On 2002-06-04 09:28, Marc Lamb wrote:


"These days we are so steeped in greed-is-good ideology that it's hard to imagine that such a system ever worked. In fact, during the generation that followed World War II the nation's standard of living doubled. But then, growth faltered ? and the corporate raiders arrived." --Paul Krugman


I am told by most of the liberals on these boards, indeed, by liberals everywhere, that these were the "dark ages," the conservative years of "McCarthyism," an age so awful that only right-wings fanatics would wish that America return to them.

Yet, these same folks deride these post-Reagan years as "conservative" as well. And even now they eagerly await the Seconding Coming of FDR and true liberalism.

What gives, Mr. Krugman, Mr. Rush, Alexander, Genser et al, huh?




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-06-04 09:30 ]</font>

Okay, I'll bite. First, though, Mr. Lamb, you should know that I am NOT a Mr., unlike the other people you listed.

From the point of view of a liberal, there was a lot to like about the last 1T -- strong economic growth enjoyed by a large cross-section of Americans (not just the upper tiers), the ability of a high-school graduate working in a factory to earn a middle-class salary, a strong civic trust in Government.

However, liberals are aware that the progress wasn't shared by all. Specifically,

• Blacks dealt with Jim Crow in the South and job, housing, and educational discrimination all over.
• The elderly (who were Lost Nomads) largely lived in poverty.
• Women faced very constricted roles in Society -- middle-class girls could aspire to become teachers, nurses, secretaries, or housewives. Lower-class women of course toiled as domestics and poorly-paid factory workers.
• Gays were in the closet.

All four of these problems were addressed, mostly successfully, in the past awakening and unravelling. With all of the silliness and depravity that goes on in American culture today (zero tolerance side-by-side with eentsy-teensy sexy clothing for sale in the girls department sizes 7-14), we have to remember the real achievements. The fact that someone like Condoleeza Rice is so powerful and yes, mainstream, is a symbol of what we've achieved this saeculum.

But we liberals also look at what needs to be fixed. Certainly the fact that 20 percent of our children live in poverty is a problem. The environment, our decaying infrastructure (roads, etc...), the "shrinking middle class", and probably most critical -- the huge gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" globally -- are all issues of concern to most liberals. We'd like to see them addressed during the Crisis.


_________________
Living begins not on the day you are born
but on the day you recognize your consciousness -- Prem Rawat

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jenny Genser on 2002-06-04 09:47 ]</font>

On 2002-06-04 09:41, Marc Lamb wrote:

And I'd like to ask one more penetrating question, if I may: How come a twenty-four year long Civic generation, "dominate" and "empowered" with "hubris," according to S&H, produced such a short, eighteen year first turning, folks?

Perhaps because Civics are *not* as empowered as they like to think. They only seem to be able to fully exercise said dominance in the effective absence of an Idealist Generation, due to said Idealist Generation being either too old (Missionaries in the '50's) or too young (Boomers, same period) to challenge the dominance of the Civic Generaton.

"Perhaps because Civics are *not* as empowered as they like to think. They only seem to be able to fully exercise said dominance in the effective absence of an Idealist Generation, due to said Idealist Generation being either too old (Missionaries in the '50's) or too young (Boomers, same period) to challenge the dominance of the Civic Generaton."

But this, then, begs the same question: How come a twenty-four year long Civic generation, "dominate" and "empowered" with "hubris," according to S&H, produced such a short, eighteen year fourth turning, folks?

How did a a twenty-four year long Civic generation, "dominate" and "empowered" with "hubris," according to S&H, called the "Greatest Generation" by everyone, manage to produce only a short, thirty-six year half saeculum?

Ms. Genser writes,
"From the point of view of a liberal, there was a lot to like about the last 1T -- strong economic growth enjoyed by a large cross-section of Americans (not just the upper tiers), the ability of a high-school graduate working in a factory to earn a middle-class salary, a strong civic trust in Government."

According to Washington Post polling data, this "trust the government in Washington to do what is right" factor remained strong through 1966 and into 1968, and really didn't breakdown until the first quarter of 1973: <table class='Wf' border=0 align='center' width='100%' cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3 nowrap> <tr><td><pre>
Trust government...?
Always Most Some
1974 2 34 61 Watergate
1972 5 48 44 Nixon Landslide
1970 7 47 44 "Four Dead in Ohio"
1968 7 54 37 Riots/Assassinations!
1966 17 48 28 LBJ/Vietnam
1964 14 62 22 G.I.s Peak at 76%
1958 16 57 27 "I Like Ike"
</pre></td></tr></table>
In addition, the economy remained very strong until late 1973, when, according to most economists marked the end of the "Golden Age" of post-WWII economic growth of which Paul Krugman alludes to in his article.

Why, then, does everybody give these Boomers so much credit for bringing all this down in 1964, or even 1968? And why did it take so long--nearly ten years--for the Greatest Generation to come of age in the fourth turn, but, boy, these Boomers... BAM! Right away, they mangaged to "clog" the great GI machine!

I call it the conceit of the present-day, and the absolute myth of the pompous Baby Boom generation: We're just soooooo.... ________________ (fill in the blank)




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-06-04 10:53 ]</font>

Marc Lamb wrote,
"How did a a twenty-four year long Civic generation, "dominate" and "empowered" with "hubris," according to S&H, called the "Greatest Generation" by everyone, manage to produce only a short, thirty-six year half saeculum?"


Dear class:

Last question... According to S&H, the Transcendental generation peaked in 1859, and with that peak came a an ominous Civil War and an anomalous premature turning. Likewise, according to S&H, the Greatest generation peaked in 1965, and with that peak came the Vietnam War.

And another anomalous premature turning?

On 2002-06-04 10:42, Marc Lamb wrote:
According to Washington Post polling data, this "trust the government in Washington to do what is right" factor remained strong through 1966 and into 1968, and really didn't breakdown until the first quarter of 1973...

You have to admit Marc makes good statistics-based arguments concerning the timing of the T's.

As I've said before, placing too great an emphasis on "catalysts" in the timing of the T's is potentially misleading and overly mechanistic. Just because a new generation has come of age doesn't automatically make something dramatic happen, and just because something dramatic happens doesn't mean a new generation has neccessarily come of age.

The assasination of JFK may have influenced S&H to place the start of the last 2T too early, with ripple effects on the dating of other adjacent T's.

And our own "millenial" Robert could well be an X-er.

The entire S&H theory will never be more than an interesting psuedoscience if real statistics are not made the guiding factor.

On 2002-06-04 11:59, firemind wrote:
The entire S&H theory will never be more than an interesting psuedoscience if real statistics are not made the guiding factor.

It might be a part of the ART of History and not a portion of Science, Social Science, or Psuedoscience as it has no utility and no predictive power. HTH

On 2002-06-04 12:25, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
It might be a part of the ART of History and not a portion of Science, Social Science, or Psuedoscience as it has no utility and no predictive power. HTH

It might indeed.

Actually, though, I would consider it a "utility" if it generated a consensus as to what a "generation" is, etc., so that I would stop having to hear every five years from Time Magazine et al nonsense about a "new generation". ("Gen-Y" my ass.)

Astrology is bunk, but at least they're not inventing new astrological signs every time you look around.

On 2002-06-04 11:59, firemind wrote:
"The entire S&H theory will never be more than an interesting psuedoscience if real statistics are not made the guiding factor."

To which Mr. Saari replied,
"It might be a part of the ART of History and not a portion of Science, Social Science, or Psuedoscience as it has no utility and no predictive power."

Given that the seaculum contains a large measure of God, of mystical, of unseen qualities, one would be remiss in attempting a purely scientifically empirical study of it's nature.

I mean, I read this book and found it kind of humorous. Yet the author is serious in suggesting that Congress fund an experiment using the Supercollider in order to reveal what is unseen.

Yet, given the rise of Marx, of "trust buster" Roosevelt I, of the rise of the Federal Reserve in 1913, of the Gold "debt" crisis of WWI, and the obvious business cycle at the time (1873, 1893, 1907, 1920, 1929) , predicting the generational culmination of the New Deal should have been a cinch. :smile:




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-06-04 16:40 ]</font>

On May 29th a number of posters, including Eric, commented approvingly on man's myth-making propensity. While I recognize the potency of myths, I have dedicated my life to destroying them. A congenital iconoclast, I find myth-breaking delightful and have never yet found a myth that I didn't want to deflate, much as a person would delight in using pins on the balloons at a child's birthday party.

Am I the only one here who thinks that myths are things created by people when they can't explain things rationally, are essentially childish, and are fundamentally dangerous things?

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

On 2002-06-04 18:34, David Krein wrote:


Am I the only one here who thinks that myths are things created by people when they can't explain things rationally, are essentially childish, and are fundamentally dangerous things?

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

Yes

Marc Lamb writes,
I call it the conceit of the present-day, and the absolute myth of the pompous Baby Boom generation: We're just soooooo.... ________________ (fill in the blank)


"Am I the only one here who thinks that myths are things created by people when they can't explain things rationally, are essentially childish, and are fundamentally dangerous things?" --Pax, Dave Krein '42

"Yes" --Virgil K. Saari

--Marc S. Lamb

All you succeeded in doing Dave was showing that your approach to knowledge is rather narrow. didn't you live through the 60s and 70s? Don't you know that our "rational mind" has its limits? (Silent/Boomer cusper and you don't know that?) :???:

On 2002-06-04 18:34, David Krein wrote:
While I recognize the potency of myths, I have dedicated my life to destroying them.

Whatever, but the word "myth" has different definitions in different contexts, and it is uncertain which definition you are using.

In the discussion that you are referring to, Joseph Campbell was part of the topic.

Campbell taught, of course, that myths were not literally true, and that, in fact, much of the trouble and nastiness associated with religion is due to the fallacy of believing myths to be literal, historical truths.

(Side note: Campbell made little distinction between religious stories and myths, often saying that myths are what we call "other people's religions".)

Myths are, instead, meant to be understood symbolically, to POINT AT the ultimate reality behind all things.

The Zen parable of "the finger pointing at the moon" is a good analogy. When a finger points at the moon, you are meant to look at the moon, not the finger. The finger alone is unable to indicate, by wagging back and forth, etc., what the moon is like, it can only point in the right direction.

Likewise, no story can capture the nature of ultimate reality, but can only at best point your mind in the right direction.

Important myths have this as a goal. However, it is a historical trend (in all societies) that over time the myths are taken as literal truths, and their real message is forgotten.

As for "destroying myths", you probably mean "destroying the false belief that they are literally true", which is fine; it is a step in the right direction.

Campbell wrote a lot about the predicament of modern people who, of course, know that the myths are not literally true, but still haven't figured out what they were for in the first place. Usually, modern people, without always realizing it, invent their own, individual myths to fill the role that societal myths used to play.

In this way, myths are always being created.

S&H theory has a lot of the earmarks of a myth...

Everything above on Campbell and myths is right on target.

Our mythbuster has already unwittingly made up his own mythology, i.e. that he is the individualistic iconoclast who must show everyone the truth, bursting bubbles and balloons of hypocrisy and deceit and conceit.

Let me mention an excellent book by Rollo May on this topic: The Cry for Myth. It addresses exactly what the above posting mentioned, that people have punctured their myths with scientific reasoning to prove that the myth is not literally true. But that was never the purpose of the myth to begin with. What is the point of the story of Noah's ark? We know it is not literally true. The point is that no matter how awful things seem, eventually the sun comes up, the waters recede, and your life will continue. The point is you need hope to keep going day after day, and that even bad things will eventually stop happening. That is a myth to live by! And those poor souls trekking through Turkey trying to find a piece of Noah's ark have missed the point completely!

"eventually the sun comes up..."


A myth within a myth! :smile:

I agree with firemind and walterhoch. Myths (and I include the Bible here) were never meant to be taken literally. However, there is deep truth in myths, legends, and fables. They have great value to us as human beings.

The Strauss and Howe theory in and of itself relies heavily upon myths and archetypes. Most of us here understand the basic truth of their writings on a gut level; it's the details that we argue about on this forum. :smile:

"I think that myth is often more credible--and more true--than many a chronicle filled with facts and figures. Myth tells us what's essential about what happened. Facts and figures can lie or (insofar as meaning is concerned) lead in any direction whatever." --Neil Howe


Recognizing, of course, that "myth" did not put a man on the moon, and niether is there any truth to the "myth" that, upon his arrival there, he found it made of green cheese. :smile:







<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-06-05 09:05 ]</font>

Something gelled in my mind as we discuss the "power of myth" with what I just posted in the wheels within wheel thread in The Future forum.

We have been discussing on various threads whether preserving the environment of the Earth is a top priority in our upcoming (or brand new) Crisis, or whether it can be solved by sending some of us into space. Mythology came up as something that inspires and guides us in our journey, including into space. I disputed the suggestion that "these myths will come automatically," noting that culture takes as much attention to develop as any space program.

Firemind and walterhoch made fine clarifications of the nature and purpose of myth. I am surprised that Mr Krein doesn't seem to be acquainted with this line of thought.

The point I want to make gells with this. It came up in my unfortunately too-bitter debate with Brian a little while ago. It is this: environmentalism is a quality of life issue. Yes, we need to keep our environment healthy for survival reasons. We will need good air to breathe, water to drink, soil to grow our crops, a biosphere with a viable ecosystem, enough resources to live on, and a less unpredictable climate so that natural disasters don't wreak havoc on us. And so on, with all these economic and scientific facts and figures, which we can dispute about how serious they are, and so forth.

The bottom line. Why do we want to preserve nature? Because we love nature. Clear skies nourish our spirit. Long walks by the beach or in the forest restore our souls. We LIKE and we WANT nature. We WANT a world where there are elephants and dolphins and not just us humans. We don't want our streams and lakes turned into sewers. That makes us feel rotten inside. We don't want constant black haze to look at in the sky. We don't want all our wilderness destroyed, so that there's no place to go except crowded shopping centers, freeways and skyscrapers.

Environmentalism is a quality of life issue. So is building our cities in ways that don't dehumanize, suffocate and isolate us. So is adequate attention to mythmaking and support and valuing of the arts. So is a religious power structure that has adequate space for spiritual experiences and the development of all kinds of people.

These things CANNOT be changed and were not changed during 2Ts. Awakenings are times when new ideals and new cultures are advanced, and when protests are made against how society is structured. If we want the structures of our civilization changed so that they will nourish a true quality of life and spiritual as well as physical health, they must be changed during a 4T. That is when the structures of civilization are founded and transformed.

Just because people here think that 4Ts are only about institutions and economics and politics doesn't change the fact that what faces us in our current crisis is primarily a quality of life and spiritual crisis.
Environmentalism is the key to this. Sensitivity to real human experiences is the substance of this. Our American society, unlike ALL others, is grossly unbalanced toward the material, economic, technological and scientific at the expense of the spiritual, social and aesthetic. It is focused only on physical survival, even though humans don't live by bread alone. That is the one and only root cause of all the nuts and bolts issues and problems you guys talk endlessly about.

The unbalance and disfunction of our saeculum and our society will be dealt with in a 4T, or it will never be dealt with. Why not now, when the visions and ideas of a better such balance are in the back of all of our minds (except maybe Dave Krein's and Marc's)??

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-06-05 14:14 ]</font>

Myths do a great job of explaining things, especially when large numbers of people believe them. Self-fulfilling patterns, ay?

"Why not now, when the visions and ideas of a better such balance are in the back of all of our minds (except maybe Dave Krein's and Marc's)??"

Hey, man, Bush just signed on to all that environmentalist junk. Yep, global warming is our fault, man. What this means, of course, is shutting down life as we know in the good old USA and begin living like the Taliban. Kyoto here we come!

I'm sure Bushy can count on your vote this coming November, Mr. Meece?

p.s. As for me, I just lost a political party... Oh well.

Come on.

The Bush administration went no further than allowing the EPA to issue a report to the UN that warned of "signifigant effects on the environment from climate change." The report suggests NOTHING to deal with heat-trapping greenhouse pollution beyond VOLUNTARY action by industry.

I'm so excited and I just can't hide it.

Eric Meece,

Even this libertarian-leaning xer will have to concede that some things CANNOT be owned, bought, or sold--but are essential to life as we know it. Clean air, clean water, etc. These HAVE to be taken care of with public solutions. Our very civilization rests on the issue of how we as a group distribute and use clean air and water.

Eric is right in that there is nothing saying we can't work on enviromental and "non Material" concerns in a crisis.
The 2T is when you bring issues up, the 3T is when we debate if these things will be worked on, or we ignore the things...the 4T deals with it and comes to some conclusion.
We will deal with the enviroment and spiritual issues in this new 4T even if we don't want to. September 11 and the current priest scandal both lead me to believe this (at least as issues with spiritual connections).