Re: [GKD] Y2K approaches

["Marasigan . Vicente" <vic@pusit.admu.edu.ph>]

On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Watermeyer, Henry wrote:
--------
> =(the Catholic Church, for instance, has declared 2000 a jubilee
> =year--very significant!); 
> 
> Arguably totally artificial and of no real importance. What makes the 
> change from 1995 to 2005 of signifigance? Calenders are arbitarily 
> defined and based measures of passing time. Untill 1582 there was no 
> real measure of years that coincided with the seasons so how can we 
> be sure that Christ's birth was 1999 years ago? 
---------


To declare 2000 a jubilee year does not declare that Christ was born
1999 years ago.  To me, it is simply saying: let us celebrate the year
2000 with jubilation.  But what for?  Because celebrations are good
for the spirit, whether they are scheduled for 2000 or 2003 or 2030.

However, the year 2000 seems to have a higher probability of
widespread panic, judging from reflections posted on this Y2K
listserv.  To offset panic, a jubilee celebration may at least be
therapeutic.  Panicking people may be calmed more easily if they can
cling to Kingdom Come or to Nirvana or to some evolutionary optimism
- than if they have nothing to cling to, not even their bank account.

Evolutionary optimists like Henry (and myself) may try to show how the
Y2K crisis is in fact a challenge to do better in the next millenium,
with or without the help of the banking fraternity. The challenge can
be a source of world-wide jubilation if we face it as rational people.

Vicente Marasigan