Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

That's who I meant. Prince Albert, for one, played a role in helping resolve the Trent Affair (which might have brought Britain into the US Civil War):

Agreed. I was going to link to that one, but then I got caught up in showing where the end of their 4T was that I forgot to do so.

Originally Posted by chas'88

agreed. I was going to link to that one, but then i got caught up in showing where the end of their 4t was that i forgot to do so.

A HA!! IN YOUR FACE, CHAS!!!

Sorry, but mixing up Charles I and Charles II still embarrasses me, and I must savour my little victories where I can.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

I'm not sure it matters that much. The point at which a 4T begins may still be far removed from when it reaches its crescendo or culmination. 7-year olds might well have grown into 22-year old grunts by then.

Or, alternatively, the late 70's cohorts are not really Xers. Which would make sense insofar as someone born in 1978 would have lived through exactly 2 years of (late) Awakening if the 3T began in 1980. They didn't know about that earlier world. Their earliest memories would be of a neon colored 80's of harmonious postmodernity and superficiality, with Aha on the telly, everyone agreeing that Amadeus was a great movie and someone playing guitar on the MTV (get your money for nothing and your chicks for free). And had they actually experienced the 2T first hand, they would have been inoculated against it and not joined seriously minded protest movements of extraordinary naivete in the mid to late 90's, such as for instance the Attac.

I would argue that I can't speak for the Swedish experience. I doubt you can speak for the American one. The Awakening didn't really end in 1980 (though the election of Regan did spell the end of the beginning of the end). Over all the culture wars in the US didn't kick off until 1984 and as such, persons born before 1982 would remember the dying embers of the awakening.

Furthermore, given the size and scope of the US the Awakening did not end everywhere at the same time. It is often joked that when one leaves major metropolitan areas they need to set their watch back 5 years. Over all I would place the end of the awakening around 1984.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I actually have sat down and written out threads in the past with a few of these ideas each. I was surprised once in conversation to hear that David Kaiser (old member of the forum that he was) once considered that the GI boundary should be pushed to 1907/1908 territory given the emergence of most of the famous GI personalities (Jimmy Stewart, Katharine Hepburn, LBJ, and the like).

As for the restructuring of the Saeculum--I also did that several years ago. I eventually came to the conclusion that a 1T belongs to both the Old Saeculum and the New Saeculum equally. It is both Denoument and Exposition in one--depending upon your point of view. It resolves old tensions and establishes new ones.

1Ts end with Exposition for the next story, introducing all the important themes and "characters" so that one feels they have a grasp of them in a "normal" state
2Ts begin with an Inciting Incident (i.e. the exposition is shattered) and continue with Rising Action (i.e. more intrigue)
3Ts begin with a Peripeteia (i.e. plot twist which reverses roles or expectations) and continue the Rising Action with taking the new twist into account
4Ts begin with Anagnorisis (i.e. clarity to the true situation as it stands) which then enters a Climax (i.e. the final confrontation)
1Ts begin with Falling Action (i.e. actions that resolve issues that the Climax didn't address) and then enters a Denouement which is also the Exposition for the next story.

And as for the name you're looking for for 1T's that aren't so "High"-like, I've been using the term "Recovery" along with a few others (millennialX for instance, who coined the term).

~Chas'88

Good it seems that we are pretty much thinking along the same lines in reguard to the saeculum.

Recovery...I like that. In essence a 1T could either be a "high" or a "recovery", or one could even say that all "highs" are recoveries but not every recovery is a "high".

Originally Posted by Odin

Personally, I think one of the reasons the 3T went on for so long in the US is because Western Europe is slightly behind us, the rebuilding after the war and the reconstruction of Western European politics on an Anglo-American progressive liberal-democratic basis (Germany's current constitution was partially written by American New Dealer progressives, for example) caused the 4T in Europe to last the full 20 years from 1929-1949. The long 3T allowed North America and Western Europe to get re-aligned.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Odin,

In complete agreement. And not just for Western Europe, but East and South Asia as well.

Jordan, Odin and I in agreement, or at least all agreeing that it is just plausable that the destruction of China, Japan, Korea, most of Europe and so on in WW2 was enough to delay the 4T in the US and re-allign what is thought of as Western Civilization. I am unsure how to feel about this.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Eventually the Red-Blue divide (much of it regional and ethnic, which is extremely ugly) will become irrelevant, perhaps replaced by something more benign. Maybe getting good from the Government instead of using it to punish those who believe in the "wrong" values will make the difference. Such has been the norm and it can be again.

PBR, Sectionalism is a feature of the US system not a bug. It has existed since 1789.

As for the government being used for good purposes rather than getting in the way at best and being out right counter productive at worst...well I think that will require an entire discredit-ation of Boomer prescriptions. I'm thinking Trump could provide that.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

As for shale oil/fracking, the fact that it is not a new technology (the first well was fracked in the 40s, and geologists had been aware of those basins since at least the 70s), nor one with a terribly long future (depletion rates on those wells is horrendous).

Yes and no. Fracking was first used in the 1940's, but it was not attractive because of the rapid depletion. It was only with the development of horizontal drilling technology that fracking made sense and that came much more recently. I recall all the talk about shale oil back during the energy crisis in the 1970's. But there was no way to get it out because it was not held in large underground pools which can be tapped with a drill (conventional oil) is was dispersed in cubic miles of porous rock. What are you going to do, drill a hole, frack it it, draw off a bit of gas, wait a decade and draw of some more and so on. That's not going to work.

What you need is a drill that goes down to the porous rock, fracks it, then moves sideways a bit to fresh rock, fracks that, rinse lather and repeat. The better you drill capability the more rock you can fracture and then draw off the trapped gas/oil with a single drill. The economics improves. The fracking technology itself is old school and not relevant to why fracking makes sense now. It's the advanced drills.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Yes and no. Fracking was first used in the 1940's, but it was not attractive because of the rapid depletion. It was only with the development of horizontal drilling technology that fracking made sense and that came much more recently. I recall all the talk about shale oil back during the energy crisis in the 1970's. But there was no way to get it out because it was not held in large underground pools which can be tapped with a drill (conventional oil) is was dispersed in cubic miles of porous rock. What are you going to do, drill a hole, frack it it, draw off a bit of gas, wait a decade and draw of some more and so on. That's not going to work.

What you need is a drill that goes down to the porous rock, fracks it, then moves sideways a bit to fresh rock, fracks that, rinse lather and repeat. The better you drill capability the more rock you can fracture and then draw off the trapped gas/oil with a single drill. The economics improves. The fracking technology itself is old school and not relevant to why fracking makes sense now. It's the advanced drills.

I remember one of the early "advanced fracking" ideas that originated with Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum. It was a mid to late 70s idea, and made some minimal sense if all you want is the liquid. Essentially, you drill a mesh of holes into the rock, place explosives at the bottom of the holes, and pulverized the rock, releasing the oil into a pool that can be pumped conventionally. It was tried and worked, then it was abandoned as inadequately productive, as you noted.

I'm sure other ideas were tried until horizontal drilling was finally developed.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I would argue that I can't speak for the Swedish experience. I doubt you can speak for the American one. The Awakening didn't really end in 1980 (though the election of Regan did spell the end of the beginning of the end). Over all the culture wars in the US didn't kick off until 1984 and as such, persons born before 1982 would remember the dying embers of the awakening.

Furthermore, given the size and scope of the US the Awakening did not end everywhere at the same time. It is often joked that when one leaves major metropolitan areas they need to set their watch back 5 years. Over all I would place the end of the awakening around 1984.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Yes and no. Fracking was first used in the 1940's, but it was not attractive because of the rapid depletion. It was only with the development of horizontal drilling technology that fracking made sense and that came much more recently. I recall all the talk about shale oil back during the energy crisis in the 1970's. But there was no way to get it out because it was not held in large underground pools which can be tapped with a drill (conventional oil) is was dispersed in cubic miles of porous rock. What are you going to do, drill a hole, frack it it, draw off a bit of gas, wait a decade and draw of some more and so on. That's not going to work.

What you need is a drill that goes down to the porous rock, fracks it, then moves sideways a bit to fresh rock, fracks that, rinse lather and repeat. The better you drill capability the more rock you can fracture and then draw off the trapped gas/oil with a single drill. The economics improves. The fracking technology itself is old school and not relevant to why fracking makes sense now. It's the advanced drills.

It's still scraping the bottom of the barrel with a high-pressure hose. The depletion rates continue to be awful, most of it is at best marginally profitable, and nobody would be fucking with it if conventional fields weren't declining/not being discovered in anything like the volumes necessary.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

It's still scraping the bottom of the barrel with a high-pressure hose. The depletion rates continue to be awful, most of it is at best marginally profitable, and nobody would be fucking with it if conventional fields weren't declining/not being discovered in anything like the volumes necessary.

I'm not so sure about that. Most of the crude is very high quality, so even depletion has offsets. Plus, we know that other energy forms have to emerge, and fracked gas and oil make a tidy bridge to the future that is self limiting as you noted. There is also the political benefit of keeping the middle east less well fed with our energy dollars.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'm not so sure about that. Most of the crude is very high quality, so even depletion has offsets. Plus, we know that other energy forms have to emerge, and fracked gas and oil make a tidy bridge to the future that is self limiting as you noted. There is also the political benefit of keeping the middle east less well fed with our energy dollars.

You and I are not actually disagreeing here. I have no doubt fracking and other unconventional sources will play a large role in the energy mix of the 21st century. Eventually they'll get fracking with CO2 working, which will open up a lot of the shale fields in places like China and the Western US, where water is a limiting factor. I'm sure at least somebody will get back around to underground coal gasification as well. Longer-term, society will have to use other sources, although how that plays out in reality as opposed to white collar liberal fantasies remains to be seen. Not really relevant to how this got brought up, though.

All of this had to do with a talk with John on commodity prices, and why they had dropped recently.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

... All of this had to do with a talk with John on commodity prices, and why they had dropped recently.

If you want tidy, this is not the forum for you.

I'd settle for reading comprehension, but clearly that is too much to ask for on a text-based forum.

In regards to our nondiscussion on fracking, I think the answer is clearly to continue bombing the Middle East and taking in all the refugees, no questions asked.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

I'd settle for reading comprehension, but clearly that is too much to ask for on a text-based forum.

In regards to our nondiscussion on fracking, I think the answer is clearly to continue bombing the Middle East and taking in all the refugees, no questions asked.

OK. Settlement camps can be established in all high-rent sports venues ... just because.

". . . All highs are recoveries, but not every recovery is a 'high.'"

I like that. It gives us vocabulary for thinking about what happens when a crisis has a mixed or bad ending.

Originally Posted by elilevin

". . . All highs are recoveries, but not every recovery is a 'high.'"

I like that. It gives us vocabulary for thinking about what happens when a crisis has a mixed or bad ending.

Welcome back!

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Welcome back!

Yes, it's great to hear from you again! Long time ...

Originally Posted by elilevin

". . . All highs are recoveries, but not every recovery is a 'high.'"

I like that. It gives us vocabulary for thinking about what happens when a crisis has a mixed or bad ending.

Indeed. I began to question the use of the word "high" when describing the 1T in the Great Power Saeculum, particularly in the South. Or for that matter Germany in 1948. When one stops to consider that there has to be a winner and a loser in a clear situation, the loser would not likely be having a "high". In a mixed ending or a bad one there would still be a recovery. Hell, I was reading a book about the UK in the 1950s recently and it seems that their recovery was just that--a recovery from depression and war and all the craziness that was kicked off in 1914.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I would argue that I can't speak for the Swedish experience. I doubt you can speak for the American one. The Awakening didn't really end in 1980 (though the election of Regan did spell the end of the beginning of the end). Over all the culture wars in the US didn't kick off until 1984 and as such, persons born before 1982 would remember the dying embers of the awakening.

Furthermore, given the size and scope of the US the Awakening did not end everywhere at the same time. It is often joked that when one leaves major metropolitan areas they need to set their watch back 5 years. Over all I would place the end of the awakening around 1984.

Interesting thing about the early 1980s. That was when a lot of information came together about trauma and dissociation and how to treat it and for a few years at least, the idea that people could be damaged by child abuse had widespread acceptance. That could be an Awakening sort of thing.
Then, rather abruptly around 1985 and 1986 we have the McMartin Case in Southern California and the narrative that reports of sexual abuse in childhood amounted to a witch hunt began to build--which culminated in the foundation of False Memory Syndrome Foundation in 1990 and the "Memory Wars" of the 1990s that did not run their course until the Catholic priest abuse scandals started. These are Unravelling sorts of backlashes that were congurent with the times in the 90s, a time in which people were expected to believe that they live in a just world, that there's no victimisation because people mostly get what they deserve. And from about 1985 until 2008, people tended to believe it and voted as if they believed it. To some degree, with the Tea Party, people believed it until 2012 or so.
Which raises an interesting question. Do people believe in a "just world" during Unravelings and do they start to see what they lived through as an Unravelling only in retrospect?

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

It's still scraping the bottom of the barrel with a high-pressure hose. The depletion rates continue to be awful, most of it is at best marginally profitable, and nobody would be fucking with it if conventional fields weren't declining/not being discovered in anything like the volumes necessary.

It is a technology that has matured over time. One of the things that had to happen for horizontal drilling and frakking to come together the way they did in the 2000s was good computer modeling of underground shale strata. In frakking, a lot of wells have to be drilled. And not by trial and error either.
Of course that is even more true of the other new technologies for more oil production, drilling pre-salt strata in the very deep waters of the continental slope and abyssal plains. These are very expensive wells and just about require certainty that large quantities of oil will be found. Ironically, the energy that may be the cheapest may turn out to be methane from clathrates--which can even be justified on environmental grounds if the alternative to bringing the methane to the surface and burning it to CO2 is for the clathrates to melt and the methane to boil off into the atmosphere anyway as the seas warm.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Indeed. I began to question the use of the word "high" when describing the 1T in the Great Power Saeculum, particularly in the South. Or for that matter Germany in 1948. When one stops to consider that there has to be a winner and a loser in a clear situation, the loser would not likely be having a "high". In a mixed ending or a bad one there would still be a recovery. Hell, I was reading a book about the UK in the 1950s recently and it seems that their recovery was just that--a recovery from depression and war and all the craziness that was kicked off in 1914.

Realistically, whether a 1T recovery is a "high" or just a recovery from Crisis may depend on how well the country handled the Crisis and whether it came out on top. The post WWII Recovery was a High for the US because the US emerged from WWII almost unscathed compared to other combatants and as a hegemon to boot. For other countries like the UK, France, the USSR, Germany, Japan- or the US after the Civil War--not so much. The Gilded Age was not a High for most Americans but a steady depression until about 1896. Which helps explain why so many Americans (and European immigrants) moved West to seek their fortunes during that period.
For that matter, the post Revolution Early America period (1781-1820) was not what one could call a "high" either, just a recovery. A true "high" did not start until about 1824 and the beginning of the Second Great Awakening and Jacksonian Era.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Realistically, whether a 1T recovery is a "high" or just a recovery from Crisis may depend on how well the country handled the Crisis and whether it came out on top. The post WWII Recovery was a High for the US because the US emerged from WWII almost unscathed compared to other combatants and as a hegemon to boot. For other countries like the UK, France, the USSR, Germany, Japan- or the US after the Civil War--not so much. The Gilded Age was not a High for most Americans but a steady depression until about 1896. Which helps explain why so many Americans (and European immigrants) moved West to seek their fortunes during that period.
For that matter, the post Revolution Early America period (1781-1820) was not what one could call a "high" either, just a recovery. A true "high" did not start until about 1824 and the beginning of the Second Great Awakening and Jacksonian Era.

Sometimes "recovery" is a better description of a 1T than a "high." The name implies that one gets high merely from economic prosperity and conformity. No, the real high comes during Awakenings.

But you could point out regarding Europe that prosperity returned there thanks to help from America (the Marshall Plan) and the Common Market. We are truly on a worldwide common cycle now.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Sometimes "recovery" is a better description of a 1T than a "high." The name implies that one gets high merely from economic prosperity and conformity. No, the real high comes during Awakenings.

Not quite. However highs happen in abundance in awakenings!

Originally Posted by elilevin

". . . All highs are recoveries, but not every recovery is a 'high.'"

I like that. It gives us vocabulary for thinking about what happens when a crisis has a mixed or bad ending.

the one thing wrong with the theory, or more, the way it was presented by Strause and Howe was that it basically used 1865-1997 as the example of ALL seculeams. which it shouldn't have. "1950's High" seems extremely positive because it happened to be for the US in our collective memories.

Try not to think of the "high" as a positive but maybe as the "high point" in the cycle. I prefer the seasons analogy more than the idea of a high point and a low point. You can have a crappy spring cant you? it can snow until late April and rain the rest of the time. That doesn't make it winter

You can have a mild winter, and a warm fall. And huge summer thunderstorms.

If you look back at our most recent history Id say our current winter is a bit mild, the fall was pleasant (80's and 90's) , a stormy summer(60's-70's) , a near perfect spring (45-65) and a pretty average winter (ww2) before that.

Id say the civil war was an especially bitter winter leading into a cold spring. etc.

I think the weather analogy is best.

Originally Posted by Debol1990

the one thing wrong with the theory, or more, the way it was presented by Strause and Howe was that it basically used 1865-1997 as the example of ALL seculeams. which it shouldn't have. "1950's High" seems extremely positive because it happened to be for the US in our collective memories.

Try not to think of the "high" as a positive but maybe as the "high point" in the cycle. I prefer the seasons analogy more than the idea of a high point and a low point. You can have a crappy spring cant you? it can snow until late April and rain the rest of the time. That doesn't make it winter

You can have a mild winter, and a warm fall. And huge summer thunderstorms.

If you look back at our most recent history Id say our current winter is a bit mild, the fall was pleasant (80's and 90's) , a stormy summer(60's-70's) , a near perfect spring (45-65) and a pretty average winter (ww2) before that.

Id say the civil war was an especially bitter winter leading into a cold spring. etc.

I think the weather analogy is best.

Yes, but the false way of interpreting this cycle is to say that a "high" means anything but materialist conformity. A 1T is not the best turning, unless you like those things. Those of us who were awakened boomers prefer 2Ts. The 1T is best for institutions working well and collective consensus. 3Ts are best for personal development. 2Ts are best for transcending old ways of thinking and living, both personally and in society. 4Ts are best for changing institutions and entrenched secular powers. It all depends on your point of view. Calling the 1T "the high" is misleading. It suggests that the 1T is a high point in the cycle. It's not, unless you like that kind of turning.