Actually, I keep wanting to sketch out a theory of mine. No, I should say theory, maybe hypothesis is more appropriate here.
I brought up previously that urban legends are a category of folklore. The largest difference between urban legends and folklore stories circulated in the countryside originates from the rapid circulation of information, as this occurs in “urban” envirnonments. This is why there are quite a lot of schools, hospitals, libraries, and hotels in urban legends, since these are things which you have in every city.
You can see structural similarities regarding “urban cities,” in that sense, but what about regarding “legends”? Namely, with the increasing spread of information, whether through the media or the Internet, this leads to similar stories being grouped together.
Yet I should also point out, the “structural similarities” between cities is not only with regard to schools, hospitals, which are structures replicated and duplicated throughout urban environments, since you see many of them in cities. For example, you see police stations everywhere in cities as well, but there aren’t too many urban legends about them. What’s the difference there?
I cannot help but think, is t1here some kind of structure which makes it easier for urban legends to leave behind traces? Which is to say, although cities all have structural similarities, is it there is some kind of innate contradiction, disparity, or oddity which leads to the manifestation of urban legends? Where does that contradiction come from? Why is it easier for some places to leave behind urban legends and not others?
Is it that some contradictions aren’t simply contingent, but originate from “fundamental” contradictions? Which is to say that some structures are innately places in which urban legends may appear; that they are already inherently different than other places and this is what determines their being different.
That some places can become “territories” for urban legends and other places cannot.
Is this a possibility?
Of course, this is just wild speculation on my part, a crazy fantasy I have no way of proving. But if there really is this sort of fundamental, innate contradiction, it may be that before a “hospital” can become a “hospital” it already holds the possibility for it to contain urban legends related to hospitals. I believe that we can call this the “Meta-Hospital” Of course, it’s not just hospitals, there are also schools. So why don’t I just call this the “Meta-Territory”!
That is, the structure which comes to be built there must correspond to the Meta-Territory. A hospital contains a “Meta-Hospital,” a school contains a “Meta-School.” Before a school is even built, it is already linked to the “Meta-School”, leading to the manifestation of urban legends in that place. Whether urban legends will “adhere” to a school or not has nothing to do with time or location, it has to do with structure.
The “Meta-Territory” is what ensures that urban legends may come to reside in the same structure. Now, of course I’m not saying that it’s because the Meta-Territory exists that there come to be urban legends (then that would be like a Plato’s ideal world).
After all, if there was no physical substance to the world, we wouldn’t develop abstractions such as “structure” or “concept”. This is the origins of how humanity would give rise to a “Meta-Territory”. Yet this expresses that the Meta-Territory is a product of human intentionality. Fundamentally speaking, the Meta-Territory completely exceeds human understanding, and is something beyond human expectation. Or this may express that the Meta-Territory is even more unimaginable than my understanding of it, and exceeds even the parameters of this theory of mine.
Regardless of what the reality of it is, this is probably impossible to prove or disprove.