Citation for what?
Nothing you are saying makes any sense. Your citations don't make sense and neither do your conclusions. You contradict yourself, then use convoluted logic to make that contradiction valid.
For example...
Making a brick is not magical. Period. There is no citation needed for that. Likewise there is no evidence that the Egyptians considered bread making "magical". In fact, most texts on the subject are purely functional: recipes for beer making, account sheets for ingredients needed, calculations for the number of people to be served, etc. None of that reflects any sort of "magic".
A brick can be used in magical ceremonies, but that does not mean that brick making is magical. And how can it be? There were no incantations or spells of any sort involved with making bricks in Egypt that I know of. If there weren't and the only "magic" involved was sweat and muscle, then sorry, you are going overboard with the role of magic in the daily life of ancient Egypt.
Bread can be used in magical ceremonies. That does not mean that making bread was magical.
It also does not mean that the Egyptians considered bread making to be magical.
Magic is a function of belief not intellect. You cannot validate whether a spell on a dead body worked or not. There is no way to prove that you did it right. Therefore there is no way to substantiate that such spells are valid outside a belief system. But that belief system in itself offers no proof as to whether the powers being invoked or the gods being invoked actually exist or do anything. It only works in the mind of the believer as all religions are supposed to work, whether animist, Christian, Muslim, Judaic or otherwise. The words of the sacred scriptures only have power if you believe in them. That is NOT intellectual. You can talk about the power of belief and assign attributes to the gods all day and night, but you cannot prove that the Sun has a soul. You cannot prove that a spell will cause the soul to leave the body and walk among the living. Such things are not in the realm of intellect.
Magic in Egypt was invoked in various ways and in various times. Of course most often associated with funerary and other religious traditions. That does not mean that every act in daily life or every word spoken was somehow considered magical by Egyptians. There has never been anyone who I can cite who has ever said such a thing. Magic may have been an important part of the Egyptian belief system, but that does not mean that they thought every activity was magical.
Sorry, you are making some broad generalizations that do not make absolutely any sense, no matter how Bernard, yourself or any of your citations try and put it.
None of you have shown me how the Rhind papyrus had anything to do with magic. Let's stick to that point. When you or your citations can show me how the math of the Rhind was supposed to be a magical invocation of the gods that could be recited in order to produce a result, then you will make sense. Otherwise, you aren't making absolutely any sense and you really sound quite odd. Saying magic can coexist with intellect does not mean that belief in magic equals intellect. Sorry, but that is fundamentally wrong.
