The Gods Are Mad

[Yithian]

With all respect to the great writer, he could fairly have added that a few days later the heavens open, a new puddle is formed in the same hole and, on awakenening, it goes through the very same experience as its predecessor.

 

[mummyknave]

You cannot possibly state that the ancient mind - fully as able as our own today - didn't recognise that thought, opinion and sense of self had tangible presence.

My contention is that the operating system of the mind is language. Consciousness is experienced differently to someone who though in Ancient Language. There was nothing wrong with their brains any more than there's something wrong with our brains for having difficulty communicating. It is the nature and effects of the languages in question. Words like "fire" can have many meanings but put an exclamation mark after it and yell it in a crowded movie theatre and people may be trampled as it evacuates.

Language is far more than mere words and vocalizations, and far more than mere communication. It also is at the root of the way animals think. And modern languages lie at the heart of the way we think.

It is only common sense to assume that a very very different sort of language would result in a different way to think. It's only common sense to say there is something fundamentally wrong when we can't understand ancient writing and no one ever noticed that they had no words for "thought". The explanation may be as simple as what I suggest.

Australian Aborigines - them again - predate the Ancient Eqyptian civilisations, as did the Mesopotamian, and each clearly understood the nature of concrete and abstract, dream and reality, so on that one I'm afraid I'm calling "outright wrong."

Sumerian exists but there is no corpus of writing of sufficient size to deduce meaning by my method.

 

[mummyknave]

With all respect to the great writer, he could fairly have added that a few days later the heavens open, a new puddle is formed in the same hole and, on awakenening, it goes through the very same experience as its predecessor.

Ah, yes, the hydraulic cycle of life.

 

[stu neville]

The amount of writing in existence from the pyramid building age is miniscule. Indeed, there is only one single sentence positively identified as belonging to this era or earlier times; "Nefermaat is he who makes his gods in words that can not be erased.". My own opinion is that this is probably a title rather than a sentence.

So - by your own admission, there's hardly any known written evidence of anything. To postulate that what little written language there was is entirely representative of the whole cultural lexis, like a dictionary, is patently ridiculous. Imagine picking up the manual for a 2006 Land Rover Discovery and concluding that English has no words for "belief" or "opinion" as they don't appear in the chapter about torque settings for the head gasket.

You follow my point?

 

[stu neville]

Language is far more than mere words and vocalizations, and far more than mere communication.

I'm a linguist by training. This much I understand. Language in animals - jury's out. Thinking in language? People who are deaf-blind-mute from birth still think perfectly functionally. In time we just associate the communication of ideas with the ideas themselves so much that the two synthesize to a degree.

Sumerian exists but there is no corpus of writing of sufficient size to deduce meaning by my method.

..so how does this reconcile with..

The amount of writing in existence from the pyramid building age is miniscule. Indeed, there is only one single sentence positively identified as belonging to this era or earlier times..

I'm sorry, but your argument in this whole side of the discussion just keeps changing.

 

[stu neville]

And at that point I must leave the discussion for the time being. Genuinely - I think the language aspect of your theory is deeply flawed. Stick to the hydraulics.

PS - you say you've had discussions on other message boards - maybe some links would help us to see the whole picture regarding those debates and the arguments they threw up.

 

[mummyknave]

PS - you say you've had discussions on other message boards - maybe some links would help us to see the whole picture regarding those debates and the arguments they threw up.

How ironic.

Normally I want to do this but as a matter of policy I don't for fear it will be considered rude to the hosts.

Here I have several reasons not to want to do it.

I'll post a few links later.

 

[mummyknave]

Personally, I feel religion is a manifestation of humankind's imperfect attempts to understand creation.

Yes, no doubt.

And we assume this has always been true. We assume that the great pyramid builders were superstitious ONLY because we translate the word that means "natural phenomena" (neters) as "gods". We don't understand the writing as proven by the many translations that are dissimilar and the fact that none of the translations make sense. Our assumption that nothing changed is incorrect and we can't tell because there is no solid evidence other than that the Great Pyramid was built with linear funiculars exactly as implied by the literal meaning of the Pyramid texts, as well as many other predictions made by this literal meaning.

A discontinuity exists that is masked by the fact that the pidgin forms of Ancient Language used the same vocabulary as Ancient Language. Then, for all practical purposes, we still use this same vocabulary. We can't see the discontinuity because we translated and interpreted the PT in terms of a later book.

 

[mummyknave]

Stick with the hydraulics.

One of my biggest problems isn't so much people don't believe what I tell themn this means, they don't believe anyone can understand it;

1140c. (he is dried) by the wind of the great Isis, together with (which) the great Isis dried (him) like Horus.
...
1146a. N. is the pouring down of rain; he came forth as the coming into being of water;
1146b. for he is the Nḥb-kȝ.w-serpent with the many coils;

"Nḥb-kȝ.w-serpent" is the imaginary consciousness that controls men's lives named 'Nehebkau" according to modern Egyptologists. They believe Nehebkau is the "go between god".

https://henadology.wordpress.com/theology/netjeru/nehebkau/

But this interpretation of the meaning of "nehebkau" precludes the possibility of any sentence being logical and sensible. And every single sentence in Ancient Language contains one or more of these words because they define the subject of the sentence. It IS nehebkau who dries the dead king by means of the wind generated by isis because nehebkau is the hydraulic cycle and not an imaginary consciousness.

This gets to the way these texts were solved; the determination of what every word must mean in order for it to make perfect sense not only in terms of their premises but in terms of the "laws" of nature. The fact that it is internally consistent and the meaning to modern language speakers IS the literal meanings of the words is indicative of this reflecting author intent. When they said bring me the boat that flies up and alights this is exactly what they meant. Egyptologists believe every word was meant metaphorically, religiously, and symbolically much like modern language. But it's the literal meaning which was intended.

Everywhere "nehebkau" is used in a sentence it makes sense if we simply insert the words "the natural phenomenon of the hydraulic cycle'. Every word in Ancient Language had one fixed concrete meaning and they meant what they said literally. What they said was consistence with itself and with physics.

 

[Analogue Boy]

In my time here, I’ve seen a few people making bold claims they have cracked a code that unveils revelations that will change our lives. Under a little scrutiny, many have turned into a locked down defence on their position without, or as is more often the case, too much information going off like a smoke bomb clouding the issue.
I wouldn’t want to see that again but mummyknave, there are many contadictions in your posts, as well as a lack of predictions and further details on a universal language you hinted at previously.

For instance, I’m interested in the concept that the human brain hasn’t changed yet communication has but I stumble when I’m asked to believe that All ancient people were scientists. What, even the leperous beggars? Even the grain thrashers around the Little Chef at the Pyramid projects?

You claim that there was no word for thought in ancient times yet you use the word ‘philosophy’ which as far as I know is an ancient greek word encompassing thought, logic, language and the workings of the mind. So these conditions must have existed previously and weren’t conjured up by the naming of them.

I've not spoken to as many as you might think. My experience is that most specialists are of little "utility" to me. For the main part they mustta missed the day that they were taught about whatever subject on which I need help. I've read a little bit but mostly this is just observation from anecdotal evidence.

I am referring to only ONE definition of metaphysics. The other is irrelevant. If I EVER mean the other definition I will be sure to point it out.

On the above quote, why is ‘the other’ definition (which is a bit binary BTW) irrelevant?

 

[Coastaljames]

Ever read one of those threads that leave you thinking you're the thickest person posting on the whole board?


That.

 

[mummyknave]

So - by your own admission, there's hardly any known written evidence of anything. To postulate that what little written language there was is entirely representative of the whole cultural lexis, like a dictionary, is patently ridiculous.

Yes! Of course!

And this is exactly the argument that destroys all of Egyptological understanding of the great pyramid building age. All of the logic, physical evidence, and the actual writing that survives do not agree with their assumption that no discontinuity exists. They call this argument "cultural context" but it consists almost solely of the interpretation of the Pyramid Texts in terms of the book of the dead since there is so little writing from this era.

They've got a pair of deuces on the deal and they are standing pat.

Meanwhile my theory is supported by virtually all the evidence, logic, common sense, and historical accounts. ...Not to mention the literal meaning of the Pyramid texts which allowed me to rediscover how they built the pyramid and how we became so very wrong.

It is experience that forces me to address this the way I do. People have the same objections all the time and these objections get to the heart of language and thought but not to the heart of the physical evidence and how it fits together.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to discuss this evidence in this forum or one of the others but the question always comes back to modern assumptions imparted by language and by interpretation. People would be amazed

Imagine picking up the manual for a 2006 Land Rover Discovery and concluding that English has no words for "belief" or "opinion" as they don't appear in the chapter about torque settings for the head gasket.

You follow my point?

Yes. I understand your point and it has been raised before.

If it were just one or two words missing from a few hundred words in an instruction manual then I'd certainly agree. But the Pyramid Texts is a very extensive corpus. There are thousands of words. The language breaks Zipf's Law as the same words repeat over and over like computer language.

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

All words suggesting "thought" are absent. It never says "N" believes he will be happy in heaven". Or that anybody thinks of anything.

 

[mummyknave]

I'm a linguist by training. This much I understand. Language in animals - jury's out. Thinking in language? People who are deaf-blind-mute from birth still think perfectly functionally. In time we just associate the communication of ideas with the ideas themselves so much that the two synthesize to a degree.


..so how does this reconcile with..

I'm sorry, but your argument in this whole side of the discussion just keeps changing.

The Pyramid Texts were obviously ancient when they were inscribed into walls 100 years after the pyramid building age. Because of this I am treating them "like" they are older. I am trying to deduce the earlier versions. This is easy enough to do AFTER you figure out what they mean.

 

[mummyknave]

I'm a linguist by training. This much I understand. Language in animals - jury's out. Thinking in language? People who are deaf-blind-mute from birth still think perfectly functionally. In time we just associate the communication of ideas with the ideas themselves so much that the two synthesize to a degree.


..so how does this reconcile with..

I'm sorry, but your argument in this whole side of the discussion just keeps changing.

The Pyramid Texts were obviously ancient when they were inscribed into walls 100 years after the pyramid building age. Because of this I am treating them "like" they are older. I am trying to deduce the earlier versions. This is easy enough to do AFTER you figure out what they mean.

 

[mummyknave]

I'm a linguist by training.

Believe it or not linguists have been more help to me than any other specialist.

 

[mummyknave]

PS - you say you've had discussions on other message boards - maybe some links would help us to see the whole picture regarding those debates and the arguments they threw up.

The problem here is simple.

Few professional Egyptologists will talk to me at all. I've eMailed quite a few scientists for specific questions and every single one has responded and been quite gracious. I have never listed these scientists because every one of them was wrong. Some told me there's no such thing as a cold water geyser and when I finally found one who knew about them he answered every single one of my specific questions incorrectly. Remember more than half of aviation engineers don't understand the nature of a wheel and a single frame of reference. No Egyptologist has ever responded to any of my eMails.

Most of the "Egyptologists" I actually speak to or converse on-line are students, amateurs, and very knowledgeable aficionados. A few Egyptologists have actually responded to a post but the response is irrelevant, insulting, and off-topic. There has never been a well thought out response to most of my arguments. There was one Egyptologist (he might be a very well versed amateur) who attempted to take apart my ramp debunkment but his response was not entirely comprehensive and, in my opinion, was not very persuasive except on a single point.

Essentially I'm in a position where I've won every battle but might be losing the war.

There are several reasons I hesitate to link this and not the least of which is Graham Hancock has an undeserved reputation as a crank among some highly orthodox individuals. But it should be noted that his message board is not beholden to him except as our host. This site is by far the most active of all the sites on the net that discuss pyramids. There are numerous alternative theorists and numerous high quality orthodox thinkers with deep knowledge of the state of the art. Even though we all talk past one another most of the time this is just the nature of the beast.

I am "cladxxxking" without the x's on almost all other sites I frequent. I changed it here for reasons explained in the first post.

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1100543,1100543#msg-1100543

I believe I won every argument in this thread though I often don't respond to 'hanxxxslune" because of his tactics and insults.

There are also numerous threads related to building of pyramids.

There is only a single higher quality site than this one for pyramids but that site is not very active.

Several trolls follow me around the net and will find me here soon enough.

 

[mummyknave]

In my time here, I’ve seen a few people making bold claims they have cracked a code that unveils revelations that will change our lives. Under a little scrutiny, many have turned into a locked down defence on their position without, or as is more often the case, too much information going off like a smoke bomb clouding the issue.

I wouldn’t want to see that again but mummyknave, there are many contadictions in your posts, as well as a lack of predictions and further details on a universal language you hinted at previously.

I never contradict myself. I seem to often because I mean most of many words literally and they are taken otherwise. Like everyone I use various definitions of many of the words I use and hope the reader will deconstruct them as I intended. I have no control over how people understand what I say other than trying to state things cleary and explain as I go. This is why I'm so "wordy".

I think intuitively and then try to anticipate the reader. I often find people have difficulty understanding me and I them. But I suspect this is principally because I'm far more sensitive to communication errors than most people. I have little trouble in real life with people who think intuitively. I can't talk to machines as the conversation breaks down immediately and I can't understand directions for simple appliances from the computer age.

For instance, I’m interested in the concept that the human brain hasn’t changed yet communication has but I stumble when I’m asked to believe that All ancient people were scientists. What, even the leperous beggars? Even the grain thrashers around the Little Chef at the Pyramid projects?

The human brain hasn't really changed; the operating system has changed.

This doesn't affect any individual until they achieve about two years of age. At this point they grow millions of brain cells to accommodate the needs of natural language which used to be the operating system. Modern language doesn't require all these connections so most will atrophy or become otherwise disused.

The same would happen in older people who were raised on Ancient Language and converted but would be more gradual. One would get out of the habit of thinking in Ancient Language very quickly though. Translation would be a very rare ability and true translation is impossible. The languages are far too different and modern language simply can't contain the logic of AL except in flow charts.

This isn't to say people who spoke AL were smarter in any way (I don't even believe in human intelligence at all), merely that all of their knowledge was at their fingertips and rather than seeing their beliefs they saw reality as defined by 40,000 years of human science.

You claim that there was no word for thought in ancient times yet you use the word ‘philosophy’ which as far as I know is an ancient greek word encompassing thought, logic, language and the workings of the mind. So these conditions must have existed previously and weren’t conjured up by the naming of them.

I believe what I said was their "perspective" would be one of Logical Atomists. They had no philosophy but they would see things from this perspective. Indeed some aspects of their axioms (metaphysics) virtually left no alternative to this perspective.

On the above quote, why is ‘the other’ definition (which is a bit binary BTW) irrelevant?

Other definitions of "metaphysics" are never my intended meaning. If I ever mean "mystical" I'll probably use the word "mystical". I have no problem with the other definition of "metaphysical" and if it's ever the best word for what I mean I do intend to use it. Until then I always mean "basis of science".

 

[mummyknave]

Ever read one of those threads that leave you thinking you're the thickest person posting on the whole board?


That.

I may be the thickest person here but I'm operating far above my paygrade. Sometimes it can be hard to see just how thick I am. I surprise people a lot.

 

[stu neville]

I am "cladxxxking" without the x's on almost all other sites I frequent. I changed it here for reasons explained in the first post.

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1100543,1100543#msg-1100543

I believe I won every argument in this thread though I often don't respond to 'hanxxxslune" because of his tactics and insults.

What a very diverting thread. Interesting to see the same queries, criticisms and 'evasions of the truth' mirrored on that site.

I wouldn't necessarily say you won every argument though. Or indeed any of them.

I will ask one question, in two parts, and I think we would all appreciate a straightforward answer in order for this thread to progress further:

Have you learnt, yourself, to interpret the original glyphs in the texts you cite?

If not, do you still rely on the translation by Mercer into English, upon which you base your theories about which words they didn't use or understand?

 

[mummyknave]

There are 8 or 10 glyphs only I can translate and another 5 or 10 only I know how they originated. Only I know how the language is structured and a few of the rules of grammar. Only I know any of author intent and this was deduced from the literal meaning of the words. Only I know words had a single meaning and were representative rather than symbolic.

It was I who solved the meaning of the language.

It is my contention that beyond this the language still has NEVER BEEN TRANSLATED and Indeed, CAN'T BE TRANSLATED.

No, I don't know how to translate it either. This will require time and effort on the part of linguists and scholars. It will require the effort of botanists and physicists. I have merely opened the door and shown its location and its mechanism. It will require courage and the entire human race to walk through it.

If this is so difficult to understand or consider than I'll walk away now.



The mechanism to operate this door that I predicted is in the center left. Egyptology is afraid of it and want people to forget it exists. I don't know why people are missing the simple concept that I predicted this anomaly and only I can see the mechanism to open it. Nobody seems to care hence the title of this thread.

I use the works of hundreds of scholars who have come before. Not just Mercer.

 

[mummyknave]

I use the works of hundreds of scholars who have come before. Not just Mercer.

And, more importantly, I care about the last 500 years of modern science and the experiments that comprise it. I care about the physical evidence, logic, mathematics, and actual historical accounts that say EXACTLY how the pyramids were built. I care about the builders and their titles. I care about reason and logic.

The gods are truly mad. And they seem to have a vendetta against me.

 

[stu neville]

So no, then. You are, in fact, claiming to fully understand, uniquely to yourself, the meaning of a language you can't actually read, but which you claim no-one else can either, presumably except Mercer who seemingly can, at least well enough to translate it into English, with which you then formulate new meanings, but not that of the actual words as you believe nobody can translate them in the first place.

And it's the Gods' fault.

 

[stu neville]

I'm just going to go ahead and log out now. If anyone has any questions or comments please just go ahead and post them and I'll log back in.

Ok. We can resume in the morning. I'm sure the Egyptians had a word for it.

 

[oldrover]

It's autumn again then.

 

[stu neville]

Yep. They whom the Gods would destroy, they first send to us.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

There are 8 or 10 glyphs only I can translate and another 5 or 10 only I know how they originated. Only I know how the language is structured and a few of the rules of grammar. Only I know any of author intent and this was deduced from the literal meaning of the words. Only I know words had a single meaning and were representative rather than symbolic.

It was I who solved the meaning of the language.

It is my contention that beyond this the language still has NEVER BEEN TRANSLATED and Indeed, CAN'T BE TRANSLATED.

No, I don't know how to translate it either. This will require time and effort on the part of linguists and scholars. It will require the effort of botanists and physicists. I have merely opened the door and shown its location and its mechanism. It will require courage and the entire human race to walk through it.

If this is so difficult to understand or consider than I'll walk away now.



The mechanism to operate this door that I predicted is in the center left. Egyptology is afraid of it and want people to forget it exists. I don't know why people are missing the simple concept that I predicted this anomaly and only I can see the mechanism to open it. Nobody seems to care hence the title of this thread.

I use the works of hundreds of scholars who have come before. Not just Mercer.

Several articles available describing the anomalous heat signatures on the pyramids. The hypothesis is that this is indicative of chambers or tunnels behind - which is certainly exciting and I look forward to further revelations.

https://www.sciencealert.com/therma...-strange-anomaly-in-the-great-pyramid-of-giza

 

[stu neville]

No, I don't know how to translate it either. This will require time and effort on the part of linguists and scholars. It will require the effort of botanists and physicists. I have merely opened the door and shown its location and its mechanism. It will require courage and the entire human race to walk through it....If this is so difficult to understand or consider than I'll walk away now.

Through the door you've just opened, or are you waiting for the botanists?

I use the works of hundreds of scholars who have come before. Not just Mercer.

All of whom you say are wrong.

I'll be honest - forgive me if it sounds brutal. Your theory doesn't work, as an hypothesis let alone as a serious proposition. You self-contradict, often in the same paragraph. You cite as proof something which you then dismiss as false within the same post. You appear to randomly pick and choose elements which suit you and evade questions or counter-points which highlight the inconsistencies. More than this, you have built an entire platform of further hypotheses based on one which you yourself happily admit you can't understand in the first place. You say Egyptologists are wrong and dismiss your ideas, but it then transpires that you haven't actually asked any of them..You say your research is vital and grround-breaking, but cannot summon the effort to produce a coherent dissertation on it, or even an abstract. You don't know what your theory is: instead you just fling half-baked ideas at the wall in the hope that some stick.

We've given you plenty of time and opportunities to discuss and refine your ideas, but you've largely ignored these in favour of flinging further stuff at the cartouche.

I'm sure you'll view this not as a constructive exercise on our part to clarify what you propose but as yet another attack on your golden theory (whatever it is this morning.) You alone know the truth, because of course you do. We see a lot of people who know the truth, and we invariably show ourselves as unworthy of hearing that truth, as we're just not that credulous, I'm afraid. You haven't asked actual Egyptologists by your own admission, merely read what a couple of them said and disagreed with them. The people you have actually spoken to - ourselves, the Graham Hancock site, the others mentioned - all have given you the same response: surely that should give you at least pause for thought.

Sadly, I feel it probably won't. You'll consign us to the colossal pile of narrow-minded bodies who fail to see the genius behind your thinking. So be it. For myself I've spent enough time trying to understand, but I fear - somewhat ironically - that it will never be comprehensible to my own mind. I'm now stepping back from this discussion. Others may continue as they wish, but I'll bid you adieu.

 

[Spookdaddy]

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

Where would this forum be without a little eccentricity?

Must admit that a lot of mummyknave's claims go way over my head, but I am more than happy to discuss views on the history and origins of language, nomatter how fringe!

 

[stu neville]

Where would this forum be without a little eccentricity?

Poorer and less populated, by far.

..Must admit that a lot of mummyknave's claims go way over my head, but I am more than happy to discuss views on the history and origins of language, nomatter how fringe!

No problem with fringe, at all - the entire forum, and by extension magazine and general area of pursuit is by definition fringe.

What we're here to do is to examine incidents, theories, ideas and postulations about phenomena and mysteries and other anomalous data. We do so in a patient and non-judgmental manner: each case on its merit, but in a systematic and analytical way. What we're not is a forum thst just accepts stuff blindly, and whilst we're more than willing to give people a platform, the pay-off is that we have the right to question and challenge.

In this case, I've tried hard to get some sort of cogent proposition from mummyknave, but this hasn't produced any more clarity than when we started, and I find many many issues with his theories, all of which I've stated but for which I haven't had any satisfactory answer. For this reason I'm withdrawing from the discussion, though I'll continue to observe and may yet contribute once again if progress is made. No-one's being banned or warned, the thread remains open. I'm just standing back.