Kemetic Syncretism?

One of the posters here created a poll in which he asked what kind of Kemetist are you? One of his categories was Kemetic Syncretism. That is interesting because I have thought that the primarily purpose of modern Kemetism was to recreate the religion and spirituality of ancient Egypt as faithfully as possible. By that definition I could not be a Kemetic.

The thing with me is that for near two decades, I have been a devote worshiper of Isis as Panthea and Creatrix as envisioned by her primarily Hellenistic worshipers of the Gaeco-Roman period. I am fully aware that she did not have this same status during much of Ancient Egypt's history. Thus while I can legitimately call myself an Isian I can not necessarily call myself a Kemetic.

Now over the years I have had an ongoing interest in certain aspects of the Egyptian religion. I have for example had a strong interest in the concept of Maat and attempt to incorporate my own ideas of it into my life. I have also for years had an interest particularly in the goddesses of ancient Egypt. The male deities and the funerial rites not so much.

That has began to change. During the past several months, I have been studying with great interest the books of the German Egyptologist Jan Assman. His books have been a revelation to me regarding many aspects of Ancient Egypt's religion and on how it may have influenced the development of Western monotheism and history in general. Thus the ideas of Ancient Egypt and feel of it are becoming increasingly relevant to my life. Yet I can not say that I am a kemetic in the sense that I broadly accept all that Ancient Egypt offers religiously nor do I reject that which it rejects. Thus perhaps I am a Kemetic Syncretist if such a thing can be said to exist. Does any of this make any sense to others here?

Really the term "Kemeticism" doesn't even make sense. There was never some united religion of Egypt in the way of, say, the church. Nobody accepted the whole of the mythology or worked with it all.