[Aztlan] Circular reasoning re 2112

Tue Jul 22 17:50:59 CDT 2008

Lloyd,
I do not see the circularity of which you speak. Rather, I stated that
my premise is supported by the clear indication that "13.0.0.0.0 in 3114
BC was treated as being equivalent to 0.0.0.0.0." My position stems from
that, and I presented a rational argument as to why that equivalence is
mathematically and calendrically logical without reference to my
premise. That's not circular, but deductive. In my response to Jorge on
this point, I re-explained that such an association can be deduced by
the putative back calculation we can make from any Classic Period Long
Count date until the calendrical 0.0.0.0.0 date is reached. Via the
584283 correlation, this date is equivalent to August 11, 3114 BC
(Gregorian). We then can note that this date is equivalent to, and is
stated as (on the so-called "creation" monuments from Coba, Quirigua,
etc) 13.0.0.0.0. Then, on to the point I was making as to whether or not
we should expect the 13th baktun to be followed by the 14th baktun, as
Jorge speculated, or whether it would be followed by the 1st baktun, I
pointed to the evidence (described above) as to how the Maya have
treated this type of calendar cycling. And it should be noted that all
of this is Classic Period data, so it's very indicative of how the
Classic Period Maya thought about the succession of baktuns - at least
in a specific context of calendrical reckoning, whereas of course in the
province of DN calculations much larger Long Count math is used (perhaps
that is a distinction which will clarify our disagreements). This
assessment as well as other evidence regarding how the Long Count
proceeds indicates that  13.0.0.0.0 was equivalent, in their minds, to
0.0.0.0.0.  The important point being that, in my position on this we
actually have a meaningful comparative example to draw from, whereas
Jorge's suggestion that a 14th baktun might follow a 13th baktun has no
precedent and there is no context to support it, that I am aware of.
Therefore, some evidence on one hand versus no evidence on the other
causes me to rationally side with the position that I take. 

Minor correction - it's 2012; 2112 was the Rush album.  
JMJ

-----Original Message-----
From: aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org
[mailto:aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org] On Behalf Of ECOLING at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:39 AM
To: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
Subject: [Aztlan] Circular reasoning re 2112

JMJ writes:

<<In support of my premise that 13.0.0.0.0 is the end of a cycle, and is
not 
followed by 14.0.0.0.0 but is in practice analogous to 0.0.0.0.0, we can
draw 
from the 13.0.0.0.0 references to 3114 BC. Because of the other Long
Count's 
dates on record from the pre-Classic and Classic Periods, it is clear
that 
13.0.0.0.0 in 3114 BC was treated as being equivalent to 0.0.0.0.0.
Bereft of any 
contradicting evidence, and any evidence for your speculation, that
concept 
can also be applied as a working hypothesis to Tortuguero's reference to

13.0.0.0.0 in 2012.
>>

Since the very point of the discussion in much of the last month or two
has 
been precisely the question *whether* a unique example of 13.0.0.0.0 
in 2112 AD is or is not regarded in the same way as 13.0.0.0.0 in 3114
BC,
the *comparison* is taken for granted.   But the validity of the analogy
is precisely what is in question, and so we *cannot* simply
"draw from the 13.0.0.0.0 references to 3114 BC" in making the
argument.   That is circular, it is a mere re-assertion of the
claim which is to be proven.
It is precisely something *other than* the mere comparison
which we need to show how the Maya thought about 2112,
or to what extent they did think about it (very little, it appears
from the near lack of occurrences).
It is very difficult precisely because there is only one single
reference to
2112 AD linked with 13.0.0.0.0 and that one does not contain 
enough additional text which is well preserved and interpretable.

My bet is that their numerologists could contrive such an analogy,
just as ours can and did with the years1000 and 2000,
but that most of their seers paid little or no attention to this,
did not actually "believe" the two were significantly the same.
(in the sense in which we condescendingly on little evidence
often attribute ill-informed "beliefs" to other cultures)

Best wishes,

Lloyd Anderson
Ecological Linguistics
PO Box 15156
Washington DC 20003
ecoling at aol.com
202-547-7683

**************
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for 
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
_______________________________________________
Aztlan mailing list
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
Click here to post a message Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
Click to view Calendar of Events
http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php