I am indeed working with the May-Meso-American Calendrical (MAC) system. I am working the heart of MAC the Tzolkin. Arguelles simply posits a sequence that does not correspond to existing sequences but it contains all of the elements the other sequences have. Neither you nor Luis seem to understand what I am talking about because Luis does not answer the questions I put to him. Therefore I must surmise that he does not understand the nature of what I am saying.

Arguelles is not understood for two reasons. His presentation of Tzolkin science and nomenclature is sorely lacking and he discovered other facets of the Tzolkin not yet articulated by anybody else. The latter reason has thrown the traditionalists for a loop because traditionalists have a fundamentalist/conservative mindset.

As far as I know what I call Hyper-Days(portal days) are not described by traditional models. I am not sure how to say this so that you and Luis may understand. Because all other ways have failed to communicate the most essential understanding. The Tzolkin knowledge is a science based on a subtle but detectable cycle in nature. I will liken it to the science of electricity. Benjamin Franklin discovered electricity but it was Edison who developed the science further. Some Meso-American group discovered the Tzolkin cycle and Arguelles has developed the science further. I too am developing the science further.

Internal events and the Spanish invasion disrupted the cultures of mesoamerica. In disrupting the cultures of meso-america they disrupted their calendrical sequence. Let’s assume that prior to the invasion everybody in Meso-America followed the same sequence. The nature of imperialist cultures is to sow confusion. The heart of Meso-american culture was the Tzolkin. The Spaniards burned all but 4 manuscripts and did what they could to erase the Tzolkin from the peoples minds.

We cannot trust historical records handed down by the invading Spaniards for it was their mission to sow discord and erase meso-american culture. I will also add that the sequence may have been lost in other precolonial disruptions i.e., meso-american wars and collapse of various mesoamerican civilizations. So we are dealing with a situation in which there is confusion sown atop confusion.

So the question I have put to Luis is how does one establish or rediscover and then prove the correct Tzolkin sequence? Arguelles claims to have found the correct sequence and he also presents the Tzolkin in a different light. I did not take his word for it so I have spent the last ten years testing it to see if indeed the Tzolkin sequence he posits matches up to reality. My experiences, my experiments and my research compels me to claim that Arguelles did indeed find the correct Tzolkin sequence.

My study on earthquake and Tzolkin sequence correlations is only the first of many studies that I will release that begin to lay empirical evidence for the Arguellen account of the Maya-Meso-American Tzolkin cycle. Shortly I will release two other studies correlating volcanic and solar activity with the AA Tzolkin cycle. If you understood my argument (earlier reply to Luis) for why there can only be one correct Tzolkin cycle that corresponds with empirical evidence then you will understand why proving one Tzolkin sequence will automatically invalidate all the rest.

The meso-americans did not interject a leap year day. So why should we interject one now? Leap year applies to the Gregorian solar cycle not the Tzolkin cycle.
Therefore the Arguellen account ignores leap year for it has no bearing on the Tzolkin sequence. Leap year is a Gregorian accounting system for their solar calendar not the Tzolkin sequence.

RS

I don’t understand why you censured Luís. Since I think that your interpretation is also subjective, it would be nice to see Luís’ subjective interpretation also.

In fact, it is true that you can’t say that you are working with the maya or mesoamerican system, but with Arguellian system.

Could you show me any native system where the “portal days” appear just like in Dreamspell?

You talk about scientific debates. I ask you:

Has Arguelles been taken seriously in any rigorous scientific debate? I think you already answered NO, and there are always somebody trying to prove what Arguelles couldn’t until now, of course you are not the first. Censure is bad, since this is always what Arguelles’ followers do when they realize that they can’t compete with other’s argument, you are not the first also. You wouldn’t have a chance to censure Luís on a scientific debate, so why you are talking about scientific debates if it seems that you are not ready for them? You should prove, first of all, that you act different then most of the fanatic Arguelles’ followers that are always trying to hide what much people doesn’t know about Dreamspell and the Maya Calendar..

For example:

What about Tzolkin having two days with the same kin when 29th Feb. comes? This makes one 261-day cycle, every 4 years, or am i wrong? Any basis for calling a 261-day cycle “Tzolkin”? Or, even better, any basis for calling this system “Maya”?

Last questions:

Why the “true count” would be mathematically dependent of gregorian calendar, since this count’s followers say that gregorian calendar is the “wrong” and should be replaced?

Did you know that what most people call “true count” (the one that Luís talks about) is even recognized AND supplied by Guatemala’s government, (you want or not) the maya nation?

I’m glad if you can answer my questons with good basis, so I’ll never bother you saying that you don’t work with the Maya count.

Thanks

I think I never said that the Maya “created” the Tzolkin or even the Long Count, so I don’t understand why you brought that subject to this discussion. That’s not what is being discussed here. It is a fact that the Maya, like the Aztecs, used calendric cycles that were already used by previous civilizations, like the Olmecs. However, it is also a fact that the Maya, like the Aztecs, developed their own calendric systems based on that previous knowledge, so there *was* and *is* a Mayan system, and an Aztec system. As such, I will continue to use the term “Mayan Calendar”, as it is usually done by the scientific community. It isn’t any “incorrect label”. It actually is quite correct and specific about the Maya.

I will then address the points you raise:

1) The are several THEORIES on which is the correct correlation between the Mayan Calendar, the Aztec Calendar, and the Gregorian Calendar. Just for the Mayan Calendar there are dozens of hypothetical correlations, and for the Aztec Calendar there are some other correlations, some of them not necessarily linked to the Mayan Calendar, like the Arturo Meza Gutiérrez correlation. However, Gutiérrez uses a complicated system that is synchronized with the Gregorian calendar, and as such fails to be considered “native” or even “mesoamerican”. After all, the Aztec Calendar is much older than the Gregorian Calendar.

2) Even though there are several theories on how the maya and aztec calendars worked, there is ONE single correlation, the GMT (584283), that ellegantly unites the Maya and the Aztec correlations, and demonstrates us one thing: the fact that the Tzolkin was used in the same way among al lthe mesoamerican peoples. Even if there were significant differences between the maya and aztec calendars (mainly in how the Tzolkin/Tonalpohualli is synchronized with the Haab/Xiuhpohualli, resulting in a different Year Bearer system, and also the cycle of the 9 Lords of the Night, among others), the Mayan Tzolkin was completely synchronized with the Aztec Tonalpohualli. As I wrote before: «According to Spanish chronicles of the Conquest, August 13 1521 (julian) was the day 1-Serpent in the Aztec Calendar. Using the GMT (584283) correlation for the Mayan Calendar, that was also the same day in the Mayan Calendar.» To confirm this GMT theory further, it also agrees with the traditional count of the Cholq’ij that is STILL followed by the Guatemalan Quiché Maya.

So it appears to me that this GMT correlation is the correct one. Note that I’m not saying that this is the ONLY correlation that “works”. What I am defending here is that, IMHO, this correlation surely is the one that shows us the correct dates on the Maya and Aztec systems, at least according to the Tzolkin-Tonalpohualli.

Best regards,
Luís Gonçalves

The Tzolkin cycle it self is not in question. What is in question is that there are several Tzolkin sequences in use and they do not synchronize. Either they are all wrong or one is correct and the rest are wrong.

The reason I edited one comment and did not approve the other has to do with your arbitrary and subjective interpretation of calendrical dates and the events and personages associated with those dates. That kind of information would degrade the nature the report in question and the discussion we are having.

Aside from the two examples you provide there are still a few other counts. What about them and their claims. My stance is not to leave it to claims that appeal to logical fallacies but to provide empirical evidence for my claims. I invite you to do the same if you want to be taken seriously in any rigorous scientific debate. Otherwise be content with having your system of ideas labeled a belief system. i.e. an invention having no validity outside the believers mind.

RS

p.s. Please address the questions and the points made. Irrelevant ramblings discourage me from wanting to engage you further.

And please be more specific and not use the vague and incorrect label of Mayan Calendar we are talking about the 260 day Tzolkin cycle.
The Olmecs predate the Maya civilization and they were using the Long Count and the Tzolkin. It is not yet certain who exactly discovered the Tzolkin cycle.
There is evidence for it that is 3500 year old. We are discussing the validity of the Tzolkin cycle and how one may go about proving its existence and then validate the correct sequence.
I had proposed the term Maya-mesoAmerican Calendrical System (MAC) in previous writings. We are 99.9% certain that its (Tzolkin cycle) discovery was made in Meso-America and Maya are to be given credit for being the culture to develop Meso-American calendrics to its highest degrees.

Why do you talk so much about "science" and then apply the name "MAYAN" to a Tzolkin count that never was and still isn't used by the Maya? Is that a scientific method? And if you're trying to find a convincing Tzolkin count and empirically prove that it "works", why didn't you even approve my previous message, which contained some very good observations made with the Mayan Calendar? And why did you erase some parts of my second message in this topic, in order to hide the same discoveries with the Mayan Calendar? See how your sectarian behaviour is influencing your supposedly "scientific" approach to the Mayan Calendar? How can you expect to have a useful discussion with someone when you're acting like that? That's being disrespectful. You believe you have the Truth and you deny all other possibilities.

Concerning the True Count of the Mayan Calendar, I'm sorry to tell you but it isn't a subjective invention. According to Spanish chronicles of the Conquest, August 13 1521 (julian) was the day 1-Serpent in the Aztec Calendar. Using the GMT (584283) correlation for the Mayan Calendar, that was also the same day in the Mayan Calendar. And what is even more interesting is that the Tzolkin Count still used by the Quiché Maya of Guatemala *COINCIDES* with both the classical Maya calendar, and the Aztec calendar. So there isn't anything "subjective" in this: the only thing that can happen is that either you are open to the facts and agree to consider this a genuinely mesoamerican calendrical tradition, or you close your eyes to the true Mayan calendar and opt for calling Argüelles' new age pseudo-mayan calendar "the only true MAYAN calendar". In my opinion you are doing the second thing, and that's neither a service for Truth or Honesty.

Oh and by the way, you don't need to approve this message too. Just delete everything and ignore the facts. I won't write anything more in this blog of yours.

Truth!

LG

As I said in my previous reply. The Tzolkin, if we are to understand it correctly is not a cultural invention, but that rather a naturally occurring cycle in nature discovered by the ancient meso-americans. As a naturally occurring cycle it is then a universal phenomena. As such it is then more properly addressed outside the confines of its traditional/regional nomenclature and in the most universal language possible and that is the language of science.

The second question that must be addressed by anybody claiming the correct count is how does one go about establishing the “correctness” of such a claim. Well, from my vantage point if the cycle is real then there must be empirical ways of demonstrating it manifestation in the world that does not involve the variances of subjective interpretations.
For example. The Moon has its fixed cycle where it goes from new to full and back to new again. It is the same cycle for everybody on earth. When the moon is full it is full for everybody on the planet. The current situation with various camps claiming a different Tzolkin cycle accounting amounts to some saying the moon is full while other say the moon is new all in the same day. Fortunately we can make easy visual observations of the moon to verify just what kind of moon it is. With the Tzolkin the problem is not so easy to determine because we are dealing with a cycle that is so hard to detect that only one culture of the thousands that have lived and are living claim to have detected it. I have come up with ways of detecting and verifying the Tzolkin cycle that are not based on the variances of subjective experience. There can only be one correct Tzolkin cycle just like there is only one moon, year, and precessional cycle. Upon the conclusive and irrefutable validation of a given Tzolkin sequence all other Tzolkin sequences are automatically invalidated. Unlike anybody else I am submitting empirical evidence and sound logical arguments with my claims.

I welcome you to do the same. I am not interested nor is anybody else in subjective claims. Anybody can make subjective claims of any kind but the value of such claims is limited to the person making them. I am talking about a universal phenomena (applicable to everybody like gravity) and I am presenting evidence for it. The report on Tzolkin cycle and earthquake frequency-intensity correlation is but my first submission of empirical evidence for my case. My logical arguments for the existence of the Tzolkin cycle and the physical mechanics by which it operates may be reviewed in the following two reports. The Atomic-Molecular Foundations of a “Social Physics” and Introducing Einstein’s Piper: The Tzolkin Code Unveiled & how every Event is a Synchronicity SOS pt 5

RS

Actually I think I never said that Argüelles' count is false or doesn't work. What I said (and you can re-read my comment to confirm this) is that IF you are talking about the *Mayan* calendar, then the only true count obviously is the count that was and continues to be used by the Maya. What logic can there be if you supposedly talk about the "Mayan" calendar and then say that the only true count is the one created by José Argüelles? Is Argüelles' count used by the Maya – or was it EVER? That is what I mean, and I think there isn't anything misleading in my argument. I think it's pretty basic and logical.

Concerning the validity of the Mayan calendar (and, again, when I say "Mayan" I am referring to the Mayan Calendar – not Argüelles' count), well… did you ever study the Traditional Count to say it isn't as effective as Argüelles' count, or even more? I believe you are willingly ignoring and attacking the Traditional Count just because Argüelles' count "works". No one said it didn't work, but in order to say that the Traditional Count doesn't work you should need to first study it, use it, and see which results you can get with it.