Philosophy Now Forum

cladking wrote: I wonder how I missed it. My research tends to omit most everything from after the confusion of the language. However all these topics are things I've been working on and I'm even familiar with the site.

"In Ancient Egyptian itself, the hieroglyphic form of writing was given the name medu-netjer ("words of the gods" or "divine language")."

I don't believe this is quite accurate. The Egyptians referred to all language as the "words of the gods", I believe. But it should be noted that a proper translation of "medu-netjer" is "the words of natural phenomena". They used their knowledge of nature for communication and thought. This made them extremely powerful.

I see. May I see your sources?

WanderingLands wrote:
I see. May I see your sources?

A little birdie told me.

This work can be understood by learning the referents of words through context;

http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/

Much of these texts paint a picture of exactly how the great pyramids were built and this picture is wholly dissimilar to current beliefs about the method and the people who built them and wrote these words. But these words are wholly consistent with the physical evidence. It is also consistent with the cultural evidence as seen from the new perspective.

Everything we believe is wrong at worst or based on a unique perspective made possible by confused language at best. Of course universal truths can still be found but then they must be expressed in modern language which will distort the meaning and its truth to many listeners.

cladking wrote:...
Much of these texts paint a picture of exactly how the great pyramids were built and this picture is wholly dissimilar to current beliefs about the method and the people who built them and wrote these words. But these words are wholly consistent with the physical evidence. It is also consistent with the cultural evidence as seen from the new perspective. ...

Sorry but where? As I had a quick skim through and may have missed the relevant texts.

Arising_uk wrote:Sorry but where? As I had a quick skim through and may have missed the relevant texts.

I didn't intend to mislead. It took me more than four years to really understand the nature of this language and by then I already knew the majority of the scientific words. A lot of this work was outside my wheelhouse because it required cold logic. Essentially you have to look at the context of every single word in every single usage and determine a concept that fits. These people had a high level of knowledge and science so it required far broader and deeper knowledge than I have so google was instrumental. They also didn't think like we do so it's harder to wrap your mind around many concepts.

502b. The double doors of heaven are locked; the way goes over the flames under that which the gods create,
503a. which allows each Horus to glide through, in which N. will glide through, in this flame under that which the gods create.

Some of these lines seem impossible to understand at first but are actually fairly simple once you get it.

But other lines are translated into something that already looks a great deal like modern language;

1405a. To say: The earth is high under the sky by (means of) thine arms, Tefnut.

The rising earth (pyramid) is created by the ability of tefnut (gravity) to affect things at a distance.

The ancient language has been misinterpreted and misunderstood since the day it collapsed. In the ancient language these lines could mean only one thing and there were highly limited number of ways to say things. In modern language everything can be deconstructed and will mean whatever the listener believes. We each will have a different understanding.

cladking wrote:...
The rising earth (pyramid) is created by the ability of tefnut (gravity) to affect things at a distance.
...

Don't tell me, you think the pyramids raised by spacemen or atlantians and not the back-breaking work of labourers and the brains of architects.

Arising_uk wrote:Don't tell me, you think the pyramids raised by spacemen or atlantians and not the back-breaking work of labourers and the brains of architects.

Any other explanation would be better than having laborers push out large brick to make a pyramid with massive precision (especially that lines up with Orion), or whatever explanation is "authoritative" in mainstream archaeology. It may conform to the secular influenced archaeology, but it does not make sense. Whether it's atlantis or another explanation, it may be better to find alternatives than to buy into that illogical explanation.

WanderingLands wrote:Any other explanation would be better than having laborers push out large brick to make a pyramid with massive precision (especially that lines up with Orion), or whatever explanation is "authoritative" in mainstream archaeology. ...

Why? Because it doesn't suit your fruit-loopery?

Since they can see the Orion constellation why do you think this so mysterious? If it's even true that is.

Architectural engineers have demonstrated methods using the properties of mud and sand that easily explain their ability to move blocks of stone(not bricks) and the pyramids actually show the progression of architectural and construction techniques over time. That Egypt's pharaohs were smart enough to keep their people occupied between the Nile floods and to plan for famine is to their political nous and credit.

You do our ancestors a great disservice by belittling their accomplishments with such nonsense and show arrogance in your attitude to them.

It may conform to the secular influenced archaeology, but it does not make sense. Whether it's atlantis or another explanation, it may be better to find alternatives than to buy into that illogical explanation.

"secular influenced archaeology", what a nonsense phrase. You have no understanding of logic if you think the explanation for the pyramids is other than Man as builder.

I think you should stop confusing Stargate with reality.

WanderingLands wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:Don't tell me, you think the pyramids raised by spacemen or atlantians and not the back-breaking work of labourers and the brains of architects.

Any other explanation would be better than having laborers push out large brick to make a pyramid with massive precision (especially that lines up with Orion), or whatever explanation is "authoritative" in mainstream archaeology. It may conform to the secular influenced archaeology, but it does not make sense. Whether it's atlantis or another explanation, it may be better to find alternatives than to buy into that illogical explanation.

I couldn't agree more. I call modern Egyptology the teflon paradigm because no facts adhere to it.

Indeed, the only things in which there is universal agreement is that the pyramids were tombs dragged up ramps by changeless and superstitious bumpkins. In reality these four assumptions are the reasons that facts don't want to stick; they are all four wrong.

Arising_uk wrote:

cladking wrote:...
The rising earth (pyramid) is created by the ability of tefnut (gravity) to affect things at a distance.
...

Don't tell me, you think the pyramids raised by spacemen or atlantians and not the back-breaking work of labourers and the brains of architects.

No. The pyramids were built exactly as the builders said they were in intricate detail that hasn't been understood.

All their "statements" were true so to understand you must keep them all in mind.

"Osiris, in his name of seker, tows the earth by means of balance."

So far we know that gravity affects seker through balance to lift the earth and build the pyramid. So the question becomes how does gravity affect seker and what is osiris/ seker.

1376a. The ropes are knotted; the boats of N. are tied together

1742a. To say: The eye of Horus is mounted (or, is placed upon) the wing of his brother Set.
1742b. The ropes are tied, the boats are assembled,

Balance lifts the earth and makes it high under the sky. Osiris/ seker is in one boat and the earth is in the other. We could look for aliens at this point but there's simply no need since anything that has weight would suffice for the task of "lifting the earth".

This brings us to the "eye of horus" which is implied to be related to the process.

I don't have time now to go much further but let me cement this last point; that stones are lifted in a boat.

1965c. and how shall he be assembled?
1966a. Then let this copper be brought ------ the ḥnw-boat --- with it.

This is the boat, the henu-boat which which lifts the stones to assemble the dead king as horus.

1970a. Wherewith shall N. be caused to fly?
1970b (N. 758-759). Then let there be brought to thee ------ ḥnw-boat, built by Mw-ḥn,
1970c. that thou mayest fly therewith, that thou mayest fly therewith,

Yes, there were flying boats to build the pyramids but they were operated by men and powered by natural phenomena.

Arising_uk wrote:Why? Because it doesn't suit your fruit-loopery?

No, because it is illogical and also because there are other theories on how the pyramids were actually built that have not been given proper credit.

Since they can see the Orion constellation why do you think this so mysterious? If it's even true that is.

I don't think it's mysterious, although I've read some occult metaphysics on Orion. I have a link to some pictures if you want to view them.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pyramid ... 80&bih=611

Architectural engineers have demonstrated methods using the properties of mud and sand that easily explain their ability to move blocks of stone(not bricks) and the pyramids actually show the progression of architectural and construction techniques over time. That Egypt's pharaohs were smart enough to keep their people occupied between the Nile floods and to plan for famine is to their political nous and credit.

There are other theories, apart from the Atlantis and alien theories, that can come into play. Joseph Davidovits, for example, proposed that the pyramids were built by use of limestone concrete. Information can be access simply by looking onto Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Dav ... l_theories

You do our ancestors a great disservice by belittling their accomplishments with such nonsense and show arrogance in your attitude to them.

Classic ad hominem. I am not doing a disservice to the ancestors of the human race by positing another theory of how the pyramids were built or even looking into other aspects of so-called "ancient history". Has nothing to do belittling them.

"secular influenced archaeology", what a nonsense phrase. You have no understanding of logic if you think the explanation for the pyramids is other than Man as builder.

Argumentum ad consequentiam. One, I never suggested that someone other than man was a builder of the pyramids. Two, saying that I have no understanding of logic if I do say that someone other than man had built the pyramids is quite erroneous, as any theory can be posited, and no matter how "out-there" it is, if it holds up water then it is possibly a good theory if not a correct one.

I think you should stop confusing Stargate with reality.

Now you are using strawman as I do not simply believe in Atlantis, or simply just believe what the Pyramid texts says (that is, belief without examination), but am being open about other theories.

NOTE: The underlined words are words that were added.

WanderingLands wrote:

Blaggard wrote:Start from scratch, you haven't even got started yet... no one has...

The "start" is pretty much wondering about existence and asking broad questions, like "Why am I here?", or "What is Life". To "start from scratch" would mean to think for yourself on things to see what you think, and not so much of whatever philosophy or philosopher thinks.

It's a nice idea but I am not buying it.

WanderingLands wrote:Now you are using strawman as I do not simply believe in Atlantis (that is, belief without examination), but am being open about other theories.

The best place to start your examination of Atlantis is Plato's Timaeus. The following is an extract from http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html
Plato made up Atlantis to swell civic pride in Athens; it is propaganda. It also just happens that, in the story, Athens was run according to the principles set out in Plato's Republic. The narrator is Critics, one of the thirty tyrants put in place by the victorious Spartan army that defeated Athens in the Peloponnesian war. He is recounting a story that was supposed to have been related to him by an Egyptian priest, even credulous ancient Greeks could be persuaded of the wisdom of the ancients. We can all believe in things that can't be disproved.

"Many great and wonderful deeds are recorded of your state in our histories. But one of them exceeds all the rest in greatness and valour. For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an end. This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia. This vast power, gathered into one, endeavoured to subdue at a blow our country and yours and the whole of the region within the straits; and then, Solon, your country shone forth, in the excellence of her virtue and strength, among all mankind. She was pre-eminent in courage and military skill, and was the leader of the Hellenes. And when the rest fell off from her, being compelled to stand alone, after having undergone the very extremity of danger, she defeated and triumphed over the invaders, and preserved from slavery those who were not yet subjugated, and generously liberated all the rest of us who dwell within the pillars. But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island."

WanderingLands wrote:
Now you are using strawman as I do not simply believe in Atlantis, or simply just believe what the Pyramid texts says (that is, belief without examination), but am being open about other theories.

NOTE: The underlined words are words that were added.

This is probably the single most remarkable thing of all the remarkable things I've found; That Egyptology has based their beliefs about the pyramid builders on a book they themselves think is nothing but a book of magic! Even though they don't understand this book and even though no two Egyptologists agree on the meaning of even the simplest terms they understand the authors based on a book of magic.

In reality I believe they misunderstand this book in a very similar way to the way the ancient's progeny misunderstood it. It looks like religion and superstition in modern language so they believed it was religion and superstition. Later Egyptian beliefs were based on this misunderstanding and modern beliefs are as well. We come by it indirectly through the Greeks but then it was reinforced in the 1880's as the Pyramid Texts were being translated.

It's no wonder Egyptologists sound like mystics to me because they base their understanding on a book of ritual they mistake as a religious text.

From my perspective it seems that Egyptology has invested enormous time and effort into translating this work but then each somehow failed to actually read it!!! It could have been understood all along and the last century and a half would have been totally different. In their defense though deciphering this without google would have been wholly impossible for me and might have been impossible for everyone. One can see this as a product of the computer age and serendipity.

cladking wrote: This is probably the single most remarkable thing of all the remarkable things I've found; That Egyptology has based their beliefs about the pyramid builders on a book they themselves think is nothing but a book of magic! Even though they don't understand this book and even though no two Egyptologists agree on the meaning of even the simplest terms they understand the authors based on a book of magic.

In reality I believe they misunderstand this book in a very similar way to the way the ancient's progeny misunderstood it. It looks like religion and superstition in modern language so they believed it was religion and superstition. Later Egyptian beliefs were based on this misunderstanding and modern beliefs are as well. We come by it indirectly through the Greeks but then it was reinforced in the 1880's as the Pyramid Texts were being translated.

It's no wonder Egyptologists sound like mystics to me because they base their understanding on a book of ritual they mistake as a religious text.

From my perspective it seems that Egyptology has invested enormous time and effort into translating this work but then each somehow failed to actually read it!!! It could have been understood all along and the last century and a half would have been totally different. In their defense though deciphering this without google would have been wholly impossible for me and might have been impossible for everyone. One can see this as a product of the computer age and serendipity.

Cladking, I understand your views on mainstream Egyptology, but I have not read the Pyramid texts myself so I cannot yet determine if they really are what you say it is. Also, I look at a lot of different perspectives on things, which in order to be an honest researcher you have to do so and to also examine their sides of the story, regardless if it's mainstream or not.

cladking wrote:...
Yes, there were flying boats to build the pyramids but they were operated by men and powered by natural phenomena. ...

Don't tell me, solar taps and anti-gravity.