Ancient Reality

[cladking]

Frankly I've never seen any evidence you've ever put any thought whatsoever into anything I've posted. It seems you don't so much read them or try to understand as much as you skim them trying to find something to which you can respond. This entire thread is full of virtual proof there was a distinct reality before everybody began experiencing his very own reality. From soup to nuts it's all there. How do you explain the same symbols were drawn on cave walls all over the world as my theory predicts? How do you explain the simple fact that all the evidence says linear funiculars were used to built the great pyramids and the pyramid builders themselves literally said they used linear funiculars to build the pyramids?

How do you explain the simple fact that Ancient Language contained no words for "thought", "beliefs", taxonomies, or reductionistic words? How do you explain their ability to communicate with so few words AND the fact Egyptologists never even noticed any of this and that the language breaks Zipf's Law? Despite their inability to see what's right in front of their noses you believe they are "intelligent" and that when Peers vote then the results are binding on reality.

You merely see what you want to see so you'll miss almost every word in the last couple posts and launch into a brand new semantical argument. I predict my response to anything you post next will be two words "semantical argument".

 

[gnostic]

How do you explain the simple fact that Ancient Language contained no words for "thought", "beliefs", taxonomies, or reductionistic words? How do you explain their ability to communicate with so few words AND the fact Egyptologists never even noticed any of this and that the language breaks Zipf's Law? Despite their inability to see what's right in front of their noses you believe they are "intelligent" and that when Peers vote then the results are binding on reality.

You merely see what you want to see so you'll miss almost every word in the last couple posts and launch into a brand new semantical argument. I predict my response to anything you post next will be two words "semantical argument".

You repeatedly post this chart of some common symbols in your past replies:

Just because there are some common pictographic symbols in prehistoric and ancient times, doesn’t mean they are “written language” or have linguistic contexts.

Yes, I know you got this chart from Genevieve von Petzinger, but these are merely picked for mere display.

Those symbols are not arranged in string of symbols, with pattern of arrangements that you would see in Egyptian hieroglyphs.

With hieroglyphs you would see groups of hieroglyphs arranged either vertically top-to-down, or horizontally right-to-left. The arrangement and repeated symbols and patterns, denoted language.

Just because you may find some common symbols in Asia, Europe, Africa, America, unless their are arrangements and patterns of usage that you are able to translate, those symbols may not have linguistic meaning.

That chart, while it is interesting to see, they don’t provide any context as to what they actually mean.

Plus. What are drawn in Africa, may have different context than those depicted in Asia or America.

And lastly, having common symbols, don’t mean those people from those spoke the same exact language.

All you have done came up with invented story you have been telling yourself without proving anything, let alone translate these doodles. And all you are doing is just grasping at imaginary straw.

 

[cladking]

These "symbols" are innate to the human species.

Perhaps we shouldn't even call the means by which ancient people communicated a "language" because the word "language" carries a lot of baggage. Ancient Language is so alien to us, the way we think, and how we communicate it can't even be translated. It's not that we don't know how to translate it, it's simply impossible to translate. Our language and thought are analog and symbolic and theirs was digital and representative. Just like the neurons in the brain are on or off their thought followed these digital pathways. This is why they lacked words for "thought" and the many other types of words like abstractions, taxonomies, and reductionistic words that we require to think and communicate. They didn't experience thought so had no words for it.

Ancient words represented what was known. Since proto-humans knew so very little they needed very few words. When homo sapiens took over they learned quickly using the tools at their disposal; the logic of the wiring of their brains and observation. The number of words had to increase.

They didn't paint prepositions and adverbs on the walls of caves. They painted the words that were deduced from observation. The most accurate word for these deductions in our language is "theory". THESE are the words that formed the heart of their metaphysical language. It is metaphysical because each sentence must be accurate in order to be consistent with the wiring of the brain and it must follow a "grammar" that is consistent with the means by which their science evolved.

These symbols are still innate to us but we must learn a new language when we are two years old which entails rewiring the brain and the loss of the billions of new brain cells which grow so that we can "think" in Ancient Language. Most of these representations are beyond the comprehension of a two year old so, of course, they don't seen innate to us.

Any of us can learn to model Ancient Language but first it must all be rediscovered.

Humanity's golden age was founded on Ancient Language and the power it gave individuals as well as the ability for virtually perfect communication all the time. The benefits of Ancient Language were direct and immediate because it provided knowledge > understanding > and creation. Our language after 3500 years invented science that gives us indirect benefit through technology which is a magic trick created through understanding experiment. But it provides exceedingly little direct benefit nor direct understanding. This isn't to say all ancient understanding was in any way "better" or more "complete, merely that it was accurate. Nothing ties our understanding to reality other than experiment. This means everything for which there is no direct evidence for support is open to question. The universality of these specific representations is virtually adequate support to say my theory is correct in its fundamentals. Simply stated this means the story of the "Tower of Babel" is correct but confused. It means we are still confused and still use confused language. It means that ancient people thrived not through superstition and ignorance as the priests of modern science would have us believe but through knowledge and understanding as should be patently obvious to every thinking person.

 

[cladking]

The universality of these specific representations is virtually adequate support to say my theory is correct in its fundamentals. Simply stated this means the story of the "Tower of Babel" is correct but confused. It means we are still confused and still use confused language. It means that ancient people thrived not through superstition and ignorance as the priests of modern science would have us believe but through knowledge and understanding as should be patently obvious to every thinking person.

And it means that the great pyramids were built with linear funiculars exactly as the builders said they were.

People are going to have to learn to deal with it because this is what all the new evidence will always say and it's what all the old evidence already says.

 

[gnostic]

I cannot take anyone seriously, when they think the nonexistent Tower of Babel as real event, dividing humans between the nonexistent Nephilim with nonexistent Homo omnisciensis (which is something you made up).

Even if you are only the Tower of Babel as analogy, it is no wonder that no Egyptologists would take seriously.

But I am not an Egyptologist, and I find your Tower of Babel to be nothing more than imaginary belief in imaginary Ancient Language and Ancient Science that don’t exist 40,000 years ago.

Seriously, how can you know what people from 40,000 think when there are no written languages around this time? By some untranslatable doodles of symbols?

That chart of some common symbols that you keeping posting up, don’t provide any context as to what they each mean, so it is ridiculous that you would built mansions from ant mounds. What are drawn in Africa, don’t mean they have same meaning in Asia, Europe or, North or South America.

All you are doing is making some assumptions and interpretations as to what you think those symbols mean, and you are falsely attributing they all spoke a single language - the Ancient Language.

You are just as bad as Graham Hancock, making wild assumptions without evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

A response to this statement in another thread wouldn't be appropriate there.

You keep getting hung up in semantics. Semantics is one of the chief ways we use to create our circular arguments and some use it to demolish other arguments. But semantics isn't real, it's just words. Words are chiefly for communication when we aren't thinking so we should all try to follow the other guys thinking more andf the words less. If I say there is no elephant in the xxxxx and no species like the elephant in it either then there are countless ways I can "PROVE" it. For instance if I can show the entire xxxxx and no elephant is visible then we can categorically state there's no elephant. It has been proven there's no elephant in the xxxxx when the "xxxxx" is defined as a teacup. I said the word "belief" does not exist in ancient literature and none of the synonyms for "belief" exist in ancient literature.

You can start here;

site:sacred-texts.com utterance belief

Simply put this in any search engine you'll get no hits in the Pyramid Texts.

This is because The Pyramid Texts is not about death and superstious nonsense as is widely believed today. The Pyramid Texts are actually just a silly little book of rituals read at the kings' ascension ceremonies during pyramid building season. The PT is about life and its celebration even as the king is being transformed into a mnemonic to be remembered in heaven and earth. The king lives eternally as the pyramid and his history and all human history is recorded in the stars.

Count the words in the PT. They are about life.

There was no religion of any sort. Simple logic will tell you man couldn't survive on an untamed planet using superstition and magic. People no longer care about logic; they care about semantics because they don't have to think about semantics but they would have to think if they understood opposing arguments.

I've been reading some of these posts, and so I looked up some things about language. I note what is said in the article of the BBC Science magazine: "There have been several attempts to trace the family tree of our languages and find ancestral vocabulary and grammar. In 1994, Stanford University linguist Merritt Ruhlen suggested several root words that may have belonged to this ancestor language, including ‘ku’ (‘who’), and ‘ma’ (‘what’). But this is still controversial and many linguists regard the search for a ‘first’ language as pointless." In a way this makes sense to me as far as evolution is concerned, just to say I don't believe humans evolved from another being called an ape of sorts, although it seems that evolutionists believe that somehow pre-humans whom they don't know much about except they conjecture these were highly related to an "Unknown Common ancestor" that also was related to bonobos, chimps and other likely offspring according to them, probably did not do much except maybe grunt and cry. So now, no wonder movies are made about cavemen that looked like hunched over human/gorilla types and who did nothing but grunt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've been reading some of these posts, and so I looked up some things about language. I note what is said in the article of the BBC Science magazine: "There have been several attempts to trace the family tree of our languages and find ancestral vocabulary and grammar. In 1994, Stanford University linguist Merritt Ruhlen suggested several root words that may have belonged to this ancestor language, including ‘ku’ (‘who’), and ‘ma’ (‘what’). But this is still controversial and many linguists regard the search for a ‘first’ language as pointless." In a way this makes sense to me as far as evolution is concerned, just to say I don't believe humans evolved from another being called an ape of sorts, although it seems that evolutionists believe that somehow pre-humans whom they don't know much about except they conjecture these were highly related to an "Unknown Common ancestor" that also was related to bonobos, chimps and other likely offspring according to them, probably did not do much except maybe grunt and cry. So now, no wonder movies are made about cavemen that looked like hunched over human/gorilla types and who did nothing but grunt.

Let's try to avoid obviously false claims about others. I don't make up outlandish reasons that Christians believe what they believe when trying to refute them. You don't accept reality. We all get that. But don't make false claims about others in the process.

 

[tas8831]

How do you explain the simple fact that Ancient Language contained no words for "thought", "beliefs", taxonomies, or reductionistic words?

By understanding that "Ancient language" is just your child-like fantasy.

 

[gnostic]

By understanding that "Ancient language" is just your child-like fantasy.

Who knows why he need to invent these fantasies?

@cladking is still claiming that pyramids weren’t tombs for the pharaohs and other members of the families.

In the Old Kingdom period (3rd to 6th dynasties). Some of these pyramids have chambers containing sarcophagi and coffins, and some even have bodies (mummies) and even when the bodies are missing (eg in Khufu’s Great Pyramid), some others have pieces of mummy or evidence of cloths that were used to wrap the bodies were left behind.

Although by New Kingdom period (18th to 20th dynasties), pharaohs have stopped building pyramids, they still use sarcophagi and coffins, and they still wrapped bodies for mummification. Sarcophagi were still used in Hellenistic and Roman times.

There was a more recent discovery of another pyramid (2008) in Saqqara, located not far from pyramid of the 5th dynasty pharaoh Unas. Although there are no hieroglyphs to identify who’s pyramid belonged to, but other evidence pointed to Sesheset, who was the mother of the 6th dynasty pharaoh Teti.

What they have found in this pyramid was a chamber containing a sarcophagus, as well as a body wrapped in linen.

A mummified body was also found in pyramid of Merenre I, but in Unas’ pyramid, only a few body parts were found with sarcophagus, with rest of Unas’ body missing.

Unas, Teti, Pepi I, Merenre and Pepi II, all have pyramids of their own, all five of them have not only sarcophagi, they also have Pyramid Texts inscribed on the chamber walls.

Some passages of the Pyramid Texts even include descriptions of what to do with the bodies.

I don’t see how cladking can continue to deny these pyramids serveing as tombs, where there are sarcophagi found in most pyramids, sometimes it included coffins, and sometimes bodies wrapped in cloths.

 

[tas8831]

Who knows why he need to invent these fantasies?

Ever seen the move "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty"?

 

[gnostic]

Ever seen the move "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty"?

No, I haven’t.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ever seen the move "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty"?

It has been a VERY long time. Wasn't it a Danny Kaye movie?

 

[tas8831]

It has been a VERY long time. Wasn't it a Danny Kaye movie?

Yes - recently re-made with Ben Stiller.

 

[tas8831]

No, I haven’t.

Basically it is about a guy that daydreams/fantasizes about doing great things. The more I think about it, the more I realize that it is only half-relevant, since in the movie, Mitty's daydreaming/fantasizing actually allows him to be inadvertently successful.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes - recently re-made with Ben Stiller.

Was that dubbed in Ancient Language using techniques developed with Ancient Science and filmed on location in Atlantis with an Ancient Camera Crew?

I think I saw it when it Ancient Premiered at Ancient Hollywood. I had some Ancient Popcorn and an Ancient Coke.

 

[cladking]

Every single line in the Pyramid Texts is taken as stinky footed nonsense to egyptology and every single Egyptologist. Not one Egyptologist takes it literally when the actual pyramid builders specifically said that the pyramids were not tombs but rather were the kings themselves and this despite no mummies or burials have ever been found in any great pyramid!!! Imagine this! Dozens of times the builders said the pyramids were not tombs literally yet the words are dismissed by Look and See Scientists who know better than the builders themselves!!!!

I'm not really quite ready to begin adding to this thread again but expect to be very soon. I'm hardly surprised people can just handwave the proof that there was a world wide language and they'll handwave this as well;

There is ample reason to translate "bow" as "rainbow" since the word is defined in context over and over and over but it is dismissed because no one wants to believe it.

1455a. for N. is a star, the light-scatterer of the sky.

1680b. the apertures of the (heavenly) windows are open for thee;
1680c. broad are thy steps of light;

The source of the rainbow has his shadow above him;

1487a. Thou art standing, Osiris; thy shadow is over thee, Osiris;

This is known as "alexanders band".

It is the dark area between the rainbows.

There are dozens of mentions of rainbows but one of the most interesting is one I've just come to really understand.


801b. the ways, of the Bows, which lead up to Horus, are made firm for thee;

It is the pyramid (the dead king himself) which is the "firming" of the rainbow. The rainbow is created by the exact same thing that creates the pyramid himself. The angle down the side of the pyramid is exactly 42 degrees which is the color red in the secondary rainbow and the angle down the corner is 52 degrees that is the color red in the primary rainbow. Under ideal viewing conditions a circular rainbow will be visible.

This circle sets on the nbht (the primeval mound);

629c. behold, thou art round and great like the "Great Circle which sets."

These were also known as "arcs of the sky" and the collar on the neck of the sun;

534a. To say: Collar, beloved of Horus, good-looking, which is on the neck of Re‘.

1443a. To say: The face of heaven is washed; the vault of heaven is bright;

737b. take thy garment of light, take thy veil upon thee,

Essentially the problem is that Egyptologists lack measurable imagination and any reading skills of any sort. The pyramid builders said exactly how the "gods" built the great pyramids over and over and over but we are so certain they were superstitious and we know everything that they couldn't possibly have used flying boats.

494a. bring this (boat) to N. Which boat shall I bring to thee, O N.?
494b. Bring to N. that which flies up and alights.

We are perfect and know everything and ancient people had the average joe drag tombs up ramps for their betters.

Our society gets sicker every year as the status quo gets set in ever deeper layers of concrete.

 

[cladking]

I've been reading some of these posts, and so I looked up some things about language. I note what is said in the article of the BBC Science magazine: "There have been several attempts to trace the family tree of our languages and find ancestral vocabulary and grammar. In 1994, Stanford University linguist Merritt Ruhlen suggested several root words that may have belonged to this ancestor language, including ‘ku’ (‘who’), and ‘ma’ (‘what’). But this is still controversial and many linguists regard the search for a ‘first’ language as pointless." I

There's a simple reason that it is "pointless". It's impossible to translate Ancient Language and the only way to understand it is to understand metaphysics. Not our metaphysics, that's so easy even some children understand it. But THEIR metaphysics which is very highly complex and consists of language itself. To understand the language homo omnisciencis must model it which requires solving referents in context. This is very similar to what school teachers call "reading comprehension". A normal individual can quickly deduce the meaning of any word simply by reading it in context a few times. In this case it is more difficult because formatting of the language is very different. Instead of subject > verb > predicate it is subject > perspective > meaning and it is the choice of words that determine its function in a sentence because everything has three words to represent it. If you use the scientific form of the word it is the subject and the vulgar is the meaning while the colloquial tells you the perspective.

As though this isn't complex enough there's even bigger problem; Ancient Language had the same vocabulary as the pidgin (protoindoeuropean) languages that supplanted it at the "tower of babel". In order to understand AL you must understand science and this is what really stopped Egyptologists cold; most of them have little understanding of real science and even fewer understand metaphysics or have much reading comprehension. What they understand is the models they've constructed of tombs, ramps, bumpkins, and survival of the fittest. They believe that superstition made the builders strong so any chance of understanding the writing died right there.

Rather than studying the pyramids and their anomalies Egyptology has doubled down on parsing a culture from what is found in tombs. They've doubled down on singing the praises of superstition.

In a way this makes sense to me as far as evolution is concerned, just to say I don't believe humans evolved from another being called an ape of sorts, although it seems that evolutionists believe that somehow pre-humans whom they don't know much about except they conjecture these were highly related to...

There is no "evolution". Species change and they tend to change into creatures very similar to each other. Homo sapiens and homo omnisciencis could hardly be more different but the only discernable difference that our science could identify is that we have a broccas area and sapiens did not. The real difference that is night and day is that all sapiens thought exactly alike and saw what they knew where we are each different driven by the beliefs we choose and then see these beliefs. We think. Our consciousness is experienced as "thought" but sapiens didn't experience thought and had no words for it. They had no words for any abstraction but Egyptologists failed to even note this because they were too busy seeing what they believed instead. Ancient people were virtually "telepathic" in the sense they knew exactly what people were thinking when they spoke. They knew what was going on all around them because they were each in lockstep with nature itself. They were a force of nature made possible by a science based on observation and logic expressed in language NOT by superstition. superstition kills it does not make people wise and powerful. Consciousness is life so we could never understand an ancient without first understanding our consciousness AND his. Consciousness adapts to changing conditions through experience and this experience eventually translates into the genes themselves because those which don't adapt or are too ill-suited perish. We can't understand this either because we believe in "survival of the fittest" now days despite everything the ancients said and recorded everywhere including the Bible. We can't see any of it because our beliefs get in the way and we are homo omnisciencis. We don't need no stinkin' facts because our minds are made up.

 

[gnostic]

There's a simple reason that it is "pointless". It's impossible to translate Ancient Language and the only way to understand it is to understand metaphysics. Not our metaphysics, that's so easy even some children understand it. But THEIR metaphysics which is very highly complex and consists of language itself.

You are still making things up, metaphysics that don't exist at that time, and an "Ancient Language" that only you know about, that cannot be translated, nor read.

Repeating the same things over and over again, don't make your make-believe fantasy any more real than the very first post of this thread.

And when some one point out this...not just me...you make the same stupid claims about Egyptologists, even when no one bring them except you...

As though this isn't complex enough there's even bigger problem; Ancient Language had the same vocabulary as the pidgin (protoindoeuropean) languages that supplanted it at the "tower of babel". In order to understand AL you must understand science and this is what really stopped Egyptologists cold; most of them have little understanding of real science and even fewer understand metaphysics or have much reading comprehension. What they understand is the models they've constructed of tombs, ramps, bumpkins, and survival of the fittest. They believe that superstition made the builders strong so any chance of understanding the writing died right there.

Rather than studying the pyramids and their anomalies Egyptology has doubled down on parsing a culture from what is found in tombs. They've doubled down on singing the praises of superstition.

...hence you have beaten this strawman to a slimy pulp.

When are you going to stop using Egyptology as excuse for your failed concept?

You don't get it do you, cladking?

I don't follow any Egyptologist, and I don't particularly care if Egyptologists think Egyptians used or don't used ramps to build the pyramids. I have no interested in how they build the pyramids.

And why bring up "survival of the fittest" have anything to do with pyramid-building?

You are mixing everything with a mish-mash concept of Ancient Language. The only concept I find outlandish ridiculous is this thread you have started.

 

[tas8831]

Was that dubbed in Ancient Language using techniques developed with Ancient Science and filmed on location in Atlantis with an Ancient Camera Crew?

I think I saw it when it Ancient Premiered at Ancient Hollywood. I had some Ancient Popcorn and an Ancient Coke.

Yes - and it only took a femtosecond to make up the Ancient Language.
Or maybe it up to 40 years, but whatever.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes - and it only took a femtosecond to make up the Ancient Language.
Or maybe it up to 40 years, but whatever.

It is made up, so we can pretend any parameters we want to.

Keith Richards is one of the few living speakers of Ancient Language. He used to sing Ancient Language lullabies to Betty White when she was a baby.