Audrey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> So you're saying the pyramids had a symbolic
> purpose, turning the king into a star?

You have to remember these people didn't think like you or I. The king's transmogrification turned him into the water, the sky, a star, etc, etc. I believe this was simply how they chose to remember him but I can't really think like they did either. As a nexialist and modeler of ancient language with its metaphysics, I come closer than many but thinking like an Egyptian would require a command of a natural language.

The people were very close to reality and held it as axiomatic. It' hard to believe they thought the king was a star or a stone.

> Or did the
> AE believe this was a physical reality?

In the sense that each time one saw the star he'd think of the dead king it was a physical reality.

> If they
> thought it physically possible, I'd have to say
> the builders, who had the science, must have tried
> real hard to convince the king it wasn't possible.

They practiced regicide. When the king aged or weakened he was no longer deemed fit to lead so his body was prepared for cremation on the pyramid. The king understood this and tried to stay in shape. "Ancient science" wasn't something held by an amorphous group of individuals about whom people didn't even agree on their classification as it is now. Science was in your face. It was in your mind and it composed the very words you used to communicate. Everybody was a scientist and most of the metaphysicians were women. The king understood the nature of science and his transmogrification as well as every one else. They were blind to the feminine concept of human progress which is why they said "thot (human progress) has no mother". If your language is metaphysical you can't see that this is how science works.

> After building pyramids over 400' high requiring
> all manner of measurement, surely they had a
> strong sense of distance.

No doubt even before this...

> Do you suppose every time a king died, they looked
> for a new star in the sky?

No, probably not. Well loved and important kings would simply tend to usurp older, less important, and less well remembered individuals' stars. There were a lot of stars back before electric dynamos and large human populations.

> Since they wouldn't see
> a new one, do you think they ever began to doubt
> this belief?

It wasn't a belief but an assignation. A king was simply assigned to a star.

> Surely someone would have asked -
> hey, where is the king in the sky now? This is
> when I would have said - ya know, those priests
> are idiots. There's never a new star in the sky.

They seem to be going out now days.

> And if this were the only reason for the pyramids,
> they could have built them 1/10th the size. Why
> such an overkill?

They served purposes besides pointing upward.

And, remember they were easy to build because the gods did all the work.

> They knew enough
> science to build the pyramids, surely they knew
> nothing goes uphill without a force behind it. Or
> would their science have failed them at this
> point?

The science was highly sophisticated. Yes, they were quite deficient in chemistry and most areas we call "physics", but they made very astute observations and built theory by conformational observation.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 23-Feb-17 04:48 by cladking.