> But they're not looking in the PT to find whether
> or not pyramids are tombs. I believe you are
> assuming they are looking there. This
> creates a strawman perspective.
Yes, I am aware of this. Egyptologists believe there is a disconnect between the pyramids and the Pyramid Texts. They believe the PT are mere incantation. But this is why I started trying to understand the PT; to look for clues about how the pyramids were built in these incantations. In order to do this I had to be able to follow the thinking of the authors by looking at word choice and key phrases. I didn't know it was just a book of ritual when I started and only knew what Egyptologists believed. It was weeks of study before it became clear that it might be soluble through simple logic and science. It's tens years and tens of thousands of connections later, now.
> Yes, seems natural to want it to makes sense.
Of course the problem is that author intent can get lost in the process of parsing it.
> Yes and no. A few things may be contradictory and
> may lack consistency. But certainly not all of it.
> As I said in another reply, I think it has more to
> do with some texts being incomplete rather than
It's hard to see these contradictions if you believe the orthodox thinking. The orthodox thinking holds that these people were highly superstitious and the writing is a book of incantation so of course no one expects it to make any sense at all. Every little piece of meaning we can extract from it just seems like gravy so we don't notice the continuing and fundamental contradictions. Also, it is similar to the book of the dead so we assume it's a sort of primitive version of it.
All of these assumptions are wrong and the PT states the king's tomb was in the sky because they believed the king's tomb was in the sky. There's no indication they believed the pyramid was his tomb.
> The difference might be that they weren't trying
> to be metaphysical at all. Their intent was to be
> as literal as they could be; they didn't set out
> in advance to write poetry.
The ancient language contained all the definitions, axioms, means, and results of their science. "Amun", for instance was an axiom that was that reality itself existed. From their understanding amun was the natural phenomenon of the existence of reality. He was apparent just like all their gods and they were discovered through observation whose scientific word was "heka".
> > One almost has to understand the concept that
> > plus one doesn't equal two in order to
> > the PT. Even if they were to accept some sort
> > paper written by me they wouldn't read it. If
> > they started reading it they wouldn't finish.
> > they finished it would just be for the laugh.
> Perhaps you're not so sure about your views?
One plus one doesn't equal two by nature. In reality there are no two identical things to add. One plus one equals two only by modern metaphysics and the understanding of modern language. It is in essense a truth derived by looking at reality from infinite distance.
There are more than a single way to see reality.
> Well, no. He found them. I believe the first
> attempt at translation was by Sethe (whom Faulkner
> and Gardiner heavily rely on.)
Actually I've seen some of his notes on translating them. If I remember they were French cursive and didn't mean much to me but Sethe had them when he translated the PT I believe.
As with anything I could be wrong.
> Lost me ... I was saying the PT give a portion of
> what a pyramid's function was, and you answered
> the function is as a water source? Plus, the Utt
> you give as an example does not even show the
> water aspect you brought to the table.
This really isn't the thread to be making the case for water. The function of the pyramid could be far more complex than just this anyway. I mentioned it because it is the only function hinted at in the PT. The physical evidence says quite dramatically that this function was the original function since the water collection device was built first as it exists under the pyramid and is recorded by Herodotus. It is evidenced in a multitude of ways while there is no evidence for a funerary function other than a little circumstantial evidence.
> I really can't see the transition from what is
> written by the AE to CO2. One glaring problem I
> see is they did not (could not) have know what CO2
> was .. as in, distinguishable from air. This level
> of chemistry did not come until thousands of years
> later, i.e. our modern age.
> Also, I think we're really stretching this tangent
> discussion into a whole new realm. I don't feel
> it's something I'd like to pursue at this time.
The list of definitions derived from context shows only one possible referent; CO2. I could make a much stronger case but it's not wholly relevant in this thread. But "I3.t-wt.t" most assuredly did not mean "young thing" and it did not mean "corpse drippings" as translators have suggested.
> I agree there are problems with some translation,
> wherein my perspective is of incompleteness, or a
> combination of the latter with outright error.
> Unfortunately, I cannot join in agreement with
> your translations because - at this point - I
> don't see strong connections in what you convey
> (in some cases I don't see the connection at
I know. All modern people must think linearly to understand language. Even those of us who think intuitively are really linear and just skipping long lines of logic and words. But ancient thought and language were global since they modelled reality itself in their minds. We model pieces of reality they the whole ball of wax. To understand this you need to understand the whole ball of wax. Once Egyptology finally does science then facts and evidence will form a bee line straight to this.
> I'm not asking you to give up. The fact that
> you're even on the path is a good sign.
> Just may need a sturdier set of wheels, i.e. study
> material for your cart. :)
I hope to pick most of this up through osmosis and discussion but you're right that I should read a little more.