Lemmie wrote:It's my understanding that in the acrostics, the letters of the alphabet represented themselves, and had the same meaning whether they were found at the beginning, as part of the acrostic, or anywhere else in the passage. This is definitely not an abstract use, so how are you using it to explain why the SenSen characters would be used abstractly?
In an acrostic, an artistic pairing between a letter, and a paragraph or sentence of text that starts with that letter is created. A different but comparable type of artistic pairing is happening both in the Facsimiles explanations and in the KEP. In this case, the pairings happen to be more like puns, but they are still artistic pairings not too much different from the type of thing that happens with an acrostic. And so, an acrostic, in our culture, is something people are more commonly familiar with. So it is the example that I used to try to get you to understand what is going on here.
Lemmie wrote:Again, I don't think you read my post, as you are assuming reproducible refers to a single user, when I clearly stated otherwise:If your argument regarding being an "art-form" is that it is an example of iconotropy, then it should be reproducible and testable, as my understanding of iconotropy is that it defines how a culture might appropriate meanings of another culture's symbols, not a one-off, non-reproducible, single-use example which is never replicated or re-used.
Osiris has been shown in many other instances besides the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and the Facsimiles Explanations to be an example of a generally appropriated symbol for Abraham. So I don't get where you have a problem with this. Just because you are invoking something on a cultural level and trying to invalidate this on that basis simply doesn't invalidate the fact that a more localized appropriation of symbols was happening.