You raise some interesting points.
Purely technically, it was good. I enjoyed the visuals of the sort of rag-doll presenter and such. Seemed very much like a lecture, with pictures of the Sphinx and diagrams as slides to aid the audience.
Now that the technical side of things had been briefly dealt with, I wanted to make a few comments on the content. One of the main points you made was the transition from female- to male-orientated systems of knowledge. A move towards more rational and purely logical methods of understanding the world around us. I think this is a very interesting and important point, but to attribute it to cosmological events requires a large leap of faith from your audience. Historically, humans attributed great reverence to the uniquely female ability to create life. Gaia and Mother Nature are examples of this. The transition from polytheism to monotheism led to the less aggressive female gods being ousted in favour of a more destruction-orientated singular male God. It does seem highly conjectural to state this transition was due to cosmological phenomena.
Furthermore, I am curious why you state that we are currently in a knowledge explosion yet contradict yourself by stating that humanity is near the end of "falling asleep." If "waking up" doesn't happen until next year we should be at our lowest level of understanding and at our most conjectural.
I also question your typifying ancient Greece as purely based on conjecture rather than actual knowledge. Did you not think to mention Archimedes?
You make an interesting point about the Sphinx and it is important to not see ancient civilisations as barbarous or backward. To state that the reason no one really discusses the age of the Sphinx due to their religion does smack of cultural elitism, to an extent. It must be remembered that it was not so long ago that Western civilisation did not accept the world was older than 4000 years old. There are still Christian groups who lobby to not allow evolution to be taught in American public schools. It could well be that, as there is no knowledge of a civilisation around the Nile before the Ancient Egyptians, the Sphinx is simply attributed to the Egyptians as there is no other group it could be. Albeit I am suggesting negative evidence there so it isn't a great argument, but to attribute the lack of discussion of the Sphinx to Islamic culture seems questionable.
You make some interesting points, and the theories put forward intrigued me as I had not heard them before. The theories, however, do not convince me. Maybe it is because I am a product of the masculine logical world which has been created. To me, it just seems like the ideas you put forward are just different ways of explaining the world from different civilisation at a different time. To say that one is better purely due to the cosmological world in which it occured seems too far fetched for me. The transition from Phlogiston theory to the modern scintific understanding took about 350. Does the cosmological position of the Earth change that much in that short amount of time? Can we really say with such certainty that a theory of the cosmos is the reason for civilisations rise and fall?
It's important to note the knowledge of ancient civilisations, but it should not be taken too far.
Interesting stuff though, don't get me wrong. It's just I have not been convinced. I'll take a look at your other animations, I hope they will be as interesting and challenge my way of thinking as well as this one has.
