Since many of my posts concern the Maya area and particularly the Cochuah region some maps for orientation will be helpful.
The Maya area
The Cochuah region
Chosen sites from the Cochuah region combined with Google Earth
Maps for orientation
Archaeological Haecceities
Johan Normark's neorealistic blog: Archaeology, the Maya, 2012, climate, travels, and more
Archaeological Haecceities 
God dag
So you are unlikely to read Calleman’s latest book. That sounds about right. Superior intellectual sensitivity wouldn’t permit it! As the English would say, “You seem to be so far up yourself it is reasonable to ask if you are still breathing OK!”
Personally speaking, although he has made it real hard work to get to grips with the subject, Calleman’s take on the Mayan calendar makes far more sense than 90% of the other doomsday nonsense on it and the subject of 2012 floating about cyberspace .
Neither do I find that he confounds Darwin’s work. This is swallowed up by a vaster scheme that is very encouraging, meaningful and gives some measure of hope that current human political and economic stupidity can be turned round as a new value – Ethics, becomes employed in human affairs. And it IS happening that way right now.
Ah – but you can’t see that because your gaze is elsewhere. Pity!
By: Johan Molntorp on December 30, 2009
at 08:20
Unfortunately I cannot redirect the comment to the post where it should be: https://haecceities.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/2012-the-alternative-confuser-of-the-year-%e2%80%93-calleman/
I see the difference between Calleman and doomsday nonsense. However, it is still nonsense. I am sure he embed Darwin in a vaster scheme since he is a believer in transcendence (in his comment he said his theory transcend Darwin and Creationism). He fails to see that the world works from immanence. His reliance on transcendence is represented by his hierarchical thinking. Unless this has changed from his earlier work, there is no need to read his new book. It is the same distortion of Maya calendar(s).
Update ( March 15, 2012). After this comment I read Calleman’s book and reviewed it in several posts. It turns out that I was correct…
By: Johan Normark on December 30, 2009
at 08:56
I am happy to have caught your Time and Attention!
If you like I will set up an open lecture with you in Stockholm in april/may and we can have a panel-debate afterwards. You might find that I am a person with other types of sources and information…
I know that I don´t have an academic degree in Mayan Cultures but I been in contact with their elders on these matters and respect them!
I never claimed to present anything else then my truth, as well as forwarding the major writers views on the subject. And truly – I seldom get impressed by academics…
Spiritual matters and academic work does not seem to wish coexist. Maybe it’s kind of a relic since the scientific revolution? 😉
To many times in history the academics proved to be wrong in their Science and had to re consider things when new facts are known… But at least, in these days doctors learned to wash their hands before doing surgery.
The same problem is with Doomesday Prophets who change dates when their theories are proved wrong. These two characters does not help to improve knowledge in the world as I see it.
From my point, you have been aiming for other peoples “misconceptions” and are hunting for heads to show how clever you are for some time now.
I don’t mind to be “more ignorant” then you, even if I hope that my respect and humbleness to other people is more developed and sophisticated.
To drop you a few questions…
Do you believe in other realities then in reach of the five senses?
What is primal: The body or the consciousness?
Do you believe there is a spiritual value for modern people in the indigenous myths and systems like calendars…? (Even if you claim to be the topdog of confirmed (western academic) truths on the Mayan Culture?
What if, you as an academic is only like a rigid chemist, claiming that all water you can examine is H20 and therefore it can´t carry any differences in the fundamentals…?
I:e, you consider the water from a mountain spring in the Himalayas or Andes have the same human pros and cons as the tap water of Fukushima and therefore the effect on the physical body will always be the same – no matter what water people drink…?
The invisible radiation wont be found during a chemical analysis. You can examine the molecule structure, two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen while all other “invisible” effects are left out if you don´t have the right gadgets…
So, What you cant verify does not exist?
The only thing I know for sure is that the world and knowledge is better of in cooperation and help each other and keep discussions with a respectful tone for what other people might think, believe and speak – in order to maybe reach a consensus.
Consider to set up a “battle” in april and take me down for good!
In Lak’esh!
Aniel
By: Ola Aniel Petterson on March 16, 2012
at 16:05
First of all: what’s wrong with these Swedish New Agers? Is it that hard to post a comment where it should be? This page is about maps. Aniel’s comment should have been posted here: https://haecceities.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/2012-seventh-sign-and-british-petroleum/
An open lecture that primarily your followers/fellow New Agers attend? I sure do have more fun things to do with my spare time. I do not need such a debate, but I believe you need it… Further, my dealings with the 2012-phenomenon has turned into a side-project of mine regarding the blog as a medium of what I call the 2012-hyperobject. That is what I intend to continue for about one more year. Dealing with my opponents in other places than my blog is not part of my plan.
Good, you should not be impressed by academic degrees (but people like Calleman and Arguelles surely like(d) to show off with their titles). I never use my academic degree(s) as an argument, you brought it up. I have never claimed to the topdog of “Western academic” truths on the Maya(n) culture. That is you again… Perhaps you missed the exhibition “Spelet om maya” in Stockholm a couple of years ago? It brought up six different views/”truths” of the Maya. I was the scientific consultant for that. So what is best “Western academic science” that explores very different perspectives or “Western New Age” distortions of what the Maya actually say? I am sure you have made a “straw man” version of academic Maya research. You simply do not understand the varieties that exist.
Sure many academics have been wrong. That is how science works. Faced with new evidence we will evaluate theories and models. That is not how spiritualists work, they have already set up “consciousness” as the foundation and see it everywhere in matter. Truth has already been established…
Yes, I am doing this to show how clever I am. How easy it is…
Regarding your questions:
The five senses? The Aristotelian senses I assume you mean? Do you know that there are many other senses apart from these? All realities are withdrawn from us. We can never get to the essence, all we can make are sensual profiles of other entities.
Body or conciousness? You should get away from your Cartesian chamber. To me, following speculative realism’s way out of the correlationist deadlock, we should not set up dichotomies like that. All that exists are quadruple objects and their interiors. On their interior we find real and sensual objects, real and sensual qualities. Even a spirit, if such exist, would be an object (object is not the same as matter).
There is a spiritual value for contemporary Maya but hardly not for Swedes who believes the Maya calendar is all about them and love.
You do know that my current project deals with water, no? If not, read up on the “current project” section. I suggest you use a Geiger counter, like a scientist would do… Verification, btw, is not exactly the way science works. Some people think falsification is the way to do it. I use neither. Your pointless analogy with water shows that having a public debate with you would be one long facepalm.
By: Johan Normark on March 16, 2012
at 18:33