> I guess what we are missing here is a
> comprehensive expose' of your theory which shows
> your process from beginning to end. What trickles
> trough on this thread are just pieces I'm trying
> to stitch together to figure out what you're
> saying. I can tell you though that in this one
> example, the confusion between an instruction to
> issue a command to the god Thoth and an
> instruction to let Thoth go to certain places is
> not a nuance.
Since I'm not certain of the overall meaning of this utterance it is not a very good example to show the process I've used to solve meaning and explain how they needed almost no words, and no words of superstition. There's a great deal I know about the meaning of the utterance and why it was written but I can narrow the main "point" down to only a few things.
Suffice to say that utt 534 was (like all utterances in the PT) a ritual read at a ceremony. The specific ceremony was when they committed to building the ka of the king immediately before he was "akhified" and become everything. His heart had been "used" to calibrate the lifting equipment and found to not be heavy or light. The words are a sort of "blessing" for the workers that none be injured or killed (or even have their noses assaulted) in the construction.
> The issuance of a spell is the
> basis, to a large part at least, of the Pyramid
> Texts' function according to the paradigm you
> claim is in error.
There are no "spells". Saying words of ritual to express the deep desire that no men are hurt in the construction is not a "spell". It is the perspective expressed to the workers to keep alert.
> As to your theory, you say it
> is internally consistent and correctly predicts
> meanings the current reading cannot account for.
Yes. And this is one of the biggest things to suggest it is correct but it also is correctly predicting events, news, discoveries, and conditions (like the thermal anomaly).
> am pretty sure that most hieroglyphic experts
> would agree with you on the latter; that not all
> is accounted for by the current process. As to
> your theory, the two criteria you bring up,
> internal consistency* and correct predictions are
> indeed crucial litmus tests, but you have not
> externally verified the process by which one
> arrives at your theory.
I've merely solved words in context. We all do this all the time when we encounter a word we don't know. We simply observe how it is used in a sentence and then deduce its meaning. It doesn't really matter what the dictionary says it means anyway because to the speaker it means how he uses it in a sentence. If he uses it incorrectly you can see this whether you know the meaning or not, given sufficient data.
There is sufficient data to solve the PT. All anyone needs to do is compare all the context for a word and determine what concept fits in every context. I jot down notes for each usage of the word and the meaning often just jumps out at me. Other times are more complex. Just remember whatever concept you want to substitute for a given word must fit in every case. More importantly it must also be consistent with known science. If you have one sentence suggesting water runs uphill then one or more of the words are wrong. Every animal knows water runs downhill. It's in the wiring.
I had to make literally hundreds of thousands of different types of searches to discover this. Obviously it couldn't be done without a computer. By the time Newton or Petrie got a response to the letters they sent off to experts they'd have forgotten why they asked the questions at all. It would have taken the postal systems many lifetimes to solve the PT because many questions were contingent upon the answers to the last. Even as recently as 1990 this was likely impossible.
> You must be able to prove
> that your process works to allow others to
> recapitulate your rationale and you are not able
> to do it since you're skirting the issue.
I don't think there's any question that word meaning can be solved in context. If there's any relationship between the original words and the translation whatsoever then this should work.
It's what we all do all the time anyway since it is part of deconstructing sentences that originated in modern language. The only real difference is that the Ancient Language wasn't deconstructed by ancient people. The language was different.
> What you
> need is to be able to explain the process to
> another person and then give them the symbols to
> interpret and have them reach the same reading as
> you have.
The easiest word to crack and the very first word of the scientific class of words that I solved was "shu". "Shu" means "upward". Or a closer approximation would be the "natural phenomenon of inertia". It can't really be translated into English without using all English words to do it but to understand the PT the best bet is "upward".
This is what "shu" means everywhere it's used in the PT.
The mnost important word to solving the meaning and one I luckily got fairly early was "I3.t-wt.t" which is another word in the scientific class of words that means CO2. The word literally meant "risings begetter" because it caused cake to rise, foam to rise on beer, and osiris to rise on the Giza Plateau (water to spray).
> In that respect, Egyptologists have one
> up on you. They have explained the
> process and any student of it can sit down with
> symbols and translate them.
They certainly have some big advantages and they really do understand most Egyptian writing. But the PT is the oldest and they do not understand it as proven by the fact that there's no agreement on meaning and there's no resolution to word origins and meanings.
> *internal consistency. Even if your theory is
> internally consistent you did not make it so by
> reproducible experiments.
It really is reproducible.
> Your internal
> consistency is a product of your interpretation
> and so you must be able to deflect the charge that
> you inadvertently due to observer bias made it
> consistent at will as opposed to it falling into
> place consistently on its own.
It is the PT that is internally consistent!!!
"Shu" always means "upward" and "shu" is always used correctly in sentences. The usage of the word is consistent with every concept in the PT and with the laws of nature.
> For example, if
> your over-riding theory is that the PT are a
> gateway to how the pyramids were made then is your
> interpretation of CO2 from the word ascension
> let's say a result of independent observations in
> the texts all of which point to it or it the
> result of a self-fulling prophecy where you
> exclude other possibilities which could also fit
> per se' but falsify your theory. That's why you
> need to prove that your process works so that
> others can walk down the same path you proposed to
> have paved.
I can't exclude other possibilities. I can only show that the PT is consistent with itself and with ALL of the physical evidence.
Of course I reverse engineered or "determined the reason of each part of the physical evidence" in conjunction with solving the meaning of the PT so there is necessarily a correspondence between the evidence and the rituals just as there is necessarily a correspondence in the PT. This is the very nature of confirmation bias and it is the way the brain of every homo omnisciencis works. No matter how wrong I were I would still see that the language explains the evidence.
But the evidence here is really quite extensive and the tiny number of contradictions simply doesn't seem sufficient to ignore these hypotheses. By the standards of the science I believe I've found this theory is essentially proven though the ancients would say more observation is needed.
Fortunately we have just the tools to make these observations but I fear those in charge don't want to apply them methodically to finding how the great pyramids were really built.