Wheels within wheels.

[Kinser79]

Or how the mega-saeculum is subdivided.

Those of you who've been on this board and the old one know that I subscribe to a mega-saeculum theory.  This theory is similar to but unique from other such theories.  Firstly I not only have a mega-saeculum and the recognized saeculum, but also micro-turnings within each turning of the saeculum.

I've tried to explain this at various times in the past, not always with success.  I also fully believe that there will be some degree of historical push back on my views (particularly those with clear ideological and cultural bias against my theory in particular).  First we should examine each component part of the Mega-Saeculum, Saeculum and the micro-turnings.  Next we will examine the two themes of sacula within a mega-saeculum.  Some have likened the regular swing of these two themes as a driver of the mega-saeculum but rather I think they are counter-weights to keep things intact.  Finally it should be firmly realized that while the symbology of a circle may in fact be used, the reality of history is that it more like a series of spirals.  The old saying "you can't step into the same river twice" rings true.

THE MEGA-SAECULUM

Generally speaking a mega-saeculum is the expansion of the recognized saeculum system over the course of many saecula.  This pattern in so far as we can tell always manifests itself in a series of four saecula, which in turn are composed of four turnings themselves composed of four micro-turnings.

Given there is some debate as to the length of a saeculum history seems to indicate that there are two recognized saeculum lengths.  Approximately 100-120 years for a pre-industiralized society and around 80 years for an industrialized society.  It remains to be seen if a post-industrial society can ever be formed as anything more than the smoking crater of where an industrialized society used to be.

As I won't discuss in detail the length of saecula here suffice it to say that this issue has been studied in depth by others and that I would agree that there is in fact a Saeculum A for pre-industiral societies and a Saeculum B for industrial societies.  The times for both are approximate and a variation of less than a full generation (approximately 20 years based on human biology) is not considered substantial enough evidence to promote the idea that there may be a Saeculum C.

As such Mega-Saecula wherein all or most of the saecula contained within it are Saeculum A's such a mega-saeculum would be between 400 and 480 years in duration.  Historians who proposed cyclical historical models prior to S&H seem to settle in the 500 years range.

As such one can propose a late middle ages mega-saeculum lasting from about 900 C.E. to approximately 1400 C.E.  I would argue that the Late Middle ages really ended some time shortly after the Black Death years of the 1350s, in a Mega-Crisis that lasted until around 1400 C.E. with the break down of the feudal system in Western Europe.  Since I wish to focus primarily on modern times we will not concern ourselves with saecula prior to 1400 C.E.  Also almost two full mega-saecula on from that turning point the Late Medieval Mega-Saeculum is not terribly important for our work here.

A Mega-Saecula wherein  all or most of the saecula contained within it are Saeculum B's would be between 280 and 320 years in duration.

Each Mega-Saeculum is composed of four distinct parts.  These parts are of course saecula and they follow a distinct pattern.

A Mega-Resolution/Exposition (or a first turning--commonly called a High amongst students of S&H) [It closes out the previous Mega-Saeculum and sets up the following Mega-Saeculum]

A Mega-Awakening (or a second turning)  [in a traditional plot timeline as you'd learn about in school this can be likened to rising action or rather the start of the rising action--the ideas of the mega-saeculum are usually birthed in this part]

A Mega-Unraveling (or third turning)  [A stasis point among two or more main ideas that are relevant to the mega-saeculum for example parliamentarian-ism verses divine right of kings]

A Mega-Crisis (or fourth turning) [a period of rapidly rising action until a climax point is hit and then rapidly falling action to the next Mega-Resolution/Exposition]

The Mega-Saeculum constitutes the first wheel.

THE SAECULUM

By and large my theories about the saeculum itself are contained in the works of S&H except for two main points.

First that the first turning is not necessarily a "High".  First turnings need not be triumphant, or even victorious.  Some are, some are not.  This is why I tend to use the terms Resolution-Exposition (R/E) or simply first turning, or even more simply 1T.

Second, is their apparent absence of a Civic Generation within the Civil War Saeculum.  While it appears that they did not detect it, I would argue that there is one, however, it mostly died out on the fields in such places as Gettysburg, Chickamauga and Chancellorsville.  It was noted in the Great Power Saeculum which followed it by many that some would use "the bloody shirt" so as to obtain power.  That is to say that by virtue of being a veteran of the Civil War they expected deference.  A clear civic trait in the following saeculum. 

Just to reiterate the works each saeculum is composed of four turnings.

A Resolution-Exposition turning.  Serves the same purpose as the pattern in the Mega-Saeculum.
An Awakening turning.  Serves the same purpose as the pattern in the Mega-Saeculum
An Unraveling turning.  Serves the same purpose as the pattern in the Mega-Saeculum
A Crisis Turning.  Serves the same purpose as the pattern in the Mega-Saeculum.

The Saeculum composes the second wheel.

THE TWO-STROKE REGULATOR

Over the years much has been written about a pattern that appears within Mega-Saecula.  It is assumed by some to be a driving force within the mega-saeculum.  While that is possible, I do not think it to be probable.  Rather I would take it to be a regulator so as to maintain equiliberium within the mega-saeculum.

Some use the terms Apollonian and Dionysian to describe the two strokes of the regulator.  I prefer the terms Advancement (as it deals primarily with material advances) and Atonement (as it often deals with cultural including religious issues and movements).

Advancement Saeculum

Adaptive: Comes of age in an emerging cultural consensus, feels free to start questioning society's dominant ideologies.
Idealist: Rebels against the dominant ideological consensus of society laid down in the previous Advancement 4T.
Nomad: Is annoyed by the Prophets' ideological debates and focuses on culture.
Civic: Establishes a new ideological consensus.

Atonement Saeculum

Adaptive: Comes of age in an emerging ideological consensus, feels free to start questioning social norms and accepted spiritual truths.
Idealist: Rebels against the dominant cultural consensus of society laid down in the previous Atonement 4T.
Nomad: Is annoyed by the Prophets' cultural debates and focuses on ideological issues.
Civic: Establishes a new cultural consensus.


It should be noted that the regulator does not fit into the saeculums securely as it starts with Adaptive Generations rather than Idealist Generations.  That is to say it is an adaption to the change of the Saeculum.  It should also be noted that it appears that advancement saecula occur during the Mega-Awakening and the Mega-Crisis while atonement saecula occur during the Mega-R/E and Mega-Crisis.

Further the pattern established for the two-stroke regulator is not mine, the hypothesis as to why it exists however is. 

The Two-Stroke regulator is the third wheel and like a gyroscope it is off-set so as to help balance the whole.

TURNINGS AND MICRO-TURNINGS

I won't deal with turnings much.  S&H have done far more than is in my poor power.  Rather, I will suffice it to say that each saeculum is composed of four turnings so there are a total of 16 turnings per Mega-Saeculum.  Suffice it to say that each turning is itself composed of micro-turnings (generally of 4-7 years duration) that follow the established patterns for the Mega-Saeculum and the Saeculum.

Once one gets down to this level one really starts splitting hairs but one can see it as the progression of each turning.

[Kinser79]

Now let us look at some examples of Saecula within Mega-Saecula.

The Early Modern Mega-Saeculum  c. 1400 C.E.-1790 (and as late as 1815 in some parts of Europe)

R/E:  "Late Medieval Saeclum".  The half-saeculum discussed by S&H in their books.

Awkng:  Reformation Saeculum

Unrvlng:  New World Saeclum

Crisis:  Revolutionary Saeculum

The Early Modern Mega-Saeclum is entirely composed of Saeculum A's.

The Modern Mega-Saeculum 1790-Present

R/E:  Civil War Saeculum.

Awkng:  Great Power Saeculum

Unraveling.  Millenial Saeculum

Crisis:  Next Saeculum.

----Incorporating the Regulator

Late Medieval (Atonement)
Reformation (Advancement)
New World (Atonement)
Revolutionary (Advancement)

Civil War (Atonement)
Great Power (Advancement)
Millennial (Atonement)
Next (Advancement).

Now the question arises as to why I placed the regulators as I have.

During the Reformation there were two different clear ideas that came to the fore.  Namely Protestantism v. Catholicism and Divine Right Vs Constitutional Monarchy.

During the Revolutionary it was State Church vs Freedom of Religion and Republic vs Constitutional Monarchy.

In the Great Power it was Laissez Faire vs Regulation and Capitalism vs Socialism vs Fascism

In the next I predict it will be largely Collectivism vs Individualism and Authoritarianism vs Libertarianism. Also possibly Centralization vs Atomization.

[Kinser79]

(Reserved)

[Eric the Green]

Name a false theory, and Kinser might support it.

The mega-saeculum is baloney, mainly because none of the proposed mega-saecula correspond with the nature of the turnings as described by S&H. This is especially the case if our soon-ending saeculum is described as a "mega-unravelling." Not only is it no such thing, but the claim leads to absurd supposed correlations with the other mega-saecula.

If anything, the current saeculum is a mega-high, not a mega-unravelling. The American High was the most typical and most successful 1T ever. The USA was in a position of dominance and prosperity no other country has ever experienced. The benefits survived throughout the Saeculum for the USA. That's why even today the USA is the world hegemon, a position it reasserted at the end of the Cold War during the recent third turning of this saeculum. There is no mega-unravelling, except for the usual conditions of our 3T. It's just that younger people here have not experienced anything much more than our longer-than-usual 3T from 1984-2008, and the conditions of this 4T in which the regeneracy has been postponed until the current anti-Trump resistance. So Xers here like Kinser can't see beyond our own recent 3T.

It is beyond absurd to make any other mega-correlations. The previous seaculum was anything other than a mega-awakening, beyond the borders of the actual 2T of that cycle. The Great Power Saeculum was about amassing power-- thus its title. Materialism and building was uppermost, except that it also included struggles to the death for world power. It started with the Gilded Age and ended with the last attempt at world conquest, defeated by the new military-industrial complex. Progress and achievement in the world was the compulsive preoccupation of this seaculum; quite the opposite of an awakening, which is always cultural and spiritual. And whereas Awakenings emphasize individualism, as the romantic age did, the Great Power saeculum was the advance of collectivist and socialism trends, including the massive big-government projects of the New Deal, and the economic nationalism that predominated throughout the cycle.

The Saeculum leading to the civil war was much more like an unravelling than a mega-high. The unremitting trend was clear toward the disintegration of the new nation due to the presence of slavery in its makeup. Everything in the history of that saeculum was leading toward the civil war. That is not the consensus and conformity of a 1T; precisely the opposite. And it was also the most romantic of eras; transcendentalism and romanticism were at high tide, along with utopian dreaming. It was more akin to a 2T/3T scenario than a high. Most of what was built in America was constructed in the next saeculum; not in the one that ended with the civil war. The saeculum from 1794 (or earlier) to 1865 was an innovative and inventive time, which also saw the birth of new religions (and beyond the time frame in that respect of its 2T too), but DID NOT see an amassing of material power and capital such as occurred in the Great Power Saeculum that followed. Historians of the Industrial Revolution like Eric Hobsbawm describe the romantic era (aka civil war saeculum) as a preparation of tools rather than the real thing.

The American Revolution is not the start of the country now known as the United States. No new cycle or mega-cycle can be attributed to the American Revolution. It began relatively little. It was mostly a power-transfer of the colonies from British to local control. The institutions that took over were already in place. The constitution merely made sure that the powers that be stayed in power. Democratic advances came later. It was no real revolution or new beginning. It was simply the expression of forces already set in motion in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The Revolution Saeculum was anything but a mega-crisis. It was a complacent time of pleasure seeking and relative stability.

There is no 4-stroke mega-cycle. The larger cycle is the 500-year cycle of civilization, which is recognized by many historians. We are now in a renaissance phase of that cycle. That we haven't taken full advantage of this, reflects our failure to assume our place in history, probably due to the cynicism today of the younger generations and the betrayal by boomers of the renaissance that began in the sixties.

The double rhythm, however, is the valid aspect of such mega-theories. It goes well-beyond achievement or atonement, but the rhythm definitely exists in recent saecula, and is being played out as we are now in danger of civil war 2.0. Idealism and domestic concerns dominate this seaculum, with foreign dangers and materialism less dominant in this saeculum as compared to the previous one, and ours is more akin to the saeculum before it.

[Kinser79]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Also former Commie so I should know.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote: Democratic advances came later.

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

Quote: It was no real revolution or new beginning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Eric the Green]

It's kind of interesting that you have shifted ideologically from someone like Odin all the way to Galen, and that your handle claims to be beyond ideology. So, why not shift away from materialism too? If you can free yourself from ideologies and shift around, and claim to be "Unreformed <Insert Ideology Here>," why be afraid of "nihilism" then, as you were? If you say that all the world is objects, and that to say a world without objects is nihilism, there's no reason not to turn it around and say the world is all subjects, and nothing is everything. You prefer to rebel against and hate typical prophets like me, but you know perfectly well from Strauss and Howe that prophets will come around again anyway, and in fact are due to start being born again only 8 years from now! So it's just as foolish to rebel against prophets as it was for me to rebel against my civic parents, only to see you guys come around again anyway.

[Kinser79]

Don't think I didn't notice you aren't answering any of my questions to you. However, unlike you Eric, I will address the most important points of yours. This of course necessitates me separating matters of some importance from drivel but I think I can manage. I don't feel like writing out the word "ignoramus" constantly so I'm shorting your name permanently to "EtI".

EtI Wrote:It's kind of interesting that you have shifted ideologically from someone like Odin all the way to Galen,

Not really. People do change over time, particularly when what they've been doing hasn't been working. Marxism-Leninism wasn't working, indeed the material conditions for a Marxist-Leninist solution to our era have already passed away. Barring massive industrialization under Trump (which is unlikely even under the most compliant of congresses) they won't return for several decades, perhaps the next R/E turning.

Having said that, I was never "someone like Odin". Even when I was still on the Left EtI, Odin was perhaps the person on it I argued with most on terms of ideology. In fact I have regularly called him "snowflake" since at least 2012. Which predates my knowledge of its appearance during GamerGate...though the meme of "Speshul Snowflakes" predates that by decades and is a known late Xer meme, usually used in derision of younger Millie siblings.

Conversely, even when I was on the left I got on well with Galen and have had many intelligent debates with him over the years. I beleive that in this particular case what is happening is the following:

self Wrote:Atonement Saeculum

Adaptive: Comes of age in an emerging ideological consensus, feels free to start questioning social norms and accepted spiritual truths.
Idealist: Rebels against the dominant cultural consensus of society laid down in the previous Atonement 4T.
Nomad: Is annoyed by the Prophets' cultural debates and focuses on ideological issues.
Civic: Establishes a new cultural consensus.

My disagreements while on the left or the right with Odin have always stemmed from him wanting to establish a consensus. Both times because I thought his consensus was "fucking retarded". In fact the difference between Commie Kinser and Classical Liberal Kinser is Classical Liberal Kinser thinks that consensus is not only "fucking retarded" like Commie Kinser did, but "dangerous and also fucking retarded".

Meanwhile with Galen our debates, conversations and etc through the years have always been on the plane of ideology. It is the regulator at work--I just happen to be conscious of it whereas most others are not.

EtI Wrote:and that your handle claims to be beyond ideology

Actually it does not. And it isn't my handle anyway which is Kinser79. I believe you are referring to my forum title. Others have like super poster and noob and what not up there. I didn't like the defalt ones, so I made my own.

It was a running thing with Commie Kinser for Odin to constantly call him "An unreformed Stalinist". He meant it as an insult, at the time, I took it as a complement, and honestly still would today too. Seriously he called me a jack-ass on an other thread and I responded with a thank you.

(I'm not telling you why I do that, but if you can't figure out why I do on your own then you're not paying attention, and I know my pay roll taxes go to social security so what are you doing with my money if you can't afford to pay attention???? Huh? But I digress.)

I was originally going to make it "Unreformed Stalinst" but since I'm no longer a "Stalinist" (Odin's term for a non-revisionist Marxist-Leninist) it really wouldn't make sense. So I decided to just let people decide for themselves what I am. Why should I have to announce my ideology to anyone?

EtI Wrote:So, why not shift away from materialism too?

Materialism is non-negotiable. On the old forum we had an argument really that lasted some 25 pages or so--can't remember not that important where I explained why materialism is great and idealism is fucking retarded and dangerous.

Suffice it to say I came to the conclusion that if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it it still makes a sound. And I'm not going to debate that shit again so if you want to derail the thread I'll straight up PM Dan to have the thread split and those irrelevancies thrown into the trash can where they belong.

EtI[/quote Wrote:If you can free yourself from ideologies and shift around, and claim to be "Unreformed <Insert Ideology Here>," why be afraid of "nihilism" then, as you were?

I explained above what my forum title means. I'm not going to explain to you for the fifth time why nihilism is retarded and dangerous. I concluded years ago you'd never understand why it is and honestly I have better things to do with my time--like picking my nose or taking a shit.

EtI Wrote:You prefer to rebel against and hate typical prophets like me,

I can't rebel against you EtI because you're in no position of authority for me to rebel against.

And I don't necessarily hate typical prophets, just stupid ones--I hate stupid people in general be they artists, prophets, nomads or civics. Do I hate them because of their archetype? No. I hate them because I hate stupidity and stupidity is unfortunately contagious. Its kinda like hating and avoiding someone with the plague.

EtI Wrote:but you know perfectly well from Strauss and Howe that prophets will come around again anyway

Yeah, that's going to happen whether I love prophets or hate them. It is something beyond my control. My only hope is that they don't turn into the little shits that the Boomers did, and that they stay off my lawn.

Assuming the regulator is valid (as it seems to be, it's held for 8 saecula so far) I might actually like this crop as they'll be open to discussing ideas and not be so worried about cultural bullshit. Also I'm kinda hoping that they won't become interested in hokey magic nonsense. But that last one I probably won't be so fortunate with.

EtI[/quote Wrote:and in fact are due to start being born again only 8 years from now!

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I'm not putting any future prophets in the maternity wards until after we've had the Crisis Climax. Just because it is scheduled for approximately 2025 doesn't mean it will arrive on time--shit man the GC and Regeneracy were late (and according to some the wrong person). Remember it is history that drives the generation and if I'm right and the 4T lasts till about 2028ish that actually gives me 10 years of only having to deal with a dying breed plus 15 years before the new ones will be big enough to be annoying beyond being on my lawn.

And no Obama wasn't the GC either. Wrong generation, though he could have been if he acted more like "Tyrone from down the block" and less like Steve Urkle. Back in 2008 we all voted for him cause we expected him to be a "brotha" and be to Congress and etc "Now listen up y'all dis tha way thangs gonna be...." Seriously in 09 he could have told the bloods and crips to pick up trash in the hood and they'd probably done it. Instead we got someone who was basically Eisenhower with a tan--retired at 40. Indeed he only got re-elected because the GOP ran an incredibly weak candidate against him, McCain was a stronger candidate but he picked a moron for VP.

EtI Wrote:So it's just as foolish to rebel against prophets

You keep using that word: rebel. I'm not sure you know what it means.

In my case there is only one prophet in a position of authority over me, and I like him. I like him so much I call him Daddy. A title that I don't even use with my on sperm donor. Shit man, I don't even call my boyfriend that and we've been together for years. But that's probably because he calls me daddy--but this is bordering on TMFI for the board.

So since I now lack any prophets to rebel against I can't rebel. Kinda hard to overthrow the king when there ain't no kings. The ones coming after your generation are unlikely to be like the Boomers. If anything they are likely to be most like the Missionaries since Christianity is for the most part dead, and "New Age" is mostly just silly. I expect the 2T should I be unfortunate enough to see it, will be all about Rights and Duties, Authority and Liberty, and such like. I probably won't mind that so much assuming I'm still young enough to give a rats ass.

Furthermore none of them will be in any position of authority until after I'm too old to give a shit anyway. So They are more likely to rebel against me than vice versa.

EtI Wrote:as it was for me to rebel against my civic parents, only to see you guys come around again anyway.

Unless you've not noticed I'm not a civic. I might be a civically minded nomad, but at core I'm still a nomad. So unless your parents were Losts....

[Mikebert]

Why believe that something like a megasaeculum exists when it can never be demonstrated due to small sample size?  

Some comments below:

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

Water and wind power machinery pre-date the Late Medieval Saeculum as does crop rotation. The printing press was developed at that time.

kinser Wrote:During the Reformation there were two different clear ideas that came to the fore.  Namely Protestantism v. Catholicism and Divine Right Vs Constitutional Monarchy.

Again you have the dating wrong for constitution monarchy.

But it goes deeper.  You imply "ideology" vs "culture" as orthogonal, when the former is a subset of the later. Also ideology I believe is a recent development.  I'm not sure it can be meaningfully applied to a period before the Enlightenment.  It would be useful to define your terms and check your dating before you assert things happened at such and such a time when they did not.

[Kinser79]

(03-12-2017, 02:26 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Why believed that something like a megasaeculum exists when it can never be demonstrated due to small sample size?  

For example you makes this assertion: Did not the Late Medieval Saeculum (using S&H's terminology here) not bring on line major advances in production usually indicative of R/E turnings? Off the top of my head I can think of crop rotation, water and wind powered machinery and the printing press.
 
Water and wind power machinery pre-date the Late Medieval Saeculum as does crop rotation. The printing press was developed at that time.

If you re-read my post I said "off the top of my head" which means Mike I didn't bother to look it up.  But use of heavy water and wind power machinery (apart from the Romans) was mostly absent until after the Black Death in Europe.  But yes the printing press was definitely invented at that time. 

As to sample size--I would argue that the sample size is small just due to the shear lack of data for prior to the 1400s. 

We don't know how the Ancient Egyptians built the pyramids, it isn't like we have Kufu's blue prints or anything, but we do know that they built them from the evidence of our own eyes. And we do know that given the general level of technology it required detailed organization to pull off--meaning they had have at least some writing somewhere (but unfortunately the sands of time have swallowed them up). Much the same problem exists with Egyptology, and so forth.

Probably also explains why you come out with a new model every week, whereas I've been working down this path mythodically for months.

If you look at the thread title I used "Wheels within wheels".  I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you understand that that is a biblical reference.  (I'm assuming you've at least heard of the book of Ezekiel).  But it could just as easily apply to a gyroscope.

The point is that the mega-saeculum is how history progresses through its historical cycle, and it ran on a time frame of around 500 years (which older historians have pointed toward), but due to changes in the saecula (for some reason though I believe it to be mass literacy) it shortened from 100-120ish years to 80ish years.

Did the maximum lifespan of humans change?  No.  The maximum lifespan of a human seems to be fairly constant at around 120 years.  Did the average lifespan change?  Prior to the 20th century not really--or at least not on a level where one would expect it to wreck havoc with the saeculum.  And in the 20th century when the average lifespan jumped up from 47 years in 1900 to 75 years in 2000* one would expect the saeculum to actually "slow down" or perhaps "stretch out" would be better.  But did that happen?  No.  Why not?  What was different? 

Mass literacy, mass production of diaries, journals, scribbling and so forth.

It is possible that "Saeculum A" as I call it is a product of an absence of evidence compared to more recent saecula.

https://www.elderweb.com/book/appendix/1...ted-states


*note Used the figures for white men for simplicity.

ETA:

Mike you really should do all your editing before posting, particularly when making a major point. To do otherwise makes you look like an ass. I'm sure other's have told you this before. *coughcoughJordancoughcough*

mike Wrote:Again you have the dating wrong for constitution monarchy.

But it goes deeper. You imply "ideology" vs "culture" as orthogonal, when the former is a subset of the later. Also ideology I believe is a recent development. I'm not sure it can be meaningfully applied to a period before the Enlightenment.

I would argue that Ideology informs culture as culture informs ideology. Neither is a "subset" of the other.

As to your assertion that ideology is a recent development, I disagree. Ideology would encompass not only political ideologies as we moderns would think on them but also theological precepts such as medieval persons would think of them.

Your last comment is unimportant quibbling and will be ignored of course.

As to the term "Constitutional Monarchy" I mean a monarchy that is limited either by a written or unwritten constitution. And I mean by more than a sheet of paper that asserts Barons have the feudal rights of barons.

[Eric the Green]

(03-12-2017, 01:46 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Don't think I didn't notice you aren't answering any of my questions to you.  However, unlike you Eric, I will address the most important points of yours.  This of course necessitates me separating matters of some importance from drivel but I think I can manage.  I don't feel like writing out the word "ignoramus" constantly so I'm shorting your name permanently to "EtI".

EtI Wrote:It's kind of interesting that you have shifted ideologically from someone like Odin all the way to Galen,

Not really.  People do change over time, particularly when what they've been doing hasn't been working.  Marxism-Leninism wasn't working, indeed the material conditions for a Marxist-Leninist solution to our era have already passed away.  Barring massive industrialization under Trump (which is unlikely even under the most compliant of congresses) they won't return for several decades, perhaps the next R/E turning.

Having said that, I was never "someone like Odin".  Even when I was still on the Left EtI, Odin was perhaps the person on it I argued with most on terms of ideology.  In fact I have regularly called him "snowflake" since at least 2012.  Which predates my knowledge of its appearance during GamerGate...though the meme of "Speshul Snowflakes" predates that by decades and is a known late Xer meme, usually used in derision of younger Millie siblings.

Conversely, even when I was on the left I got on well with Galen and have had many intelligent debates with him over the years.  I beleive that in this particular case what is happening is the following:

self Wrote:Atonement Saeculum

Adaptive: Comes of age in an emerging ideological consensus, feels free to start questioning social norms and accepted spiritual truths.
Idealist: Rebels against the dominant cultural consensus of society laid down in the previous Atonement 4T.
Nomad: Is annoyed by the Prophets' cultural debates and focuses on ideological issues.
Civic: Establishes a new cultural consensus.

My disagreements while on the left or the right with Odin have always stemmed from him wanting to establish a consensus.  Both times because I thought his consensus was "fucking retarded".  In fact the difference between Commie Kinser and Classical Liberal Kinser is Classical Liberal Kinser thinks that consensus is not only "fucking retarded" like Commie Kinser did, but "dangerous and also fucking retarded".

Meanwhile with Galen our debates, conversations and etc through the years have always been on the plane of ideology.  It is the regulator at work--I just happen to be conscious of it whereas most others are not.

EtI Wrote:and that your handle claims to be beyond ideology

Actually it does not.  And it isn't my handle anyway which is Kinser79.  I believe you are referring to my forum title.  Others have like super poster and noob and what not up there.  I didn't like the defalt ones, so I made my own.  

It was a running thing with Commie Kinser for Odin to constantly call him "An unreformed Stalinist".  He meant it as an insult, at the time, I took it as a complement, and honestly still would today too.  Seriously he called me a jack-ass on an other thread and I responded with a thank you.

(I'm not telling you why I do that, but if you can't figure out why I do on your own then you're not paying attention, and I know my pay roll taxes go to social security so what are you doing with my money if you can't afford to pay attention???? Huh?  But I digress.)

I was originally going to make it "Unreformed Stalinst" but since I'm no longer a "Stalinist" (Odin's term for a non-revisionist Marxist-Leninist) it really wouldn't make sense.  So I decided to just let people decide for themselves what I am.  Why should I have to announce my ideology to anyone?

EtI Wrote:So, why not shift away from materialism too?

Materialism is non-negotiable.  On the old forum we had an argument really that lasted some 25 pages or so--can't remember not that important where I explained why materialism is great and idealism is fucking retarded and dangerous.

Suffice it to say I came to the conclusion that if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it it still makes a sound.  And I'm not going to debate that shit again so if you want to derail the thread I'll straight up PM Dan to have the thread split and those irrelevancies thrown into the trash can where they belong.

EtI
[/quote Wrote:If you can free yourself from ideologies and shift around, and claim to be "Unreformed <Insert Ideology Here>," why be afraid of "nihilism" then, as you were?

I explained above what my forum title means.  I'm not going to explain to you for the fifth time why nihilism is retarded and dangerous.  I concluded years ago you'd never understand why it is and honestly I have better things to do with my time--like picking my nose or taking a shit.

EtI Wrote:You prefer to rebel against and hate typical prophets like me,

I can't rebel against you EtI because you're in no position of authority for me to rebel against.  

And I don't necessarily hate typical prophets, just stupid ones--I hate stupid people in general be they artists, prophets, nomads or civics.  Do I hate them because of their archetype?  No.  I hate them because I hate stupidity and stupidity is unfortunately contagious.  Its kinda like hating and avoiding someone with the plague.

EtI Wrote:but you know perfectly well from Strauss and Howe that prophets will come around again anyway

Yeah, that's going to happen whether I love prophets or hate them.  It is something beyond my control.  My only hope is that they don't turn into the little shits that the Boomers did, and that they stay off my lawn.

Assuming the regulator is valid (as it seems to be, it's held for 8 saecula so far) I might actually like this crop as they'll be open to discussing ideas and not be so worried about cultural bullshit.  Also I'm kinda hoping that they won't become interested in hokey magic nonsense.  But that last one I probably won't be so fortunate with.

EtI[/quote Wrote:and in fact are due to start being born again only 8 years from now!

I wouldn't be so sure about that.  I'm not putting any future prophets in the maternity wards until after we've had the Crisis Climax.  Just because it is scheduled for approximately 2025 doesn't mean it will arrive on time--shit man the GC and Regeneracy were late (and according to some the wrong person).  Remember it is history that drives the generation and if I'm right and the 4T lasts till about 2028ish that actually gives me 10 years of only having to deal with a dying breed plus 15 years before the new ones will be big enough to be annoying beyond being on my lawn.

And no Obama wasn't the GC either.  Wrong generation, though he could have been if he acted more like "Tyrone from down the block" and less like Steve Urkle.  Back in 2008 we all voted for him cause we expected him to be a "brotha" and be to Congress and etc "Now listen up y'all dis tha way thangs gonna be...."  Seriously in 09 he could have told the bloods and crips to pick up trash in the hood and they'd probably done it.  Instead we got someone who was basically Eisenhower with a tan--retired at 40.  Indeed he only got re-elected because the GOP ran an incredibly weak candidate against him, McCain was a stronger candidate but he picked a moron for VP.

EtI Wrote:So it's just as foolish to rebel against prophets

You keep using that word: rebel.  I'm not sure you know what it means.

In my case there is only one prophet in a position of authority over me, and I like him.  I like him so much I call him Daddy.  A title that I don't even use with my on sperm donor.  Shit man, I don't even call my boyfriend that and we've been together for years.  But that's probably because he calls me daddy--but this is bordering on TMFI for the board.

So since I now lack any prophets to rebel against I can't rebel.  Kinda hard to overthrow the king when there ain't no kings.  The ones coming after your generation are unlikely to be like the Boomers.  If anything they are likely to be most like the Missionaries since Christianity is for the most part dead, and "New Age" is mostly just silly.  I expect the 2T should I be unfortunate enough to see it, will be all about Rights and Duties, Authority and Liberty, and such like.  I probably won't mind that so much assuming I'm still young enough to give a rats ass.

Furthermore none of them will be in any position of authority until after I'm too old to give a shit anyway.  So They are more likely to rebel against me than vice versa.

EtI Wrote:as it was for me to rebel against my civic parents, only to see you guys come around again anyway.

Unless you've not noticed I'm not a civic.  I might be a civically minded nomad, but at core I'm still a nomad.  So unless your parents were Losts....

It is enough that I stated my ideas on the mega-saeculum, and you stated yours. We cannot have a discussion, which is why you are on my ignore list. That's fine. You react to mere words, and use insults as a matter of course, and that makes any debate with you tedious and endless. You don't comprehend statements or life in much depth. That's your choice, and it's fine with me. It's up to you where and how you shift during your life. I have shifted too during my life. Best wishes on your journey.

Since you dismiss any kind of idealism or spirituality, in my view, that negates the entire saeculum and any supposed-mega-saeculum cycle. You can't have a cycle if you don't recognize the polarities between which it travels.

mikebert's points are well-taken, as is often the case.

[Kinser79]

EtI, we never were able to have a discussion on this or any other issue. I dismiss your view as quickly as you do mine simply because you reject all forms of materialism. Anyone who fails to recognize the obvious truth that reality exists outside the minds of men is too intellectually crippled to have a conversation with--much less an intelligent conversation. (Hence why I call you an ignoramus. Incidentally the insult is even sweeter because it is true.)

Being on your ignore list has never bothered me. In fact I'm rather glad to be on it I have you on conceptual ignore btw--the ignore feature seems to highlight the material I wish to ignore in my case for some reason. I only ever read anything you post unless it happens to strike me as particularly interesting (usually because someone else has quoted you for some reason).

Even a five year old understands that a rock is real not because he sees it, or because he imagines it is there but because it actually is there and exists outside of himself, and would exist had he existed or not.

That is the first key to wisdom, without that, all other doors are closed further wisdom.

That said I hope you enjoy your being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there. I'll be using my flashlight to find the cat.

As to Mike's points, he is quibbling over minor details as is often the case with him. The difference between a chef and a chemist I suspect.

[Eric the Green]

(03-12-2017, 05:31 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: EtI, we never were able to have a discussion on this or any other issue.  I dismiss your view as quickly as you do mine simply because you reject all forms of materialism.  Anyone who fails to recognize the obvious truth that reality exists outside the minds of men is too intellectually crippled to have a conversation with--much less an intelligent conversation.  (Hence why I call you an ignoramus.  Incidentally the insult is even sweeter because it is true.)  

Being on your ignore list has never bothered me.  In fact I'm rather glad to be on it  I have you on conceptual ignore btw--the ignore feature seems to highlight the material I wish to ignore in my case for some reason.  I only ever read anything you post unless it happens to strike me as particularly interesting (usually because someone else has quoted you for some reason).

Even a five year old understands that a rock is real not because he sees it, or because he imagines it is there but because it actually is there and exists outside of himself, and would exist had he existed or not.

That is the first key to wisdom, without that, all other doors are closed further wisdom.

That said I hope you enjoy your being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there.  I'll be using my flashlight to find the cat.

As to Mike's points, he is quibbling over minor details as is often the case with him.  The difference between a chef and a chemist I suspect.

You use the cat analogy; so did Schroedinger.

Typically, those who knock idealism don't understand it. It isn't solipcism, because it posits that subjectivity/consciousness exists beyond that of any individual. If I am one with all rocks, I can't very well deny their existence. I just understand that it isn't material; it's spiritual. It's just a preference for how to describe things.

[Kinser79]

(03-12-2017, 10:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-12-2017, 05:31 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: EtI, we never were able to have a discussion on this or any other issue.  I dismiss your view as quickly as you do mine simply because you reject all forms of materialism.  Anyone who fails to recognize the obvious truth that reality exists outside the minds of men is too intellectually crippled to have a conversation with--much less an intelligent conversation.  (Hence why I call you an ignoramus.  Incidentally the insult is even sweeter because it is true.)  

Being on your ignore list has never bothered me.  In fact I'm rather glad to be on it  I have you on conceptual ignore btw--the ignore feature seems to highlight the material I wish to ignore in my case for some reason.  I only ever read anything you post unless it happens to strike me as particularly interesting (usually because someone else has quoted you for some reason).

Even a five year old understands that a rock is real not because he sees it, or because he imagines it is there but because it actually is there and exists outside of himself, and would exist had he existed or not.

That is the first key to wisdom, without that, all other doors are closed further wisdom.

That said I hope you enjoy your being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there.  I'll be using my flashlight to find the cat.

As to Mike's points, he is quibbling over minor details as is often the case with him.  The difference between a chef and a chemist I suspect.

You use the cat analogy; so did Schroedinger.

Typically, those who knock idealism don't understand it. It isn't solipcism, because it posits that subjectivity/consciousness exists beyond that of any individual. If I am one with all rocks, I can't very well deny their existence. I just understand that it isn't material; it's spiritual. It's just a preference for how to describe things.

As usual you are wrong. I understand idealism just fine. Materialism and idealism are NOT subject to debate in this thread. If you want to debate them yet again I suggest you go and make your own thread.

[Eric the Green]

(03-13-2017, 08:24 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(03-12-2017, 10:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-12-2017, 05:31 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: EtI, we never were able to have a discussion on this or any other issue.  I dismiss your view as quickly as you do mine simply because you reject all forms of materialism.  Anyone who fails to recognize the obvious truth that reality exists outside the minds of men is too intellectually crippled to have a conversation with--much less an intelligent conversation.  (Hence why I call you an ignoramus.  Incidentally the insult is even sweeter because it is true.)  

Being on your ignore list has never bothered me.  In fact I'm rather glad to be on it  I have you on conceptual ignore btw--the ignore feature seems to highlight the material I wish to ignore in my case for some reason.  I only ever read anything you post unless it happens to strike me as particularly interesting (usually because someone else has quoted you for some reason).

Even a five year old understands that a rock is real not because he sees it, or because he imagines it is there but because it actually is there and exists outside of himself, and would exist had he existed or not.

That is the first key to wisdom, without that, all other doors are closed further wisdom.

That said I hope you enjoy your being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there.  I'll be using my flashlight to find the cat.

As to Mike's points, he is quibbling over minor details as is often the case with him.  The difference between a chef and a chemist I suspect.

You use the cat analogy; so did Schroedinger.

Typically, those who knock idealism don't understand it. It isn't solipcism, because it posits that subjectivity/consciousness exists beyond that of any individual. If I am one with all rocks, I can't very well deny their existence. I just understand that it isn't material; it's spiritual. It's just a preference for how to describe things.

As usual you are wrong.  I understand idealism just fine.  Materialism and idealism are NOT subject to debate in this thread. If you want to debate them yet again I suggest you go and make your own thread.

If you don't want to debate me, then don't. It's relevant here though, because the saeculum is a cycle that moves between idealism and materialism, among other things. No, you don't understand idealism, and you also don't understand that if you don't take account of it, then your notion of the saeculum is wrong.

[Kinser79]

EtI, it isn't a matter of wanting or not wanting to debate you. It is a matter of debating you is impossible. You never in all my years on this forum and the old one have seen you willing to believe for a millisecond that you could possibly be wrong.

So you've missed not only the first key to wisdom, you miss the second as well.

True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves and the world around us.

I've studied Idealism, which is how I concluded it was ridiculous.

ETA:

I thought I was on your ignore list. That thing only works if you actually ignore me.

[Ragnarök_62]

(03-13-2017, 02:28 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: EtI, it isn't a matter of wanting or not wanting to debate you.  It is a matter of debating you is impossible.  You never in all my years on this forum and the old one have seen you willing to believe for a millisecond that you could possibly be wrong.  

<snip>

Eric admitted he erred when I pointed his Hillary for the win horoscope was in fact a miss.

[Kinser79]

(03-13-2017, 04:29 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(03-13-2017, 02:28 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: EtI, it isn't a matter of wanting or not wanting to debate you.  It is a matter of debating you is impossible.  You never in all my years on this forum and the old one have seen you willing to believe for a millisecond that you could possibly be wrong.  

<snip>

Eric admitted he erred when I pointed his Hillary for the win horoscope was in fact a miss.

He kinda had to admit that one. The glaring reality of a handsome man in the White House instead of decaying corpse of a woman kinda prevented him from not admitting that.  But I doubt he admitted to making a mistake in his "process".   Strangely I was calling the election for Trump during the Primaries without the aid of a horoscope.

[Eric the Green]

(03-13-2017, 02:28 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: EtI, it isn't a matter of wanting or not wanting to debate you.  It is a matter of debating you is impossible.  You never in all my years on this forum and the old one have seen you willing to believe for a millisecond that you could possibly be wrong.  

So you've missed not only the first key to wisdom, you miss the second as well.

True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves and the world around us.

I've studied Idealism, which is how I concluded it was ridiculous.

ETA:

I thought I was on your ignore list.  That thing only works if you actually ignore me.  

There have certainly been a lot of your posts to ignore lately

And I have.

Your debates are silly, because all you do is dispute words and throw insults. You can't comprehend a point that someone makes.

By your own standards, you have no wisdom. And to be wrong in your eyes, is to be right.

You don't understand idealism; you didn't define it in your post. You defined solipcism.

The only point here being that your mega-saeculum can't be right, because you omit idealism from your awareness of the trends in society, generations and events. Thus, you think The Great Power Saeculum was an awakening, because some ideologies were current during it (the one's you mentioned weren't even begun during it). But ideology is not idealism, and it is not awakening. And all those ideologies you mentioned are materialist, collectivist ideologies, which are NOT what come in Awakenings. Awakenings are spiritual events, primarily; that's what they were in US history, and that's why they were called Great Awakenings. You deny Transcendentalism too, because that's idealism. Awakenings are also centered on individualism, not collectivism. If you deny that spirituality and idealism even exist, as you plainly do, then you can't account for what happens in the US saeculum cycle.

[Kinser79]

(03-13-2017, 05:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: There have certainly been a lot of your posts to ignore lately

Yeah well I was kinda tired and needed a break after working hard all 2016.  Unlike you I have a full time job and was volunteering some 30 hours a week at the campaign for months.  Even missed my kid's soccer games and shit.  He was very upset about that.  So I needed a break from it all and had to concentrate on getting my life on track--which of course precluded arguing with ingrates on the internet.

EtI Wrote:And I have.

Okay, that one time.  I'll give you that.  Otherwise EtI we already know you're view is Eric is always right, anyone who disagrees with him is always wrong and Kinser is always wrong even if he manages to agree with Eric for some reason (usually because of a fluke of nature).

EtI Wrote:Your debates are silly, because all you do is dispute words and throw insults.

Projection.  When you post to me are you looking at a mirror when you type?

As for semantics, yes, I do debate semantics.  You'll be hard pressed to find any debate where there isn't some discussion on the definition of words.  It comes with the territory.  Don't want to define the words you use, when you use them in ways that don't conform with the standard dictionary definition...don't even bother showing up for the debate then.

EtI Wrote:You can't comprehend a point that someone makes.

Not true.  When someone actually has a point, provided they write it in English, Spanish, German or Russian (assuming its not too technical) I'll understand

EtI Wrote:By your own standards, you have no wisdom. And to be wrong in your eyes, is to be right.

Completely wrong.  The first key makes it clear that the only path to knowledge (and by extension wisdom, which is applied knowledge) is through materialism.  The second key is understanding that I (and by extension everyone else) cannot have full understanding of all things.  The quote is actually from Socrates.  Considering that at one time you told me you studied philosophy in university you should have picked up on that.

EtI Wrote:You don't understand idealism; you didn't define it in your post.

I also didn't define the words "and", "the", or "but" either but I'm still going to use them.  You want a definition of what Idealism is.

Idealism:  any of various systems of thought in which the objects of knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of mind.

That definition is provided by Google no less. A mere google search of "Idealism" will provide it.

I'll do you one better and also define materialism.

Materialism:  the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

EtI Wrote:You defined solipcism.

"Solipcism" isn't even a word do you mean "Solipsism"?  In which case I can define that too.

Solipsism:  the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

You should be really familiar with that last one Eric.

All definitions are provided by google which will happily define the philosophical meaning of any term for you.  Strangely these same definitions are also to be found in these heavy rectangular objects made of paper, glue and paperboard with words in them and the definitions of those words.  A dictionary I believe they are called.  Surely you're familiar with them having gone to a university.

EtI Wrote:The only point here being that your mega-saeculum can't be right, because you omit idealism from your awareness of the trends in society, generations and events.

Let us go back to the definition of Idealism for a second....

Self, This Post Wrote:Idealism:  any of various systems of thought in which the objects of knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of mind.

As we can see events under the various systems of thought are dependent on the activity of the mind.  Alright.  What if I suddenly decide with my mind that none of them exist?  Do they disappear?  No they do not.  Why not?  Because trends, society, events and generations all exist outside of myself.  And while I can solipsistic-ally say they don't exist, because the only activity of a mind I can ever truly know is my own mind, they yet still exist.

Therefore:  it is reasonable to believe because of that, and other evidence, that trends, society, events and generations exist within the realm of matter and its modifications.

>>see my definition of materialism in this very post.

EtI Wrote:Thus, you think The Great Power Saeculum was an awakening, because some ideologies were current during it (the one's you mentioned weren't even begun during it). But ideology is not idealism, and it is not awakening.

So then your contention is that ideologies are not the product of minds?  That they are not the material expression of thoughts?  Are you sure you want to go down that route?

If Idealism is

Self, Same Post Wrote:Idealism:  any of various systems of thought in which the objects of knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of mind.

Then neither ideologies nor idealism can exist.  That is to say you have negated both with the stroke of a pen.  However a materialist can come and say "This collection of matter (Mr. A) wrote down B Ideology.".

And just so we are clear I've never said that ideologies were the same as idealism.  Ideologies can certainly be derived from an idealistic philosophy, to be sure, but they are not one and the same.  We have to agree that A is A, and B is B and that B is not A.  That is if you actually want do to more than make an ass out of yourself--which so far you've yet to do in my years on these boards.

EtI Wrote:And all those ideologies you mentioned are materialist, collectivist ideologies, which are NOT what come in Awakenings.

Really?  Why not?  If one can form an ideology based on an idealistic philosophy is it not just as easy to form an ideology on the basis of a materialistic ideology?  Surely, it is.  In fact it is even easier to come up with an ideology on the basis of materialism than it is to do the same on the basis of idealism.  After all, if we reduce what we can truly know of the world, apart from our own minds what are we left with but matter and its modifications.

Or is your line of argument coming from "Because Eric said so that's why"?  In which case it can be rejected out of hand.

EtI Wrote: Awakenings are spiritual events, primarily;

Define what you mean by spiritual.  Otherwise I'm going to take it to mean "hocus pocus woo woo of a semi-religious or religious nature".  If what you mean is precisely that then we can reject that thesis immediately because various cults spring up and die repeatedly in various ages--and not always during an Awakening.

EtI Wrote:that's what they were in US history, and that's why they were called Great Awakenings.

So then your contention is that in the US at any rate an awakening must feature some form of Christian Revival?  Okay, I'll grant you that.  The GPS certainly had one with the the start of the Jehovah's witnesses, and the Pentecostal church during its awakening in the 1880-1900.

But the "Age of Aquarius" was not strictly speaking a Christian phenomenon now was it.  That being the case we have to throw out the consciousness revolution as an awakening due to the definition you just defined here.

EtI Wrote:You deny Transcendentalism too, because that's idealism.

Deny what about it?  That it exists?  Surely not.  Anyone with a library card can read Thoreau should they be so inclined.  I have.  I found him to leave much to be desired.  What I deny is that Transcendentalism was of great importance in the long term scheme of history.  It never reached the US South! Much less the Solons of London, Paris or Berlin.

EtI Wrote:Awakenings are also centered on individualism, not collectivism.

Apparently you've never been to a tent revival.  Not your fault I suppose.  But there is no evidence to back up this statement.  Awakenings create ideologies (which includes religions).  These ideologies may be individualist or they may be collectivist.  It really depends on the ideologies created.  In the GPS, most of them happened to be collectivist--so what.

EtI Wrote: If you deny that spirituality and idealism even exist, as you plainly do, then you can't account for what happens in the US saeculum cycle.

If you can define for me a "spirituality" that is based upon matter and its modifications I'll happily subscribe to it.

I have never denied idealism exists--it would be rather difficult for me to find something that did not exist to be "retarded and dangerous".

I can easily account for the US saeculum, as well as the ones for most Western European countries (and Russia) because trends, generations and events exist in a state of matter.  No idealism, much less solipsism which you take to be idealism, is required.

[Odin]

Trump, handsome?  

And if any woman looks like a corpse it's Kellyanne Conway.