> Is any of this kind of thinking ever used for the
> kind of translating you carry out for the earliest
> prose known to man? Do you feel that you've
> identified some of the earliest graphical
If anything was being mapped or drawn with the ancient writing it was not reality as we see it but rather the language they used understand it. What was being mapped was the wiring of the brain that gave rise to the language.
But there was no conscious attempt to visualize the brain and they didn't understand the basis of their language. It was simply the nature of a language founded in theory as seen through observation and metaphysical language to reflect the wiring of the brain. MDaines used deduction and likely a lot of intuition to flesh out the intended meaning but this meaning reflected the ancient intent rather than the process used to bring it to light and the language used to express this intent reflected reality itself through the nature of observation and logic applied rigorously to the Ancient Language itself.
Of course opinion will vary on the nature and reasons her work is correct or even that it is correct at all.
Linguists have been using feel good methodology to guess at meaning but here there is just cold hard logic which only works because the Ancient Language was coldly logical. Linguists feel good when they sit at the crown of creation and see our stinky footed past. More and more people will be rejecting their "translations" which suggest ancient people never made any sense.
|Very basic question about translations||1610||drrayeye||11-Aug-17 21:44|
|Re: Very basic question about translations||372||MDaines||12-Aug-17 09:30|
|Consider the biological foundations||300||drrayeye||14-Aug-17 00:13|
|Re: Consider the biological foundations||274||MDaines||14-Aug-17 08:19|
|Re: Addendum||260||cladking||21-Aug-17 17:43|
|Re: Addendum to the addendum||608||MDaines||21-Aug-17 18:05|
|Re: Consider the biological foundations||318||cladking||14-Aug-17 14:07|