> You keep on with the ‘King as pyramid’ and
> with what you offer so far there are definitely
> hints at the pyramid as being a representation of
> a being that is manifested from ‘earth/Earth’,
> constructed such so that it allows a higher
> application of a being whom invests themselves
> into the construction as though it were a greater
> representation of themselves
>...being a person with
> ‘normal’ capabilities and the potential of
> accessing higher capabilities because the pyramid
> is constructed so perfectly...so properly...so
> thoughtfully, and also so representatively.
> I say ‘normal’ capabilities because we are all
> built the same for the most part but either a
> little genetics or a little focus brings out the
> better select-parts of us, so that some excel in
> some areas, just like Olympians or professional
> sports-folk excel in their fields. If I extend
> this to the Pope of the Catholic Church, then we
> understand that real aptitude or learning leads
> one to attain a position of not power but
> understanding of what it is that the focus is
> about and the person is about and the highest
> position one can attain in their ‘chosen’
> field...(I say chosen there because it also is
> that one is built for something rather than
> trained in it.)
> The king as pyramid seems to be about-face: the
> pyramid as king seems to be better.
The king is the pyramid or the pyramid is the king is a distinction that couldn't exist to the ancient mind. They didn't even do math like we do because they knew there were no two identical things to add or subtract.
I have no "problem" with your interpretation that the pyramid is the king so long as their "names" are the same.
> I think the pyramid is a prosthetic to enhance
> what a capable person can use to open up their own
> potential in achieving a certain level of
> existence in harnessing nature’s powers which
> enables the ‘king’ to enable not just his
> people but also Earth to better them selves
> against living conditions upon Earth that have
> come before...and more than that. The pyramid is a
> model of certain things that man can use because
> it is man, and Earth, and more.
I have to doubt the builders could see it in these terms, but what do I know. This is literally true since in a very real way the pyramid/ king did in fact harness powers at least to build itself. The degree to which all things were one and a part of the whole for animals and pyramid builders might startle even me. Obviously ancient people still had a body/ mind and knew much more about this than we. We have things like "placebo effect" but there's no reason to suppose they couldn't be "empowered" by rituals, ceremonies, or pyramids through some sort of connection with the self despite their lack of beliefs. With no beliefs perhaps "placebos" worked on their amygdala or lower brain functions. We know nothing about the brain to dismiss anything plausible is presumptuous. I know nothing about their grammar or how their sentences were composed so dismissing any sort of meaning that is in agreement with my understanding is poor methodology.
One of few things that seem certain though is that they had no beliefs or superstitions. This is proven by the lack of the "infrastructure of nonsense"; vocabulary to reflect the unreal. So long as an hypothesis doesn't imply they had beliefs then it might be real.
They said the king became the pyramid but obviously these are two very different things so at some point it follows the pyramid became the king as well. But don't lose sight of the fact that perspective and context were defined in every sentence and neither the king is the pyramid nor the pyramid is the king from every perspective. They built the pyramid for many reasons but that it became the king was one of the chief reasons so this is a common perspective. It is so common in the Pyramid Texts because to them the PT would have been known as the "Rituals of Akhification". They were the ritual read to the crowds when the king became the pyramid so, of course, this is such a common perspective here. Egyptology extrapolated this perspective to mean they were superstitious bumpkins and then never noticed they kept saying straight out that the king is the pyramid!
I don't know. This will require not only a proper "translation" but decades of study in multiple fields to know.