Philosophy Now Forum

WanderingLands wrote:
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.

Yes, of course. This is the way reasonable people think.

If we continue to examine the Pyramid Texts and the apparent beliefs of the builders you'll see the method they describe is a little surprising. It's not surprising because it's unevidenced or illogical but simply because it's so unexpected.

I'll try to get the answer in the next post a little later.

Frankly I find the concept of a natural human language and an unknown science more unexpected. The concept that recorded history doesn't start until 1200 years after the invention of writing could have been a tip-off that there was a fundamental misunderstanding of the ancients. Many people will be surprised just how advanced the ancient science actually was. Their technology was suppressed by the nature of the science but it took us 3900+ years to exceed them in most ways.

Arising_uk wrote:

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.

...in a sense.

But, no.

cladking wrote:But, no.

Do tell?

Arising_uk wrote:

cladking wrote:But, no.

Do tell?

OK.

You must remember that "osiris in his name of seker tows the earth by means of balance" because this is the most direct statement of how they built the pyramid, how they made the earth high under the sky by means of gravity.

Osiris simply becomes seker when he "sits" in the henu boat;

1826b. [he lifts thee up into] the ḥnw-boat, in thy name of "Seker."

1824b. he carries thee as a god, in thy name of "Seker,"

445b. bring this (boat) to N. N. is Seker of R-Śtȝ.w.
445c. N. is on the way to the place of Seker, chief of Pdw-š.

Seker doesn't exist without a boat and he is chief of "Spread Lake" (a lake that spreads from a point).

1429c. like Seker who is in the mȝ‘.t-boat.

This is the boat of balance in which he lifts the earth. "Mȝ‘.t" means balance.

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

Osiris in the boat of balance lifts the earth to make it high under the sky.

This obviously is the solution to how the pyramids were built but the question remains what physical phenomenon has the weight (the gravity) (tefnut) to lift the stones. It is obviously the solution because the ancients said this exact same thing over and over in many different ways without contradicting themselves. The PT is coherent and sensible.

I'll start another post to show the nature of "osiris".

The PT is very coherent in describing the nature of "(atum)/ osiris" as well.

"Horus" is the natural phenomenon of the place where water comes up from the ground. This water comes up from his eye. It is this which is the "eye of horus". It is consistently the source of water with which they built the pyramids. It has no magical or religious significance. All the words that seem to say it is are simply mistranslations of scientific terms. For instance we translate "heka" as "magic" but it is used to describe "proper scientific observation" by the ancients. In a sense heka really is magic because there are a million ways to see something wrong and very few to see it right.

So how is the concept of "osiris" related to horus?

The PT are very clear on this. Osiris must take the eye to stand. He must fill the eye to be "godly" (a natural phenomenon).

1944a. + 2 (Nt. 777). The time of inundation comes, the wȝg-festival comes, to the uplands, it comes as Osiris.

This is the most direct statement of the use ofwater at Giza. While the ancient name was "Rosteau" and meant "Mouth of Caves" this was the location of the annual wag festival. This is a plateau, an "uplands" and the inundation that comes to the high ground is called "osiris". This is a scientific term and it would be inappropriate to capitalize it.

What is this inundation?

1553b. They tremble who see the inundation (when) it tosses;
1554a. (but) the marshes laugh; the shores are become green;

This is the inundation that tosses. Indeed they never spoke of the flood in the Nile except once to call it "high Nile". They never referred to it as the inundation because the inundation tosses on the Giza Plateau.

I'd be happy to show what causes this inundation to toss if there's any interest. This is where you really start seeing the depth and breadth of their science because they understood what caused this water to toss so they could catch it high up and use its weight to lift stones.

This whole thing shows how confused modern language is. It and human thought is continuing to fragment. While this splitting might be a good thing the confusion engendered by it is not a good thing. The world is wasting most natural resources and almost all of our human resources because of this confusion. We most assuredly need to start fom scratch whether you believe they used water to build the pyramids or not.

Arising_uk wrote:

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.

You're not ready yet. You need to know about solar elements and how sight work. You need a little deeper understanding of ancient science.

cladking wrote:You're not ready yet. You need to know about solar elements and how sight work. You need a little deeper understanding of ancient science.

If you are claiming that ancient science could achieve things we no longer understand, do you not think that a demonstration would be more compelling than an explanation in language you believe to be confused? The beauty of modern science is that for all the confusing words and mathematics, if there is no observable phenomenon, it is hypothetical and subject to revision. What physical phenomenon can you make appear using this ancient science, or is it just words?

cladking wrote:The PT is very coherent in describing the nature of "(atum)/ osiris" as well.

... We most assuredly need to start fom scratch whether you believe they used water to build the pyramids or not.

It seems to be my time for apologies and taking my foot from my mouth.

So I apologise for mistaking you as another pyramid nut as you appear to be saying that the pyramids were built using engineering and no 'mystical forces' involved. I say this in trepidation as, so far, my understanding of what you say is that they used counter-beams and balances with water as the counter-balancing force to move the stones and earth?

Arising_uk wrote: It seems to be my time for apologies and taking my foot from my mouth.

So I apologise for mistaking you as another pyramid nut as you appear to be saying that the pyramids were built using engineering and no 'mystical forces' involved. I say this in trepidation as, so far, my understanding of what you say is that they used counter-beams and balances with water as the counter-balancing force to move the stones and earth?

Think nothing of it. Usually by this time people are treating me like a leper with oozing postules who's calling on people to eat their babies. There are so many "different" theories on this that people expect the impossible and the odd rather than something that actually fits the evidence.

Just to bring everyone up to speed, every indication is that a natural process caused the water to spray violently from the earth and this water was caught high in the air and used to fill counterweights for the purpose of lifting the pyramid stones. The word "pyramid" meant "instrument of ascension" and the word "ramp" is unattested. There were no gods of ram[ps and no Overseer of Ramp Builders but all the jobs associated with the use of water are actually known to have existed.

http://i1244.photobucket.com/albums/gg5 ... 1385177247 -image

All the physical evidence exists as well. The first thing built at the pyramid sites was a huge water collection device with a perfectly flat bottom and surrounded by a sort of coffer dam. The pyramid was then constructed right on top of this. It was done this way because water was the only means by which they could lift stones. The pyramids were stepped on the inside and stones were lifted one step at a time using water.

Next will be what caused the water to toss at Giza and in the "Land of Rainbows".

Cladking, I am wondering: have you ever considered the neurological aspects of such religious/spiritual/metaphysical thought, as in the question of why there are symbols and allegories why we are attracted to them? There's a lot of information about this on the Internet and abroad, ranging from Comparative Religion, Occultism, and mysticism, to the psychology of Carl Jung, and the studies on consciousness in fields such as noetics. I believe that studying this may enhance your research on the pyramids.

uwot wrote:

cladking wrote:You're not ready yet. You need to know about solar elements and how sight work. You need a little deeper understanding of ancient science.

If you are claiming that ancient science could achieve things we no longer understand, do you not think that a demonstration would be more compelling than an explanation in language you believe to be confused? The beauty of modern science is that for all the confusing words and mathematics, if there is no observable phenomenon, it is hypothetical and subject to revision. What physical phenomenon can you make appear using this ancient science, or is it just words?

No. I'm not saying they understood things we don't understand. I'm saying
they understood things in a different way than we understand them.

It should be noted however that the tool defines what jobs are done with it. A
hammer makes a poor screw driver (usually). Their science was a different kind
of tool than modern science so what they learned was different than what we've
learned. They not only learned different things but they learned them in a diff-
erent order. While the knowledge gained from them is necessarily compatable
the understanding of the knowledge is different. The perspective that one views
reality is different.

So far I've found very few things in physics where their understanding was in any
way superior to our own. While their knowledge was much more primitive it was
normally quite practical. The divergence between their knpowledge and ours is
more extreme in fields like zoology and medicine. But, again, their knowledge tend-
ed to the practical rather than the theoretical because of the nature of observational
science.

Extrapolating and deducing the nature of their science from a book of ritual is prone
to error but I do find myself often looking at nature through these extrapolations
and they are consistent with reality, math, and physics. They are consistent also
with the apparent means by which their 40,000 year old science learned about nature.

Expressing modern ideas in ancient terms with which people aren't familiar is difficult.
Many people don't really understand the modern concept of work, friction, or power
so seeing it in ancient terms will prove even more difficult. I'm very sure I don't know
much of what these people know and I'm not even current on modern science (except
for the part that says there are an infinite number of pyramids each built with ramps).
I'd be happy to revisit this question after we talk about ancient chemistry and how
they percieved gravity.

WanderingLands wrote:Cladking, I am wondering: have you ever considered the neurological aspects of such religious/spiritual/metaphysical thought, as in the question of why there are symbols and allegories why we are attracted to them? There's a lot of information about this on the Internet and abroad, ranging from Comparative Religion, Occultism, and mysticism, to the psychology of Carl Jung, and the studies on consciousness in fields such as noetics. I believe that studying this may enhance your research on the pyramids.

Yes. It has more than just crossed my mind though I've done no research to date.

My working hypothesis is that things like phi and most symbols are the result of nat-
ural wiring in the brain. It might be caused by shapes of structures or any number
of things but they are inate. I believe the ancients were in close touch with many of
these things based on the fact that they believed there were 316 senses. Obviously
they must have defined "sense" a little differently than we do but I believe I've iden-
tified some of these merely by attending to them. For instance the upper 2nd molars seem
to give one the sense of drowning when you get in water more than a few feet deep.
This might be natural wiring that alerts one who regains consciousness in the water
to respond immediately. The hands seem to have some reaction to infrared radiation.
I wouldn't be surprised if about 316 such things could be found.

Things like religion and most symbolism is I believe the result of confused language.
Religion was invented specifically to preserve ancient applied science and might be one
of the few areas that have actually made some progress since ancient times. I believe
ancient people lacked superstition and religion because in effect they "believed" in not-
hing other than their axioms (I am therefore I think, etc). This led them to put more
importance on things like ritual and ceremony that served to tie people together. When
the ancient language fell symbolism, metaphor, and the like became more important
and served a similar purpose.

I really don't know but this is how I "feel" about my understanding so far. I believe
this will prove one of the areas of study most practical for helping people today. Many
of our individual problems are related to confused language and the systems created by
confused language. Most peoples' efforts are wasted and they aren't able to contribute
to their potential because of the systems in place.

I did say I'd address the question of what caused the water to spray from the earth. There doesn't seem much interest so I'll just tie up this loose end.

2109. The sky trembles, the earth quakes before the god, before N.
2110a. N. [is not enveloped] by the earth;
2110b. ’I3.t-wt.t, thou art not enveloped by the earth.
2110c. Thy fame is by day; thy fear is by night, as a god, lord of f ear.
2110d. Thou commandest the gods like the mighty one, chief of the mighty.
2111. [O] Osiris, the overflow comes, the inundation hastens, Geb groans.
2112a. I have pitied thee with pity; I have smitten him who acted with evil (intent) against thee;
2112b. that thou mayest live, that thou mayest raise thyself up because of thy strength.
2113. O N., [the inundation comes 1, [the overflow hastens], Geb [groans].
2114a. Exult in the divine efflux which is in thee; let thy heart live;


The PT is completely coherent and says the exact same things over and over. They speak of this "’I3.t-wt.t" repeatedly and always assign the same meaning to it from context; CO2. 'I3.t-wt.t" most probablymeans "risings begetter". Ancient language used a descriptive term for all the scientific words. They knew CO2 caused bread to rise and foam to rise on beer hence "risings begetter". They knew it was exhaled and produced in fires.

When the eruption began the CO2 was often the first thing to emerge from the eye of horus. It was talked about by day but at night when the winds slowed it would fill low lying areas and cause the death of anything in them. One utterance even advises you to tip toe when walking through this "efflux of osiris" which was the vulgar term for CO2. It is this efflux that powers the tossing water. The "spent" water was called "set" and if allowed todrain back would prevent eruptions. It had "evil intent".

Far and away the most striking difference between ancient scientists and modern scientists is that ancient scientists were aware they knew almost nothing at all even after 40,000 years of intensive study. Despite the fact we don't really know any more about gracity than they did most modern people believe we know just about everything.

It is this belief in our own omniscience that is our greatest threat to ourselves.

cladking wrote:Far and away the most striking difference between ancient scientists and modern scientists is that ancient scientists were aware they knew almost nothing at all even after 40,000 years of intensive study. Despite the fact we don't really know any more about gracity than they did most modern people believe we know just about everything.

It is this belief in our own omniscience that is our greatest threat to ourselves.

You must be reading some different science than I am, brother. Perhaps "most modern people" think they know just about everything, but exceptionally few modern scientists would make that claim.

In my experience, it is almost always the unscientific that have a simplified view of things.

In contrast, it isn't hubris, but humility and wonder, that are more likely to come from a view of things as complex, emergent and adaptive. And isn't that really the modern scientific perspective?