Reply to f. silvestris, mostly friendly
It is meet that you not accept that I ‘have some revelation’ to pass on, until or unless you actually see it. Your seeming to stress the obvious here suggests a hostility generated no doubt by my awkward intro, done in the spirit of trying to be honest and up front yet ignoring how common it is for claims to turn out to be hollow boasts: my apologies. It’s just that I get a kick out of TdM and out of explaining some of the amazing things I have discovered about its structure and the relations of that structure to physics, the periodic table, poetic symbolism based on solar year and bardic calendar, the phonetic structure that binds it all together, and so on, the more scientific aspects probably lying beyond the ken of tarot’s originators yet contained in the structure of the system of letter-numbers they were preserving, put there in a VERY distant past when knowledge of nature at least comparable to our own (to be generous to ours) still remained (from whatever height the last civilization reached before its destruction, this being the most controversial aspect of what I contend and therefore requiring the most solid proof). Phonetic coherence is utterly lacking in the schemes of the occultists, and the bardic layout corrects this and goes on to include chemical (valence), particle-physics (spin and charge), and psychological coherence as well.
If details I can demonstrate of a profound science embodied in tarot (coupled with consistent overall structure) are facts not generally known, then they would indeed constitute a revelation would they not, even should you happen to be predisposed not to give it credence?
What one offers is only revelation if it is not known to someone (or not known generally) and if it holds up to scrutiny. Duh. I certainly have no desire to contend with anyone in anything but honest debate, and if I am demonstrated wrong in something, I will be the first to want to know. Attacks on the substance of what I say, though, you will find draw more ‘blood’ in that ultimate struggle, our mutual search for truth, than attacks on my awkward manner of expression, though I can appreciate valid criticisms in this area too. Thank you?
The bottom line, from your point of view, is that you say ‘it’s not, to the best of [your] knowledge, demonstrable’ rather dismissively BEFORE asking me if I can demonstrate ‘it’ (not that I would want to have the burden of trying to demonstrate the palpable falsehoods of the occultists). Starting a thread or threads outlining the bardo-Qabbalistic system built into TdM is daunting, considering the scope of the subject: I wrote an unpublished (as yet) treatise on just the basics and it came to about 750 pages double-spaced. But I will try to compartmentalize it somewhat and make a stab, as it sure beats killing other people’s threads, which is all I seem to have accomplished with most of my posts (I’m really NOT out to cause harm, only to enlighten and be enlightened).
I assure you I am not an occultist and base my correlations on the numeration of letters in Irish and Welsh bardic tradition, not on speculation. And I appreciate correct use of commas: my compliments.