[Aztlan] Circular reasoning re 2112

[John Major Jenkins]

Jorge,
And why must "limits be imposed" if rational argument and evidence can be brought to bear on another interpretation? This isn't about one interpretation being right one being wrong, it's about allowing a spectrum of interpretations and meanings. The multiple glyphs for zero that Anna noted suggest that the Maya themselves had a polyvalent approach to reality. It's a reminder that the reflex of Western discursive logic tends to try to reduce things to one explanation, and yet the Maya themselves do not seem to have been limited by that same value. It's fascinating to ponder that maybe our own limiting approach provides too small a container for the Maya's worldview. 

JMJ  


-----Original Message-----
>From: Jorge Pérez de Lara Elías <jorgepl at estudioelias.com>
>Sent: Jul 23, 2008 11:26 AM
>To: John Major Jenkins <kahib at ix.netcom.com>
>Cc: Aztlan <aztlan at lists.famsi.org>
>Subject: [Aztlan] Circular reasoning re 2112
>
>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
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>