1. Doctrine that the soul is the vital principle of organic development.
2. Attribution of conscious life or spirits to nature or natural phenomena.
3. Belief in the existence of spirits separable from bodies.
“There’s a large stone in that hedge…”
“Correction, there’s a large head in that hedge.”
“A pity then that hedge derives from edge and not from head.”
It is a recurring question and one which crops up every time we visit ‘circles’ of stone.
Are the forms which we ‘see’ in them in us or in the stone?
Are they merely subjective projections or do they inhere in the stones themselves?
From experience we know that different people see different things.
From experience also we know that these forms change, constantly.
Among other things they are affected by;
2. Angle of approach.
3. Atmospheric conditions.
Would that the flickering blaze of flame
In the moonlight
again illuminate these forms…
The beat of a drum
A flare from the sun
When will they in unity thrum?
They deal then with perception and perceptions.
If all one sees are silly things
Is one a silly person or merely being silly?
Is it likely that stones would be chosen for their similarity to animals or beings which have never shared their environment?
Do we know for certain which fauna shared their environment?
Context too is important.
If we have an idea of what these sites were for,
then we may be able to find a correlation in the images in the stones.
Or is that simply more projection
and hence an even greater error of interpretation?
The ‘new circles’ can be instructive.
Apart from the obvious fact that for the most part they are not situated correctly, and thus do not feel ‘right’ or indeed feel ‘wrong’ and do not function at all on an energetic level, the choice of stones also leaves a lot to be desired.
These stones are ‘dead’.
Individually they appear too regular and too square to hold any forms,
not that a square or regular stone could not hold such a form, mind.
Collectively they do not ‘speak’ to each other, or as a whole.
Whatever else the people responsible for ‘Our Stones Circles’ were or were not, they were certainly artists of an exceptionally high degree of accomplishment, as well as consummate surveyors and engineers.
And that is not to mention, supreme organisers and masters of matter in motion.
These skills were probably not compartmentalised or regarded as separate.
One possible function of this artistry and science could have been in order to facilitate ancestral contact.
I just wish I’d moved the grasses away from the other side of the stone and taken a peek,
and then gone into the adjacent field and done likewise. Time…