03-11-2017, 08:57 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-11-2017, 09:13 PM by Eric the Green.)
Name a false theory, and Kinser might support it.
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. This is especially the case if our soon-ending saeculum is described as a "mega-unravelling." Not only is it no such thing, but the claim leads to absurd supposed correlations with the other mega-saecula.
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. The USA was in a position of dominance and prosperity no other country has ever experienced. The benefits survived throughout the Saeculum for the USA. That's why even today the USA is the world hegemon, a position it reasserted at the end of the Cold War during the recent third turning of this saeculum. There is no mega-unravelling, except for the usual conditions of our 3T. 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.
It is beyond absurd to make any other mega-correlations. The previous seaculum was anything other than a mega-awakening, beyond the borders of the actual 2T of that cycle. 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.
The Saeculum leading to the civil war was much more like an unravelling than a mega-high. 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. And it was also the most romantic of eras; transcendentalism and romanticism were at high tide, along with utopian dreaming. It was more akin to a 2T/3T scenario than a high. Most of what was built in America was constructed in the next saeculum; 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), but DID NOT see an amassing of material power and capital such as occurred in the Great Power Saeculum that followed. 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.
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. It began relatively little. It was mostly a power-transfer of the colonies from British to local control. The institutions that took over were already in place. The constitution merely made sure that the powers that be stayed in power. Democratic advances came later. It was no real revolution or new beginning. 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.
There is no 4-stroke mega-cycle. 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. 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.
The double rhythm, however, is the valid aspect of such mega-theories. It goes well-beyond achievement or atonement, but the rhythm definitely exists in recent saecula, and is being played out as we are now in danger of civil war 2.0. 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.
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. This is especially the case if our soon-ending saeculum is described as a "mega-unravelling." Not only is it no such thing, but the claim leads to absurd supposed correlations with the other mega-saecula.
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. The USA was in a position of dominance and prosperity no other country has ever experienced. The benefits survived throughout the Saeculum for the USA. That's why even today the USA is the world hegemon, a position it reasserted at the end of the Cold War during the recent third turning of this saeculum. There is no mega-unravelling, except for the usual conditions of our 3T. 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.
It is beyond absurd to make any other mega-correlations. The previous seaculum was anything other than a mega-awakening, beyond the borders of the actual 2T of that cycle. 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.
The Saeculum leading to the civil war was much more like an unravelling than a mega-high. 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. And it was also the most romantic of eras; transcendentalism and romanticism were at high tide, along with utopian dreaming. It was more akin to a 2T/3T scenario than a high. Most of what was built in America was constructed in the next saeculum; 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), but DID NOT see an amassing of material power and capital such as occurred in the Great Power Saeculum that followed. 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.
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. It began relatively little. It was mostly a power-transfer of the colonies from British to local control. The institutions that took over were already in place. The constitution merely made sure that the powers that be stayed in power. Democratic advances came later. It was no real revolution or new beginning. 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.
There is no 4-stroke mega-cycle. 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. 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.
The double rhythm, however, is the valid aspect of such mega-theories. It goes well-beyond achievement or atonement, but the rhythm definitely exists in recent saecula, and is being played out as we are now in danger of civil war 2.0. 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.