And what exactly would define an authentic interpretation? I’m not sure how to provide what you’re looking for, because it’d probably mean going to the source of the hunab ku literature–which, hell if I know. Any google search with “hunab ku mayan black hole” can get you some decent readings, though.
The Galactic Night, as far as I can understand, is simply the Earth having greater space between itself and the center of the galaxy–the black hole (hunab ku). Just as getting closer means greater exposure to opposing magnetic forces, going farther away means less exposure to opposing magnetic forces. It is believed those forces have impacts on, well, everything–the planet, the sun, us, etc. So since we lose those forces, we become less…lively? I don’t know what word should be used there, lol.
I am by no means an expert on the Mayans; I only know what the internet tells me. I bet a library would have some interesting books, though.
As for the final link you mentioned, I had read off of some site a while back that had a lot of cool scientific backing, or so it seemed at the time. I can’t for the life of me find it, though.
The story of 2012 could be read as a sci-fi book, but it is just stupid to actually believe all of it. Why?
This is how ancient culture works; someone learns a fact or tries to predict something. It gets all washed out through the generations, they change it so its mre fascinating, everyone who tells the story adds something of his. And now, when archeologists work on it its even more washed out. They can’t clearly understand what are the scriblings saying and they literally guess (restauranting) what it could say. And they guess it in a western-kinda way, while Mayans were a whole different civilization from us and they didn’t think at least closely like us. So you can’t guess what they have been saying. You make it look like its something you want it to be. And even if they read it all in a right way, it doesn’t mean that the Mayans have correct statements. If they predicted some events, it doesn’t mean they predicted all of them.
Whilst I can relate in some fashion to the starting perspective of the topic, I’m not sure a topic that just rants about how stupid people think those that believe 2012 are is going to be constructive. I fully agree that some people would do well to become a bit more scientific and cynical in their views, but the same is also true of those who are excessively cynical from my perspective. The two viewpoints don’t have to be at war with one another, its perfectly possible for each to respect the other. From my perspective much more healthy to utilise each in its strong field. If you care enough to want to state your point to others, believers aren’t going to listen to those that sneer at them.
To the cynics, ultimately, you can’t provide evidence that meets your own standards that eliminates the scope for beliefs. It’s a choice to shut down those avenues of thought, one that you can justify, but not prove empirically. Also not one backed by science of any kind. Science doesn’t provide answers to anything, just models that seem to work and allow us to make predictions and manipulate things. (Something which I have the utmost respect for.)
Why are you being so defensive? And science does provide answers, not all of them, but more than you’re giving it credit for. Science is simply a method of discovery, and a damn good one at that. If you have a better method, I’ll be glad to adopt it.
And I’m not cynical. I’m a skeptic. I question things instead of blindly believing everything I hear.
What’s the saying? Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.
To say science provides answers is to ignore one of the fundamental concepts of science. A scientific theory should never be considered an answer. The moment you consider it an answer, is the moment you stop doubting its validity. It’s the moment you start to become blind to new evidence and choke future revelations within your field, favouring arguing to support an old theory sooner than look at the crazy suggestions this person makes that challenge your answer.
I’m sure you are seeing my argumentation as an attempt to undermine the validity of science, I’ve seen and argued against people who use it in that way myself. I do not believe it undermines science. It does however undermine people who use science to make themselves appear better for believing one thing, as opposed to what somebody else believes. Science isn’t a justification for Atheism, or Agnosticism. It’s very much a choice to require things to meet its standards to be considered valid, and one that can’t be argued to be more than that.
Sure, me too, maybe you could also apply that reasoning to how you see science. I really doubt we would have progressed as far as we have scientifically, if there wasn’t anybody challenging and testing the most obvious theories in the world of science. We shouldn’t be afraid to say, we have these theories, they allow us to do magnificent things, but are they answers? Nope, they are still theories, and they will always be theories.
Does that mean the person who comes up with a random prophesy can boast his ideas as being as important as science… nope, those prophesies don’t let us feed ourselves, or purify our waste, or live in intense numbers which could not have been imagined 500 years ago. I value and respect science a great deal, I just don’t have a lot of admiration when people use it to bash people over the head for daring to dream.
The Mayan’s didn’t even make an end of the world or a change of consciousness prophecy for 2012. There is no basis for all these claims except from plastic shamans and conspiracy theorists.
I’m trying to state a blatant fact that has been just as blatantly ignored.
