> But we can see much of what they saw.
Nonsense. We each see only what we expect. We expect they were religious, superstitious, and ignorant so everything we see reflects that. We simply adjust what we see to reflect our beliefs. If there is precision, anomaly, and anachronisms we simply don't see them. So of course you never noticed that words like "symbolism" and all other abstractions didn't exist. You simply refuse to acknowledge that any "symbolism" in ancient times is supported ONLY BY MODERN INTERPRETATIONS. No one will respond on topic to this paragraph because it is a fact. Sure, an Egyptologist could talk about words that appear to be "abstraction" but he could not show that this "appearance" had its roots in ancient Egypt instead of modern interpretation.
> I was talking about what they saw, not what they
> said. As you like to point out endlessly, we do
> not have as much of their written word to work
> with, as you would like.
We have a many thousand word corpus that you interpret to be religion and magic. Egyptologists refer to these rituals as "spells" or "incantations". These are many many thousands of words but they don't include any words for 'thought" or "belief". They don't include words like "symbols" or "symbolism" because thee are abstractions that require thought.
Why is it that Egyptology writes off almost all the physical and cultural evidence and then complains that there isn't much to go on? Meanwhile they won't systematically apply modern knowledge and technology to answering these questions. We have ample knowledge to reverse engineer the pyramid. We probably could even reverse engineer the language with a little effort since it is apparently mathematical in nature.
> We can see the Demonstrative aspect of large
> constructs, as they could could.
I don't know what "Demonstrative aspect" means but if you are suggesting the pyramid represents something(s), the D'uh. Of course it represents something; no doubt dozen and dozens of things. But we'll never solve any of them until we solve their math and learn the real meaning of what they said. We'll never know the first thing about the builders so long as we see them through modern eyes. We must see them through their own eyes and their own "beliefs' to understand them.
I believe this won't be nearly so hard as it seems to you.
> that is but one example of symbolism. It is an
> inescapable aspect of Human Nature.
It is OUR nature.
> YOU have NO GROUNDS for saying they did not have
> basic human emotions.
Of course they had emotions. They were very very very very alive and each were very very in touch with their emotions. They had many words for 'love", "friendship", "grief" etc etc etc etc. They did NOT HAVE ANY WORDS for "thought" or "belief" and logically they had neither thought nor belief. They operated and saw the world in terms of their KNOWLEDGE not their beliefs. This is why they had words like "knowledge", "perception" and "understanding but not words for BELIEF.