Would the Real Tzolkin Calendar Please Stand Up
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 Calendar cycle or the core calendrical component of the entire MAC system.
My reply to her question follows.
Yes, I am familiar with Carl Calleman. He tracks what is thought to be the “traditional Tzolkin count”. That is why you get a different reading. Your question touches on the great dilemma within MAC. There are least 2 different Tzolkin counts in use, if not more. 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”. 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. This is a very sketchy procedure because it was the goal of the colonialists to confuse and destroy the heart, mind, and cultural backbone of the Mesoamerican cultures they were enslaving.
Researchers are also relying on archeological evidence in which our ability to accurately interpret is at best an approximation. Approximations do not offer the precision demanded by calendrics.
If the Tzolkin Cycle is an actual 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 Mesoamerica’s sacred knowledge. We also needn’t rely on scant and hard to interpret archaeological data.
I am the only researcher offering methods of empirical validation for the Tzolkin Count I follow. The other camps have not even devised a testable systems architecture. That is now a moot point, because my studies validate the Arguellen Account of the Tzolkin.
Those who have not bothered to empirically verify are following the Tzolkin sequence they do out of sheer faith. 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 system’s 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 necessary 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, and volcanic 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 MAC researchers… the late Jose Arguelles, John MajorJenkins and Carl Calleman.
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 all too cryptic and mystical.
I had to first decode what Arguelles was saying and then unscramble his presentation. Arguelles did not offer empirical validation, but he had the most to say about the Tzolkin, and more importantly he had devised a testable systems architecture. So I 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 work offers a scientific footing and evidence based ways of verification so that others can more easily access what is currently 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 MAC is John Major Jenkins, but he has little to say about the Tzolkin itself.
“For me as a philosopher, education is the art of showing others how to work out the truth for themselves”
John Peter Thompson