Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by FaithAndReason '67

...Also, I'm still hoping somebody in this forum can recommend a good book describing what people were actually thinking and feeling during the last Cascade Phase / "Phony Fourth". Thanks in advance!

"Grapes Of Wrath" J. Steinbeck

Thanks; I'll be picking it up at the library tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Croaker, wasn't that more about the late 30's? Or does it take place a few years earlier than it is published?

Hmm. You're right, Alex. Where would you place the last Cascade? Maybe I need to brush up on Cascades.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I like that term, "cascade." It describes the years of the Hoover administration, and the early years of the Civil War prior to the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, and the years from the Boston Tea Party until the Declaration of Independence. Things moving faster and faster...

That's more the time period I was looking for. I would define a Cascade as the time period between the (inevitable) financial crisis and the (inevitable) political crisis that follows: 1772-1775, 1857-1861, 1929-1933. I would think that this is the period of time where people keep hoping that "Happy Days Are Here Again", only they aren't. I actually already had a book in mind, Studs Terkel's Hard Times, but any other suggestions are welcome.

Thanks again!

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Our infrastructure reminds me of Seattle's sagging seawall. I think I see the waiter coming this way.

Greetings from another denizen of the Land Of Liquid Sunshine! Was that supposed to be "water" in the above quote? :wink: I'm on pretty high ground, so I'm not too worried. I'd be more concerned if Mount Rainier ever decides to wake up... Interesting times indeed.

Howard Stern gets bridled. The Passion of the Christ breaks all box office records. Calls for a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage. Sounds like the unraveling is coming to an end. What we need now is a social crisis that the necessitates a restructuring of the loose way we have been thinking and acting.

Any thoughts?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Good to be back, Sean.

Let me join you in the chorus welcoming you back.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Good to be back, Sean.

Let me join you in the chorus welcoming you back.

Moi aussi. But I do wish that Marc Limbaugh, thus irrationally provoked, would get some new material.

Originally Posted by ergo6

Sounds like the unraveling is coming to an end.

No, it seems you don't understand the generational paradigm. It's not coming to an end, it's coming to a head. Unravelings aren't resolved until one side is either defeated in war, or is simply too exhausted / marginalized to put up a fight.

Originally Posted by ergo6

What we need now is a social crisis that the necessitates a restructuring of the loose way we have been thinking and acting. Any thoughts?

Forgive me if I'm mischaracterizing, but it sounds like you're saying "the fundies have won, so let's sit down and make nice." It doesn't work that way.

As a small example, if GWB is declared the winner of the next Presidential election, I will literally be manning the barricades. I will simply refuse to accept any election where GWB "wins" (say) Florida as completely illegitimate; but this time I'm not just going to sit around and compain; I'll likely do something that will get me noticed by Herr Ashcroft's jackbooted thugs. :evil: And there will be millions more like me. :twisted:

Whew! How's that for Unraveling rhetoric? And I consider myself a moderate, church-going Christian.

Bush supporters perhaps aren't quite as riled up yet, but if Kerry pulls off a win after eight months being vilified as everything up to a satanic puppy-beating child rapist, they will be. That's what E2004 will be, and that's why I say in another thread that by this time next year we'll realize that we're heading downhill toward a Crisis and picking up speed...

Unravelings aren't resolved until one side is either defeated in war, or is simply too exhausted / marginalized to put up a fight.

This would mean that Unravelings aren't resolved until towards the end of the following Crisis, right? If then.

Any electoral shenanigans by Bush League like what they pulled in 2000 will be irrelevant this go-round. The election isn't going to be close enough for them to make a difference.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Unravelings aren't resolved until one side is either defeated in war, or is simply too exhausted / marginalized to put up a fight.

This would mean that Unravelings aren't resolved until towards the end of the following Crisis, right? If then.

Any electoral shenanigans by Bush League like what they pulled in 2000 will be irrelevant this go-round. The election isn't going to be close enough for them to make a difference.

Let me say welcome back, before I disagree.

I suspect that the electoral college will be populated by ~ 45 states where the margin of victory will be beyond any manipulation short of ballot-box theft. That leaves 5 or so that could be manipulated, if the desire is there. Whether it actually happens or not is beside the point. If the numbers support it - the accusation will surface: E2k, v2.0

Thanks, David

There are always individual states close enough to warrant cheating. What I don't expect to happen is for the decision in any of those states to throw the election. 2004 is not going to be like 2000 or 1968 or 1960. I expect it to be like 1980 or 1992, but if it isn't then it will be like 1996. Let's hope not -- but presidential elections with an incumbent running are almost never close. The only exception that comes to mind was 1948, and the fact that Truman inherited the office rather than being elected to it may make a difference there.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by FaithAndReason '67

Unravelings aren't resolved until one side is either defeated in war, or is simply too exhausted / marginalized to put up a fight.

This would mean that Unravelings aren't resolved until towards the end of the following Crisis, right? If then.

Any electoral shenanigans by Bush League like what they pulled in 2000 will be irrelevant this go-round. The election isn't going to be close enough for them to make a difference.

I agree, and that's part of my point. By the time E2004 is over, both sides will have demonized the other to the point where millions will be actively hostile regardless of the outcome. The depth of hostility will be far worse than after E2K: if Bush wins, it will be another "stolen" election to the Dems; if Kerry wins despite $200 mil of character assassination from the Bush campaign, it will be Satan Hisself taking the oath of office to the Repubs.

The sad part is that Bush and Kerry really aren't that far apart on most issues, and the winner of the election really won't make that much of a difference. The Crisis is inevitable; the factors that will cause it have already been set in motion.

As I said, I'll be donating to the Dems, and even doing some foot work for them; but at best, a President Kerry might delay the inevitable for a year or two, and perhaps cushion the fall a bit. However, in this case, "cushioning the fall" might mean the difference between 10 million vs. 20 million casualties in the next Crisis War, and "delaying the inevitable" will mean the difference between my being sufficiently prepared or not.

Originally Posted by FaithAndReason '67

...

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Our infrastructure reminds me of Seattle's sagging seawall. I think I see the waiter coming this way.

Greetings from another denizen of the Land Of Liquid Sunshine! Was that supposed to be "water" in the above quote? :wink: I'm on pretty high ground, so I'm not too worried. I'd be more concerned if Mount Rainier ever decides to wake up... Interesting times indeed.

Indeed! And BTW: that was "waiter" as in "here comes the waiter with the tab." I can't see Seattle, KingCo, or the state of Washington ready to deal with the tab of a collapsing AW Viaduct. My plan is to stay out of the way over in here Bremerton, where the old farts have to go when they blow all their money on a wreckless life worth living.

--Croak

Originally Posted by FaithAndReason '67

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by FaithAndReason '67

Unravelings aren't resolved until one side is either defeated in war, or is simply too exhausted / marginalized to put up a fight.

This would mean that Unravelings aren't resolved until towards the end of the following Crisis, right? If then.

Any electoral shenanigans by Bush League like what they pulled in 2000 will be irrelevant this go-round. The election isn't going to be close enough for them to make a difference.

I agree, and that's part of my point. By the time E2004 is over, both sides will have demonized the other to the point where millions will be actively hostile regardless of the outcome. The depth of hostility will be far worse than after E2K: if Bush wins, it will be another "stolen" election to the Dems; if Kerry wins despite $200 mil of character assassination from the Bush campaign, it will be Satan Hisself taking the oath of office to the Repubs.

The sad part is that Bush and Kerry really aren't that far apart on most issues, and the winner of the election really won't make that much of a difference. The Crisis is inevitable; the factors that will cause it have already been set in motion.

As I said, I'll be donating to the Dems, and even doing some foot work for them; but at best, a President Kerry might delay the inevitable for a year or two, and perhaps cushion the fall a bit. However, in this case, "cushioning the fall" might mean the difference between 10 million vs. 20 million casualties in the next Crisis War, and "delaying the inevitable" will mean the difference between my being sufficiently prepared or not.

I disagree with your analysis on the timing of the ending of the Unraveling. I think it ends when things start coming to a head and the Artist-led ethos of amelioration and deferment is finally wiped away by the 4T's opening Cascade phase. My apologies if I misunderstood you.

I totally agree that the winner of E2K4 will be lionized by one side and demonized by the other in a sickening polarization. I think only another attack from without can stem that trend, and even then it has the potential to divide us yet further via the reaction (or overreaction) to the attack.

And I doubt Kerry can do much to postpone "the factors that will cause [the 4T that] have already been set in motion." I feel that society is very ripe for a turning change and ripening further. Indeed the Cascade may already be in progress. Look what one nipple and one Gen X mayor have already caused in terms of a fuss. Just think of what a dollar crash or second terrorist attack could do!

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by FaithAndReason '67

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by FaithAndReason '67

Unravelings aren't resolved until one side is either defeated in war, or is simply too exhausted / marginalized to put up a fight.

This would mean that Unravelings aren't resolved until towards the end of the following Crisis, right? If then.

I disagree with your analysis on the timing of the ending of the Unraveling. I think it ends when things start coming to a head and the Artist-led ethos of amelioration and deferment is finally wiped away by the 4T's opening Cascade phase. My apologies if I misunderstood you.

I think we're on the same page, actually. If you want to call it "the end of the Unraveling" when the Cascade starts, that's fine with me. I was referring instead to the resolution of the Unraveling, or more precisely, the fault-line issue that precipitates the Unraveling. I'm reasonably sure that E2004 will not be the crisis; it will just be one more hardening of the positions in the Culture War. And clearly the Culture War will not be resolved by the Crisis; indeed, the fault-line issue is never really resolved, even after the Regeneracy - it's just put on hold for a while.

Incidentally, that gives a very good indication of what the next Crisis issue will be about -- it's the issue that wasn't really resolved in the last Regeneracy, just swept under the rug. (Gay Rights? Probably not. More likely the whole argument over the New Deal: "Safety Net" or "Nanny State"? That's why I think a civil war is still a real possibility.)

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by FaithAndReason '67

at best, a President Kerry might delay the inevitable for a year or two, and perhaps cushion the fall a bit.

I doubt Kerry can do much to postpone "the factors that will cause [the 4T that] have already been set in motion." I feel that society is very ripe for a turning change and ripening further.

Ah, you're probably right. Still, a guy has to have hope, eh? (Even an Xer-to-the-core like myself.)

Peace out.

Originally Posted by Sean Love

On your other point, I agree that the number one problem facing humanity in the 21 century will be the need for a new type of community to replace national/parochial bonds. The closest thing we've seen thus far is the international "working-class" concept, but that was based in materialism and was still exclusionary in that an "Other" was still generally part and parcel of its, er, "charm". So it was an unmitigated disaster.

No, this new bonding needs to be emotional and spiritual as much as anything else to be truly transcendent of more chauvinistic concerns. Whether that will be addressed in this 4T seems unlikely to me, but rather an issue for the next 2T.

The closest thing to a new bonding in recent years are the Cultural Creatives.

Until a new form of community becomes organic and persuasive-asking people to give up nationalism means asking them to exchange their present bonds for nothing.

(~*~)

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Until a new form of community becomes organic and persuasive-asking people to give up nationalism means asking them to exchange their present bonds for nothing.

(~*~)

Agreed!

In The Cultural Creatives Ray & Anderson brought up the subject of Sorokin's theory. According to Sorokin there have been pendulum like swings-between religous versus secular world views-in European history. He predicted that the West will swing back towards a religous world view as secular culture exhausts its possibilities and suffers worldly setbacks.

Sorokin did mention that a culture might not swing quite so widely, resulting in a less pure example. Unforetunately, Sorokin did not elaborate.

Concievably, if the West should avoid severe setbacks it might swing back only part way. That is, the future West might be, overall, more spiritual than today, without being so intensely religious as medieval Christendom.

(~*~)

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

In The Cultural Creatives Ray & Anderson brought up the subject of Sorokin's theory. According to Sorokin there have been pendulum like swings-between religous versus secular world views-in European history. He predicted that the West will swing back towards a religous world view as secular culture exhausts its possibilities and suffers worldly setbacks.

Sorokin did mention that a culture might not swing quite so widely, resulting in a less pure example. Unforetunately, Sorokin did not elaborate.

Concievably, if the West should avoid severe setbacks it might swing back only part way. That is, the future West might be, overall, more spiritual than today, without being so intensely religious as medieval Christendom.

(~*~)

I hope you're right on both counts.

Originally Posted by FaithAndReason '67

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by FaithAndReason '67

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by FaithAndReason '67

Unravelings aren't resolved until one side is either defeated in war, or is simply too exhausted / marginalized to put up a fight.

This would mean that Unravelings aren't resolved until towards the end of the following Crisis, right? If then.

I disagree with your analysis on the timing of the ending of the Unraveling. I think it ends when things start coming to a head and the Artist-led ethos of amelioration and deferment is finally wiped away by the 4T's opening Cascade phase. My apologies if I misunderstood you.

I think we're on the same page, actually. If you want to call it "the end of the Unraveling" when the Cascade starts, that's fine with me. I was referring instead to the resolution of the Unraveling, or more precisely, the fault-line issue that precipitates the Unraveling. I'm reasonably sure that E2004 will not be the crisis; it will just be one more hardening of the positions in the Culture War. And clearly the Culture War will not be resolved by the Crisis; indeed, the fault-line issue is never really resolved, even after the Regeneracy - it's just put on hold for a while.

I'm on more or less the same page too, but...

The problem is that the Cascade might go on for quite some time before reaching an intensity that makes the general population sit up and take notice. Consider Al-Quida v USA as one of many spirals of violence in progress. (Palestine v Israel, Pakistan v India, Cheznia v Russia and Iraq v Iraq might be separate spirals, but they all tie in to the central theme best represented by Al Qaida.) Assume further that this is the critical spiral in a crisis dominated by a mix of division of wealth, class, ethnic and political issues. The Al-Quida spiral can be traced back to the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the African embassy explosions and the USS Cole before the September 11th attacks. Palestine v Israel goes back to before WW II. Other conflicts have been going on, depending on one's standard, for considerable time. Plausibly, while McVeigh was essentially a loner, he started down his path to extremism while on duty in the Middle East, seeing first hand the effects of US policy on the locals. OKC might plausibly be tied into the Al Qaida spiral as well.

But the earlier incidents will no way be used as markers for the unraveling / crisis border. September 11th was the first event that pulled all of the above spirals together into one grand global mess. September 11th, for many people, began a process that will lead to new ways of perceiving the world.

So, I wouldn't say the crisis era starts with the beginning of a cascade. To some degree, the degree that the public's emotions and government policy is effected is important. The question is when does the cascade become intense enough for people to start reconsidering their values.

I still see no evidence of a spiral of violence building between the USA's red and blue cultures. Both OKC and September 11th generated a strong rejection of culture change through terrorism and violence. While I agree there is a significant red / blue polarization, we have not seen a cascade of violent events between red and blue since Waco, Ruby Ridge and OKC. I don't expect to see one develop in the near term. The blue zone is affiliated with Martin Luther King and nonviolence. The red zone won't rise against Washington while the Republicans hold Congress and the White House. Even then, a blue government would have to be pretty obnoxious before the conservative militias picked up the banner of terrorism last carried by Timothy McVeigh.

There is a cascade in progress on global issues, divided on class lines, civilization lines, ethnic lines, and industrial v agricultural age lines, all muddled together. There is no cascade in progress between USA's red and blue subcultures. This might change. At the moment, though, the active spirals of violence point to the Al-Quida thread as being the central theme of the cascade.

If the West should swing towards a more spiritual future it will definitely differ from the Middle Ages in one respect. The Middle Ages had the Catholic Church. Now there are a number of Protestant denominations. Indeed, the Cultural Creatives are not tied to any one particular church.

(~*~)

I have not read these last exchanges all that carefully, but I would like to make a point. Don't expect us all to pull together DURING the crisis. The first research paper I did in grad school, in 1971, involved reading the Congressional Record in the years 1944-7. I was amazed by the virulence of the debate--not suprisingly, since Congress included a couple of Communists and fellow travelers, many, many white supremacists, a few intrepid black representatives, and just about everything you could think of in between. They didn't argue about the justice of the war but they argued violently about EVERYTHING else.
To get us through the crisis, one side has to get the upper hand. That, if you will, begins to replace Unraveling with Raveling. But the other side will still be around, and sreaming. The current Republican Prophets and Nomads will go to their graves believing that they are right and Reagan and W are the greatest presidents of the modern era.
Only in the High is there something more like a consensus.

David K '47

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

If the West should swing towards a more spiritual future it will definitely differ from the Middle Ages in one respect. The Middle Ages had the Catholic Church. Now there are a number of Protestant denominations. Indeed, the Cultural Creatives are not tied to any one particular church.

Indeed. While it may be possible to see the influence of religion wax and wane, to me most to all crises since the Black Plague have pulled away from an autocratic, authoritarian, hierarchical world view to a multi polar, balanced, competitive approach. Modern societies are based on dynamic balances between competing interests and mechanisms by which competing interests can resolve differences without violence. Ancient societies were centered on hierarchies, one guy on the top, one set of scriptures describing how things ought to be, and one bureaucracy enforcing the One True Way.

Thus, I see Marxism and fascism as remnant agricultural age pseudo-religion, complete with scriptures, a pope in each governed country, and an Inquisition to seek out and eradicate error. Industrial Age cultures allow multiple value systems to compete. We have elections, legislatures, governments with checks and balances, a free press, stock markets and refereed scientific journals instead of scripture, a pope and a secret police. We don't have The Church. We have a whole bunch of churches, competing for worshipers. These churches mostly understand that they are not allowed to impose their values on others by force or fiat. Well, most churches understand. Some of the fundamentalist devout still have dreams of imposing their value systems on others, First Amendment or no First Amendment. They are still thinking in Agricultural Age terms.

My point being that every crisis one would expect the agricultural, rural, religious, autocratic, red faction to lose a little ground to the industrial, urban, secular, democratic blue faction. (Gee. The Redcoats wore red. The Patriots wore blue. The Confederate battle flag was dominated by red. The Union wore blue.... ) While the importance of religion may wax and wane, the nature of religion has shifted considerably, and will continue to shift.

In the days of muscle power weapons, specialist warrior classes were able to monopolize use of force, and thus monopolize wealth and political power. No one was able to do much about it. During the gunpowder era, when a smaller percentage of the people could work the land, when training in arms could be completed with less than a life time's study, when it became possible to mobilize a larger part of the population for war, when it became clear that nations who armed their people could trash those who didn't, somehow cultures based on concepts of human rights and democracy started trampling cultures based on tyranny, force and oppression.

Terrorist delivery of weapons of mass destruction could very well end the dominance of gunpowder weapons manned by large armies made up of a significant percentage of the population. The army backed by the most numerous and most efficient factories won't necessarily win in the new millennium. The willingness of the population to endure weapons of mass destruction hits might become more important than industrial production in the next war. If so, the long run of successes by the urban democratic industrial secular faction is not totally guaranteed.

The world is still changing. I don't anticipate a return to the sort of church that dominated during the era of muscle powered weapons. I hope not. If enough WMDs are released, it could happen. The era of muscle powered weapons might return.

At a certain point in American life, the young ceased to be viewed as a transient class and youth as a phase of life through which everyone soon passed. Instead, youthfulness was vaunted and carried a special moral status. Adolescence triumphed, becoming a permanent condition. As one grew older, one was presented with two choices, to seem an old fogey for attempting to live according to one's own standard of adulthood, or to go with the flow and adapt some variant of pulling one's long gray hair back into a ponytail, struggling into the spandex shorts, working on those abs, and ending one's days among the Rip Van With-Its. Not, I think, a handsome set of alternatives.

The greatest sins, Santayana thought, are those that set out to strangle human nature. This is of course what is being done in cultivating perpetual adolescence, while putting off maturity for as long as possible. Maturity provides a more articulated sense of the ebb and flow, the ups and downs, of life, a more subtly reticulated graph of human possibility. Above all, it values a clear and fit conception of reality. Maturity is ever cognizant that the clock is running, life is finite, and among the greatest mistakes is to believe otherwise. Maturity doesn't exclude playfulness or high humor. Far from it. The mature understand that the bitterest joke of all is that the quickest way to grow old lies in the hopeless attempt to stay forever young.

The Perpetual Adolescent by Mr. Joseph Epstein, The Weekly Standard 15 March 2004 number.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Thanks, David

presidential elections with an incumbent running are almost never close. The only exception that comes to mind was 1948, and the fact that Truman inherited the office rather than being elected to it may make a difference there.

Ditto with 1976.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

At a certain point in American life, the young ceased to be viewed as a transient class and youth as a phase of life through which everyone soon passed. Instead, youthfulness was vaunted and carried a special moral status. Adolescence triumphed, becoming a permanent condition. As one grew older, one was presented with two choices, to seem an old fogey for attempting to live according to one's own standard of adulthood, or to go with the flow and adapt some variant of pulling one's long gray hair back into a ponytail, struggling into the spandex shorts, working on those abs, and ending one's days among the Rip Van With-Its. Not, I think, a handsome set of alternatives.

The greatest sins, Santayana thought, are those that set out to strangle human nature. This is of course what is being done in cultivating perpetual adolescence, while putting off maturity for as long as possible. Maturity provides a more articulated sense of the ebb and flow, the ups and downs, of life, a more subtly reticulated graph of human possibility. Above all, it values a clear and fit conception of reality. Maturity is ever cognizant that the clock is running, life is finite, and among the greatest mistakes is to believe otherwise. Maturity doesn't exclude playfulness or high humor. Far from it. The mature understand that the bitterest joke of all is that the quickest way to grow old lies in the hopeless attempt to stay forever young.

The Perpetual Adolescent by Mr. Joseph Epstein, The Weekly Standard 15 March 2004 number.

Hey, I'd welcome the day when decorum in dress becomes popular again. Maybe not to the extent to the 1930s and 40s but at least some sense of order is in need. For now, I will have to be comfortable in dressing down most of the time, since it is the youthful thing to do for a person my age. But it disturbs me to see people twice to three times my age trying to look unrealistically young, meaning they essentially don the same type of clothing that their younger people are wearing. At least this is evident in women more than men since male clothing tends to run homogenous no matter what age you are.

And bring back the hat! They look so awesome and grown-up. Ditch the highly kiddish baseball cap and go full brim!

Hey, Andy -- I recall GIs dressing down a lot when I was a kid, except when they were at work. Maybe it's a Hero thing. :P

I'm sure the GIs had their casual moments, but from the images I look at, it seems like they know how to be casual and be an adult about it as well. That's something I would like to see in the future.

Take a look at any department store and you'll see images of people no older than probably 30 hawking clothes that appears mature but has that grasp at youthfulness to a fault. And any attempt at a true aged maturity will be tainted with that fashionable touch. You can't look old without being "fabulous!"

Sure they have plus-sized models. How about the plus-40 types?

The thing I wonder is, how would people around my age turn out in 20-30 years in clothes? I know it won't be the high-waist suspenders type of the GIs (or Lost, I don't know), but hmmmm. I just hope I don't see the men of my generations still wearing T-shirts without sleeves. That's just not proper for a later age . . .

And even Xers, what about them? I remember not long ago a commercial about some snack food and shows two kids playing a video game and because of their mother's long preparation they morphed into a couple of 70-somethings wearing the EXACT SAME CLOTHING!!