Rather than meaning 'without number', I'm looking for the equivalent to illiteracy.
People can't really count very well.
If they could, there wouldn't be any hype around 2012.
This is why:
The only real 'date' in question is the end of the Mayan 'Long Count', but it's CLEAR upon even mild examination that this date has nothing in common with a GREAT many other, seemingly unrelated, dates/schemes.
I posit this is because they aren't seemingly, but ACTUALLY unrelated, and it takes a moron to put them together, since they have to put it together wrong in order to put it together at all, and even the mildest intelligence could see that it's wrong on even distant inspection.
The Ha'ab (365) and Tzolkin (260) day calendars don't count long time. Neither of them is suitable for counting the days in a year reliably and predictably, and neither of them is the basis for any useful calendar at this point.
The calendar in question cycles (in one view) every 5,122 years. It was last cycled in 3,114 BC per that one account.
Obviously, the 'world' didn't come to an end then, right? It's a natural extrapolation that it won't do it this time, either. All it is is the next day on a BIG calendar. In order to make it the '0.0.0.0.0' date, they have to ignore that the real format for the numbers on that date is 'n.n.n.n.0.0.0.0.0' (where 'n' is an unknown number and signifies piktun, kalabtun, k'inchiltun, and alautun). The numbers we know are the lower-order ones, k'in, winal, tun, k'atun, and b'ak'tun.
So the fact that we are rolling over at the thirteenth b'ak'tun means that we increase the piktun by one.
Ok, that said, there's a walking, talking, farce by the name of José Argüelles who is one of the most amazing scam artists on earth. He's repackaged Isaac Asimov's thirteen moon calendar as Mayan. It's an interesting calendar, as long as you want your birthday on the same day of the week forever.
But the Mayan calendar was absolutely NOTHING like his calendar. Not even close. The Ha'ab was eighteen months of twenty days (with a five day little month). Actually, his BS Mayan calendar is REALLY almost a dupe of the Ethiopian calendar, but not quite.
He even has a fortune-telling scheme hooked to the Mayan calendar, and there was a radio show here that used the color and the day name and made up crap about what that meant for today.
Sort of a Jungian archetypal projection show, of sorts.
Moreover, the precession of the pole (or the precession of the binary star's orbit, depending on which theory you favor there) which makes the sun traverse the zodiac every 27,500 years is apparently unrelated to ANYTHING.
NOTHING.
The easy test is just long division. It's roughly 2,292 years per sign (assuming twelve equal divisions). This number is not directly related to the 5,135 years of the 13 b'ak'tun cycle, or the 7,900 of the 20 b'ak'tun cycle (since nobody is really sure what the turnover point is there, as it's never happened), or even a possible 7,110 year 18 b'ak'tun cycle.
2,292, 4,584, 6,876, and 9,168 are the 1, 2, 3, and 4 sign year lengths.
Not only that, but if the 'Age of Pisces' really did start on Jesus birthday, and it really was in 0 AD, then the 'Age of Aquarius' will start in 2,292, not 2,012.
I live in a sea of morons. I can deal with not really being able to put stories next to each other and do critique, but these, these are NUMBERS.
It's not like there's some 'interpretation' going on.
It's arithmetic.
It's the same for ALL of us.
Well, at least for those of us who can actually count.
Leave a comment