The Grail

[Gary_Robson]

@maatorc

The fact that all religions are derivatives of the myth does not mean their adherents know anything of the myth.

(1) That’s not a fact. It’s an unproven assertion of yours. Unless you define “the myth,” it can’t be proven. From the little you’ve said, though, I fail to see how “all” religions could be a derivative of your “mind/body duality” myth.

(2) If nobody knows about it, then it’s not really a myth, is it?

(3) If it was invented recently to explain and/or codify old myths and legends, then it isn’t a myth, either.

[maatorc]

@Exapno_Mapcase

Here are your actual words:
You did not limit yourself to Jesus and Horus. (Never mind that many of the myths in the Old and New Testaments were copied from older mythic narratives. There is no coincidence or underlying hidden meaning when one tradition simply adopts and adapts another.)
Your claims completely fall apart when you try to extend a known continuity to other independent traditions throughout time and space.
Nobody doubts that the western tradition is the western tradition. Scholars have long known that the cultures were interlinked.
Dragging in fiction writers and cult cranks, people who have nothing more than good imaginations and the overriding human ability of creating patterns from series of random dots, does not add to what scholars have already established.
By coincidence, I have been reading Mathematical Cranks by Underwood Dudley. Although he limits his study to those who try to put their own meanings on mathematics it is instantly clear how incredibly well your writing matches theirs. One sees the same insistence on rightness, the same blind pattern-making, the same refusal to impart all needed background, the same dismissal of conventional authority, the same abbreviated and dogmatic fragments masquerading as argument, the same recursive prose that simply iterates one point over and over no matter what the question asked.
Dudley also quotes correspondence between him and other professors of mathematics and the cranks themselves, which also eerily parallels your dodging of fact and citation.
It is an instructive read for everyone who wants to look at the psychology of crankdom. It’s perfectly readable without any knowledge of math, since those parts can be omitted to concentrate on the background writing. I took my copy out from the library so it is still generally available although written in the 1990s.
No crank ever acknowledges the similarity between them and all other cranks, so I can’t imagine what you would make of the book. As a study of the species, however, I recommend it to others.

Are you by chance looking in a mirror?

[maatorc]

@Irishman

maatorc said:

Quote:
There is one-only knowledge-system-myth of human perfectibility that underlies ALL religions without exception.

You appear to be talking about the concept of mind-body duality, the belief in the existence of a soul, the spiritual nature of humanity as separate from the physical nature.
You are saying that all mythologies and religions are connected by an underlying mythology or story, as exhibited by the fact that they all rely on the same assumption or belief, of a spiritual self.
Then you make reference to “occult anatomy” which is not explained, and “sacred marriage” which again is not explained.
Does occult anatomy mean a supposed “body” of the spiritual self that is separate from the physical body? What is a “sacred marriage”, and why is it represented by the pineal gland? Marriage of what? Sacred how?
There is a widespread belief in a concept of a soul. There is apparently a smaller group that belief that all mythologies are representations or manifestations of an underlying principle, and are thus all connected. I think we can all agree that those people exist. That is not at issue. The issue is trying to understand what the belief structure says. What is this thing that you say these people believe? We have not heard of it before, and you are doing a lousy job of explaining.
We are not reading the ‘Comte de Gabalis’ commentaries. We are participating in an online conversation. Most of us have not read and do not have time/inclination to read such an extensive book merely to be able to discuss the concept. Please take the time to explain the terms so that we can have a coherent conversation.
You are correct that there are a lot of people who believe the events of the New Testament are actual history. You are also correct that a number of authors treat the Grail mythology (whatever muddled form they want) as actual history in order to tell a story. Does that mean these authors believe the Grail mythology is real? Are they aware of the origin as explained by cecil?
You claim that you don’t care if we belief in the truth or falseness of the “occult anatomy” concept. But you clearly state as fact three things.

1. In this statement, you are saying that there is widespread and readily available literature that explain that the “Grail” represents one thing. That is debatable, since most of the people here are totally unfamiliar with the concept. But the unabiguous truth claim is the last sentence that remains unintelligible by the use of context-specific terminology that no one here but you knows.
   2.Again, a truth claim by you, but again it is unevaluable by us because the phrasing is unique and you do not clarify your meaning. “A myth of human perfectibility” - what does this mean?
   3.The third truth claim is that Leonardo’s “The Last Supper” depicts some esoteric concept. What esoteric concept is again unclear. The implication is that Leonardo was intending this meaning. Without understanding what concept you mean, we are unable to evaluate the claim.
   We can not agree with you if we do not understand what you mean by this “myth of occult anatomy”. Do you mean the concept of a non-physical identity, a soul that transcends death and can function through astral projection?
   If you are not willing to explain yourself, then what is the point of this thread?

The one-only knowledge-system-myth of human perfectibility is the technique or method of perfectibility called ‘The Great Work’.

[John_W.Kennedy]

@maatorc

Are you by chance looking in a mirror?

If you have nothing better to do than paraphrase Bart Simpson (“I know you are but what am I?”), I’d say this thread, which was never of much use, has now passed completely into the outer darkness. I leave you with these words from “The Fairie Queene”

Therewith she spewd out of her filthy maw
A floud of poyson horrible and blacke,
Full of great lumpes of flesh and gobbets raw,
Which stunck so vildly, that it forst him slacke
His grasping hold, and from her turne him backe:
Her vomit full of bookes and papers was,
With loathly frogs and toades, which eyes did lacke,
And creeping sought way in the weedy gras:
Her filthy parbreake all the place defiled has.

[maatorc]

@John_W.Kennedy

Therewith she spewd out of her filthy maw
A floud of poyson horrible and blacke,
Full of great lumpes of flesh and gobbets raw,
Which stunck so vildly, that it forst him slacke
His grasping hold, and from her turne him backe:
Her vomit full of bookes and papers was,
With loathly frogs and toades, which eyes did lacke,
And creeping sought way in the weedy gras:
Her filthy parbreake all the place defiled has.

Is this what you do all the time?

[Alan_Smithee]

@maatorc

The one-only knowledge-system-myth of human perfectibility is the technique or method of perfectibility called ‘The Great Work’.

Which of Irishman’s questions were you responding to here? It doesn’t seem to address any of them. And what about all the other questions he asked. What about all the questions I asked that you never answered? What is the sacred marriage? What is the third ventricle? What is a mental body? What organ is the grail a symbol of–the pituitary? Why? What does the pituitary gland do? (I suppose I could look that one up, but what does it have to do with the grail or human perfectibility - whatever that means?)

[nd_n8]

@maatorc

The one-only knowledge-system-myth of human perfectibility is the technique or method of perfectibility called ‘The Great Work’.

It sounds to me like you are taking fictional literature and classical art a little too seriously and trying to apply principals of Comparitive Mythologyto works that, quite frankly, don’t really deserve that much credit.

The term Monomyth has fallen out of use and been replaced by the more academic, scientific, falsifiable and realistic practices of comparison and contrast.

And your double-speak reeks of Dianetics, are you a Scientologist or something?

[Baldwin]

@maatorc

Is this what you do all the time?

Vainly attempt to have logical discussions with people who make incoherent, pseudointellectual, semiliterate statements and then refuse to either explain what they mean or provide any sort of actual evidence for any of their assertions?

Sometimes it feels that way.

(My God, how did Spenser write thousands of those stanzas?)

[Alan_Smithee]

@nd_n8

And your double-speak reeks of Dianetics, are you a Scientologist or something?

Oh yeah? Now I’m really intrigued! I’m familiar with Xenu and a lot of the stuff from Operation Clambake, but nothing that reminds of this “occult anatomy” stuff. What’s pinging your meter?

ETA: I really do wish he’d explain himself better. I love a good crackpot, but this guy’s not even trying. Anyone remember the guy with delusional parasititis? Now that was quality crackpotmanship!

[maatorc]

Quote:
Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
The one-only knowledge-system-myth of human perfectibility is the technique or method of perfectibility called ‘The Great Work’.

@Alan_Smithee

Which of Irishman’s questions were you responding to here? It doesn’t seem to address any of them. And what about all the other questions he asked. What about all the questions I asked that you never answered? What is the sacred marriage? What is the third ventricle? What is a mental body? What organ is the grail a symbol of–the pituitary? Why? What does the pituitary gland do? (I suppose I could look that one up, but what does it have to do with the grail or human perfectibility - whatever that means?)

The ‘Sacred Marriage’ is the purpose and completion of ‘The Great Work’: The auto-dynamical balance of energy in the human systems in the perfection of the mental body, said to be attained by a special functional balance between tne Pituitary gland and the pineal ganglia in the third ventricle.

[Alan_Smithee]

@maatorc

The ‘Sacred Marriage’ is the purpose and completion of ‘The Great Work’: The auto-dynamical balance of energy in the human systems in the perfection of the mental body.

Well for crying out loud, why didn’t you just say so before?

[maatorc]

@Alan_Smithee

Well for crying out loud, why didn’t you just say so before?

No pain - no gain!

[Telemark]

@maatorc

There is one-only knowledge-system-myth of human perfectibility that underlies ALL religions without exception.

It’s like attempting to have a discussion with a bottle of Dr Bronner’s soap.

[Alan_Smithee]

@maatorc

No pain - no gain!

Now that we’ve finally gotten that straightened out, will you please, pretty please, tell me what the third ventricle is and what role it plays?

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@John_W.Kennedy

If you have nothing better to do than paraphrase Bart Simpson (“I know you are but what am I?”),

I believe that was the considerably more three-dimensional Pee Wee Herman.

@nd_n8

And your double-speak reeks of Dianetics, are you a Scientologist or something?

Good heavens, no. I already quoted Blavatsky, whose brand of pseudogibberish predates Hubbard, although it may have inspired him.

Throughout her career she claimed to have demonstrated physical and mental psychic feats which included levitation, clairvoyance, out-of-body projection, telepathy, and clairaudience. Another claim of hers was materialization, that is, producing physical objects out of nothing, though in general, her interests were more in the area of ‘theory’ and ‘laws’ rather than demonstration.

Her magnum opus is The Secret Doctrine.

The Secret Doctrine, the Synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy, a book originally published as two volumes in 1888, is Helena P. Blavatsky’s magnum opus. The first volume is named Cosmogenesis, the second Anthropogenesis. It was an influential example of the revival of interest in esoteric and occult ideas in the modern age, in particular because of its claim to reconcile ancient eastern wisdom with modern science.

Blavatsky claimed that its contents had been revealed to her by ‘mahatmas’ who had retained knowledge of mankind’s spiritual history, knowledge that it was now possible, in part, to reveal.

This is one of the ur-texts of modern New Age gibble-gabble, though it mostly forgotten now, along with her Theosophical Society, which in its day was as recognizable as Scientology today. Which gives one hope for the future, in a way.

Now I’m sure that maatorc will deny the Blavatsky heritage, as if Manly Hall’s work, which he does explicitly acknowledge, wasn’t made possible by the existence of her nonsense. To be sure, Hall lulled us nonthinkers by by naming his organization the unrecognizably different Philosophical Research Society. (As Corey Ford once said of his John Riddell pseudonym, it resulted from a clever rearrangement of the letters in his name.)

Martin Gardner’s classic book, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, written way back in 1952 when these movements had not yet faded away or transmuted, gives a good account of how Blavatsky’s notions have permeated the crank literature since her time. There’s a huge debunking literature on this, written by people with stronger stomachs than mine, so they are able to persevere through the impenetrable and digest the insufferable.

[maatorc]

@Exapno_Mapcase

…Good heavens, no. I already quoted Blavatsky, whose brand of pseudogibberish predates Hubbard, although it may have inspired him.

She is one of thousands who wrote around the myth: While she is gone the myth is still here, the inner school still operates, and will stay.

[Alan_Smithee]

@Exapno_Mapcase

There’s a huge debunking literature on this, written by people with stronger stomachs than mine, so they are able to persevere through the impenetrable and digest the insufferable.

Well your stomach is stronger than mine, and I’m grateful. If it weren’t for you this whole thread would have been a wash. I’m confident that all your glands must be freakishly huge and that you will someday be reincarnated in a cosmic plane free of ignorance.

[maatorc]

@Alan_Smithee

Well your stomach is stronger than mine, and I’m grateful. If it weren’t for you this whole thread would have been a wash. I’m confident that all your glands must be freakishly huge and that you will someday be reincarnated in a cosmic plane free of ignorance.

He is only referring to writings that refer to writings referring to the myth!

[Alan_Smithee]

@maatorc

He is only referring to writings that refer to writings referring to the myth!

And yet from him I’ve gathered at least some sense of what the myth is, who have written about it, and what their belief systems were. From you I haven’t learned a damn thing because you refuse to explain yourself. He may quote second or third hand sources, but he quotes them at length, links to them, and provides background and context. That’s much more helpful to a discussion than cryptic and elliptical references to allegedly original sources that I can’t read.

[maatorc]

@Alan_Smithee

Now that we’ve finally gotten that straightened out, will you please, pretty please, tell me what the third ventricle is and what role it plays?

The third ventricle, as one of several in the brain, lies between the Pituitary gland and the Pineal ganglia.
In the myth the Pituitary is characterized as ‘female’ and the Pineal as ‘male’.
If a certain functional balance is attained between them they are said in the myth to react to each other, which reaction is said to result in a condition in the third ventricle which in its conscious realization is characterized as the ‘Sacred Marriage’.

As to -

And yet from him I’ve gathered at least some sense of what the myth is, who have written about it, and what their belief systems were. From you I haven’t learned a damn thing because you refuse to explain yourself. He may quote second or third hand sources, but he quotes them at length, links to them, and provides background and context. That’s much more helpful to a discussion than cryptic and elliptical references to allegedly original sources that I can’t read.

I am not the least offended.
The myth is the most important knowledge in the world.
It is easy to trivialize it by claiming to know all about it, which I do not presume to do.
I am happy to but point in its direction.