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

> This is for Cladking to explain how he gets from
> the symbols to his "list". He uses Mercer's
> translation of Sethe. Sethe translated the
> symbols. So Cladking needs to be able to draw a
> line from the symbols to his interpretation.

I have done this many many times but it is being brushed off as some sort of cosmic coincidence.

The Pyramid Texts makes perfect sense if you take the words literally and solve word meanings through context. This is what I did. The word "shu" for instance always means "inertia" in context hence I simply assumed it meant "inertia" to the author and then I used this new understanding to solve more word meanings. It was like the solving 10,000 simultaneous equations. Of course I broke it down into manageable chunks.

If the list of definitions is accurate then the PT is just a bunch of ritual read at the kings' ascension ceremonies and almost everything modern people know isn't true or is only true from specific perspectives

> I
> have said that more than three times. Before
> anything can happen in terms of approving or
> disapproving of his theory, he has to make this
> clear.

I can justify my understanding of the word "shu" later today but people generally just dismiss these things as coincidence. The list is the result of countless thousands of google searches requiredf to find a coherent meaning in a metaphysical language.

> Cladking thought of a method to lift stones
> up a pyramid and looked for proof of the method in
> the Pyramid Texts. His context is pyramid building
> and that is the lens through which he reads these
> texts.

This is not true.

Yes, I did believe water was used before studying the PT but I had no idea how it could have been done; just a pocketful of hypotheses. I also didn't know any details of the construction techniques.

Of course this could all be confirmation bias but so could the beliefs that highly superstitious people dragged tombs up ramps and never changed. I have cast great doubt on each of these beliefs. Egyptology can not stand without all of them.

> He can
> only translate those passages which serve his
> purpose.

I can only "translate" a few words. But I can interpret almost every sentence in it (90% anyway)and show how the glyphs arose and why they are misinterpreted.