Would the Real Mayan Calendar Please Stand Up
“For me as a philosopher, education is the art of showing others how to work out the truth for themselves”
John Peter Thompson
Someone who is investigating Maya Meso-American Calendrics (MMAC) asked me why a certain Tzolkin date converter generated an archetypal signature that differed from the Tzolkin date converter I use.
Those of you who have studied my writings in depth will know the answer to that question, but it is likely that most of my readers don’t clearly know why there are various interpretations of the Tzolkin Cycle or the core calendrical component of the entire MMAC system.
I could refer my readers to the articles treating that subject, but I am now starting to publish brief articles that treat singular aspects to facilitate understanding and encourage reader participation.
My reply to her question follows.
Yes I am familiar with Carl Johan Calleman. He tracks what is thought to be one of the traditional Tzolkin counts. That is why you get a different reading. And your question touches on the great dilemma within MMAC. There are least 4 to 6 different Tzolkin counts in use. There can be only one correct sequence just like there is only one lunar and solar cycle sequence that is valid for everyone. The question is which Tzolkin cycle sequence is the correct one?
To my knowledge nobody has bothered to empirically verify the Tzolkin cycle sequence they profess to follow. Instead they have relied on the assertion that they are following the “traditional count”, but the problem with that is that there is more than one camp who claims to be following the “correct unbroken traditional count”. How does one settle such a matter?
That nobody has bothered to empirically verify the Tzolkin sequence they follow means that they don’t truly understand what they are working with.
Most calendrical followers have assumed that they are following the correct Tzolkin because it’s claimed to be the “traditional one” and they have relied on questionable colonial era records to piece together the missing links. A very iffy procedure because it was the goal of the colonialists to confuse and destroy the heart, mind and backbone of the Meso-American cultures they were enslaving.
They are also relying on archeological evidence in which our ability to accurately interpret is at best approximations. Approximations do not offer the precision demanded by calendrics.
If the Tzolkin cycle is a feature of nature then we should be able to detect it by other means that don’t rely on hearsay, fallacies of logic such as appeal to authority (“it’s traditional”) and questionable written records left by parties (colonialists) whose intent was to obscure the memory of Meso America’s sacred knowledge. We also needn’t rely on scant and hard to interpret archeological data.
I am the only researcher offering methods of empirical validation for the Tzolkin Count I follow. The other camps have not devised a testable systems architecture and some use leap day to further complicate matters. The use of leap day is a Gregorian calendar invention that has nothing to do with MMAC. The use of leap day insures that you will not find any patterns in their systems. It’s like randomly inserting an extra character into a password—access not granted.
Leap day has its place within the unsophisticated realm of Gregorian calendrics. It is their way of adjusting their solar calendar so that it realigns with the actual length of solar year which is just 11 minutes shy of 365.25 days. This situation leads to an offset of approximately 1 day every four years, hence the use of leap day to realign.
The Gregorian Calendar is a civil calendar meaning it pertains to the realm of city life or the man made realm. Tzolkin calendrics purports to keeps track of subtler natural cycles with detectable manifestations all across the entire energy-matter spectrum. For more in depth information please see The Difference between Natural & Artificial Calendar Systems: One Enlightens; the Latter Enslaves.
Other camps following different Tzolkin sequences will for some ungodly reason include the leap day in their counting sequence. The result of that is then what I meant by the insertion of an extra character that will serve to “mislead” those who include leap day in their counting sequence. The Tzolkin’s codes won’t align due to the insertion of a random day.
Those who have not bothered to empirically verify are following the Tzolkin sequence they do out of sheer faith in the words of others and questionable historical records. The current Mayan Calendar landscape is no better than newspaper horoscope readings. Sad, but that is the sorry state of affairs in the popular arena.
That you find some resonance with another archetype from another system is not sufficient to validate it especially the archetype of earth. Every nature loving person is going to tell you that they have a deep resonance with the earth myself included.
There are various testing methodologies one can use to reveal anticipated patterns of recurrence. Patterns one could use to solidify the validity of a systems predictive capabilities. Patterns that do not rely on our fallible and biased subjective interpretations.
A system of ideas claiming to be some sort of valid representation of reality must make testable predictions. A battery of tests with repeated and consistent results repeatable by others is what it takse to validate a theory or system.
I have three ongoing empirical studies that show a strong correlation between key Tzolkin cycle days and increases in seismic, volcanic and solar activity. I have devised other soon to be released methods that anybody can employ to reveal the patterns and predictions made by the Tzolkin count that I and many thousands of others around the world follow.
Nobody else offers that kind of testing because they don’t really know what the Tzolkin is and therefore can’t devise ways of validating. Tracking the Tzolkin day by day is the long and arduous way to validate, but one should see the evidence for themselves.
My work offers methods other than tracking because who has the time or interest to experientially validate one of the least understood bodies of knowledge there is? There are three well known MMAC researchers… Jose Arguelles, John MajorJenkins and Carl Calleman, but Arguelles is the only one to offer any depth on the intricacies of the Tzolkin.
The problem with the Arguellen account is his presentation. He was the first to publish on the deep nature of the Tzolkin, but his work has languished on the fringes of society because his presentation is cryptic and mystical.
I had to first decode what Arguelles was saying and then unscramble his layout. Arguelles did not offer empirical validation either, but he had the most to say about the Tzolkin and had devised a testable systems architecture. So I am took it upon myself to experientially and empirically validate his account of the Tzolkin.
After years of tracking I was finally convinced of the Tzolkin sequence put forth by Arguelles.
My works now seeks to offer a scientific footing and testable ways of verification so that others may more easily access what is for the most part in it’s current state of articulation a practically impenetrable and unintelligible body of knowledge. Something the mainstream intelligentsia dismisses as nothing more than another faddish astrological belief system and I don’t blame them given the way its been presented by so many writers.
The only other person I’ve heard say anything with clarity on Maya calendrics is John Major Jenkins, but he has little to say about the intricacies of Tzolkin mechanics. He too follows the same Tzolkin count that Calleman does out of faith in the questionable procedures used to “validate” the Tzolkin sequence they follow.
If those of you reading are interested in learning more about my work on the Tzolkin Cosmology please see the section on the Art and Science of Synchronicity. If you are new to all of this then please start with the article at the very top of the section and work your way down in sequential order.
If you would like more in depth information on the topics covered in this article then please refer to the three articles that follow.
If you are on Twitter then I invite you to follow me on my @Cosmocycle account that is devoted entirely to the Art and Science of Synchronicity (ARTSOS) as based on the Arguellen Account (AA) of the MMAC Tzolkin.
Questions or comments anyone?