> I think you and I mean the same when we say three
> dimensional. I get what you're saying. You're
> saying a Rubrik's cube is a riddle in three
> dimensions and as soon as you look at the pieces
> one by one you lost the riddle. The riddle is how
> the cublets are linked.
You have the right idea but let me elaborate a little anyway.
The rubriks cube is an inspired metaphor what I'm talking about here. When you read this sentence you must assign a meaning to each word as you're reading it. You must eliminate alternative definitions and homophones. You must seek author intent in each word as you read or hear modern language. THIS is exactly what we learn in order to speak and understand modern language. We must parse every word. We do this through habit and training so we do it listening to animals and we do it with the Pyramid Texts. Other languages don't work this way so when we try to solve the ancient language we are not really seeing even a single side of Rubrik's cube but rather we are just seeing an arrangement of changing colors akin to a kaleidoscope. We can't predict what changes will occur through twisting the handle(s) without seeing all the sides or taking it apart.
Rather every utterance in metaphysical language can only stand on its own and complete. Each and every word has only a single meaning and they never directly said what they meant. Rather the meaning was the arrangement of colors. And then everything resolved into a solved cube.
If they said "shu embraces all things" then this wasn't a statement in terms we think of as "statement"; it was empirical observation that all things are affected by shu on the level in which the apparent statement was made. It was a means of suggesting context (things have momentum) or was the state of that which was under consideration dependent on the choice of words.
I suppose this is less understandable more than more understandable.
Perhaps it should suffice to say that we think linearly. If we didn't we could never follow a sentence in real time. Sentences can become exceedingly complex and without following each word as it appears we'll quickly lose the thread of the speaker. We tend to always assume we have parsed a sentence exactly as its author intended but, obviously, this is not always the case and in my experience, it is virtually never the case. So we reason logically as we understand reality. We "follow a train of thought" and then we might seek words to convey this thought to others and trust they'll deconstruct the sentence as we intended.
Ancient Language and all animal languages simply don't work this way. When a child is two he forms numerous connections throughout the brain. In Ancient Language speakers all these connections were required to manipulate their rubiks cube of a language but modern language speakers merely use those connections which are reinforced in that individual. We were all born capable of learning Ancient Language and we were wired for exactly this. But we each had to unlearn this in order to speak modern languages. We are not only trained to communicate this way but we are forced by the nature of thought to think this same way. We think linearly in one dimension (we all get off that track a lot). We see our own training and our own beliefs. But it was far different for ancient people because they thought and spoke three dimensionally using their brains three dimensionally and their language three dimensionally. They literally had their entire knowledge base right t the tip of their tongue. They applied all known theory to every observation and every single utterance.
The Pyramid Texts is just a silly little book of ritual written in a very different type of language; a language spoken by prairie dogs and every other life form. It is a language which confers survival to the individual. It is the very formatting used by individuals to organize all knowledge and all theory. It lies at the heart of the waggle dance and every one of Einstein's equations. But it has nothing to do with modern language whatsoever.