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 or true count”, 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 to offer 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 ZSA-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 affirm or disprove the predicted correspondences between the Tzolkin code of the day and the events of the day. 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 independent MAC researchers… the late Jose Arguelles, John Major Jenkins and Carl Calleman.
Arguelles 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 introduced a testable systems architecture.
Just how Arguelles managed to formulate or piece together the Tzolkin model he presents in his Dreamspell publication is in question. Because of the many unanswered questions surrounding Arguellen account of the Tzolkin I refer to it as the Zapotec-Shearer-Arguellen Tzolkin or ZSA-Tzolkin for short. It was Tony Shearer who introduced the Tzolkin to Arguelles and Shearer obtained what he knew from the Zapotecs of Oaxaca.
So I took it upon myself to subject the ZSA-Tzolkin model to intense scrutiny. After three years of tracking I was finally convinced of the ZSA-Tzolkin’s ability to predict the most prominent and novel events and themes of the day. It would be another six years before I would begin to pen my thoughts and do more rigorous scientific studies.
Sometime in late 2014 I will release my exposition on Tzolkin Cosmology and with it I will also introduce the world’s first intelligible and user friendly Tzolkin calendar and tutorial on how to self verify, track, detect and apply the wisdom and knowledge of Tzolkin Cosmology.
“For me as a philosopher, education is the art of showing others how to work out the truth for themselves”
John Peter Thompson