Ah, but it is the same as a King novel. Do you not think Roland the Gunslinger does not carry the religious-spiritual occult-anatomy based legends with him? The parallels in the story of Roland and his quest for the tower are the same as Gawain (et. al.) and their quest for the grail.
Looking through other King novels it is obvious that many of his protagonists serve to promote religious-spiritual occult-anatomy based legends: The Old Lady in The Stand, The Groundskeeper in The Shining and several others bring the legend of self sacrifice that precludes occult-anatomy and defines the sacred marriage.
Perhaps an alternative approach for maatroc that might be more successful would be to explain his views without using the words ‘legend’ or ‘myth’, and without using hyphenated words.
And just to satisfy my curiosity, maatroc: why don’t you answer Don’t fight the hypothetical’s questions?
Yup, that seals it, you got nothing. You just keep repeating the same mantra like a parrot, with no indication that you know anything about what you are saying. Making factual claims that you refuse to back up is not discussion, it’s witnessing. Not worth my time, for sure.
Asking someone to explain what they’re talking about, define their terms, or provide some evidence that they aren’t just making stuff up is “rhetorical rubbish”?
And what does that have to do with “witnessing”, which is (in this context) the bearing of witness to one’s religious convictions, usually with the intent to convert others to your beliefs.
There’s nothing to derail. You haven’t posted anything that would travel more then 6 inches on a HotWheels track. So far you provided an unsupported theory that appears absurd at first glance, but on second glance is a combination of a bad TV sitcom and Alpha-Bits cereal, and to support this you’ve supplied a few almost coherent clues to stuff that some barely literate person wrote 1000 years after the fact to explain something that they clearly didn’t understand.
Sorry, you’ve got a ways to go before this thread is capable of being derailed.
Seconding NineToTheSky - Why don’t you answer Don’t fight the hypothetical’s questions?
You’ve claim you believe the myth. You claim the myth is true. If this information is ‘totally non-secret and readily available’ just talk about it to us in your own words.
I do not have a theory.
The existence of the one knowledge system behind all the legendary sacred writings has been and is known to millions.
I have simply said it is an anatomical myth.
Every mystical tradition will verify this.
Could you please explain what the ‘one knowledge system behind all the legendary sacred writings’ is.
Could you please specify at least one mystical tradition that will verify that ‘the one knowledge system’ is ‘an anatomical myth.’ In this case, a precise cite would be useful - for clarity’s sake.
Heck, I’d be happy enough to get an explanation of what a ‘knowledge system’ is supposed to be – seems to me you either know something (i.e. believe in something true), or you don’t; I fail to see how systematics enters the issue.
True. This harks back to my previous post where I suggested that maatorc’s explanations would be better if hyphenated phrases weren’t used. ‘Knowledge system’ is really a hypnenated phrase without the hyphen. I’ve often found that people with non-mainstream views (I’m choosing my words carefully here) tend to use expressions that are not mainstream. 'Knowledge (-) system is one of those phrases that at first glance could - or might - mean something, but on closer examination is composed of two words that were never really meant to be used together.
Of course, maatorc, if you think I’m wrong, please put me straight.
