test
------------------------------------
Hi Charles,
Congratulation for the Title: Mother of Moses, Mother of Gods! seems to express well the point you want to make.
Before I make a comment, which will be in form of a loop, I'll address one point directly. It regards our own neurological circuits - and how our slips manifest.
In the TCC 990321 video that I shall mail to you this afternoon, you said that Moses was the wife of his mother. Slips are important for they are not only comical or embarrassing; they also indicate that there is something more and something still undisclosed. They make us happy or angry but this is an emotional veil upon what we don't want to disclose - in fact, they are source of knowledge.
There is a second thing, equivalent to a slip in that draft of Mother of Moses, Mother of Gods, right in the first sentence. With my poor English abillity, I read that "Moses' mother and the mother of Oedipus are one and the same with the sensational Akhenaten".
This being said, let us not forget that the Bible intend to hide something. Of course, it is probably a 'sacred' text, in that that is conceals perfectly the Truth - yet at the same time it veils it. Therefore, when Freud read it, he was fooled in following some intentional misleading tracks and indications. Although we have progressed since, we are still possibly fascinated with some seducing discovery, which recover in fact deeper layers that they deny.
My guess is that we'll be reasonably in position to belief that we are at the core/bottom of this multi-liar sarcophagus of words when it will display its connection with the Hellenic memory. For in fact, we know that the memory of Akhnaton emerges in the Aegean area. If the Bible can be said 'sacred', it must includes a doorway which indicates this continuation. Except for the parallel that we see on the surface, I am not sure that we have still found, within the stuff of the Bible itself, the secret and underground connection. The Bible only says that Moses disappears in secret - and we can only suspect that it is too easy for saying that he has been killed. We have not found yet in the Bible the indicator which gives the address where the story or the initiation continues.
-------
- FATHER NAME
In parag#8 - where you write : "The Bible states that the father of Moses was not Joseph, but Amram. However, Akhenaten acknowledged "Imram" to be his father, which is the Egyptian equivalent. Therefore, Imram is clearly an alias of Yuya/Joseph." - I don't find you explanation convincing. How do you relate Am/Imram to Yuya ?
I remember earlier correspondence about the inversion Laius/Polybe - I understand what drives your identification of Amenophis.3 with Polybe. But since I am not convinced yet that Yuya is Laius and even less convinced with Yuya/Im/Amram - I am still in position to consider equally that laius is Amenophis.3 and perhaps Polybe is Yuya.
Only with parag#10 (begin with The first name given for Moses's father-in-law) I can see a clue for your father's identification - that is by the link of Reuel : if Reuel is the father of Zipporah (Moses' wife) and if his name means Yuya (as both 'friends'), then Reuel is also the is grand-father (the father of Tiye/Jochebed). At that point, this still does not prove Yuya = Imram - and it may just signify that Jochebed and Zipporah were sisters.
Parag 13 (begin with Importantly, archaeology and the Bible) is the first where I can see a clue for your identification of the father. You wrote "Jochebed bore Miriam, Moses and Aaron FOR Amram" - Since Yuya is the father of Tiye/Jochebed this is making the link and all its consequences Joseph/Yuya/Amram/Imram. I don't find yet definite argument for including Laius in this polyname.
Yet in the same paragraph you introduce Nefertiti.
I become suspicious when you write: "They were not necessarily.... Miriam was evidently..." When 'evidently' comes after 'not necessarily', I always turn suspicious.
Just before, you state: "Aye's daughter Nefertiti". But we know that we have no proof for that fact that Aye would be the father of Nefertiti. Its is a only possibility.
Moreover if you deduce that Aye has evidently sired Miriam - why could not then he be as evidently the father of Akhnaton?
-------------------
Two or three days later
The text above is intended to be a reply/support - it was also a self-help for my own reading of your expose that I combined also with some xls spreadsheets. Though I have read your paper entirely, I did not continue the present detailed work further.
This will first be used to experiment the new web hosting that I enjoy with my new ISP registration. My address a wtheaux@club-internet.fr will change - idt does not offer local number in Florida. AT&T offers several email adresses and web hosting. We shall test the password utility and other things that I experiment.
Your text may be further edited - of course my own present text is less than a draft. I hope it can help however.
Now I shall try to make a general comment and add something:
-------------------
The general comment repeats what I said earlier : we have not found yet in the Bible (I call Bible in general, all the Hebrew record) the clue of the Hellenic record. The Hellenic records depicts at least the stage of the Bible - we have not found yet the reciprocity and this is highly suspicious.
I wanted also to write here some comments that I have probably forgotten - things are passing, constantly changing...
Our meeting has had a powerful effect on my experience. Most probably a step into a possible knowledge of something practical regarding the Hermetism.
I guess that we are becoming able to locate something of the Hermetic consistency, through our progressive yet recent ability to discriminate what we call discourses, or mentalities.
... there are so many things to say. One important practical thing - would you like if I put you in touch with my friend and colleague Norman Simms. Norman has made some interesting work on the mentality topic. He may join us in a community of work. He is a scholar, born in NY, teaching in New Zealand and Israel. In a few months, I believe he will be working at the Sorbone, in Paris.
He could transmit interesting insights if you would agree to let him know your work in progress - as you let it know to Ahmed and me. Tell me what is your feeling about adding Norman and perhaps make a circle of reserved/private web pages. Like this...
-------------------
As every day brings another set of thoughts - I will be able to mention a few things about your email, when you wrote:
> You use an extensive Freudian vocabulary that is hard for the lay person to follow.
I understand. I agree. I would like to have the opportunity/time/energy to make a glossary (before a regular one, I try to supply for a 'glossary-effect' in the form of the many links within may pages).
But I believe that we are facing something else. The Freudian vocabulary is not an aristotellian 'species' - it is probable that it is a new set of concepts... actually it is simply something new, for lay and other people. Therefore a glossary does not really address the issue - the issue is that the meaning, the content, the concept is met within a resistance.
For instance what must be first 'seen' is that the space of the Unconscious, the modern Psyche, is currently exactly in the position that the cosmic space was during the Renaissance (and after).
Freud is exactly Copernicus - the former to the Psyche, the latter to the Cosmos... Perhaps should we write this in a glossary somewhat differently; it may be most appropriate to write:
Freud is exactly Copernicus - the former to the Psychos, the latter to the Cosmos.
Or perhaps would it be appropriate to use the classic esoteric term
Freud is exactly Copernicus - the former to the Astral, the latter to the Cosmos.
I don't know - I am not specialized in esoterism - anyhow whatever word we use, Freud and Copernicus are identical. They are not one and the same person - biological, as Moses Akhnaton etc... but they are identical, nevertheless. I believe that the appropriate word is 'repetition'.
Well there is so much to say that it is a good reason to keep quiet and silent may be... enough for now. I shall just upload this page - and let the address known by you only.
PS now I am going to get back this bibliography...