pre pyramid plateau

a reply to: username74

so here i go hoping that i dont accidentally delete this before i post because it will suck out my lifeforce if i have to do this twice, there will be some copying and pasting , some paraphrasing and some stitching to get this down.
i am not lazy but i havent got the rest of time to do this in, please excuse bad grammar, syntax etc. so when i say we have to take a step back i wish to convey that....
3 heterogeneous items coincided in order to form our European civilization, greek philosophy, roman imperial and legal civilization, and christianity, consolidated by time and effort of later generations. so when i said we need to take a step back, what i mean is....
The culture of cognitive/spiritual heritage was internally confused, wherever the language of concepts, being overly attached to matter and law, turned out to be too rigid to comprehend aspects of psychological and spiritual life has had negative repercussions upon our ability to comprehend reality, especially that reality which concerns humanity and society. We tend to impose upon nature our subjective ideational schemes, which are extrinsic and not completely coherent, developments in the hard sciences, which study facts by their very nature, as well as the perception of the philosophical heritage of other cultures.
so the greeks could hardly develop in isolation, without being affected by older cultures in particular, however even with this consideration it seems that greece was relatively isolated, culturally speaking. due to their seeming dark age (1200-800ish bc)and a belicose lot they were.
Rome was too vital and practical to reflect profoundly upon the greek thoughts it had appropriated. In this imperial civilization (just as ours), administrative needs and judical developments imposed impractical priorities. For them, the role of philosophy was more educational, useful for helping to develop the thinking process which would later be utilized for the discharge of administrative functions and the exercise of political options. The greek reflective influence softened roman customs, which had a distinct effect on the development of their empire, the complex problems of human nature are troublesome factors complicating the regulations of public affairs and administrative functions, it creates a tendency to dismiss such matters and develop a concept of human personality simplified enough to serve the purposes of law.
Citizens could achieve their goals and develop their personal attitudes within the framework set by fate and legal principles, which characterized an individual’s situation based on premises having little to do with actual psychological properties. The spiritual life of people lacking the rights of citizenship was not an appropriate subject of deeper studies. Thus, cognitive psychology remained barren, a condition which always produces 'moral recession' at both the individualand public levels.
Christianity had stronger ties with the ancient cultures of the asiatic continent, including their philosophical and psychological reflections. This was of course a dynamic factor making it more attractive.
This new relationship to another person, i.e. one’s neighbor, characterized by understanding, forgiveness, and love, opened the door to a psychological cognition which, often supported by charismatic phenomena, bore fruit during the first three centuries.
Observing at the time you might have expected christianity to help develop the art of human understanding to a higher level than the older cultures and religions, and to hope that such knowledge would protect future generations from the dangers of speculative thought divorced from that profound psychological reality which can only be comprehended through sincere respect for another human being, however, history has not confirmed such an expectation.
Exhaustive studies on the historical reasons for suppressing the development of human cognition in our civilization would be an extremely useful endeavor.
Two heterogeneous systems were thus linked together so permanently that later centuries forgot just how strange they actually were to each other. However, time and compromise did not eliminate the internal inconsistencies, and Roman influence divested Christianity of some of its profound primeval psychological knowledge. Christian tribes developing under different cultural conditions created forms so variegated that maintaining unity turned out to be an historical impossibility.
A “Western civilization” thus arose hampered by a serious deficiency in an area which both can and does play a creative role, and which is supposed to protect societies from various kinds of evil. This civilization developed formulations in the area of law, whether national, civil, or finally canon, which were conceived for invented and simplified beings. These formulations gave short shrift to the total contents of the human personality and the great psychological differences between individual members of the species Homo sapiens. For many centuries any understanding of certain psychological anomalies found among some individuals was out of the question, even though these anomalies repeatedly caused disasters.
The everyday, ordinary, psychological, societal, and moral world view is a product of man’s developmental process within a society, under the constant influence of innate traits. No person can develop without being influenced by other people and their personalities, or by the values imbued by his civilization and his moral and religious traditions. That is why his natural world view of humans can be neither sufficiently universal nor completely true.
It is thus significant that the main values of this world view indicate basic similarities in spite of great divergences in time, race, and civilization. This world view quite obviously derives from the nature of our species and the natural experience of human societies which have achieved a certain necessary level of civilization. Refinements based on literary values or philosophical and moral reflections do show differences, but, generally speaking, they tend to bring together the natural conceptual languages of various civilizations and eras. People with a humanistic education may therefore get the impression that they have achieved wisdom.
Now i havent finished, but i must sleep.
i will tie into the relevance of this vis a vis AE and why all teir statues have the same faces in the next post but i do feel like theguy at the wrong party.
i am in 3 forums in one thread
food for thought any way
sorry i cant conclude now but sleep is sleep

a reply to: username74

posted in the wrong thread?

a reply to: Byrd

looks like it doesnt it.
clunky on the reread.
where i am going is questioning our perception, of their perception.
i think if i put it in psychology it could be construed as philosophy, but i am reaching for interperetation of the physical forms that remain for us (the large works). point being we have to know where we stand to see where someone else stands. and there has to be some kind of benchmark for objectivity.we try to avoid error at all costs and in the process we impoverish cognitive representation to such an extent that there is very little matter left. the statues are androgynous and geometrically perfect (technical issues aside) in sharp contrast to greek and romans who went for direct likeness.
seems the AEs were building their view of the world into their representations. the statues of rameses, for example are not representations of rameses, a bloke, but rather of the office he held and its place within the cosmos.and man as the cosmos. this is not a primitive approach this is more developed an idea than the greeks romans and even us in some respects. it combines philosophy and physical science.
if they wanted to pull off a likeness are we suggesting they did not have the artistic or technical ability?.
all of this is at odds with the level of tech attributed.its incongruous. and like it or not we do find things we shouldnt be finding.
hence you are left with a number of unsatisfactory probabilities
1 our percerption and interperetation is way out due to our cultural inheritance, and weve been talking ourselves into a corner for 150 years
2 the time scale is way out and the AEs inherited some styles and customised some buildings and furniture from people who didnt make it through the dryas
ah that old chestnutheasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Byrd
the statues are androgynous

The only androgynous ones are of Akhenaten and of Hatshepsut later in her reign. The rest are identifiably male or female by body shape and garb.

seems the AEs were building their view of the world into their representations.

Yes. That's what I was taught in my Egyptology courses. We even know how it changes over their 3,000 year history and how that was reflected in artifacts like coffins, texts, and temples.

the statues of rameses, for example are not representations of rameses, a bloke, but rather of the office he held and its place within the cosmos.and man as the cosmos.

Yes, that's what I was taught in my Egyptology courses.

That concept is mentioned here:
Vaux, William Sandys Wright. Handbook to the Antiquities in the British Museum: Being a Description of the Remains of Greek, Assyrian, Egyptian and Etruscan Art Preserved There, with Numerous Illustrations. Murray, 1851.

and here..
Moret, Alexandre. Kings and gods of Egypt. Putnam, 1912.

...and many other places since that early mention in 1851.

hence you are left with a number of unsatisfactory probabilities

Not me.

But I have excellent teachers who give us access to a lot of material (and I do mean LOTS and lots and lots and lots of it) and I'm in the Yahoo group for learning hieroglyphs and on the AE mailing list and see discussions and papers from Egyptologists.

And I do a lot of reading on the subject.