This discussion has grown wings and left me behind, so at this point there's only so much I can do to catch up. I'll start with this.
Which is wrong, just wrong. You're the one forming assumptions—unless you can cite an Egyptologist ever stating, at any point in time, that the stability of the state in the Old Kingdom reflects the meaning behind the passages in the Pyramid Texts. Your comment is nonsensical at best. It's evident to me that to make up for your lack of familiarity in Egyptian history and lack of understanding of Egyptology's methodology, you're trying to spin the facts to take the weight off the weaknesses in your own approach. Yet, no matter how hard you try, you cannot hide these weaknesses. They jump out at anyone who's familiar with ancient Egypt.
The Pyramid Texts speak for themselves. Your approach that the relative dearth of writing from the early periods of Egyptian history means we don't understand what the early Texts mean, is equally nonsensical. This is not how historical research is conducted. You've not dealt at all with the fact that this entire corpus of spells went on unbroken for centuries past the Old Kingdom, experiencing additions and deletions along the way, but never stopping cold. This even occurred in those periods when the state did collapse, namely the Intermediate Periods. Even then, the spells went on. The meanings did not change at any point of time, so it's nonsensical to suppose they all meant something entirely different prior to late Dynasty 5.
The similarity with the Book of the Dead merely expresses the ongoing tradition. You truly don't understand the research behind not just the Pyramid Texts but the linguistic realm, as well. Considering the origin of the Pyramid Texts likely lies in prehistory, your approach becomes only more unrealistic. When they were first being formed, pyramids hadn't even been built yet.
There simply was no societal schism in the Old Kingdom. Upsets and court intrigues? Almost certainly, but no societal collapse. No such evidence exists. You need to avoid writing platitudes and start dealing with the evidence head on, or you'll only continue to produce the same mistakes as you write exactly the same material you've been posting for years. Periods of serious societal collapse (i.e., Intermediate Periods) are easily recognizable because, as one example, almost no colossal building programs occur. That's obviously not the case for any point of time in the Old Kingdom.
There’s no evidence that the meaning of the Pyramid Texts has anything to do with “religion”. Yes, one might say that this concept is “apparent” but it’s only apparent because Egyptology insists on translating the word “neter” as “god”. From context though it is obvious the word “neter” should be translated as “natural phenomenon”. And this is only the first of the huge changes, the first schism, that happened.
Your personal buzzword "referents" doesn't mean anything. You fail to address linguistic research and somehow—goodness only knows how—feel that you're equipped to upset centuries of concerted research. What of the offering formulae in private tombs, first seen as far back as the Early Dynastic Period? What of prayers and entreaties to deities in private chapels? Their origin is the Pyramid Texts, of course. You're trying to present a vacuum where none exists.
The term nTr is a good example. From the start its context makes it clear the word was tied in with the divine—either deities or the blessed dead. It doesn't mean "nature" or "natural phenomenon" or any of the other opinions you've provided. There wasn't even a word for "nature" or "natural phenomenon" in the ancient Egyptian language. You have to divorce yourself from your own beliefs and assumptions before you can even hope to begin to understand how the ancient people thought and felt. They left plentiful evidence to help to explain much of it—you're assumptions to the contrary do not alter basic facts.
Again, there was no schism. You've only stated there was, but you cannot offer the least evidence that there was.
That's sufficient for now. This discussion isn't about your geyser theme and I want to warn you away from hijacking another thread toward that end. I'm giving you leeway because I allowed Scott to address some of the beliefs he's developed for his own theme. As it is, we've all gone far astray from the topic of this discussion.