Ramessu
(usual poster)
04/10/01 01:13 AM
Re: Netjer and Natural Forces [re: RevCSchaefer]

Leah,

Not a different one for me. Everything is energy, it's all a matter of Physics. (1)

RevCShaefer:


> .. A different perspective, but one which I feel to be
> .. grossly oversimplified. Boiling down the Names to
> .. collections of traits and "energies" may be more
> .. accessible and easy to grasp, but it also eradicates
> .. the deeper mysteries _behind_ those known traits.

I believe you are wrong. Even in the simplified form, the mysteries of existence are vast enough that there is no way to "over simplify". (2) It's the intellect of the individual that is the limiting factor.

And in actuality the 'boiling down of the names' is a necessary process in understanding oneself, and your place in the universe. There is so much (3) to each and every Neter, one reason for so many names for each Neter, is that each name is a specialized aspect of that Neter. Anpu alone has 42 different names. Each name is a part of that neter for a specialized function.

We're all cogs in the wheel, from the high to the low. (4)





Click here to return to the previous post.








(1) See the earlier post by Leah, which, along with one of her followups on the same thread, was critiqued at length. Note: I actually do have a degree in Physics, unlike some on the Netjer boards, and can say with no little authority that neither "forces" nor "energies" are capable of any sort of awareness or purpose. When, in the making of a metaphor, the essential quality of that which is implicit corresponds to no analogous property of that which is explicit, one has made a bad metaphor. To argue otherwise would be to argue that the reader is obliged to do the writer's work for him.

back to where you were




(2) This doesn't even make logical sense. To say that a concept can't be oversimplified, by definition, means that no explanation which one would give of it, would ever be too simple to explain it in a useful fashion. Such a remark would indicate that the object of one's comments is exceedingly simple, not exceedingly complex.

back to where you were




(3) So, let's see it! Much commentary is seen here of the complexity of the belief system, but none of that complexity is ever actually seen. All that the reader is offered in this regard, is one vague allusion after another.

back to where you were




(4) And how much freedom of choice does a "cog in a wheel" have? Not merely does the "netjer as forces" camp offer no explicit explanation of their ideas, but they don't even succeed in creating coherent metaphors. Here, we see the New Age game of sounding profound by keeping one's commentary meaningless being played.

back to where you were