cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eyeofhorus33 Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Having explained my position to you, I'd now like
> > an opportunity to see you elucidate your
> > reasoning.
> >
> > The floor is all yours.
>
> No!
>
> As I said, "Such endeavor would be wasted time
> though. How do you parse confusion even where its
> origins are right before you?".
>
> I'm not going to get involved in the minutia of
> confusion even where it's painfully obvious to me.
> However I am willing to point out a couple of
> things. To the ancients everything was a function
> of theory which they called gods. This is exactly
> what modern scientists believe as well but the
> ancients knew their total knowledge was
> insignificant and we are truly "homo
> omnisciencis". Since reality expressed itself as
> this theory we confusedly understand as "gods" it
> simply follows logically that we'd believe the
> ancients thought the gods were all powerful.
> Since they were "named" we confusedly think they
> believed they were individuals rather than
> anthropomorphized reality. Since they were
> anthropomorphized they are ascribed functions
> consistent with animals and humans so we
> confusedly think they believed in walking and
> talking consciousnesses that determined mans'
> destiny. None of these things is real. Neters
> were natural phenomena developed by natural
> science and were merely a placeholder in a
> metaphysical language. This same confusion we
> have today was exactly the same as the confusion
> of the authors of the book of the dead from which
> Egyptologists borrowed to translate and interpret
> the Ancient Language.
>
> My favorite example though is the "duat". This
> was the spraying water which resulted from the
> interactions of the gods. Together they produced
> not everything known about them, but the spraying
> water itself; the duat or d3.t
>
> This was represented by the arm of nut expressed
> as a circle with a bubble known as an
> "imperishable star" inside. The hole through
> which the water sprayed was an arm of the "sky"
> and it was only imperishable styars (CO2) that
> drove the water up. "Duat" always meant spraying
> water and only spraying water in the PT and it is
> only used in this exact context which I used to
> deduce the meaning. It is obviously spraying
> water in context since it is "atum" standing in
> the eye of horus.
>
> Eventually the spraying water died so atum was
> written out of the silly little rituals and dead
> "osiris" was inserted in his place. "Osiris" thus
> became lord of the duat but the only thing left of
> the spraying water were natural processes under
> the earth that no longer created columns of water.
> Osiris was a dead god of the dead gods in the
> ground.
>
> You can trace all the confusion back to the very
> beginning and this will provide great insights
> into what the sun addled bumpkins who wrote the
> Bible were thinking. It will provide insights
> into many Bible passages such as the story of the
> Tower of Babel. We are the confused offspring of
> the tower builders and can't even see that
> language is still confused or that there used to
> be a global metaphysical language. We can see
> only what we expect to see so everything we see is
> within our knowledge base. We are truly "homo
> omnisciencis"; a little confused, none too smart,
> and wholly ignorant but this doesn't affect our
> beliefs.
>
> Well... ...mebbe I can parse confusion. ;)

So why read the rest? Why write it?

M.