> I just clarified a bit in the previous post when
> you posted this one.
> Yes, I get it and that's how I also see it.
> For your purpose however, it does not mean you
> cannot parse and reduce as long as stay aware of
> the whole, because you cannot prove it using the
> scientific method. Now Graham might say you could
> perhaps investigate it using the shaman method,
> non-reductively, in full participation and trance.
> I cannot speak to it, because I just don't know. I
> do understand the scientific method because that's
> what I was taught. It really only has one main
> advantage which is that you can bring many people
> onto the same page even though they operate
> subjectively. Einstein perfected this with Special
> Relativity. If you want to approach this as a
> whole, it will be difficult to share your insights
> with others as I am sure you can tell from the
> response to your topic.
> At this stage, I would approach this like
> explaining a joke to a foreigner and not expect to
> get a laugh. Get to that base first. Don't expect
> to right away be able to convey the primordial
> emotional basis of the Pyramid Texts if that's how
> you perceive it. Find the intellectual footing
> first, don't shy away from it even if it deprives
> of the beautiful essence at first. This worked for
> me. I got a glimpse. It's still totally stunning
> even in this small dose. Maybe you let your
> readership discover that part on their own while
> you explain the chemistry of it so that all can
> appreciate that part first.
I'm a scientist by nature and training as well. Over the years the years I have evolved more into a nexialist metaphysician. I suppose this isn't too different to where I began or to ancient people. They experienced reality more directly where much of my understanding is through models. It is simply amazing to me how the human mind works and how it can pierce through darkness using such widely divergent means as Graham Hancock's, Einstein's, or even James P Allen's. Most people will attribute any insights to "science" or "intuition" but these are mere words and science can't explain how some individuals are adept at experiment design and others at the decathlon.
Me? I always try to cut to the chase. I had only one single reason not to study the glyphs 12 years ago and that was it was hard work. But the more I learn the more I see that Ancient Language has NEVER BEEN TRANSLATED. Indeed, if I'm correct about its meaning, it never can be translated because it is untranslatable. It's very difficult for me to unlearn things. This is related to the ways I do learn things so studying current beliefs about the glyphs which I know are wrong would interfere with me ever rendering it into English. The language can only be interpreted because it is formatted so differently. I do know what some of the glyphs really are but trying to piece them together from my highly limited knowledge would prove pretty difficult, and I'm simply not geared to this type of work. I was never very good at some things you probably take for granted.
I know what I'm up against here. It's a battle against the very way people think so even an entire thread full of quotes that say the king is the pyramid won't shake anyone from a belief in tombs. Everyone knows we finally think clearly and we have electrical power to prove it. Everyone knows ancient people were primitive and superstitious. Everyone knows that ancient people were obsessed with death so even the statements reflecting their obsession with life fall on deaf ears.
Yes, it's a long up hill battle that will make dragging pyramids on ramps look like child's play.