[Aztlan] Circular reasoning re 2112

[John Major Jenkins]

Jorge,
You, like Lloyd, have not addressed the main point I made regarding the putative back calculation from Classic Period Long Count dates to 0.0.0.0.0. The date "exists" at the very least in a theoretical sense. Please try to track the thread of the dialogue and address the main points that can/will move the discussion forward.     
JMJ

-----Original Message-----
>From: Jorge Pérez de Lara Elías <jorgepl at estudioelias.com>
>Sent: Jul 23, 2008 8:14 AM
>To: Aztlan <aztlan at lists.famsi.org>
>Subject: [Aztlan] Circular reasoning re 2112
>
>Listeros,
>
>JMJ's statement
>
>>  Were they referential to the same
>> date? Yes; thus the two dates "were treated as being equivalent."
>
>is a good example of leaping forward without resolving problematic  
>issues. The above statement is squarely false because "the two dates"  
>DO NOT EXIST. That is, while 13.0.0.0.0 was indeed written a few times  
>by the Classic Maya, 0.0.0.0.0 is completely unattested. So how could  
>it have ever been treated one way or the other (by the Maya, that is)?
>
>This is why phrasing is all-important and why Andy is absolutely right  
>in qualifying this speculative idea with the term "mathematically". Of  
>course it imposes a limit, but that's the only way you can refer to  
>this issue which is not a general one, as JMJ would have it, but a  
>very restricted one, which currently resides only in the field of  
>hypotheses until and if a 0.0.0.0.0 statement is found.
>
>Jorge
>_______________________________________________
>Aztlan mailing list
>http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
>Click here to post a message Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
>Click to view Calendar of Events http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php
>
>