Of course, these ideas of "nations" and even "families" are somewhat abstract and arbitrary; where does one begin and another end? The nations within western civilization are distinct, you may say, but what about the "9 nations" within America, or the 50 states? I feel a lot more in common with the people of Denmark than with the people of Alabama. People say "God Bless America." Does that mean that God's blessing should somehow end at the Mexican border? There is nothing becoming more clear in our time that we don't belong to nations, but to one world.

Have you ever even been to Denmark? I can't believe I have to remind an old man that the world is a little more complicated and diverse than what you read on a website.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Have you ever even been to Denmark?

Of course he hasn't. If he had been there or met some Danes, he'd know better than to claim they had particularly much in common. One big difference that I've observed among Danes in particular is their relatively significant lack of provincialism -- I suppose you can't be on a peninsula sticking deep into a major internationally-transited sea and still think of your place or opinions as uniquely significant to the world.

Agreed with Justin'77 and my interactions with the Danish are confined to reading a hilarious web cartoon by a female member of that people.

Scandinavia and the World: www.satwcomic.com/the-world

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Have you ever even been to Denmark? I can't believe I have to remind an old man that the world is a little more complicated and diverse than what you read on a website.

Are you and Copperfield twins? You both make the same ridiculous argument. I can know a lot about a place without physically visiting there or talking to the people there. And you can't assume where it is I get that knowledge from. And remember folks, this little discussion I started is about both Denmark, Alabama, and my relation to them. It is only my personal statement; the larger point being that I am not necessarily a part of one "nation" as opposed to another, in what I identify with. And neither is anyone else. So hence my doubt about a saeculum for each nation. Of course, it is also true as I also pointed out, that the authors interpret the saeculum from an American cultural point of view, which is a rather limited and materialistic one. It is just a point for consideration, not a dogma, which I propose.

As for "What is Western Civilization" -- that's something a pre-Xer wouldn't dare ask. It's any culture that's considers Grecco-Roman civilization to be the wellspring from which it comes from. Notably off that list are Ireland and Russia. Eire (along with Scotland) was a Celtic land never conquered by the Roman Empire (though the Britons were). For Ireland, for a long time they were one of the last pillars of Celtic self-rule, until the English came along. As for Russia it's had a complicated relationship with Europe... though its Czars could claim to be a direct descendant to the Roman Emperors due to a marriage with a Byzantine Princess, its people have had their own cultural wellspring that extends further back. Remember Russia has always been viewed by Western Europeans as both "European" and "Not-European" at the same time. And I'd go so far as to say that it is in line with the Turks and Iranians who seem to have originated from a similar wellspring out there on the Central Asian Steppes.

I'd throw the Teutonic Germans into the Western Civilization pool as well, because not only did they take over where Grecco-Romans left off, they eventually adopted everything that had been part of (Western) Roman culture as their own--though originally I would suggest that they were a separate civilization. In fact when they finally has established their Holy Roman Empire and the Vikings came a knocking there was a collective "oh shit, was that how we looked a few centuries ago to the Romans?" moment.

So I'd say that Western Civilization originally means a Grecco-Roman basis and bias--it tried to conquer the Celtic Civilization but couldn't completely (consider it a suppressed civilization)--and it was forced into marriage with the Teutonics (and later the Vikings) to create what we know of as Western Civilization today.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Are you and Copperfield twins? You both make the same ridiculous argument. I can know a lot about a place without physically visiting there or talking to the people there. And you can't assume where it is I get that knowledge.

NO, YOU CAN'T! Not really. I remember reading about Munich for years and thinking it was a wonderful place I would have liked very much then showing up there while I was in the Army and realizing that I didn't like it at all. Same thing for NYC. There is so much shit that you miss if all you do is fixate on one or two data points from <insert preferred social metric here> without actually visiting it, living there, and interacting with the fucking people. You have no idea at all. Trust me, buddy, I read stuff on the internet all the time, but I've also traveled and lived more places than you have in your entire life and I can tell you that they are two entirely separate realms of knowledge.

God, I don't like all of the Boomer stereotyping that goes on here amongst the younger generations, because I know plenty of Boomers in real life who don't actually follow most if any of these stereotypes. But I swear to God that so many of the Boomers ON THIS WEBSITE are like aging children. Teenagers at best. How a man who has to be past 60 can sit there and tell me with a a straight face that he can find out everything he needs to know about a place, people, or culture by typing some queries into Google is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

As for "What is Western Civilization" -- that's something a pre-Xer wouldn't dare ask.

~Chas'88

Perhaps you mean a Boomer or later?

You can draw those lines and they have some meaning. On the other hand, my "Californian astrologer" culture stems as much from Oriental mysticism and culture and Babylonian science as from Greco-Roman roots; and we are so bombarded today with pop culture than stems from African roots that we can't leave that out either. We truly are one world culture today; to think anything else is self-foolery.

Yes, it is quite fitting that the few "European" countries not to fall within the Western timeline are the ones on the very fringes, not just culturally by geographically as well. Makes me wonder where Iceland falls, saeculum-wise.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

NO, YOU CAN'T! Not really. I remember reading about Munich for years and thinking it was a wonderful place I would have liked very much then showing up there while I was in the Army and realizing that I didn't like it at all. Same thing for NYC. There is so much shit that you miss if all you do is fixate on one or two data points from <insert preferred social metric here> without actually visiting it, living there, and interacting with the fucking people. You have no idea at all. Trust me, buddy, I read stuff on the internet all the time, but I've also traveled and lived more places than you have in your entire life and I can tell you that they are two entirely separate realms of knowledge.

When you respond to a post without reading it, it leads you into superficial statements. I said I have more knowledge than one or two data points or the internet, and so do you probably. In that context I don't give a bleep about how many places you have traveled to. Bully for you. You're a good nomad, then. Congratulations. A worthy accomplishment. Your general point of view still shows that you are less knowledgeable than I. At least that is my opinion.

God, I don't like all of the Boomer stereotyping that goes on here amongst the younger generations, because I know plenty of Boomers in real life who don't actually follow most if any of these stereotypes. But I swear to God that so many of the Boomers ON THIS WEBSITE are like aging children. Teenagers at best. How a man who has to be past 60 can sit there and tell me with a a straight face that he can find out everything he needs to know about a place, people, or culture by typing some queries into Google is beyond me.

Again, you can say that about me, but it bears no relationship to me, or to what I know. And you Xers HERE are amazing for your dogmatic point of view, either libertarian or materialist, or both. It is true that your narrow and stubborn point of view here does not reflect the view of all the actual Xers that I know, or know about. The fact is that boomers here are level-headed and well-read, and our views are more broad-based and thoughtful than those of Xers here. Some of us are more likely to be polite than others, while it seems like most Xers here are more likely to be impolite, and to insult boomers in particular. But I still have some hope that you guys too, will "mature" beyond the teenage stage

Chas,

I always personally defined Western Civilization as a Greco-Roman base, combined with Judeo-Christianity (really hard to leave that one out) plus the cultures of the various peoples from the Migration period and before (Not just Germanics, but Celts, West Slavs, Magyars, Basques, etc.)

Eric, I'm 27. Born 1986, I'm not even a cusper.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Chas,

I always personally defined Western Civilization as a Greco-Roman base, combined with Judeo-Christianity (really hard to leave that one out) plus the cultures of the various peoples from the Migration period and before (Not just Germanics, but Celts, West Slavs, Magyars, Basques, etc.)

The Judeo-Christian mixture was so obvious I didn't think it worth mentioning. However having said that, it was the Greek version of Christianity (as spread by Paul) that Western Civilization adopted--not the hardcore Judeo version. Reading the book "Zealot" and I'm just starting to get a picture of the life and times of that region.

I always thought of the Celts as being native to Europe (not a Migration people) as we know from excavation they had a cultural consciousness that spread from Turkey across Europe to Eire until the Romans became powerful enough to take them over. The Romans described them as a rival civilization--barbaric though they seemed to them.

~Chas'88

Yes, they were, the came out of the Hallstadt and Urnfield(sp?) cultures in the Alps. The Basques are even older. It would be more correct to say that Western civilization came about when Classical civilization, having already assimilated the Celts and other neighboring cultures, absorbed the Migration period peoples under the rubric of Christendom. That's why things like St Stephen's converting the Magyar kingdom to Christianity was so important. It's how Western Civilization really got going again after the fall of the West.

EDITED TO ADD Apparently, it was Urnfield after all.

When it comes to the mega saeculum, I don't think there's a cycle that distinctly mirrors the S&H theory, but I have a similar idea. One is that we follow a 3 saeculum chain which follows this pattern: system establishes, system survives, system declines giving way to a new order. Now by new order I don't necessarily mean a new form of government, but it can include it. It can also can be limited to our include a new type of person or family ruling the system, or conquest by a foreign system. But essentially what it means is that after 3 saeculum you get a new way if life which bears only mild connections with the previous order.

Kepi,I seem to recall from a previous conversation with Mikebert that he favored a 3 phase MegaSaeculum model as well. As I don't really remember the specifics of what he was saying and could hardly do it justice in any case, I will wait until he gets bored talking about chemical weapons or politics and pokes his head in.

I kinda vaguely remember that, I want to say it might have been in his Viking study? I had a hard with, because I'm interested in Vikings, but know too little, so it becomes a process of skimming Mikebert's post, doing some outside reading, going back to Mikebert's post and rereading what I skimmed, going off and playing some video games to think about it, coming back and reading again. I'm still reading it, long story short.

There was a book I got the 3 part mega idea, it was about economics, and the guy proposed way too many cycles (including a 5k year civilization cycle, which I felt was laughable... I mean how much data can you have to say that?), but he had a good point on a 250 year cycle, which is approximately 3 modern cycles. I tend to think of it as an order cycle or a social memory cycle. And think it includes the resolution of the crisis prior to the first saeculum I'm the cycle.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Eric, I'm 27. Born 1986, I'm not even a cusper.

Well then, as a millennial you are supposed to be civil and collegial. So you have no excuse for acting like the other Xers here.

Originally Posted by Kepi

I kinda vaguely remember that, I want to say it might have been in his Viking study? I had a hard with, because I'm interested in Vikings, but know too little, so it becomes a process of skimming Mikebert's post, doing some outside reading, going back to Mikebert's post and rereading what I skimmed, going off and playing some video games to think about it, coming back and reading again. I'm still reading it, long story short.

There was a book I got the 3 part mega idea, it was about economics, and the guy proposed way too many cycles (including a 5k year civilization cycle, which I felt was laughable... I mean how much data can you have to say that?), but he had a good point on a 250 year cycle, which is approximately 3 modern cycles. I tend to think of it as an order cycle or a social memory cycle. And think it includes the resolution of the crisis prior to the first saeculum I'm the cycle.

That would be a Pluto cycle, 248 years, 3 times longer than Uranus.

If America is part of "western civilization," and cycles apply to that, then clearly the longer cycles are 250/500/1000 years, as with all other civilizations. If western civilization is in turn now just a part of one world civilization, which is exactly what our current age of civilization since 1892 is creating, then the longer Pluto-Neptune cycles (as I call them), coming in multiples of 250, also apply to the West and to America. And you can't ignore the fact that Eastern values and ideas are as powerful today in our culture as the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian ones, and are just as much a part of our heritage here in America.

If instead you want to talk about a mega-saeculum, and date it from a key date in American national history, then such a cycle is one of American history, and not of western civilization. Clearly the saeculum has a lot to do with recurring birth-crises in American history (and aligns with the 84-year Uranus cycle). But then, aren't we talking about American institutions only? Clearly, as the return of American crisis approaches in the 2020s, with more indications of a returning crisis than usual, American institutions are due for tremendous shake-up in this 4T. That much we can predict.

But even then, the mega-saecula do not show turning traits that match the turnings of the saeculum, although Chas argues otherwise. In fact though, they don't fit at all.

1)the romantic, polarized civil war cycle can't be a high, which is unified, materialist, and collectivist.
2)the collectivist, materialist, massive building-oriented industrial Great Power cycle (the name says it all) cannot be an awakening, since awakenings are individualist, spiritual, and disruptive to building projects, powers and authorities.
3)the current millennial cycle is pregnant with new movements, seed ideas and spiritual revelations, and so can't be an unravelling, even though the longer-than-usual 3T makes it seem so.

So the longer civilization cycles of 250/500/1000 years have more priority in shaping the nature and phase-type of what is going on, even if the saeculum cycle of 84 years clearly operates within them, especially in regard to the history of the United States of America and its recurring birth-crisis moments.

Well then, as a millennial you are supposed to be civil and collegial. So you have no excuse for acting like the other Xers here.

If you will recall, Eric, I started out real collegial with you, and PBrower, and many others here. That doesn't mean I have to suffer other people's bullshit in silence. Not in the job description.

Eric,

I think the notion of the "megasaeculum" was presented as a civilization wide thing, which would make sense since most of Western Civilization is on the same rough timeframe.

Also, seriously, I wouldn't overestimate the influence of "eastern" cultural influences in the West. Most of them are paper thin at best. A little yoga, a little yin/yang, the occasional meal with chopsticks do not constitute a qualititatively level of cultural synthesis. If anything, we have borrowed far more from other civilizations in the past without anyone saying that we were no longer "Western". We were either always one civilization, or never.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Eric,

I think the notion of the "megasaeculum" was presented as a civilization wide thing, which would make sense since most of Western Civilization is on the same rough timeframe.

That would make sense, except for one glaring fact: the proponents frame the mega-cycle in terms of the fortunes of the United States. This is especially true of those who claim we are in a mega-unravelling. They propose this because they see the "American Empire" or some such thing as decaying and declining. This time frame refers to the founding of the United States in 1776. But western civilization was not founded in 1776, and America did not create it, nor does it represent it.

Also, seriously, I wouldn't overestimate the influence of "eastern" cultural influences in the West. Most of them are paper thin at best. A little yoga, a little yin/yang, the occasional meal with chopsticks do not constitute a qualititatively level of cultural synthesis. If anything, we have borrowed far more from other civilizations in the past without anyone saying that we were no longer "Western". We were either always one civilization, or never.

I disagree entirely. The Eastern values and culture are now foundational to our culture, and are a heritage shared by all of us. That is especially true since the 60s awakening. Meditation and holistic healing based on Oriental methods are becoming correctly-seen as essential to modern living. We are more influenced by Buddhism and Yoga now than by Greek philosophy, Roman law or Judeo-Christianity. Do not underestimate the significance of the Awakening that many of your age-group dismiss and try to ignore. If you are a seeker for culture and insight, you must now go on a vision quest influenced by Eastern philosophy and practice, not just study Aristotle or St. Thomas Aquinas or wade through some Kant or Descartes. PBS self-improvement shows are almost entirely based on Eastern practices and insights. If you study physical science, you can ignore the Tao of Physics, but if so you are on the wrong track.

But it's even more than this. Latin influences are increasing in America, and that includes indigenous influences and not just post-Columbian ones. Arab influences are invading Europe. African influences have dominated much of our pop music and jazz. Primitivism and Japan were major influences in modern arts. And in general it is clear that we are hooked in by the media and by the schools to all the world's cultures now. Travel shows are not just to Europe, but take us "globe trekking." And what's more, western influences have so deeply penetrated the east and south, that they are no longer themselves eastern or southern either. Demographically, races and peoples are mixing. We are one world culture in a new age, starting as of circa 1892. There's no more reason now to identify ourselves as "western." Western Civilization died in the world wars, and global civilization is its successor. The resulting League of Nations and United Nations are the seeds of developing global governance. In a global society, there is no west or east. To say so is just silly.

Eric, you tend to see the saeculum as a measure of nations, or at least states. I see it as a net effect ofinteresting systems. While, yes it is possible to draw the world into a global rhythm, it is just as easy for a system to peel apart from neglect.

Meanwhile, just because two nations are tethered by a common cultural background doesn't mean that they've always in the same part of the cycle at the same time, especially all the time. The way I take this 3 part cycle, the US isn't at the same point in that as Europe is, the US being in the decline to establishment transfer 4T, Europe being in the Establishment to Survival. So as far as Pluto causing this? That doesn't provide room for variance like that. As a time keeping mechanism, though, have a blast keeping that as you like.

As for the Asian cultural influence, that's really questionable and varies person to person. We consume a lot of Asian media and food, sure, but it requires a lot of explanation sometimes. Most of the other's media each consumes is the simple stuff. Japan likes our Star Wars and we love their sci fi cartoons, but the masses aren't sharing major period dramas or major works of philosophy. We're buzz word friendly, not really intertwined. Watch a Japanese show explaining something American deeper than a pop culture reference sometime and you'll really see it.

Meanwhile the west as a whole has relaxed most of its mores regarding religion as a whole, meaning it's an entirely different orientation. Prior to this era you measured religion by participation, because it was a faux pas to profess disbelief it even apathy. So are people less into religion or are the people who just weren't interested in the first place no longer obligated? When it comes to eastern Faith spreading west, I've known far too many college Buddhists and far too many people who merely think that karma is simply "what goes around comes around" to think that people are melding into a grand, eastern centric faith. Especially in light of our traditions and given the most comparable religion to an eastern one was destroyed 1700 years ago (Gnosticism has some very surface level correlations to Buddhism).

So this idea that we'll merge into a global super society under new age principals when we can't even manage continental nation states (aside from Australia)... I just don't see it as likely. What we've seen this saeculim is the results of establishing an empire in a declining saeculum. The US will likely turn away from everything to do with it. Europe might keep I'm their general course, might not. They've very much stuck following the US's order, and really won't have an opportunity to change that until the US's next 3T.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

If you will recall, Eric, I started out real collegial with you, and PBrower, and many others here. That doesn't mean I have to suffer other people's bullshit in silence. Not in the job description.

I don't recall that; I recall attacks and wishes of harm. You have never apologized, but I dropped you from my ignore list because you were behaving better, in my perception. But there was never any "bullshit" to suffer. There was difference of opinion. Learn to handle that without insulting people personally, especially boomers who are the favorite targets of impolite people here, and be an example of civic collegiality.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Eric, you tend to see the saeculum as a measure of nations, or at least states.

It seems those who believe in the mega-saeculum are saying that, without really admitting it. I tend to think the rhythms overlap nations. But if the mega-saeculum proponents date it from 1776, that is hooking it into one nation, and making all western and world civilization a subset of America and its fortunes.

I see it as a net effect of interesting systems. While, yes it is possible to draw the world into a global rhythm, it is just as easy for a system to peel apart from neglect.

Without any doubt, our times since the years just before the Great War are first and foremost about one developing world culture.

Meanwhile, just because two nations are tethered by a common cultural background doesn't mean that they've always in the same part of the cycle at the same time, especially all the time. The way I take this 3 part cycle, the US isn't at the same point in that as Europe is, the US being in the decline to establishment transfer 4T, Europe being in the Establishment to Survival. So as far as Pluto causing this? That doesn't provide room for variance like that. As a time keeping mechanism, though, have a blast keeping that as you like.

You said it was 250 years, just as the authors cited 84 years. You can't deny the correlation. Why reject it in a knee-jerk fashion? Why isn't it intriguing to you, as it was to me?

I'm sure we are in one saecular rhythm now, and our current 4T is even more clearly a 4T in Europe. I don't really understand your terms about "establishment," but we are all in the same phase of developing a new world culture in the wake of the fall of western civilization. It has already fallen; discussing it now is rummaging through ruins.

As for the Asian cultural influence, that's really questionable and varies person to person. We consume a lot of Asian media and food, sure, but it requires a lot of explanation sometimes. Most of the other's media each consumes is the simple stuff. Japan likes our Star Wars and we love their sci fi cartoons, but the masses aren't sharing major period dramas or major works of philosophy. We're buzz word friendly, not really intertwined. Watch a Japanese show explaining something American deeper than a pop culture reference sometime and you'll really see it.

We are strongly intertwined, and eastern philosophy is at the roots of many of our movies, like Star Wars or The Matrix. There is still individual differences, local cultures and language barriers, but west and east? I don't see any difference anymore. Only the fundies rely on Christianity, and I don't even consider them very civilized.

Meanwhile the west as a whole has relaxed most of its mores regarding religion as a whole, meaning it's an entirely different orientation. Prior to this era you measured religion by participation, because it was a faux pas to profess disbelief it even apathy. So are people less into religion or are the people who just weren't interested in the first place no longer obligated? When it comes to eastern Faith spreading west, I've known far too many college Buddhists and far too many people who merely think that karma is simply "what goes around comes around" to think that people are melding into a grand, eastern centric faith. Especially in light of our traditions and given the most comparable religion to an eastern one was destroyed 1700 years ago (Gnosticism has some very surface level correlations to Buddhism).

But it's coming back in a strong revival; the kaballah, hermeticism, astrology, alchemy, wicca, the gnostic gospels, tantra and chakras and much more; these are becoming part of our culture in a great revival which will continue and grow. We are seeing that not only are the correlations not "surface level," but there in fact always was one deep truth underlying all religions, and one macro myth underlying all stories. Ours is the age when technology and information is breaking down all the barriers that kept cultures apart, and we each are now the inheritors of all the world. That is as true economically as culturally; as Teilhard de Chardin said decades ago, the world world is now required to nurture each one of us. The treasures of the Orient are as popular among tourists as those of Europe, and that's because they move our souls just as deeply. We no longer see The West as the bastion of civilization against the barbarians beyond. We see that the other cultures were just as civilized all along, if not more so.

So this idea that we'll merge into a global super society under new age principals when we can't even manage continental nation states (aside from Australia)... I just don't see it as likely. What we've seen this saeculim is the results of establishing an empire in a declining saeculum. The US will likely turn away from everything to do with it. Europe might keep (on) their general course, might not. They've very much stuck following the US's order, and really won't have an opportunity to change that until the US's next 3T.

Whether we can manage our affairs well enough yet is beside the point. Western democracy and technology is spreading around the world, and Eastern culture is shifting Western consciousness and lifestyle at a fast pace. Europe has become more the model for the USA in the future than vice-versa. They are the ones leading the way into a sustainable and socially-responsible way of living, even if they can learn to adopt our central bank (which you want to destroy).