Perhaps the most important book I ever read, insofar as its effect in shaping who I am politically, was Dr. Ravi Batra's The Great Depression of 1990 - for even though its eponymous depression never materialized, the book stands out because Dr. Batra quoted a cycle that, at least the most recent one anyway, is divided into three periods of two S&H saecula each (I regard Michael Lind's two 1990s bestsellers - The Next American Nation and Up From Conservatism: Why The Right Is Wrong For America - as having reconfirmed Batra's basic premise).

This cycle identifies three "ages," which always come in the same order: An age of warriors, an age of intellectuals, and an age of acquisitors - which are actually S&H's High, Awakening and Unraveling on a higher plane. An analysis of the most recent set of such ages reveals that each lasted pretty much precisely two S&H saecula, as the warrior age, which began with the resolution of S&H's Wars Of The Roses Crisis, ended with the Glorious Revolution Crisis; then an intellectual age began, also spanning two saecula, ending with the Civil War Crisis on this side of the Atlantic and the Industrial Revolution on the other. Since then, Western society has resided in an acquisitive age, of which the current Crisis era is its second (the Great Depression/World War II Crisis having been its first). In this schematic, the second Crisis of the acquisitive age would be the ultimate Crisis of the entire cycle, after which a new warrior age commences, and the cycle repeats (the first Crisis of a given age only knocks the ruling archetype - warriors, intellectuals or acquisitors - down, while the second one knocks it out).

Prior to the warrior age that began with the resolution of the Wars Of The Roses Crisis, the ages were much longer - a warrior age that began roughly with the ascension of Julius Caesar, and ended with the fall of the Roman Empire; the ensuing intellectual age lasted until some point in the 9th century, possibly the consolidation of the Frankish kingdom with the Treaty of Mersen in 870 (note the same ambiguity as to the end of this intellectual age as the end of the modern one). Then commenced an acquisitive age that lasted until the Crisis catalyzed by the fall of the Byzantine Empire to the Turks in 1453.

And these two sets of warrior/intellectual/acquisitive ages, taken together, span roughly 2,085 years (observing 60 BC as the beginning of the first warrior age and projecting 2025 as the end of the current 4T), conveniently about 1/12th of the astrological Great Year, under which this period encompasses the Piscean Age.

So you got all three things coming together in this 4T - a second Crisis of the existing acquisitive age, which is the end of one complete cycle, along with the end of one astrological age and the beginning of another.

This would appear to mean that the sparks really figure to fly over the next decade or so.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Perhaps the most important book I ever read, insofar as its effect in shaping who I am politically, was Dr. Ravi Batra's The Great Depression of 1990 - for even though its eponymous depression never materialized.... This cycle identifies three "ages," which always come in the same order: An age of warriors, an age of intellectuals, and an age of acquisitors - which are actually S&H's High, Awakening and Unraveling on a higher plane.

And these two sets of warrior/intellectual/acquisitive ages, taken together, span roughly 2,085 years (observing 60 BC as the beginning of the first warrior age and projecting 2025 as the end of the current 4T), conveniently about 1/12th of the astrological Great Year, under which this period encompasses the Piscean Age.

Fascinating stuff, 58. As far as the economic downturn, some investors say to never underestimate the ability of the market to stay irrational in temporary avoidance of changed fundamentals. It lasts until it doesn't. Eventually what goes up comes down and those brought low are brought back into the sun.

Ravi's theory reminds me of Bhagavad Gita, which looks at the 3 types as cognitive tendencies.

The intellectual tendency is sattvic, the product of meditation that distills abstract truth and sets ideals for society. Warrior tendency is rajic and operationalizes those truths/ideals through activity. Acquisitive tendency opportunistically profits from the new reality shaped by warriors - without much regard or appreciation for the truths/ideals (even resenting or acting to undermine those ideals when they are inconvenient) - that's tamasic.

Interesting thing is that no part is good or bad, each plays a necessary role in cycle. Tamas (darkness or ignorance) towards end of cycle exposes contradictions of the old ideals and society. It gives in to the weakness in system, looks for loopholes to profit from - but by doing this brings possibility for new truths to light.

There is an interesting image in Hinduism, of Indra drinking up the poison that has accumulated in the world. Reminds me of the bitter draught of Elijah in the Bible - tastes sweet but inside it burns in the belly. That suffering is what causes the sattvic inclined people to try to find new truths, new patterns that can be a stable basis for a new cycle.

Ravi was one of Sarkar's students, and I've mentioned this before in some of the mega-saeculum and political archetype threads.

Basically, Sarkar was trying to study what makes each saeculum different, and he also ends up focusing on four archetypes to demonstrate these differences. These archetypes are class/profession based, and they are all present in any given society at any given time, so what changes from saeculum to saeculum is which archetype is dominant.



Age of warriors (mega-high): Military order defends the borders of a newly defined nation, and works toward building infrastructure necessary for defense (roads, railroads, ports, fortresses).

Age of intellectuals (mega-awakening): Feeling safe and secure, society seeks higher meaning through art, science, and spirituality.

Age of acquisitors (mega-unraveling): As idealism becomes unsustainable, pragmatic realists manage the day-to-day operations of society - and pocket a nice bonus for themselves in the process.

Age of the commoner (mega-crisis): The rule of the acquisitors becomes inhumane as inequality skyrockets and human lives are treated as a mathematical min-max function with no purpose beyond maximizing profits. This era is brief and chaotic and destructive, but it gives rise to a new military order that better represents all levels of society.


Personally, I tend to think we're in the Age of Acquisitors, and in that context, 9-11 is perfect for the 4T start. "Go shopping" may not be the intellectual, military, or commoner's idea of dealing with a crisis, but it is the only thing acquisitors know. It would also explain why inequality has continued to grow through our 4T, in contrast with other 4Ts that feature reductions in inequality.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Perhaps the most important book I ever read, insofar as its effect in shaping who I am politically, was Dr. Ravi Batra's The Great Depression of 1990 - for even though its eponymous depression never materialized, the book stands out because Dr. Batra quoted a cycle that, at least the most recent one anyway, is divided into three periods of two S&H saecula each (I regard Michael Lind's two 1990s bestsellers - The Next American Nation and Up From Conservatism: Why The Right Is Wrong For America - as having reconfirmed Batra's basic premise).

This cycle identifies three "ages," which always come in the same order: An age of warriors, an age of intellectuals, and an age of acquisitors - which are actually S&H's High, Awakening and Unraveling on a higher plane. An analysis of the most recent set of such ages reveals that each lasted pretty much precisely two S&H saecula, as the warrior age, which began with the resolution of S&H's Wars Of The Roses Crisis, ended with the Glorious Revolution Crisis; then an intellectual age began, also spanning two saecula, ending with the Civil War Crisis on this side of the Atlantic and the Industrial Revolution on the other. Since then, Western society has resided in an acquisitive age, of which the current Crisis era is its second (the Great Depression/World War II Crisis having been its first). In this schematic, the second Crisis of the acquisitive age would be the ultimate Crisis of the entire cycle, after which a new warrior age commences, and the cycle repeats (the first Crisis of a given age only knocks the ruling archetype - warriors, intellectuals or acquisitors - down, while the second one knocks it out).

So since the Wars of the Roses ended in 1475, and our current crisis will end in about 2028, that's about a 540-year cycle. Not too different from the astrological cycle of civilization of 493 years. Ours is just ending a bit late to correspond exactly. I didn't know Batra defined such a cycle. But that's good to know! I imagine if the acquisitive age had ended in 1990, then the correlation would have been perfect. And the Renaissance I predicted would have been on time too. But it appears America is not able to keep up with the cycle and depart from its acquisitive ways. That's America, after all.

But such a cycle would not repeat, unless "warriors" becomes something different. Humans are not warriors anymore in the old sense. We are revolutionaries now instead. Of course, what the first period consisted of was the Renaissance and Reformation, so it was really an age of creative visionaries, and controversy over religion and humanism; plus an age of explorers as well as warriors. And the warriors part pretty much continued in the "intellectual phase" and the "acquisitive phase" too, after a brief break with the death of Louis XIV, and another after Napoleon.

Joseph Campbell saw three phases lasting about 1000 years: religious, political and economic.

Also interesting is that the length of orbit of the newly-discovered dwarf planet Eris is about 550 years.

Prior to the warrior age that began with the resolution of the Wars Of The Roses Crisis, the ages were much longer - a warrior age that began roughly with the ascension of Julius Caesar, and ended with the fall of the Roman Empire; the ensuing intellectual age lasted until some point in the 9th century, possibly the consolidation of the Frankish kingdom with the Treaty of Mersen in 870 (note the same ambiguity as to the end of this intellectual age as the end of the modern one). Then commenced an acquisitive age that lasted until the Crisis catalyzed by the fall of the Byzantine Empire to the Turks in 1453.

Almost exactly corresponds to the astrological cycle, defined by conjunctions of Neptune and Pluto 493 years apart.
The dates of conjunctions are roughly:
577 BC
82 BC
411 AD
905 AD
1399 AD
1892 AD
About 100 years later, the transition to the next phase is almost complete.

And these two sets of warrior/intellectual/acquisitive ages, taken together, span roughly 2,085 years (observing 60 BC as the beginning of the first warrior age and projecting 2025 as the end of the current 4T), conveniently about 1/12th of the astrological Great Year, under which this period encompasses the Piscean Age.

The conjunction cycle is closer to Batra's cycle, except perhaps for the unexpectedly-late ending of this "acquisitive age." An astrological age is 2160 years, a bit longer than Batra's cycle.

So you got all three things coming together in this 4T - a second Crisis of the existing acquisitive age, which is the end of one complete cycle, along with the end of one astrological age and the beginning of another.

This would appear to mean that the sparks really figure to fly over the next decade or so.

That will come to pass!

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Ravi was one of Sarkar's students, and I've mentioned this before in some of the mega-saeculum and political archetype threads.

Basically, Sarkar was trying to study what makes each saeculum different, and he also ends up focusing on four archetypes to demonstrate these differences. These archetypes are class/profession based, and they are all present in any given society at any given time, so what changes from saeculum to saeculum is which archetype is dominant.



Age of warriors (mega-high): Military order defends the borders of a newly defined nation, and works toward building infrastructure necessary for defense (roads, railroads, ports, fortresses).

Age of intellectuals (mega-awakening): Feeling safe and secure, society seeks higher meaning through art, science, and spirituality.

Age of acquisitors (mega-unraveling): As idealism becomes unsustainable, pragmatic realists manage the day-to-day operations of society - and pocket a nice bonus for themselves in the process.

Age of the commoner (mega-crisis): The rule of the acquisitors becomes inhumane as inequality skyrockets and human lives are treated as a mathematical min-max function with no purpose beyond maximizing profits. This era is brief and chaotic and destructive, but it gives rise to a new military order that better represents all levels of society.


Personally, I tend to think we're in the Age of Acquisitors, and in that context, 9-11 is perfect for the 4T start. "Go shopping" may not be the intellectual, military, or commoner's idea of dealing with a crisis, but it is the only thing acquisitors know. It would also explain why inequality has continued to grow through our 4T, in contrast with other 4Ts that feature reductions in inequality.

In my way of reckoning, our saeculum is a mega-high, and we in the USA are just finishing it up; having entered the 4T in 2008. Our saeculum began with the kind of building you described, including the founding of our Defense Dept. in 1947. Our saeculum is the greatest power and prosperity the USA has ever achieved. It's time now for our first-ever "intellectual and spiritual age;" past time in fact.

Of course, today's nomads and early civics generally cannot see where we are. All they have ever known is a late awakening that had lost its steam, an unravelling that went on too long, and a crisis that has not challenged the PTB enough yet. So to you guys, our saeculum appears to be a mega-unravelling, because you can only see our current unravelling and early 4T. That fits with your cynical nomad archetype. But it is demonstrably false. There is no other way to look at our times in America except as a military-industrial order at its peak; America as the greatest superpower in history, and the greatest economy in the world to boot. It has been a military-materialist golden age. Such was the case in no other saeculum in our history, and this status still exists even in our 4T.

And if ours is a mega-unravelling, the other phases demonstrably and completely contradict any such mega-cycle, using either this cycle or the S&H phases.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

In my way of reckoning, our saeculum is a mega-high, and we in the USA are just finishing it up; having entered the 4T in 2008. Our saeculum began with the kind of building you described, including the founding of our Defense Dept. in 1947. Our saeculum is the greatest power and prosperity the USA has ever achieved. It's time now for our first-ever "intellectual and spiritual age;" past time in fact.

Of course, today's nomads and early civics generally cannot see where we are. All they have ever known is a late awakening that had lost its steam, an unravelling that went on too long, and a crisis that has not challenged the PTB enough yet. So to you guys, our saeculum appears to be a mega-unravelling, because you can only see our current unravelling and early 4T. That fits with your cynical nomad archetype. But it is demonstrably false. There is no other way to look at our times in America except as a military-industrial order at its peak; America as the greatest superpower in history, and the greatest economy in the world to boot. It has been a military-materialist golden age. Such was the case in no other saeculum in our history, and this status still exists even in our 4T.

And if ours is a mega-unravelling, the other phases demonstrably and completely contradict any such mega-cycle, using either this cycle or the S&H phases.

Age of warriors? OK, so nomads shall inherit the upcoming mega saeculum. Nomads tend to dominate military establishments, Eric.


General Washington- Liberty founded it
General Grant - Gilded kick started the economic part
General Ike, along with other power generals Patton/Bradley - Lost kick started the military part
General TBD [Probably someone who is a veteran of the Gulf War, etc.] - Xer's will cojoin the 2 and perfect 'em.

The British Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm identified a double-rhythmic cycle of 'long centuries' (i.e. centuries that begin with a historical moment in the preceeding century - the nineteenth in 1789, the twenty-first in 1991) and 'short centuries' that begin well past their official start, e.g. the twentieth in 1914. Interestingly, each Hawbsbamian century begins in a saecular Third Turning.

Originally Posted by Einzige

The British Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm identified a double-rhythmic cycle of 'long centuries' (i.e. centuries that begin with a historical moment in the preceeding century - the nineteenth in 1789, the twenty-first in 1991) and 'short centuries' that begin well past their official start, e.g. the twentieth in 1914. Interestingly, each Hawbsbamian century begins in a saecular Third Turning.

1789 was a third turning? Where?

Aren't the 1780s usually considered an Unravelling in the United Kingdom?

Originally Posted by Einzige

Aren't the 1780s usually considered an Unravelling in the United Kingdom?

Eh, maybe the beginning, but 1789 seems a little far in. I don't think the US was more than one whole turning behind, and with longer turnings (25ish), I think 1789 would have to be the start of their (Britain's) crisis, at the least, one which ends with Waterloo.

I definitely don't think it an equivalent date to 1914 or 1991, which both occurred at the beginning of most of the West's (and Far East's) Third Turning. I don't know, it just seems like reaching for an extra pattern. If the Saeculum holds true for the next one, the resolution should end 2210 (+-5 or so), so that long/short century pattern would work there as well.

A thought: Hobsbawm's long/short century dichotomy cleverly ties up the historical positioning of at least the most recent Awakenings - the last 2T, the Hippie Awakening, had an epicentre in 1968, or just about halfway into a short century starting in 1914; my projected Gothic Awakening of 2044 would be almost dead-centered in a long century starting in 1991 (there seems to be a bleedthrough period betwixt the two types of centuries; we're just now exiting one). Can anyone more familiar than I with the Transcendental and Art Nouveau Awakenings that I say if that holds good of a 19th centurty starting in 1789? If so, it may mean there are two Awakenings, or almost two saecula, in a long century. Which means in turn that we'll be wrestling with the implications of 1991 for a very long time.

I liked several ideas Robert Wright's Non-zero. Generation theory kind of answers a process of how, Non-Zero provides a direction in terms of what.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Ravi was one of Sarkar's students, and I've mentioned this before in some of the mega-saeculum and political archetype threads.

Basically, Sarkar was trying to study what makes each saeculum different, and he also ends up focusing on four archetypes to demonstrate these differences. These archetypes are class/profession based, and they are all present in any given society at any given time, so what changes from saeculum to saeculum is which archetype is dominant.



Age of warriors (mega-high): Military order defends the borders of a newly defined nation, and works toward building infrastructure necessary for defense (roads, railroads, ports, fortresses).

Age of intellectuals (mega-awakening): Feeling safe and secure, society seeks higher meaning through art, science, and spirituality.

Age of acquisitors (mega-unraveling): As idealism becomes unsustainable, pragmatic realists manage the day-to-day operations of society - and pocket a nice bonus for themselves in the process.

Age of the commoner (mega-crisis): The rule of the acquisitors becomes inhumane as inequality skyrockets and human lives are treated as a mathematical min-max function with no purpose beyond maximizing profits. This era is brief and chaotic and destructive, but it gives rise to a new military order that better represents all levels of society.


Personally, I tend to think we're in the Age of Acquisitors, and in that context, 9-11 is perfect for the 4T start. "Go shopping" may not be the intellectual, military, or commoner's idea of dealing with a crisis, but it is the only thing acquisitors know. It would also explain why inequality has continued to grow through our 4T, in contrast with other 4Ts that feature reductions in inequality.

Yes, the name of Batra's "guru" on this - Sarkar - did escape me (I knew it wasn't original with Batra).

But since the laborers never actually rule, the way the other three do, an accurate assessment of this cycle is that it is as if S&H's anomalous Civil War Saeculum were the norm - ending with a brief but particularly painful and transformative Crisis (and makes the acquisitive age likely to be somewhat shorter than the other two, since it only really encompasses seven S&H turnings instead of eight, if its second Crisis is reckoned as a stand-alone mini-"age of laborers").

It also means that as this set of ages (warrior/intellectual/acquisitive) began with a Hero-archetype generation; namely, the Arthurians - so the next one will begin with a Hero-archetype generation as well; namely, the Millennials. And since "13th Generation" never really caught on, that means Xers will need to be dubbed "The Last Generation" (born 1958-1980, as the events of the next decade will corroborate) - the last generation, that is, to have lived most of its life in the Tertiary (modern) Age, rather than the Quaternary Age which will begin in 2025 or thereabouts (the ancient and medieval epochs earning the labels of Primary and Secondary Ages, respectively - guess you gotta call them something new, since the present "modern" age will no longer be "modern" once it's over).

In any event though, we're still screwed, no matter how you slice it. But at least this is more fun than going on about who's having sex with whom, or how to wish someone well at a certain time of year.

Eh, we aren't screwed per se, but we each have a choice at the end of a saeculum. Hang on to the old ways (which have some steam left, maybe centuries left, but with a declining rate of return on investment and eventually shrinking popularity) and fight everything new that doesn't mesh with the old order. Or some will go out on a limb and start engaging new possibilities, on a new basis. It will be expensive, risky, and at first unpopular.

Like what Moses said to his sometimes recalcitrant and slightly stiff necked followers: you will beat them in the end, but your progress is going to be little by little. He also said "Do now, and understand later (dummies)." He said the last part under his breath after the thing with Korach.

You can fight the zeitgeist, but it's a losing battle. You end up wed to the past and progressively left behind by people that have a little chutzpah willing to venture forth into the unknown. Time waits for no one.

Originally Posted by Einzige

The British Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm identified a double-rhythmic cycle of 'long centuries' (i.e. centuries that begin with a historical moment in the preceeding century - the nineteenth in 1789, the twenty-first in 1991) and 'short centuries' that begin well past their official start, e.g. the twentieth in 1914. Interestingly, each Hawbsbamian century begins in a saecular Third Turning.

But actually, the 20th century began circa 1892, even though not with a major event. A shift in all fields happened in the early 1890s that was epochal, and 1914 was just the outflow from that.

All centuries flow from shifts about 10 years before.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

In any event though, we're still screwed, no matter how you slice it. But at least this is more fun than going on about who's having sex with whom, or how to wish someone well at a certain time of year.

We're not screwed; it only appears so now because we have generations that only remember the current long unravelling.