Meet the modern Timelords
This was published today at The Eaminer.
I was texting on Facebook with a good friend the other night who had just finished communicating with Daniel Pinchbeck. Apparently Pinchbeck is not down with Carl Johan Calleman, who has openly questioned both Jose Arguelles’ intention and count of The Mayan Calendar on a fairly new article on his site. According to Calleman, (I am paraphrasing here) Arguelles’ is driven by the creation of his own mythology, where he places both himself and his partner Lloydine in significant, western, numerological positions, with Arguelles starting his own count, different from both Calleman and the other most prominent timelord, John Major Jenkins by inserting 11 and 22 into key positions on the calendar for themselves. Here is what Calleman has to say:
“Hence, I have earlier suggested that the Dreamspell “Mayan” calendar in fact is designed so as to give the birthdays of José and Lloydine exactly the “master numbers” 11 and 22 in the tzolkin (http://www.calleman.com/content/articles/hidden_agenda.htm). Large numbers of people, mostly under the illusion that they are using the true Mayan calendar, have then in fact unknowingly given their energy to the “masters” who designed it. Moreover, the kin numbers of everyone using this calendar are then defined by their relationships to the “masters” on whose kin numbers it was based. This scheme seems optimal for creating a cult of its inventors, something that the energies of the true cosmic Mayan calendar would never have allowed. I see no reason to doubt that such a scheme is the origin of their calendar since neither José nor Lloydine have cared to provide an alternative explanation and naturally it would be the easiest thing in the world to do so. It is possible that only José knows how the Dreamspell tzolkin actually was designed, but also the new biography (by Stephanie South) ignores the topic of why a new “Mayan” calendar was invented as a replacement for its true cosmic form.”
Calleman also goes onto make a reference to Arguelles and the number, 33; To read more go toThe Examiner.
2 thoughts on “Diving Into The Maya Of The Mayan Calendar”
One of the disturbing facts to me about Arguelles’ system is how he overstates the significance of the Ben Franklin magic square having the sum of 260. Every 8×8 magic square has a sum of 260, and Franklin’s square is the only 8×8. (The formula is M = [ n(n^2 + 1) ] / 2 ). Arguelles’ could have used whichever one he wanted.
He also overstates how this square links the number 8 to the number 13. Fibonacci’s sequence does a way better job linking the two number: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13… Plus this shows up all over in nature and ties into the Golden Ratio, all of which is really cool and much less contrived than Arguelles’ system.
I think the Mayans would have appreciated a bit more mathematical scrutiny on this.
Ever since I had my interview with Calleman, my opinion of Arguelles and his version of the count has changed dramatically. I am in the long count court now, though I do have to surrender 13 Caban status as a result.