[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 - if
cogently supported - 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. 

You wrote: "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
think this characterization is incorrect. It's a bit like saying the
Gregorian calendar is a form of calculus - vaguely true but misleading.
A distinction should be made between the 13-baktun cycle of the Long
Count *calendar* as a calendrical accounting that is conceptually
associated with a cyclical doctrine of World Ages, and the more abstract
use of mathematics that follow the same vigesimal principles as the Long
Count but are involved in much more free-form calculations. I think this
is viable and useful distinction.   

JMJ  



-----Original Message-----
From: Jorge Pérez de Lara Elías [mailto:jorgepl at estudioelias.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 11:26 AM
To: John Major Jenkins
Cc: Aztlan
Subject: 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