Tommi Huhtamaki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Do I not remember correctly, or were you not
> saying that a literal meaning does not need
> interpretation? If so, is your interpretation of
> the Eye of Horus not an interpretation because,
> for you, it seems to fit together like a jig saw
> puzzle?

At the risk of getting into semantics, I don't believe there's "interpretation" in my literal understanding of the PT. Obviously this understanding is a proposal rather than known fact until such time as intent is proven to be literal and this specific literal understanding.

There is a very small but finite probability that they were meant literally but I've missed the actual meaning. I've tried plugging just about everything into this but nothing produces any consistency other than geysers. If the intent is literal then I'm about 99% certain that the referent for "D[].t" is geyser. "I[].t-wt.t" is carbon dioxide, etc, etc.

Of course it's entirely possible that there was no literal intent in which case the fact that geysers fit is some truly cosmic coincidence.

Obviously to some degree "interpretation" is going to come into play when looking at any sort of evidence but I avoid this word because what I'm doing is very much different than assuming the only intent of the writers is metaphoric and then trying to understand it in this context. It's not that it's necessarily more difficult to insert my own personal beliefs into the results (it is probably) but that this job is so much simpler and so much less open to "interpretation". I prefer to say that I'm just reading the words rather than trying to understand them. I'm just looking to see what they said.




____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.