Re: OT: begin of millenium.

["Don \"Mango\" Pancoe" <pancoe@netaxs.com>]

From: Matthias Grob
> Why should he not talk about people in the same phase, exactly 1000
> years ago? They might even have crashed the heads of some that said
> that the millenium started at 1.1.1000...

Since this seems like a well-read group, I will recomend Steven J. Gould's
book "Contemplating the Millenium" as an excelent discourse on the topic. 
We
can also read it in private, and take this thread off the list, since it
seems to be keeping company with guitar string threads of late.

But as a synopsis:

Gould points out that there are so many errors in calculating which year it
is (as I said earlier, we are as much as 16 years behind by some accounts,)
the difference between 2000 and 2001 is moot. Therefore, he feels that we
should celebrate the new millenium when we want to, and he plans to
celebrate in 2000 because that's when most of the other people will be 
doing
it.

He also points out that in 1799 and 1899, for example, the masses were all
ready to celebrate the new century in 1800 and 1900 respectively, but the
inteligencia and general powers-that-be forced them into submission, and
celebrations were held in 1801 and 1901 to be mathematically correct. In
contrast, Gould feels that the public's acceptance, or even their demand,
that we should celebrate the millenium in 2000, indicates a fundamental
power shift
in modern society.

Of course, he explains this far more eloquently than I can on the internet
late at night after a hard day of fixing the new house...

-- Mango --