Originally Posted by Eric the Green

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.

I never said a megacycle had anything to do with some nebulous thing such as "western civilization." It has to do with the rise and fall of nation states, so the analysis is going to be based around distinct political units and the imperial influence they exert on the world around them. Rising nation-states have spheres of influence that expand, and declining nation-states are losing the ability to project cultural, commercial, and military influence.

I'm also still wondering if western civilization is just the Roman influence on western cultures, or if we get to include all the competing Celtic & Scandinavian influences as well. And do we really just stop with the Romans & Greeks, or do we include all of the Phoenician, Babylonian, and Egyptian influences on ancient Greece? So is Iraq part of western civ? If "middle eastern" Roman colonies don't count as "western civilization," what does that say about Spain and the fact that they were a Muslim state much more recently than they were a Roman province?

Or, since everyone wants to generalize, consider this: Is the U.S. in the exact same phase as the E.U.?

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I never said a megacycle had anything to do with some nebulous thing such as "western civilization." It has to do with the rise and fall of nation states, so the analysis is going to be based around distinct political units and the imperial influence they exert on the world around them. Rising nation-states have spheres of influence that expand, and declining nation-states are losing the ability to project cultural, commercial, and military influence.

Possibly, but as I read the evidence, most states and empires have followed an approximate 500-year cycle, not a 340-year one. So the saeculum is not a proper basis for a megacycle. It's also true that in the past there were only a few important states, and groups of states that rose and fell together. Today a nation like the United States of America is just one of 200 different states; why should the megacycle be based around such nations, at a time when nations are anachronisms in a developing world civilization, and empires are no longer possible?

Also the USA was an outpost of the British Empire, so that may really be what should be discussed. Was it really "rising" since 1776 and "declining" now, when in essence it was founded much earlier, and the British Empire itself fell after the 2nd World War?

I'm also still wondering if western civilization is just the Roman influence on western cultures, or if we get to include all the competing Celtic & Scandinavian influences as well. And do we really just stop with the Romans & Greeks, or do we include all of the Phoenician, Babylonian, and Egyptian influences on ancient Greece? So is Iraq part of western civ? If "middle eastern" Roman colonies don't count as "western civilization," what does that say about Spain and the fact that they were a Muslim state much more recently than they were a Roman province?

Or, since everyone wants to generalize, consider this: Is the U.S. in the exact same phase as the E.U.?

Why stop anywhere? Those of us whose lives have been influenced just as strongly by Eastern cultures, think such considerations are beside the point today. There is no east and no west anymore.

What are the historical precedents for cultural amalgamation?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

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.

Eh, in my mind the saeculum is just a process, I don't think each set of collective systems are in the same point. It makes a degree of sense that right now we're moving closer together, just like it makes sense that the US zeroed out in the colonial saeculum.

Originally Posted by Eric

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

This sounds more like a post modern Pax Americana to me. Isn't this this vision of all empires? To make the world into their vision of themselves (in this case the melting pot ideal)?

Originally Posted by Eric

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 not denying correlation, I'm denying causation. The reason that there are cycles may have something to do with the stars, but it's likely because from infancy or societies have used the stars as a means by which we document the passage of time, and because we assigned significance to certain celestial events I'm the past, its very much likely the reason that these cycles perpetuate. That's not casualty, it's correlation.

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.

I think I said earlier that I felt the three motions of the mega saeculum model were establishment, survival (maybe this should be adaptation or perpetuation), and decline. What I mean by establishment is the creation of some new order which is not the continuation of the old. By survival, I mean the order does what it must to survive, and survives. By decline I mean it's the death of the current order and birth if the new.

The US is the decline motion. The UK, France, Germany, and most of core Europe is in survival motion. The Balkans are probably in a different motion, and a good portion of the middle east is probably in decline phase.

Originally Posted by Eric

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.

The Matrix is actually based on Plato's philosophy and Christian Theology (I'm pretty sure it was primarily Augustian). They wanted to make it Buddhist, but couldn't find a culturally acceptable metaphor that worked for an action movie. Star Wars was driven by a Japanese film (Hidden Fortress) for it's narrative voice, but it was mostly just a really stripped down retelling of Dune (the original draft of Star Wars was really sad, so whoever choose to rip off Dune was really smart). Most of our culture comes from the same western sources they always have. Even Fight Club, which claimed the main character to be into some esoteric form of Buddhism had a fundamentally Christian plot (Tyler Dirden being nothing more than a really dirty version of the Holy Spirit transforming the narrative character so he could overcome his spiritual and physical oppressors through a spiritual revolution). People just don't have a whole lot of background in Eastern culture, and almost all popularized stories are of a Christian orientation, just a little grittier to suit modern audiences.

Originally Posted by Eric

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.

Not really a strong revival in belief, just in knowledge they exist. I mean I know the Gnostic Gospels exist, but I've only read The Gospel of Thomas, which is hotly debated as a Gnostic Gospel. As for the rest it's much the same. People know if these things, but I'm a very introductory level, and usually don't participate in them. Most people who've moved away from Christianity have moved to Atheism, Agnosticism or a general, no strings attached acknowledgement of a god or gods with no active attempt to further understand the concept.

Originally Posted by Eric

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.

Almost every last scholar and theologian from nearly every religion would disagree with you. There are similarities on a surface level because it is religion and they deal in the same arenas, but we've got a pretty clear idea of where all religions come from and the those which don't have an obvious common history share no hidden shared tradition. The religions of the world have separate traditions.

Originally Posted by Eric

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.

No, we still treat eachother really awful. The things people don't understand about Middle Eastern culture could fill volumes. Europe is getting increasingly racist (and not just in a Golden Dawn/Neo-Nazi kinda way). We've been totally awful to Hispanic People and Middle Eastern people I'm this country for the past decade, and the majority of our black people are still poorer than the majority of our white people. Most of the cultures we've developed a surface level rapport with are industrialized nations (when was the last time we imported a cool new Philippino TV show or a Laotian musician?) and are regurgitations of our pop culture, not traditions belonging to another culture. We're the same people we have been for thousands of years.

Originally Posted by Eric

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).

Again your very casual glance is missing an overwhelming amount of nuance. Germany's bank effectively functions as a central bank, and it's just as bad for them as ours is us. Eastern Culture has adopted far more western attitudes and traditions than they've ever exported to us. Western Democracy is constantly being established and eroded all over the world. Western technology can hardly be called wholly Western. We owe quite a bit too every nation that interacts with us, and Moore sms more all the time. We share trade which is awesome, and that's about it.

Historians have commented that 500 years is the average length of a major civilizational period/phase or Age.

I've pointed out a few times that Northrop Frye's independently developed the basis for what I call a "Super Saeculum" (it wasn't his intention to do so, he simply was tracking what he saw as "literary cycles"--he managed to trace two--one in Ancient times and another in being founded with the foundation of Christianity) in terms of the evolution of literature, and that aligns mostly with the 500 year structure that Tim's talking about. Frye divides it into 5 distinct periods, but I can see two of his periods are similar enough to be construed as period part one and period part two.

Age of Myth

Think the basis of Greek Myths about Gods, Celtic Myths, Germanic Myths, etc. Frye throws in pure Christianity as what he calls the "all-consuming myth" as during the last age of myths after the fall of the Roman Empire it had to compete with many other myths eventually devouring them all.

Comic Myth = Origins of Hermes, how he tricked Apollo and joined Olympus

Tragic Myth = Death and Resurrection of Christ

Age of Romance

Think stories of heroes doing daring deeds from Hercules to King Arthur. The World of the Myth hasn't vanished completely though it's obvious that some time has indeed past.

Comic Romance = The Twelve Labors of Hercules

Tragic Romance = The Death of Beowulf


Age of Mimetic (Frye divides this into High and Low Mimetic each--Mimetic being a fancy term for Realism the way he uses it--well that's a simplification, but it gets the point across)

Stories about representing every day life for certain people. The world of the myth seems to increasingly vanish as we become more and more focused with depicting actual reality as we believe it to be.

High Mimetic is essentially stories about the lives of the upper classes, rulers, great leaders, etc. Calderon and Shakespeare belong to this era.

High Mimetic Comedy = As You Like It - an upperclass woman unites and restores the proper ruling class to power

High Mimetic Tragedy = Othello - a great general tragically falls due to his interracial marriage

Low Mimetic is essentially stories about the lives of the bourgeoisie, lower classes, and followers. Think Jane Austen or Charles Dickens.

Low Mimetic Comedy = Pride and Prejudice - bourgeoisie girl revitalizes stuffy upper class boy through marriage

Low Mimetic Tragedy = A Tale of Two Cities; bourgeoisie man sacrifices himself so upper class friend can live and marry


Age of Irony

Irony is essentially stories about how the old Myth no longer cuts it for our civilization and all the old stories are looked at through the tinge of irony, sarcasm, and cynicism. Mostly stories about sub-human or people of such a lowly stature they're considered beneath the lowest of the low, scapegoats, dystopian societies, stories about such a disintegrated society where there's next to no common values left, etc.

Ironic Comedy = Detective Story/Thriller (the only thing that binds a society together is punishing murderers and thieves as that's the only common value left in the society); Anything by Agatha Christie

Ironic Tragedy = Stories about how sacrifice and individuals aren't worth anything; Death of a Salesman, the whole point we're supposed to take from the play is that we're worth more dead than alive... think about how crappy a society has to be if an individual is worth more dead than alive? Kafka's Metamorphosis also belongs here.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

that aligns mostly with the 500 year structure that Tim's talking about.

Uh, and somebody else here is talking about....

Originally Posted by Kepi

Eh, in my mind the saeculum is just a process, I don't think each set of collective systems are in the same point. It makes a degree of sense that right now we're moving closer together, just like it makes sense that the US zeroed out in the colonial saeculum.

If zeroed out means taking 1776 is a beginning, then no, there was no zero out. The new USA was virtually the same country as the colonies.

This sounds more like a post modern Pax Americana to me. Isn't this this vision of all empires? To make the world into their vision of themselves (in this case the melting pot ideal)?

There is no Pax Americana; all cultures are influential, and many nations are powerful. There is a melting pot to some extent, but the pot is a mixture, not American. And "America" itself is becoming a mixture of all world peoples at a fast rate.

I'm not denying correlation, I'm denying causation. The reason that there are cycles may have something to do with the stars, but it's likely because from infancy our societies have used the stars as a means by which we document the passage of time, and because we assigned significance to certain celestial events I'm the past, its very much likely the reason that these cycles perpetuate. That's not casualty, it's correlation.

I could agree, but I don't agree on your theory about why the correlation exists, mostly because these outer 3 planets were invisible. The real reason is the holographic/hermetic nature of the universe. As above, so below. Things move in cycles, and the greater is reflected in the lesser.

I think I said earlier that I felt the three motions of the mega saeculum model were establishment, survival (maybe this should be adaptation or perpetuation), and decline. What I mean by establishment is the creation of some new order which is not the continuation of the old. By survival, I mean the order does what it must to survive, and survives. By decline I mean it's the death of the current order and birth if the new.

The US is the decline motion. The UK, France, Germany, and most of core Europe is in survival motion. The Balkans are probably in a different motion, and a good portion of the middle east is probably in decline phase.

The Great War was the defining event our times, according to every historical account. The Great War was the end of one era and the beginning of a new one. All of Europe in particular must be seen in that context. "Survival motion" is plausible for Europe in your theory, but I think the 500-year cycle is more powerful, and we are still near the start of that. As I have said, I think the USA is so much an outgrowth of Britain that 1776 cannot be seen as a beginning point. As for the Middle East, it has been in "decline phase" for about 800 years. The Great War began a new era there as well, though the career of Lawrence of Arabia, the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the resulting new colonial activities, the founding of Israel, the discovery of oil, etc. Again, an early phase in the 500-year cycle makes sense. But sometimes 250-year periods make some sense. In astrological terms, the opposition of Neptune-Pluto can be a turning point as well.

The Matrix is actually based on Plato's philosophy and Christian Theology (I'm pretty sure it was primarily Augustian). They wanted to make it Buddhist, but couldn't find a culturally acceptable metaphor that worked for an action movie. Star Wars was driven by a Japanese film (Hidden Fortress) for it's narrative voice, but it was mostly just a really stripped down retelling of Dune (the original draft of Star Wars was really sad, so whoever choose to rip off Dune was really smart). Most of our culture comes from the same western sources they always have. Even Fight Club, which claimed the main character to be into some esoteric form of Buddhism had a fundamentally Christian plot (Tyler Dirden being nothing more than a really dirty version of the Holy Spirit transforming the narrative character so he could overcome his spiritual and physical oppressors through a spiritual revolution). People just don't have a whole lot of background in Eastern culture, and almost all popularized stories are of a Christian orientation, just a little grittier to suit modern audiences.

It's tough for me to argue specific movies, so I'm sure you have a point. The larger point though, is the emerging realization that stories are universal, and Eastern culture certainly has an influence today. I'm sure there's more examples I could rattle off: The Last Emperor, The Karate Kid, etc. The East is an integral part of our culture and all of our lives, since the consciousness revolution at least, and to some extent since WWII, and before in such ways as the influence on the creators of modern art and music.

Not really a strong revival in belief, just in knowledge they exist. I mean I know the Gnostic Gospels exist, but I've only read The Gospel of Thomas, which is hotly debated as a Gnostic Gospel. As for the rest it's much the same. People know if these things, but I'm a very introductory level, and usually don't participate in them. Most people who've moved away from Christianity have moved to Atheism, Agnosticism or a general, no strings attached acknowledgement of a god or gods with no active attempt to further understand the concept.

And many people are interested in yoga, meditation, zen, new age, self-help, neo-pagan, etc. etc. We can't successfully live in the modern world anymore without Eastern culture. Science (as a spiritual and moral basis for personal living) and Christianity alone are bankrupt, totally.

Almost every last scholar and theologian from nearly every religion would disagree with you. There are similarities on a surface level because it is religion and they deal in the same arenas, but we've got a pretty clear idea of where all religions come from and the those which don't have an obvious common history share no hidden shared tradition. The religions of the world have separate traditions.

No, many would agree with me, in the tradition of Joseph Campbell. There is one religion at the source, one truth, and one power. Most people realize today that all religions lead to the same place. All share common moral tenets too; that is well-documented. Religion is not to be looked at from the outside, culturally. It is not an empirical phenomenon; it is an activity of the soul or spirit.

No, we still treat each other really awful. The things people don't understand about Middle Eastern culture could fill volumes. Europe is getting increasingly racist (and not just in a Golden Dawn/Neo-Nazi kinda way). We've been totally awful to Hispanic People and Middle Eastern people I'm this country for the past decade, and the majority of our black people are still poorer than the majority of our white people. Most of the cultures we've developed a surface level rapport with are industrialized nations (when was the last time we imported a cool new Philippino TV show or a Laotian musician?) and are regurgitations of our pop culture, not traditions belonging to another culture. We're the same people we have been for thousands of years.

None of that means that change is not afoot; it is, since the Great War and since modern culture began at the Neptune-Pluto conjunction of 1892. We are one world culture, but of course people don't all realize this yet. If you don't realize it yet Kepi, then you are just part of perpetuating this "still treat each other really awful" situation. The sooner we realize we are one people on one Earth, the easier it will be to adapt to the new reality, and move toward equal treatment and opportunity for all races and peoples.

Again your very casual glance is missing an overwhelming amount of nuance. Germany's bank effectively functions as a central bank, and it's just as bad for them as ours is us. Eastern Culture has adopted far more western attitudes and traditions than they've ever exported to us. Western Democracy is constantly being established and eroded all over the world. Western technology can hardly be called wholly Western. We owe quite a bit too every nation that interacts with us, and Moore sms more all the time. We share trade which is awesome, and that's about it.

It is clear that Europe's recession is worse than ours because they don't have a central bank to establish QE and regulate borrowing like we have. Every economist has said so. That is reality, not "nuance." And if western democracy is being established all over the world, that proves my point. This process has only started, in many cases only since the 1990s. The Uranus-Neptune conjunction period of the early 1990s contained more new nations and newly-established democracies than any such period in history. If western technology is not wholly western, that proves my point as well. I don't know what "Moore sms more all the time" refers to.

Concievably, you could get an amalgamation of cultures. For a sense of this, Watch Firefly/Serenity.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I'm also still wondering if western civilization is just the Roman influence on western cultures, or if we get to include all the competing Celtic & Scandinavian influences as well. And do we really just stop with the Romans & Greeks, or do we include all of the Phoenician, Babylonian, and Egyptian influences on ancient Greece? So is Iraq part of western civ? If "middle eastern" Roman colonies don't count as "western civilization," what does that say about Spain and the fact that they were a Muslim state much more recently than they were a Roman province?

I believe you not least need to think Christianity, and the specific theological and philosophical development that grew out of western Christianity. Take some time to trace the threads and that alone makes European civilization pretty unique. The scientific method and worldview for instance was largely the unintended side effect of scholasticism, which maybe couldn't have arisen anywhere else.

As far as social and political institutions go - the refined sense of liberty for example, that is so peculiar to the west - the fruitful clash of Graeco-Roman and Germanic probably explains a lot, but then again both are deep down essentially variations on a common Indo-European theme. No need to consider special characteristics of "Scandinavian" etc - what matters more in regard to Swedes as well as English, French and Germans is in such a case a shared Germanic heritage.

The cultures of the mid-east (including the Phoenecians) thus fall out, and whether the east was under Roman (and earlier on Greek) domination for a few hundred becomes largely immaterial. Already Sparta and Athens knew instinctively they belonged together in relation to the long shadow cast by the Achaemenid Empire (which ironically was headed by a people who were of Indo-European origin themselves).


EDIT: By the way, all of Spain was never under the Moors, nor did they dominate the Paeninsula for more than roughly 350 years. After the break up of the Cordoba Caliphate (1031) and the fall of Toledo (1085), Islam was in retreat and relegated to the southern part of Spain. The Christians under Muslim rule neither ceased to be Christian, but were in fact causing insurrections and suffered persecution in turns.

Good breakdown, Tussliago, and to answer the question of "Celtic heritage", it's a heritage that had more clout and was more wide-spread in the early days of Rome--but since then has been on the retreat until you get the extreme western locations that are considered to be "fringe". All that's left of the grand Celtic civilization that stretched from Turkey to Erie, is the following:

Ireland
Scotland
Wales
Isle of Man
Brittany

Everywhere else but those sub-regions (with the exception of Ireland) has had not only a Grecco-Roman takeover, but a Germanic take over on top of that. It matters more to England for example that they have a common Germanic background with the rest of the Teutonics, than it does their earlier Briton ancestors who come in as an after thought. After all the percieved creation of a "modern English man" is a marriage between a Norman French Knight (Vikings who took over Normandy in France) and an Anglo-Saxon bar wench.

Scotland and Ireland didn't get taken over by the Grecco-Romans at all (well the Scottish Highlands never got taken over, but the lowlands did for a time), so Scotland and Ireland have their strong Celtic background which only has had to contend with the Germanic overlords taking over. Meanwhile Wales, Brittany, and the Isle of Man had to deal with Grecco-Roman and Germanic takeovers and are thus more repressed and less well known because of it.

~Chas'88

This thing we call "western civilization" is an amalgamation of cultures, primarily Greco-Roman and Christian influences somewhat uniting relatively competitive Celtic, German, and Mediterranean tribes. The political units created by these tribes rise & fall relative to each other over the last few thousand years, and new tribes are created from amalgamations of the existing core cultures. There is also some Middle Eastern influence in math, science, commerce, and agriculture, and you don't necessarily have to go back to Phoenicia to see it.

It's the same thing with "eastern civilization." China, Japan, and Korea don't act as a singular unit relative to the west, they rise and fall relative to each other. China's expansion into the old Korean empire, and then Japan's later expansion in to Korea & Manchuria precedes a growing cultural & commercial influence on its neighbors.

We can try to sum all of these overlapping influences in to one homogeneous unit in hopes of finding a cycle for "western civilization" or the "eastern world," but I don't think it's going to turn up anything useful. It would also be tough, and we'd be looking for really long cycles, if we tried to find cycles for sub-civilizations tied by language roots. It isn't until we drill down to a specific country or empire that we find something that really resembles the megacycle, because those political units actually have something resembling a birth/growth/decay/death cycle.

Also: There's plenty of scientific thinking in the history of the Middle East & Asia, just as there is plenty of mysticism and magical thinking in the history of Europe.

I think it is better to take a different approach. Look at the Saeculum for each individual unit, be it a state or a region or people, work out what they are, THEN try and figure out whether and how places are interconnected, and why. For instance, people have been talking about cycles for Western Europe as a whole because people like Mikebert have been doing analysis for multiple countries going back centuries and finding them to be in synch to within ten years or so. Ireland and Russia have been referred to as not being part of the same set not because their mix of ethnic identity, Christianity, and Classical influences doesn't fit some arbitrary criterion, but because they don't seem to be running on the same timeline. Collect data first, THEN theorize about what it means.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If zeroed out means taking 1776 is a beginning, then no, there was no zero out. The new USA was virtually the same country as the colonies.

Yes, there was, if you follow the colonies after the rebellion everything changed, 1776 was merely the genesis of it. Right down to the fashion of the era. There was a firm division of old to new. Democracy was not a new idea, even in England, so what changed? The entire culture changed. The idea that there could exist a class of people who were somehow better based on lineage changed, and that fundamentally altered the culture of the time.

Originally Posted by Eric

There is no Pax Americana; all cultures are influential, and many nations are powerful. There is a melting pot to some extent, but the pot is a mixture, not American. And "America" itself is becoming a mixture of all world peoples at a fast rate.

Considering we can't go 15 minutes without some nation wanting us to bomb their back yard, the idea of Pax Americana is quite alive and well. It'll be gone this 1T, but it is very much alive. As for America becoming a mixture of all peoples, this is sort of true. We've not a unified culture. America is much more like a salad bowl than a melting pot. And by the next 2T, it will just be a much more Hispanic salad bowl.

Originally Posted by Eric

I could agree, but I don't agree on your theory about why the correlation exists, mostly because these outer 3 planets were invisible. The real reason is the holographic/hermetic nature of the universe. As above, so below. Things move in cycles, and the greater is reflected in the lesser.

This is just one of those things I'll never be particularly interested in.

Originally Posted by Eric

The Great War was the defining event our times, according to every historical account. The Great War was the end of one era and the beginning of a new one. All of Europe in particular must be seen in that context. "Survival motion" is plausible for Europe in your theory, but I think the 500-year cycle is more powerful, and we are still near the start of that. As I have said, I think the USA is so much an outgrowth of Britain that 1776 cannot be seen as a beginning point. As for the Middle East, it has been in "decline phase" for about 800 years. The Great War began a new era there as well, though the career of Lawrence of Arabia, the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the resulting new colonial activities, the founding of Israel, the discovery of oil, etc. Again, an early phase in the 500-year cycle makes sense. But sometimes 250-year periods make some sense. In astrological terms, the opposition of Neptune-Pluto can be a turning point as well.

Actually, most historical accounts that aren't specifically about World War I kinda gloss over it. Personally, I think that is a mild injustice, because it is, indeed the end of that world order. However, the birth of the new doesn't start until the end if the European Theater of World War II. Fascism and Nazism were a stop gap to fill the vacuum while Europe realized she was no longer the dominant force in the world. That is a decline, into a new Era. The US didn't experience that.

The US experienced the continuation of the empire they had built on industrialization. This was entirely different from the standard European experience. Had this occurred in a time of establishment it systemic survival it would have been taken in stride, instead we are in decline and because of that, the contradiction between the American ethos and any sort of imperialism is very apparent.

Originally Posted by Eric

It's tough for me to argue specific movies, so I'm sure you have a point. The larger point though, is the emerging realization that stories are universal, and Eastern culture certainly has an influence today. I'm sure there's more examples I could rattle off: The Last Emperor, The Karate Kid, etc. The East is an integral part of our culture and all of our lives, since the consciousness revolution at least, and to some extent since WWII, and before in such ways as the influence on the creators of modern art and music.

You actually managed to stumble upon one of the best examples of what I'm taking about with the Karate Kid. Here's a fundamentally American story, told as an American story with karate as a selling point. And by karate, I mean something only a person who had never seen and martial arts would think is a fighting style. Flash forward, our last Samurai is a white guy, our last Mohican is a white guy, and while the Last Air Bender looks like it was made in Japan, it's all American. This isn't a cultural exchange its fetishism of the exotic.

Originally Posted by Eric

And many people are interested in yoga, meditation, zen, new age, self-help, neo-pagan, etc. etc. We can't successfully live in the modern world anymore without Eastern culture. Science (as a spiritual and moral basis for personal living) and Christianity alone are bankrupt, totally.

First off, Neo-Paganism is pretty much all from a European background, so it doesn't really fit. Next, it's from religions so dead that nobody really knows how they were practiced in the first place. So basically it's a bunch of white people try again appropriating culture, but at least this time it's their own ancestors so at least it's not insulting AND embarrassing. As for the rest, it's picking and choosing and appropriating from cultural traditions which are not ones own because the confines of culture are burdensome for wealthy people who don't want to have to worry about things like feeding the hungry it serving the less fortunate or dealing with people who won't tolerate nonsense from the overprivledged. Sure, you have a few serious new practitioners in a sea of tourists commodifying other people's cultures, but like I said, it's a sea.

Originally Posted by Eric

No, many would agree with me, in the tradition of Joseph Campbell. There is one religion at the source, one truth, and one power. Most people realize today that all religions lead to the same place. All share common moral tenets too; that is well-documented. Religion is not to be looked at from the outside, culturally. It is not an empirical phenomenon; it is an activity of the soul or spirit.

Nobody reputable would agree with you because we have a pretty good handle on where and when the surviving religions stories came from, and therefore who they from and when. There is absolutely no common religious tradition which unifies all existing religions. It's just not true. There is absolutely zero evidence to support it multitudes to refute it and anyone who says otherwise is selling a total con job. Some religions share a common ancestry, but that's known and obvious. However just because Zeus and The share domain over thunder does not make them the same god and anyone who has read their mythos knows that there are no commonalities otherwise.

Originally Posted by Eric

None of that means that change is not afoot; it is, since the Great War and since modern culture began at the Neptune-Pluto conjunction of 1892. We are one world culture, but of course people don't all realize this yet. If you don't realize it yet Kepi, then you are just part of perpetuating this "still treat each other really awful" situation. The sooner we realize we are one people on one Earth, the easier it will be to adapt to the new reality, and move toward equal treatment and opportunity for all races and peoples.

No Eric I am quite aware that like all people I'm this country I am perpetuating some really awful stuff just by living in a way that doesn't get me arrested. However, I'm under no illusion that magic realizations will somehow make it all better. It's a matter mostly of finance and resource distribution.

Originally Posted by Eric

It is clear that Europe's recession is worse than ours because they don't have a central bank to establish QE and regulate borrowing like we have. Every economist has said so. That is reality, not "nuance." And if western democracy is being established all over the world, that proves my point. This process has only started, in many cases only since the 1990s. The Uranus-Neptune conjunction period of the early 1990s contained more new nations and newly-established democracies than any such period in history. If western technology is not wholly western, that proves my point as well. I don't know what "Moore sms more all the time" refers to.

It is also clear that be trying to alleviate the effects of the recession they're prolonging it and it's obvious they are doing so because what they are doing with QE is exactly the thing that toppled us into recession I'm the first place. Now even without the bad behavior in the part of every financial institution and legal system in the industrialized world this was inevitable, but the fact that they allowed acceleration of that inevitable and that they choose to prolong the problem is unacceptable. These morons in the Federal Reserve have no clue how to fix the problem without making everyone (and by everyone, I mean that top 20% if income earners) unhappy, so they choose not to fix it. Terrible human beings, they are in the Fed.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Yes, there was, if you follow the colonies after the rebellion everything changed, 1776 was merely the genesis of it. Right down to the fashion of the era. There was a firm division of old to new. Democracy was not a new idea, even in England, so what changed? The entire culture changed. The idea that there could exist a class of people who were somehow better based on lineage changed, and that fundamentally altered the culture of the time.

Everything I've read says that there was virtually no change; the culture and government before and after the Revolution was virtually the same, as was the amount of class distinction. America was already America; the constitution just added additional protections for the wealthy. Starting a mega-turning at 1776 is shallow nonsense. Turnings are not just about which government was established by a piece of paper. They are about the ebb and flow of history and culture and family life. So no mega-cycle means anything except one based on the overall cycle of civilization, the rhythm that all civilizations follow regardless of which dynasty or constitution happens to be in effect for which realms or provinces. And the proof that this mega-turning idea is false is how poorly each supposed mega-turning fits the definition of the turning it is named after. I have already reviewed that.

Considering we can't go 15 minutes without some nation wanting us to bomb their back yard, the idea of Pax Americana is quite alive and well. It'll be gone this 1T, but it is very much alive. As for America becoming a mixture of all peoples, this is sort of true. We've not a unified culture. America is much more like a salad bowl than a melting pot. And by the next 2T, it will just be a much more Hispanic salad bowl.

Salad bowls become melting pots pretty quickly, and if our "Pax Americana" is due to expire so soon, it doesn't amount to much at all.

This is just one of those things I'll never be particularly interested in.

I would think it would give anyone pause who is genuinely curious about how the universe really works. And the fact that our contemporary science does not have a clue, is also a fascinating area to explore. And why so many people believe the dogmas of science and religion, when they don't hold any water at all, is also a fascinating question. Any curious person would be interested in these things. If you see a cycle in history, and it corresponds so closely to a planet, that cannot be honestly ignored.

Actually, most historical accounts that aren't specifically about World War I kinda gloss over it. Personally, I think that is a mild injustice, because it is, indeed the end of that world order. However, the birth of the new doesn't start until the end if the European Theater of World War II. Fascism and Nazism were a stop gap to fill the vacuum while Europe realized she was no longer the dominant force in the world. That is a decline, into a new Era. The US didn't experience that.

The US experienced the continuation of the empire they had built on industrialization. This was entirely different from the standard European experience. Had this occurred in a time of establishment it systemic survival it would have been taken in stride, instead we are in decline and because of that, the contradiction between the American ethos and any sort of imperialism is very apparent.

All historians recognize that World War I was the end of a world order. What WE experienced was ascension to being a dominant force, but what we are all really experiencing is the birth of a new order. And that order is a world culture, with many centers of power. The birth of the League of Nations was the unmistakable sign of this new order.

You actually managed to stumble upon one of the best examples of what I'm taking about with the Karate Kid. Here's a fundamentally American story, told as an American story with karate as a selling point. And by karate, I mean something only a person who had never seen and martial arts would think is a fighting style. Flash forward, our last Samurai is a white guy, our last Mohican is a white guy, and while the Last Air Bender looks like it was made in Japan, it's all American. This isn't a cultural exchange its fetishism of the exotic.

If we are learning about karate, and karate schools are found in almost every shopping mall, and if we all need to learn yoga and meditation and acupuncture now to stay healthy and sane, which we do, and when Christianity and science as a source of personal guidance and health have been proven bankrupt beyond all hope, that is a real cultural exchange, and an extremely vital one. X/Yers (nomad-civics) ignore this at their own peril.

And the latest karate kid is not a white guy, and I don't mean JB

First off, Neo-Paganism is pretty much all from a European background, so it doesn't really fit. Next, it's from religions so dead that nobody really knows how they were practiced in the first place. So basically it's a bunch of white people try again appropriating culture, but at least this time it's their own ancestors so at least it's not insulting AND embarrassing. As for the rest, it's picking and choosing and appropriating from cultural traditions which are not ones own because the confines of culture are burdensome for wealthy people who don't want to have to worry about things like feeding the hungry it serving the less fortunate or dealing with people who won't tolerate nonsense from the overprivledged. Sure, you have a few serious new practitioners in a sea of tourists commodifying other people's cultures, but like I said, it's a sea.

Who is to say what is "one's own" culture anymore? Just because I happen to be descended from one set of folks rather than another? That is nonsense. We are all heirs to all the world now. It doesn't matter if many folks are not interested; they never are, but they are heirs anyway. The problems of inequality are irrelevant to that discussion. The point of philosophy, whether east or west, is to handle and reduce worry, not to "have to worry." Worry does not do anyone any good, least of all the hungry.

Nobody reputable would agree with you because we have a pretty good handle on where and when the surviving religions stories came from, and therefore who they from and when. There is absolutely no common religious tradition which unifies all existing religions. It's just not true. There is absolutely zero evidence to support it multitudes to refute it and anyone who says otherwise is selling a total con job. Some religions share a common ancestry, but that's known and obvious. However just because Zeus and Thor share domain over thunder does not make them the same god and anyone who has read their mythos knows that there are no commonalities otherwise.

It is absolutely true. Everyone reputable agrees with me. There are folk ideas and universal ideas. But I admit, you have to have some idea of what is really going on in religion, and a rationalist such as yourself might not have that. Anyone who has studied religion knows that there is one religion, and that many gods and stories are the same, and that ultimately there is only one god: Brahman is Allah is God is Universal Mind. That is the source of all being, not "resource distribution." Campbell and Jung et. al. are not cons; they are part of a tradition that is correct. Every religion teaches the golden rule too; that is well-documented and not a con job. I'm sure we have posted here about that. There are many paths; one truth. You can ignore that truth now, which only means your younger brothers and children will have to rediscover what your older cultural-creative brothers and sisters discovered and created only a few years ago. Why do you want everyone to reinvent the wheel? A narrow rationalist view of the world is what is old hat. The 18th century is over, and its ideologies have to go, whether they be the Enlightenment or Libertarianism.

No Eric I am quite aware that like all people I'm this country I am perpetuating some really awful stuff just by living in a way that doesn't get me arrested. However, I'm under no illusion that magic realizations will somehow make it all better. It's a matter mostly of finance and resource distribution.

We have to have the right conceptions. We have to live out the true meaning of our creed, that all people are created equal. Without that realization, we won't make the right distributions. If we don't think that all people deserve what they need, then why would we make the changes to make it so? The white people in the South still don't have this conception, so they oppose welfare and social programs, based on their closet racism. We are one world culture; "western civilization" as an idea is just an ego trip. It is no better or more important to us than the other civilizations anywhere else on earth.

It is also clear that be trying to alleviate the effects of the recession they're prolonging it and it's obvious they are doing so because what they are doing with QE is exactly the thing that toppled us into recession I'm the first place. Now even without the bad behavior in the part of every financial institution and legal system in the industrialized world this was inevitable, but the fact that they allowed acceleration of that inevitable and that they choose to prolong the problem is unacceptable. These morons in the Federal Reserve have no clue how to fix the problem without making everyone (and by everyone, I mean that top 20% if income earners) unhappy, so they choose not to fix it. Terrible human beings, they are in the Fed.

No, they aren't. I think the only fault of the Fed in this, is that they turned a blind eye and didn't act sooner in the 00s. Right now, QE is the only game in town because of Republican blocking. It is the only thing curing the recession. It is working, somewhat. All the financial markets realize this, and go into a tizzy whenever folks like you suggest that the Fed might halt QE. Fiscal measures would be better, for sure, but the people voted to stop this real cure on Nov.2, 2010, and we have not overturned that decision. So we are stuck with QE. QE did not cause the great recession at all. It was bad mortgages bundled together and betted/speculated on by big financial firms deregulated by Reagan and Clinton that caused it. We are much better off than Europe, because Europe cannot do QE, it has no means to create money to pump up their economy. We do, and that's why we are recovering better.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

This thing we call "western civilization" is an amalgamation of cultures, primarily Greco-Roman and Christian influences somewhat uniting relatively competitive Celtic, German, and Mediterranean tribes. The political units created by these tribes rise & fall relative to each other over the last few thousand years, and new tribes are created from amalgamations of the existing core cultures. There is also some Middle Eastern influence in math, science, commerce, and agriculture, and you don't necessarily have to go back to Phoenicia to see it.

It's the same thing with "eastern civilization." China, Japan, and Korea don't act as a singular unit relative to the west, they rise and fall relative to each other. China's expansion into the old Korean empire, and then Japan's later expansion in to Korea & Manchuria precedes a growing cultural & commercial influence on its neighbors.

We can try to sum all of these overlapping influences in to one homogeneous unit in hopes of finding a cycle for "western civilization" or the "eastern world," but I don't think it's going to turn up anything useful. It would also be tough, and we'd be looking for really long cycles, if we tried to find cycles for sub-civilizations tied by language roots. It isn't until we drill down to a specific country or empire that we find something that really resembles the megacycle, because those political units actually have something resembling a birth/growth/decay/death cycle.

Also: There's plenty of scientific thinking in the history of the Middle East & Asia, just as there is plenty of mysticism and magical thinking in the history of Europe.

We are one culture, and the long cycles of civilization are pretty-well verified already, and apply to all civilizations. Yes, you need to drill down to each specific country to see them. When you do, you see that they follow the same rhythm. We have always been influenced by other cultures, but in the older days exchange was much slower. There were times when there was more, such as the 2nd century. But in most times until today, cultures were much more isolated, and so were individuals, although peoples and powers moved around.

The idea that a mega-cycle consists of 4 saecula, is just an arbitrary one not based on anything except the extension of a concept. No evidence supports it. The idea that we are in a mega-unravelling is held mainly by folks here who are mostly Xers and Millies who have experienced virtually no other turning but an unravelling. And their experience and attitude towards it seems to predominate their thinking about our times.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Collect data first, THEN theorize about what it means.

That seems a wise approach

Eric said "Everything I've read says that there was virtually no change; the culture and government before and after the Revolution was virtually the same, as was the amount of class distinction. America was already America; the constitution just added additional protections for the wealthy. Starting a mega-turning at 1776 is shallow nonsense. Turnings are not just about which government was established by a piece of paper. They are about the ebb and flow of history and culture and family life. So no mega-cycle means anything except one based on the overall cycle of civilization, the rhythm that all civilizations follow regardless of which dynasty or constitution happens to be in effect for which realms or provinces. And the proof that this mega-turning idea is false is how poorly each supposed mega-turning fits the definition of the turning it is named after. I have already reviewed that."

Actually, this is similar to a science fiction trope of the clone child - the idiot af goes with the easy fallacy that the child will be identical to the parent in every way - will *be* the parent for all practical purposes. Thinking sf writers realize that the clone is born into a different world and in a different time and with her own agenda.

Just so we (and Canada and Australia) are England's daughters, but by no means a continuation of England. Though our history probably stretches back to before Independence, it's still the result of a reset.

He also ignores the fact that it wasn't just America, the Enlightenment swept over Europe as well, with the American Revolution and the founding of the first modern republic being roughly contemporaneous with the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars/End of the Holy Roman Empire/etc.

Course, the old order wasn't completely overturned politically or culturally until the great power saeculum and the birth of Modernism proper, particularly during its high point in the Belle Epoque, around the turn of the last century.

It's certainly an interesting hypothesis, at least, and in so far as I ascribe to it I see the big political transformation happening across the West during the Revolutionary period (French and American Alike) and the big cultural upheaval happening during the 1890s/1900s bit, the Awakening/Awakening if you will. Which ended poorly, as Awakenings generally do, with a high point about halfway through (1914 versus 1973 for this saeculum).

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

He also ignores the fact that it wasn't just America, the Enlightenment swept over Europe as well, with the American Revolution and the founding of the first modern republic being roughly contemporaneous with the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars/End of the Holy Roman Empire/etc.

Course, the old order wasn't completely overturned politically or culturally until the great power saeculum and the birth of Modernism proper, particularly during its high point in the Belle Epoque, around the turn of the last century.

It's certainly an interesting hypothesis, at least, and in so far as I ascribe to it I see the big political transformation happening across the West during the Revolutionary period (French and American Alike) and the big cultural upheaval happening during the 1890s/1900s bit, the Awakening/Awakening if you will. Which ended poorly, as Awakenings generally do, with a high point about halfway through (1914 versus 1973 for this saeculum).

There is only one event, or series of events, that can truly be considered revolutionary: the coming of the Industrial Age. After 10,000 years as agricultural and craft societies, the advent of machine-driven production changed everything. Of course, not all societies felt the benefits and burdens at the same time or to the same extent, but that was the point when true change started. Yes, we had political change earlier, but, as Eric noted, it had a minimal impact on everyday life. Industry changed everything. You can argue that Modernity was the true transition point, but society was already changed drastically before the advent of electricity, automobiles and the Jazz Age.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There is only one event, or series of events, that can truly be considered revolutionary: the coming of the Industrial Age. After 10,000 years as agricultural and craft societies, the advent of machine-driven production changed everything. Of course, not all societies felt the benefits and burdens at the same time or to the same extent, but that was the point when true change started. Yes, we had political change earlier, but, as Eric noted, it had a minimal impact on everyday life. Industry changed everything. You can argue that Modernity was the true transition point, but society was already changed drastically before the advent of electricity, automobiles and the Jazz Age.

Yes, and when did Industrialization begin? Late 18th century, with the first useful steam engines, division of labor, and textile mills.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Yes, and when did Industrialization begin? Late 18th century, with the first useful steam engines, division of labor, and textile mills.

That's a bit early for reliable steam power, I think. Perhaps 1820-40 somewhere, when the steam engine actually became more than an oddity, and rapidly displaced water power. You have a good point with the textile mills, though. Then again, we're discussing a mega-saecular event. A few decades is trivial when evaluating a 400-500 year cycle.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

That's a bit early for reliable steam power, I think. Perhaps 1820-40 somewhere, when the steam engine actually became more than an oddity, and rapidly displaced water power. You have a good point with the textile mills, though. Then again, we're discussing a mega-saecular event. A few decades is trivial when evaluating a 400-500 year cycle.

Remember that the factory system predated the steam engine by quite a bit of time. Adam Smith spent a good part of the Wealth of Nations talking about the new factory system emerging with its division of labor leading to higher productivity. Also goes to the point we were making that the modern age started at the beginning of the 19th century, and that consequently we are three cycles in. What that means is up for debate, but considering how many historians start their study of modern times with the Napoleonic wars and their aftermath we really shouldn't still be quibbling over the start date.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

That's a bit early for reliable steam power, I think. Perhaps 1820-40 somewhere, when the steam engine actually became more than an oddity, and rapidly displaced water power. You have a good point with the textile mills, though. Then again, we're discussing a mega-saecular event. A few decades is trivial when evaluating a 400-500 year cycle.

Correct and when you're reading it from conception to fruition that makes a difference, too.

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.

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 agree, eating sushi and doing yoga on the weekends doesn't count as synthesis of eastern values.