> cladking Wrote:
> > Animals and the great pyramid builders
> > couldn't afford to "think" the coast was clear
> > they couldn't "think" the coast was clear and
> > couldn't express the concept that in their
> > "opinion" it was "probably" safe to go forth.
> Not only couldn't they afford to "think", they
> wouldn't understand the concept of "thinking".
> They needed no word for "thought" because there is
> no referent for it in a mind using metaphysical
> language as its operating system!
> 1271a. If Thot comes in this his evil coming;
> 1271b. do not open to him thine arms; that which
> is said to him is his name of "thou hast no
> We don't think like ancient people so when we
> "read" their words it all looks like incantation,
> religion, and magic. There were no such things
> and we don't understand because we parse their
> words which can't be parsed and translate a
> language that can't be expressed in our words.
> There are no "maybe's" about this. Egyptologists
> don't think like Egyptians.
Here is the original text from Pepi I's pyramid's corridor from where this particular inscription (part of PT 534) comes from.
[References: "The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts" by James P. Allen, 2005; The Pyramid Texts
Translation by Samuel A. B. Mercer; Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae)
Your thesis based on how you read the Pyramid Texts (Mercer) is that that the ancient Egyptians had no self-awareness allowing them to conceptualize their own process of language expression. You are basically saying that if you cannot objectify yourself, you cannot know your process and that means the language cannot incorporate elements which differentiate between hypotheticals and actuals. Conception equals execution. Modern man, on the other hand (in your thesis that is), has gained such awareness. This allows modern man to "test" ideas without acting on them, believing, hypothesizing, etc. Egyptologists are translating hieroglyphic as if there is a two-step process of conceptualizing and then either acting or not acting...ie as if there is a thought gate.
I think I understand what it is that you are proposing, but you cannot put this thesis to a test the way you are doing it as far as I am concerned. My intent here is not to agree or disagree with you at this stage, because you have not even made your case. I have nothing to go on. Please understand, Cladking, you have not submitted into the record of this forum one piece of acceptable evidence to support your these in my opinion. That certainly does not mean your thesis is wrong. It means that you can propose until the end of days and no reasonable person will be able to agree and so they will default to disagreeing which is what you're seeing on this thread. You have to use the original text and show unequivocal proof that it cannot be parsed, that it only makes sense contextually in our perspective of objectified thinking, that the words must be taken literally in that context, and that they mean what you think they mean....the ka is the pyramid, Co2, reed floats in the sky, etc etc.
A good template for a similar task is what Rolf Krauss had to do to show the astronomical meaning of the texts. Your thesis offers an alternative, from what I gather, that it has to do with the construction of the body of the king, the ka, the pyramid and that is the main theme of the PT's according to you.
With that preamble, a few comments about PT 534
1) This is in the corridor which matters. At this stage the Ka emerges towards the imperishable star zone, which is a difficult message of the PT's to reconcile with the prior direction towards east, the serdap, and the rising sun, the main theme of the late 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Dynasties as it pertains to the known PT's. Jim Allen acknowledges this peculiar departure.
2) The second thing regarding the particular segment you quoted is the context (something that Hans Lune previously mentioned to you not to over-look). This is a set of spells which are made to seal the pyramid...the king's body in your view of things. But why? One way to explain is to guide the Ka to move forward and not back into the pyramid (see below).
3) The third thing is that here you can see how German and English first, and then English to English, secondly, have evolved over time. Sethe's reading amounts to 'if Thoth comes at you the wrong way don't welcome him...rather tell him, who has no mother, to go to Buto'
In Mercer's reading this idea of Pepi's Ka to render a spell "Go to Buto" does not come out.
"That which is said to him" does not capture what Sethe read there. It should say "that which one ought to say to him"...in other words the spell to be uttered in case YOU (Pepi) come across Thoth.
The other thing which is lost is the fact that "thou hast no mother" is being used as an epithet, which is probably the most important part of the entire phrase, because this could be the Heka Spell formulated in such a way as to not be invoked by accident. I do not know if it is, but there is a clue that it might be. Your take might be that "Go to Buto" is mundane and this prompts you to wonder if the translation might be incorrect. But that could be the clue Cladking...."Go to Buto" might not be the real message...the real message might be "thou hast no mother"...or "you who has been barred from his testicles"
4) You are reading "Thoth" as human progress. Krauss is reading Thoth as the Moon. The goal of the ka is to traverse the winding water way which Krauss has proposed to be the ecliptic. Since the Moon can be seen above and below the Zodiacal asterisms, the Moon is the ferryman who shuttles the ka from the Du3t to the imperishable star zone....and so the ka should not go backwards only forwards.
Again, I am interested in seeing some real proof of what you are proposing, but it's always good to know what's actually out there so you know your task. Your task is to look at the hieroglyphic text, ask for help by some of the posters here to see how Thoth can be read as 'a motherless mind' where conception equals expression with no filter to hold it back to ponder, pontificate, hypothesize, opine, propose, etc. A good place to start is to prove that "mwt" mother has anything to do with thinking which you never did. What does Thoth have to do with Progress? What proof did you use to derive that? I hope you know "Thoth" has no meaning in ancient Egypt. His name was "Djehutj". I would start with his actual name to glean any meaning from it.
Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 22-Apr-18 22:04 by Manu.