> [elsewhere here] "Why discuss this modern publication" and earlier "I have not read the book" [after fred's post]. I wrote: "The link is intended as an evocative input". Did I ever in any way indicate that I have read this book, or, that it was to be discussed?
Is this indicative of your attentiveness in such matters? 2: "Note 'cognition' and 'understanding' playing key roles, a telling sign of post-Occult Revival symbolism. Psychological jargon is the hallmark of modern esoteric practice and thought." (Long live the filter ;) Communicating clearly is a personal goal. Modern usage is recommended, towards that goal, given the audience is the modern man. Would you prefer if I used 10th century Farsi? (Btw, If in your world, cognition and understanding are "jargon", then you (really) need to get that out of that archive and get some fresh air.) 3: You mention (2) the "playing key roles". http://i.imgur.com/6BXQx.png Every pixel on that 'power point' slide has been precisely placed. To assert of "playing key roles" pretends to an understanding of the whole. (From another pov, they are the most accessible. For example, you could have said LahM plays a key role, but then you would have had to explain what that is all about...) http://www.ancient-egypt.co.uk/metropolitan/pages/obolisk.ht...
