First post on this section of Forum

It looks like a design for a birdbath.

Well........

Good guess, I suppose. But.... no. Hint: It is taken from Plate II of the Egyptian Book of the Dead [a.k.a. Spells for the Coming Forth by Day], lines 4 to 5, dating from about 3100 B.C.E. I am fluent in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. It is read left to right, top to bottom as presented here, with stacked glyphs [the last two pairings on the top line, and the middle pairing in the bottom line] read top to bottom in sequence.

The book is a series of spells chanted for the recently dead, a funerary dirge for the protection of the spirit of the dead [typically for royalty], declaring their deeds performed in life, and hope for their safe journey to the realm of Osiris.

Are you aware of the bicameral mind theory? The chant for the dead in this case would be 100% real and the voices of the dead would appear as auditory hallucinations.

Very disjointed associations.

It looks like the industrialized process we use to kill cattle. That bird on the bottom right's gonna grow up to be a chicken nugget

I'm probably in there somewhere.

You look like the one starring at the chickens backside.

It looks like a design for a birdbath.

History's first Ikea manual. Are we sure the Swedes didn't build the pyramids?

Is this, perhaps, the missing piece of the puzzle?

Was he... real?

He doesn’t look Egyptian at all.

He doesn’t look Egyptian at all.

What does an Egyptian 'look like?' How would you know? How do you know there weren't Swedes sailing down the Nile in their longboats? They're always covering up the history. We've just discovered instructions for Pharaoh Sven's Ikea birdbath assembly. Anything is possible.

Yea, I am well aware of Jaynes and his quacker theory of the bicameral mind. He spent several years in the study of Greek so he could read Homer's The Iliad in Homer's language, all in the belief that "mind" had a beginning point later in history than man's origin only because he had this warped sense that consciousness was not a factor at human origin even if cognition came with that origin. But he confused the proper definition of consciousness as it it were an evolutionary thing. I completely disagree, as do many others before ands since Jayne's. The fallacy Jaynes overlooked relative to language is that human language in its variable forms is a creation of culture, and not the reverse, and that, therefore, not all lexicons have the same words and meanings as any other lexicon. Greek, for example, doses not have one word: love. Greek has, instead, seven words for that one in English. I also took Greek in college. Each Greek word defines a different sense of "love," which, in English, require added adjectives and adverbs to express what Greek accomplishes by one of the seven words. He discovered that Greek also did not have the word "mind," as in his native English [he was born in Canada], but also several different words. He never did resolve his conundrum which basically limited the success of his bicameral theory. But then, he learned behavioral science by the study of non-human animal behavior, and tried to equate the two. Nonsense.

I'll try to translate it. But first I need to know if it's Egyptian or if it's reformed Egyptian

You are frequently mentioned in the Egyptian Book of the Dead [or Spells for the Coming Forth by Day] as the god, represented by a jackat's head and human body, who is responsible for the measurement on a scale of the departed's heart, put in a canopic jar to weigh against a feather, in direct service to Osiris to judge the character of the departed. Good job.

Few people outside my religion are even aware of that distinction. No, the posted image is Middle Kingdom Egyptian. The reformed product is about a thousand years into the future, about 600 B.C.E., and likely unknown to the Egyptian Empire.

TBH I have no clue why he tried so hard to define consciousness and tie in his theory to it.

The book is way more useful from an anthropology standpoint. The simple fact is that primitive humans and "mass primitive kingdoms" like Ancient Egypt and the Aztecs really were psychologically different, and auditory hallucinations + dreams are/were a huge part of their lives.

Translate, please:

Pretty sure that's the IKEA instructions for assembling a bookshelf.

"The simple fact is that primitive humans and "mass primitive kingdoms" like Ancient Egypt..."

What "fact?" You talk like the ancient Egyptians, along with Chinese of the same era [Middle Kingdom of Egypt began abut 2040 B.C.E. through New kingdom [about 11th century BCE] were Neanderthals. Nope. Homno sapiens - modern man. Modern civilized man. The Egyptian language [as demonstrated by the artwork I posted in #1, above, is a very sophisticated language, in some respects more complicated than our modern languages, boyo. I am fluent in it, thank you, hang studied it in college and some 50 years since. Primitives did not develop such communication skills. I've even discovered evidence that the Eqyptians of that era were already practicing such socio-political concepts as due process. Do you really think primitives were in that kind of sophistication? Nope, you're wrong.

"The simple fact is that primitive humans and "mass primitive kingdoms" like Ancient Egypt..."

What "fact?" You talk like the ancient Egyptians, along with Chinese of the same era [Middle Kingdom of Egypt began abut 2040 B.C.E. through New kingdom [about 11th century BCE] were Neanderthals. Nope. Homno sapiens - modern man. Modern civilized man. The Egyptian language [as demonstrated by the artwork I posted in #1, above, is a very sophisticated language, in some respects more complicated than our modern languages, boyo. I am fluent in it, thank you, hang studied it in college and some 50 years since. Primitives did not develop such communication skills. I've even discovered evidence that the Eqyptians of that era were already practicing such socio-political concepts as due process. Do you really think primitives were in that kind of sophistication? Nope, you're wrong.

It more like a birdbath.

OK, here's the translation of the hieroglyphics above in my #1 post. Warning, I will offer first the direct translation as written, understanding that it's syntax [in this case, grammar, i.e., word order as the ancients structured sentences in this language, and then as we would say it in modern English. Earlier text indicates that this is an homage to Osiris. He is the specific god to whom this honor is given.

As Written: "Becomes green through thee the Earth in triumph"

As we would say it: "Through thee the Earth becomes green in triumph."

Nice post. Ra is with us!

There is nothing green in the picture.

Yes, the Earth is described as green. This is just text, not a picture. Each glyph represents either single letters, or groups of letters, i.e., a whole word. Some glyphs represent several words together, =or a single word such as the last four glyphs saying "triumph." There is only one way to know this and that is by memory. It is in this respect that I say Egyptian hieroglyphs are more complicated than Roman charters that we use.

All they had to show was some green grass.

You are missing the point, I am not claiming that they are less intelligent, but that they heard auditory hallucinations and dreams were characteristically different from us.

Is there really anything in these hieroglyphs that is remotely representative of your translation?

Four symbols that in no logical way say, becomes green through thee.

Two symbols that might suggest sledging on a rainy day.

And a single symbol that doesn't logically suggest, in.

The last four which comprises two abstract symbols a chick and a kneeling bloke picking his nose, how does that symbolise triumph?

My interpretation would be:

Had a wash, and then some breakfast before going sledging in the rain, blah de blah de blah, knelt down and sniffed the big chickens arse.

Very inspiring.

And you are missing my point. Neither ancient Egyptians nor Aztecs could be described as "primitive humans and 'mass primitive kingdoms'" as you stipulate in your post #16. That is not fact as you claim.

Spend 50 years, as I have, in the deep study of Egyptian grammar, including that what may appear to you as abstract, such as the glyph representing "in," only to discover that it is an accurate representation of the flat rib of an oryx, only to be stymied trying to discover what the hell a rib has to do with being in or out [it's a simple discovery, in point of fact], and come back, then we'll talk.