top of page

What Did The Egyptians Know About Technology That We Don't?

Updated: Feb 12

It is often discussed within podcasts about cycles of catastrophe and ancient Egyptology that the hieroglyphs present more than just a quandary regarding technology. Hieroglyphs do not appear to conform to our cerebro-centric 'left to right' thinking and appear to represent through symbolism, that their sculptors saw their existence in very different terms to which we do. Hieroglyphs are more felt rather than read, and within each symbol is stored a multitude of different meanings, contexts and interpretations. Could it be that Hieroglyphs are the only remnant of a people who saw the very fabric of their direct experience in an entirely different way that we do?

Inspired ofcourse by the scientific method in the 1700's; our current world is underpinned by an underlying set of guiding principles such as gravitation and speed which are assumed as 'fixed'. Is it worth considering that it is actually our ideas that are fixed, based on a very cerobro-centric interpretation of what is actually a solar centric realm. Are we trying to understand hieroglyphs with an understanding of our direct experience that is entirely wrong?

The early civilisations - from Sumer to the Indus valley, all share a love for empirical evidence. They not only had a connection to the cosmos that was unprecedented - through careful observation of an unpolluted view of the stars at night; they also carried within their architecture an understanding of delicate astrological concepts such as 'the precession of the equinoxes'. This 26000 year process (otherwise known as the great year) is a process that would take 72 years to observe with the naked eye and this knowledge was present at a time that mechanistic science tells us that people were still living in tree's. It seems that it is not the technology that shaped these two worlds, but the very perception of consciousness itself. Egyptians are well documented in being the happiest and healthiest and most religious of people - where the food jumped out of the ground and their spare time was spent in peaceful dedication to gigantic feats of architectural majesty which today’s cranes would struggle to lift.

There is no doubt that today’s world is defined by a 'dualistic' view where science and the universe is a marriage between the observer and the observed. Knowledge exists only in the mind and memory is stored in the brain. This structure does seem to manifest in a well organised and linear society; however it is within this lens that we are trying to understand the great writings and genius of dynastic Egypt.

The study of cycles of catastrophe tells us that the earth has already gone through several antediluvian civilisations and extreme changes in climate. Correlating these events with The Great Year of the World and the axial precession of the equinoxes, presents a hypothesis as contradictory as the fact that everything in our solar system processes west to east yet our earth wobbles in a clockwise direction - east to west. Viewing our reality as frequentative and therefore cyclical, reveals an understanding of our universe that is anisotropic rather than isotropic. One average human life for example (72 years) equates to one day of the great year - a process that is clearly directly tied to the ancients understanding of our existence and which is woven into their various monoliths and feats of architecture. There is a clearly 'an age of Taurus' in Egypt and clearly 'an age of Aries' and these segments of the great year of the world suggest an adherence to the frequency or resonance of that time. Otherwise known as 'the wheel of fortune', this frequentative and cyclical understanding of our existence, better explains why our current understanding of the so called 'constants' might need a little work.

To my mind, the two civilisations present two different deployments of our human faculties. One, the Egyptians (originating in Plato’s Atlantis) using a more spiritual and resonant relationship with reality; the latter, today, throwing all their eggs into the cerebrogenic basket and drawing no correlation between our inherent creative enterprise and how intuitive that process is. They are separate sides of the same coin. One is mechanistic, one is organic.

How do these two interpretations of the same reality effect technology?

Well, the problem with the mechanistic view is that it is limited by the size of our ability to compute problems. People with higher levels of cognitive ability (IQ) get pushed to the top of the competence hierarchy in scientific and mathematics jobs. But what if the ability to compute is not determined by the brain at all? What if our understanding actually comes from our direct experience and the lessons learned from it - good and bad? What if there are other components to our direct experience that we are missing from our societies 'guiding principles'? Have we built a world that is limited by our own idea of how that world operates? Are our own ideas actually our limitations?

As technologically advanced as our modern world is, one can't help but notice how irrational certainty is interwoven within our daily acts. The way we only love and revere artists when they have died. How is value added when they cannot paint any longer or the fact that old houses with the poorest heat retention are the most expensive? As impressive as it is, there also seems to be an obvious lack of logic and reason.

In a society where the guiding principles are not dualistic (2) but Trinitarian (3), where we are not simply an observer to our direct experience but a participant in it, how could this relationship with life and therefore ourselves affect our ability to create new technology?

In a paper written by Alphonso Rueda and Bernhard Haish regarding Stochastic Electrodynamics and the electromagnetic zero-point Field the two award winning physicists explain that E = mc2 by Albert Einstein contains a problem that is reflected in our greater society. Rueda and Haish present evidence that on a standard travelling parabola, there is a 3rd force acting on the object and not merely gravitation as we currently understand it. The 3rd force is in fact an inertia created within the Zero-point Vacuum Field which is in effect, the mirrored opposite of the reality that we perceive and experience with our senses. The Zero-point Field acts as a substrate in a state of superposition between the subconscious mind and the quantum of all possibility. The creative process is a great example of this process at work, with some of the greatest technological inventions coming from 'moments' of inspiration experienced by their inventor; normally when they were not expecting it to come. This inspiration remains a mystery and certainly goes some way to proving that information and intelligence, is certainly not therefore - stored in the brain.

Our relationship with our direct experience is therefore more accurately defined by a subservience to a greater whole, rather than being a master to ourselves as an individual and our individual fates. This subtle but drastically different perception of our reality, might go some way to explaining why cutting and moving 200 tonne pieces of stone, was not an effort but a dedication to a pursuit of perfection that was in its own right a transformational process. The insistence on undertaking giant challenges which cause modern scientists to scratch their heads, is more likely to have been a deliberate conformity to a transformational process going on within a component of our human faculty that a cerebrocentric thinker is simply unable to understand. The decision to transform is at least proof that knowledge is not attained within the mind, but more acquired or received by a subservience to a greater pool of knowledge. Quite literally giving our bodies and our minds and our souls to that belief in surrender. Maybe the way we tap into this well of information extends beyond hiding in a laboratory on a full salary, repeating the scientific method - which in its own right has been proven to be affected by how many times that method has been performed. Perhaps the true key to invention and understanding, only comes when we open our hearts.

17 views0 comments


bottom of page