Ancient Reality

[Tamino]

With all the work going on to decipher ancient languages I'd wager given a few decades even linguists will depart. How could Egyptology have translated so much material and never notice the lack of any abstractions, a vocabulary with almost no words, and syntax that always breaks Zipf''s Law?

I have noticed little fundamental differences between Egyptian and other languages.
And where are you getting the idea that there's "almost no words" in the vocabulary? The TLA alone currently lists more than 55 000.

All abstractions in language make use of metaphor, so how would you know if a term is literal or abstract... without looking at the context, that is?
Wouldn't you say that zp tpi is an abstract term, or m3'.t? What about D.t or nTr.j?

And the word for "ramp" is t3-rd. Or b3k or sT3. Just saying.

 

[cladking]

I have noticed little fundamental differences between Egyptian and other languages.
And where are you getting the idea that there's "almost no words" in the vocabulary? The TLA alone currently lists more than 55 000.

Ancient Language was translated and interpreted in terms of later language and especially the language and writing found in "the book of the dead". IT was merely assumed the earlier writing was written in the same language because these languages which aren't mutually intelligible share a vocabulary. Indeed, neither of these languages can even be translated into the other because formatting is different. Ancient Language translated into modern languages looks like gobbledty gook and any modern language translated into Ancient Language would just be a stream of disjointed words... more akin to random words than coherent thought or word soup.

While we still use the same vocabulary as Ancient Language all the words have evolved in every language such as "mother" which changes even within each language tens of thousands of words have needed to be added to achieve communication with our symbolic, analog, and abstract language. We each parse sentences uniquely which makes communication difficult so we add words to force a single interpretation which helps but ironically it increases the number of possible interpretations and assures none is exactly what the author intended. How many interpreted that last sentence exactly as I intended? Each reader believes he did and few will consider other interpretations are even possible. Ancient Language sentences each had only one single possible interpretation and every listener heard this or he heard nonsense so he knew he missed the meaning.

The is where and why the TLA is wrong. The authors assumed it was all one language so they tossed all the words into a dictionary with no regard to where or when the words were found or how they were used. They found 55,000 of them but never noticed there were fewer than 2000 represented in the Ancient Language.

If you don't believe it just open any dictionary to any page and count the number of words in it that appear in the Pyramid Texts. About 2% appear because Ancient Language had almost no words and most were nouns. The writing breaks Zipf's Law because the authors didn't think like we do. We think linearly and they thought four dimensionally. They didn't even experience thought and had no word that meant "thought" or implied they knew what thinking was! They were very different than every Egyptologist. This is all really quite obvious once you see it but we can't see it because we can't even imagine a metaphysical language or not experiencing thought. We are at arms length from our consciousness because we only experience thought.


All the fundamental differences are hidden by bad methodology which assumes there was no change and a 3000 year "cultural context" and by our inability to read the writing or translate it without thinking. Ancient wouldbe translators had the same problem with the additional problem that they lacked any kind of science whatsoever and Ancient Language was formatted in ancient science. It was their knowledge of reality that created the formatting for their communication just like honey bees or any other "animal". Ancient translators gave us alchemy, astrology, the Bible, Hermetic writings, etc etc. But they ran out of source material ~500 BC because papyrus doesn't hold up. Remember writing was invented to record modern languages to prevent drift in meaning so relatively little was ever even written in AL.

 

[cladking]

All abstractions in language make use of metaphor, so how would you know if a term is literal or abstract... without looking at the context, that is?

I'm speaking of the abstraction implied by the words themselves. Words like "belief" have referents that are abstractions rather than words like "boat" that have both real and abstract referents ("ore boat" or "don't rock the boat"). Nouns and adverbs have numerous real world referents like "orange clouds". We see metaphor in the Pyramid Texts because we parse it wrong where it can't be translated at all.

Wouldn't you say that zp tpi is an abstract term

In a sense (by our definitions) this word has some vague similarity to being an abstraction. The word "zep tepi" means "theoretical first eruption" and is the birth of "atum". Man wasn't there to see zep tepi but the word "atum" was not an abstraction but a representation of the water source on the horizon. As such he was very very real and he was the very first natural phenomenon (god) and all gods were born by definition since reality itself was anthropomorphized. Hence atum's birth was also known as zep tepi.

m3'.t

Again "maat" was as real as a heart attack. It was the balance achieved by isis and nephthys the harmonious sisters who went to and fro bringing stone to the pyramid top and water to the fields. Without maat there was no pyramid and no ability for the king to live forever as a pyramid and a star.

D.t

This was a representation of the water source. It is an imperishable star in the eye of horus. It is the colloquial word for "atum". All words had a single fixed meaning and three words to represent them; a scientific, a colloquial, and a vulgar term. The dot was the colloquial term for "atum".

Tr.j

I probably know this word but don't recognize it in this form.

And the word for "ramp" is t3-rd. Or b3k or sT3. Just saying.

None of these words is attested in Ancient Language. They came from later times.

I should point out that even though I've shown there were no ramps to build pyramids and they used linear funiculars it wouldn't matter if this word were found tomorrow so long as it was not in context of pyramid construction. This is because the pidgin languages from which all modern languages derive all shared the same vocabulary as Ancient Language. My contention isn't that the word "ramp" didn't exist when the pyramids were made (it almost certainly did), rather I am pointing out that the concept was so insignificant that it wasn't used and isn't attested.

 

[cladking]

Ancient translators gave us alchemy, astrology, the Bible, Hermetic writings, etc etc.

The Bible appears to be a collation of all known writing that was an attempt to translate Ancient Language. As such the it is probably skewed toward the last surviving ancient writing rather than the oldest, best understood, or most relevant. To some extent the last surviving probably were correlated to these characteristics but there is still a lot of sample bias if you try to understand the most ancient people in terms of what Bible stories might have originally meant.

Reality is complex, life is more complex and trying to understand religion without any sort of referents may be virtually impossible. Untangling the 4000 year history of homo omnisciencis might be orders of magnitude more complex than untangling homo sapiens' history because life itself is a cheat sheet for understanding the pyramid builders.

 

[cladking]

Again "maat" was as real as a heart attack.

This is a depiction of pyramid building as seen through the eyes of the builders. It is in scientific perspective but could as easily have been drawn in colloquial or vulgar perspective except that a vulgar perspective isn't really possible because it must be seen from at least two perspectives and vulgar has only one perspective.

Isis on the left oversees the counterweight and lifts the stones so they can be seated hence her name "stone seat". Nephthys on the right right oversees the dndndr-boat which is laden with stone. In her earliest incarnations this was merely a basket full of building materials to construct the "House of Life" hence her name which means "House Basket" and she is "The Lady of Builders". "Maat" connects isis and nephthys through the "sinews" of the "Bull of Heaven" which are the cables, chains, and ropes which stretch across the top of the pyramid and are supported by pulleys called "shm-sceptres". It is the "djed" between them which aims the spraying water into the "Upper Eye of Horus" in the M3t-wt.t-cow and channels it through the recently discovered canal I predicted under the chevrons.

The "ankh" mean "life" because in a desert water is life. Life was the "green in the Eye of Horus in the midst of the field". The ankh represents the spraying water with the lower part being the "waters of the abyss", the horizontal being the horizon. The upper circle are the rainbows created by the "imperishable stars". The arms mean ka which is "life's work" and the circle at the top is the Mound of Creation pushed up by atum.

No one depiction shows everything and most of these were confused by later artists so the original would be a little different in highly predictable ways. The gods in boats are actually all different perspectives of pyramid building, usage, and causations.

It's all in the record and the only reason we don't see it and Egyptologists don't know is that we all see what we believe instead of what's right in front of our nose.

 

[Tamino]

Ancient Language was translated and interpreted in terms of later language and especially the language and writing found in "the book of the dead". IT was merely assumed the earlier writing was written in the same language because these languages which aren't mutually intelligible share a vocabulary. Indeed, neither of these languages can even be translated into the other because formatting is different. Ancient Language translated into modern languages looks like gobbledty gook and any modern language translated into Ancient Language would just be a stream of disjointed words... more akin to random words than coherent thought or word soup.

Ancient Language sentences each had only one single possible interpretation and every listener heard this or he heard nonsense so he knew he missed the meaning.

The is where and why the TLA is wrong. The authors assumed it was all one language so they tossed all the words into a dictionary with no regard to where or when the words were found or how they were used. They found 55,000 of them but never noticed there were fewer than 2000 represented in the Ancient Language.

If you don't believe it just open any dictionary to any page and count the number of words in it that appear in the Pyramid Texts. About 2% appear because Ancient Language had almost no words and most were nouns. The writing breaks Zipf's Law because the authors didn't think like we do. We think linearly and they thought four dimensionally. They didn't even experience thought and had no word that meant "thought" or implied they knew what thinking was! They were very different than every Egyptologist. This is all really quite obvious once you see it but we can't see it because we can't even imagine a metaphysical language or not experiencing thought. We are at arms length from our consciousness because we only experience thought.


All the fundamental differences are hidden by bad methodology which assumes there was no change and a 3000 year "cultural context" and by our inability to read the writing or translate it without thinking. Ancient wouldbe translators had the same problem with the additional problem that they lacked any kind of science whatsoever and Ancient Language was formatted in ancient science. It was their knowledge of reality that created the formatting for their communication just like honey bees or any other "animal". Ancient translators gave us alchemy, astrology, the Bible, Hermetic writings, etc etc. But they ran out of source material ~500 BC because papyrus doesn't hold up. Remember writing was invented to record modern languages to prevent drift in meaning so relatively little was ever even written in AL.

Ok I think I do not want to engage in this discussion.
You seem to believe that the people who built the pyramids were a different species?? With a fundamentally different mental structure?

I have heard a great many conspiracy myths, but that's a new one and to be frank... I'm not interested.

 

[cladking]

It's all in the record and the only reason we don't see it and Egyptologists don't know is that we all see what we believe instead of what's right in front of our nose.

Another reason we can't see is that ancient people didn't think like us and were far wiser, smarter, and capable than we can imagine. They also lacked any superstition at all and even lacked the infrastructure to create superstition like abstractions, taxonomies, and beliefs. They were incapable of inductive logic because of these differences.

It would simply never occur to an Egyptologist that the language could be metaphysical in nature. It wouldn't occur to them that any language could be untranslatable. It would never occur to them that words could be representative or that the authors didn't think like we did but thought more like a bee thinks.

 

[cladking]

Ok I think I do not want to engage in this discussion.
You seem to believe that the people who built the pyramids were a different species??

Yes!!! Homo sapiens went extinct at the tower of babel (whatever it really was).

We are confused and every experiment shows we can only see what we believe but most people believe they can pick and choose their experiments so they choose to ignore the obvious and the experiments. They believe they can see the pyramid builders and they were just like us despite the fact all the evidence PROVES they were different. People turn their backs on evidence and experiments they don't like.

Reality can only be seen in glimpses and if you turn your back then you don't even get glimpses and see only your beliefs all the time.

With a fundamentally different mental structure?

No.

They had a fundamentally different operating system. They operated on a binary, digital, and natural system defined by the wiring of their brains and encoded in a metaphysical language. It was supremely logical and the language got more complex as new things were learned. They would literally see more as they learned more. Education opened their eyes.

Education tends to close our eyes. This gets more true every year since independent thought is discouraged in favor of indoctrination.

There was a slight difference anatomically. Specifically each individual must acquire modern language and the rules are set in the nerves which comprise the broccas area. This is a small region which varies in location with each individual and it governs the way the brain operates. At two years of age toddlers must unlearn Ancient Language and acquire their own broccas area. Babies in the old days were born with highly rudimentary speech ability and were trained from birth. At two years of age an explosion in brain cell growth facilitated their ability to not only learn more language but to also think four dimensionally. We have "wholly" lost this ability which is one of the reasons the big picture is always so elusive.

I have heard a great many conspiracy myths, but that's a new one and to be frank... I'm not interested.

There is no conspiracy unless you believe in one. I do not.

We delude ourselves. We are confused because we think in confused language. Most of our premises are flawed. "I think therefore I am" is word salad. All humans today and since the tower of babel are a product of their time and place. Language is in steady flux and facts come and go. Most of what we were taught in school is nonsense but not because of any conspiracy but because we started with erroneous premises and can't see the reality in front of our collective faces.

 

[cladking]

Ok I think I do not want to engage in this discussion.

And how will you feel if it is proven tomorrow that linear funiculars were used to build the pyramids? How long until an Egyptologist then notices that the PT is a description of pyramid building?

I'm always looking for facts and insights that weigh against my theory so you gain nothing by ignoring it.

 

[Tamino]

I'm always looking for facts and insights that weigh against my theory so you gain nothing by ignoring it.

I would waste my time pointing out evidence that you have clearly decided to dismiss already.
I might do it anyway if I get terribly bored at some point...

 

[cladking]

I would waste my time pointing out evidence that you have clearly decided to dismiss already.
I might do it anyway if I get terribly bored at some point...

It's funny how everyone chooses what evidence to dismiss. We each have our own reasons for dismissing any specific piece of evidence and sometimes these are very good reasons and sometimes exceedingly poor reasons. Personally I would never dismiss any evidence whatsoever that is physical and has very little wiggle room in interpretation. Flimsy sloped passages that don't even point at the pyramid can be easily dismissed as mere walkways and paths but how do Egyptologists dismiss vaterite in the walls of the horizontal passage or dismiss hot spots and canals I predict in advance?

Of course there exists evidence that can be interpreted to support Egyptological opinion that pyramids are tombs dragged up ramps by superstitious and changeless bumpkins. If there weren't such evidence it would mean every Egyptologist is insane, stupid, or in cahoots.

But my interpretations of the evidence includes FAR FAR more of the physical evidence and is supported by the literal meaning of the writing. And I can show that their methodology is highly flawed across the board. You can't find any flaws in my methodology because it has a scientific and logical perspective and employs proper sampling.

 

[Tamino]

But my interpretations of the evidence includes FAR FAR more of the physical evidence and is supported by the literal meaning of the writing. And I can show that their methodology is highly flawed across the board. You can't find any flaws in my methodology because it has a scientific and logical perspective and employs proper sampling.

If you're that confident about your idea and methods... have you tried publishing in a journal? Presented it at a conference? Submitted it to peer review in some way?

 

[cladking]

If you're that confident about your idea and methods... have you tried publishing in a journal? Presented it at a conference? Submitted it to peer review in some way?

I was just writing in another post that experts in the soft sciences never will respond to statements or questions from me. Never. Not once.

If I am right about almost anything at all then they are wrong about everything. This is cognitive dissonance on steroids. They studiously avoid me but every year more of my predictions come to pass anyway.

I am not so confident as you might think. I believe there is about a 75% probability that every great pyramid was built by means of linear funiculars. It's the implications of my being right that are astounding and affect almost all of science directly.

 

[cladking]

If I am right about almost anything at all then they are wrong about everything. This is cognitive dissonance on steroids. They studiously avoid me but every year more of my predictions come to pass anyway.

I was considering adding another post to this thread today because another of my predictions has been borne out. There is extensive copper downstream from the north side of the Great Pyramid. I didn't cite the study because it is too vague to substantiate my contention that there was copper sulphate in the carbonic acid aquifer that was changed into insoluble copper hydroxide and caused the entire area to turn turquois in color. The copper should still exist in protected areas and there is a curious blue stone on top of G1.

Obviously a great deal of copper was used on these projects and the methodology of this new study did not differentiate between oxides and hydroxides so copper is hardly surprising. They had copper smelters (or at least reheating furnaces) on site so confirmation will have to wait for more data.

As time goes by the facts are coming to agree with my theory. Curiously this was the gold standard of ancient science and they called its practitioners "prophets".

The world is a funny place. Who needs a sense of humor when God or nature or something already has so wicked a one?

 

[cladking]

If anyone is interested here is the link;

https://hal.science/hal-04659321/file/main%20text.pdf

This neither confirms nor denies my prediction that there is copper hydroxide on the north sides of the great pyramids as well as extensive copper downstream. At this time there is no means to show that much of the copper is copper hydroxide that originated in the water source and most of the copper sulfate present in it has long since been carried away in solution.

It's very difficult to estimate how much copper was carried to Giza in metallic form. Suffice to say it was substantial. But we really don't know how they built the pyramids so we really can't estimate the need for copper. Egyptologists say they mustta used copper chisels to cut stone but the builders apparently said they had water powered machines (which probably used an abrasive grit and copper blades).


There is no cultural context and the word "chisel" is not attested. The word "saw" is attested as in "The Great Saw Palace".

 

[River Sea]

Using the water of the Nile River to lift stones or to divert some of it into canals is acceptable. The basic environmental impact of dams arises when we dam the entire course of the river. My sense is that the technology at that time was not advanced enough to build a barrage across the river. Therefore, they may have diverted part of the river into a canal at the site, which does not create significant harm to the environment. If this is the case, then I don’t think I have any objections to the extraction of water.

@Bharat Jhunjhunwala explains safe for the river because allowing the river to flow

On the possible use of hydraulic force to assist with building the step pyramid of saqqara

The Step Pyramid of Djoser in Saqqara, Egypt, is considered the oldest of the seven monumental pyramids built about 4,500 years ago. From transdisciplinary analysis, it was discovered that a hydraulic lift may have been used to build the pyramid. Based on our mapping of the nearby watersheds, we...

journals.plos.org

screenshot

Showing water flow. This is why it is safe for the river.

---

Later I read from @cladking about copper contamination shared from post #855
Here's website @cladking shared:

https://hal.science/hal-04659321/file/main%20text.pdf

---

 

[River Sea]

Ancient Language was translated and interpreted in terms of later language and especially the language and writing found in "the book of the dead". IT was merely assumed the earlier writing was written in the same language because these languages which aren't mutually intelligible share a vocabulary. Indeed, neither of these languages can even be translated into the other because formatting is different. Ancient Language translated into modern languages looks like gobbledty gook and any modern language translated into Ancient Language would just be a stream of disjointed words... more akin to random words than coherent thought or word soup.

While we still use the same vocabulary as Ancient Language all the words have evolved in every language such as "mother" which changes even within each language tens of thousands of words have needed to be added to achieve communication with our symbolic, analog, and abstract language. We each parse sentences uniquely which makes communication difficult so we add words to force a single interpretation which helps but ironically it increases the number of possible interpretations and assures none is exactly what the author intended. How many interpreted that last sentence exactly as I intended? Each reader believes he did and few will consider other interpretations are even possible. Ancient Language sentences each had only one single possible interpretation and every listener heard this or he heard nonsense so he knew he missed the meaning.

The is where and why the TLA is wrong. The authors assumed it was all one language so they tossed all the words into a dictionary with no regard to where or when the words were found or how they were used. They found 55,000 of them but never noticed there were fewer than 2000 represented in the Ancient Language.

If you don't believe it just open any dictionary to any page and count the number of words in it that appear in the Pyramid Texts. About 2% appear because Ancient Language had almost no words and most were nouns. The writing breaks Zipf's Law because the authors didn't think like we do. We think linearly and they thought four dimensionally. They didn't even experience thought and had no word that meant "thought" or implied they knew what thinking was! They were very different than every Egyptologist. This is all really quite obvious once you see it but we can't see it because we can't even imagine a metaphysical language or not experiencing thought. We are at arms length from our consciousness because we only experience thought.


All the fundamental differences are hidden by bad methodology which assumes there was no change and a 3000 year "cultural context" and by our inability to read the writing or translate it without thinking. Ancient wouldbe translators had the same problem with the additional problem that they lacked any kind of science whatsoever and Ancient Language was formatted in ancient science. It was their knowledge of reality that created the formatting for their communication just like honey bees or any other "animal". Ancient translators gave us alchemy, astrology, the Bible, Hermetic writings, etc etc. But they ran out of source material ~500 BC because papyrus doesn't hold up. Remember writing was invented to record modern languages to prevent drift in meaning so relatively little was ever even written in AL.

In this post, I respond to @GoodAttention and @cladking who are explaining the word "mother." I articulate my comprehension of what I read about the word mother from @GoodAttention and @cladking

@cladking wrote: While we still use the same vocabulary as Ancient Language all the words have evolved in every language such as "mother" which changes even within each language tens of thousands of words have needed to be added to achieve communication with our symbolic, analog, and abstract language.

The importance of Mother Tamil (எய்த அம்மா, difficult to translate but best is Grand/All Mother) is more than words, the story of Tamil and Sivan are linked inextricably. There is nothing more important in the Tamil language than the Tamil "Genesis" story. which explains the birth of the 18 consonants, the 12 vowels and the 1 special/hidden vowel, the 5 sathi, and the story of Kanappa, which is retold as the story of Dhaksha in the Vedas.

Tamils are the only people I know who venerate their language, but other could do this also.

The Tamil language has 18 consonants. Unfortunately, because of Sankritisation, an additional 4 consonants have been added. These are NOT native or natural letters to Tamil. When I say the language must be purified, I am speaking specifically about removing words that include these Sanskrit letters, and going back to using the original Tamil words, if they exist.

Mother Tamil (Thai Thamil) is the veneration of language as divine. This is not unique to the Tamil language, but it does go to explain the ancient history and original perception of Tamil amongst its speakers. When I say this language must be brought back, I am talking about its form WITHOUT SANSKRIT.

Tamil Thai - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

@GoodAttention wrote about the word mother in reference to Tamil (Thai Thamil) as the Tamil language as a mother, as well as explaining about Tamil language, am I understanding?

So @GoodAttention and @cladking are explaining the word "mother." @GoodAttention explains Mother as language as divine, while @cladking explains Mother as how all languages, which include ancient languages, use the same meaning even though words change.

Your thoughts please?

 

[GoodAttention]

In this post, I respond to @GoodAttention and @cladking who are explaining the word "mother." I articulate my comprehension of what I read about the word mother from @GoodAttention and @cladking

@cladking wrote: While we still use the same vocabulary as Ancient Language all the words have evolved in every language such as "mother" which changes even within each language tens of thousands of words have needed to be added to achieve communication with our symbolic, analog, and abstract language.

Tamil Thai - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

@GoodAttention wrote about the word mother in reference to Tamil (Thai Thamil) as the Tamil language as a mother, as well as explaining about Tamil language, am I understanding?

So @GoodAttention and @cladking are explaining the word "mother." @GoodAttention explains Mother as language as divine, while @cladking explains Mother as how all languages, which include ancient languages, use the same meaning even though words change.

Your thoughts please?

Happy to discuss, but I only have one potential example from Tamil to Ancient Egyptian being km.t that you provided @River Sea

 

[River Sea]

Happy to discuss, but I only have one potential example from Tamil to Ancient Egyptian being km.t that you provided @River Sea

The little I know, recently, I learned T means feminine in KM.T., and I'm not sure why needing T as feminine.

 

[cladking]

The little I know, recently, I learned T means feminine in KM.T., and I'm not sure why needing T as feminine.

It's very simple.

Ancient people saw reality in terms of humans. More accurately they saw all of reality in terms of living things so gods (which represented theory) could have the head of a bird. Anything produced by living things were seen in terms of boats and the term applied to anything associated with water and that moved.

Since all reality (axiomatically existed) was understood as represented by living things half of reality was male and half female. Anything that had male characteristics (hard, cylindrical, etc) was masculine. But perspective was always defined in the language and even the most male objects have female characteristics from another perspective. The djed which was a ten foot tall cylinder thus was feminine when looking at it from the inside.

We see contradictions because AL changed its perspective from sentence to sentence and Egyptologists even correct their grammar and spelling but they made no mistakes. Even atum which was the water ejected from the djed had a "wife" despite the fact he was the first god and created himself. He also was preceded by the god "nun" who was the waters of the abyss. His wife was iusaas which was the feminine represntation of the hole through the primeval mound that allowed atum to spray.

Even if Egypt were not a valley it would still be female because it was inviting and sustaining.