> believe. Just answer his questions please.
No you don't. If you did then you wouldn't at this late date be talking about the meanings of "symbolic" and "representative".
The greatest books ever written each appear in the dictionary. Look at this same fact from the opposite perspective; every word in the dictionary is a definition for another word. No word has any meaning outside its definition and each word has an effectively infinite number of definitions. I am using one of the definitions of the word "symbol" to reflect the idea that every word is fluid. If I say "put water on the fire" I am not speaking of specific water but in most contexts it will be a specific fire. The words are symbolic of my desire that the fire be quenched.
Ancient Language didn't work this way. There were no words to say "put water on the fire" because there are an infinite number of interpretations for these words. Animals have no use for symbols and interpretation. Their minds are too simple to understand parsing of communications. Every single word had exactly one fixed meaning and these meanings could not be defined. They can't be translated either because words are fluid (symbolic) in our languages today. Rather words and things were "named". All the names together constituted a sort of fixed definition. "Fire" was "that which consumed", "that which gave heat", etc, etc. The same applied to every word in the sentence and every word in the language.
Obviously this forces a different way to think and talk.
In this case it's more accurate to say a different way to think gave rise to a different kind of language. All I can do is provide characteristics of that language and provide the "definitions" of the words as determined by context. All I can do is "interpret" the meaning of the utterances after running them through the mental models of the language I constructed to understand it.
Egyptologists have no clue about gender in
> Ancient Language which is proven by the fact that
> this is one of the things they most often have to
> "fix" on those words chiseled in stone.
> Nobody is claiming that Egyptologists most
> commonly "fix" on suffix pronouns; they are simply
> indisputable evidence of gender in hieroglyphic
> inscription, that's all.
I AM CLAIMING that Egyptologists change the words to suit their understanding of superstitious and changeless bumpkins who dragged tombs up ramps. Just read Mercer, Faulkner, or the et als to see where they used terms like "sic" "lit" "actually" each time they correct the "errors"
I don't believe any errors exist. There are apparently two minor errors in science but this is related to the primitiveness of their science especially in chemistry.
"Gender" in modern languages is linguistic
> in nature but nothing in Ancient Language was
> Meaningless nonsense. All language is 'linguistic'
> in nature. The words share the same root.
Everything everyone says always makes perfect sense in terms of their premises. You could have tried to deconstruct the sentence so it made sense and save me the trouble of having to type out page after page of text to show what I mean. People get bogged down in my words anyway.
I'm sure one of the meanings of "linguistic" would suggest all language are "linguistic" but then you have to define "languages" and ask whether a song, computer program, or the movement of stars are a "language"
I am merely saying that any language that can't be deconstructed or parsed is effectively more like the dance of the planets or the bees waggle dance than it is a "language" as we know them. I maintain that metaphysical language is by definition more mathematical in nature than it is "linguistic" in nature (by any definition).
You can't parse 2 + 2 = 4 which is ironic because to the pyramid builders there was no such things. Each of these symbols break rules of grammar and even the axioms of ancient science. Since all things were held to be unique it follows there is no such thing as "2".
> You argue that glyphs are "representative" but not
> "symbolic". Look up the word symbolic in a
> dictionary. Egyptologists do not argue that glyphs
> are symbolic. Can you please cite a source?
When ancient words are solved in context (without using the "book of the dead" as a cheat sheet) the words are seen to each have a fixed an inviolable meaning. You simply can't "read" Ancient Language because it is not formatted like ours.
> As for language being "metaphysical",
> unsubstantiated nonsense. In fact, when points of
> the very clearly understood grammar of AE is
> explained to you, you revert to hand waving and
> have failed repeatedly to illustrate your own
You're missing the point. When the ancient words are parsed with Egyptological understanding of the rules of grammar the words make no sense at all! This is impossible because all people have always made perfect sense in terms of their premises. They simply had different premises and a different way to communicate.
The Pyramid Texts make perfect sense and are in agreement with the laws of nature when taken literally and at face value.
> How about you do the honourable thing and answer
> the questions Manu posed to you a few days ago.
> I'd love, as would he I have no doubt, to hear
> your responses to those very specific, clearly
> stated questions.
I've already stated in as clear of terms as I can muster that I don't understand Manu's requests nor his brain teaser. I'm quite dense and I don't think like most people do.
> Please do. I promise to read it as long as you
> answer his Qs and don't digress or "repeat"
> yourself. I already understand WHAT you think and
> believe. Just answer his questions please.
All I can do is repeat myself since most people never seem to understand a single word most of the time. Here's an old chestnut: All the facts and logic support my theory and this is the only theory making accurate prediction.
I'm sorry if this rubs some people the wrong way. I'm sorry people get upset when I say Egyptology is wrong about everything. I'm sorry if I'm mean to Egyptologists but they are most probably wrong. How do you say they are wrong and wasting their time in a nice way? If I don't say this then there will be a hundred Egyptologists and their supporters telling me how it is established fact that changeless bumpkins dragged tombs up ramps. These ideas are wrong and the fact that Egyptologists in\gnore the proofs changes nothing at all.
Ancient people were scientists and metaphysicians who used linear funiculars to build the ka of the king as a mnemonic and time capsule and then they all changed at an event we know only as the "Tower of Babel". We are not the crown of creation. We have been on a 4000 year detour of trying to make sense of ourselves and the confused modern languages which drive our thought and builds our models.