Wheels within wheels.

[Kinser79]

(03-11-2017, 08:57 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Name a false theory, and Kinser might support it.

I've been known to hold strange theories before. Usually they are based at least partially in reality. Too bad you can't say the same Eric.

Quote:The mega-saeculum is baloney, mainly because none of the proposed mega-saecula correspond with the nature of the turnings as described by S&H.

In what way? Did not the Late Medieval Saeculum (using S&H's terminology here) not bring on line major advances in production usually indicative of R/E turnings? Off the top of my head I can think of crop rotation, water and wind powered machinery and the printing press.

Was not the same true of the Civil War Saeculum? Off the top of my head railroads, mass application of practical steam engines and industrialization/factory system?

Did the Reformation Saeculum not have the Reformation in it? Or did the Great Power Saeculum not give rise to Capitalism, Communism and Fascism?

Did the New World Saeclum not include a period of stalemate betwixt Catholicism and Protestantism in Europe? You know they call it the Thirty Years War cause it lasted that long.

Did the current saeculum not have a long protracted Cold War between the forces of Capitalism and Communism?

Please enlighten all of us as to how I'm wrong in this reguard.

Quote:If anything, the current saeculum is a mega-high, not a mega-unravelling. The American High was the most typical and most successful 1T ever.

This just indicates to me that you're hung up on the term "High". Let us suppose a world where the the Axis defeated the Allies and Russia. I mean it wasn't materially possible the Russians simply bled the Germans white and Japan could never out produce America in ships and planes. But let us suppose for a second that material conditions don't matter (should be easy for you since you reject materialism).

Would the 1950s or whenever the last 4T ended not be a not "high"? Or let us consider what really happened. Did not Germany, Italy and Japan experience a 1T following WW2 even though they weren't victorious?

Or for that matter the US South in the Civil War?

1Ts are not noted for their characteristic of being a time of plenty, or even celebratory of victory. The 1950s in the US happened to be both, but that is a mere coincidence, the 1930s in the USSR (because their cycle is off set by at least 1 turning) clearly were neither a time of celebration or plenty (unless of course you were a Party Apparatchik).

So then if victory in the 4T is not a condition for a 1T, and a "happy time" is not a condition for a 1T what then are the conditions for a 1T. Only two that are objectively demonstrable.

1. The 1T always follows the resolution of the 4T either in victory or defeat. (Resolution)
2. The 1T always set the stage for the coming saeculum. (Exposition)

Quote: The USA was in a position of dominance and prosperity no other country has ever experienced.

So there was never a Pax Romana or a Pax Britanica to match a Pax Americana. Don't be absurd.

Quote: There is no mega-unravelling, except for the usual conditions of our 3T.

So there was no protracted struggle between two ideologies emanating from the preceding saeculum? So your argument is that the Cold War didn't exist?

Look, I know that you probably ruined all your brain cells smoking/dropping/injecting the gods only know what back in the 60s Eric, but everyone else your age who managed to avoid turning their brain into mashed potatoes seem to remember this big, long lasting and expensive cold-war thingy. They also seem to remember it had something to do with being capitalist (or Americanist, or some other -ist) and being opposed to all things Communist.

Quote:It's just that younger people here have not experienced anything much more than our longer-than-usual 3T from 1984-2008, and the conditions of this 4T in which the regeneracy has been postponed until the current anti-Trump resistance. So Xers here like Kinser can't see beyond our own recent 3T.

I've argued in the past that I believe that Mega-Saecular Turnings (that is saeculums that function as a turning within a Mega-Saeculum) tend to have extended periods for their turnings corresponding to their placement in the Mega-Saeculum. However, it is not certain that this pattern will hold as previous Mega-Saecula have a severe problem of records being lost to the mists of time. A problem also encountered by S&H themselves which is why they started with a half-saeculum in the 1450s. They couldn't be sure that the saeculum was working in toto due to the lack of written records.

Written records are required to establish the demarcations of the generations to start with--so you can see the problems that arise when you have few records and a lower chance of records existing due to a largely illiterate population.

Quote:It is beyond absurd to make any other mega-correlations.

Other than "Because this is Kinser's theory", why? Surely you have a reason for making such a bold pronouncement--even if that reason is itself absurd.

Quote:The previous seaculum was anything other than a mega-awakening, beyond the borders of the actual 2T of that cycle.

So the ideologies of Social Darwinism, Eugenics, Social Gospel, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Capitalism, various branches of Anarchism not directly related to Proudhon were never created? Or more accurately were not created in the Great Power Saeculum?

Are you sure that is the argument you want to go with?

Quote:The Great Power Saeculum was about amassing power-- thus its title. Materialism and building was uppermost, except that it also included struggles to the death for world power. It started with the Gilded Age and ended with the last attempt at world conquest, defeated by the new military-industrial complex. Progress and achievement in the world was the compulsive preoccupation of this seaculum; quite the opposite of an awakening, which is always cultural and spiritual. And whereas Awakenings emphasize individualism, as the romantic age did, the Great Power saeculum was the advance of collectivist and socialism trends, including the massive big-government projects of the New Deal, and the economic nationalism that predominated throughout the cycle.

So your argument is that Awakenings never have Advancement characteristics, and that R/E's never have atonement characteristics? Are you sure you want to go with that argument despite evidence to the contrary and later contradiction is your own post?

Are you sure that you also want to argue that "spiritual" or "ideological" innovations must always take the form of hokey magic and spooks in the sky? That it is impossible for the creation of a belief system based upon observable material reality which can and often does serve the very same function that a religion might?

Tell me Eric are you familiar with Communism? I mean the parallels with Christianity are pretty clear.

You have Marx, Engels and Lenin (they can take the place of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit), you have your major prophets Stalin can be Paul and Trotsky can be Peter (seriously that is how Trotskidiots treat Bronstein). You have penance (self-criticism). The list goes on and on. The only thing it lacks is a spook in the sky, apple pie after you die, and hokey magic involving bread that doesn't taste like bread and wine whose only shared characteristic with the good stuff is it was made from grapes and contains alcohol.

[Also former Commie so I should know.]

Quote:The Saeculum leading to the civil war was much more like an unravelling than a mega-high.

Why because of the Slavery Question? That was only really a thing for the US. Everyone else freed their slaves with very little muss or fuss.

If the Civil War Saeculum is a Mega-Unraveling, which you've unwittingly just called it, then what were the major theologies or ideologies in contention?

Quote: The unremitting trend was clear toward the disintegration of the new nation due to the presence of slavery in its makeup. Everything in the history of that saeculum was leading toward the civil war. That is not the consensus and conformity of a 1T; precisely the opposite.

Actually in the US since you seem to be stuck on the US in particular and not the West generally (as I have done) it was not evident that everything was leading up to the Civil War. In fact that only became evident in the 1840s when it became apparent that more states could be made Nnrth of the Missouri Compromise Line than south of it. Considering that the Planter class controlled the State Legislatures in the South they naturally wished to maintain a balance between those states which had slavery and those states which did not have slavery.

The Civil War itself only became evident, and unavoidable in the aftermath of the 3T of that Saeculum. Prior to that the consensus was that the Union Itself must be perserved at all Costs. Otherwise, Andrew Jackson's Lament makes no sense. When asked about regrets he had concerning his Presidency:

Seventh US President Wrote:[That] I didn’t shoot Henry Clay and I didn’t hang John C. Calhoun.

Now being an Ignorant Commiefornian who probably has zero ties to the South you probably don't realize that Clay and Calhoun were both CWS 2T figures who inculcated two ideologies that were in contention in the following 3T. Namely: Popular Sovereignty (over slavery) for Clay and Nullification (and later Secession) for Calhoun.

You really should have learned this in elementary school, even in Commiefornia, and even if you are a Yankee of long standing. This is General American History we're talking about here.

Quote:And it was also the most romantic of eras; transcendentalism and romanticism were at high tide, along with utopian dreaming.

Utopian dreams typically happen in awakenings and not in unraveling so you're contradicting yourself in calling it a Mega-Unraveling.

While I will agree that romanticism as an artistic movement flourished in this saeculum I think that has more to do with the fact that it followed a Mega-Crisis (the Revolution in France and Bonaparte was far more crucial to the West generally than a squabble between 13 Colonies and Great Britain) which was noted for being particularly bloody featuring Reigns of Terror and the ominous presence of the guillotine.

Transcendentalism was, and is an unimportant philosophical school developed in New England, which while important to America was at the time, and is now, a backwater in the broader West.

Quote:It was more akin to a 2T/3T scenario than a high.

No. It was merely that the CWS had both a 2T and a 3T.

Quote: Most of what was built in America was constructed in the next saeculum;

Practical steam engines were developed in Europe at this time, as was industrialism and the factory system. Indeed at the time the US itself was a backwater for the west--a dumping ground for criminals, the destitute, and other forms of "surplus population". Further it makes sense that the modern infrastructure in the US would be built in the GPS because the capital required for railroads and steel mills had to be accumulated first, not to mention had to be invented in the CWS to start with.

That being said, the infrastructure that was most important to the US in particular was built during the CWS. I don't mean roads, or canals or factories--something of greater importance. The Civic Religion, The Constitution, Bill of Rights and the beginnings of Federal Jurisprudence and Case Law. Indeed from that time period come concepts used even today such as Strict Constructionism and Loose Constructionism in the SCOTUS.

Quote:not in the one that ended with the civil war. The saeculum from 1794 (or earlier) to 1865 was an innovative and inventive time, which also saw the birth of new religions (and beyond the time frame in that respect of its 2T too),

Not really. The Baptists and Methodists are not much different than the other Protestants except in form of worship. All Protestants generally believe the same things. It is an argument over details rather than an argument over core beliefs. This is why a Protestant can feel at home in a Baptist Church, or a Methodist one, or a Church of Christ or even a Pentecostal Church (if they don't go to the Sunday night services---that's where most of the speaking in tongues happens).

[Note well my father is a pastor of a protestant church so...I grew up in this shit.]

Even so every awakening since the Reformation has spawned new Protestant sects. Sometimes its the Mormons (CWS), sometimes the 7Th Days (GPS), sometimes it is the Broad Nondenominational Evangelical Movement (MillSaec). That last one has large influxes of Methodists, Baptists and Pentacostals and so has resulted in a mish-mash of Bible Studying, Adult Baptizing, Tongues Speakers.

Quote: but DID NOT see an amassing of material power and capital such as occurred in the Great Power Saeculum that followed.

So your contention is that the Louisiana Purchase never happened, that the Annexation of Texas never happened, and that the American-Mexican war of 1845 never happened? Or is your contention that amassing land is not amassing material power, even though land itself is the basis for any other material power?

Quote: Historians of the Industrial Revolution like Eric Hobsbawm describe the romantic era (aka civil war saeculum) as a preparation of tools rather than the real thing.

Then he is explaining the process of Exposition. The second part of a 1T. Remember I call that turning "Resolution and Exposition" rather than "high" for the reasons I've posted about previously.

Quote:The American Revolution is not the start of the country now known as the United States. No new cycle or mega-cycle can be attributed to the American Revolution.

Nor is it. American independence may or may not have happened at the end of that particular 4T, but not because of a Mega-Crisis. Rather the Mega-Crisis was centered in Europe because the importance of America at the time was very small. Are you so national-chauvinistic as to assume that Mega-Saeculums only operate within nations and not in broader Civilization Confederations (of which the US is a part--within the context of the Greater Anglosphere)?

Rather I place the major crisis point at the French Revolution which upturned the Ancien Regimes of all of old Europe once Napoleon began marching. He nearly destroyed Austria-Hungary and was only stopped by Russia (which is a civilization in its own right).

Quote: It began relatively little. It was mostly a power-transfer of the colonies from British to local control.

You have that backward--so backward you'd fail a US History course in any High School in the nation. (BF is a History Teacher in case you forgot--and unlike many he's actually qualified to teach history.) By and large the Revolution was caused not by a desire to take control from Parliament, but rather because the colonists chaffed at Parliament attempting to take control of the colonies from them.

The American Revolution was not a revolution in the same sense as the Russian Revolution or the French Revolution, rather it was an attempt maintain a status quo ante. Which probably explains why it was lead not by the destitute masses headed by a vanguard (organized [Russia] or disorganized [France]) but rather by the richest and most powerful men in the colonies. Indeed the poorest among them was John Adams who was solidly middle-class being a lawyer.

Quote: The institutions that took over were already in place.

So you're saying that there was a Federal Government before there was a Federal Government? The facts would disagree with you there. By and large under the Articles of Confederation the states viewed themselves to be completely independent and sovereign in all regards. As if they were independent separate countries--united for the time being--to teach Parliament a lesson.

Quote: The constitution merely made sure that the powers that be stayed in power.

So the constitution does not replace a temporary loose confederation with a permanent and perpetual federal union? Methinks someone needs to read the preamble of said constitution.

Quote: Democratic advances came later.

Partially true. The established states generally had a system of semi-republican government based on English models of the time. They have evolved somewhat since then to mirror more closely the Federal Government. However, it is still conceivable for a state to choose to have a semi-parliamentary form of government if it so chooses to--it need merely not have a monarch.

Quote: It was no real revolution or new beginning.

For the American Revolution, maybe. But as I've said above the American Revolution was a squabble between England and "some far away place called America" and was not the main stage. You're getting distracted by your national chauvinism Eric. I garuntee you that the French Revolution was a real revolution a real new beginning. That without it, Napoleon would have been impossible and without Napoleon modern Europe as we know it would be impossible.

Quote: It was simply the expression of forces already set in motion in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The Revolution Saeculum was anything but a mega-crisis. It was a complacent time of pleasure seeking and relative stability.

For America--kinda, sorta, not really. The whole Revolutionary Saeculum was replete with Indian Wars (seriously the US was basically permanently at war with some Native Nation from its inception until the 1890s, and the colonists from the day they landed until 1789), struggling for survival on the frontier of Western Civilization and eaking out a living from the soil--though our poor have always been far richer than the poor elsewhere.

Meanwhile In Europe you have king vs king, famine and crushing taxes and eventually the people tired of it rise up and lop off Louis' head and set in motion a period of blood letting that wouldn't be seen until WW2. And it was far longer and far nastier than a run of the mill 4T.

Quote:There is no 4-stroke mega-cycle.

Then demonstrate how my evidence is either wrong or part of my own imagination. I'll wait.

Quote:The larger cycle is the 500-year cycle of civilization, which is recognized by many historians. We are now in a renaissance phase of that cycle.

Which historians, and for what evidence do you have that we are indeed in a renaissance of sorts? I'm looking for facts and citations here, not your own conjecture or the conjecture of others.

Quote: That we haven't taken full advantage of this, reflects our failure to assume our place in history, probably due to the cynicism today of the younger generations and the betrayal by boomers of the renaissance that began in the sixties.

Let us for a moment suppose that there is indeed this 500 year long cycle (which would more or less conform to a mega-saeculum containing all or mostly Saecula of the A-Type). Would it not be possible that this proposed renaissance is stalled due to the fact that we are in fact in a Mega-Unraveling and the main feature of an unraveling is that the time period is a stalemate between competing ideologies.

I would say that if there is this renaissance, and the Boomers did betray it, then younger generations have good reason to be cynical. Or perhaps more likely, there is no such renaissance, and the saeculum being a mega-unraveling means that the boomers and other generations born within it all have strong nomadic characteristics anyway. That they did not betray this proposed renaissance because A) it does not exist and B) even if it did it isn't their role to push it forward anyway.

Quote:The double rhythm, however, is the valid aspect of such mega-theories. It goes well-beyond achievement or atonement,

There are other factors? What other factors? Explain how the regulator can be expanded beyond the broad concepts of advancement (2T/4T focused on ideology/real world) and atonement (2T/4T focused on culture/"spiritual" world).

Quote: but the rhythm definitely exists in recent saecula, and is being played out as we are now in danger of civil war 2.0.

We are only if the spiral of violence escalates. Since the violence this time isn't coming from the right, it must come from the left and as of yet they've been only capable of some pathetic attempts at LARPing as revolutionaries.

I have a video for that but this post is already getting long.

Quote: Idealism and domestic concerns dominate this seaculum, with foreign dangers and materialism less dominant in this saeculum as compared to the previous one, and ours is more akin to the saeculum before it.

So we're back at "the cold war never happened" thing again. You do realize Eric that the saeculum is still going--we've not reached a point where everyone knows that now is different from before right. Right?

Nationalism, and Materialism are not dangers. They are in fact healthy for the body politc to form policies on the basis of reality (materialism) and in the interests of the Nation (nationalism). Indeed it is high minded idealism and policies based on "what feels good" that are dangerous--even destructive.