Hans_lune Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Cladking we all noticed that you never provided a
> full 'translation' of the PT instead you take
> individual sentences out of context and try to
> pretend its important.

Again, this is almost ALL your own doing. Whenever I interpret longer utterances you say I'm off topic. I already told you that IMO this utterance concerns laying out a new pyramid, beginning construction of a new pyramid; ie it is a ritual read to the crowds at the beginning of the initial construction. If I interpret each line to show this and to show why they LITERALLY said the king is a pyramid you balk. It is not so others, it is you.

> Great and what evidence do you have that it is not
> religious?

I've said this many times and it is ignored. The evidence is very simple.

If it's true the PT is meant literally it shows there are no abstractions in the language. There are no words that mean "think" or "believe". Without the infrastructure (language) of superstition there can be no superstition. No beliefs, no thought, and no religion or magic. .

There are only a handful of words in the entire language other than noun so usage breaks Zipf's Law.

The language is mathematical in nature. It is representative and digital where ours is symbolic and analog. As such we must parse every word but meaning evaporates if Ancient Language is parsed in any way at all. This is why there is an intact literal meaning. Their language used reality itself (as they understood it) as a touchstone but we can say anything at all. And then after we say anything everyone parses a different meaning. What they said had a single fixed meaning that everyone understood. Even children would take the meaning if they understood. If they didn't they'd hear mere gobbledty gook. Everyone who understood a sentence took the exact same meaning. If there existed any nuances or connotation it existed between the sentences, not within.

> No it isn't - again this is just your claim -
> provide the evidence to support this (we both know
> you don't have it)

The literal meaning as I interpret it is internally consistent and consistent with the "laws" of nature as their primitive science understood the laws of nature. When they said the "king is the pyramid' they meant that for all human purposes the king and the pyramid were the exact same thing. We must "interpret" this as "all that's left of the king is his mnemonic which is the pyramid and a specific star".

Say what you will but if shu is upward and tefnut is downward then it is essentially a universal "truth" that what goes shu must come tefnut'. Saying this is consistent and is consistent with the "laws" of nature.

> Complete BS its just a language like all others -
> remember your statements aren't facts. You've have
> 17+ years to write up why we should believe this -
> you never had - instead all you have done is
> repeat the same opinions over and over again.

If it is not meant literally then why does the evidence always support a literal interpretation?

There is no such thing as magic today or 4750 years ago when G1 was built and there's no direct evidence the builders believed in magic.

> That is how human language works and AE is a human
> language.

And this is exactly where Champollion went wrong. This is where Egyptology went wrong. It never occurred to them that there even existed another type of language.

> Oh he's magically turned into a big pile of rocks
> huh? Makes sense....... I suggest he's really IS
> dead and the pyramid is his tomb wherein his mummy
> lay.

It's not magical. Literally the only thing left of the king are the mnemonics by which he is remembered; a pyramid and a star. Ancient people didn't think like us and the FACT they had no word for "think" shows they didn't even experience "thought".

232a. It is he who is come against N., (though) N. does not go against him;
232b. the second moment after he saw N., the second moment after he perceived N.

Here you can see they left a roadmap, a blueprint, of their actual thought process. It is expressed LITERALLY and in plain English.

It is what it is. Egyptology is simply wrong and got that way by parsing what can't be parsed. If it is parsed it looks like like the superstitions in the "book of the dead" because later people copied the ancient work and provided their own explanations based on their own thinking. You can't think about or read Ancient Language or the meaning is lost. It means what it says; the literal meaning is the intended meaning and our job is to deduce what each word must mean in order for that literal meaning to be internally consistent and in agreement with the laws of nature.

As such it is apparent that groups of pyramids or other structures might just as well line up with stars since each star represented famous people in history all the way back to the very beginning of history before 40,000 BC. If the original "Horus" were human and at Giza then why wouldn't they'd align the stars with his? If they didn't think as I suggest then how could they NOT line up the pyramids with the stars?

____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2023 03:38PM by cladking.