PDA

View Full Version : Another 2012 Perspective from Tulane U



Dianala
06-25-2008, 09:01 AM
The Sky Is Not Falling

June 25, 2008
<!-- now using custom elemnts in the page template for this functionality - budd 10-12-2007 e-mail this article (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/#) | print (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/#)
-->Ryan Rivet
[email protected] ([email protected])

From the fear mongering before the millennium, to the less noticed hubbub surrounding 6/6/06, it seems a new doomsday is always just around the corner. We only have four years to plan for the next one, Dec. 21, 2012 — the day the Maya long-count calendar ends after more than 5,000 years. Before you cash in your retirement fund and throw caution to the wind, professors with Tulane’s Middle American Research Institute, as well as the Maya, believe the apocalyptic theory is without merit.

https://tulane.edu/news/newwave/images/062508_maya2.jpg

The ancient Maya long-count calendar ends a cycle on Dec. 21, 2012, prompting doomsday predictions by some, but Tulane researchers and the modern Maya all disagree. (Photo illustration by Paula Burch-Celentano)



“It’s a crock,” says Harvey Bricker, professor emeritus of anthropology and researcher with the institute (https://www.tulane.edu/~mari/index.htm). "It’s based on ignorance and misinformation. One starts with the clear statement that the Maya calendar will not end in 2012. It is the end of one calendrical unit. It’s not the end of the calendar or the end of the world.”

Bricker is not alone in his assertion. The director of the institute, E. Wyllys Andrews, agrees those perpetuating the theory are confusing the end of one unit with the end of the calendar itself.

“There will be another cycle,” Andrews says. “We know the Maya thought there was one before this, and that implies they were comfortable with the idea of another one after this.”

Judith Maxwell, a professor of anthropology and researcher specializing in the Maya, agrees. “I think it is inherent in the concept of the calendar,” Maxwell says. “In 2000, people thought the world was going to end because it was the end of a cycle. There is some kind of folk expectation when one cycle ends, it will not just automatically begin again.”

Maxwell, who spends time in Guatemala every year, says the descendants of the Maya don’t believe the end is near either. In fact, she says some shamans in that area today, called Daykeepers, attribute the theory to misinterpretation. “The Daykeepers mention the date in 2012 and say it a misunderstanding of crystal gazers, new agers who have latched onto [this apocalyptic theory],” Maxwell says.

Bricker says he thinks the end-of-days theories attached to the Maya calendar fit into some pre-existing notions of people who are expecting a cataclysmic event in the near future. “It fits into Christian religious beliefs,” says Bricker. “There are some sects or denominations who believe the end of the world is near. When they hear about 2012, it just reinforces their beliefs.”
He says that it is clear that this cycle is not the only one that the Maya believed would occur.

“There are abundant written references to dates before the current era, and there are written records about the time after the current era,” Bricker says.“You know what’s going to happen on the 22nd of December 2012? It will be the first day of the rest of our lives.”

Zeno Swijtink
06-25-2008, 09:45 AM
From the fear mongering before the millennium, to the less noticed hubbub surrounding 6/6/06, it seems a new doomsday is always just around the corner. We only have four years to plan for the next one, Dec. 21, 2012 — the day the Maya long-count calendar ends after more than 5,000 years. Before you cash in your retirement fund and throw caution to the wind, professors with Tulane’s Middle American Research Institute, as well as the Maya, believe the apocalyptic theory is without merit.

A deeper insight that all this calendar business is non-sense is grasping that there are strong conventional elements in both our number system and a calendar.

For representing counts we use the decimal system, the system of numbers and arithmetic based on the number ten, tenth parts, and powers of ten.

If we had eight fingers we may have had a system of numbers based on the number eight, with numerals 0, 1, 2, 3, ..., 7.

In such a system the number 8 would have been written as the numeral 10, and 10 as the numeral 12

In such a system the year 2000 would have had a different numeral expressing or denoting it, one that would not have looked "perfect." (Which one I leave as an exercise.)

Similarly a calendar has conventional elements. There is no necessity in dividing a "year" into twelve parts, called "months." Months have unequal number of "days," again no necessity.

That a day is denoted by 06/06/06 has no significance, it's the result of a number of choices, needed to coordinate actions between people, allowing us to be "on the same page," but how we call that page is arbitrary, just as there is no connection between the word "cat," and cats.

This also shows the non-sense in Masaru Emoto's work on water. There is no need to call love, "love," and a bottle with water would care less about whether you smear ink on it in the shape of the letters "love" or "hate."

Lenny
06-25-2008, 02:55 PM
I hope this university does not get my taxpayers dollar!

And thanks, Prof, for telling us it's a crock. Well put and need no more ink or electrons on the issue, but I love the jab to the Christians, as if they're the only.....every time, in any way......kills me.

PeriodThree
06-25-2008, 03:12 PM
Lenny,

I'm confused by your response. It appears that scholars at the University are doing what scholars do in applying their knowledge to a current issue.

Are you opposed to professors of anthropology?




I hope this university does not get my taxpayers dollar!

And thanks, Prof, for telling us it's a crock. Well put and need no more ink or electrons on the issue, but I love the jab to the Christians, as if they're the only.....every time, in any way......kills me.

theindependenteye
06-25-2008, 05:45 PM
Friends—

Please, somebody help me out about these Mayans. I admit, ok, I'm intellectually lazy and could probably sort thru 2,000,000,000 Google hits on it. But I'm frantically preparing for a theatre production that'll happen 15 months from now, so I'm in serious deadline mode.

What are the actual sources of the Mayan prophecy? I thought the Spaniards destroyed 99.9% of the classical Mayan texts, so does this come from hieroglyph translations or a very old Mayan or what? Is it possible their calendar ends because they just ran out of stone or disk space, or is there a hieroglyph with a mushroom cloud and some way to assess that it's not just a mushroom?

My apologies for sounding frivolous, but I really am curious, and hopefully someone could direct me to a source that doesn't take more than five minutes to read, if that. If I'm going to die in 2012, I don't want to waste a lot of time between now and then reading about it.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

Dixon
06-26-2008, 01:18 AM
Please, somebody help me out about these Mayans. I admit, ok, I'm intellectually lazy and could probably sort thru 2,000,000,000 Google hits on it.

Hi, Conrad--

You may have missed the discussion we had on this subject awhile ago. It's at: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=23973

In particular, my post #3 in that thread summarizes what I found out based on a brief Internet search, trying to clarify the claims and the evidence.

Synopsis: Like the Harmonic Convergence and the Age of Aquarius before it, the 2012 thang is typically described so vaguely that no matter what happens (or doesn't happen) the believers will say, "See, it happened!", thus guaranteeing that they learn nothing from their mistake.

Even when "authorities" on the 2012 claims do specify what they think will happen, their predictions are wildly divergent.

No one is adducing any reasonable evidence for the claims. It's just more New Age mumbo-jumbo based on an infantile faith in the prognosticating prowess of a bunch of Mayans whose presumed ability to see the future certainly failed to save their miserable empire.

I hope this helps.

Here's to a long productive life after 2012;

Dixon

Lenny
06-26-2008, 03:44 PM
Lenny,
I'm confused by your response. It appears that scholars at the University are doing what scholars do in applying their knowledge to a current issue.
Are you opposed to professors of anthropology?

Are you jesting at those that take anthropology seriously?
When I was five I had a heavy crush on Tinker Bell. Serious stuff going!
But if I were a professor I would not do any treatise or opus on her.
Now I know rocks may be thrown on this site, but I don't believe in fairies, and spending any amount of time on them longer than the sweet shadow of a faint smile I can hardly see a professor doing same on such material.
There's a lot of "mankind" stuff out there to study......priorities are askew I find. No biggie, no more than :2cents:

PeriodThree
06-26-2008, 04:11 PM
I don't quite follow you - sorry. I'm pretty sure you are anti-anthropology as a field of study, or maybe just against anthropologists studying Central America.

And I really don't understand why you are bringing up fairies in the context of criticizing Anthropology.

Sorry...I just don't understand your point.


Are you jesting at those that take anthropology seriously?
When I was five I had a heavy crush on Tinker Bell. Serious stuff going!
But if I were a professor I would not do any treatise or opus on her.
Now I know rocks may be thrown on this site, but I don't believe in fairies, and spending any amount of time on them longer than the sweet shadow of a faint smile I can hardly see a professor doing same on such material.
There's a lot of "mankind" stuff out there to study......priorities are askew I find. No biggie, no more than :2cents:

Lenny
06-28-2008, 08:27 AM
I don't quite follow you - sorry. I'm pretty sure you are anti-anthropology as a field of study, or maybe just against anthropologists studying Central America. And I really don't understand why you are bringing up fairies in the context of criticizing Anthropology.
Sorry...I just don't understand your point.

Early in my college days I fell hard for Anthro and enjoyed the physical aspects and even did a couple of ethnographic presentations, as we all had to do. No, I find anthro important and beneficial in the education of folks. That is why I was disparaged this "study" and compared it to the study of fairies. In short, it is hogwash. Nothing more, nothing simpler. Not even worth the cost of electrons, less than :2cents:

PeriodThree
06-28-2008, 08:53 AM
Lenny,

Maybe I am missing something, but I think we are not on the same page.

'2012' has some calendar significance. In the new-agey popular mind it is a Big Deal.

The Tulane folks seem to be saying that the new agers are full of shit.

I _think_ the anthro guys are the rational ones here.

Cheers,
Rich


Early in my college days I fell hard for Anthro and enjoyed the physical aspects and even did a couple of ethnographic presentations, as we all had to do. No, I find anthro important and beneficial in the education of folks. That is why I was disparaged this "study" and compared it to the study of fairies. In short, it is hogwash. Nothing more, nothing simpler. Not even worth the cost of electrons, less than :2cents:

Lenny
06-29-2008, 10:59 AM
Lenny,
Maybe I am missing something, but I think we are not on the same page.
'2012' has some calendar significance. In the new-agey popular mind it is a Big Deal.
The Tulane folks seem to be saying that the new agers are full of shit.
I _think_ the anthro guys are the rational ones here.
Cheers,Rich

I simply was hoping that tax dollars were not spent on such silly "research" because it IS stupid for such a matter, rather than have tax dollars spent on more meaningful things, such as working in the jungles of Central America. THEY need that money, not research like this, into meaningless nonsense. We do agree. Sorry for my poor writing skills. I thought I made that point earlier.