Byrd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cladking Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> > .and did(st) spew out as Shu,
> > Shu, lift N. up on high;
> > Shu will draw him up
> > those who have lifted themselves up like Shu
> are
> > come
> > Waters, which were brought by Shu and lifted up
> by
> > the two sources,
> > Shu, lift N. up to heaven
> > Shu, thou envelope(st) all things within thine
> > arms.
> > Shu stands on thy fetters.
> > the arms of Shu (were) under the sky as he
> lifted
> > her up
> > upon Shu of Nut ( "nut" is the sky)
> > his two thighs belong to Shu and Tefnut;(One
> lifts
> > and sets things down with one's legs/ thighs).
> > Aker stands up for thee; Shu dries (lit.
> something
> > like. "lies down," Wb. V 366) for thee. They
> > tremble who see the inundation (when) it
> tosses;
> > (Shu dries the earth by tossing the
> inundation.)
> > Thou art Shu; thou art height, (Thou art
> "upward"
> > not a void)
> > Shu, lord of the upper mnst (the word here is
> > "trajectory)
> > thou art above thy father Shu
> > Shu lifts me up;
>
> As I keep telling you, your source is not correct.
> The funky little note (WB V 366) tells you which
> coffin it's from.
>
> It was never in a pyramid.
>
> It's not even 4th dynasty or 5th dynasty or 6th
> dynasty. It's put in the agglomerated Pyramid
> Texts because they used it to flesh out some of
> the meaning of the earlier texts. We can tell
> from spelling errors that they didn't quite
> understand everything they were copying.
>
> Researchers must use ACCURATE SOURCES.

1553a. Aker stands up for thee; Shu dries (lit. something like. "lies down," Wb. V 366) for thee.
1553b. They tremble who see the inundation (when) it tosses;

I didn't use this specific source largely because without proper interpretation it can be parsed to mean that "shu" means lies down or downward. Modern people can not hear or see language without parsing it and parsing destroys the meaning in AL. This concept of parsing words may be the hang up. People don't even realize we are doing it or that we each do it differently in every instance. It is the reason logical statements can't be made; everything in our languages can be parsed other than the author intended. Our languages are each just like the language of the "book of the dead"; they have no meaning until they are parsed.

And this is exactly where Champollion et al went wrong. They did not use "accurate sources". To translate the words they used the "book of the dead" and to understand the meaning they used the religion and magic believed in by the authors of the "book of the dead". This religion and magic was derived from Ancient Language. It was their understanding of the meaning of ancient writing that was gleaned from parsing it. The meaning they found in the ancient writing did not exist. the meaning they found was not the author intent. It was wholly different than author intent but it is what it looked like to people who lacked science and communicated like we do; placing meaning in grammar using words with no fixed meaning by use of abstraction and analog concepts. This is how they got the idea that "Shu" is an imaginary consciousness responsible for air. Most of the time "shu" appears in the Ancient Language (in the PT) the things he is operating on are flying through the air or moving upward through the air. People need to remember that when the first Ancient Language writing was found in 1883 hieroglyphs had been understood for more than half a century because of Champollion and Young, so of course this writing was translated according to the standards of that time. Even today it could be the only writing that exists in Ancient Language though there are numerous fragments of Sumerian that are likely so ancient.

Every time "shu" was used the sentence will make sense if you don't parse it AND you "translate" the word to mean "upward". But again AL can't be translated and neither can any word in it. We can understand it only by modelling it. Words represented physical things and known science they did not symbolize things and have definitions like ours do. No word could be defined rather everyone stove to have the same understanding of each word which were "named" as more was learned about them. This system was exceedingly cumbersome by our standards and it became increasingly complex with new "gods" being born each time new things were learned. It simply became so complex it had to be abandoned after centuries of fewer and fewer speakers as more and more people spoke the pidgin forms of it that were like modern languages.

This is all invisible because of Champollion. He believed that by solving words he could come to understand the language. Obviously he was correct and it worked well on later Egyptian but there is no reason whatsoever to believe it worked on the Pyramid Texts since it is believed to be incantation. It is not incantation; it is ritual and nothing but ritual and other words spoken at ceremonies. We simply got it wrong by using Champollion's techniques and parsing words to agree with the "book of the dead".

There is a whole new world and new culture lying at our fingertips unseen and unfelt. It is our past and we won't understand ourselves until we understand the real pyramid builders and their culture, their science, and the metaphysics we think is incantation.

____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2022 09:20AM by cladking.