[Aztlan] Circular reasoning re 2112

[Jorge Pérez de Lara Elías]

John,

What you call "putative back calculation" is a widely known fact. The  
Long Count, after all, is nothing but an especially large Distance  
Number which counts from 13.0.0.0.0, 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk'u. I don't think  
there is one person who would dispute that. But that does not  
eliminate the fact that there is not a single instance in which the  
Maya wrote 0.0.0.0.0, so Lloyd's qualifying that as a MATHEMATICALLY  
implicit thing is the best way in which it can be addressed, despite  
your disliking the fact that it imposes limits on what can be  
discussed regarding 0.0.0.0.0 and its relationship to what the Maya  
actually wrote (to our knowledge).

Having said that, I do get the sense that you have not responded to  
very clear questionings regarding your reasoning and insist that  
anybody who does not agree with such reasoning (or who suggests you  
rephrase certain things) is "not addressing the point".

I would like to clarify that I would not mind one bit if it could be  
proved that 13.0.0.0.0, 4 Ajaw 3 K'ank'in (December 2012) was indeed  
as significant (galactic alignment or not) to the ancient Maya as  
13.0.0.0.0, 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk'u (August 3113 B.C.). It would fit in very  
nicely with our Western need fo symmetry and I would go as far as  
saying such a thing conceivably could have also been in line with a  
Maya liking for symmetry.

Nevertheless, I believe that the evidence is just not there and the  
fact that many other minds much finer than mine that have dealt with  
this are not convinced, either should be telling you something, at  
least with regards to the way you are presenting your reasoning.

Best wishes,

Jorge



On Jul 23, 2008, at 12:01 PM, John Major Jenkins wrote:
> 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