> From what I understand of your method I cannot
> conclude that parsing the text is any more
> misleading than reading Mercer's translation and
> developing a context which compels one to read the
> words Shu, Thoth, and Wadjet the way you are
> reading them. If this were based on your
> interpretation versus mine, I'd have to conceded
> that there is some chance that you might be right,
> but the problem is that you made a mistake
> regardless in what methodological universe you
> want to operate. You did not take into account the
> determinative because you did not look at the
> original text. Had you looked at the determinative
> you would not have read this as rising begetter,
> but immediately realized that jwkhet.wtt refers to
> the goddess Wadjet and the Uraeus.
I knew it referred to the uraeus and the "goddess" wadjet even before I knew what the determinative was. There are other things I know that don't appear in the PT because I understand the writing. For instance "uraeus" and "iusaas" are essentially the same thing! Well, kindda. The ben ben is the accumulation on the primeval mound and the instrument through which atum created shu and tefnut. "Iusaas" was the hole in the ben ben in which atum/ osiris stood and the wadjet filled this hole when atum flagged.
You say the methodology is unsound but the reality is every word means what the speaker thinks it means. He will use it consistently the same way over and over whether he uses it correctly or not. It doesn't matter because each person has his own definition for each word. By listening to how a word is used it is simple enough to deduce what the speaker believes it mean;
I looked through the booklet.
The sun shone on the other side of the booklet.
A bird perched on the booklet ledge.
It's too cold to open the booklet.
A stone could break the booklet.
In the winter frost forms on the inside of the booklet.
After a while anyone can see that "booklet" really means "window".
This is all I've done. I solved these words in order of the best defined ones to the worst. Finding "shu" means "upward", "ascension", "inertia", etc is far easier than finding "I3.t-wt.t" and it is necessary to first know this in order to solve more complex and less well defined terms.
> Even a digital
> structure does not allow you to brush over a
> symbol if it's there.
I'm brushing over nothing.
> This mistake was not a
> result of parsing versus contextualizing....you
> never had a chance to get it right. It was a
> mistake of interpreting a translation instead of
> original script, something that you have stated
> has to be done from scratch, but did not follow
Translators didn't understand this language because it shares the EXACT SAME vocabulary as the language of the book of the dead that was already understood. They translated the words "right" but they missed the meaning. I can see the meaning because I have modeled the formatting. The language is not formatted like our language.
> Reconstructing your effort I think this must have
> started with the insight that fifth dynasty
> pyramid builders wanted to record their methods
> with the Pyramid texts, a much more plausible
> intent (to your thinking that is) than simply
> listing a series of magic formulas as can be found
> in the later Book of the Dead.
The "book of the dead" is the problem. It was written by people who were emulating and trying to copy their scientific ancestors but they had no science so their efforts were wholly confused. Egyptologists found the Pyramid Texts and confused it in exactly the same way using exactly the same vocabulary.
> You had previously
> tackled the engineering problem and concluded that
> ramps could not have been used.
Yes. A lifetime of experience was sufficient to tell me ramps were an impossibility. Imagine my surprise when I discovered there's no evidence that ramps were used despite the oft repeated mantra that "they mustta used ramps".
Concurrently with reverse engineering the pyramids and solving the PT I was able to use the data and evidence to "prove" they did not use ramps. Ramps are debunked.
> Either you thought
> of the funnicular system first and then verified
> it as per your reading of the pyramid texts (ie
> you read that into the texts) or you read the
> texts and then derived that meaning. You may have
> been subject to confirmation bias.
My first thought (within ten seconds of seeing ramps weren't used) was that they mustta used the weight of falling water.
> There is one insight you have with which I agree:
> That the pyramid is a representation of something.
> I think it is the central body of Osiris.
Yes. In a very real way.
But everything to the ancients was like this. The pyramid also represented the primeval mound, the dead king, protection, horus, horus, and even (you guessed it) the eye of horus. Of course it was also set, tefnut, osiris, isis, etc etc etc.
> at Orion, you can see a pyramid, no stretch needed
> there. By virtue of the fact that the dead king
> was made to be an Osiris, and the Pyramid Texts
> leave no doubt of it, the inspiration for the
> Pyramid Age could in fact be to recreate the Ka of
> the King as a stony monument. I think that part of
> your theory has value. I also think your proposed
> pyramid building methodology has possible value
> even if the Pyramid Texts can be shown not to be
> about that.
Sure. I know I can be all wrong or only partly right.
But what are the odds I solved this by coming to understand the PT and that understanding is wrong?
Let's just say if there was a geyser at Giza then I know it's name was "atum", was called a "duat", and off gassed I3.t-wt.t.
> Disproving the PT part of your theory
> does not disprove the method you propose. It only
> means you have to look elsewhere for proof. Not
> all is lost and a lot is still gained.
If they'd get off the dime this could be proven or disproven in mere weeks. They could have an answer for how it was done no matter who's right and who's wrong.
But the powers that be are scared of the pyramid and nobody really cares. Anyone who really cares would be screaming but Egyptology still gets support even though ramps are debunked and now it sure looks like ancient magic and superstition are as well.