> I don't see how modern metaphysics applies to the
> PT, or any other AE writing. I feel projecting our
> views in this area onto them is foolhardy.
Modern people see what we expect. We see what we believe.
Scientists expect to see models composed of experimental results and nature that obeys "physical laws". Linguists expect to see words that make perfect sense. Egyptologists expect to see evidence consistent with tombs dragged up ramps.
This is because modern people tend not to understand metaphysics. Of course it's more complicated than this because metaphysics is a product of language just as modern people are. When we see a sentence from ancient times we cast about looking for the definitions of words to force it to make sense to us. We can almost always force one to make sense but then we don't notice that all the sentences are contradictory and writings have no self consistency.
We simply don't see that the ancient language itself was metaphysical because we don't understand our own metaphysics. Ancienrt language itself was their metaphysics.
> If you such deep
> concerns, the way around it is make an official
I seriously doubt I'd be allowed.
One almost has to understand the concept that one plus one doesn't equal two in order to understand the PT. Even if they were to accept some sort of paper written by me they wouldn't read it. If they started reading it they wouldn't finish. If they finished it would just be for the laugh.
The very concept that the ancients meant exactly what they said literally and that they were exactly correct is simply beyond what Egyptological belief can consider.
> > It's mere
> > sample bias that the PT happens to sound like
> > book of the dead in almost every instance.
> It's because it does.
Yes, indeed. This is because the vocabulary didn't change when the language changed and because the authors of the book of the dead misunderstood the Pyramid Texts in the exact same way we do.
> Could you explain the reference to Maspero here?
He was first to translate the PT and while he did a good job, he did get us off on the wrong foot. Were there more obvious "errors" he would have been alerted that he was missing somnething profound and fundamental. If there were more similarities in the writing he might have seen the differences and started working on the solution rather than trying to make it sound like a modern language version of the book of the dead.
> The PTs do not say the pyramids were not tombs.
> The describe a mere portion of their function.
The only function they speak to is as a water source and they hint at use as laundries etc.
They said the pyramid was the king who didn't rot in the earth and his tomb was in the sky;
616d. Thou art given over to thy mother Nut, in her name of "Grave";
616e. she has embraced thee, in her name of "Grave";
616f. thou art brought to her, in her name of Maṣṭaba."
They said this many times in many ways and they were highly consistent.
> > I believe I have a nearly full understanding of
> > #510. I know from experience that interpreting
> > these utterances for people is a waste of time.
> Do you feel it is a waste because they don't
> receive your view well?
People aren't seeing what I'm seeing.
> Knowing this slight difference, what do you feel
> is the next step when reviewing these texts?
Obviously what's most needed is a literal retranslation of the text by someone who understands their meaning. This would look less like modern language but would be more comprehensible to those who do understand. Even the uninitiated could pick out more meaning with study. But most importantly the rules of grammar would emerge and this would cause more meaning to be visible.
> Source for this?
I haven't supported the argument for interpretation of "i3.t-wt.t" as CO2 for a long time.
I'm not sure it's appropriate in this thread.
The most dramatic utterance showing this is;
2110b. ’I3;.t-wt.t, thou art not enveloped by the earth.
2110c. Thy fame is by day; thy fear is by night, as a god, lord of fear.
2110d. Thou commandest the gods like the mighty one, chief of the mighty.
2111. [O] Osiris, the overflow comes, the inundation hastens, Geb groans.
It is CO2 that causes the water to not be enveloped by the earth. It is CO2 that gets lots of attention by day but is fatal at night when solar heating stops and the wind slows. It is the ending of CO2 being enveloped by the earth that brings the inundation in the uplands.
> How you got to CO2 is quite the stretch.
Like everything it was solved by context. Each time a word is used in a sentence it acquires definitional and connotative properties. Eventually it is used enough times that only one single definition is possible. Once a definition emerges then I work backward to determine meaning and implications with the physical evidence. This is all then extrapolated to work on more terms.
This wouldn't have worked very well except that every word had a single meaning and everything had three words. CO2's woirds were;
Scientific; "i3.t-wt.t" (risings begetter, probably)
Colloquial; "efflux" (osiris)
The bubbles of CO2 were called "spirits" (ie spirits well equipped by reason of their mouth) and stars.
They created rainbows which we can't see because of translation. Allen calls them "sky arcs". Mercer calls them "bows". And a translation has come down from history "that which orders the lights above". The PT also calls water droplettes the "light scatter of the sky".
Not all rainbows are caused by rain.
> This will pay great
> dividends down the line for you. Of course, I
> disagree with your conclusion here, but that's not
> to say your attempts are futile.
I'm sure I have to at least be right in a left handed sort of way. This may be of no tangible value, however. Perhaps it could at least help someone else find a solution.
Thanks for thinking about the last post. It's probably much farther than I've gotten before.
I know all this is very difficult to believe because it flies in the face of what we all think we know. I was very surprised at every step as well.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10-Feb-16 19:51 by cladking.