My understanding is that this only means no language derives from Sumerian.
I am contending that linguistics doesn’t even work before 2000 BC. Linguists won’t argue the point with me except to say they don’t see the change but, then, no one has shown me anything comprehensible before 2000 BC either. The “story” of Gilgamesh comes closest but pre-2000 BC versions of this are much less comprehensible and it appears a lot more “translation” went into them. I don’t know much of anything at all about Sumerian or any Sumerian writing but perhaps “gilgamesh” is really just a confused understanding of reality as seen through the eyes of a “god”. I’m not sure there’s enough Sumerian writing that I could solve it like I did the PT.
I’m merely stating what should be obvious to all humans but hasn’t been since we lost the playbook in 2000 BC;
All knowledge and all ability spring from nature in the form of ideas. All workable ideas are based on scientific understanding of their component parts. Almost all workable knowledge is visceral and has nothing to do with what you read in a book.
Invention comes from theory. It comes to the individual.
This really couldn’t be more obvious but it hides behind our language. It’s the logic we’re born with and is excised to learn language.
It is a fact that no ramp theory has been nailed down since this new one just this year and it fails to account for how men got down from the top of the pyramid!!!
This is the state of the art; it is absurd. It has to be absurd because ramps fly in the face of logic and facts. This is how they became debunked (see post #152).
Yes, I agree completely. It is not instinctive and has to be learned. After thousands of generations it might become instinctive like bees making hexagonal combs but the first time it requires theory.
The brain is simply wired to reflect natural logic and it is observation and logic upon which all animal and ancient human science are founded. Ancient language was an elaboration of the animal language human forebearers had and modern language is a new way to think and communicate. Since modern language is not inherently logical it was necessary to invent science to reflect the logic of nature through experimental results. This isn’t complicated is it?
It also means that Sumerian does not have a common ancestor with any other known language in any of the language families (other than “proto-world”, the hypothetical first human language from which all others descend). Ancient Egyptian, on the other hand, has a common ancestor with Arabic, Hebrew, and others within the Afro-Asiatic language family.
I see no reason to accept this contention.
Whether true or not I see no reason why this differentiates the ancient Egyptians from other ancients or even from people today. You’ve presented nothing that makes me think they had any special knowledge, any special skills, special wisdom, or special understanding that no longer exist.
They did look to the ancients very much like they do to us but they were heavily anthropomorphized and paredoliac descriptions were sometimes used. For instance they saw the water crown in the upper eye of horus as the face of a jackal implying that there were two primary sets of shm-sceptres. They attributed the ring of falling water when there was no upper eye as the “vulva of tefnut”.
2065a. Behold N., his feet shall be kissed by the pure waters,
2065b. which come into being through Atum, which the phallus of Shu makes, which the vulva of Tefnut brings into being.
2066a. They have come to thee, they have brought to thee the pure waters which issue from their father;
You can actually see this in video footage.
Shu takes the water up and tefnut brings it back down.
They also spoke a lot about the rainbows that adorned the geysers and described them as cool effervescent columns of water that stood on the Giza Plateau and throughout the land of rainbows (Rosteau).
Remember though this was just a book of ritual so there’s nothing in it you wouldn’t expect in a book of ritual written by scientists.
“Invention comes from theory”, you explain to us. Yes, it often does today, but just as often, invention comes from being faced with a problem and trying a few things. Theory then follows as a way to explain why the invention works.
The six basic machines, which include the ramp and the lever, btw, but not the geyser, were all invented and used long before Newtonian physics came along, a theory which among other things finally made it clear why they worked. Physics theory wasn’t needed or involved with the invention or use of any of them. But none of them would have worked if they violated physics principles or engineering basics, as do pretty much all of your pet theories here.
You are merely suggesting that all knowledge not contained in language and modern science is some form of mysticism while in large part the opposite is true. Yes, experimental results are set in stone and are empiracle; it’s real knowledge based on a process. It was only this empiracle knowledge which made this rediscovery possible but it was empiracle knowledge used by the intuitive mind as applied to the facts themselves. It’s not channeling or woo. In reality it appears that much of what we think we know is woo. We think we are intelligent but there is scarce evidence to support it. We think we know everything but doctors don’t know what medication to prescribe that isn’t worse than its side effects and two experts rarely agree about reality before or after the fact.
We can’t predict our way out of a paper bag. We’re very good at inventing technology and very poor at using it to improve peoples’ lives. We dig the earths resources out of the ground and shovel them directly back into landfill or giant vaults to protect them from theft. There is little logic in what we do and no logic at all in how we think we got to this point.
Right or wrong the theory is based on logic and evidence taking “nothing” for granted. The chief axiom is merely that reality exists and the senses are beside the point. The first coirrolary is that observation and logic are the best tools to understanding nature. How ironic that this is actually the basis of ancient science. I guess this is why it was I who had the miusfortune of rediscovering it and it’s why I can’t get the point across. Everyone wants to see an expert who believes in geysers before agreeing. There are none. The experts are all hung up to(o) dry on ramps.
Speaking of untranslatable language, this is a perfect example. On first glance it appears to be English but (aside from spelling errors) you’d be mistaken. The subtle combination of adjectives to unrelated words, the multiple clauses, the redefinition of words in mid-sentence is breathtaking to behold.
Perhaps this is what the “eye of Horus” means? It makes about as much sense as a cold geyser.
Of course, we don’t really know how even the simplest things work. A counterweight isn’t fully understood if we can’t understand gravity in terms of something concrete or in terms of other forces. “Gravity” makes things go straight down is about the same understanding the pyramid builders had. Funny they rarely depicted it this way!
A good example would be the steam engine. The entire discipline of thermodynamics was created essentially to understand how steam engines work.
We do if we don’t sleep through science class.
And it’s all they needed. It’s all that architects and civil engineers and contractors need today, either. But they don’t need to know any of the theory behind it to use it or fight it as needed, do they?
I’m trying to force a perspective rather than share one. Ancient language shared perspective but modern people don’t even realize things look doifferent dependent on the vantage.
Read it again but try to remember I grew up with modern language and modern science exactly as you did. But I used these differently and used intuitive thought. Modern science is empirical and I learned it with modern language.
Modern science didn’t invent ancient science and ancient science wasn’t empirical (as I understand the term). Ancient science was rooted in a few common axioms that all animals are born with. But it was still empirical science that made the rediscovery. Perhaps it’s merely coincidence that the rediscoverer already thought a lot like an Egyptian.
If you ever understand it be sure to tell me how you’d say it. I’m sure a lot of the problem is communication. People want to deconstruct what I say but I mean only what I say and exactly what I say. The word meaning doesn’t vary except as it obvious, or necessary due to the vargaries of modern language.
Excellent example but the inventor of the steam engine certainly understood that steam takes up far more room than water.
He also understood things like rotational inertia and the strenght of the steels needed to build it. He knew about seals, axles, and condensation. A huge amount of theory was required to invent the steam engine or the Egyptians might have used one to build pyramids. They lacked the theory to use steam.
So your theory, that is to say, the theory which is yours, is that the Egyptians, lacking steam, were forced to use geysers instead. That’s pretty much it? Oh, right, they also used pulleys mounted to the tops of the pyramids that were already there somehow.