1: \begin{abstract}

2: 

3: We argue for Brackets Consistency to be a `Pillar of Geometry', i.e.\ a foundational approach, other Pillars being 

4: 1) Euclid's constructive approach, 

5: 2) the algebraic approach, 

6: 3) the projective approach, and 

7: 4) the geometrical automorphism groups `Erlangen' approach.  

8: %

9: We proceed via a distinct Pillar 5) -- Killing's computational route to Erlangen's groups -- 

10: firstly by picking out the ensuing geometrically significant brackets subalgebras as consistent possibilities. 

11: %

12: Secondly, by considering which generators, arising piecemeal from different generalized Killing equations, combine brackets-consistently, 

13: recovering the affine--conformal and projective--conformal alternatives. 

14: %

15: Thirdly, we cease to rest on Killing's Pillar altogether, replacing it by mere polynomial ans\"{a}taze as source of generators. 

16: %

17: Even in this case -- demanding (Lie) Brackets Consistency -- 

18: suffices to recover notions of geometry, as indicated by the below alternative just dropping out of the ensuing brackets algebra, and is thus declared to be Pillar 6.

19: %

20: The current article is further motivated, firstly, by the gradually accumulating successes in reformulating Theoretical Physics 

21: to run on the Dirac Algorithm for classical constraint algebraic structure consistency.

22: %

23: Secondly, this is sufficiently driven by Brackets Consistency alone to transcend to whichever context possesses such brackets. 

24: %

25: Thirdly, we derive the conformal-or-projective alternative in top-automorphism-group $d \geq 3$ Flat Geometry.  

26: %

27: In a manner by now familiar in Dirac Algorithm applications, a) these two top geometries moreover arise side by side as roots of a merely algebraic quadratic equation. 

28: %

29: b) This equation arises from requiring that the self-bracket of a general ansatz for generators be strongly zero. 

30: %

31: c) For, if not, an infinite cascade of generators would follow, by which the ansatz would not support a finite Shape Theory.    

32: 				

33: \end{abstract}

34: