended the mountain, and sat down to teach the people; while St. Luke affirms, that he descended, and stood in a plain place. But there is no contradiction; for he first ascended to the top of the mountain, and then descended to an even plain, which formed part of the descent. Here he stood for a while, and cured the sick, as mentioned by St. Luke; but afterwards, according to the relation of St. Matthew, he sat down, which was the usual posture of the Jewish doctors. (St. Augustine)

Ver. 2. As the three evangelists relate the cure of the leper in nearly the same words, and with the same circumstances, we may conclude they speak of the same miracle. St. Matthew alone seems to have observed the time and order of this transaction, viz. after the sermon of the mount; the other two anticipate it. The Bible de Vence seems to infer, from the connection St. Matthew makes between the sermon of the mount and the cure of the leper, that it was not the same leper as that mentioned, Mark i. 40.; Luke v. 12. (Bible de Vence)

Adored him. In St. Mark it is said, kneeling down, chap. i. 40. In St. Luke, prostrating on his face. It is true, none of these expressions do always signify the adoration or worship which is due to God alone, as may appear by several examples in the Old and New Testament; yet this man, by divine inspiration, might know our blessed Saviour to be both God and man. (Witham)

"Make me clean;" literally, "purify me;" the law treated lepers as impure. (Bible de Vence)

The leper, by thus addressing our Saviour acknowledges his supreme power and authority, and shews his great faith and earnestness, falling on his knees, as St. Luke relates it. (St. Chrysostom, hom. xxvi.) Our prayer should be such with great faith and confidence, qualified with profound humility, and entire diffidence of self.

Ver. 3. Jesus, stretching forth his hand, touched him. By the law of Moses, whosoever touched a leper, contracted a legal uncleanness: but not by touching in order to heal him, says Theophylactus. Beside s, Christ would teach them that he was not subject to this law. (Witham)

"Touched him." To shew, says St. Cyprian, that his body being united to the Divinity, had the power of healing and giving life. Also to shew that the old law, which forbad the touching of lepers, had no power over him; and that so far from being defiled by touching him, he even cleansed him who was defiled with it. (St. Ambrose)

When the apostles healed the lame man, they did not attribute it to their own power, but said to the Jews: Why do you wonder at this? Or, why look you at us, as if by our power or strength we have made this man to walk? But when our Saviour heals the leper, stretching out his hand, to shew he was going to act of his own power, and independently of the law, he said: "I will. Be thou clean;" to evince that the cure was effected by the operation of his own divine will. (St. Chrysostom, hom. xxvi.)

Ver. 4. For a testimony to them. That is, when the priest finds thee truly c ured, make that offering which is ordained in the law. (Witham)

He did this to give us an example of humility, and that the priests, by approving of his miracle, and being made witnesses to it, might be inexcusable, if they would not believe him. (Menochius)

He thus shews his obedience to the law, and his respect for the diginity of priests. He makes them inexcusable, if they can still call him a transgressor of the law, and prevaricator. He moreover gives this public testimony to them of his divine origin. (St. Chrysostom, hom. xxvi.) St. Chrysostom, in his third book on the priesthood, says: "the priests of the old law had authority and privilege only to discern who were healed of leprosy, and to denounce the same to the people; but the priests of the new law have power to purify, in very deed, the filth of the soul. Therefore, whoever despiseth them, is more worthy to be punished than the rebel Dathan and his accomplices." Our Saviour willeth him to go and offer his gift or sacrifice, according as Moses prescribed in that case, because the other sacrifice, being the holiest of all holies, viz. his body, was not yet begun. (St. Augustine, lib. ii. & Evang. ii. 3. & cont. adver. leg. & Proph. lib. i. chap. 19, 20.)

Mark 1:40 *And there came a leper to him, beseeching him; and kneeling down, said to him: If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. 41 And Jesus having compassion on him, stretched forth his hand; and touching him, saith to him: I will. Be thou made clean. 42 And when he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was made clean. 43 And he strictly charged him, and forthwith sent him away. 44 And he saith to him: See thou tell no man: but go, shew thyself to the high priest, and offer for thy cleansing *the things that Moses commanded, for a testimony to them. 45 But he being gone out, began to publish and to blaze abroad the word: so that now he could not go openly into the city, but was without in desert places, and they flocked to him from all sides.

If Jesus could tell the guy to tell no one, obviously the meeting was not in public, or at least it wasn't shouted out everywhere it was a leper. Also, if the leper kneeled, it was Jesus' own choice to use touch to heal him.

Here is Haydock comment:

Ver. 44. It was not the intention of Christ, that he should not tell any body; had that been his wish, he would easily have realized it: he spoke thus purposely, to shew us that we ought not to seek the empty praises of men. He bade him also offer the sacrifices prescribed, because the law remained in full force till the passion of Christ, in which was offered a perfect sacrifice, that did away with all the legal sacrifices. (Nicholas of Lyra)

At the most, the considerations given by J. P. Holding might indicate that Nicholas of Lyra (not a cannised saint) was wrong to say "It was not the intention of Christ, that he should not tell any body".

Luke 5:12 *And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy, who seeing Jesus, and falling on his face, besought him, saying: Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. 13 And stretching fo rth his hand, he touched him, saying: I will: Be thou cleansed. And immediately the leprosy departed from him. 14 And he charged him to tell no man: but, Go, shew thyself to the priest, *and offer for thy cleansing according as Moses commanded, for a testimony to them. 15 But the fame of him went abroad the more: and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed of their infirmities. 16 And he retired into the desert, and prayed.

Here it was clearly or nearly so in town (it could also have been the same leper as above, if so it was close to town, but in the city perimeter of countryside). But here the conjecture that the guy can't have been so bad off is contradicted by the text. Not just a leper, but a man full of leprosy.

Here is the Haydock comment:

Ver. 12. By falling on his face, he shewed his humility and modesty, that all men might learn to be ashamed of the stains of their lives; but this, his bashfulness, did not prevent him from confes sing his misery; he exposed his wound, he solicits a cure: Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. He did not doubt the goodness of the Lord, but in consideration of his own unworthiness, he durst not presume. That confession is full of religion and faith, which places its trust in the will of God. (St. Ambrose)

Ver. 13. The law forbade lepers to be touched; but he, who is the Lord of the law, dispenses with it. He touches the leper, not because he could not cleanse him without it, but in order to shew that he was not subject to the law, nor to fear of any infection. At the touch of Christ leprosy is dispelled, which before communicated contagion to all that touched it. (St. Ambrose)

Ver. 14. Because men in sickness generally turn their thoughts towards God, but when they recover, forget him, the leper is commanded to think of God, and return him thanks. Therefore is he sent to the priest, to make his offering, (Leviticus xiv. 4.) that, committing himself to the examination of the priest, he might be accounted among the clean. (St. Chrysostom, hom. xxvi. in Matt.)

By this our Saviour would testify to the priest, that this man was healed not by the ordination of the law, but by the power of grace, which is above the law. He likewise shews that he did not come to destroy, but to fulfil the law. (St. Ambrose)

Jesus Christ seems here to approve of the legal sacrifices, which the Church does not receive; and this he did, because he had not yet established that most holy of all holy sacrifices, the sacrifice of his own body. The figurative sacrifices were not to be abrogated, before that, which they prefigured, was established by the preaching of the apostles, and the faith of Christian believers. (St. Augustine, quest. ii. b. 3. de quæst. evang.)

By this leper is represented the whole human race, which was covered with a spiritual leprosy, and languishing in the corruption of sin; for all have sinned, and need the glory of God; (Romans iii.) therefore he stretched forth his hand, i.e. he clothed himself with our human nature, that we might be cleansed from our former errors, and might offer in return for this favour our bodies, a living sacrifice to God. (Ven. Bede)

Ver. 16. Christ did not stand in need of this retirement, since, being God, he was free from every stain, and likewise present in every place. But, by this his conduct, he wished to teach us the time most proper, both for our active employments, and for the more sublime duties of prayer and contemplation. (St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. xxviii.)

en upochoron, he withdrew after his great prodigies, to avoid the praise of the multitude, and to pray assiduously, and with fresh instance, for the salvation of man.

I would say, the variant which has "anger" instead of "compassion" might be a faulty reading. At least if the anger is supposed to have been directed at the leper.

If instead it was a very curable "leprosy" not Hansens disease (say, if scabies would have counted as leprosy), Christ would have had reason to be angry with people stopping the man from using natural cures. They might have even taunted him for being already a part believer and stopped each application of say, nettles or cloves (I am sure nettles is a cure, since they include a sulphuric substance, like synthetic ascabiol [the standard prescription drug], and like tea tree oil, which wasn't available, since they grow elsewhere, and like therebinths, with same substance as tea tree oil, basically therpentine - though that would need more dilution than tea tree oil before application) and telling him "if you are right about that guy, he can cure you". That kind of behaviour against someone might have given Him a real reason for anger.

But the hypothesis of J. P. Holding can't explain the issue.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Albert the Great
Dominican, Bishop of Cologne
15.XI.2016

Fridge Logic

1) Answering William Savage's Cleanliness and Class · 2) "If you wanted bacon you had to make it yourself—and what a lengthy, laborious job it was!" · 3) Fridge Logic · 4) Speaking of Drinking Problem for Georgians? That is Anachronistic. · 5) A Distinction and a Gratitude to William Savage

More from William Savage, same post as my previous one:

Although some grand families had ice houses from quite early in the eighteenth century, it took a surprisingly long time for people to realise the preserving power of freezing food. It was never common, even well into the twentieth century, probably because the volume of ice needed was too great and there were few containers of suitable size that could be made sufficiently insulated to stop everything melting in a few days. So far as I have been able to discover, the first attempts to preserve meat by the use of cold happened in the nineteenth century. In some cases, the carcasses of hunted animals, like deer, would be hung above the ice in the ice house. Cold then, but not frozen; the equivalent of a modern fridge rather than a freezer.

The historic sequence is entirely possible - if only because it is entirely possible that people go on neglecting sth which would be useful.

However, this is not a case of pre-industrial technical possibilities.

Having, not indeed a freezer, for long preservation, but a fridge, so you can at least open a can of bacon (see previous), desalt it (partially), fry it and mix it in some stew (like Irish stew, but with bacon instead of mutton) in a cooking which will last a few days, like perhaps earlier or later or mid part of the Twelve Days of Christmas - that was entirely possible, technically speaking.

In the early part of 20:th C Sweden, before fridges and freezer part of fridge became standard, it was done like this.

An ice cupboard was first of all procured. Manufactured at home or bought. It had an inner large compartment, surrounded by metal, like iron or steel. It had an upper compartment (smaller in height, same horizontal extension, or even wider) for the ice. It had very narrow side compartments for the melting ice water to drip down to a lower compartment, which was regularly emptied, much like the ash compartment of an oven is emptied when too much ashes fall down.

When using it, you needed to buy a block of ice to lay in the upper compartment - and it would last a few days.

Whom did you buy that from? Well, an ice merchant would in a larger city like Malmö or Stockholm, perhaps even a smaller one like Södertelge, procure large quantities of ice blocks, sawed out of frozen lakes, stapled together in ice houses with straw as insulator, and he would sell it off an ice block at a time - I think even ordinary folks had a chance to buy such, at least when it came to cooking rationally for Christmas tide.

However, South Sweden is further North (55°36′21″N 13°02′09″E = Malmö, our South tip) and less exposed to the Atlantic warmth than North Norfolk (52°56′N 1°18′E).

And of course, the whole scheme depends on there being a town big enough for an ice merchant to stock his ice over winter and sell it piecemeal to those using above kind of fridge.

This is some logic about existence of fridges in pre-industrial cultures. But TV Tropes defines Fridge Logic as sth else, so as to title, I've been off topic so far. Off to TV Tropes and read what is on topic!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris XI
St. Martin of Tours
11.XI.2016

Turonis, in Gallia, natalis beati Martini, Episcopi et Confessoris; cujus vita tantis exstitit miraculis gloriosa, ut trium mortuorum suscitator esse meruerit.

"If you wanted bacon you had to make it yourself—and what a lengthy, laborious job it was!"

1) Answering William Savage's Cleanliness and Class · 2) "If you wanted bacon you had to make it yourself—and what a lengthy, laborious job it was!" · 3) Fridge Logic · 4) Speaking of Drinking Problem for Georgians? That is Anachronistic. · 5) A Distinction and a Gratitude to William Savage

Here is another piece by William Savage.

Making Georgian Bacon
Posted on November 2, 2016
https://penandpension.com/2016/11/02/making-bacon/

Nearly every family who could afford it kept a pig or two. When the pig was slaughtered, some of the meat would be shared with neighbours and friends, who would repay the compliment when their own pig met its appointed end. Even so, there would be far too much left to eat before it became rancid. The solution was to preserve it by turning it into ham or bacon.

Almost no one does this today. Bacon is too easily available at any butcher’s shop or supermarket. Back in Georgian times, of course, if you wanted bacon you had to make it yourself—and what a lengthy, laborious job it was!

...

After all that work by the servants, one wonders how much of the resulting bacon they would ever have tasted themselves. Rather little, I imagine.

...

This recipe comes from Katherine Windham’s Boke of Cookery and Housekeeping, compiled in the early years of the eighteenth century, and transcribed by my friends Bonnie Lovelock and Roger Sykes.

You are talking of people living either as landlords or their servants. I presume, at least.

First of all, bacon was a rather cheap food, I think some of it would go to servants.

Second, you seem totally to neglect towns.

If you lived as a cobbler in a town, did you produce your bacon yourself?

Pretty certainly not.

The fact that doing bacon yourself was very much done comes in with people having some kind of country connexion.

Does this mean a cobbler in town never ate bacon?

Pretty certainly not that either.

Pretty certainly, some innkeeper was following that recipe who had pigs, and who sold bacon to those who hadn't.

You see, having recipes for bacon in cookbooks doesn't mean no one ever bought bacon readymade.

In a Swedish cookbook I once possessed, there was an extensive instruction about how to brew beer, generalities and diverse variaties, ranging from small beer to probably rather strong things.

Does that mean every Swede in 19th C. (when the cookbook and householdbook was from) brewed his own beer?

Or could there have existed a kind of service for townsfolk who couldn't brew beer, namely ... once again : inns?

I think that would be the solution to buying bacon in 18th C. England too, if you were no pig keeper.

That said, making bacon yourself is as of recently a neglected art, and some farmers in US who are also preppers (even if prepping might be less anxious these days, now that Obama seems to be going) would certainly appreciate not just this recipe, but all of that householdbook by Katherine Windham. Put it on internet for free and do prepping mankind a service. So much of what preppers seem to want to learn is only available (or so it seems) if a some businessman is selling them a course. You have an income from your novels.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Dedicace of Our Saviour's Basilica
9.XI.2016

Stonehenge and Göbekli Tepe?

Creation vs. Evolution : 1) Henry Makow wrong about OT · 2) Graham Hancock had sth to Say on Göbekli Tepe · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : 3) Stonehenge and Göbekli Tepe?

Stonehenge and Göbekli Tepe? · Levels of Stonehenge

I have copied some wiki articles, or salient paragraphs from them on neolithic megalithic structures like Stonehenge.

Archaeologists believe it was constructed from 3000 BC to 2000 BC. The surrounding circular earth bank and ditch, which constitute the earliest phase of the monument, have been dated to about 3100 BC. Radiocarbon dating suggests that the first bluestones were raised between 2400 and 2200 BC,[2] although they may have been at the site as early as 3000 BC.[3][4][5]

Before the monument (8000 BC forward)

Archaeologists have found four, or possibly five, large Mesolithic postholes (one may have been a natural tree throw), which date to around 8000 BC, beneath the nearby modern tourist car-park. These held pine posts around 0.75 metres (2 ft 6 in) in diameter which were erected and eventually rotted in situ. Three of the posts (and possibly four) were in an east-west alignment which may have had ritual significance; no parallels are known from Britain at the time but similar sites have been found in Scandinavia. Salisbury Plain was then still wooded but 4,000 years later, during the earlier Neolithic, people built a causewayed enclosure at Robin Hood's Ball and long barrow tombs in the surrounding landscape. In approximately 3500 BC, a Stonehenge Cursus was built 700 metres (2,300 ft) north of the site as the first farmers began to clear the trees and develop the area. A number of other adjacent stone and wooden structures and burial mounds, previously overlooked, may date as far back as 4000 BC.[14] Charcoal from the ‘Blick Mead’ camp 2.4 kilometres (1.5 mi) from Stonehenge (near the Vespasian's Camp site) has been dated to 4000 BC.[15] The University of Buckingham's Humanities Research Institute believes that the community who built Stonehenge lived here over a period of several millennia making it potentially "one of the pivotal places in the history of the Stonehenge landscape."[16]

Stonehenge 1 (ca. 3100 BC)

The first monument consisted of a circular bank and ditch enclosure made of Late Cretaceous (Santonian Age) Seaford Chalk, measuring about 110 metres (360 ft) in diameter, with a large entrance to the north east and a smaller one to the south. It stood in open grassland on a slightly sloping spot.[17]

Let's calculate a bit:

8000 BC - 3100 BC = 4900
10 328 BC - 2792 BC = 7536*
4900/7536 = 0,65021231422505307855626326963907
2778 BC - 2062 BC = 716*0,65021231422505307855626326963907
= 465,55201698513800424628450106157, 466 years

Stonehenge can have been singled out 466 years before the structure known as Stonehenge 1. It is far less credible to have a plan at 8000 BC and executed from 3100 BC on.

Almendres Cromlech

The construction of these structures date back to the 6th millennium BC, though they were only rediscovered in 1966 by Henrique Leonor Pina, who was proceeding with field work relating to the country's geological charts.[1][3][4][5] The excavation of the site unearthed a series of both megalithic and neolithic construction phases; Almendres I 6000 BC (Early Neolithic), Almendres II 5000 BC (Middle Neolithic), Almendres III 4000 BC (Late Neolithic). The relative chronology of the cromlech and menhirs is extremely complex and covers a period from the Neolithic to Chalcolithic, and it is believed that the monument had a religious/ceremonial purpose, or functioned as a primitive astronomical observatory.[1][5]

Alemndres I vs III 6000 BC to 4000 BC. Not far from, though somewhat longer than 6449** to 4620** BC, that is 2599 to 2420 BC. 180 years for three stages of building, corresponds to some Medieval Cathedrals.

Arkaim (Russian: Аркаим) is an archaeological site situated in the Southern Urals steppe, 8.2 kilometres (5.1 mi) north-to-northwest of the village of Amurskiy and 2.3 km (1.4 mi) south-to-southeast of the village of Alexandrovskiy, in the Chelyabinsk Oblast, Russia, just to the north from the Kazakhstan border.

The site is generally dated to the 17th century BC. Earlier dates, up to the 20th century BC, have been proposed. It was a settlement of the Sintashta-Petrovka culture.

For once, rather close to the real date. 1675 BC as 1525 BC.***

The Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site /kəˈhoʊkiə/ (11 MS 2)[2] is the site of a pre-Columbian Native American city (c. 600–1400 CE) directly across the Mississippi River from modern St. Louis, Missouri. This historic park lies in southern Illinois between East St. Louis and Collinsville.[3] The park covers 2,200 acres (890 ha), or about 3.5 square miles (9 km2), and contains about 80 mounds, but the ancient city was much larger. In its heyday, Cahokia covered about 6 square miles (16 km2) and included about 120 human-made earthen mounds in a wide range of sizes, shapes, and functions.[4]

Americas behind the Old World? No surprise.

Carhenge replicates Stonehenge's current "tumble-down" state, rather than the original stone circle erected between 2500 BC and 2000 BC

Were Almendres Cromlech and later Stonehenge replicas of Göbekli Tepe?

The Goseck circle is a Neolithic structure in Goseck in the Burgenlandkreis district in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. It may be the oldest and best known of the Circular Enclosures associated with the Central European Neolithic. It also may be one of the oldest Solar observatories in the world.[1][2][3] It consists of a set of concentric ditches 75 metres (246 feet) across and two palisade rings containing gates in places aligned with sunrise and sunset on the solstice days.

Its construction is dated to approximately the 49th century BC, and it seems to have remained in use until about the 47th century BC. This corresponds to the transitional phase between the Neolithic Linear Pottery and Stroke-ornamented ware cultures. It is one of a larger group of Circular Enclosures in the Elbe and Danube region, most of which show similar alignments.

Radiocarbon dating places the construction of the site close to 4900 BC, while the style of the pottery shards associate it with the Stroke-ornamented ware culture of ca. 4700 BC, suggesting that the site remained in use during two or three centuries.[4]

Excavators also found the remains of what may have been ritual fires, animal and human bones, and a headless skeleton near the southeastern gate, that could be interpreted as traces of human sacrifice[5] or specific burial ritual.

This would be a little before 4620 BC*, that is real date 2420 BC*.

I read somewhere at Göbekli Tepe also there had been queer human remains, either sacrificial or burial.

Newgrange (Irish: Sí an Bhrú)[1] is a prehistoric monument in County Meath, Ireland, located eight kilometers west of Drogheda on the north side of the River Boyne.[2] It was built during the Neolithic period around 3200 BC, making it older than Stonehenge and the Egyptian pyramids.[3] The site consists of a large circular mound with a stone passageway and interior chambers.

Newgrange would actually be between first arrival at Stonehenge and the first buildings there. After 3441 BC, that is after 2241 BC.°

The Ring of Brodgar (or Brogar, or Ring o' Brodgar) is a Neolithic henge and stone circle in Orkney, Scotland. Most henges do not contain stone circles; Brodgar is a striking exception, ranking with Avebury (and to a lesser extent Stonehenge) among the greatest of such sites.[1] The ring of stones stands on a small isthmus between the Lochs of Stenness and Harray. These are the northernmost examples of circle henges in Britain.[2] Unlike similar structures such as Avebury, there are no obvious stones inside the circle,[3] but since the interior of the circle has never been excavated by archaeologists, the possibility remains that wooden structures, for example, may have been present. The site has resisted attempts at scientific dating and the monument's age remains uncertain. It is generally thought to have been erected between 2500 BC and 2000 BC, and was, therefore, the last of the great Neolithic monuments built on the Ness.[4] A project called The Ring of Brodgar Excavation 2008 was undertaken in the summer of that year in an attempt to settle the age issue and help answer other questions about a site that remains relatively poorly understood.[5] The results of the excavation are still preliminary.

Let's calculate a bit:

2500 BC - 2000 BC = 500 years.
2792 BC - 1964 BC°° = 828 years
500/828 = 0,60386473429951690821256038647343
2062 BC - 1704 BC°° = 358 years
358*0,60386473429951690821256038647343
= 216,18357487922705314009661835749, 216 years

Again, a building time reminiscent of Cathedrals.

Zorats Karer (Armenian: Զորաց Քարեր, locally Դիք-դիք քարեր Dik-dik karer),[2] also called Karahunj, Qarahunj or Carahunge and Carenish (Armenian: Քարահունջ և Քարենիշ) is a prehistoric archaeological site near the town of Sisian in the Syunik Province of Armenia. The phrase Zorats Karer is literally translated from Armenian as Army Stones. It is also often referred to in international tourist lore as the 'Armenian Stonehenge.'[3]

No date given. But far closer geographically to Göbekli Tepe.

If Göbekli Tepe was meant to be a kind of Cape Canaveral, when humanity was united and before certain technology loss, and with some directly Satanic intentions, about conquering Pearly Gates by physical force, these rings could have been, after Confusion of Tongues and ensuing technology loss, a kind of superstitious memorials of Göbekli Tepe. So as to keep memory alive.

The arrival at Stonehenge was oldest of the dates, 8000 BC = exactly when Göbekli Tepe was deliberately covered up.

I think that might be considered suggestive.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Charles Borromeo
4.XI.2016

Updated after sight, for better graphic clarity./HGL

* 2778 av. J.-Chr.

40,23593 % + 7550 ans, 10 328 av. J.-Chr.

...

2062 av. J.-Chr.

91,58056 % + 730 ans, 2792 av. J.-Chr.

From my "Fibonacci recalibration":

source for table
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html

** 2599 av. J.-Chr.

62,75068 % + 3850 ans, 6449 av. J.-Chr.

2420 av. J.-Chr.

76,66562 % + 2200 ans, 4620 av. J.-Chr. (ibid.)

*** 1525 av. J.-Chr.

98,14985 % + 150 ans, 1675 av. J.-Chr. (ibid.)

° 2241 av. J.-Chr.

86,26541 % + 1200 ans, 3441 av. J.-Chr. (ibid.)

°° 2062 av. J.-Chr.

91,58056 % + 730 ans, 2792 av. J.-Chr.

...

1704 av. J.-Chr.

96,89571 % + 260 ans, 1964 av. J.-Chr. (ibid.)