Spirals

Spirals

Collecting dots for later connecting. Click on images to enlarge.

What started me off on this was the sundagger. What rang my bell on this particular spiral was the nature of the carving. i.e. they were tracking two somethings. This carving wasn’t pre-surmised but a record of past occurances. What were they tracking?

Somehow this is related to the Mayan concept of time.

I recently became interested in the aboriginal framework of reasoning. I have heard iT described as circular reasoning.
Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion.

I don’t see it that way, I see it as “wheels within wheels” and not even “what goes around comes around” but “what goes around comes around goes around etc”. For instance a 260 day calendar would seem to make no sense unless one considers that the gestation period is 260 days. Thus if a woman conceived on Tzolkin 10 she could expect the birth on Tzolkin 10, As this was synchronized with the Haab (365 day calendar) no calculation was needed.

The same holds true of the Aztec Calandar. From 1000 BCE, most of Central America used similar types of calendars based on material objects and celestial constellations. The two most common calendars were the 260-day festival calendar and the 365-day solar calendar. The correlation between the two occurs every 52 years when both begin their new years. This is called the “Calendar Round” and the number became important in Central American cultures.

Incas seemed to follow the same pattern. The inca calendar day by day counting system was follow from observation stations, where all movements of the sun, moon, stars, solstice, equinox and all types of celestial phenomenons were observe, register and predicted; The inca observation stations are know today as Intihuatanas, but their real name is Intiguata, word that splits in Inti, that mean sun and Guata that mean year.

All other manifistations of the spiral were calculated. Maouri, hindi, golden ratio etc.

Ron Eglash has some interesting stuff to say on the topic African Fractals as does Edward Tregar. Crystal links is a cornucopia of data on the topic. That all of these things are related seems too obvious to mention. To say that it symbolizes the sun god, or repeating celestial patterns is trite. These are myths only, used to explain observations. The question remains, why? The chaco spirals are archetypical, more pristine observations, whereas the other spirals are stereotypical. Or, you could say, the others are a sub-set of the chaco spirals. I am not to the point of formulating an answer, I’m still working on the question. eLG has flagged the chaco spirals as an inconsistent consistency. It is after the fact. It is what was, not what is to be. You’ll never convince me that a people who could figure out the sundagger were incapable of a more esthetically pleasing carving. Does not compute.

“To wade through all the examples, the statements, and the speculations would entail very prolonged study, and need a diligent as well as a clear brain to escape utter confusion of memory. The process, however, even if nothing else came of it, would be very useful to those who, living in a narrow little world of their own interests, have no idea of the great rivers of thought that, unknown to them, are in far-off and little-known places bearing day and night their tribute to the ocean of human knowledge. Only one of these rivers—nay, a stream—can be approached in this paper, but my writing may tend to show not only how little I know, but also how little any other man knows about things close to us and regarded as common and devoid of interest”.Edward Tregear

Chaco Canyon was a “sacred place” WHY? The Maya had a sacred Island Cozumel. Why? Lookout mountain was considered a sacred place as was machu pichu. Why? It would appear that the chaco canyon spirals are primal with the others being copies. Wisdom was acquired at chaco canyon and transfered as knowledge to other places “not sacred”. What is different about chaco canyon, and cozumel, and lookout mountain from other places?

If you discount the myths as being effects rather than causes, not a lot is left. Could it be that these places were where things like the sundagger can occur? Astronomical necessity? I’m still formulating the question. What is unique?

SacredPlaces Selfinger IslaDelSol SunMoon CrystSpiral wikipedia Notice Chaco Maori Math Koru Natlib mancala CrystSwastika About Symbols Inca Calandar Machu Picchu CalandarWheel Wiki Zoso Chaco Bell

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Spirals”

  1. circular reasoning crops up in mathematics in a different way than it crops up in amerindian thinking.

    i have no idea whether this fits into your exploration of ‘spirals’ but anyhow, there can be a spiralling obfuscation in going from the thought to experience and back.

    consider the ‘two language’ case of ‘petitio principii’ (commonly called circular reasoning). i am leaving a bit broader definition in this wikipedia excerpt to give a bit more context;

    “The fallacy of petitio principii, or “begging the question”, is committed “when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof.” More specifically, petitio principii refers to arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise, in effect “begging” any listener to “question” the basis of the logic. The fallacy may be committed in various ways.

    When the fallacy of begging the question is committed in a single step, it is sometimes called a hysteron proteron, as in the statement “Opium induces sleep because it has a soporific quality”. Such fallacies may not be immediately obvious in English because the English language has many synonyms; one way to beg the question is to make a statement first in concrete terms, then in abstract ones, or vice-versa. Another is to “bring forth a proposition expressed in words of Saxon origin, and give as a reason for it the very same proposition stated in words of Norman origin”, as in this example: “To allow every man an unbounded freedom of speech must always be, on the whole advantageous to the State, for it is highly conducive to the interests of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments.”

    now, consider what we have to do when we are thinking ‘rationally’ (logically). we state something in logical language and it is as if we restate it in the language of experience, ‘petitioning’ the listener to accept that what we said in the logic statement governs is a ‘layover’ to what is going on in our experience.

    eg. the logical statement ‘the two girls shared a meal’ implies, on the logical side, that ‘girls exist’ absolutely (in logic, ‘existence’ can never be contradicted) and that a ‘meal’ exists and that the operation ‘eating’ exists. but what if the two girls are siamese twins and share a stomach, or if the girls are birds and one bird regurgitates what it has swallowed for the other to then consume it?

    Poincaré explores this problem in ‘Science and Method’. that is, everything is exact in logic and mathematics but not so in real-life experience, so the words we use can either come from the realm of perfection (logical thought) or the rough-and-ready realm (experience) and we often lose track, as we introduce words into our discussion as to their origin or ‘which door they came in through’.

    “We must see how the word was introduced into our text, and whether the door through which it came does not really imply a different definition from the one enunciated.

    This difficulty is encountered in all applications of mathematics. The mathematical notion has received a highly purified and exact definition, and for the pure mathematician all hesitation has disappeared. But when we come to apply it, to the physical sciences, for instance, we are no longer dealing with this pure notion, but with a concrete object which is often only a rough image of it. To say that this object satisfies the definition, even approximately, is to enunciate a new truth, which has no longer the character of a conventional postulate, and that, experience alone can establish beyond a doubt.”

    But without departing from pure mathematics, we still meet with the same difficulty. You give a subtle definition of number, and then, once the definition has been given, you think no more about it, because in reality it is not your definition that has taught you what a number is, you knew it long before, and when you come to write the word ‘number’ farther on, you give it the same meaning as anybody else. In order to know what this meaning is, and if it is indeed the same in this phrase and in that, we must see how you have been led to speak of number and to introduce the word into the two phrases.

    … I have always experienced a profound sentiment of uneasiness in reading the works devoted to this problem [defining numbers]. I constantly expect to run against a ‘petitio principii’, and when I do not detect it at once I am afraid that I have not looked sufficiently carefully.

    The fact is that it is impossible to give a definition without enunciating a phrase, and difficult to enunciate a phrase without putting in a name of a number [not allowed if we are defining what a number is], or at least the word ‘several, or at least a word in the plural. The the slope becomes slippery, and every moment we are in danger of falling into the ‘petitio principii’.”

    ok, this problem, to me , is how we end up flattening the world, taking the spirals out of it and making them into circles in the flat euclidian plane.

    the world is continually changing but when we say we go to work five times a wake, we speak of ‘number’ as if it means exact replication of the same thing, in this case, repetition of the same circuit. but on the rough side of the tracks in the realm of real-life experience, it is not simple replication but a kind of spirally through the ceaselessly innovatively unfolding world we are situationally included in. our path is like a corkscrew rather than a replicated circle and if we were observant enough, we would not be bored by the repetition (our rational/mathematical thinking reduces the corkscrew to the repeated circle in the flat euclidian plan) because, in reality, it is not ‘repetition’ but a continuing corkscrew journey. rational thought that builds factories and has people punch timeclocks and work on assembly lines, putting the same four nuts on the same wheels day after day (note the sense of number and replication or circles in ‘day after day’)

    ok, in amerindian thinking, we are included in space and space is ceaselessly transforming (our situational experience of inclusion within this unfolding is also ceaselessly innovatively unfolding). there is no replication in this worldview. i will see you again in this many moons (marks on the ground 1,1,1,1 to indicate the number of moons) does not imply ‘replication’ but rather ‘full turns’ of the corkscrew. ‘time’ for the amerindian is not absolute as it is in mathematical physics but it is bound up in physical dynamics; i.e. ‘time’ comes from the physical side of things rather than the logical (perfect) side. which understanding of ‘time’ is more real? (a) my corkscrewing through the unfolding space i am situationally included in where ‘moons’ are full turns on the corkscrew spiral? or, (b) absolute cycles that repeat absolutely such as the ‘time’ it takes ‘me’ to go to and come back from work each day.

    it is evident in this last sentence that i have reduced the dynamic to ‘what things do’ (as in our popular western basis for building a worldview), rather than grounding our understanding in the ceaselessly innovatively unfolding spatial relational dynamics of nature.

    consider the spiral of the western culture, does it not end up with its head up its arse or its tail in its mouth since it expresses infinity in the flat euclidian plane? the western man’s clocks and calendars keep on ticking and repeating for ever and every. they are pure replication ad infinitum. the world of our experience is not like that. it is constantly evolving, transforming. nothing, in our experience, is repeated exactly.

    but the mayan calendar doesn’t repeat exactly, it is like stephen jay gould’s punctuated equilibrium. what does ‘re-production’ mean, anyway? the only way that we can understand ‘things reproducing’ is if we invest all change in ‘things’ and avoid investing change in spatial relations. but ‘energy fields’ are pure spatial-relational dynamics and this over-rides things and the ‘reproduction of things’. Mach’s principle comes out of the woodwork here; “the dynamics of habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants at the same time as the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat.” in other words, there is no such thing as ‘re-production’ in the sense of binary fission or sexual reproduction because every thing is in a conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation.

    anyhow, we have the option to consider our life as a corkscrewing within a ceaselessly innovatively unfolding spatial-relational energy-flow-field dynamic, or as our whirling about repeatedly in the flat plane, deteriorating with each cycle. these are two cultural options for understanding space, matter and time, and as mentioned, the difference depends upon whether we want to put the perfect definitions of things in primacy in our understanding or whether we want to put the roughness of experience based definitions of things in primacy. western civilization is where we combine ‘rationality’ [where perfect definitions rule] and ‘faith’ [common belief that God blesses our logical anthropocentric mission, vision, strategies goals and objectives], a secularized theological philosophy as is captured in ‘Fides et Ratio’ in Pope John Paul II’s encyclical of the same name.

    like you say, most people speak with amazing confidence in their own words, without ever exploring such underpinnings. but one thing about Amerindians (the traditionalists), they were never plagued with riding astride two horses the way western man is; i.e. they ground themselves (the traditionalists) in real world experience, only to be ground into mincemeat by the logical machinery of western civilization.

    * * *

  2. ellocogringo Says:

    Hi, Mr Ted
    bingo, bingo, bingo, it’s not a spiral, that’s western, it’s a 2d representation of a 3d corkscrew. I’ve allways wondered about the 3 body problem. the question asked is invalid. When i challange someone I’m told I’n not nuanced enough.

    It would not be inconsistant to assume that this is a different representation o f the maya tzolkin and haab calendars. There’s more to this than meets the eye, mine anyway. Keeping in mind that a myth is just a method of explaining an observation, what was the observation? why were the sacred places the masters and the others copies? Why does eLG think the dozonal numbering system ties in with this?

    Thanx
    gotta go feed my neurons. Collect dots.
    I’ll start another post, i’ll try password instead of private (retlaw) chime in if you want
    Walt

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: