> You cited this utterance to say that "Thoth" means
> "human progress". Your basis for saying this was
> "thou hast no mother [Mercer]". I can cite you way
> more compelling proof than that which falsifies
> this. This proof says that the Thoth of the
> Pyramid Texts was the Moon. If you cannot show how
> you got from Djehuti to human progress in PT534
> using the original text you have nothing to show,
> Cladking. Forget me, forget about the Moon
> (Krauss). A reasonable person has to be able to
> reproduce your process.
It took me years to solve "thot". This specific instance was not really understood until after I understood the term but it was a little help in solving it. It was solving the word "thot" in every context that led to the solution.
> Sure, but the context you use is generated by
> translations you don't accept since 'the language
> cannot be read'.
But vocabulary underwent little change when it passed into modern language. Most of the same words were used but they changed from being representative to symbolic. Many definitions, especially of scientific words, underwent some or dramatic change in meaning.
"Thot" was exceedingly important to ancient man but so too, was the moon. It was the investigation of the moon and its effects on earth that led to the early understanding of astronomy, geography, and even cosmology. The tides and the color shift in the rainbow were the chief means they came understand that "shu embraces all things". "Thot" in Ancient Language had nothing whatsoever to do with representing or symbolizing the moon but later people speaking confused language associated thot with the moon because of the moon's extreme importance to the development of science.
> You previously stated that the
> entire interpretation has to be overhauled
> starting from Champollion. I gave you a
> word-by-word translation of PT534 and you haven't
> used it. I assume it does not help you....and
> that's the problem with using Mercer, or Sethe,
> Faulkner, or Allen for that matter to make your
To me this is just another translation. Since I don't speak the language and am not very familiar with linguistics having a single line translated literally does little to help. Thanks anyway.
> Can you prove that all contexts surrounding any
> mention of Thoth points to "human progress"?
I can certainly show it. This computer is scheduled for the trash heap as soon as I can get to the store though because the "control f" function died a few days back. I need this to "prove" a word I've never shown before. I can show most any other critical word though. ...even a few I haven't previously.
> > I don't think there's any question that word
> > meaning can be solved in context. If there's
> > relationship between the original words and the
> > translation whatsoever then this should work.
> I agree, but this is tricky business. For example,
> Gardiner tried to explain different Egyptian verb
> forms in terms of their meaning, specifically if
> they marked an action which was completed
> (perfective aspect)or still ongoing (imperfective
> aspect). But then came the German school and
> proposed that those verb forms didn't really have
> anything to do with aspect but with emphasis. Then
> came a mix of the two and later yet, the most
> current theory, is that
A great deal of the tools in every translator's tool box is understanding the language he's translating. In this case he hasn't the tool. Additionally he's oft led astray because there are many words that changed their meaning after the change in language. It looks like the earliest version of the book of the dead, so many definitions are being plucked right from it and, unfortunately this includes almost every single theory of ancient science; the gods. Sekhmet REPRESENTED power. It was a specific type of power (potential energy expressed) but it was a word for power itself, it was not a case where an imaginary consciousness was "believed" to be powerful. So when the definition of "sekhmet" is taken from the book of the dead it just further obscures the change in the language. This change would be obscure enough because of formatting but Egyptology started the translation with two strikes against them and a wicked curve ball on the way.
> a) one should not assume that different meanings
> require different verb forms. For example, the
> sdm.f verb form can mark either the future tense
> or the subjunctive mood (as in PT534)...depending
> on the context sometimes, and other times
> depending on certain markers in the sentence
> called particles.
> b) that if you see a different verb form (the
> specific example is gemmination of the verb root)
> it does not necessarily mean a certain syntatic
> marking, but could be lexical, ie semantic.
I never really doubted that Egyptology is exceedingly adept at what they do. Taking a language they don't understand and rendering it in a form that can be solved was a hurculean feat. I'm sure they know more about the language than I do but I'm sure they don't understand it and, I believe, I do. The fact that this theory makes predictions (like the ideal place to put muon detectors and the results of the recent infrared and long term infrared testing) that come true.
> What does this mean for your approach? It means
> context can help, but can also mislead. In your
> case, Mercer mislead you....and don't get me
> wrong: Mercer did a good job for English speakers
> of his time.
I know I can be wrong. If I were sure they used funiculars to build the pyramids I'd just sit back and see how long it takes the world to catch up with me. I'm only 75% confident. This is based on many things but it's hardly a number that was plucked out of thin air. If there were four earths then on three of them funiculars built the pyramids. Pretty good odds we live on one of those and it's the only one that really exists.
> Cladking, you are brushing over what the ancient
> Egyptian told us they thought Shu was. They told
> us in no uncertain terms (see Coffin Texts): Shu
> was the wind. That has nothing to do with upward
> in any reasonable way. Your charge all along has
> been that modern man is imposing his belief system
> over a non-superstitious ancient people. Are you
> not doing it yourself?
Just as "thot" was confused into "Thot", "shu" became "Shu". They knew that "shu" was associated with upward and the only thing they could think of (science had died) that went upward was the wind. By the same token "tefnut" was downward and the only thing they knew came down was moisture. They not only confused the words but without science and with superstition they themselves were confused by language.
> You have to first prove that your process works
> deriving "human progress" and "upward" before I
> can begin to follow this reasoning.
Actually CO2 is one of the easiest words to show because they provided virtually a modern definition. "Rainbow" is even easier. When the rainbow failed at Giza they would never again be destroyed by the cessation of the inundation. The world is not what it seems.
> You misunderstood. I have no doubt that you
> believe your theory is internally consistent given
> that it is based on your biases....we all have
> biases....and not verifiable experimentation. If
> you take a mind-altering substance and have
> certain visions which may tell you something about
> reality you cannot observe without that substance
> AND you also want to convince other people this is
> so, you need some kind of external reference all
> observers can agree on so that they can attest
> they all witness the same phenomenon.
Yet we all speak a language that makes us believe we are "intelligent". We all see that human progress has been almost solely driven by specialists with fancy letters after their names for nearly a century. Ironically part of the reason for this is science went off track in the 1880's because of a misapprehension of the PT! Since science is "wrong" it follows it is necessarily constructed on top of existing theor which only specialists with fancy letters can do. I keep showing the evidence and logic (every post has it) and people skip over it because it doesn't agree with their beliefs, what they've read and studied about the Egyptians, or even the beliefs that come along with analog language. People don't even understand the nature of their own knowledge or realize they act on beliefs. No amount of facts and logic seems to penetrate this.
> In your case, that means you have to prove to
> another person that your process can take them
> from the symbols to your reading of the
> PT's...that they are a testament to the building
> of the pyramid, the king's ka.
They are mere rituals written in a highly scientific language. Silly little rituals the writers would be embarrassed to have the only thing by which they are remembered. Or mebbe they planned it this way so we didn't access the time capsule too soon. If we got in before we could understand then we'd just destroy it and it could never be solved. Our history would be forever lost.
> I mean it's pretty obvious to me you cannot do
> that so far. My point isn't so much trying to
> debate the content of your thesis, Cladking. In
> any case, you have not given me anything to walk
> in your foot-steps even if I agreed with
> everything you're saying. My point is to discuss
> how one can go about sharing one's theory with
> others so they can reasonably accept it
> non-dogmatically and not based on sheer belief. I
> think your ideas should not be dismissed just
> because they sound outrageous. As Graham said on
> one of Joe Rogan's podcasts...we need more
> heretics. I couldn't agree more with him. Academia
> has acquired a militancy about it which is
> unacceptable...and now we even see this in the Alt
> crowd. Some of the very people who supposedly are
> the heretics and pioneers got so beaten up that
> they themselves are now beating up other heretics
> and academics. Instead, the right thing to do is
> to come to terms with a process, some process
> scientific or otherwise, and try to debate the
> issues on those terms.
I understand and empathize with your position. But we are going to see going forward that all of my predictions will come true. Everything I've said will be supported by every new find. It is imperative that we know what's inside the Great Pyramid when we find it. We are standing at the anomaly beyond which are riches beyond the dreams of avarice. These are riches for the ENTIRE human race but especially for the poor and downtrodden, for the meek of the world.
But I believe it is also imperative that we find this soon because there are four major threats to the continuation of the existence of the human race. Each of these threats could result in extinction of rich and poor alike. The Book of Thot can mitigate or provide alternatives to some of these threats. We can "believe" ourselves right out of existence because we now have the tools to do it. We have an infrastructure so complex it will soon become impossible to operate. Specialization is leading to a new tower of babel event. For want of a nail we can become extinct.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 23-Apr-18 18:22 by cladking.