Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The theory of human evolution and the 80-year cycle
#41
(09-29-2018, 06:08 AM)Theojm Wrote:
(09-29-2018, 03:35 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Those are Fibonacci numbers.

Yes they are, Fibonacci and Golden ratio are connected to each other and that can be seen in both physics and music. There is a strong connection to what we like to hear & see and how the universe is constructed. If someone could tell me why, it would be much appreciated. But this is straying a bit from the cycles, although I still think there is a connection to the quantum level. It would be nice to be a quantum physicist, but math was never something I was interested in before and I'm not that smart anyways. Shy
Who knows; you seem smart enough Smile I am pretty sure I can explain it, but it might not satisfy you, since your worldview varies from mine. But the basic explanation is pretty simple. There is no difference between the universe and ourselves; we are just an expression and extension of it. That holds true on a physical and spiritual level, whichever worldview you prefer.

Quote:
(09-29-2018, 04:06 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: But comparing humans to animals is to go on the wrong track. We are much different from animals, and human life and evolution now is much more than physical, but social and cultural and political too. And technological. Animals do not evolve so quickly so that cycles can be seen in it.

We have much in common with animals, we have the same kind of basic reactions, emotions and logical thinking as animals. I'm not sure if much intelligence is needed for the cycle to operate, as chimpanzees wage war on a regular basis too. Their attacks follow the same pattern and quite regular intervals. This is inside them, no speech is needed. They know what to do.

Chimps are also social, and politics rise from the combination of social and cultural behavior. If chimps had speech, I'm pretty darn sure they would develop the cultural side too very quickly. What I'm trying to say is that Homo sapiens advances in communication, which allowed us to take our emotions and cultural inclinations even further, which makes the 80-year cycle visible, but only after we started to get rid of the church. Other animals don't have religions to "hold them down" (although they might believe in the supernatural), so the cycle might be visible. And they're pretty much free to do what they want, although this varies very much between species.

I don't go along with that. Chimps and pre-human animals do not change very fast. Humans didn't change fast enough either for there to be a saeculum until civilization exhibited progress and change. The saeculum is like a hurricane; it must be fueled well before the spiral develops with a well-defined eye. (and btw a hurricane exhibits divine proportion/fibonacci numbers too) The saeculum is a moving wheel of progress. No progress and change; no saeculum. The saeculum is not just a recurrance of wars on a regular cycle. That is just a war cycle. I imagine someone could try to measure whether "chimp wars" happen in a regular cycle. I doubt there are chimp wars, but maybe I'm not informed enough on that. I know they are aggressive, but war as we know it is a human thing.

Religion is not the only thing that can "hold us down." Not by a long shot. We have been held down mostly by kings and emperors. Science and atheism has played its part too in holding us down. Our modern secular (saecular) revolutionary empires have been even-more deadly and tyrannical. Any of our institutions can be tyrannical and dogmatic, if we the people let them.

Advancement to civilization depended on language and story-telling, but also on crafts and art, and language and art in turn developed out of consciousness expansion. Our brains vastly expanded, so it was physical too. And our ability to stand upright and use opposable thumbs, etc. We are vastly different from chimps, and chimps are not about to evolve into humans.

Quote:
(09-29-2018, 03:35 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Knowing as I do how closely the saeculum cycle is connected to astrology and the cycles of the planets, I think a true understanding of the cycle will lie in understanding our relationship to the cosmos, on a level of consciousness rather than just on a physical level. But then, quantum physics points us strongly toward this approach.

I don't know for sure, of course, but I suspect that if we live 500 years, that humans will go through a lot more cycles in their lives than we do now.

I agree that there is a good chance that at least some of that could be true, but how can you prove anything like that before the quantum world is fully understood? In the same manner as the atom scale is understood today, it could take decades, and I have no way of taking that route to do much research. I'm happy to hear (all) theories, but I still think that Homo sapiens probably cannot be the only species to show a cycle of group evolution, even though we could be the only ones to show it out really big time.

And even if a magic pill was found so we could live out much longer than we do today, it still would take decades for it to have any effect, and I don't think such pill will be invented for another 20-50 years. It's a fascinating tale, but we're far from this kind of a world... What I'm after is 1) trying to find historical evidence that the cycle exists and is 80-years and divided into four sections 2) trying to find similarities from other animals and 3) possibly unifying the theory to natural or quantum laws.

During these 1½ years after reading the Fourth Turning, the areas I've researched so far are history, human and chimp biology & behavior, physics and consciousness. I'm a bit suspicious of making too many assumptions about the future at this point, like what kind of turnings will we face after this 4th turning. I want to know more of the origins before trying to look too much into the future, and I'm still not 100% convinced that the cycle is even real. Maybe 80%, but I want to keep it that way, otherwise I might become too blind to see obvious things in my view.

I agree of course; the 500-year life span is just science-fiction fantasy for now. I think about 80% real might be a good estimate about turnings and generations theory. The cycle was defined in The Fourth Turning as 84 years. They also said it was slower before the 18th century. That makes some sense too.

From my point of view, the discovery of the first-known invisible planet Uranus in 1781 is part of a general synchronicity of events. This is an element of "causation" neglected in traditional mechanical physics, but might be acceptable in the quantum world. Synchronicity and analogous patterns in history are frequent, and significant. This late 18th century time in history is especially interesting, and especially for saeculum fans. It was the time of Revolution, and so Uranus was seen to have those qualities in astrology. The radioactive element Uranium was discovered only a few years later, and named after the planet. The Americans won their Revolution in the same year, 1781, and the French one followed, and changed the world. The industrial revolution got going in Britain in the early 1780s, according to Eric Hobsbawm in his book The Age of Revolution. The romantic movement unfolded soon afterward. Electricity, batteries, the invisible light spectrum, oxygen, the atom, balloon flight, mesmerism, and more were discovered or invented at this time. Philosophy (Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, 1781) and art (David's Oath of the Horatii, 1784) went through similar revolutions too.

Uranus is the planet of modern progress, and its cycle of 84 years matches the modern saeculum. But before this modern age started, progress and change was slower. Generation gaps were non-existent, except among the elite, whereas in modern times children depart from their parents' ways. Population and life spans have expanded. All this generates the saeculum as we know it. But a slower, less-developed saeculum (a tropical storm or depression, as it were) can be discerned in the baroque/renaissance early-modern and medieval periods that preceded the modern, and in the Roman world where the term originates.

By the way, the finale of Mozart's "Jupiter" Symphony, written on the eve of the French Revolution in 1788, was a tremendous breakthrough in music, and influenced all that came after. In it can be heard all the frenetic, brilliant revolutionary and inventive energy of this time.

https://youtu.be/Fcly8-RGhgw



"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#42
(09-29-2018, 08:31 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Several cycles are possibly in operation. The generational cycle of Howe and Strauss recognize one relating human biology and personal development to political, economic, and cultural realities.

If the 80-year cycle does exist, I think that is the underlying cycle for all other cycles. There are bigger cycles for empires and smaller for economy etc., but these aren't quite as important, because they require civilized societies to work. So they are important, but as close to the roots of human nature as the 80 years cycle. I'm not saying the other cycles aren't important to look at, but I think the 80-year cycle is the base cycle for Homo sapiens and other cycles can possibly be derived from it. (I've read books of some economical cycles, and they included information of other historical cycles too, like innovation etc, but I think they're secondary to the generational cycle in many ways. I hope this discussion doesn't veer into other cycles, just trying to figure the origins of one is hard enough! Big Grin )


(09-29-2018, 01:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I am pretty sure I can explain it, but it might not satisfy you, since your worldview varies from mine. But the basic explanation is pretty simple. There is no difference between the universe and ourselves; we are just an expression and extension of it. That holds true on a physical and spiritual level, whichever worldview you prefer.

I actually agree with that. I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't agree, maybe I've said something that makes you think so, but nonetheless, I do agree.

It's amazing how similar computers and brains are. But we didn't have deep knowledge of the brain connections when the first computers were designed. But we designed computers much like them, as logical devices with date input and output. The reason why I'm talking about this is that we're truly an expression of the universe and we express our inner workings, even unknowingly. Nature is so efficient and the only the best gene mutations survive. I think the four turnings are just natures way of accelerating evolution, both physically and mentally. It's hidden deep inside our genes, and the question is that are we really the only species to have such an advantage?

This question takes my thoughts all the way to the start of life on earth. Why did the cells divide, why evolve? Maybe only the cells that did multiply and evolve are left with us today and the others died off, but that doesn't answer the question, how is it possible for a cell to multiply and do so with amazing precision? What is driving the cell forward. Is a cell conscious on a very primitive level? I find this study absolutely astonishing: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...081533.htm No brain, no nerves, but it learns and even solves puzzles!! Exclamation  There is communication between the cells and maybe even a shared consciousness. Otherwise the organism couldn't make decisions. Or could it, is a cell just a microcomputer that every time reacts in the same way, only the surroundings change? Many scientists say this of humans. If a single-cell organism can learn to solve puzzles, is it conscious at some level? Maybe not: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/f...8.751.html

Here is a really well written article about consciousness from different angles: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/jonathan-edwards/pu...cpropcells
But then again, is consciousness even needed for the cycle to be in motion? If we're not much more than a highly developed version of slime mold, as our brains make our decisions for us even before we know it, is consciousness even required for the changing of the turnings?? Whatever the answer is, I will continue looking also into cells and single-cell lifeforms for answers.


(09-29-2018, 04:06 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: But comparing humans to animals is to go on the wrong track. We are much different from animals, and human life and evolution now is much more than physical, but social and cultural and political too. And technological. Animals do not evolve so quickly so that cycles can be seen in it.

Once again, I agree 99% with what you've just said. But the cycle isn't only about "evolution", it's also about rooting out bad/sinful behavior and possibly inner/outer war during the fourth turning. Purification first, then extending territory. Animals have behavior like altruism, some have highly developed emotions. These don't belong only to Homo sapiens, we're not that different, although our emotions are stronger and we're able to express them better today.


(09-29-2018, 01:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Chimps and pre-human animals do not change very fast. Humans didn't change fast enough either for there to be a saeculum until civilization exhibited progress and change....The saeculum is a moving wheel of progress. No progress and change; no saeculum. The saeculum is not just a recurrance of wars on a regular cycle.

Of course it's not, but I took wars as an starting point, because chimpanzees go to war, and that could be something relatively easy to monitor. We can't know if chimps are superstitious, if they have any desires for spiritual or mental developments, because we can't communicate with them on that level, and they can't express those desires to other chimps. But if the cycle is universal like I think it is and you probably don't disagree with this, then it might not need communication, like it doesn't require much communication to go to war and raid the other chimp-community. This behavior is in us and chimps, no matter the continent or culture. This behavior is not learned, it's inside us.


(09-29-2018, 03:35 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Advancement to civilization depended on language and story-telling, but also on crafts and art, and language and art in turn developed out of consciousness expansion. Our brains vastly expanded, so it was physical too. And our ability to stand upright and use opposable thumbs, etc. We are vastly different from chimps, and chimps are not about to evolve into humans.

Give chimps advanced language skills & 100,000 years and they probably could evolve into something similar to Homo sapiens. "The limits of my language are the limits of my world." The importance of a language should not be underestimated, because language also gives us tools to think and form ideas. Their brains would evolve due to natural selection, as would their physiology too.

I'm saying this as a reminder that the 80-year cycle wasn't invented by anyone, it's inside our genes. Is it a symptom of the evolution of Homo sapiens or something deeper, that is the question. If it is something deeper like we both seem to see it, possibly even related to events at the quantum scale, then I see no reason why it couldn't manifest in other animals too. Maybe even in plants! Some mushrooms advance to new areas with their roots (which in theory grants them immortality).

(09-29-2018, 01:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: That is just a war cycle. I imagine someone could try to measure whether "chimp wars" happen in a regular cycle. I doubt there are chimp wars, but maybe I'm not informed enough on that. I know they are aggressive, but war as we know it is a human thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

I'm currently looking at chimp wars because it's probably the easiest thing to look at that could reveal the cycle. The other turnings from 1 to 3 would be much more difficult to spot if they did exist. Of course the cycle for chimps could be something entirely different, but there could very well be one (to speed up evolution and survival of the species). Communication was the reason for human development to skyrocket. Think about it on a very small level, if cells can't communicate with each other, would it be good or bad? If your brain isn't sending signals, is that bad? The answer to those two is that it is bad if there is no communication.

Advanced communication can lead to near perfect results, synchronized co-operation. Check out this video, which is an accurate presentation of the surface of the cells, magnified ten million times (x10,000,000) . The fun starts at 0:30, you should view it fullscreen and with resolution of 720p.




(09-29-2018, 03:35 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Religion is not the only thing that can "hold us down." Not by a long shot. We have been held down mostly by kings and emperors. Science and atheism has played its part too in holding us down.

Yes, but I think it is a bit silly to think that during the last 100,000 years there haven't been multiple situations where Homo sapiens packs/tribes/societies were living relatively "freely", without oppression or indoctrination. Of course superstition has probably held down much free thought, but then again, not for every pack/tribe/society all the time. It seems we much agree on the history of Homo sapiens, but see differently how this has possibly created/impacted the cycle.

I hope my words convey my thoughts well enough.
Reply
#43
(09-30-2018, 09:17 AM)Theojm Wrote: It's amazing how similar computers and brains are. But we didn't have deep knowledge of the brain connections when the first computers were designed. But we designed computers much like them, as logical devices with date input and output. The reason why I'm talking about this is that we're truly an expression of the universe and we express our inner workings, even unknowingly. Nature is so efficient and the only the best gene mutations survive. I think the four turnings are just natures way of accelerating evolution, both physically and mentally. It's hidden deep inside our genes, and the question is that are we really the only species to have such an advantage?

I think the 4 turnings are human nature's way of accelerating evolution, and it's "natural" to expect that this process is an extension of what happens elsewhere in Nature. As far as I can see, humans are the only ones who change and evolve culturally and mentally so rapidly, and the saeculum is just about that very speed up. It's like a hurricane that has developed; not the normal ebb and flow of air and sea. And human progress has been as destructive to things it contacts as a hurricane is, wouldn't you agree? But being inherent in the structure of the solar system, it's reasonable to assume this cycle might appear in some limited way in other life. The authors of turnings theory specifically related the cycle to the length of a normal human lifespan. Though the authors did not believe in astrology, they nevertheless assigned an archetypal length of 84 years to the cycle in their T4T book, which is exactly the cycle of Uranus, the planet of modern progress and revolution (the speed-up). And the leading 20th century philosopher of astrology, Dane Rudhyar, even said that Uranus derives its astrological meaning also from the normal length of a human life. That's quite a connection between these two apparently unrelated cycle theories, between astrology and turnings/generations theory.

Quote:This question takes my thoughts all the way to the start of life on earth. Why did the cells divide, why evolve? Maybe only the cells that did multiply and evolve are left with us today and the others died off, but that doesn't answer the question, how is it possible for a cell to multiply and do so with amazing precision? What is driving the cell forward. Is a cell conscious on a very primitive level? I find this study absolutely astonishing: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...081533.htm No brain, no nerves, but it learns and even solves puzzles!! Exclamation  There is communication between the cells and maybe even a shared consciousness. Otherwise the organism couldn't make decisions. Or could it, is a cell just a microcomputer that every time reacts in the same way, only the surroundings change? Many scientists say this of humans. If a single-cell organism can learn to solve puzzles, is it conscious at some level? Maybe not: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/f...8.751.html

Here is a really well written article about consciousness from different angles: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/jonathan-edwards/pu...cpropcells
But then again, is consciousness even needed for the cycle to be in motion? If we're not much more than a highly developed version of slime mold, as our brains make our decisions for us even before we know it, is consciousness even required for the changing of the turnings?? Whatever the answer is, I will continue looking also into cells and single-cell lifeforms for answers.

Curiosity is a great thing. It leads into discovery, and new life. It brings darkness to light, and releases hidden powers. My curiosity led me in philosophical and spiritual directions in the sixties, having already had what I thought was enough background in science and the physical theories of life. I tend to look within myself for answers, but wherever you look, you are bound to find some kind of gold if you keep searching.

It depends on how you define consciousness. Consciousness as we know it in human will and rational minds is not necessary for natural processes, and I agree that subconscious and higher-conscious levels of our being DO make decisions before we know it. I agree, cells are conscious on a primitive level. I also think there is a larger spirit holding things together. I think quantum theory lends support for what many philosophers and spiritual teachers have told us about how all things and beings are connected. Our universe is intelligent and conscious, from low levels to higher ones. We could not have evolved into the conscious beings we are, if the foundation for this didn't exist in our universe.

From what I can tell, I don't go along with the direction of Jonathon Edwards' thought. Though I agree individual cells are conscious, my world view is different from his, and I do not negate my experience of myself as a single subjective soul. That to me is the primary reality, and my soul is connected to larger souls which en-soul the world. Being typically representative of a prophet generation like the transcendentalists, I tend to think like them. My fellow 49er Ken Wilber has some good ideas along this line, and in general I think the integral holistic philosophers are well worth a look. The basic worldview is of souls within souls, and wholes within wholes, from higher levels all the way down in nature. Pan-psychism is also related to this view.

Quote:.... the cycle isn't only about "evolution", it's also about rooting out bad/sinful behavior and possibly inner/outer war during the fourth turning. Purification first, then extending territory. Animals have behavior like altruism, some have highly developed emotions. These don't belong only to Homo sapiens, we're not that different, although our emotions are stronger and we're able to express them better today......
Give chimps advanced language skills & 100,000 years and they probably could evolve into something similar to Homo sapiens. "The limits of my language are the limits of my world." The importance of a language should not be underestimated, because language also gives us tools to think and form ideas. Their brains would evolve due to natural selection, as would their physiology too......
I'm saying this as a reminder that the 80-year cycle wasn't invented by anyone, it's inside our genes. Is it a symptom of the evolution of Homo sapiens or something deeper, that is the question. If it is something deeper like we both seem to see it, possibly even related to events at the quantum scale, then I see no reason why it couldn't manifest in other animals too. Maybe even in plants! Some mushrooms advance to new areas with their roots (which in theory grants them immortality).

All events in society and human life are part of our "evolution," and in fact I've heard biologists say that it's when there is a crisis, accelerating the need to adapt to changing conditions, that species change faster and evolution greatly speeds up in the non-human world. So there's a kind of natural evolutionary 4th turning--- which in our human (and you might say chimp) societies usually means war, and these times are prime movers in evolution.

I agree that seeing our own qualities and abilities in the rest of life is wise. It stands to reason, since we emerged out of that life. We are, I am sure, directed and impelled by the innate urge to rise higher, and that the ultimate ideals are already within us and in all life. In other words, life and evolution is driven from above, or from the end, even more than from the original impetus and the primitive conditions. Just like an electric current won't flow unless the end of the circuit is connected up. The saeculum cycle emerges from deep within us, but it seems clear that this cycle per se, as we know it, is a function of human societies that go through relatively rapid change and progress, and that change and evolution are slower outside the human realm. But in that larger realm of nature too, it's evident there are times when evolution speeds up much faster than normal. In a larger sense, our own civilization is one of those times.

Chimps and other apes have not changed much in millions of years. One way their evolution might speed up, is if human society destroys itself. Then the larger being called life will naturally seek another vehicle to move forward, and the apes could start evolving faster; maybe into humans, or maybe something a bit different this time.

Quote:..... I took wars as an starting point, because chimpanzees go to war, and that could be something relatively easy to monitor. We can't know if chimps are superstitious, if they have any desires for spiritual or mental developments, because we can't communicate with them on that level, and they can't express those desires to other chimps. But if the cycle is universal like I think it is and you probably don't disagree with this, then it might not need communication, like it doesn't require much communication to go to war and raid the other chimp-community. This behavior is in us and chimps, no matter the continent or culture. This behavior is not learned, it's inside us....

I'm currently looking at chimp wars because it's probably the easiest thing to look at that could reveal the cycle. The other turnings from 1 to 3 would be much more difficult to spot if they did exist. Of course the cycle for chimps could be something entirely different, but there could very well be one (to speed up evolution and survival of the species).

I hold more to the view that war is much less common on the animal level, and it is to a great extent learned, and that we can and are in the process of UNlearning it. I hold to and put stock in the peace movement that emerged out of the sixties and seventies, and agree with the ideal of a world without war. We no longer believe slavery is natural, or that most people are destined to remain poor, or that human rights are given by kings rather than being unalienable. Rape and pillage is no longer accepted as a reward for victory in battle. So in some ways, we are improving. The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.


Quote:Yes, but I think it is a bit silly to think that during the last 100,000 years there haven't been multiple situations where Homo sapiens packs/tribes/societies were living relatively "freely", without oppression or indoctrination. Of course superstition has probably held down much free thought, but then again, not for every pack/tribe/society all the time. It seems we much agree on the history of Homo sapiens, but see differently how this has possibly created/impacted the cycle. I hope my words convey my thoughts well enough!

I agree with all of that. You're doing very well, and thanks for an elevating conversation well above the norm for the internet.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#44
(09-30-2018, 05:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I hold more to the view that war is much less common on the animal level, and it is to a great extent learned, and that we can and are in the process of UNlearning it. ...Rape and pillage is no longer accepted as a reward for victory in battle. So in some ways, we are improving....

War is inside us, in our genes, just like with chimps: "Just as chimps appear to reflect some humanity’s better traits, they also reflect the bad, Silk wrote. The behavior of non-human primates, particularly chimpanzees, are often distorted by ideology and anthropomorphism, which produce a predisposition to believe that morally desirable features, such as empathy and altruism, have deep evolutionary roots, whereas undesirable features, such as group-level violence and sexual coercion, do not,” she wrote. “This reflects a naive form of biological determinism"

Our inner thoughts have become only more clear with advanced communication. It holds true for war & love. We are capable of much more than other species, in good and bad. If we cannot come to realize how our genes are still manipulating us, we cannot overcome our inner selves and consciousness loses the battle to our basic instincts. This is my motivation to find the true origins of the 80-year cycle, to see it clearly for what it is, otherwise there is no hope of us getting rid of it. If we even do fully want to get rid of it, as it has accelerated evolution on Homo sapiens. (I'm not for wars, don't get me wrong on that one, just observing history and evolution for what it is.)


(09-30-2018, 05:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I hold to and put stock in the peace movement that emerged out of the sixties and seventies, and agree with the ideal of a world without war.

I don't put much weight on it. It came from the awakening, beautiful thoughts and words, but peace today isn't held together with much else than economic ties. Economies can fall apart pretty easily and we do have an unsolved, massive debt crisis still looming under all this economic trickery. So many countries from Japan to USA, Italy to China, that have from 100% to 250% debt/GDP. This is unheard of in the history of mankind, anything can happen in a few hours or days that makes the world economy go puff... And at that moment the UN is powerless, EU might totally fall apart, and economic sanctions are seen even more hostile than today and economic incentives are hard to justify to the payers. The economic system is unsatisfactory on so many levels to so many nations that not everyone would even be willing to try to save it. Populism thrives in these conditions, and we all know where that road can lead to.


(09-30-2018, 05:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.

We are indeed going slowly towards more equality, but we won't reach it in the next 100 years by a long shot. Violence is down worldwide, but then again, this statistic doesn't give me warm feelings:

[Image: deadlinessofwars.jpg]

Global Peace Index 2018: http://reliefweb.int/report/world/global...index-2018

"The 2018 GPI reveals a world in which the tensions, conflicts, and crises that emerged in the past decade remain unresolved, especially in the Middle East, resulting in a gradual, sustained fall in peacefulness. Underlying the fall in peacefulness, six of the nine regions in the world deteriorated in the last year. The four most peaceful regions – Europe, North America, Asia-Pacific, and South America – all recorded deteriorations, with the largest overall deterioration occurring in South America, owing to falls in the Safety and Security domain, mainly due to increases in the incarceration rate and impact of terrorism."

Peace has been deteriorating since 2007. It matches with the cycle pretty conveniently. I hate being too negative, but these are the facts. Confused We could be on the verge of a full global economic meltdown and populism is already on the rise. We still have no institutions to stop wars (like we have courts and jails for individuals). We still don't understand our group evolution and true roots of humanity. We still are racist towards other cultures and view our own as the best one. We still cling to our own beliefs and belittle the values of others. There is no common language of peace and prosperity, capitalism is based on greed and slave work is still common around the world.

We've come a long way, but understanding that technology is only a tool for good and bad, democracy was in many ways stronger in ancient Greece and that there have been many more peaceful times in history is a good start. Our human nature is trying us to think positively about today and the future, even during fourth turnings, which often blinds us from the truth.


Below is the last statistic. The blue line is on about 1940-45, and then 80 years back several times. We see an age of war or the start of one, every single time, no exceptions. And note that it's an exponential scale, the jumps are actually much bigger than at first sight one might think.

[Image: globaldeaths.jpg]

Maybe this time will be different. I'm just really struggling to find reasons why it would be. Tensions around the world are rising, even in places with amazing prosperity and advancements in science & culture never seen in the history of Homo sapiens. And once that prosperity takes a hit... What do you think will happen? Will people be 1) sad but willing to co-operate with other countries, or 2) bitter and looking for someone to blame? In the age of rising populism, I think the answer is a solid 2.
Reply
#45
I wish people would quit corrupting the word "populism." It's original meaning in the 1890s is the correct meaning. It means advocacy for a government and society that benefits the people, not just the elites. "Populism" today just means appealing to the prejudices and fears of the populace. That's what politics does much of the time anyway, regardless of whether the candidate is called a "populist." If "populism" just means appealing to the feelings of the populace, it assumes that a better alternative is to appeal to the elite, as if the mass of the people is dumb and stupid and politicians can exploit it, and we'd have better policies if they come from the elite. That's what Donald Trump and Marie LePen do, exploit the fears of many people, even if that's really only 30-40% of them; but their program does not benefit the populace, it benefits only the elite. That kind of populism is super-phony.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#46
That last graph is very interesting. It does seem rather hopeful at the end there, as if we were heading for an unprecedented drop. That was the Awakening's effect. We believed in peace, and we were getting it. It does look like a war cycle exists. It matches fourth turnings, except the first one which Strauss and Howe put earlier. But given that, it looks like so far our fourth turning has been pretty mild so far.

I would agree with you that we probably have seen nothing yet in this 4T. 4Ts have not ended, despite our sixties' idealism. I didn't expect that they would. My cosmic indicator says a big war is likely to start in 2020-21, and involve the USA by 2025. But will deaths spike up as much as earlier 4Ts? We don't know yet. I think the appetite for war may have declined.

Don't forget, I think I have shown you that an 80 (archetypally 84) year cycle is a modern phenomenon. Before humanity discovered Uranus, the cycle was slower. Before Rome it did not exist. Cycles have existed in nature forever, but not necessarily that one. So finding the source of the 80-year saeculum cycle in pre-history seems a fool's errand. Finding cycles per se, probably you can find plenty of those.

Also, deaths increased in the 20th century mainly because of the power of the weapons. You can't discount that effect, any more than the deaths resulting from heightened access to weapons in the USA has increased deaths. Conservatives ignore that fact, but the same principle applies. The machine guns, tanks, bombers, atom bombs, chemical weapons, etc. have increased battle and civilian deaths. Better medicine has compensated for the more-powerful weapons somewhat, especially recently.

In addition, consider that the world wars were an especially important turning point in history. It was the collapse of an age of civilization. A new world has emerged out of them, a world of which Woodrow Wilson was the prophet; a global civilization is what we live in now, which has a United Nations. Conservatives and conspiracy theory buffs may hate it, but it will nevertheless grow in importance and power as the years go by. In a global society, conflicts between nations are out of date. What has replaced them so far are attacks by rogue states and terrorist groups, and revolutionary civil wars. This is a new era that is moving us toward peace. As the modern Revolution begun in the 1770s and 80s continues, more freedom and democracy will come into being, and this will bring more peace. Greek democracy was based on slavery and was only male, so it was hardly superior to ours with all its faults. And it was far more fragile and not exportable, unlike ours.

The default attitude, especially among academics, but also among parochial, mostly-rural anti-globalist societies like the red states of the USA, is the pessimistic one that war is natural among animals, and that world peace is unlikely; rather than the other way around. Optimism is the smarter alternative, though. You mention inner awareness ("inner thoughts, inner selves, consciousness"). The frontier of life today is to gain more of that inner awareness. This is severely lacking among human beings, and has been forever; it is even weaker among animals. Self-reflection and inward seeking was first developed among the select few who studied in monasteries, especially in the Orient, over the last 3 millennia. In the new age movement from the last Awakening in the sixties and 70s, it became something available to everyone for the first time in evolutionary history. It is not an easy path, but the pioneers have mapped it out pretty well for us over the last three millennia. It will be many centuries before we achieve a level of mastery on it. And certainly it is declining now in America's 4T with the outward-turning generations prominent, but the next artists and prophets will resume the quest once the next Awakening comes around, and further awakening will happen worldwide.

We can't discount the effect of a 4T which has not reached its climax, and which won't for another 7 years. But my cosmic indicators say that the crash of 2008 was the worst of the 21st century, and we are recovering. It is a valid thesis that peace depends on prosperity, and that our debt is too high. And climate change will make things worse too. I don't know if I can answer that. Although the trigger for the 2008 crash was not really the national debt, but leveraged mortgages speculated with in derivatives, which fell flat when the basis for them started collapsing in mortgage defaults. Poor regulation, decided upon deliberately by a libertarian economics policy, was the proximate cause. It's that ideology which must be challenged and defeated now. Prosperity will grow again once that happens. It's on the ballot; the choice really is D or R right now. Drive forward or continued Reverse regression.

But would a collapse be as dire as the Great Depression? What if another boom period comes along in the late 4T and 1T? Is a boom brought about by new energy technology developing, as I predicted? If so, that could help ease the debts, and the climate crisis too. Our power of innovation has never been greater than today. A crisis brings out our talents, and adaptations happen faster. So, we'll see!
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#47
(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: That last graph is very interesting. It does seem rather hopeful at the end there, as if we were heading for an unprecedented drop.

But you can see the rise in the end in the more recently updated blue line? And the graph has always, always bounced back up from the bottom. The 1890's was also a very peaceful time, no UN, economies weren't tied together as closely as they are now, no internet, no globalism. And yet the world was at relative peace for many decades. Are you starting to see my point? We seek answers to war and peace from our own actions, and I think that is actually way too selfish. Homo sapiens thinks he is at the wheel. I see this as highly arrogant. Just like #metoo has spread around the world with immense efficiency, so can racism, hate and war. And fear.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933. I'm with Franklin on this one. From fear rises our darkest thoughts.


(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Before Rome it did not exist. Cycles have existed in nature forever, but not necessarily that one. So finding the source of the 80-year saeculum cycle in pre-history seems a fool's errand.

No offense Eric, but that sounds a bit arrogant to my ears. Cool Looking at only the last 5-10% of our species life after the great leap is a bit of a fool's errand in my mind. Finding the true origins from the history of evolution through research into biology and other species is a fool's errand? I really don't think it is futile. Even Howe & Strauss wrote about the ancient world and how this has somehow been the basis of the cycle. And when you think that there have been about 25,000 - 35,000 generations after the great leap, why only look at the last 250-350 generations?? I think that is a bit foolish, the scope is too small to understand how the cycle has possibly formed and evolved. But all in all, I hope my words weren't too offensive, it's just that I really want to keep my mind open for any and all possibilities.


(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: In addition, consider that the world wars were an especially important turning point in history. It was the collapse of an age of civilization.

I think you're actually just describing a basic but well defined and an "effective" 4th turning. That is the purpose of the cycle. Evolution at its finest, at its most efficient form. Total re-boot with a new world order that is more efficient than the previous one. A clean start to sow the seeds in, to raise a new world with new, better ideals and quality of life. From that arose the biggest and most efficient awakening of probably all cycles so far. The 3rd turning was also powerful with all the different youth subcultures that formed new types of music and other arts.

So the question is, why wouldn't the 4th turning also be a very powerful one this time around? And with most western cultures in an amazing synchronization, as we see with #metoo, I have little optimism left. I fear there is little hope for unification in the USA or EU countries, unless a major external threat emerges. At this pace the rise of nationalism will wreck havoc in many parts of the world if there is really almost 10 years to go until the new high emerges. There is simply too much time left for a peaceful solution. Until we are in control of our own destiny, the cycle will go on.

And what this control means, I do not even know for sure. At first we have to come to understand our true evolutionary roots. We're the sons and daughters of the best builders, artists, mathematicians and hunters. AND the sons and daughters of the most efficient racists, killers and rapists. It's all inside us, whether we want to admit it or not. When we come to this realization we can start to understand that the cycle is just an evolutionary mechanism to accelerate the "acquirement" of the best skills needed for survival and fast evolution, the skills that our genes hold. (Homo sapiens integrated the best genes from Neanderthals and Denisovans too and killed off the rest.)

Accepting our true past will be much, much harder than it was to accept Darwin's ideas. But it made us what we are today, brilliant in culture, science & violence.


(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The default attitude, especially among academics, but also among parochial, mostly-rural anti-globalist societies like the red states of the USA, is the pessimistic one that war is natural among animals, and that world peace is unlikely; rather than the other way around. Optimism is the smarter alternative, though.

No it isn't, looking at facts is the only smart alternative. Optimism in the world is quickly fading away anyways, you cannot increase it. On an individual level you can stay optimistic, even during war time, but your optimism doesn't affect the cycle. The masses drive the world now that we got rid of the indoctrination of the church. Masses are the driving force, you can see it in the 1960's forceful awakening, freedom was achievable like never before and the masses wanted it. There was a need for change. And when Homo sapiens is free from oppression, he will execute that change to the fullest. We are free, but we still are not true in control of our progression as a species.

If my babbling doesn't make any sense, here is a good representation of the end of a 4th turning. Big Grin 
[Image: NauticalInfantileJaeger-size_restricted.gif]

We're not in true control until we understand the vehicle thoroughly. And we don't understand our biology, our behavioral roots, our brains. Not by a long shot! We've become arrogant with all the science around us. There is no true understanding of human nature, no comprehensive model of our behavior and inner workings. We don't know what life is, we don't understand what drives it. We know so little and presume so much. It's modern day superstition to think we're in full control. We're not there yet. And thus the cycle continues to control/evolve us for the time being.


(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: But would a collapse be as dire as the Great Depression?

No, much worse. The world economy is now 110% interconnected. There is no escape, no safe haven, no economy that is not exporting and importing heavily. Work productivity isn't rising anymore, fusion energy is still 10-30 years away (as it has been for decades, not getting much closer.). I don't see any escape routes from science. The western countries have aging populations, there is no money left to take care of all the old people or pay the promised pensions. Combine this with the huge debt loads of the nations and you have a volatile situation that is only getting worse by the year, the economic risks are only getting bigger.

None of this is speculation, it's based on pure numbers. Unfortunately.
Reply
#48
(10-02-2018, 01:07 AM)Theojm Wrote:
(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: That last graph is very interesting. It does seem rather hopeful at the end there, as if we were heading for an unprecedented drop.

But you can see the rise in the end in the more recently updated blue line? And the graph has always, always bounced back up from the bottom. The 1890's was also a very peaceful time, no UN, economies weren't tied together as closely as they are now, no internet, no globalism. And yet the world was at relative peace for many decades. Are you starting to see my point? We seek answers to war and peace from our own actions, and I think that is actually way too selfish. Homo sapiens thinks he is at the wheel. I see this as highly arrogant. Just like #metoo has spread around the world with immense efficiency, so can racism, hate and war. And fear.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933. I'm with Franklin on this one. From fear rises our darkest thoughts.

Oh yes indeed, I did. It's still pretty low, and I did mention that 4Ts haven't ended, and yes we are in one. So, the line is rising.

Quote:
(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Before Rome it did not exist. Cycles have existed in nature forever, but not necessarily that one. So finding the source of the 80-year saeculum cycle in pre-history seems a fool's errand.

No offense Eric, but that sounds a bit arrogant to my ears. Cool Looking at only the last 5-10% of our species life after the great leap is a bit of a fool's errand in my mind. Finding the true origins from the history of evolution through research into biology and other species is a fool's errand? I really don't think it is futile. Even Howe & Strauss wrote about the ancient world and how this has somehow been the basis of the cycle. And when you think that there have been about 25,000 - 35,000 generations after the great leap, why only look at the last 250-350 generations?? I think that is a bit foolish, the scope is too small to understand how the cycle has possibly formed and evolved. But all in all, I hope my words weren't too offensive, it's just that I really want to keep my mind open for any and all possibilities.

Well, I'm proud to be a bit arrogant Smile You might keep open to the possibility that the changes of recent generations are unprecedented, and the plain fact that the saeculum cycle of 84 years is a phenomenon of modern societies, although a weaker storm existed in societies that were more advanced than the earliest ones (Europe from the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment, and Rome). That doesn't deny that other cycles existed too; I have charted them. I even detect a few events that might be the basis for an earlier saeculum; the early predecessors of revolutions within ancient civilizations.

Quote:
(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Also, deaths increased in the 20th century mainly because of the power of the weapons.

Yes, and what would lower that curve down now, our weapons are getting only more efficient? Advances in medical treatment have reduced the amount of deaths from injuries, so that has kept the numbers lower than in past centuries. (That huge WW1 tick up was unexpected to everyone, that war wasn't supposed to be that deadly and probably wouldn't have been, if everyone knew the cost when it started.)

Nor did they expect a second world war either.

Quote:
(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: In addition, consider that the world wars were an especially important turning point in history. It was the collapse of an age of civilization.

I think you're actually just describing a basic but well defined and an "effective" 4th turning. That is the purpose of the cycle. Evolution at its finest, at its most efficient form. Total re-boot with a new world order that is more efficient than the previous one. A clean start to sow the seeds in, to raise a new world with new, better ideals and quality of life. From that arose the biggest and most efficient awakening of probably all cycles so far. The 3rd turning was also powerful with all the different youth subcultures that formed new types of music and other arts.

So the question is, why wouldn't the 4th turning also be a very powerful one this time around? And with most western cultures in an amazing synchronization, as we see with #metoo, I have little optimism left. I fear there is little hope for unification in the USA or EU countries, unless a major external threat emerges. At this pace the rise of nationalism will wreck havoc in many parts of the world if there is really almost 10 years to go until the new high emerges. There is simply too much time left for a peaceful solution. Until we are in control of our own destiny, the cycle will go on.

And what this control means, I do not even know for sure. At first we have to come to understand our true evolutionary roots. We're the sons and daughters of the best builders, artists, mathematicians and hunters. AND the sons and daughters of the most efficient racists, killers and rapists. It's all inside us, whether we want to admit it or not. When we come to this realization we can start to understand that the cycle is just an evolutionary mechanism to accelerate the "acquirement" of the best skills needed for survival and fast evolution, the skills that our genes hold. (Homo sapiens integrated the best genes from Neanderthals and Denisovans too and killed off the rest.)

Accepting this will be much, much harder than it was to accept Darwin's ideas.

Your theory is that the 80-year cycle is fundamental, but I see a larger cycle of civilization that is MORE fundamental, and it lasts almost 500 years. We experienced the end of this cycle and the start of the next one just before the world wars. That ending actually started with a second turning, and the wars began shortly afterward in a 3rd turning, which made the break from the past more concrete and political, and climaxed in the following 4th.

This 4th turning will not be as severe as the last, because we are not at another civilizational break. That is another 400 years away. The new world you describe emerging out of the previous 4T is precisely why this 4T will not be as severe; because people today are more complacent and comfortable. The American High first turning was the greatest ever, in terms of consensus and prosperity. We today remain its beneficiary. We have more to lose by following foolish war ideologies. Nationalism is largely a spasm arising from the 4th turning itself, because of the Arab Spring and the refugees it caused. But the people just want to be free, so uprisings occur. Nationalism was defeated in France, and in America it's champion and his party are going to suffer a reversal next month. It's temporary, and the EU remains intact, since the threat from refugees is receding.

You admit that "I do not even know for sure" what control of our own destiny means. But I do, and there are those of us who do. It's wise to be open to the wisdom that the awakening brought and made available to each of us. Our life and destiny is not too much in our genes, and Darwin's ideas were far from the whole truth of evolution.

Quote:
(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The default attitude, especially among academics, but also among parochial, mostly-rural anti-globalist societies like the red states of the USA, is the pessimistic one that war is natural among animals, and that world peace is unlikely; rather than the other way around. Optimism is the smarter alternative, though.

No it isn't, looking at facts is the only smart alternative. Optimism in the world is quickly fading away anyways, you cannot increase it. On an individual level you can stay optimistic, even during war time, but your optimism doesn't affect the cycle. The masses drive the world now that we got rid of the indoctrination of the church. Masses are the driving force, you can see it in the 1960's forceful awakening, freedom was achievable like never before and the masses wanted it. There was a need for change. And when Homo sapiens is free from oppression, he will execute that change. We are free, but we still are not true in control of our evolution.

We're not in true control until we understand the vehicle thoroughly. And we don't understand ourselves, our behavioral roots, our brains. Not by a long shot. We've become arrogant with all the science around us. There is no true understanding of human nature, no comprehensive model of our behavior and inner workings. We don't know what life is, we don't understand what drives it. We know so little and presume so much. It's modern day superstition to think we're in full control. We're not there yet. And thus the cycle continues to control/evolve us for the time being.
I don't see why you say the indoctrination of the church freed the masses, but you want to reimpose church doctrines. Freedom is increasing, I agree there. That means also freedom from our genes. The path we have entered toward control of our evolution is a long one. Some may see it in technology. Maybe we can replace our amygdala. I still see the best path is also the most venerable, the path of mysticism and self-discovery, and learning techniques of self-control and awareness. I have more faith in the masses driving the world, than the elites, whether kings and bishops or wealthy lords of industry. In our spiritual wisdom traditions, which lie beneath the outer church doctrines and had been reserved for a few until this recent awakening, is "true understanding of human nature, a comprehensive model of our behavior and inner workings, knowledge of what life is and what drives it." In full abundance! What we lack, is full skill in following this path, and even the full realization of its presence and participation in it. The problem is that historically America has buried and deserted from its 2nd turnings, because we are a materialist, outer-directed society. This is precisely what needs to change, and is our destiny to change.

Quote:
(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: But would a collapse be as dire as the Great Depression? What if another boom period comes along in the late 4T and 1T? Is a boom brought about by new energy technology developing, as I predicted? If so, that could help ease the debts....

Yes. The world economy is now 100% interconnected. There is no escape. No safe haven, no economy that is not exporting and importing heavily. Work productivity isn't rising anymore, fusion energy is still a decade away. I don't see an escape route here. The western countries have aging populations, there is no money to take care of all the old people or pay the promised pensions. Combine this with the huge debt loads of the nations and you have a volatile situation that is only getting worse by the year, the economic risks are only getting bigger.

None of this is speculation, it's based on pure numbers. Unfortunately.

The numbers are clear. There is no need for "safe havens" from a globalized economy; it is an engine of prosperity. Alternative green energy is the escape, and it's growing fast. Our very-productive mechanized economy already provides more for everyone, once its benefits are fairly distributed. Our social security system is sound, and aging people also work longer as lifespans and health increase. Europe is already more socialist, and thus on the right path already to prosperity. A new economy beckons. Once the new clean energy sources of prosperity grow, and once our addition to libertarian economics is overthrown, there's plenty to pay for everything and everyone. That is the job of this 4T. Voting is the cure. Trickle-down economics is an illusion. Throw it over, and there's plenty for all.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#49
(10-02-2018, 01:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: You might keep open to the possibility that the changes of recent generations are unprecedented....

Yes, and why would he 4th turning be any different? If you think that the awakening was so good and powerful in the US, why did violence rise highly in the 80's? I'm sure you can come up with reasons from the real world, but it doesn't remove the fact the the rise of violence was big. And if the rise of violence was bad then, why wouldn't the 4th turning also be powerful this time?[/quote]


(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Your theory is that the 80-year cycle is fundamental, but I see a larger cycle of civilization that is MORE fundamental, and it lasts almost 500 years.

I know of this 500 year cycle and do not argue against it, empires follow the long cycle pretty nicely. But an empire or a modern society is just a big tribe, a social construction, but the 80-year cycle is still there, it requires no constructions besides different generations at hand. And what is more important is that empires of past didn't have weapons of mass destruction. The world has changed, economies and humans can be erased in a few hours. The dynamics have changed, the speed of evolution has increased dramatically. This is what Hitler tried to do. Think of what would have happened if in 1930's USA, Britain, Germany, Japan, Italy and USSR had had nukes. Maybe there wouldn't had been a world war. But if there was, what would had it looked like?

Think about it and then tell me everything is going to be better this time around. Would we have avoided WW2 and missed the "civilizational break" you talk about? I'm not so sure. Maybe Hitler wouldn't have used his nukes in fear of retaliation. Maybe. To say that there are 400 years left for another civilizational break is truly beyond my understanding. The WW2 wasn't a break, it was a wake up call. It was a wake up call to the 80-year cycle. We cannot escape our own nature until we understand it.


(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The new world you describe emerging out of the previous 4T is precisely why this 4T will not be as severe; because people today are more complacent and comfortable.

Yes, and once that complacency and comfort goes away, the hangover will be even more severe than last time in the 1930's.


(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The American High first turning was the greatest ever, in terms of consensus and prosperity. We today remain its beneficiary. We have more to lose by following foolish war ideologies.

You don't think that the masses are foolish? You don't think that all of America will rise to battle if a new threat like China emerges? Like Howe & Strauss write, we cannot know what the end result is, we just know there will be a resolution.


(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Nationalism is largely a spasm arising from the 4th turning itself, because of the Arab Spring and the refugees it caused.

No it is not. That's an excuse. Just like the 1929 economic collapse was an excuse for the rise of nationalism, in USA, Germany and elsewhere. Economic collapses and refugees are an excuse, a scapegoat for the true rise of nationalism. They hide the true reason, because they accelerate the rise of nationalism. Look at Australia today. Unbelievably long economic prosperity and little immigration problems. But nationalism is still on the rise, even though there are virtually no reasons for it. And if you say it rises because of influence from other countries, then you agree that it is a part of group evolution, just like #metoo, and it cannot be controlled by anyone.

The tendencies of our nature are on the move again, it is time to unite (common morals), secure borders (a wall) and attack (war). Just like chimps do, it's the same behavior. If that the unifying phase fails, the nation will divide. Just like chimps. At the start of the Gombe chimpanzee war the tribe divided into two packs, then they took control of half of the area. The chimp nation divided into two. Only after that the war/killing started. This is basically exactly the same thing that happens in civil wars of Homo sapiens.

Without this mechanism there is no unity, if there is too much division, there must be a divide. Unless this happens, the tribe isn't efficient, there cannot be rival factions or the society doesn't work well into the future. This is one of the reasons Africa is still a mess. The borders drawn by Europeans were too much artificial, it is hard to find unity between different tribes, and then you get civil wars that never seem to end. Of course there are many more reasons for African civil wars, but this is the basic principle behind them.

If unity (=efficiency) isn't reached, there will be civil war. This is evolution, this is one of the reasons why Homo sapiens has conquered the world.


(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Nationalism was defeated in France, and in America it's champion and his party are going to suffer a reversal next month. It's temporary, and the EU remains intact, since the threat from refugees is receding.

No, nationalism isn't going away. The direction might seem to change at times in politics, as it is in constant motion, but the underlying tide of the fourth turning isn't going anywhere for almost 10 years. There will always be new scapegoat-reasons for it to rise, it doesn't have to be refugees or Jews.


(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You admit that "I do not even know for sure" what control of our own destiny means. But I do, and there are those of us who do. It's wise to be open to the wisdom that the awakening brought and made available to each of us. Our life and destiny is not too much in our genes....

It is in the combination of our gene pool and our environment which we interact with. I'm not totally deterministic at all, but saying that "wisdom" can stop a fourth turning...no way in these primitive times. One day, but that day is far in the future, if we get there intact. If we don't today even have the wisdom how to eradicate racism, nepotism, totalitarianism, ultra-nationalism, what wisdom do we truly hold? Several countries in EU are going the wrong way: In Poland the nationalists have fired judges from the supreme court, on purely political reasons, and the president has power over this, it is something out of a dictatorship. In Hungary the state media is taking over and other media is being suppressed. This is not wisdom, this is nationalism, nationalists can be wise too and have different ideas of the path towards the future.


(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The default attitude, especially among academics, but also among parochial, mostly-rural anti-globalist societies like the red states of the USA, is the pessimistic one that war is natural among animals, and that world peace is unlikely; rather than the other way around. Optimism is the smarter alternative, though.


(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't see why you say the indoctrination of the church freed the masses, but you want to reimpose church doctrines.

I don't want to reimpose any doctrines. I'm saying that when we were finally freed from the indoctrination of the church, the cycle started to impose itself on us heavily. We are no longer fulfilling the destiny given to us from god. No, were now fulfilling the destiny our genes gave us, which is evolution, both physical and mental. We will need a common moral code to go forward, that's all. A common understanding on how to continue onward, just like after WW2.

I'm not sure if the church will play any role in this when the current 4th turning comes to an end. Religion might, but this is so hard to speculate, as we don't even know what the final end result will be in ten years time. But I do not wish to continue this speculation any further, as this thread is about history and evolution that happened in the past. Only after the roots of the cycle are understood can one speculate on the future events more precisely. At the moment we only understand that there is a force driving us forward, the generational cycle. That is not much, but it's a start.


(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Alternative green energy is the escape, and it's growing fast. Our very-productive mechanized economy already provides more for everyone, once its benefits are fairly distributed. Our social security system is sound...

Good luck with trying to distribute the benefits evenly. Big Grin Sorry I'm laughing, but if the US senate can't agree on pretty much anything at the moment and the capitalist system is becoming more rigged by the day. How can you see a more even distribution happening without a BIG 4th turning reset?

Green energy isn't replacing anything in a long time. Energy isn't cheap, not before fusion energy is widely available. You're lying to yourself if you think that there will be a green energy revolution changing the basic dynamics of western societies in the next 10 years. There is no free energy in the near future, not by a long shot. I wish there was, but there isn't. Solar panels and windmills are getting more efficient, but that's not a huge leap to any direction. And water is becoming a more scarce resource by the day, all around the globe. Technology is only a tool, but it can't solve our biggest problems.

And the US or EU social security systems are not sound! They work at the moment, but the masses are growing older. In USA the illegal immigrants actually help the situation by providing many children and young adults, but in EU, Japan and Russia the situation is growing worse. And since nationalism is on the rise and immigration is becoming a negative thing, the situation isn't getting better. But the possible baby boom of the next high would help, although it comes a little too late to fix the problems. (This is actually one more reason why we should realize the 80-years cycle exists. If the age groups are highly differential in population sizes, this creates economic problems inside a nation. It would be better to have a steady flow of babies in a modern society, resource allocation becomes easier and more efficient.)
Reply
#50
(10-02-2018, 03:54 AM)Theojm Wrote:
(10-02-2018, 01:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: You might keep open to the possibility that the changes of recent generations are unprecedented....

Yes, and why would he 4th turning be any different? If you think that the awakening was so good and powerful in the US, why did violence rise highly in the 80's? I'm sure you can come up with reasons from the real world, but it doesn't remove the fact the the rise of violence was big. And if the rise of violence was bad then, why wouldn't the 4th turning also be powerful this time?

Because we are too rich and comfortable. We are used to peace and prosperity. Yes, there will be war and economic instability in the next 10 years. The question is the scale. It will be less than last time, I predict. 4Ts are more severe at times of civilizational breaks than at other times.


Quote:I know of this 500 year cycle and do not argue against it, empires follow the long cycle pretty nicely. But an empire or a modern society is just a big tribe, a social construction, but the 80-year cycle is still there, it requires no constructions besides different generations at hand. And what is more important is that empires of past didn't have weapons of mass destruction. The world has changed, economies and humans can be erased in a few hours. The dynamics have changed, the speed of evolution has increased dramatically. This is what Hitler tried to do. Think of what would have happened if in 1930's USA, Britain, Germany, Japan, Italy and USSR had had nukes. Maybe there wouldn't had been a world war. But if there was, what would had it looked like?

Think about it and then tell me everything is going to be better this time around. Would we have avoided WW2 and missed the "civilizational break" you talk about? I'm not so sure. Maybe Hitler wouldn't have used his nukes in fear of retaliation. Maybe. To say that there are 400 years left for another civilizational break is truly beyond my understanding. The WW2 wasn't a break, it was a wake up call. It was a wake up call to the 80-year cycle. We cannot escape our own nature until we understand it.

Good that you see the larger cycle. I define empires as just the latest conquest; they had no tribal coherence at all. Tribes are an earlier form. The smaller 84 to 100 year cycle was less powerful in the past; again, because most people didn't change from generation to generation. The saeculum was restricted to the elites, and shorter lifespans within a longer cycle made it different in the pre-modern age. Much weaker.

Hitler's place in history is the last gasp of the old ways of both nationalism and empire-building, and his effect was to discredit everything he stood and fought for. The important aspect of Hitler is that he was defeated. He was a horrible regression. The other historical result of Hitler was nukes, because they were developed in the arms race between him and the USA. There would be no nukes today without Hitler. He took us to the brink of total death, and we looked over the cliff, and stopped our journey to the edge. What nukes mean is that major wars between great powers is obsolete, because the result is the destruction of both sides and everyone else. That created a civilizational break from the past; the direct result of the arms race and imperialism that preceded the world wars and powered them. WW2 was a realization that we entered a new world that will last for another 400 years from now.

Ours is the first age in which we can understand our history, because we didn't have access to it before. "We cannot escape our own nature until we understand it." Yes, and that is a long quest we are on. That of course means understanding a lot more about ourselves than our cycles, although it is a breakthrough to understand our cycles.


Quote:Yes, and once that complacency and comfort goes away, the hangover will be even more severe than last time in the 1930's.

I don't think it will go away; the last 1T was too powerful; we have too much to lose to throw away on foolish wars.

Quote:If unity (=efficiency) isn't reached, there will be civil war. This is evolution, this is one of the reasons why Homo sapiens has conquered the world.

No, nationalism isn't going away. The direction might seem to change at times in politics, as it is in constant motion, but the underlying tide of the fourth turning isn't going anywhere for almost 10 years. There will always be new scapegoat-reasons for it to rise, it doesn't have to be refugees or Jews.

10 years is virtually nothing anymore. It's a 4T thing now, and since it arose from this 4T's own problems, I don't see it lasting. It can come back periodically again, perhaps in the next 4T 80 years from now, but it's going away in the long run. Evolution is toward globalism and peace. War will not be the means of evolution anymore. It won't be needed.

Quote:
(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You admit that "I do not even know for sure" what control of our own destiny means. But I do, and there are those of us who do. It's wise to be open to the wisdom that the awakening brought and made available to each of us. Our life and destiny is not too much in our genes....

It is in the combination of our gene pool and our environment which we interact with. I'm not totally deterministic at all, but saying that "wisdom" can stop a fourth turning...no way in these primitive times. One day, but that day is far in the future, if we get there intact. If we don't today even have the wisdom how to eradicate racism, nepotism, totalitarianism, ultra-nationalism, what wisdom do we truly hold? Several countries in EU are going the wrong way: In Poland the nationalists have fired judges from the supreme court, on purely political reasons, and the president has power over this, it is something out of a dictatorship. In Hungary the state media is taking over and other media is being suppressed. This is not wisdom, this is nationalism, nationalists can be wise too and have different ideas of the path towards the future.
I didn't say wisdom can stop the 4th turning; I am just pointing out that it exists, even though you admit you don't know yet. Yes, I know very well that some countries are going the wrong way. It's a 4T. I foresee a good outcome to it, but if my prophecy is wrong, that's how the cookie crumbles.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#51
(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Ours is the first age in which we can understand our history, because we didn't have access to it before.

We know little parts of our history, we don't understand our history.


(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's a 4T thing now, and since it arose from this 4T's own problems, I don't see it lasting.

So why did nationalism rise in Australia in your opinion? Virtually no immigration problems there, economy is doing great.


(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I didn't say wisdom can stop the 4th turning; I am just pointing out that it exists, even though you admit you don't know yet.

I'm actually not saying I don't know if it exists or not, I'm saying I'm not 100% convinced of its nature, since the true roots haven't been uncovered yet. And I am a very puzzled if others on this forum aren't looking at the biological and evolutionary past of Homo sapiens and our cousins, the chimps, since they act in a much similar manner than humans do in the 4th turning.

Looking only at history is much like looking at a computer screen. You see what happens but don't understand why, since you don't know what produces all the information from below. History is hugely important, but it is the symptom, not the cause. Homo sapiens is the cause. This is why making assumption based only on history is very dangerous in my mind. There has to be a better framework to work with, a construction of our past and present evolution. The cycle brings our emotions to the surface, not understanding the roots makes predicting the future almost impossible.
Reply
#52
(10-02-2018, 05:26 AM)Theojm Wrote:
(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's a 4T thing now, and since it arose from this 4T's own problems, I don't see it lasting.

So why did nationalism rise in Australia in your opinion? Virtually no immigration problems there, economy is doing great.
I don't know enough about Australia to say. I think there may be some immigration, in fact. It's happening in New Zealand, so maybe in Australia too.

Quote:
(10-01-2018, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I didn't say wisdom can stop the 4th turning; I am just pointing out that it exists, even though you admit you don't know yet.

I'm actually not saying I don't know if it exists or not, I'm saying I'm not 100% convinced of its nature, since the true roots haven't been uncovered yet. And I am a very puzzled if others on this forum aren't looking at the biological and evolutionary past of Homo sapiens and our cousins, the chimps, since they act in a much similar manner than humans do in the 4th turning.

Looking only at history is much like looking at a computer screen. You see what happens but don't understand why, since you don't know what produces all the information from below. History is hugely important, but it is the symptom, not the cause. Homo sapiens is the cause. This is why making assumption based only on history is very dangerous in my mind. There has to be a better framework to work with, a construction of our past and present evolution. The cycle brings our emotions to the surface, not understanding the roots makes predicting the future almost impossible.

What you said that I responded to is "There is no true understanding of human nature, no comprehensive model of our behavior and inner workings. We don't know what life is, we don't understand what drives it." I say that there IS that true understanding, there ARE such comprehensive models, and we DO know what life is and what drives it.

So why the need to look for our roots in the naked ape? We do know a lot about our evolution too, but as far as I can tell so far, we are pretty much dependent on what science can tell us, which is very spotty in places. I am interested and follow what I can. But unless you are an expert, you probably can't really say what our roots in our animal past can tell us about our lives today, beyond reading about or watching documentaries about what they say. What else can you do?

You assume that the main reason why we do things is found in our animal and early-human past, and that what is deepest in us is our biological heritage. I see no reason for assuming that. The deepest part of ourselves is our participation in God, and we come from the spirit world. Much more is gained by looking to the above than to the below. In particular, looking to a cycle that is clearly based only on modern life, as a cause deeply rooted in our animal past, is on the wrong track as far as I can tell. If there is anything our animal evolution can tell us, it will be at a much deeper and general level than a particular cycle of history. We certainly know a lot about the animal brain within us, and hormones, and so on.

But, looking deeply into anything can reveal much. I don't dissuade you from seeking in that direction, and I am open to whatever you find, but I wouldn't expect me or others to look in all the same places that you do.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#53
(10-02-2018, 08:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: So why the need to look for our roots in the naked ape? We do know a lot about our evolution too, but as far as I can tell so far, we are pretty much dependent on what science can tell us, which is very spotty in places. I am interested and follow what I can. But unless you are an expert, you probably can't really say what our roots in our animal past can tell us about our lives today, beyond reading about or watching documentaries about what they say. What else can you do?

Science provides theory and results, I'm trying to combine these theories and results with the 80-year cycle theory to see how it possibly began (or at least when and why it firs manifested) and why. I'm actually pretty sure the answer to 'why' is efficiency of evolution. This hypothesis might change along the way, but anyways, at the moment I'm concentrating on the 'how' part.

I read a lot of scientific articles and combine the results the best I can. One has to look things at a time scale of 4,2 billion years to today. Especially the great leap about 50,000 BC is interesting. My theory that Homo sapiens assimilated Neanderthals and Denisovans is gaining strength every week, I'm finding more evidence for that. Especially the fact that our emotions got stronger with/because of advanced communication, the aspects of racism and war made that assimilation a reality. Neanderthals and especially Denisovans were much more peaceful, they never stood a chance against Homo sapiens (in many respects, not just war). And there is now archeological evidence of mixing, so I'm ever more confident that is what happened.

Here are a just few links to articles that are more or less linked to our genes and our behavior, which give us clues to the past:

http://reset.me/story/science-proving-me...ancestors/
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news...y-science/
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/41/16384.full
https://www.britannica.com/science/human-evolution
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/obs...zees-kill/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/217...n-species/

I've gone through about 500-800 scientific studies, articles, videos and news stories on these subjects (history, evolution/biology, physics) so far during the last 1½ years. Going forward I'm constantly keeping history & evolution together as a team, as they are inseparable from each other. Science isn't going to read these texts for me and combine them with the 80-year cycle theory, that is what I must do myself. And seeing that there are enthusiastic people on this forum, it would be nice to know I'm not the only one doing this research.


(10-02-2018, 08:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You assume that the main reason why we do things is found in our animal and early-human past, and that what is deepest in us is our biological heritage. I see no reason for assuming that.

Like I said previously, our consciousness knows about our decisions 0,2 seconds after we've done the decision. And since the brain is one huge computer, constantly analyzing information, our decisions are rooted in our animal past and then combined with the current situation, which is a civilized society today. In the past it was something different, but the brain had the exact job back then. But what is different now is that we're more efficient, we have amazing communication skills through advanced languages, facial expressions, music and other arts.


(10-02-2018, 08:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If there is anything our animal evolution can tell us, it will be at a much deeper and general level than a particular cycle of history. We certainly know a lot about the animal brain within us, and hormones, and so on.

We actually don't. We're only starting to map the brain. We're in the same situation of understanding the brain as Columbus was when he was sailing the world. We have ideas and maps, but we have only scratched the surface so far. In the next 10-20 years there will be huge leaps forward, but there is already ample evidence to start combining information, putting the pieces together in light of historical information about evolution, and not just of our own species. Were just a tiny sample of what life is and what is has been on earth. There have been millions of different species, we're just one, although the most advanced one today. It is very humbling.


(10-02-2018, 08:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: But, looking deeply into anything can reveal much. I don't dissuade you from seeking in that direction, and I am open to whatever you find, but I wouldn't expect me or others to look in all the same places that you do.

If you look at only about 2-5% (since 4000 BC) of the history and evolution of Homo sapiens, or at 0,001% of all evolution, it's like looking only the ending or credits of a movie. You can't understand the movie at all, even though you think you now know what happened. But then again, you will not understand the true how and the why, the thing I was talking in the beginning of this post.
Reply
#54
The answer to "why" cannot be "efficiency." Efficiency" is HOW. The why can only be found in the future, in the aspiration created by the end, not the beginning which only responded to the end. And the brain is not who we are. And studying mice is not a study of humans. Physicalism is the wrong track.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#55
(10-03-2018, 01:52 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The answer to "why" cannot be "efficiency." Efficiency" is HOW. The why can only be found in the future, in the aspiration created by the end, not the beginning which only responded to the end. And the brain is not who we are. And studying mice is not a study of humans. Physicalism is the wrong track.

Why can't the answer be efficiency (of evolution)? All shapes and forms are made in the name of efficiency, only the most efficient lifeforms survive evolution. From bacteria to mammals, only the most efficient in survival and adaptation survive. The universe shows us the most efficient ways through geometry & math, and nature takes full advantage of that, it uses sequences like the Fibonacchi numbers. Think of a simple soap bubble, it is the most efficient form for that material to exist in. It's optimization on a micro & macro level = efficiency.

The answer to 'how' is a bit more complicated. How did the 80-year cycle start, is it only in humans, is advanced communication needed or does it just make the cycle more apparent and powerful (vs. chimps for example, if they have traces of the cycle too in their genes). We're only starting to unravel the mysteries of our past, and it is so much more complicated than what was known just 10-20 years ago.

The point I'm making is that even if the cycle needs generations and societies today, there have been millions of species with generations and societies well before humans. If you want to argue against that the cycle couldn't possibly have appeared anywhere else during hundreds of millions of years, I would like to see evidence other than that of Homo sapiens. Otherwise it's only setting Homo sapiens on a podium and saying "this is the one and only, the best". That is only setting us above all other species, not very helpful, that was what the catholic church and many others once did and many still do.

If we think we're truly unique, we close our eyes from many possibilities.
Reply
#56
(10-03-2018, 03:02 AM)Theojm Wrote:
(10-03-2018, 01:52 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The answer to "why" cannot be "efficiency." Efficiency" is HOW. The why can only be found in the future, in the aspiration created by the end, not the beginning which only responded to the end. And the brain is not who we are. And studying mice is not a study of humans. Physicalism is the wrong track.

Why can't the answer be efficiency (of evolution)? All shapes and forms are made in the name of efficiency, only the most efficient lifeforms survive evolution. From bacteria to mammals, only the most efficient in survival and adaptation survive. The universe shows us the most efficient ways through geometry & math, and nature takes full advantage of that, it uses sequences like the Fibonacchi numbers. Think of a simple soap bubble, it is the most efficient form for that material to exist in. It's optimization on a micro & macro level = efficiency.
Because efficiency means the means to an end, not the end. If that's your answer, then you still don't know the why.

Quote:The answer to 'how' is a bit more complicated. How did the 80-year cycle start, is it only in humans, is advanced communication needed or does it just make the cycle more apparent and powerful (vs. chimps for example, if they have traces of the cycle too in their genes). We're only starting to unravel the mysteries of our past, and it is so much more complicated than what was known just 10-20 years ago.

Traces of the 84-year cycle in our genes? Good luck with that one.

Quote:The point I'm making is that even if the cycle needs generations and societies today, there have been millions of species with generations and societies well before humans. If you want to argue against that the cycle couldn't possibly have appeared anywhere else during hundreds of millions of years, I would like to see evidence other than that of Homo sapiens. Otherwise it's only setting Homo sapiens on a podium and saying "this is the one and only, the best". That is only setting us above all other species, not very helpful, that was what the catholic church and many others once did and many still do.

If we think we're truly unique, we close our eyes from many possibilities.

Yeah, I think we are fundamentally different from animals, as Teilhard de Chardin says.

Other species have "generations?" Again, not even human generations changed at all before early modern times. They didn't exist. People stayed the same. Chimps have stayed the same for millions of years. No "generations." Cycles? Maybe. Cycles are built into the cosmos, and life follows its rhythms.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#57
(10-03-2018, 01:52 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The answer to "why" cannot be "efficiency." Efficiency" is HOW. The why can only be found in the future, in the aspiration created by the end, not the beginning which only responded to the end. And the brain is not who we are. And studying mice is not a study of humans. Physicalism is the wrong track.

So why are the universe AND evolution highly efficient? Because it works, it's the best solution. That's 'why'. If you think that the universe and evolution don't correlate with human genes and behavior, then I don't know what does.  Big Grin


(10-03-2018, 01:52 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Because efficiency means the means to an end, not the end. If that's your answer, then you still don't know the why.

We're efficient because that's the path that led us to this day. Homo sapiens is not the end, and we probably agree on that. Efficiency is not means to the end, efficiency is a constant in the universe and evolution. It just is, it is how we and everything else is built. And that is also what Homo sapiens thrives towards every day. But efficiency is not just the means, it's also why we're here, now.

(Currently I'm not interested here in the philosophical question of why life exist, that is a topic for a completely other thread. Some say it's because the universe wants to study itself, others have other ideas, some spiritual, others physical. But like I said, not a topic for this thread...)


(10-03-2018, 01:52 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Traces of the 84-year cycle in our genes? Good luck with that one.

Absolutely. Gene-rational theory. Ok, that was a joke, but actually it kinda isn't. Tongue

We are the manifestation of our genes, adapting to our surroundings and to each other. If you bring spirituality into the mix, go ahead, but please tell me how spirituality suddenly appeared out of nowhere approx. 5000 years ago and created the cycle. How didn't a tribe have spirituality and cycles in 20,000BC? And check the links I provided, our memories are passed on from generation to generation, slowly changing our DNA. I'm not saying the cycle has always been as apparent as it is today in the modern world, but saying it suddenly appeared, altering our individual, group, societal and global behavior.... It does seem a bit like putting Homo sapiens on a podium and declaring were unique, higher beings.

Like Howe & Strauss said, the cycles roots are beyond tens of thousands of years. It is in the archetypes. And the archetypes are in our genes. The genes allow the cycle to happen, but is it really unique to humans? Don't other animals have archetypes? These are the kind of questions I'm going after. Finding archetypes in animals sounds difficult, but then again, it took a while for us to find them inside Homo sapiens too. And this time we have the advantage to now what to search, now that we found the basis forthe generational cycle inside ourselves.


Quote:The point I'm making is that even if the cycle needs generations and societies today, there have been millions of species with generations and societies well before humans. If you want to argue against that the cycle couldn't possibly have appeared anywhere else during hundreds of millions of years, I would like to see evidence other than that of Homo sapiens. Otherwise it's only setting Homo sapiens on a podium and saying "this is the one and only, the best". That is only setting us above all other species, not very helpful, that was what the catholic church and many others once did and many still do.

If we think we're truly unique, we close our eyes from many possibilities.

(10-03-2018, 01:52 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yeah, I think we are fundamentally different from animals, as Teilhard de Chardin says.

Well, tell me 2-4 things that differentiate us from animals, fundamentally, and I will prove why you're wrong. A little friendly competition!  Wink


(10-03-2018, 01:52 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Other species have "generations?" Again, not even human generations changed at all before early modern times. They didn't exist. People stayed the same. Chimps have stayed the same for millions of years. No "generations."

How do you know chimps don't have generations? Or wouldn't have if they gained advanced communications skills?
How do you know human generations didn't change in 10,000 BC?
Reply
#58
(10-03-2018, 05:46 AM)Theojm Wrote:
(10-03-2018, 01:52 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The answer to "why" cannot be "efficiency." Efficiency" is HOW. The why can only be found in the future, in the aspiration created by the end, not the beginning which only responded to the end. And the brain is not who we are. And studying mice is not a study of humans. Physicalism is the wrong track.

So why are the universe AND evolution highly efficient? Because it works, it's the best solution. That's 'why'. If you think that the universe and evolution don't correlate with human genes and behavior, then I don't know what does.  Big Grin

There's just more going on than physics can describe.

Quote:We're efficient because that's the path that led us to this day. Homo sapiens is not the end, and we probably agree on that. Efficiency is not means to the end, efficiency is a constant in the universe and evolution. It just is, it is how we and everything else is built. And that is also what Homo sapiens thrives towards every day. But efficiency is not just the means, it's also why we're here, now.

(Currently I'm not interested here in the philosophical question of why life exist, that is a topic for a completely other thread. Some say it's because the universe wants to study itself, others have other ideas, some spiritual, others physical. But like I said, not a topic for this thread...)
Fine, but you brought it up with your remark. That is the only meaning of "why."

Quote:We are the manifestation of our genes, adapting to our surroundings and to each other. If you bring spirituality into the mix, go ahead, but please tell me how spirituality suddenly appeared out of nowhere approx. 5000 years ago and created the cycle. How didn't a tribe have spirituality and cycles in 20,000BC? And check the links I provided, our memories are passed on from generation to generation, slowly changing our DNA. I'm not saying the cycle has always been as apparent as it is today in the modern world, but saying it suddenly appeared, altering our individual, group, societal and global behavior.... It does seem a bit like putting Homo sapiens on a podium and declaring were unique, higher beings.

Like Howe & Strauss said, the cycles roots are beyond tens of thousands of years. It is in the archetypes. And the archetypes are in our genes. The genes allow the cycle to happen, but is it really unique to humans? Don't other animals have archetypes? These are the kind of questions I'm going after. Finding archetypes in animals sounds difficult, but then again, it took a while for us to find them inside Homo sapiens too. And this time we have the advantage to now what to search, now that we found the basis for the generational cycle inside ourselves.
Spirit didn't come out of nowhere; it is always here and everywhere, always. Since we became human, and even long before, genes are not a sufficient explanation for what we are a manifestation of. The first link you supplied was about mice, so I didn't look further; but I would not doubt that memories are passed on; that adds to the influence of genes. Epigenetics means that Lamarck was right; we pass on acquired characteristics.

Seeing humans as higher beings does not disprove the claim that the 84-year cycle is a modern one. It just means it seems to go against your particular view about how humans relate to animals.

Strauss and Howe did not say that genes allow the cycle to happen. That is your assumption, which I don't agree with. Do animals manifest the archetypes? That's an interesting idea; maybe in a primitive way, insofar as some members of an animal group are more aggressive than others; maybe they are the prophets and civics. But I see no basis for generations existing even in early human civilizations, let alone in tribal human societies, let alone in animal ones. Generations are the foundation for the Strauss and Howe theory.


Quote:The point I'm making is that even if the cycle needs generations and societies today, there have been millions of species with generations and societies well before humans. If you want to argue against that the cycle couldn't possibly have appeared anywhere else during hundreds of millions of years, I would like to see evidence other than that of Homo sapiens. Otherwise it's only setting Homo sapiens on a podium and saying "this is the one and only, the best". That is only setting us above all other species, not very helpful, that was what the catholic church and many others once did and many still do.

If we think we're truly unique, we close our eyes from many possibilities.

Again, your preference for an idea is not a scientific proof.

Quote:Well, tell me 2-4 things that differentiate us from animals, fundamentally, and I will prove why you're wrong. A little friendly competition!  Wink

We can look at ourselves and know that we exist as individuals. Awareness of awareness. Apes and other high mammals may have the beginnings of this ability, but most other species do not have this.

Other animals use tools, and use primitive forms of language. But humans build civilizations, and create art and religion. Humans make scientific theories and take measurements; I don't think any other animals do those things. Humans are the rational animals. Some animals make music; I like what mockingbirds do. Dogs imitate our music. But they don't make orchestras or write compositions. Our brains and hands give us unique abilities. Humans have ethics and morals to curb evil behavior. Evil exists among animals too, and nurturing and other generous behavior too, so I don't think that is a distinction; just a difference in degree I think, and in the level of intentionality. Some say love as we know it is particularly human; I'm not so sure about that. Animals can care about each other, and our pets have adapted to our ways. Animals have been trained to follow our wishes and rules and perform tasks, even some that we can't do. But do animals have romances when they mate, and take vows?

Animals are often underestimated, but that doesn't mean we can understand humans by studying animals. At the very least, all species are different and unique, and I disagree that we can study one to understand another one. Each species is a different branch on the tree of life, and are not our roots. Each one evolved in its own direction and has its own unique abilities. Our roots have disappeared; only a spotty fossil record remains.


Quote:How do you know chimps don't have generations? Or wouldn't have if they gained advanced communications skills?
How do you know human generations didn't change in 10,000 BC?

Just what I said before; it is historically correct that people did what their fathers did in ancient times and even in medieval ones for the most part. In pre-modern classical civilizations, a saeculum existed for the elites only, but it was a longer cycle than 84 years; a tropical storm rather than a hurricane with a developed eye. A saeculum only exists when change is much faster. The 500-year cycle existed earlier, but not the faster 80 or 84-year one. Before civilization existed, the 500-year cycle didn't exist either. Change was too slow; there's no way to say that people changed their behavior and occupations in 20-year periods back then. They did what their parents did.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#59
Give chimpanzees advanced language skills and the will become much like humans in time. I don't see it any other way, there is just so much evidence. Homo sapiens is just an evolved animal, nothing more. To say we're something special is correct, but we're just lucky. If chimps had generated advanced communication 5 million years ago, Homo sapiens would be extinct or in zoos run by chimps, unable to achieve our destiny. Passing on information on a genetic level is slow, as genes slowly change to represent our instincts, aural communication makes passing on information much, much more efficient:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/...ation.html



But if we stay away from other animals fro a while, I find this very interesting:

https://www.livescience.com/62754-warrin...eneck.html

This happened right before the first larger civilizations emerged. I'm not sure if the cause is important. It might be, but even more important is what happened since. If only the strongest or most violent men survived, that would make sense of our strong warlike behavior. Many on this forum seem to think that the cycle may have manifested during these times (about 4000-5000 BC), so finding the reason could prove out to be important.

What happened, what could it be than a disease to wipe out most men? Alcohol was invented and it made men more aggressive, jealous, violent? A sexually transmitted virus? The first worldwide "purification", like witch hunts)? It happened worldwide, this is very strange. (Or maybe it has nothing to do with the 80-year cycle.)

Could it be that cannabis enabled advanced communication and alcohol enhanced this movement, societies started to form? People have more sex when drinking or smoking cannabis. When animals get alcohol, they crave for more. And what do humans crave? Substances like alcohol and cannabis, sex and good food. Small villages provide all of these, so forming bigger societies wasn't "necessary". Safety is one thing bigger cities provide, but was that the need for safety really that big that it was the driving force? Maybe, and maybe aggressive behavior by men was the thing creating the need for safety.
Reply
#60
(10-03-2018, 05:46 AM)Theojm Wrote:
(10-03-2018, 01:52 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The answer to "why" cannot be "efficiency." Efficiency" is HOW. The why can only be found in the future, in the aspiration created by the end, not the beginning which only responded to the end. And the brain is not who we are. And studying mice is not a study of humans. Physicalism is the wrong track.

So why are the universe AND evolution highly efficient? Because it works, it's the best solution. That's 'why'. If you think that the universe and evolution don't correlate with human genes and behavior, then I don't know what does.  Big Grin

No, the remarkable thing is that the realities of the Universe cause a universe similar to ours to exist, with one remarkable place allowing life to form and develop the ability and proclivity to contemplate how that universe could allow him to exist.

That reality took 13 billion or so years since the Big Bang; although such intelligence as that of some mollusks (squid and octopuses) to come into existence on a planet that came into existence nine billion years after the Big Bang, it would take all but the last three millennia for a species to have the technology and philosophical maturity to even start asking those questions.

Are we that special? A hungry crocodile does not think so. To it a human stupid or unwary enough to wander into its river is simply meat, just like an antelope, wildebeest, or zebra.

Quote:
(10-03-2018, 01:52 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Because efficiency means the means to an end, not the end. If that's your answer, then you still don't know the why.

We're efficient because that's the path that led us to this day. Homo sapiens is not the end, and we probably agree on that. Efficiency is not means to the end, efficiency is a constant in the universe and evolution. It just is, it is how we and everything else is built. And that is also what Homo sapiens thrives towards every day. But efficiency is not just the means, it's also why we're here, now.

(Currently I'm not interested here in the philosophical question of why life exist, that is a topic for a completely other thread. Some say it's because the universe wants to study itself, others have other ideas, some spiritual, others physical. But like I said, not a topic for this thread...)

Our time on this planet is limited. The eruption of the Toba supervolcano was almost enough to exterminate Early Man about 70 million years ago. Another Ice Age would leave too little food for the world's population of dogs, let alone us. A collision with the Earth by a rock that struck 65 million years ago killed all land animals larger than a house cat, so the biggest and deadliest predators remaining on the Earth's land surfaces might have to evolve from such little monsters as cats and terrier dogs.

Quote:
(10-03-2018, 01:52 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Traces of the 84-year cycle in our genes? Good luck with that one.

Absolutely. Gene-rational theory. Ok, that was a joke, but actually it kinda isn't. Tongue

We are the manifestation of our genes, adapting to our surroundings and to each other. If you bring spirituality into the mix, go ahead, but please tell me how spirituality suddenly appeared out of nowhere approx. 5000 years ago and created the cycle. How didn't a tribe have spirituality and cycles in 20,000BC? And check the links I provided, our memories are passed on from generation to generation, slowly changing our DNA. I'm not saying the cycle has always been as apparent as it is today in the modern world, but saying it suddenly appeared, altering our individual, group, societal and global behavior.... It does seem a bit like putting Homo sapiens on a podium and declaring were unique, higher beings.

Like Howe & Strauss said, the cycles roots are beyond tens of thousands of years. It is in the archetypes. And the archetypes are in our genes. The genes allow the cycle to happen, but is it really unique to humans? Don't other animals have archetypes? These are the kind of questions I'm going after. Finding archetypes in animals sounds difficult, but then again, it took a while for us to find them inside Homo sapiens too. And this time we have the advantage to now what to search, now that we found the basis for the generational cycle inside ourselves.


OK, so our genes practically determine that our maximum lifespan is just over 120 years under the most unlikely circumstances (Jeanne Calment, 21 February 1875 – 4 August 1997), about 100 if we are simply lucky (George Burns, Bob Hope), and into our eighties if we are average and do some things right. That means staying fit and active, avoiding pointless risks, not smoking, drinking moderately if at all, and not working in an occupation that brings about an environmental disease such as black lung or silicosis).

Humans evolved with menopause in women, which means that we have grandparents who get to participate in the raising of children long after they can no longer give birth to them. 


Quote:The point I'm making is that even if the cycle needs generations and societies today, there have been millions of species with generations and societies well before humans. If you want to argue against that the cycle couldn't possibly have appeared anywhere else during hundreds of millions of years, I would like to see evidence other than that of Homo sapiens. Otherwise it's only setting Homo sapiens on a podium and saying "this is the one and only, the best". That is only setting us above all other species, not very helpful, that was what the catholic church and many others once did and many still do.

If we think we're truly unique, we close our eyes from many possibilities.

There are other intelligent creatures. (I once shocked someone for saying that there is intelligent life even smarter than us in the Universe. What? Space aliens?

No. Elephants. (Rather ironic that the elephant is the symbol of the Party that most heavily depends upon low-information voters).

Quote:
(10-03-2018, 01:52 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yeah, I think we are fundamentally different from animals, as Teilhard de Chardin says.

Well, tell me 2-4 things that differentiate us from animals, fundamentally, and I will prove why you're wrong. A little friendly competition!  Wink

As I say, we are not even the smartest creatures 'in the room'. In view of the role of pigs in Orwell's cautionary fable
Animal Farm, it is not surprising that we attribute many of our worst features to them. They are similar in size, quite smart, difficult prey, and similarly predatory if they get the chance. Were it not for their cloven feet, pigs would be good candidates for establishing dominion in the form of a technological civilization after Man goes extinct. Wolves have an almost-identical social structure in the pack to our human family, which may explain the legend of Romulus and Remus and the possibility of Kipling's Jungle Book in which the main character is a little boy adopted by a wolf pack (inverting the role of the dog, which is genetically a wolf). Equals with humans in the food chain, difficult prey, and similar in social structure, dogs will fall short of establishing a technical civilization because they cannot have the complexity of language that humans have even if they can understand human language fairly well; their teeth are made for killing more than for communicating, and their paws are unsuited for tool-making, as they are made for killing. A dog scratch once sent me to the hospital. Bears? Impressive for more than their size, they are not social as dogs and wolves are -- and their mouths and paws are made for killing and not for fashioning tools. Elephants? They are too environmentally-destructive to do any building even if they are as smart as we are. Octopuses are about as smart as dogs, and they are known to make tools. The mop pail that blew off or washed off a ship could be a haven for an octopus. This said, no sea creature is ever going to discover fire necessary for smelting iron no matter how smart.  Thus not sea otters, dolphins, whales, squid, or octopuses. Crustaceans don't impress me, either. Now maybe if some octopuses evolved to live on land, they would have a chance to go tech. Until then they are disqualified.

(10-03-2018, 01:52 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Other species have "generations?" Again, not even human generations changed at all before early modern times. They didn't exist. People stayed the same. Chimps have stayed the same for millions of years. No "generations."

How do you know chimps don't have generations? Or wouldn't have if they gained advanced communications skills?
How do you know human generations didn't change in 10,000 BC?[/quote]


Chimps may have generations, but they do not have technology beyond tool use. They might be able to exploit a man-made environment, perhaps figuring out what a chicken coop is good for. Hens that lay tasty eggs?
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Possible true reason for the 4 turnings! 80-year cycle explained, from epigenetics! Theojm 6 679 03-23-2019, 08:50 PM
Last Post: Hintergrund
  Collective Unconscious Map - Cycle in Art Movements (with Rorschach variables) Mark40 10 391 02-11-2019, 02:30 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  Thermodynamics - Carnot Cycle - Anacyclosis (256 Years) - E8 Group Theory Mark40 3 298 02-06-2019, 11:30 AM
Last Post: Hintergrund
Photo Anacyclosis (256 years cycle / 12 Generation / 3 Saeculum) Mark40 7 1,572 02-15-2018, 01:17 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Generational cycle research Mikebert 19 6,031 02-08-2018, 10:06 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Generation Theory Thread Mikebert 39 11,617 05-20-2017, 07:46 PM
Last Post: Galen
  The astro-kondratiev cycle Eric the Green 4 2,542 11-16-2016, 04:03 PM
Last Post: Mikebert
  Political Cycle Model for Saeculum Mikebert 22 7,186 10-08-2016, 08:35 AM
Last Post: Mikebert

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)