> sansahansan Wrote:
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> > I do not understand how you can claim a
> literal
> > reading when you assign metaphorical meanings
> to
> > terms in the text.
>
> Much of the problem here is terminology. I do
> often say that therte's no metaphor in the PT and
> this isn't literally true. Suffice to say that
> the overall meaning is literal if I'm wright.

Yet were you not the one that stated that a) you are trying to read the texts as literal, and b) that what you write, you try to be as literal as possible?

Please, review the links I posted about literal vs figurative. Your statements here are somewhat figurative when you speak of 'overall meaning' and 'this isn't literally true'. At the least, you seem to be blurring the line. Either the writing is literal as written, or you are seeking an overall 'meaning' of the work and positing a possible such as a theory.

This concept is the realm
> of
> > speculation for two reasons: One, you have
> no
> > 'quantifiable' method of determining how well
> a
> > set of meanings might fit, and 2) you have no
> way
> > of proving that there is no other set of
> meanings
> > that can fit. Not sure on the former, but
> the
> > latter is certainly attempting to prove a
> > negative, so you can never prove that.
>
> This is something of a mathematic question. Of
> course I don't have the tools to solve for N and
> no one else does at this time either but the
> nature and simplicity of this work leave it just
> over the horizon. The entire thing looks
> something like a very simple but very elaborate
> (extensive) geometry question; like a massive
> substitution problem.

It is something of a mathematical question in that you are positing a set of potential values to successfully solve the equation of context + meanings = a literal value (your theory)
And while you state that you do not have tools to solve for N, you nonetheless posit a set meaning for N that you claim solves the equation, then ask for others to supply a different set, presumably in an attempt to help you discredit your own as being the only possible set for a solution.
Unfortunately, the solution isn't quantifiable - it's a quality and is therefore subjective. Does a given set of meainngs N provide a literal interpretation that is internally consistent? That is a judgement call, ie subjective, which brings it the realm of speculation or belief.


> I understand your point do believe that "filling
> in the gaps" in physical evidence is prefectly
> justifiable. This certainly doesn't include
> extending ramps from the base of the pyramid to
> the top or projecting them back from centuries
> later but connecting two ends of a ditch should be
> at least a tentative solution. By the same token
> there must be water to collect so an apron at the
> base seems a given. Large pieces of it survive.

Again, subjective and selective.
1) Selective - ramps from the base to the top -- evidence of ramps used in construction does exist, see prior posts (Anthony I think?) for references - and you are selecting to not acknowledge it.
2) Interpretations of the rubble at the base of the pyramid, are by nature, subjective. Concrete evidence is needed to tie together the bricks of subjective evidence, else the wall is extremely weak.


> As I said, the "state secret" explanation was a
> relatively minor part if it was real. But keep in
> mind that most of the geyser was in the "hidden
> place" and behind the "walls of Shu". The
> builders would see water coming out ogf the Mehet
> Weret cow and just take it for granted. If they
> were tortured they couldn't say much about geysers
> or how to disrupt them. I think this was mostly
> an open secret and it was heavily couched in
> religion.

Indeed, a religion based on secretly producing the geysers with a certain yeast reaction?
Then the priests have the knowledge, and captive priests could be forced to reproduce the 'miracle'. I'll admit a certain bias here -- I have my suspicions that the ancients (Ks of Years before BC) weren't as gullible as modern science has portrayed them, but I also freely acknowledge it as a suspicion, unfounded and unproven. Others can speak to the spread of unique technology, even when warded by religious taboos, throughout history.

>
> I do not know exactly what evidence would survive
> from these and there is no evidence anyone has
> ever looked for it. People rarely find things
> when they aren't looking for it.

Hee, you made me smile -- you say this, yet some of the *most* important discoveries in history were completely by accident -found by people totally not looking for them. Scotch Tape & Sucralose/Dextrose being a couple of the most recent. I suspect Geometric Ratios to have been one of the earliest. For that matter, at some point, some animal picked up a rock and clunked themselves in the head with and discovered 'hey, that hurt!' and promptly initiated a long chain of events that led to modern warfare

>
> >... as several have mentioned.
> > There is no reservoir of water underground,
> as
> > required for geysers.
>
> There is fresh flowing water at the bottom of the
> Osiris shaft.

I believe I've previously posted on how geysers work and the reservoir required. Flowing water does not support geysers except in the form of tidal bores - and those aren't truly geysers.

Try this site for reference [www.umich.edu]
Please, do advise as to which type of geyser you'd speculate would've been used for your theory?

In fairness, here's a link to cold geysers -- most of which are man made or resultant from tidal bores. [www.alanglennon.com]

> There are volcanos in the northern Sudan
> straddling the Nile which have both erupted in the
> last 10,000 years.

Last eruptions being around 2000 to 3000 BC. Is that the right time frame for your alleged geysers to exist? Also, that's some distance from Giza, is it not? Right along the tectonically active (geologically speaking) rift valley - at/near the extreme north edge of it. Also, are you alleging regular geysers (thermal based, which needs somewhat closer volcanoes or activity) or cold based geysers (see above) that need a water reservoir and a source for CO2? Please also note, unless you have references to cite elsewise, to the best of my knowledge, Yeast DIES in cold water (or too hot of water).


> There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that
> any stones were lifted up on to any of the great
> pyramids using ramps. Where one would expect a
> great deal of evidence there is a vacuum.

I'll just copy and paste from above:
1) Selective - ramps from the base to the top -- evidence of ramps used in construction does exist (for other pyramids), see prior posts (Anthony I think?) for references - and you are selecting to not acknowledge it and continue to restate that there is no evidence.

The construction technology of the pyramids does follow a timeline. Ramps were used at an earlier time. What evidence exists to suggest their discontinuation? A lack of evidence for or against means nothing (or cancels, depending on your thought process), leaving only 'they used to do it with ramps. No evidence for/against means they might/probably did so again.'
>
> I don't really think of anything I do as science
> and never have. I'm trained in science but what
> I've always done is intuition. At a very young
> age I made a decision to abandon pure logic as too
> weak a tool for the real world for which I craved
> answers. There's no certainty an intuitive
> generalist might get the answer right where
> thousands of scientist are wrong but it seems your
> job to shoot me down and it's foreign to me to sit
> back and see if anyone ever arrives at the same
> answers.

Huh. Almost flabbergasted I am. Let me take this point by point...

1) If you are not attempting science I will not continue to attempt to discuss things on a scientific basis with you, instead I will turn to my own intuition.
If I did so, my responses would certainly be shorter. "I don't think so. It doesn't feel right." and done.

2) This statement reminds me VERY much of a certain fellow named Edgar Cayce -- but no, I'm not accusing you of being psychic.

3) The decision to abandon pure logic puts you back to the days before Socrates and the birth of modern science. You sir, are a PHILOSOPHER. And I say that with tongue in cheek in the same tone that the Spanish Inquisition might have said 'Blasphemer'.

4) You state you are an intuitive generalist.
In which case I have no business engaging you in a critical thinking, scientifically based, thought/discussion/process. Generalize on feelings, this is a free speech zone, yes?

5) If we are engaged in a logical, critical discussion of your theory, it is your job to prove your theory against all discreditors. I'm merely pointing out flaws in your theory, as I should if I'm to critically review it and not simply be a 'Yes' man and a bobble head.

6) After postulating a theory and a test you've done to prove it, it is indeed your position to sit back and wait to see if others reproduce it -- assuming we're indulging in the scientific process and not in philosophy. The story of Cold Fusion is certainly a great allegorical reference to this.



> > I have striven within this post to be as
> literal
> > as possible in my writings and my
> observations.
>
> Indeed. I don't see this often and it's a
> pleasent change to not have to translate.

That sir (or maam) is because I am indeed a true generalist when it comes to science or comparative mythology - I personally prefer the term Scholar - in the broadest sense. I will not adopt a position, nor accept anothers position, without cited references or my own research. I will abandon a position instantly upon the presentation of refutatory evidence (which completely unbalances some) and, as quickly as possibly, take a new position incorporating the new evidence or else seek a unifying theory in the meantime.

In simpler terms, I yearn to simply learn.

I have found that I generally exhaust others' patience before firm conclusions are reached - but that is the curse of a scholar who simply seeks to learn.

Again though, if you are not engaging in scientific or logical thought processes, then I will disengage from having such discussions with you -- it can lead to nothing but frustration on both our parts.