> A lot can be learned just from these eleven lines.
> The king's spoken well-wish suffices in the realm
> of the living, but in the afterlife the word must
> be written on a stele in Rawer's tomb so that he
> can appease the gods for his transgression during
> the ceremony.
Perhaps these lines really do mean what the interpreter said they do. It's quite a stretch but it does seem possible. Perhaps it's still relevant even though it's from after the great pyramid building age. Perhaps.
But it still changes nothing at all. The interpretation still implies these people were highly superstitious. It still suggests they were each and collectively moribund and riddled with belief. It still suggests they had the same beliefs as the authors of the book of the dead from which the interpretor freely admits he borrowed material.
Unless it both applies to the pyramid builders AND shows superstition it is irrelevant and this does neither. It is merely interpretation consistent with assumption.
> Belief is to what we resort when a
> force is perceived emanating from a power we
> cannot see, hear, touch, smell, or taste. We
> substitute symbols to represent this power and we
> presume power and force are separate. In this way,
> the power is objective and the force it exerts on
> us is subjective. Superstition is when we take the
> objectification to its extreme. A pet rock has
> power over us.
You're merely elaborating on having put the cart before the horse.
If we perceive an invisible force than we are exhibiting superstition as soon as we ascribe invisible characteristics as well. In order to invent complex forces and communicate them with others it is necessary to have the words to frame it. It is necessary to have words like "thought" and "belief". It is impossible to sidestep this.
> We know from their writings that the gods were
> immanent. The force was one with the power. Shu
> did not blow the wind he was the wind.
"Shu" meant "upward". It always meant "upward" and the closest "translation" we have is "normal force".
> concludes this working backwards from the pyramid
> texts under his assumption that a religious text
> must mention words which reflect this
> objectification, an act he ascribes to a capacity
> held by modern man but not ancient man.
How would you communicate the concept "belief" to an ancient Egyptian?
How would you tell him about one of your beliefs or my beliefs? What words would you use?
The words simply don't exist so it would be impossible to communicate with them. Remember "Nut in her name of mother of osiris creates beauty as Re falls below the horizon this evening."? Is this how you would describe complex ideas about the laws of God and nature?
> Furthermore, he concludes that when you cannot
> objectify power from force, you cannot
> differentiate meaning from word.
I am contending that words didn't have definitions in Ancient Language. Words weren't even symbolic.
Words were representative and, so too, were each of their letters when written. Words weren't deconstructed because they had a single fixed meaning that never varied. The speaker's meaning was deconstructed. The meaning of the sentence was deconstructed rather than each of its words. We seek word meanings that make a sentence rational and they sought the sentence meaning that made it rational. An entire sentence was almost impossible to confuse whereas if we deconstruct a single word improperly the sentence is confused.
Power and force would be part of a whole if you could think like an Egyptian and you couldn't belief in any invisible power with invisible forces.
> You cannot parse
> the meaning of individually written words when the
> words have no objective source code to whom all
> can refer.
This is why the ancients referred to modern languages as "confused", and "divided". Chinese telephone was invented at the Tower of Babel. Each individual experiences his beliefs rather than reality.
> The words themselves are the power and
> the force they had on the ancient Egyptians and so
> they must be understood as an immanent whole in
> terms of a subjective experience as opposed to a
> string of individual objective lexical meanings
> strung together into subjective sense by rules of
When words mirror reality they have power independent of the speaker or listener. No, not invisible power from an invisible force but real power because they can be used to direct action of anyone who comprehends them.
> I am going to skip over the trivial aspect of his
> method which says that only he is allowed to quote
> Mercer's English of Sethe's German to make his
> case based on context, but when others do it
> contradicting him it's parsing. His method as an
> evidence-sharing one is flawed simply because only
> he can experience it in his own subjective view.
There is nothing whatsoever subjective about my method. When they said bring me the boat that flies up and alights what they really meant was literally bring me the literal boat that literally flies up and literally alights. If they meant anything else they would have said literally anything else.
> This is not a method, valid or not, he can use to
> convince others.
This is becoming apparent.
However the fact is I have still solved how the pyramids were built and identified mountains of physical evidence while totally crippling current beliefs and assumptions. I have still predicted things like the thermal anomaly which Egyptologists want us all to forget.
> The other trivial aspect of his theory
> is that he fails to recognize that thinking
> happened in the heart and not in the mind.
The ancients believed the entire organism interacted with nature and the entire organism was responsible for all internal activities as well. I believe their perspective is far more correct than ours. Yes, they experienced their "minds" and their emotions in their hearts. This was the most active center of the organism.
> Therefore the metaphor of thinking, imagining, and
> believing were completely different from ours, but
> that doesn't mean they didn't exit.
You could be correct but the fact the words don't exist PROVES they couldn't communicate beliefs.
> So I think Cladking's theory based on the
> assumption that belief requires the separation of
> power and force first, the objectification of
> power second, and the linguistic objectification
> of words to describe this process third is false.
This would be the cart before the horse.
First you need the words. Or maybe the first bumpkin who dreamed up the idea of an imaginary consciousness that drove men's lives would have invented the word "belief" simultaneously.
> Just like modern man uses symbols as placeholders
> for powers s/he cannot embrace with the five
> senses, so did the ancient Egyptians. The search
> for symbols of objectification in the ancient
> Egyptian language on walls full of symbols of
> power is like looking for a tree in a forest.
Or maybe all those trees you're finding is just a reflection of modern beliefs.
Ancient people were not superstitious, we are.
We are very highly superstitious. Everything we are is a belief. We see only our beliefs and we experience only what we believe after creating a model of beliefs in our minds. We eventually become our beliefs. All of our actions are caused by our beliefs.
Ancient people acted upon and became their knowledge. This is what made them strong, wise, and able to build great pyramids.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 20-Sep-18 14:33 by cladking.