SallyA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK, I am going to throw down a gauntlet here,
> because I think you have bought into this idea!!
> 0.0 !! ?huh?
> --- and
> For a language tied to vision, not tied to the
> ears (like modern -- post floods) I believe this
> is an incorrect path of logic.
>
> Modern peoples are almost completely dependent
> upon conceptualizing through auditory cues.
>
> Try to think without an internal voice . . . Can
> you do it?
>
> The artist does, however, though the artist may
> not be able to verbally comment on his work!
> Some people really struggle with art appreciation,
> others still have a conceptual pathway tied to the
> visual areas of the brain! These are people who
> see meaning in archetypes, symbols, etc ... a
> skill which sharpens with attention.
>
>

Quote

> Every word had a single set concrete meaning with
> no "wiggle room" at all.
>
> But every "thing", every concept had three words
> and these were divided into three classes of
> words. One class defined the subject, one defined
> the object, and the other implied the meaning of
> the sentence.

I don't think we are auditory and they were visual per se. There is probably a lot of truth and insight to this description but there are better ways to say it. To a large extent we are auditory. Our speech centers are tied directly to all the "higher brain" functions so we think in language and language is the expression of our thoughts. To a real degree every thing we communicate or think about has to be in auditory form. The rest of our brains are still digital and do often "communicate" with our thoughts. For instance our emotions largely originate in the amygdala yet we don't need words or to stop and think if we see our girlfriend with another guy in order to feel jealousy. If this happened in an animal people would call it "instinct" I suppose. Most information passes only in one direction from the higher brain function to the medula and the ganglions. One can almost think of the brain as a buffer preventing reverse flow of digital data. Most data that is allowed through is experienced as pain.

There are numerous ways we still communicate with the rest of our digital brains. Even higher brain function in stage 4 sleep still can manipulate data digitally so we can solve problems in our sleep.

But I don't think the ancients or animals would aptly be described as "visual". Their experience of "vision" might have been a little different that ours in the sense they didn't see the world in terms of belief as we do but in terms of knowledge. This might not flow uphill to the higher brain functions. These are largely imponderables since neither we nor they experience this reality in a way that could be communicated and their experience of consciousness wouldn't allow the inspection of the nature of how they sense. Interestingly they believed they had hundreds of senses so obviously they were certainly keenly aware of the input.

It is in thought where Ancient Language would mean such a dramatic difference to the consciousness. Certainly each sense would be more closely tied to thought but it would not flow linearly as ours does. It didn't follow words or grammar per se but the laws of nature. The brain just as nature would act in three dimensions. Thought would be in three dimensions so language, digital language, was in three dimensions. As such I should imagine that there would be almost no inner dialog. It might seem more to the individual as though the voice were following the thought. All I can do is make deductions and inferences from what they said and observation of animals. You'd probably have to unlearn modern language to really understand Ancient Language. It appears even those who were brought up speaking the old language could not readily switch back and forth between them. ie- once you learn analog language it is difficult to understand digital.

> In the visual language, the "image" is the item,
> itself. It's attributes are its defining
> characteristics as understood in the encompassing
> cultural meilu. Understanding is also
> visual . . . This leaves the untutored out of
> the group of understanding people.
> ☆⊙☆{Heiroglyphs are a language of another
> race, hiding in plain sight.}☆⊙☆ imvho

Yes. In Ancient Language the thing itself is part of "amun" and is hidden. Only the word is the thing itself. The word is everything known about the thing. "God" is the word.

This is a concept that will elude most modern people even after it's shown I'm right.

> I am not going to take up the last paragraph, as
> you are addressing a different audience, and this
> is your thread.

Feel free if you like. If I said it then I'm interested in other opinions. I'll even respond if it's interesting or relates to the subject.

> The Egyptians lived immersed in Magic, because
> their language and culture were transmitter
> through visual means.

Just as high tech might look "magical" to an aborigine, metaphysical language looks like magic to us.

> There should be a data base with the glyphs for
> the abreviations which have been made . . . This
> would sooth my curious tendencies and keep me
> frommassigning peanut butter and jelly loaf or
> millet, corn and barley beer to his abreviations.

I know what most of them mean because I don't need them "translated" to solve them. I simply solved terms like "shm-sceptre" in context and it means exactly what they said "it carries away the crown of the king". ie- it deflects the top of the spraying water into the Nurse Canal.

It actually helps if they aren't translated for me.

Later Egyptologists went on to plug meanings from the book of the dead into these untranslated words so the word for CO2 has become "young thing". They muck it up a little more every single year. They waste their efforts trying to translate what must be read to be understood. They are parsing a language where meaning was in context and disappears when you parse it.

Egyptology is really a sort of linguistics that has a choke hold on modern science and refuses to play nicely with anybody who disputes their pronouncements.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 21-Apr-18 14:29 by cladking.