Jenkins,
Response #3
“A Debate Takes Two”
November
16, 2001
I’d like
to change the indirect style of this debate and instead begin addressing Carl
directly.
Carl, in
your new posting, early on you write that you are not sure what I am trying to say
“when it comes to the beginning day of the tzolkin.” Please allow me to restate
here what I wrote:
“There is
no basis for this [your 1 Imix date] in the operation of the Maya calendar…
[Your] belief is based upon a misconception of the tzolkin calendar. In typical
lists of the twenty day-signs, it has become a convention to begin with Imix. This
does not mean that Imix is the ‘first’ day in the calendar, which is always
reserved for the senior year-bearer, a topic that [you] completely neglect
to explain.”
Notice
the emphasis I have added in bold, where I state how the “first day” is
identified in the operation of the Mayan calendar. How is this unclear and how
can you be unsure of what I am saying? This is the material that you are
responding to in your critique, and yet you write, “I feel that saying that
there is no such thing as a first day of the tzolkin is tantamount to saying
that ‘any count goes,’ an idea that Jenkins has previously fought.” Did I say
there was no such thing as a “first day”? No, I said that the concept of ‘first
day’ applies to the senior year-bearer. Importantly, even if different groups
followed different year bearer placements, and thus had different “first” days,
it doesn’t mean that they were following different tzolkin daycount placements.
I believe what you are really looking for is the “first” day of the 13-baktun
cycle, which is 4 Ahau, not 1 Imix. (Can you refute the 4 Ahau = 13.0.0.0.0
evidence?) In general, this area should be referred to as the correlation
question, not the “first day.”
Carl, how
can I continue this “debate” when you don’t acknowledge the statements that
I’ve already made, or instead reverse those statements? Also, you confuse the
“first day” with the correlation question, which was a common misconception
among Dreamspell players and Arguelles students. (I have corresponded with
hundreds of Dreamspell enthusiasts since 1991.) The confusion reveals a poor
understanding of how the Mesoamerican calendar operates, and goes like this: It
is true that different year-bearer systems evolved in different regions of
Mesoamerica, such that “New Year’s Day” might occur at different times of the
year. Given this fact, ably surveyed in Munro Edmonson’s Book of the Year
(University of Utah Press, 1988), Dreamspellers claimed that the daycount had
become “confused” and no “correlation” agreement could be found. However, this
is fallacious, because the underlying placement (or correlation) of the 260-day
cycle is not affected by shifting year-bearer preferences. In fact,
evidence in the book by Edmonson demonstrates that the placement of the 260-day
calendar has remained unbroken, equivalent throughout all Mesoamerica up to the
present day, where it survives among the Quiché Maya in Guatemala. The tzolkin
day 1 Imix has no importance in the current calendrical system, nor was it ever
considered to be a senior year bearer. It didn’t begin the Long Count, nor does
it end the Long Count, as I’ve previously explained.
In your
critique, you write: “The only place where Jenkins discusses historic events is
in fact in his book Tzolkin, and
there he does so in the context of Babylonian-European astrology!” In my book Tzolkin,
I surveyed historical events that occurred during previous conjunctions of the
outer planets, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. I didn’t know that such outer planet
conjunctions were “in the context” of Babylonian-European astrology (?!). Anyway, what is your issue
with Babylonian / Sumerian / European astrology? Do I sense an Arguelles
teaching in the background here, like ‘Babylon = bad?’ I think so. Tzolkin
explored the Mayan Venus calendar and the astrological cycles based on the
Mayan 13-sign zodiac, so your repeated association of my work with ‘Babylon =
bad’ is just baffling (?!). Or do you simply disregard anything that involves
astrology as being unreal? In Tzolkin, I also compared the astrological
charts of Pacal and his son, as well as Shield Jaguar and his son; the charts
were cast in the 12-sign zodiac of “Babylonian” astrology but the main
intention was to highlight certain planetary conjunctions which, of course,
occur irrespective of the astrological system used. The point was to explore
“astrological trends in the Palenque and Yaxchilan dynasties” which, by the
way, revealed some interesting patterns.
Now,
your response to my argument regarding Izapa Stela 11 is disturbing and
revealing: “I then find it unbelievable
that Jenkins considers his interpretation of Stele 11 (or similar ones) as
‘evidence’ of his theory that the ancient Maya based the Long Count on the
precessional cycle and had targeted its end date as December 21, 2012. (Do you
seriously think this would pass in court?).” Carl, I guess we won’t know if my
argument and the evidence I present can withstand the test of your reasoning or
a “court of law”, because you don’t directly address it! Instead, you invoke
your schooling and attempt to impress us with your “scientific training.” You
might have scientific training, but you don’t demonstrate it by analyzing my
argument. Nor is your book presented or argued with academic standards of sense
making, as I’ve pointed out in my first post. Your analysis amounts to an
appeal for allegiance from the reader, when you write: “[I] have made a
successful scientific career of my own in some other world-leading scientific
institutions. I feel that this background has given me at least some sense of
what is fact and what is wishful thinking.” Okay, so based on your assumption of authority, our readers should just
blindly accept your verdict, without you actually responding to my argument
and evidence! Incredible. Very, very Old School. Also, in my opinion, the
modern university is largely geared toward job training and rarely concerns
itself with producing creative, independent, innovative thinkers (notice that
these qualities do not preclude the possibility of also being rational). These
qualities more often arise from “thinking outside the box.”
Carl, I
have several pointed questions: 1) Are you willing to say that none of the
Izapan monuments refer to astronomy? If not—i.e., if you admit some
astronomy is there—then by what criteria do you draw the line and disqualify
Stela 11? Perhaps you need to address the evidence for the solstice-galaxy
alignment I find in the Izapan ballcourt, which is even more compelling than
Stela 11 (see essay at http://alignment2012.com/izapa.html).
2) Have you read the academic source material on Izapa, i.e., any of the
iconographic, astronomical, and archaeological studies? For example, the
Brigham Young publications, or V. Garth Norman’s Masters thesis? If not, an
honorable scientist would admit to not being qualified to comment on the
veracity of my synthesis one way or another. A person’s qualification comes
from having studied the material, not from having degrees or “training” in
unrelated fields, don’t you agree? Have you ever looked at how pathetic and
sophomoric many of the Masters and PhD theses are that are filed away in
university library basements? I have. More importantly, I have sifted, scanned and studied, read and
reread, just about everything there is on Izapa, have performed my own
astronomical tests on the site’s orientations, have corresponded with various
scholars, and have visited the site twice. Readers should compare my
bibliography from Maya Cosmogenesis 2012 (http://www.alignment2012.com/bibbb.htm)
with your bibliography, which lists only thirty-two titles, about a dozen
academic.
It seems
like the scientific method is very important to you, so let’s do an
experiment. I invite you (as well as
our readers) to read my Open Letter piece on my website, at: http://www.alignment2012.com/openletter.htm
This is a
very short piece, less than 900 words. It’s a concise summary of evidence that
is fully cited in Maya Cosmogenesis 2012. Carl, you may agree with the conclusion
of this essay (that the ancient Maya were aware of the Galactic Center) but the
point is that this essay is a typical example of my carefully argued,
rationalistic approach to these difficult questions in the field of
reconstructing ancient Mayan cosmology. Can you address how the evidence I
present in this essay is faulty, how my arguments are less than logical or
unscientific, or how my conclusion is wishful thinking? My arguments for the
astronomical content of the Izapan monuments (e.g., Stela 11) are as clear and
thorough as this piece. By the way, an astronomer at Johns Hopkins University,
when confronted with my Open Letter piece, adamantly insisted that the Maya
could not possibly have been aware of the Galactic Center, indicating how
myopic and entrenched the scientifically-trained mind can be. Presented with
evidence, he got emotionally befuddled and resorted to adamant declarations.
Yeah, those trained scientists are an objective, rational, valuable think-tank
resource, aren’t they?
A side
note: I responded to your sweeping statement that there has NEVER been any
evidence of a 26,000-year period in Mesoamerica by pointing out the work of
University of Essex Mayanist Gordon Brotherston—work that I summarized in
Appendix 2 of my book. (He identifies the 26,000-year precession period in the
Aztec Sunstone, the Annales de Cauahtitlan, and the Rios Codex,
which he states are based on the older Mayan tradition.) But you neglected to
respond to this correction (not that you are required to respond; silence is
always safer when you are wrong.)
Some
final comments:
You write
“No, the Mayan prophetic science of time can
not be based on astronomy.” When did our discussion of the “Mayan calendar”
morph into “prophetic science of time”? We were talking about the Mayan
calendar’s end-date of 2012. You responded to my question, but you replaced one
of the terms. What basis is there for any kind of consistent discussion when
you do this?
I’m glad
that our debate has allowed you to clarify and redefine your approach: “So the
purpose of my book is to reconstruct a prophetic calendar for the future of
humanity based on the Classical Mayan calendar system.” Have you said this
before? I didn’t get that impression from your book.
You claim
that I intentionally tried to obscure the Mayan intention behind the
placement of the Long Count, it being based either on the beginning date vs the
end-date. But in my previous post I discussed the reason why an intentional
end-placement is more consistent with the Mayan practice of end-naming, as well
as a few other pertinent points. How can a person “intentionally obscure”
something and openly discuss it (i.e., entertain both positions) at the same
time? This is an incredibly odd accusation on your part.
You state
that the term “Western” should refer to geography. My use of the term “Western”
is not geographical, but oriented to the origins of a civilization and its
ideas (I thought that was obvious). Vaclev Havel’s perspective comes from the
context of territorial wars, history, and politics; I thought we were talking
paradigms. Thus, how would Malaysia become “Westernized”? By geographically
relocating west of Turkey? Wasn’t differentiating contexts part of your scientific
training?
A
General Summary.
Living with and learning with the Mayan calendar is not a practice I intend or
wish to “stamp out” among anyone who follows it according to their own lights.
If something has meaning for you, then forget logic—you don’t need to defend
spiritual convictions and beliefs with logic or “the scientific method.” So
maybe this debate is misplaced, in that your position seems to ultimately be a
spiritual one, and that’s fine. But is yours a spiritual package that others
should be convinced of, in the same way that my reconstruction needs to be, and
is, backed up by evidence? I am required in my research to present evidence and
argument. You, on the other hand, do not need to be concerned with evidence,
since your position is ultimately theological or spiritual—can you ever really
convince yourself (or anybody) of anything that is spiritually real, by using
science? One needs to always be aware of intentions—ones own and others—and
perhaps we should step back and try to understand what we are trying to
accomplish in this debate. For me, I always seek clarity and truth. I defend my
reconstruction of the reason behind the 2012 end-date not because it is mine,
but because I’ve studied and read, wracked my brains for answers, dreamt up the
right questions, questioned experts, debunked fallacies, cried for visions,
experienced, explored, died, lived and loved among the Maya—and it is the best explanation I’ve yet
encountered. This doesn’t mean that I am unspiritual, or that there aren’t
dimensions of spiritual depth and understanding beyond the identification of
the solstice-galaxy alignment as the astronomical basis of 2012. Those aspects
of the end-date alignment and its relationship to the evolution of
consciousness are begging to be languaged, are fertile ground for a deepening
metaphysical and spiritual understanding, and my next book (Galactic
Alignment: The Transformation of Consciousness According to Mayan, Egyptian,
and Vedic Traditions, Inner Traditions International, 2002) will explore
these areas.
And your
intention? I don’t know. In my opinion, whatever the intention, your result is
a mish-mash marriage of recycled Arguelles ideas and some clever inventions of
your own, making a new spiritual stew to feed the starving. As you said, your
work is “to reconstruct a prophetic calendar for the future of humanity based
on the Classical Mayan calendar system.” So, if you’re only basing it on
the Mayan calendar, what is it that you need to prove by argument? You’re just
taking some pieces, adapting, claiming this is more important than something
else, the Maya were wrong and you’re right, and so on. And how is it exactly
that my work threatens such a freewheeling endeavor? Again, as I said in our
earlier exchanges from 1999, our approaches are different: I am reconstructing
the ancient Maya cosmology through synthesizing interdisciplinary evidence; you
are inventing a new system and interpretation based on some Mayan ideas. Just
do it. See what happens.
Sadly,
there is no basis for a rational discourse in our debate, because you fail to
respond directly to the evidence I’ve presented to you and instead invoke your
schooling to make a presumptuous authoritative denouncement of my work. I, on
the other hand, have responded directly to your points which are claimed to be
“evidence,” and have clarified contexts and terms for our readers which would
otherwise have remained unclear. You should really study the source material on
the Mayan calendar, especially Munro Edmonson’s Book of the Year. This
would provide you with the basics on how the Calendar Round, year-bearers, and
Long Count operate and interface, a knowledge that is apparently unknown to
you. As far as your theological/spiritual interests with Mayan religion, I’m
surprised you didn’t cite Douglas Gillette’s book The Shaman’s Secret: The
Lost Resurrection Teachings of the Ancient Maya—an interesting book, which,
by the way, has no problem in perceiving astronomy within Mayan theology and
spirituality.
----------
***Note:
In mid-November, Calleman informed me that he will not continue this exchange.
We had agreed to three essays each and, even though I have not received a
coherent response to the points and issues I have so carefully laid out, this
is apparently the end. However, I have been interested in gathering reader
responses to our debate. This feedback is important, and I thank everyone in
advance for the patience and time taken to read and judge our respective
positions. Anyone who wants to comment can email me at kahib@ix.netcom.com, and those comments
will be posted at http://Alignment2012.com/fiasco.html.
There is already one response posted.
------------
Many
thanks to Geoff Stray at 2012: Dire Gnosis for providing an unbiased,
objective domain in which our “debate” could be waged.
Links:
Recently
published article: “Ancient Spiritual Technologies.” (http://Alignment2012.com/AST.html)
My book Maya Cosmogenesis 2012 was translated into Dutch and
published in 2001 with Uitgeverij Ankh-Hermes (http://www.base.nl/ankh).
Preview of new book, Galactic Alignment: The Transformation of Consciousness
According to Mayan, Egyptian, and Vedic Traditions (Inner Traditions International, August
2002) at:
http://www.alignment2012.com