Hi Warwick,


> Ok I think I put to much meaning into your
> reference to geometry.


Yes, you saw the pyramid Pi approaching fast, knee-jerked and slammed the brakes.


>
> Of course the two square rectangle comes into
> play. But I really think it more a matter of a
> basic symmetry, as you rightly
> state...Balance...that works so well with those
> other basic denominators...the Two Egypts, and
> Duality in general.

I don't think that is all. I'm sure you'll agree with me about the Eye of Horus being one of the important conceptions in their mythology and belief system. Well, look at how they used it to divide and measure. I guess this, of course, depends on what you consider the Eye of Horus originally to be.
Moreover, as I wrote earlier, their whole conception of the universe was based on balance. This does not necessarily mean one balancing the other, but in most cases several smaller ones balancing one big "other" etc. They lived and thought Maat on it's most basic and obvious level, which is not the right versus wrong level.



>
> yet the demands on the artist and/or architect ie
> the means whereby he balances his work requires
> very little in the way of calculation.


Again, I don't think their works of art are just works of art. As far as I can see, the ancient Egyptians very rarely did anything for fun or out of a whim. Hence, their architecture and art is a reflection of how they saw their surroundings and, since they paralleled themselves and their very lives with the same universe, the expressions we are looking at do actually reflect their minds and how they saw themselves.
I think you are going wrong with this issue because you seem to link calculation to geometry. That is not, IMO, the way the Egyptians saw it. At all. Sure, they needed to make calculations to be able to build the image of their idea, such as the pyramids. But to draw a perfect geometrical image, such as the very same pyramid, no calculation is needed, because it is a basic geometrical image.




>
> TTBOMK in any relief that clearly has two
> receptive or reflective sides, the key components
> are those in the middle that are singular. I'll
> venture what might very well be a completely wrong
> metaphor vis a vis interpretation. That which is
> singular in this relief is the Noun/s, that which
> is mirrored is/are the Verb/s. Comments???


I don't agree about the key components being singular. Take the funerary art, for example. The AEs paralleled themselves with the events in the sky (be it the sun, or the stars). Hence the divinities in the art reflect the human and the human reflects the divinity. Balance again, but on a different level. The AEs were masters on thinking on numerous levels at the same time, and expressing it in their art. In other words, you must be very careful when you see a "balance" expressed, because it does not necessarily exclude other relations being based on balance also present in the same work.



>
> What do you make of the bird at top? Ibis,
> Vulture, or something yet again???

Falcon with a flagellum sitting on a stela topped with something. The problem is, that this is a very late representation, and some (if not even most) symbols used in the art have been added to ad nauseum and hence made almost unrecognisable. Moreover, this particular representation is rather badly executed....








Ritva