> atul.seth Wrote:
> > I read your OP from the latest post you made
> > today. I did some google search and came across
> > this link.
> > ymbol_text.html#a]The pyramid texts according
> > Clesson H. Harvey[/url]
> From your link one can see many other examples of
> his deep insights;
> "Like the artificial Aymara language referred to
> on p.91 in "Fingerprints of the Gods," the Saqqara
> Pyramid Texts turn out to be, after 40 years of
> searching, programmable."
> This is exactly the nature of the ancient
> language. It could actually be "cleaned up" and
> used as a programming language. The hardware
> would need to be changed a bit as well though.
> "But if the Hieroglyphic grammar of the Great
> Pyramid Texts if artificially programmed (and it
> is), then whoever programmed it would almost
> certainly have programmed the meanings of its
> words. There is much evidence in support of this.
> Gardiner's reliable vocabulary of word definitions
> can usually be used to test any such theory of
> programmed word meanings. there is no need to be
> discouraged by the educated nay opinions of
> Egyptologists. "
Could you elaborate the concept of programmable language with an example. I am not familiar with this but am aware that many other researchers have said the same about Sanskrit.
> I doubt the language is actually "artificial" in
> the way we mean the term. Rather is is a
> "natural" language like the waggle dance of the
> bee. The bee gets the attention of the other bees
> and then walks proportionately to the distance of
> food and relative to the setting sun. In other
> words meaning is dependent on context. All animal
> languages are like this and the PT is written in
> an animal language which we have since outgrown.
> This language was context dependent and
> metaphysical. Human progress and science simply
> outgrew the formatting for the language so it
> died. It became too complex to hold all human
> knowledge and be understood by all so it failed.
> The PT is written in science that dates back
> 40,000 years and invented agriculture, cities, and
> pyramids. When this science died the old language
> was incomprehensible and it required the invention
> of modern science (experimental science) for
> progress to resume.
> His insights are simply legendary and dramatic.
> I'm somewhat at a loss about the references to
> "six inches before the brow". This was a minor
> perspective to the ancients and referred only to
> "rennenutet". Most perspectives were of "sekhmet"
> "She Beloved by Art" and from this perspective
> only rennenutet was six inches before the brow.
> This "goddess" was of limited importance as she
> merely channelled "efflux" to keep the mks-sceptre
> afloat for extended periods.
I have some information to share about the other 2 points you made about natural language and six inches from the brow but will wait for your clarification.
I think "artificial" term is based on a fundamental misunderstanding about the real meaning or knowledge of objects and phenomena and it's source that are normally hidden from our limited sensory faculties.
> I have researched some of the other translators
> but not CH Harvey.