FOOTNOTES of "The Art of Conversation with Daniel Kolos":

note n10: excerpt of DK's review (post#582): However, since your thesis has been fleshed out, I, for one, can see that it is both a multi-disciplinary and a multi-level approach. ...  Now that I have taken a look at your work nearly in its entirety, I find it wholistic, understandable and fascinating. <backToText>

note n15: for example in an amarna egroup (seach for "more antedelvian Freudian hogwash") it is possible to see the form of terrorism that cuts back and limits the horizon of a cenacle of specialists who handicap their students. <backToText>

note n20: the first objection (I have difficulty conceiving) cannot stand logically. For one of the immanent element of AMOTHeory is that it is repressed and consequently, that we have difficulty conceiving the 'one person influence'. One cannot object against a thesis with the argument that one has difficulty conceiving it. Beyond this sophistic defense I also make notice in my answer that I theorize AOMTH as a character who is influent and... influenced; in a way standing in between his environment and our. <backToText>

note n30:  see page reltoo.htm & search paragraph for <quite naive> - about Savitri Devi who attributes, upon Akhnaton, only  his mother's influence - resembling the legend of Phaeton. <backToText>

note n40: see http://www.dnafoundation.com/regis/cd228/ijgl/0tri.htm
& in page http://www.dnafoundation.com/sub01/mesobo/medsb.htm look at chapter FROM HERMETISM TO ECOLOGY
& in page http://www.dnafoundation.com/temp02/cpoptmp/pope4p.htm search for Hermonthis <backToText>

note n50: I knew for quite some time that there had been settlement and political activity in the site of Amarna, prior to Akhtaton (I was already suspecting it in the novel Mon Père in French, 1988, mentioning that neglecting an antecedence to Akhnaton/Akhtaton was to open extraterrestrial explanation for the origin of our Republics! it was an abstract pun about what results in neglecting memory. Later I gathered evidence about the earliest antiquity of Amarna); so I knew also, as DK indicates that scholars usually ignore the fact. Hence in a post to DK  (post#161 Re: Testing realism) I indicates my interest for early settlement in Amarna <<by the way nobody has answered yet about the early settlements in the vicinity of Amana>> and objected that Akhnaton would have political and ecological intent, when DK said <<the ancient Egyptians did not think about ecological devastation>> <backToText>

note n60: for example, in part of my French studies in Hermes and the Session (Hermès et la Scéance), I mention with Yates (and retranslate): ..the twelfth Century Alchemistry book that indicates in its preface the notion of three Hermeses, i.e. Enoch, Noha and the philosopher and prophet king who reigned in Egypt after the flood and known as Hermes Triplex. <backToText>

doc d10: copy of:  post#114 (in yellow the egyptology part / green communication part) <backToText>
William wrote, "With Daniel, my misunderstanding (re:post#102) has pointed right to a major factor with, communication, language and thoughts - How do we understand? What do we understand? " As Fred says recently (#104), here is a message that <<may be a little "off topic," but..>> the issue of meaning and what is meant is related to the passionate enigma of 'who' is meant behind the veil of names and historical characters. "At the end of this post, I'll add a P.S. which seems to me appropriate - I translated it from a recent French cartoon. But for the moment I wish to deepen with my misunderstanding that Daniel corrected."

Daniel answers: Since I often use humor in my writing, I translate this last sentence, "But for the moment I wish to deepen with my misunderstanding that Daniel corrected" as an example of your humor. I was away for five days last weekend 'dissociating' from my normal environment. Yet, the model of internet conversation I wrote about on Tuesday, May 25th, either #98 or 99, intruded into my temporary environment. I questioned the claim that "I write for myself." What are my goals? The possible goals range from ego wagging to seeking approval. My aim is not to convince others about what I think, but rather to establish new neural pathways in my own brain and in some way to promote learning. Then these thoughts go out into the ether and find several responses: 1) they are ignored; 2) they are corrected by someone who understands the direction of the thoughts but disagrees with either the logic or the methodology; 3) they bring me personal ridicule; 4) they are challenged for the sake of carrying on an argument or from a different ideological point of view; 5) they bring a response which probes my facts, assumptions, understanding, cultural and professional biases but promotes a dialogue. Numbers 2 and 5 have produced 'pleasurable' results over the years even if the process may have been somewhat painful. I also questioned the part of the model which deals with our artificial construct of the others' personae. So strong was the image the previous essay created for my mind that I had to break the immediacy of that temporary environment and write the present essay. If I am writing to myself rather than to an artificial construct of your persona that I am able to imagine in my mind, then the following logical process takes place within me: your words, if they stimulate my consciousness, elicit a certain understanding within me I shall call A, to which stimulation I respond with B. Both A and B are in Set 1. In other words, whatever William wrote, my understanding recreates William's words in my own image. But, because they were not my own words to begin with and contained ideas slightly different from my own, A is the stimulus and B is the response within my own understanding. In effect, I am having a conversation with myself, even though my intellect was stimulated by you. In turn, the best I can hope for is to stimulate your intellect, elicit a response, then read your own dialogue with yourself. However, as long as we remain within our intellects, we are information bound because an intellect devoid of the body's intelligence is habituated to receiving information as entertainment or as tools for manipulation of reality. Outside of retaining information in the memory and finding possible uses for that information, there is no learning involved. An intellect devoid of the body's intelligence operates as a defensive mechanism, manipulating and controlling its environment to avoid emotional pain, to avoid shame and embarrassment to the ego. Perhaps this discarnate intellect is the prototype for narcissism. As we discuss your Akhenaten-Moses-Oedipus-Hermes Trismegistus, AMOH-T, theory, therefore, the only judgment I can make about you is whether or not you are carrying on the correspondence strictly with your intellect, or with your intelligence. Iakov already made up his mind that you have operated out of your intellect, therefore, you had nothing to learn from him! And yet, I find that your responses are considerate. When I mentioned my strenuous objections to the assumptions of Freudian psychoanalysis, your response was to direct me to the mechanics of PLAN which came about because of your own objections to the same. (Correct me if I am wrong!) I don't claim to understand PLAN, and don't know enough about it even to know whether you have overcome some of the Freudian weaknesses, but I am sure there will be indications of that in your correspondence. Similarly, you considered my objection to the AMOH-T theory, although you cautioned me about promoting the repressed memory syndrome (RMS). My objections are two pronged, as I have written previously: first, I have difficulty conceiving of three thousand years of 'western' history as having been mostly influenced by one person, i.e., AMOH-T; secondly, I know just enough details about the Middle Eastern traditions and transmissions of oral and written concepts to offer alternatives to what I see as a simplifying theory. On the latter, I cited Amenhotep-Son-of-Hapu, who carried on the wisdom writing traditions of Imhotep and Ptahhotep, etc., as well as the mystical activities associated with that tradition. They acted under the tutelary sponsorship of Djehouty (Thoth) who is the founder of the later Hermeticism, at least in folk memory, so that there is no repression involved unless you have objections to this lineage. There is always room for transference, but Imhotep becomes deified, Amenhotep-son-of-Hapu becomes deified, each for his own activities carried on under Djehouty's auspices. As long as we agree that Thoth becomes identified with Hermes, there seems to be no transference involved. You claim that Akhenaten is both the source and the identity for Hermes Trismegistus. There is merit in that claim. Akhenaten prepared a new capital city for himself at a site most scholars claim was virgin territory. But it was not! The new city was essentially a large square defined by boundaty stelae with the Nile River running through it slightly off center. The east bank was virgin territory. The west bank was the estate of Djehouty (Thoth). On the surface it seems that Akhenaten wanted to identify himself with Djehouty for some reason, or that the choice of capital city included the estate of Djehouty through serendipity. I believe that you have opted for another scenario, where no traces of Djehouty appeared until after Akhenaten established Akhetaten, perhaps not until the Ptolemaic era (300 BC and later!). But there is a third option which includes the archaeological reality that Djehouty had an already established temple and estate at Ashmunein before Akhenaten. This third option would have Akhenaten deliberately choose to establish his new capital city an become identified with Djehouty.

I will argue for the latter. Amenhotep III had already made a break with the Egyptian nobility who were growing 'fat' through the bounty of Amun-Ra and were applying pressure on the Pharaoh for more political power. This last sentence is pure sepculation, and perhaps just one interpretation for the facts which follow. Amenhotep III begins a slow and long religious process to deify himself, or to assert his divinity, and identify himself with the sun's disk, the Aten. At the same time he begins to appoint new families to high offices and to lead the military. Many of these new families were not 'native' Egyptians. Some had settled in the Delta and in the lower part of Upper Egypt since the Hyksos rule some three hundred years before. Most had retained their original Asiatic names. With these new families filling the power vacuum created by the old Egyptian families cleaving to Amun-Ra, Amenhotep III must have felt comfortable to continue his policies. He appointed his firstborn, Prince Tutmose, as co-regent and High Priest of Ptah in Men Nefer (Memphis). Unfortunately, Tutmose died. Akhenaten was next in line and found his father had already re-written the 'creation' story of Anu (On of the Bible, or Heliopolis in Greek). Instead of Atum masturbating himself and creating the other gods from his semen, Aten was now at the helm or head of the Ennead or the pantheon. Akhenaten did not object. He went ahead and built very large temples at Karnak (the Gem-Pa-Aten temple measures 600x400 meters!!! and was only one of three so far excavated) to establish Aten's presence in Egypt's religious capital. It took Akhenaten five years to realize that no matter how large his temples and how these and his palace intrude upon the Amun worship, the playing field for the rivalry was firmly established on Amun's turf. Perhaps it was his father who pointed out to Akheanten that as long as he played at Karnak, the game was unwinnable. At this point someone came up with a brilliant scheme. We don't know who it was, but it could have been Akhenaten himself: Since Djehouty pre-existed Atum, the creator god of Anu, therefore pre-existing Amun-Ra, Djehouty's role in the legitimacy of the Heliopolitan Ennead was a major factor. Without him enabling the sky goddess Nout deliver her five children there would be no Isis and Osiris, etc., no Egypt! Without Djehouty teaching Isis magic in order to find and restore her brother and husband Osiris, twice, there would be no Horus, no king to rule and civilize Egypt, only the brute force of Seth. Some stories even hint that Djehouty was the father of several of Nout's children, while Geb, the earth god, was the father of the rest. Djehouty, therefore, is both an outsider and yet a major player in the establishment of the sun cult. I propose that Akhenaten, or someone intimately connected to the royal court and to their Aten cult, deliberatly chose the site of Akhetaten precisely because Djehouty's chief temple was already there to offer legitimacy and 'protection' to the new creator god, Aten. Of course, Aten was not new, but his 'creator god' status was new. I also propose that the entire scheme was politically motivated. The one person who was intimately connected with both the royal family and the cult of Djehouty previous to and during the transition to Akhetaten was Amenhotep-Son-of-Hapu. Amenhotep III remains on the King Lists, Akhenaten crops up in Manetho, but Amenhotep-Son-of-Hapu remains active in the folk memory, perhaps even hyperactive, because folk memory deifies him. So we have a triad of personalities where Amenhotep III deliberately deifies himself, Akhenaten acts like God, but it is their close advisor, the Royal Scribe Amenhotep-Son-of-Hapu who is remembered as a god. It is the latter who is a priest of Djehouty. More on this later.

There is still another way to picture our communication. You are a discarnate intellect as far as my consciousness is concerned, but, because of our shared 'humanity' I assume that you are an intelligence functioning more or less the same way as I do. By intelligence, I mean that you most likely carry on an internal dialogue, consciously or unconsciously, between your physical experiences, emotions, intellect, spiritual self and so on, a vertical series or levels of consciousness the totality of which is your intelligence. This process may also include a dialogue among your personae, which means that you know the difference between how you present yourself to your wife, to your peers, to your patients, to your audience, to the customs officials when you travel, etc., a horizontal series of acting skills you exercise outwardly, also a function of the intelligence in our sense or instinct of survival which has non harmful consequences. By the time that dialogue filters trough the thought processes and finds expression in words (shedding physicality, emotionality, spirituality) it becomes an expression of the intellect, a unique brain process. In the course of the conversation our expressions pick up telltale signs of having been considered by the various functions of our intelligence from both vertical and horizontal expressions of ourselves. So I offer this response to my own understanding on the internet, to other intellects, basically to gauge the level of understanding of one another. If it is true that I am writing to myself, does that mean that I am both the Significand and the Significator? In the Freudian sense, talking to one's self is a pathology. At best, it is egocentrism. At worst it is a form of auto eroticism, narcissism. I am reflecting to myself my own intellect. Yet, the mechanics of the brain functions do not allow another choice! If I pretend that I am writing to you, then I am delusional. I may be simplifying here, but I believe the psychoanalytical system is faulty. What balances the auto-eroticism/narcissism is that I am not the only one allowed to look into the mirror of my own intellect. I am offering this essay to you and others not as a phallus with which to impregnate you with grandiose, 'new' ideas, (or to be offered and lost as a sacrifice, a castration experience) but as a vehicle for understanding ourselves, our memories, be these individual, collective, or pan cultural. This is my introspective, subjective persona. I cannot see any logically derived objectivity in myself unless I choose to pretend or lie. Because I assume an intelligence that resides within you will be the ultimate recipient of these words, my only expectation is that there is a level of courtesy from each of us to deal with the one-sidedness of the projected persona which will be perceived and turned by each of you into an artificial construct unless you internalize it, that is, let it filter through your intellect into your greater intelligence. By offering this monologue to myself into the semi-public domain of your subscribers' list, I am making myself vulnerable to analysis and criticism. At the same time, however, I also keep myself open to learning. The fear of being criticized is sublimated to the hope of pleasurable intellectual stimulation. Or, it might bring a problem to be solved. For example, I am not at all sure whether or not what I am saying here has already been encapsulated in Lacan's formulae, which I clearly do not understand. Yet, I have a 'sense' that my ideological differences with Lacan would place me on a collision course with his formulae. As far as I am concerned I and anyone else who enters into an open discussion have overcome the greatest of all pathologies, fear and anxiety. In your Akhenaton.com web site you offer both facts and arguments for memory coming down the cultural highway from the past to the present about Moses = Akhenaten = Oedipus = Hermes 3x and then argue that culture represses that memory. It is indeed surprising that memory surfaces in the most unexpected places, such as your example of Schreber spilling sun worshiping memory to Freud. It is not an isolated case. The Rosicrucian Order, AMORC, takes both the figure of Akhenaten as its 'traditional' Grand Master and the mystical exercise of Akhenaten, that of raising the palms of both hands into the sunlight, not so much as an act of adoration of the Sun (although it can be interpreted that way) but more as a source of energy as the sun's rays stimulate the multitude of nerve endings in our palms. If the Rosicrucians are part of the Hermetic tradition, then their activity strengthens your argument. But if they are essentially mesopagan (a term coined by Isaac Bonewits, a scholar and Chief Druid of North America), that is, an expression of paganism that is tolerated by Christianity, then they represent general dissent to Christian intolerance and have taken on symbols and concepts of Akhenaten and Hermeticism strictly as a PR exercise to gain members and popularity. Rosicrucians before AMORC (1916) had claims to Hermeticism but not to Akhenaten. Can you argue that Harvey Spencer Lewis, the founder of AMORC, tuned into a 'true' folk memory? You are particularly 'fishing' when you liken the Greek name for Djehouty, which is Thoth, with the old Anglo Saxon noun 'thought'. But 'thought' has its parallel development in the German 'gedacht' and 'denken'. The cultural assumption inthhis 'fishing' exercise can only be that both our religion and intellectual development have been strongly influenced by Hellenism. After all, it was against Hellenism that the Zealots fought, that Qumran's 'Essenes' separated themselves from the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem; over which James had disagreements with Paul about the role of Jehoshuah; against which Josephus fought before he capitulated to the Roman enforcers of Hellenism; against which the various Gnostics wrote until we all lost the cultural battle, became coopted to the point where even Egyptologists prefer the Greek names for ancient Egyptian kings (Amenophis as opposed to Amenhotep) and you prefer two Hellenistic constructs (Oedipus and Hermes 3x) for one Egyptian model (Akhenaten). It may be that the memory which is being repressed is the Hellenistic influence. At first the Soviet Union tried to throw off the Classical yoke and establish a theoretical equality of peoples, but it failed. The US as been trying to assert its individuality ever since the Monroe Doctrine over a century ago, trying to repress the memory that its international expansioninst policies are not in the same vein as the Greek colonization methods and the ellenistic cultural expansion. The US made a break with capitalism recently, a clearly Hellenistic concept, and replaced it with an illusionary set of 'market forces' which may or may not have been felt in the Agorae of Greek cities. Then there is the Roman Catholic Church which has been trying to pretend for nearly two millennia now that Jesus is not like the dying and resurrecting gods of the Greek mystery religions. This is why I was fascinated by Iakov's analysis whereby he sees Christianity and Judaism as carriers of different and opposing traditions. Someone has presented some clear objections to that in a posting, yet, Christianity, as soon as it became the cultural paradigm began acting like culture, an amorphous entity which usurps and cloaks itself with every concept that raises its distinct existence. The art in this 'conversation' resides in that I am now offering these thoughts to your intellect as well as to those other intellects on this list hoping that you will let your intelligence consider these words before you translate your answer back through your intellect. Without the biological intelligence of my body and the intelligence of the well seasoned emotions, all you would get from me would be egocentrism, argumentativeness, an attitude of wanting to win, wanting ego satisfaction at any cost. The reason I have spent such time on defining intellect and intelligence has much to do with your own focus on Artificial Intelligence. In a sense my definition of intelligence seems to preclude or exclude intelligence that is artificial, that is, as a separate construct or gadget from a biological entity. Yet, I am aware of the work being done which started with the analog computers and has advanced to fractal imaging and transmission as well as to holographic imaging. As far as I can tell, however, all the work is being done with information and date only. The 'intelligence' that is ascribed to these computerized processes consists of either filling out missing information or adding logical consequent information, both of which are brain functions and belong to the realm of intellect. I am not denigrating the role of the intellect/. I am not only using it, I am dependent upon it for communicating with you. Rather, I argue that the intelligence which resides in the entirety of my being is a far greater database than any normal use of the intellect, or whatever progress has been made with artificial (based on an artifact, something man made such as a gadget) intelligence. The unknown factor here is that if we only use 5 to 10% of our brain capacity, what functions do the other 90% hide? My intelligence is based on a mutually non-harmful interaction which incorporates, for simplicity's sake, a pleasure (or pain avoidance) principle and an ideology (largely influenced by Steiner and developmental psychology) before any logical functions of the intellect enter the equation. This statement is, of course, subject to unforeseen survival issues, which usually do not dominate the course of our lives in this civilization. Ideological differences play a major role in my understanding of AI. In a deconstructionist sense I have shown a logical progression of thought through the various levels of intelligence, personae and functions of the intellect to be entirely subjective. Any system of logic and reason is a slave to the ideology which drives it. As a result, our civilization has competing systems of logic so that even the emergence of an 'international' rule of law, a multinational agreement on investment and trade are merely the emergence of a dominant ideology driven by financial, economic and military power, not necessarily a 'better' or 'wiser' one. Even though the 'rule of law' and the 'agreements' are presented as objective material, the ideology of free market economy is completely subjective. Even as I write these words, I am translating my entire subjective being with all its emotional involvement and prejudices through the medium of my intellect. Even if I claimed to be objective, you would have to ask me 'from which point of view? And now I come to one of my greatest objection to psychoanalysis which also affects our understanding of the past and colors our memory of it. Psychoanalysis, whether it be Freudian or post-Freudian, has become a convenient way of labeling people. Both among children and among politicians, arguments are settled not by solving a problem or debating an issue, but by name calling. The one who shouts the ugliest words the loudest, wins. Psychoanalysis legitimized and institutionalized labeling and various societies have been using this labeling system to weed out its critics, dissenters and even ordinary non threatening nonconformists. In the hands of psychoanalysts, labeling may have some meaning towards therapy and possible healing. But in everyone else's use of psychoanalytic labeling, those labels become invective, intimidating at worst, pigeonholing at best. Developmentally, labeling is a value judgment, a function of the intellect. Labeling is abstract logic which kicks in around age 7 and becomes fully functional and meaningful by puberty. However, if value judgments are superimposed on children younger than 6 or 7, then these abstract notions become impediments to learning. A simplistic example would be teaching a child about a stove. The first thing they need to learn is that the stove can be hot, so it is not to be touched. A curious toddler, for example, will approach a stove, and the closer it gets to it the hotter it will feel, until its inherent intelligence, its biological imperative not to be harmed, will prevail over its biological imperative to explore. However, with a parent whose social imperative has prevailed over its biological imperative and who is guided by fear and anxiety, the learning can take the form of a value judgment: "Don't touch that stove, it is bad." The toddler will learn that the stove is 'bad', but because it does not understand the concept, its curiosity about the stove will stop and that child will never learn anything more about the stove until later in life, when, as a teenager, the child will remember that his parents are either stupid or liars because there is nothing inherently 'bad' about a stove. What that child has learned and will retain as an adult is that things and people labeled 'bad' are to be ignored! Those parents could just as easily have habituated the child to stay away from the stove by saying "Don't touch the stove" or "Stay away from the stove." By labeling, however, the parents have instilled in their child a lifelong habit of namecalling of things they don't understand. What I see is that labeling a persona, that side of an individual which you see or read about or interact with, leads to a false comfort of 'understanding'. I have an acquaintance in New York City who thinks I am a neurotic and therefore quaint. For thirty years our intermittent visits were based on that 'understanding' until tragedy entered his life and he looked to me to see if there was something else within me to which he could relate besides traces of neurosis. We became acquainted on a different, more meaningful level. This internet correspondence also fosters drawing a value judgment from an artificial construct, the forming of a value judgment about the personality or persona which this writing artificially creates in your mind. That value judgment precludes any further discussion and exploration to probe the depth and breadth of either the intellect or the intelligence of the personality behind the persona. I believe that coming to such conclusions or snap judgments, pigeonholing a correspondence, stops the spherical thinking process, the exploration of further possibilities and creates a false dualism. It also provides a false security for the analyst, short circuiting his intelligence by holding on to an intellectual construct as a result of that analysis and the inevitable labeling which comes from it. All a label can do for anyone is provide a sense of ego-satisfaction: "I got you!"

I am no less tempted to make value judgments. After reading the posts by Iakov and William, I was ready to agree with Iakov that he is an old fashioned Freudian and I thought of William as a post Freudian Plural Analyst who is trying to avoid the pain of rejection. My unprofessional assessment was that William is waiting for somebody, hopefully his equal or better who will understand him and say to him "You have done well, you have created the next level of workable psychoanalysis." But if William is at the forefront of a movement called Plural Analysis then he has no peers nor anyone ahead of him. William is Plural Analysis, and like other leaders, must have the self confidence and strength of ego to say that "I have created the next level of psychoanalysis, I shall lead the way and the best I can hope for is to have several students who will learn, understand and follow my work, even, hopefully, improve upon it." Since Plural analysis seems to encompass the whole of civilization in which entire tribes, nations, religions and cultures interpret their history and thereby selectively set their memory, I thought that Iakov's analysis of the Hebrews and their subsequent Judaism, with their two Moseses and two gods would establish a new set of myelinated connections in William's brain. But, as Iakov noted, William's response was not introspection. In other words, William did not talk to himself about how Iakov's ideas may impact on his own, but, rather, he gave a response directed to Iakov's virtual intelligence, that is, William's projection of who and what Iakov might be, judged on Iakov's writing. Speaking to a persona, or communicating with your own construct of such a disassociated persona on the internet simply does not work. In fact, it has resulted in much misunderstandings. William was talking to a persona about whom he made a restrictive value judgment. Making this statement, of course, is a value judgment on my part unless, like Iakov, I can claim that I have just made a disinterested, objective observation. My philosophy and understanding of the human thinking process, however, does not allow me to say that I am objective, and the fact is that I am very much interested in how you write and what ideas you express. There is much to learn from the various Akhnaton postings I have read. You have every right to disagree with the above statement and show that the art of conversation follows a different route. A final thought, which will set the limit of what I am able and willing to think through at this time, before I must return to a functional persona in my everyday life; or the life of the whole personality; or the life of the individual who I am; or before I gather up all my other personae and continue my life as I am best able to juggle myself in this world of multiphrenic individuals (I wouldn't have it any other way!). I was thinking that William may not have the time and energy to debate with people since he has already devoted 15 years of his life to promoting PLAN. That is why I made the observation that he is possibly looking for the approval of a peer. As new people come to the list, they ask the same questions, the list leader has little choice but to recap everything or lead the questioner to existing essays, but the cycle is the same, and possibly endless and very tiring. I am looking at "what's in it for you?"

With my best thoughts,<backToText>