A response to Monochromatic Knight’s article
So, the battle commences once again.
I can very happily inform you, Monochromatic Knight, that I enjoy reading your stuff just as much as you seem to enjoy reading mine. As I said before, the quality of your writing has improved tremendously over the months, and your brain is just twisted and fucked-up enough to be one of the great world wonders.
Da Vinci Code
As far as I remember the Da Vinci Code claimed that Jesus existed in human form – in other words he was a great teacher, if only human. The claim was not that he may not have existed, or that he was a tool to bring forth a certain philosphy, or particular ideas. Most historians will tell you that Jesus may have lived and breathed on planet Earth, but since when are they always right? As far as I see, this particular issue will not be resolved until we invent time travel (something which I probably won’t live to see). Dan Brown’s ideas on this were relevant, if a bit one-sided.
I am afraid that you are the one who took the crooked approach to the question of the Church and the sacred feminine. Sacred feminine went on the decline quite naturally and way way before the formation of the Christian church (thousands of years actually), Islam, Buddhism, even the Hindu belief-system, which is believed to be the oldest of them all were and are all anti-female (if giving a different role to women than to men, one which may seem inferior, is seen as being anti-female). If you look closely you’ll see that ALL societies give a ‘lesser’ role to the female, Christian church is one of many, not the first one, not the strongest one either. This is not a conspiracy, this is history. I say that the Christian church followed a trend here, a trend that was inherent in the state of society at the time (a time of thousands and thousands of years). Look at the way that women have been, and are, trated in the many different cultures, religions, and parts of the world. I double dare you. So did the Church have a hand in the decline of the sacred feminine? But of course, the Church was also pragmatic – this was not a conscious effort to change the world, this was a cultural, nay world trend. A trend, that is coming to a very slow end only now.
Not to mention that the aeon of Isis was not as you picture it. Here you will need to read a little bit of history, archeology and anthropology to come to an answer (actual rather than alternative). The times of so-called equality never existed and the male-dominated era came naturally. As it is slowly fading now – also naturally. And it is fading as religion fades, no way less. It is only fair and logical to praise and worship the female, it is rather foolish to believe in false history. The only place with a female-dominated society in the modern world were certain parts of Papua New Guinea, when they came across the modern world (or rather the other way around), the males took control.
Yes, the Knights Templar existed. Yes, they dabbled in the obscure and the occult. Yes, there are numerous myths about them. But it is impossible to find the truth about any of that simply due to lack of any evidence. The Templars were somehow informed of the plan to murder them and destroyed most of the information about them, the rest was destroyed by the Church and the Inquisition. They were accused of devil worship and worse, which made them quite popular in the human subconscious (people crave what they fear and loathe – look at our news channels), which in turn gave birth to many of the myths about them. There are so many rumours about the Templars that I could sit here for a year writing them down. One of the more common ones is that they formed the Freemasons (many Templars fled to Britain) – this is another myth that most believe to be absolutely untrue. So, if an author wants some credibility, please please do not write ‘facts’ about the Templars.
To sum up, I do not think that Dan Brown is capable of giving any deeper purpose to his literature. The reason for him repeating himself on numerous occassions (in the style that he writes in, the structure, the plot, and the main actors) is simply that he does not know how to write differently, he rather follows the already proven system. That is what makes him a bad and unimaginative writer (if indeed, an ingenious one at the same time due to his success). I am afraid that Dan Brown has given birth to a false ideal, he has sent humanity on a lame crusade for a non-existent artifact. People following his ideology will not arise as the intellectually superior, they will rather break a leg or two on the journey and come back home limping.
Of course, I may be wrong. I may sound like the most arrogant writer in town (and in front of a keyboard it is easy to be one) but I do understand that everything I ever wrote in my life is my subjective view of the world, which has nothing in common with the objective. I dislike authors or writers who fail to see the same truth.