Corvidius Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cladking Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> > The problem is remarkably simple and obvious.
> So
> > long as the PT is only magic and incantation it
> is
> > simply impossible to know whether our
> > interpretations are correct or not. If any
> > interpretation made prediction then this would
> be
> > untrue.
> >
> > Any correspondence between the PT and later
> > writing could be coincidental or caused by
> unknown
> > procsses.
>
>
> You are I hope aware of those parts of the PT
> which do not find their way into the published
> translations? These are the instructions to repeat
> various incantations, and yes, that is what they
> are, multiple times, the sort of thing you do in
> religious incantations as repetition strengthens
> the spell. If the PT were detailing how G1 was
> built, then there would be no need to have
> instructions to "Repeat 3 times" before some lines
> of text. This indicates that the texts were to be
> recited, and indicates that they come from papyrus
> scrolls used by lector priests, they are almost
> like bullet points to remind him of exactly what
> he has to recite and how, all of which are
> superfluous if we are looking at "plans to build
> G1", and why on earth would Sixth Dynasty kings
> need "instructions" to build G1 in the burial
> chambers of their tombs, yet one of many massive
> flaws in your arguments, like why is there not
> even any mention of a pyramid in Unas.

It's very very easy to completely misapprehend any writing including "liturgical texts" and even my last post. I had intended none of the meaning you ascribed to it and have none of the beliefs you ascribed to me. We go into everything with assumptions and this is where the problem lies. All I was pointing out was that no checks and balances can exist on any interpretation of the PT if it is incantation. It is simply necessary that something is known about the religion, people, and meanings of the words and since this absolutely does not exist then no interpretation can be said to be "right" or even "better".

Early translators had absolutely no choice but to make assumptions about things like the meanings of the words, and to make assumptions about how they were to be interpreted. They were already familiar with later writing as well as the religious texts known as "the book of the dead". The PT looks a lot like the BOTD and is obviously a predecessor to it so they quite logically translated AND interpreted it in terms of the later work. But there's no means to test these assumptions and the fact that some are to be repeated three times hardly proves they are incantation. To me they appear to be rituals. Virtually every single one appears to be a ritual read at a ceremony performed at the beginning of pyramid building season when the king ritualistically was turned into a pyramid and a star. From these ritual a great deal of information can be gleaned about things like the exact process that was used to turn him into a pyramid and a separate ritual that turned him into a star.

I don't believe there is any magic or superstition shown in the PT. All it shows is a different way to think then the way we think which hid the nature and meaning of the words. As evidence I would point out that there are no abstractions in the PT. There are no words that mean "thought" or "belief". There are no taxonomies and only a few hund5red distinct words. To create meaning with so few words simply requires a different way to format those words; a different way to think. This, the different way to think, is why the PT breaks Zipf's Law.

____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.