Manu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Your thesis based on how you read the Pyramid
> Texts (Mercer) is that that the ancient Egyptians
> had no self-awareness allowing them to
> conceptualize their own process of language
> expression.

Thanks for the post. There's a lot to gnaw on here and it will probably require an extensive response when I have time. For now just this;

I believe all life is self aware and this is the very essence of life and basic to change in species, reproduction, extinction, and the events that occur to every individual.

But the nature of consciousness is different between ancient man/ animals and modern man because modern language is analog programming for a digital brain. All higher brain functions are expressed in animals and animal behavior but in modern man only those higher brain functions tied directly to one or the other speech center is expressed in behavior. More importantly animals (ancient man) act only on knowledge and experience when driven by higher brain functions. All their learning (except "muscle memory") come into play when they are acting consciously (not instinctively).

This is nothing like modern man who acts strictly on the beliefs he himself has chosen (except in the rare case it's instinctive). He not only acts on his own beliefs but he senses in terms of those beliefs preferentially to actual sensory input.

But animals can't understand why they live and thrive individually or collectively. No matter how smart a beaver is he couldn't understand that his success is the result of the logic inherent in the wiring of his brain expressed as language/ consciousness/ life. This wiring and language all have the same inherent logic as mathematics. It's simply a matter of perspective. From the perspective of an ancient digital language speaker "logic" was invisible. It didn't exist any more than "illogic" because only theory and grammar determined what could be voiced and what couldn't. If it were grammatical then it automatically was logical and if it wasn't grammatical then no one could understand.

"Thot" as human progress simply had no feminine progenitor because from the perspective of a "mathematical" language there was no such thing as "logic" so there was no word for "logic". If they could have seen it "logic" was the mother of thot. Just as we modern language speakers can't see that it was and still is complex language responsible for all human progress. From our perspective it looks like it's "intelligence" underlying progress. Thank God it is not or we'd still be living in caves and eating raw meat.

> You are basically saying that if you
> cannot objectify yourself, you cannot know your
> process and that means the language cannot
> incorporate elements which differentiate between
> hypotheticals and actuals.

They certainly saw themselves as independent actors and this was even one of their axioms; that free will was the only thing, the only intangible that was a part of amun. They chose individually their courses of action though, ancient people would have operated on instinct significantly more than most modern people in all probability. Most action most of the time would have been driven by consciousness just like us, though.

> Conception equals
> execution. Modern man, on the other hand, has
> gained such awareness. This allows modern man to
> "test" ideas without acting on them, believing,
> hypothesizing, etc.

I suspect that most ancients were somewhat better at predicting the results of their actions where this involved technology and man made processes and infrastructure. This would have been caused by a good understanding of their limited technology and their environment to which they were more closely tied than moderns. Of course they also employed "prophets" who could ponder known science in greater depth for things like construction or invention.

> Egyptologists are translating
> hieroglyphic as if there is a two-step process of
> conceptualizing and then either acting or not
> acting...ie as if there is a thought gate.

I'm not certain of your meaning here.

It seems the root of the problem of not understanding is that they are deconstructing sentences exactly the same way we communicate. It would be analogous to "paraphrasing computer code" and then expecting it to still work.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22-Apr-18 22:27 by cladking.