And, as I mentioned earlier, these are all fringe sects that spawned from an older and more established organization. In every case the older organization is undeniably spiritual in nature and purpose, these fringe groups are representations of what happens when someone gets it into his head to bring metaphysics into the real world. If these represent the myth in action and their parent groups predate the myth, then this whole myth of occult anatomy does not represent in any way shape or form the majority of beliefs throughout history nor does it serve to compare any commonality of leaders and icons held withing these beliefs. Not only that but historically in each and every case for physical and scientific justification of metaphysical theories has been disproven on every level.
In short, the myth of occult anatomy is bullshit (at best an insignificant case of bullshit) and shall remain so until you as the accuser manages to prove otherwise.
As to any a priori existence of such a myth or belief system or anything coherently recognizable, I could just as easily say that Captain Ahab exists because the legend of him exists. I could entertain thoughts that Captain Ahab was a real person or the incarnation of many different historical figures - even the despised biblical king himself. But that would also all be bullshit because not only could I not support it but there is plenty of study proving otherwise.
So yeah, make your assertions, proselytize your views as you wish, but without at least some concrete connection or theory from a mainstream source and not the ramblings of an obscure Canadian theosophic writer your statements fall flat and quite lifeless upon the floor.
None of these are sects.
They are operations of the myth behind the various legend-based religious-sects.
Your remaining comments are unconnected rhetoric.
Hermeticism, Christian Mysticism, Martinism, and Rosicrucianism are all sects of Christianity. They all draw their dogma from Judeo-Christian scripture.
Kabala is a sect of Judaism. It draws it’s dogma from the same scripture as the Christian sects, including the new testament, but with a stronger tie to Judaism.
Egyptian Temple is an animist sect drawing from the pagan mythology of ancient cultures.
And Alchemy isn’t really a religion so much as a humanist movement seeking to explain the metaphysical within physical boundaries.
This scripture and ancient traditions that the sects draw their dogmas from are all concerned with the spiritual, not the physical. There is no sacred marriage of brain bits or widespread influence of occult anatomy. In no source you have given or any other I could find is this theory cited outside of this thread with you as the sole presenter of the theory.
And as the presenter of this I believe the burden of proof is yours, this is simple fact and asking for your proofs is not rhetorical in the least. Proselytizing without offering source or substance is merely witnessing. No two ways around it bub, just plain old witnessing.
Feel free to declare it as such and relieve us the debate or present the authority of your claim and prove us wrong.
No it is not. From your own OP:
“The grail legend transmits a myth of occult anatomy in which the grail is an organ in the human head”.
Many times you have been asked to explain this. You have refused, giving links instead.
When it suites you POV, you choose to embrace the existence of the myth. If that doesn’t work you choose to embrace the myth itself. I’m asking you to pick a side in your own words which you did not do. I’m asking you to take a stand. IS THE MYTH TRUE OR NOT (in your own words)?
The whackier aspects of Theosophy also provided material for Edgar Rice Burroughs’ romances set on Mars. I don’t guess there are many actual Theosophists around anymore, but people still read A Princess of Mars.
Well, that’s everybody else’s point, too, Maatorc. Clearly, if I dream up a story and convince some well-meaning people of it, I’ve created a myth. From that point of view, it’s hard to argue against the existence of your gland myth. But you’ve failed to define what it is, and more importantly, you’ve failed to present even one tiny shred of truth that it existed before any major religion, much less all of them.
I know spelling seems minor, but we do have a board rule against editing the content in the quote tags. Please don’t do that.
You may excerpt (only quoting a portion of the post), but don’t change any of the words or punctuation in the section you quote.
This is all rather inaccurate. Hermeticism is not Christian; it is another word for “alchemy”. Christian mysticism is not the name of a sect; it is simply a collective name for mysticism which is Christian, which is almost always an individual affair, although I suppose the original Martinists can be classified so. As to the Rosicrucians, although it cannot be doubted that they have some sort of connection to Christianity, I’m not at all sure that they should be called “Christian”.
“Kabala” is a sect of Judaism. It draws it’s dogma from the same scripture as the Christian sects, including the new testament, but with a stronger tie to Judaism.
[/quote]
It is a mystical practice occurring within Judaism. I don’t think you can quite call it a “sect”.
Excuse the hijack, but that is not accurate.
From the Reply to Thread window, you can scroll down to the posts in reverse order. (As I look at it now, yours is the top post.) If you mouseover the body of the post, a post count will appear.
I do appreciate your response.
I also appreciate your contribution and I’m definitely not ignoring your post although I’m mostly lurking.
When I mouseover the posts as you describe, I get the actual post number (as in, your post is #10255686), not the post number in the thread (as in, yours is the 230th post in the thread). The first is useful if you are providing a link to the individual post, but not so much if you are saying something like “In post 150, you said XXXXXX but then in post 173 you said YYYYYYYYYY, which contradicts that.”
I think it is pretty common — and easier than replying from the top of the thread — to simply click the reply button in the post you are replying to.
I sometimes find myself using that button and then simply deleting the text of the post if I don’t want to quote someone; it’s just easier.
If you are going to say that someone admitted to lying, it is far better to include a link to that post rather than to say: in post such-and-such…
If you already started your reply, start over and copy and paste.
This is a thread in which Dopers are claiming that we have higher expectations and it only seems appropriate to avoid laziness. Not to mention using common courtesy in giving people an simple way to read through a five page thread without having to solve a puzzle before they can figure out what you are talking about.
I tried to find the post John was talking about, but because of the time zone difference and the oblique reference, I had no idea what he was referring to. It almost seemed that he was going out of his way to be ambiguous.
BTW— if you type the longer post number into a quote box like this
[quote=“Whomever”]
it will link to that post in the same way as the reply button in the thread.
Not quite. If people act on the beliefs, and if the actions are widespread, then the results are significant whether or not the item believed is true or false. The belief is important if only in scope of impact.
maatorc said:
Given that none of us seem to know what is you mean by “anatomically driven”, it is hard for us to give you examples. Why don’t you give us an example of something being anatomically driven? Not just a repeat of technical terms we don’t understand, but a concrete example of how, say, the sacred anatomy idea you think underlies all legend belief systems applies to feeding the crowd with loaves and 2 fish.
This is mind-numbingly unhelpful. This does not explain anything to those of us who do not already know what you mean. You must be far more explicit than this if you have any hope of us understanding what you mean.
What Does That MEAN!?!?!?!? Technique of the myth? What technique? Drives how? John W. Kennedy said:
Actual quote from referenced post:
There are several ways to interpret that remark. A different way is that if Christianity is “legend-based”, then according to maatorc it ultimately resides on the “occult anatomy” premise. The extermination was against the unorthodox groups.
The description as “lies” is highly loaded. In this case, it may also be inaccurate.
LurkMeister said:
Actually, he did explain “Sacred Marriage” back in post 140. It’s the closest thing to an explanation he’s given yet. When a person reaches mental balance between the “male Pineal” and the “female Pituitary”, this balance is termed “the Sacred Marriage”, presumably as an analogy of the joining between the male and female parts of being. This is supposed to represent some higher state of being.
If I understand what maatorc is saying (and I am not at all certain), he is stating that there is an underlying human condition or premise that is the foundation for all religious beliefs. This underlying premise is the concept of a human ability to achieve transcendence and become a better person - more balanced, spiritually aware, consciousness separate from human body, etc. This premise is often buried under myth constructions that form the various particulars of every religion. Some mystical groups have uncovered/studied the common underpinning and tied into the ultimate truth underneath the overt religious beliefs. Many people are unaware of the underlying root commonality, the cause of all religious beliefs.
Every once in a while he states that the truth or fallacy of the belief is not his point, but rather the existence of this belief and how it manifests in fiction - Dan Brown, the Grail stories, etc.
maatorc said:
It is very difficult to create anything in a vacuum. Nevertheless, I would submit that L. Ron Hubbard did a convincing job a creating myth without referring to previous religious beliefs.
Regardless, the NT writers did not create the New Testament stories out of a vacuum, they drew upon a lot of prior material from Judaism and combined it with other common expectations for a religious figure.
John W. Kennedy said:
What is the definition of “sect” as it applies here?
Thank you, but that post was aimed at maatorc who at that time and since has totally ignored the direct question I asked him but continues to come in and give the same circular responses about occult anatomy. It was a bit of sarcasm since I know full well that maatorc will never answer a direct factual question even if it follows from a post he or she made.
But (most) people don’t act on the beliefs of this supposed myth. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc., may (as alleged) be based on this myth, or they may be based on the intense emotional experiences of certain religious “geniuses” as William James proposed. In neither case is the original inspiration of religions overwhelmingly important knowledge for understanding the current behavior of religious believers or institutions, much less the most important knowledge ever known.
By god, Irishman when YOU explain it, it almost sounds rational. Almost.
Maatorc, is Irishman, correct? If not, where does his explanation differ from your understanding? If so, why couldn’t you have explained it so clearly? Is it because, as I suspect, you believe that we must discover the truth for ourselves by cobbling together your obscure and terse hints rather than having it spoon fed to us by you?
When I say: “The grail legend transmits a myth of occult anatomy in which the grail is an organ in the human head” it means “…in which the grail is an organ in the human head…” is understood to be the case in the knowledge system which is the anatomical myth, whether or not it is actually true in fact.
As to: “IS THE MYTH TRUE OR NOT”?, I am speaking about the existence of the myth and do not presume to speak for its preservers and protectors.
Where does the Grail legend transmit this information? Most scholars appear to disagree with your interpretation. Can you point to some evidence that shows that the people who wrote the legends:
a) knew of the anatomical myth
b) understood it to mean what you think it means
c) intended their recording of the Grail legend to convey or represent this anatomical myth
You could just as easily have said that The grail legend transmits a myth of occult botany in which the grail is an pineapple. Until you provide some evidence of that you’re not presenting any useful information.
All the characters, places, and events in the legend symbolically refer to organs, systems and processes of the human anatomy in the mastership of ‘The Great Work’ in the attainment of the ‘Sacred Marriage’.
Hmph. If that’s the case, I’m done with you. I have no interest in playing guessing games, which belong in a different forum anyway. I assure you you’ll turn more people off than on to your weird ideas this way. It comes across as snide and condescending. If that makes me “unworthy” to join your club of crackpots, it’s your loss. I’ll hang out with folks who don’t insult me.