Mcp358

It was the end of 1993, and I had twin boys aged about 6 months old. I was so deeply affected- moved- enthused and excited by Shiela's demnstration of the motion inherent in her models, that I rang my partner to say I was not coming home, at least for some time as I had to stay and speak with this exceptional woman.

After waiting for the majority of people from the audience to leave, I went up to Shiela, and tried to hold back my tears as I gushed out these words: "Shiela, you have created the Mercurious. It unifies the Pelican Christus and the Oroborus. Its extraordinary." This would be the beginning of an wonderful decade, and both of us consider each of our work to be likened to two sides of the one coin. Hers, continuing with the formal lineage of explorations in apparently "higher dimensional" spacetime structures, which began with her study of the 1976 publication of Australian Philosopher and humanist Graham Nerllich's  "The Shape of Space". Coming from a Fine Arts background, and having studied Alchemy from the work of Carl Jung, Robert Hargraves, Silbere, Kircher, and more, as well as being fully cognisant of Theosophical, Anthroposophical, Rosecrucian, Platonic, Neo Platonic, Neo Pythagorean and mystical works that flourished throughout the middle ages, and from the anals of speculative philosophy, all of which underpinned my research interest since 1978, which continued with  the American school of Popular New Physics publications, my world view was, at the time, leaning heavily towards an antirealist standpoint. It is the rejection of this specific standpoint that occurred to me after I persisted in seeking to comprehend whether or not there were any real geometrical foundations that could underpin the natural sciences, as I finally began to understood that many including myself, generally mistook the Veil of Mysticism, for the things that this veil concealed. This was a somewhat terrifying realisation. It was now 2008. Siela had passed away in 2006, and although I did all I could to get her work out to the world, discussing it, as well as mine at all conferences I participated in, any mention of her work in Wikipedia for example wa constantly shouted down, and any mention of the various elements from my research, also was met with a constant rejection. This in itself began to speak rheims. As all of the speculative works didnt simply hint at a general unification of geometry, they- largely English philsophers such as Roger Bacon for example, were in fact quite explicit, and named reasons for the separation of the disciplines. I became familiar with how non disclosure of the elementary facts that underpinned everything from basic Astronomical studies to Ludwig Wittgenstein's Logic, from the "Laws of Form", by  Spencer Brown, to the principles of Growth and Form by Darcy Wentworth Thompson, and the structural principles of "Art Forms in Nature" by Haeckel, to his monumental works on Histology and speculations on Quasi liquid crystals in his "soul in matter" to the studies in Conchology by Australian scientist and friend Chris Illert, and my investigations on Ultrastructure reseach from the 1960's, leading to my study of Crystallography, all of which informed an awareness of how nondisclosure not only burnt people from the antipodean sphere, who became marginalised, even after the fact of having serious interest expressed from outside of this nation, it show how non disclosure functioned as a binary tool, and how it was so easily exploited by socio-political and religious forces. Behind this research, was my thorough knowledge of the many voices of Post Modern Philosophers on the one hand, and spiritualist from the New Age sphere on the other hand, which now began to make far more sense, as I always felt that they were all intentionally failing to reveal the fact that alchemy informed most of their ideas, and their failure to identify this fact, appeared to me to infer a form of plageristic pomposity. But then, I am a female, not privy to the exclusive circle that males frequent. And this more than anything else, represented an exposure of a Pythagorean social system, where the elevation or reduction of an individual according to the merit of their work, would effectively inform a hidden hand of cultivation, that could have both positive and negative outcomes for any given society, depending on what the objective of that society was. That is, if sucess was measured by financial gain, and the accumulation of patents from the application of natural sciences towards the progression of technologies, or by the merit of one's critical interrogation of the philosophical issues that prevailed in both the sciences, the arts, and mathematics. Indeed, from this standpoint, which is obviously where my heart was at, such merit is considered not just irrelevant, it is abhorrent to those seeking to gain wealth and power beyond reasonable limits.