This doesn’t clarify, and to be frank, sounds like hand-waving nonsense. None of that text has any clear reference to CO2, and your explanation provides no rational clarification.
If you say so. I imagine the fine points are lost without the voices in my head.
Perfect example of not even wrong. It’s impossible to rebut something this sounds like it came to him during a bad night’s sleep after a particularly spicy chimichanga too close to bedtime.
My hands are tied by the words they actually wrote in stone. They never said “the efflux of osiris is 13.t-wt.t as he is a cool effervescent geyser and it is CO2 that causes him to spray so we can build pyramids”. This is something we’d say but this breaks every rule of grammar and would sound like word soup to them. They didn’t know chemical formulas and the formatting of the ancient language doesn’t survive translation.
The lines I quoted don’t say that “efflux” is I3.t-wt.t because this breaks rules as well. Things weren’t defined in terms of other things. Things were named to be defined. Scientific terms were “named” and colloquial terms were mere place holders. “I3.t-wt.t” had names like;
The Serpent that Suffocates Animals.
The Wadjet (Serpent associated with iusaas in the eye of atum)
The Plant Serpent
Filler of Stars (bubbles)
Spirits Well Equipped by Reason of Their Mouth.
The Serpent that Falls.
…
This list with go on and on expressing more arcane knowledge. The wise and powerful would know all these terms and the average man would only know the first few which were usually sufficient for day to day communication.
It was easy to remember this because they had no other knowledge. Everything they knew was included right into the metaphysical language. So long as knew the important “names” they wouldn’t make the blunders we do today. Since this was all part of language they thought in these terms. Calling carbon dioxide “risings begetter” connotes far more information than calling it a “gasseous product of combustion containing two parts oxygen and one part carbon”. This isn’t incorrect really but it confers the concept that everything about it is known and leaves the reader none the wiser. A scientist already knows this and anyone else can’t necessarily deduce its properties from the definition.
Despite having so few words their vocabulary was very limited because meaning was expressed in how it was formatted; like computer code. Each person could easily master the language with time and effort and would be a formiddable force with a command of these “words of natural phenomena”. They built pyramids with these words and said so.
That sounds like there’s no way to evaluate what they actually mean, then.
None of this provides any indication of why it makes sense to interpret that stuff as referring to CO2, specifically. Those are very vague inferences that could apply to countless other substances, objects, or concepts, depending on the interpretation.
It is, re-read the thread. Every mention of religion results in you breaking out terms like “sun-addled bumpkins” and “gobbledy gook”. The idea that religious works can be meaningful and have value is totally absent from your posts. This is clearly biasing your thinking.
But you just said they had no beliefs at all. And if their language allowed them to explain that the king would symbolically live with them forever, it could accommodate gods and mysticism.
You are treating it like the alpha and omega of Egypt…you refer to it constantly as underpinning your theory.
Great things have come from religions. It’s not religion that kills it’s beliefs. One can hold a belief in the flying spaghetti monster, gods, or that CO2 is CO2 and still make important advancements to the human race and to the lives of men. But it’s never the belief that is at the root of the advancement. It is knowledge which is framed as these beliefs. Science progresses despite most peoples’ belief in it. Even modern religions are probably progressing though terms here are more difficult to define and measure.
If ancient people held religious beliefs then it isn’t apparent from their writing. They were very down to earth. They were a force of nature. They wouldn’t know what to make of our belief that they practiced magic or worshipped gods. They probably wouldn’t understand the concept.
No, not really. This corpus was just a silly little book of ritual and they’d be a little embarrassed to know it’s the only thing that survives of them. But it is the only thing that survives and as such it holds the key to their thinking.
[QUOTE=cladking]
Do you have a specific objection to which I haven’t responded?
[/QUOTE]
I (and many other posters) have given you specific objections. Your MO is to either blame it on ‘Egyptologists’, shift the goal posts, make strawman attacks or babble your interpretations of ancient Egyptian script back as us. As far as I can tell you’ve never actually tried to address, directly and without a load of bullshit, objections that ANYONE in this thread has made.
But, ok…at random, go back to post #1437. Is that the Merrer you were talking about? Was that the port you were referring too? If so, do you understand that the port in question wasn’t anywhere near the Giza plateau? In post #1463 you claimed “The irony here is that I’m not really “interpreting” it at all!”, yet you obviously are, since no one is reading your mystic text the same way you are. No where does the text say anything about CO2, for instance, yet YOU read it into the text. If that’s not interpretation, what is it?
You either responded with a load of bullshit, or attempted to shift the goal posts…or didn’t respond at all in some cases. Now, I fully understand that you are trying to respond to multiple posters in this thread, since you’ve set yourself against the entire community here, so I can understand not responding to every post. But when you DO respond it’s often a non-response that doesn’t even attempt to engage back with the objection being made. Clearly, in most cases, it’s YOU who doesn’t understand the objection being raised or what constitutes a meaningful response.
Ironically, in this debate it’s YOU who DOES just (attempt) to ‘drop points if you think you are right’…that’s the majority of the issue most folks have with you. You don’t debate at all…you attempt to be the font of wisdom and you assert by fiat.
Like this. Let’s just focus on your contention about CO2 geysers. Who are these supposed geologists who say there are no such thing? Can you cite actual geologists saying this? You asserted it, but you’ve asserted a lot in this thread without backing it up. A quick Google search seems to show that there ARE cold water geysers, so I question an actual geologist would make this claim…one that can easily be looked up in literally 2 seconds.
GIGO seems to be making the point, however, that if there WERE cold water geysers that the chemical make up would have a rather adverse affect on the limestone portions of the pyramids. You seem to be responding by quoting YOUR interpretation of Egyptian text at him, and then making claims about using chemistry to counteract the acidic byproduct of those cold water geysers on the limestone. Here’s the thing…you’ve provided zero evidence for, A) the existence of such a geyser anywhere near the Giza plateau, B) evidence for any sort of machine to utilize said evidence free geyser, C) exactly how the Egyptians of the Old Kingdom period would have counteracted the acidic effect on the limestone and what, precisely it would have taken to do it, and D) physical evidence that they did whatever you are asserting they did. Basically, you’ve given nothing on this one vertical topic that shows you are engaging in debate. And this is just ONE vertical topic.
Why don’t you forget about all the other vectors of topics in this thread and concentrate on just this one and, without using an appeal to your supposed knowledge and interpretation of Egyptian writings, actually answer the questions being raised. Where was the geyser, precisely? What was it composed of? How much water pressure was there from it? How, exactly, did the Egyptians supposedly harness that pressure to build the machine you were talking about? How did they get around the effects on the limestone?
Again, this is a litany of YOUR biases and blind spots. You need to present real, hard evidence if you want to be taken seriously (at this point it’s probably a lost cause, even if you did at least make an effort to TRY and present such).
Why would anyone have to pray you were wrong and they were right?? 
I think it would be way cool if you were…I’d love to see some actual evidence for something like what you described. But there is no such evidence outside of your interpretation of Egyptian writings. And much of your theory and assertions when you get specific are simply wrong. You don’t understand physics or chemistry, you don’t understand material science or really even know much about the materials or techniques available to the Egyptians. You haven’t done any physical experiments at all or attempted to test any of your theory in the real world. Which is the primary (though not only) difference between you and ‘Egyptologists’…they HAVE tested their theories by using the materials and techniques available to the Old Kingdom Egyptians (as well as other ancient peoples) instead of just reading some texts and interpreting them to find THE answer.
I thought earlier in the thread he referred to the Egypioligist view of the PT as ‘ritual’ as incorrect and it was meant as literal?
now he says its ‘ritual’ ??
Yes. Indeed. Exactly.
It would simply be impossible to determine the meaning of any of this in a vacuum. As soon as you start to “interpret” the ancient language the meaning simply evaporates and you are left with disjointed and incoherent concepts that are always contradictory to other “statements”. This is exactly why every other attempt to understand it failed; it was doomed to failure before the process even began. The meaning was in the formatting so taking the concepts apart for individual study and research simply made the resulting meaning appear to be just like the meaning inm the book of the dead. The people who wrote the book of the dead misunderstood their ancestors in exactly the same way we do. All human knowledge was in the language so this means all science, history, math, everything was contained within the language and couldn’t be translated into modern language. When the ancient language failed people were left without the very tools and knowledge needed to understand it. The vocabulary survived but the language had failed. The new languages that arose were highly “confused” and they still really are though large inroads have been made in reducing the confusion.
In order to “solve” the meaning you have to learn the referents. Each time a word is used in context it acquires more meaning and it becomes that context, that referent. As words are solved meaning emerges which helps solve more terms and the process snowballs. But this language still can’t be translated even though meaning can be increasingly deduced. Part of the difficulty is that these words were translated by people who don’t understand author intent. If this was retranslated with author intent as the goal a great deal more meaning would emerge as well as more of the rules of grammar which would yield more meaning yet. This language had aspects of being “three dimensional” so there’s still a lot in it that I can’t solve and part of the reason is it needs retranslation.
The point to remember though is that EVERY time a term is used it retains the exact same meaning with no deviation at all. Modern language speakers seek the meaning of every word in every sentence to take the meaning but ancient words didn’t function this way. You don’t need to understand some esoteric book written about the meaning of the “eye of horus” to know it was an opening for fluidic flows. It is always and only such an opening and it usually refers to the eye of the geyser itself. But every opening through which the products of the geyser flow is another eye of horus. This really isn’t that complicated, it’s just different. The ancient Egyptians didn’t think like Egyptologists. They didn’t think like we do. They sortta thought like me in a left handed sort of way.
No!
Egyptologists believe that the PT is magic and incantation. They believe these are the spells, prayers, and magic the dead king needs to get into heaven.
It is actually a book of ritual and it is obviously a book of ritual. How they got something this fundamental wrong is beyond me;
1746a. To say: Now be still, men, hear --------------------
As a book of ritual the meaning is literal. The entire language was literal though they likely used some “literary devices” and they were prone to hyperbole. Metaphor, symbolism, and the like might not have existed at all but without knowing many of the rules of grammar this is very difficult to ascertain.
Ok, so then why is it such an insult to say the Egyptians believed in gods, that the Pyramid Texts are religious rituals, and so forth? You keep posting stuff like this (in reference to understanding the PT):
…which clearly state that only bumpkins have religious beliefs.
I suspect your thought process went something like this:
Only ignorant bumpkins believe in gods and magic
Ignorant bumpkins can’t build pyramids
The Egyptians built pyramids
Therefore the Egyptians didn’t believe in gods and magic
Am I close?
Allow to propose an alternative: the Egyptians were, biologically, just like any other group of humans. They weren’t the supermen you make them out to be, nor ignorant savages as your straw opponents would say.
I posted this earlier, and you didn’t address it: Evidence of biological basis for religion in human evolution. Religion isn’t a corrupted, post-loss-of-ancient-language aberration, it’s something that humans evolved with, and it has a biological, not a cultural, basis. Therefore, the Egyptians were religious, just like all other civilizations, and they left plenty of evidence behind of this fact.
It is very apparent; in all those passages about the gods, and a spiritual ascent to heaven, and so on. You attempt to re-imagine these as being about scientific concepts and natural phenomenon, but disproving this just requires reading any given part of the PT. For example:
1197a. N. found the gods standing,
1197b. wrapped in their garments,
1197c. their white sandals on their feet.
1197d. Then they threw their white sandals on the ground,
1197e. they cast off their garments.
1198a. “Our heart was not joyful until thou didst descend,” say they;
1198b. “may that which was said of you be that which you now are.”
For the umpteenth time, we have a passage that is clear and sensible if it’s about gods, and makes no sense whatsoever if it’s about natural phenomenon.
Claiming that you know the emotional reaction ancient Egyptians would have to knowing which of their writings have survived to the modern day is probably only the 10th craziest claim you’ve made here, but it’s worth noting just how crazy it is.
Incantations are rituals.
So - you have to interpet it in order to get to the truth of it.
Thought you weren’t interpeting, just reading?
I remember it. It wasn’t really relevant to any of my argument so I simply didn’t address the error caused by reader extrapolation of what I had written to support a mninor point.
Yes, that is the Merrer, but his diary contains an account of hauling presumedly Turah Limestone across the river in the 27th years of “Khufu’s” reign. In this account he says that the “boats” were stopped at an island before continuing on to the Great Pyramid (undoubtedly under construction).
“You don’t need books to understand the PT you need to believe they weren’t stinky footed bumpkins.”
No!!!
You are extrapolating from a simple observation that the Egyptians are called stinky footed bumpkins by Egyptologists to assuming I believe beliefs in God or Gods makes one a a stinky footed bumpkin.
I have no control over other peoples’ beliefs and I fully accept the religious, ancient science and common sense axiom that we should live and let live. I personally seek to expunge beliefs from by own thinking but have no problem with other peoples’ beliefs.
There are great scientists with religion and there are great scientists who have believed in science like a religion. Modern language simply promotes beliefs because it removes knowledge from the conscious mind. We then act on our beliefs. Religious beliefs are ancient applied science and scientific beliefs are extrapolations of modern experimental knowledge. But one isn’t a bumpkin because he said to have squished his toes in corpse drippings. One would have to be a stinky footed bumpkin to be told not to do so and this is how Egyptology translates the PT. You may call it a straw man but it’s Egyptology presenting the image of people who tiptoe in corpse drippings.
The line actually is a warning to stay out of low lying areas in the “Land of Rainbows”. There were no stinky feet and no ramps.
Either quote an Egyptologist using that term to describe them, or quit making the claim. For the last time-Put up, or shut up.
Once again, your bizarre interpretation, backed by nothing.
They aren’t called that by Egyptologists, but moving on anyway, let’s talk through this:
You wrote “I don’t “interpret” the Egyptians I merely read it and try to deduce what the words have to mean for them to not be stinky footed bumpkins.”
The result of your deductions are to remove all religious or supernatural elements, correct? You’ve repeatedly stated that the Egyptians had no such beliefs.
So, plainly, the “bumpkin” reading is the supernatural one, is it not? I don’t see any other way to interpret your various remarks. You say that you respect religion and all that, but you repeatedly associate calling the Egyptians religious with insulting them, and supernatural beliefs with being a bumpkin.
I’ve been over this several times, but once more with feeling, 722 isn’t an admonition for the reader to not step it corpses, and “Egyptology” doesn’t claim that it is. I call that a straw man because it is a straw man. I challenge you to cite a single Egyptologist stating that 722 is an admonition for the reader to not step in corpse secretions. This should be easy for you, as you’ve repeated the claim at least a dozen times by now, and it’s the cornerstone of your catchphrase.
Apparently **cladking **has found Joseph Smith’s lost Seer Stones. That would explain a lot, no?
You have totally failed to establish that your understanding of the language somehow overcomes all these challenges. You assert that “they sortta [sic]” think like you, but I’m not going to take your word for it. There’s nothing in your analysis and interpretation that looks any different or better than other strange and random interpretation.
I don’t accept that you have some special insight. I don’t accept that those things refer to CO2 just because you say so.