🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <35C749B2.23AB@injersey.com>, rskain@injersey.com wrote:


> For those who feel the next millenium starts with 1-1-2000, a question:
> Which millenium are you shortchanging>
>     a. The 1st one (the last one?
>     b. The current one"
>     c. The next one?

The answer is "d." -- none of the above. Or, as an alternative, it means
"adding" -- rather than "shortchanging" -- years to the the first
"century." The key is this: there is no way to scientifically know when
the "first" year, century, or  millenium began. If for no other reason
than the transition from Julian to Gregorian calendars, the first day of
the first millenium most certainly did not begin on Jan. 1 of any year
currently observed. "A.D." is the abbreviation for "anno Domini," which
means "in the year of our Lord." However, many religious scholars have
concluded that the "A.D." era actually began 4 to 6 years in what is
traditionally considered the "B.C." era. By definition, a century is 100
years and a millenium 1000 years. However, if Jesus was not born in the
year 1 A.D., then the "first century" as currently observed based on the
"A.D." convention was over 100 years in duration--and the first millenium
consequently was over 1,000 years in duration -- no matter whether 1000 or
1001 A.D. is cited as the beginning of the second millenium. A millenium
has a beginning and an end, but it is extremely questionable that the A.D.
calendar truly began on Jan. 1, 0001. And yet, those who now insist that
the 3rd millenium has to begin in the year 2,001 necessarily make that
assumption.

Therefore, proposals to start the next millenium on the first day of the
first year of the first decade of the year 2000 have the effect of
maintaining the American tradition of celebrating when a new century
begins; establishing a rational basis for dealing with a religious-based
calendar that has changed in intepretation; and recognizing overwhelming
popular opinion in the western world about when the next millenium will
begin. 

Some would suggest that the beginning of the next millenium is a purely
mathematical or scientific issue. I would suggest that it is not. If it
is, then what is the "scientific" first day of the week? Why doesn't a
clock begin with the first minute of a new day being hour 1? The answer is
that we survive unaswerable questions by conventions on what we agree to
observe. What has been surprising to me is that in the debate over the
beginning of the new millenium, some scientists who usually demand
unquestionable proof are now trying to apply scientific "logic" to a
flawed, irrational, and religious-based system for accounting of time.
And, where are the purists when the U.S. officially changes the dates of
official observance of the births of Washington, Lincoln, and other
American heroes? Further, the U.S. Postal Service frequently issues
commemorative stamps recognizing the anniversaries of important events on
dates other than the actual date of the anniversary.

But again, this is an issue beyond science or logic. So enjoy the next
millenium whenever you choose.

Ed Jackson