วีดีโอ

David told me a viewer of the livestream of today's seminar asked about a hypothesis that the Shepherd Kings were responsible for the construction of the Great Pyramid of Giza. I did some quick searching and was reminded that the people under discussion are of keen interest to me, the mysterious Hyksos who comprised the Fifteenth Dynasty that ruled over part of Egypt roughly 1650 to 1550 BCE. I follow research into their identity not just because of their interesting effects on Egypt but also because of various hypothesis that try to connect them to the mysterious Sea Peoples who contributed to the great Bronze Age collapse, including investigating whether the likely Canaanite origins of the Hyksos crosses over in some interesting way with the Philistines and the Mycenaeans, and perhaps even the Jews. We don't have enough archaeological data yet to clear a lot of this up, other than pretty strong evidence at this point for Canaanite connections with the Hyksos. But what we can say is that the Hyksos (that is, the Shepherd Kings) asked about during the seminar are not responsible for the Great Pyramid of Egypt, because it's about a thousand years older than the Fifteenth Dynasty. That would make the Great Pyramid an indigenous Egyptian construction rather than Hyksos, based on current evidence. We're always learning new and exciting things in archaeology, but this assessment has been pretty stable for a while, and it would take significant new evidence to suggest otherwise. I've read popular literature arguing for a much older origin of the pyramid, which has not yet been borne out by anything more than cherry-picked spot evidence-the bulk of hard evidence is against that much older origin, so the popularity of such ideas have more to do with the persuasive rhetoric and passionate beliefs of their authors than with real science, which must consider the totality of the evidence, not just individual elements deployed out of context for their persuasive power-but this is the first I've heard someone considering a much younger origin. That was an interesting question, and I enjoyed reading up on it. Thanks!

"1:44 I mean each of these each of these (epochs) grows out of dissatisfaction with the previous Epoch. It's not like most people want to go back to Medieval in them because that was a mess right there is there are reasons why we overthrew that and moved on." I see, so each epoch is like following a fad that proves a failure. The only reason we are following the 21st century era "fad" is we haven't realized yet, that it is another mistake?

Thanks for sharing. Interesting discussion. Can you add a note to let people know that the meeting will be posted for public viewing.?

A shot in the dark: Does anyone have a link to the Australian lecture Imber talks about a little before the half hour mark?

Quit glorifying Margaret Sanger. She's a racist, a bigot, a eugenicist. Peter is a dunce.

I love this because the speaker who is me is totally confused between the definitions of Dasein and Authentic Dasein as Shawna has pointed out. Thanks, David.

I said that the first impression of the tree is "negated," that's incorrect - the word Hegel uses in Sense-Certainty is "superseded." Having been in the past means that the tree (as a "This") is superseded. Negation only occurs in Perception, which is a further stage in consciousness.

We have some great participants, full of insights.

Love you 💋💋😘😘❤️💯

Good evening, David Roel. it is particularly surprising video. thank. :)

If interested, I have some articles and works not very common from Philip Rieff.

Will you be publishing the books recommended by Jonathan Imber?