http://www.usnews.com/news/best-countrie...illennials

Quote:You see them everywhere, the articles about millennials. As a culture we’re obsessed about what they wear, what technology they use, what careers they pursue. I’m no exception. No matter how vapid the article, I devour the click bait like a hungry shark. But my interest is beyond what millennials believe about parental leave or Hillary Clinton. I have a far stronger motivation: I desperately want to know whether I’m one of them.

Experts who study generations and the reporters who talk to them don’t quite know how to handle those of us born in the early 80s, “cuspers” wedged between millennials and Generation X. Depending on whom you ask, the generation started in 1980, ‘81 or ‘82 and ends somewhere in the late 1990s...


http://www.usnews.com/news/best-countrie...illennials

This is almost humorous, but it is too close to the current reality.

Quote:After the Fact In the history of truth, a new chapter begins.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/0...d-of-facts

… "Somewhere in the middle of the twentieth century, fundamentalism and postmodernism, the religious right and the academic left, met up: either the only truth is the truth of the divine or there is no truth; for both, empiricism is an error. That epistemological havoc has never ended: much of contemporary discourse and pretty much all of American politics is a dispute over evidence. An American Presidential debate has a lot more in common with trial by combat than with trial by jury, which is what people are talking about when they say these debates seem “childish”: the outcome is the evidence. The ordeal endures.
Then came the Internet. The era of the fact is coming to an end: the place once held by “facts” is being taken over by “data.” This is making for more epistemological mayhem, not least because the collection and weighing of facts require investigation, discernment, and judgment, while the collection and analysis of data are outsourced to machines. “Most knowing now is Google-knowing—knowledge acquired online,” Lynch writes in “The Internet of Us” (his title is a riff on the ballyhooed and bewildering “Internet of Things”).” …
… "People who care about civil society have two choices: find some epistemic principles other than empiricism on which everyone can agree or else find some method other than reason with which to defend empiricism. Lynch suspects that doing the first of these things is not possible, but that the second might be. He thinks the best defense of reason is a common practical and ethical commitment. I believe he means popular sovereignty. That, anyway, is what Alexander Hamilton meant in the Federalist Papers, when he explained that the United States is an act of empirical inquiry: “It seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.” The evidence is not yet in.”

a post from 2012:

Originally Posted by The Wonkette
 -- do you believe that Russians are/were on the same saeculum as Americans and Western Europe. Justin '77 would take issue with the assumption that a 1921 Russian cohort would be a Civic.


me:


They might have been ahead of much of the rest of the world in the saecular cycle going into the Second World War because their mid-19th-century Crisis was the Crimean War instead of some the later Crises in some other countries (Britain and India -- Sepoy Rebellion in India, US -- American Civil War, Japan -- Meiji Restoration, China -- T'Aiping rebellion, Germany and Italy -- unification, France -- attempt to establish a client state in Mexico, the Franco-Prussian War, and the Paris Commune, Mexico -- Juarez' revolt against Maximilian, Canada -- its independence Crisis)... but the Great Patriotic War forced the Soviets/Russians back onto the cycle of the West.

In 1917 while other participants in WWI were still decidedly 3T, Russia was at a time analogous to the late 1850s in America, when political polarization peaked, political distress was extreme, and institutions failed due to corruption and cronyism. Russia was polarized between extreme plutocracy in defense of class interests and would stop at nothing to preserve a way of life.... and the most effective opposition was Bolsheviks who offered the most extreme leveling of social differences and the obliteration of institutions that seemed to enrich a few and do no good for anything else. Imagine the American Civil War in which the Union and Confederate sides had no trace of gentlemanly behavior in which every victory left a wake of mass executions and expropriations -- that is how I see Russia in 1917, a dangerous time in which any spark can initiate a premature Crisis of extreme severity, the 3T/4T cusp in which every adult generation is at its worst. Elderly Adaptives scared from being born into a Crisis world try to patch things together with compromises that satisfy nobody. Idealists are clearly divided into hostile, intolerant, exclusive camps that seek the annihilation of each other. Reactive young adults see war and revolution as opportunities for choosing the 'right' side and deriving profit. What might become a Civic generation endures a scarred childhood that enfeebles it. Such ensures a social implosion.

Russia/the new USSR got a short respite known as NEP -- but Stalin put an end to that with his Five Year Plan and imposed his severe collectivization and the ensuing Great Purge at roughly the same time as the Great Deprssion in the West. The Great Purge petered out and Russia seemed to be going toward a 1T... but the Nazi/fascist invasion of the Soviet Union imposed a Crisis Era from outside. If the Great Patriotic War isn't a Crisis, then what is?

A 1921 cohort in Russia might have been been an Adaptive cohort had it not been for the death struggle between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union.

Resuscitated from the Obituaries Forum on the old T4T Forum

The Silent Generation will be best known in American culture for comedy which is well recorded because the whole adult lifespan of the Silent is largely recorded. Good comedy remains useful to life. With comedy, something that people just don't do well late in life because when the timing goes so does the comedy... it really is over.

With the Silent, comedy is largely self-effacing, and it is exactly what people need if life is to avoid becoming unduly formal. Think not only of Johnny Carson, but also Andy Griffith, John Winters. Leslie Nielsen, Dick Van Dyke, Bob Newhart, Joan Rivers, Alan King, Tim Conway, George Carlin, Jerry Lewis, Flip Wilson, Bill Cosby, Mary Tyler Moore, Christopher Lloyd, Mel Brooks, Dom DeLuise, Woody Allen, Michael Palin, Graham Cleese, Richard Pryor... they kept America from being excessively reverential to flawed GIs and as shrill and strident as Boomers. As they die off or can no longer do comedy, we get more in-your-face stuff characteristic of Boomers and Generation X. Such can be funny, but it is unlikely to create empathy.

To be sure there were great GI comedians (Morey Amsterdam, Minnie Pearl, Gracie Allen, Henny Youngman, Lucille Ball, Don Knotts, Bill Dana, Don Adams)... but the next Golden Age of Comedy is likely to appear soon after the 4T ends.

Howe and Strauss didn't catch it or at least didn't write about it. The disappearance of the Silent from the comedy stage likely ensures that comedy will not smooth such gaps of generation and region as there now are.

Addendum: Don Rickles could really needle people. Of course I would never encourage anyone to try his sort of comedy in a public setting; it fits people tending to get too big for their britches, as in Hollywood.

Quote:you know its a 4th turning because the culture and values forum is gathering dust.

something's been on my mind for a while. and thats how different saeculums offer great cultural masterpieces in some mediums, but seem to completely fail in others.

for instance, the current cycle will be very well remembered for its music, as well as its movies. however the visual arts that have been made from the 60s onwards is mostly garbage. There are still a couple of living renowned painters, the pop artist David Hockney comes to mind, but his time came and went long ago. I could also name a couple of Australian painters like Peter Booth and Pro Hart, but that may be due to Australia's relatively thin history of any sort of cultural achievement whatsoever

regardless the visual arts of the late 20th century, apart from some notable photographers, will be best remembered for gimmicky stunts like stained bedsheets and sharks in formaldehyde. As i said, it seemed the rot really set in after 50s/60s Pop Art. From that point, the most creatively gifted kids chose to pick up the guitar rather than the paintbrush. There have certainly been good artists, but none that have entered the popular memory, if you're deeply connected with art circles you might know some names, but the average man on the street won't.

But the Jazz age cycle shows a different story. Painting was at its zenith, probably its most socially relevant point since the Rennaisance. From Van Gogh to Pollock we basically see a pattern similar to popular music post WW2: Like Elvis and the early rockers, Impressionists such as Van Gogh never created anything necessarily complex or intentionally offensive, but the mere fact that it just looked so different from all the other art out there caused a public furore. They were told they couldn't paint properly by the older establishment, they weren't allowed to exhibit work, they were outcasts without really trying too hard. As fin-de-siecle Paris made way for the new century, new revolutionaries emerged. The German expressionists such as Kirchner, then Picasso and Braque, and then a crazy splintering of all sorts of artistic factions: futurism, constructivism, vorticism, dada, de-stijl, and so on. After WW1 the idealism turned to cynicism (a number of prominent artists, driven by their nationalist ideals, died in the war). They declared the world absurd, painters like Di-Chirico made great work infected with a social commentary, eery empty landscapes a reflection of the great loss of humanity just suffered. Other artists would come to be influenced by the frenetic energy of Jazz music. But the art started to get abit crazy. Rauschenburg famously did a "reverse-artwork", erasing a completed De-Kooning piece and exhibiting what was basically a blank sheet of paper. This, along with Marcel Duchamp's readymades, is what i consider to have basically lit the fuse that caused the mass calamity that is contemporary art. What began as the free and lively notion "that art can be anything" has left art not even knowing what it is. Judgement, criticism and taste were being murdered. as the 1920s and 1930s progress, there were still some prominent pieces being offered, by the guys who'd been doing it for 30 years as well as with the emergence of the Surrealists (who could be considered a form of 4T escapism), and later the Abstract Expressionists. Dali, Khalo and Pollock are great painters from the GI generation, the Pop-artists that followed them would be late GIs and Silents, but thereafter the well runs dry.

When i was in the states last year one of the lasting impressions were the Diego Rivera murals, usually a tribute to the people of whatever city it was in. They were amazing. Its hard to imagine how a visual artist now would pay such a sentimental tribute to the workers of today. The legacy lives on though, you can hear it every now and again even in common bar talk. some guy makes a doodle on a napkin and says "oh im no Van Gogh". Novels are another prominent legacy from that cycle, it seems many people past say age 65 say they wanted to be writers when they were young, because many of the greatest cultural idols were writers. Obviously technology plays a part in this. the popularity of the novel exploded in the 19th century due to advances in printing and the eventual invention of the typewriter. The aforementioned modernism era in painting was somewhat forced upon by artists because the invention of photography had made redundant the need for realism and accuracy. People wanted to achieve something in paint that the photograph couldn't manage. The popularity of music in the current cycle can be attributed to the emergence of the affordable LP and record player, not to mention the inventions of radio and television. But with the destruction of the music market thanks to online piracy, i have my doubts as to whether the next generation of artists and prophets will take to music as enthusiastically as the silents and boomers did.

I can see this rant is already too long so i'll end it there. other thoughts on this notion?

Since the special topics forum at the old forum was a mix of light hearted discussion like the “what’s going on with you” thread and stray political topics, I’ve decided to define to forum as the “lounge” for light hearted discussion.  Serious topics should be avoided) unless something serious is happening in your personal life and want to mention it) and the personal attacks should be completely off limits.

Since the special topics forum at the old forum was a mix of light hearted discussion like the “what’s going on with you” thread and stray political topics, I’ve decided to define to forum as the “lounge” for light hearted discussion.  Serious topics should be avoided) unless something serious is happening in your personal life and want to mention it) and the personal attacks should be completely off limits.

With the old forum shutting down tonight here are the most prolific posters:

Eric the GreenSenior Member
07-04-2001
22,504

Marx & LennonSenior Member
09-13-2001
16,715

pbrower2aSenior Member
05-04-2005
15,016

OdinSenior Member
09-26-2006
14,442

Child of SocratesSenior Member
09-12-2001
14,092

Brian RushSenior Member
07-23-2001
12,392

Justin '77Senior Member
09-20-2001
12,182

playwriteSenior Member
07-07-2005
10,450

Chas'88Senior Member
11-30-2008
9,432

HopefulCynic68Senior Member
09-14-2001
9,412

I've increased the video limit to 5 videos per post.

I find Popper an interesting thinker.

Quote:Karl Popper on Religion, Science and Toleration

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2015/07/14/karl-popper-on-religion-science-and-toleration/
… "It is necessary to make it quite clear that I am speaking here about religion in a very general way. Although I always have Christianity in mind, I want to speak in sufficiently general terms to include all other religions and especially religions like Buddhism, Islam or Judaism. Everybody agrees that these are religions. I shall…extend the term even further.
He suggested that a person can be considered religious if he or she has some faith that provides a basis for practical living, in the manner of people who appeal to an orthodox religious faith to guide their moral principles, their actions and their proposals for social improvement. He insisted that science has no answers in the search for these principles, though of course science and technology become all-important once we have decided on our aims.
By invoking the idea that we are all motivated by some kind of faith (which he chose to call our religion) he hoped to get over the dispute between the militant atheists (who he regarded as proponents of the religion of atheism) and people of orthodox religious beliefs. He wanted to get past the issue “Have you a religion or not” to address the question “What are the principles of your religion?” – “Is it a good religion or a bad religion?”
He was in favour of “good” religions, including the faiths of secular humanists, which promote the core values of the great religions – honesty, compassion, service, peace and especially the non-coercive unity of mankind. Against these good religions he identified the evil religions of totalitarianism (communism and fascism), and the persecution of heretics. He pointed out that even as science can be misused, so can religions, including Christianity.”…
… "He then moved on to the differences between liberals and socialists. The socialists assert that the state should provide much more than the minimum. Popper, like the liberals, saw this as an ever-present danger that the state will grow, and corrupt and inefficient bureaucracies with it. He had a foot in each camp, not a comfortable position and one that made him owned and disowned by both sides (mostly disowned). His aim was to find some way to reconcile the differences between the two camps.
He thought this could be done by addressing simultaneously the evils that each side identified, that is, by addressing the downsides of too much liberalism (unlimited economic freedom and no public welfare) and on the other side too much state power (loss of freedom in the servile state, bureaucratic or worse). He thought that this resolution was blocked by the degree of attachment on each side to their pet loves and hates – on one side the love of economic freedom, on the other side the utopian vision of socialism.”…