Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Interesting. You realize, of course, that this casts Star Trek's recurrent Borg theme as pre-seasonal Fourth Turning horror... This would suggest that certain creative types of people sensed a 4T Crisis on the horizon as early as 1990, before The Fourth Turning was even written.

Gee, would that include S&H's "dark" observation on the 1982's Blade Runner; or their positive insights on the "Abort it!" Rosemary's Baby of 1968? Or, how about that recently alluded to Soylent Green doom and gloom?

Golly, the 4T Crisis was on the horizon as early as 1968!

See what I mean?

• "The Republicans are in, aren't they?" --Radio host Fred Allen (from 1956 documentary on the "Roaring Twenties")

Democrats "in"? Good. GOP "in"? Bad.

Such is the "political cycle" of history. :wink:

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Interesting. You realize, of course, that this casts Star Trek's recurrent Borg theme as pre-seasonal Fourth Turning horror... monsters that can do far worse then kill you, by turning you into one of THEM. They're like late 20th-early 21st century vampires, wolfmen and Frankensteins all rolled up into one, and then some. This would suggest that certain creative types of people sensed a 4T Crisis on the horizon as early as 1990, before The Fourth Turning was even written.

Interesting point, and I suspect it might be valid. The Borg in some ways were horror-style villains. Furthermore, the Silent ethos utterly permeated the STTNG series writing, which made the Borg, in their implacability, particularly horrific.

The Adaptive archetype collectively deads above all else (if S&H are right) the return of the Crisis mood they knew in childhood. The Borg might well be a product of that fear.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Interesting point, and I suspect it might be valid. The Borg in some ways were horror-style villains. Furthermore, the Silent ethos utterly permeated the STTNG series writing, which made the Borg, in their implacability, particularly horrific.

The Adaptive archetype collectively deads above all else (if S&H are right) the return of the Crisis mood they knew in childhood. The Borg might well be a product of that fear.

I thought the Borg represented the conformist corporate drones and the menance that many people see of the major corporations.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Holy crap! I almost feel like discarding my moniker, and begin posting as Marc Lamb again... [long pause... snap out of it, Devil]... whew, I'm back on earth 8).

Nice posts, fellas! Rare, but nice.

Now, back to typical fourthturning.com discussion:

p.s. sigh but such is what passes for non-confronted high intellectual discussion here. Why stop now, eh?

Marc, please take this in the spirit in which it is intended, because I'm speaking as ally of yours, more or less, in these debates.

I share your wish for a more civil discourse, and for a more on-topic debate, but this isn't the way to obtain it. I know the point you're getting at, but making it that way doesn't achieve anything, since the satire is lost on many of those its aimed at. It tends to toss us right back into the arguments over personalities and politics that you're satirizing.

We have a civil and relevant discussion about the S&H theory going on here, why not join in and encourage it by participating in it?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Holy crap! I almost feel like discarding my moniker, and begin posting as Marc Lamb again... [long pause... snap out of it, Devil]... whew, I'm back on earth 8).

Nice posts, fellas! Rare, but nice.

Now, back to typical fourthturning.com discussion: "Should I cross my legs?... I totally er..have faith that Jesus stuck his thing in Mary Magdalene."

In the New Testament there are hints of romantic and maybe sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Generally Christian doctrine for centuries has denied that any romantic relationship existed between Jesus Son of Mary and Mary Magdalene.

For a Jewish man in the first century AD, being celibate was considered not a normal thing. However choosing a prostitute like Mary Magdalene as his wife was not socially acceptable and would have shocked many of his followers.

• "Come the mid-1960s, the Silent fell under the trance of their free-spirited next-juniors, the Boomers." --Biography.com

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Interesting. You realize, of course, that this casts Star Trek's recurrent Borg theme as pre-seasonal Fourth Turning horror...

Interesting point, and I suspect it might be valid. The Borg in some ways were horror-style villains. Furthermore, the Silent ethos utterly permeated the STTNG series writing, which made the Borg, in their implacability, particularly horrific.

Gee, was that before, or after, the Boomer "trance" they fell under?

Golly, needless to say, that evil "law and order" Nixon, a Republican, guy was their ultimate Darth Vader "horror-style villain", eh? Abort, abort, abort!

p.s. Who was it that S&H alluded to as the "abort... something... retry..." generation? What future "trance" will thus the Gen Xers fall under?

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Regarding my above comments about horror movies and Turnings, we can take that forward, IMO, to the 3T, where the theme shifts again.

You're killing me here, HC. You've baited me into a conversation that has eaten up my Sunday.

8) :twisted:

It's a hazard of the forum.

I can only hope that I have the time to follow up; as you can see, this is a topic that interests me quite a bit.

Me too. I found your points in response interesting, when I get a moment I plan to respond to them.

One point about Myers, though, in a sense he was an innocent victim, though this is only known to the relative handful who read the novelization of that first Halloween movie.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Shemsu Heru

The transition from the prior 1T to the following 2T is another dramatic example of how things overlap. It is generally accepted on this board that the Kennedy Assassination was the beginning of the 2T.

But not universally accepted. I am a dissenter on that point, I think the 2T started (in terms of national average) around 1965-66, and I think it ended (again as a broad national matter) right around 1986.

I agree with Brian Rush saying that the Awakening started in 1964 at least for the US with the first of the long hot angry summers. In Europe the last 2T started with Prague Spring and May 68?.

On the other hand I would agree with Strauss and Howe's end date for the Awakening in 1984. Transitions from 1T-2T and 3T-4T are very dramatic, while transitions from 4T-1T and 2T-3T are pretty gradual and harder to make totally precise judgements.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

[Marc, please take this in the spirit in which it is intended...

Done. The floor is yours. Please continue with something worth reading, here.

p.s. Tristan, you completely missed my point (which I regret trying to make).

If the transitiion from 3T to 4T is dramatic, then we have obviously not reached the 4T as yet, as it seems to be pretty well confirmed that 9/11 did not put America in a real 4T mode. In many ways, however, I felt that the 2T t0 3T transition was rather abrupt, as the Boomer gen shifted from hedonistic to workaholic almost overnight. To me at least that was an abrupt, dramatic shift. Another post on this forum I read over the weekend indicated that 1986 was the year when the 2T/3T shift became apparent. So if we are to go with the 20-year phase, then next year, 2006, will be the year we reach the 4T.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Holy crap! I almost feel like discarding my moniker, and begin posting as Marc Lamb again... [long pause... snap out of it, Devil]... whew, I'm back on earth 8).

Nice posts, fellas! Rare, but nice.

Now, back to typical fourthturning.com discussion: "Should I cross my legs?... I totally er..have faith that Jesus stuck his thing in Mary Magdalene."

In the New Testament there are hints of romantic and maybe sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Generally Christian doctrine for centuries has denied that any romantic relationship existed between Jesus Son of Mary and Mary Magdalene.

For a Jewish man in the first century AD, being celibate was considered not a normal thing. However choosing a prostitute like Mary Magdalene as his wife was not socially acceptable and would have shocked many of his followers.

Sorry for the digression, but Tristan, you might be interested in a book called Rabbi Jesus. It was written by an Episcopal priest, who is an expert on first Century Judaism, and uses that knowledge, plus his study of the Gospels, to look at the historical Jesus.

According to the book, because of Jesus's out-of-marriage conception (there were doubts among the good Jews of Nazareth on whether Joseph was Jesus's father), Jesus would have been considered a "mamzer" or a bastard, and his marriage choices would have been limited.

Originally Posted by the political philosopher, Mr. R. Orbison

It's over!

Originally Posted by Wa[i

Po[/i]]As the president passed the 100-day mark of his second term over the weekend, the main question facing Bush and his party is whether they misread the November elections. With the president's poll numbers down, and the Republican majority ensnared in ethical controversy, things look much less like a once-a-generation realignment.

Doubts About Mandate for Bush, GOP

I'm enjoying the discussion about horror films and turnings. How do such films as The Ring, Final Destination and 28 Days Later fit in to your theory, HC?

Originally Posted by Distinguished Toastmaster

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Holy crap! I almost feel like discarding my moniker, and begin posting as Marc Lamb again... [long pause... snap out of it, Devil]... whew, I'm back on earth 8).

Nice posts, fellas! Rare, but nice.

Now, back to typical fourthturning.com discussion: "Should I cross my legs?... I totally er..have faith that Jesus stuck his thing in Mary Magdalene."

In the New Testament there are hints of romantic and maybe sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Generally Christian doctrine for centuries has denied that any romantic relationship existed between Jesus Son of Mary and Mary Magdalene.

For a Jewish man in the first century AD, being celibate was considered not a normal thing. However choosing a prostitute like Mary Magdalene as his wife was not socially acceptable and would have shocked many of his followers.

Sorry for the digression, but Tristan, you might be interested in a book called Rabbi Jesus. It was written by an Episcopal priest, who is an expert on first Century Judaism, and uses that knowledge, plus his study of the Gospels, to look at the historical Jesus.

According to the book, because of Jesus's out-of-marriage conception (there were doubts among the good Jews of Nazareth on whether Joseph was Jesus's father), Jesus would have been considered a "mamzer" or a bastard, and his marriage choices would have been limited.

Also, there are those who have suggested that Mary Magdalene was actually Jesus' lawfully wedded wife, and that, in later centuries, a Church that had become thoroughly enamored of (not to say 'obsessed with') the idea that lifelong celibacy and chastity were far superior morally over marriage went to the lengths (and depths) of dragging her good name through the mud as part of a systematic cover-up of that "embarassing" fact. :oops: :wink:

http://&#39;79 X/MILLIE CUSP <br /> <br...Suggestions::)

Originally Posted by Distinguished Toastmaster

Sorry for the digression, but Tristan, you might be interested in a book called Rabbi Jesus. It was written by an Episcopal priest, who is an expert on first Century Judaism, and uses that knowledge, plus his study of the Gospels, to look at the historical Jesus.

According to the book, because of Jesus's out-of-marriage conception (there were doubts among the good Jews of Nazareth on whether Joseph was Jesus's father), Jesus would have been considered a "mamzer" or a bastard, and his marriage choices would have been limited.

Actually, according to Jewish law, Jesus, as the son of an unmarried Jewish woman, would be legitimate. He would not be considered a mamzer. A mamzer is the child of an adulterous relationship in which the mother is married, but not to the father of the child. This differentiation is because although it was socially unacceptable, sex before marriage (fornication) was not considered a sin equal to adultery, which is mentioned in the ten commandments.

In the customs of Judea and Galilee under the Romans, there were three methods of marriage. One was to have sexual intercourse that was publically known--usually by the couple moving in together (equivilent to common law marrriage). Another was a public declaration by the families (betrothal). The last, called Kiddushin was betrothal followed by a ceremony in which the Ketubah (marriage contract) was read and signed. All were accepted, but the first was considered a low-class method. Only in the third way were the rights of the woman preserved by the Ketubah. By the end of the Talmudic period (about 500 CE) the last two were made into one ceremony.

With respect to the legal recognition of who the father is, when a woman becomes pregnant, the child is considered the child of her husband--no matter what the kid looks like! If she has no husband, then the man who steps forward to claim the child is considered the father, and the child is considered legitimate. It is through the mother that the child recieves status as a member of the people Israel. This was done because for 500 or more years before the Common Era (the time of Jesus), Israel and Judea were repeatedly overrun, invaded, conquered and governed by others. These wars were associated with much rape and mayhem. By making the rules work this way, a woman who was raped and made pregnant by mauraders, foreign soldiers or whoever, was protected and her child was also protected.

Originally Posted by A.LOS79

http://&#39;79 X/MILLIE CUSP <br /> <br...Suggestions::)

Your post completely lost me. Was there supposed to be a link to something?

I'd appreciate some clarification.


:?: :? :?:

Originally Posted by Bat Mitzvah Girl

Originally Posted by A.LOS79

http://&#39;79 X/MILLIE CUSP <br /> <br...Suggestions::)

Your post completely lost me. Was there supposed to be a link to something?

I'd appreciate some clarification.


:?: :? :?:

Jenny,

Are congratulations in order?

I had my Bat Mitzvah on Shabbat Chol ha-Moed Pesach 15 years ago, at the age of 32. Did you just have one during Pesach?

Originally Posted by elilevin

Jenny,

Are congratulations in order?

I had my Bat Mitzvah on Shabbat Chol ha-Moed Pesach 15 years ago, at the age of 32. Did you just have one during Pesach?

Yes, a group of nine of us (8 women and a lone man) became b'nei mitzvah Saturday afternoon. After the Shabbat Torah-reading service, we had a quick havdallah service and then celebrated our b'nei mitzvahood (or however you want to phrase it) and the end of Pesach by eating challah and then going in for a catered dinner.

I was able to do my four lines of Torah with some competency, so I feel tremendously relieved! And it was a lovely service. Roadbldr '59 came to be with me on that special day; as I write this, he is probably boarding his plane to take him back home. I think he got a kick out of the dor v'dor (translation -- generation to generation) part of the service. :wink:

He was joined by my mother, one of my sisters, my brother, and other family and friends, and of course, my daughter, who will become Bat Mitzvah in about 2 1/2 years.

It was wonderful.

Originally Posted by elilevin

Originally Posted by Distinguished Toastmaster

Sorry for the digression, but Tristan, you might be interested in a book called Rabbi Jesus. It was written by an Episcopal priest, who is an expert on first Century Judaism, and uses that knowledge, plus his study of the Gospels, to look at the historical Jesus.

According to the book, because of Jesus's out-of-marriage conception (there were doubts among the good Jews of Nazareth on whether Joseph was Jesus's father), Jesus would have been considered a "mamzer" or a bastard, and his marriage choices would have been limited.

Actually, according to Jewish law, Jesus, as the son of an unmarried Jewish woman, would be legitimate. He would not be considered a mamzer. A mamzer is the child of an adulterous relationship in which the mother is married, but not to the father of the child. This differentiation is because although it was socially unacceptable, sex before marriage (fornication) was not considered a sin equal to adultery, which is mentioned in the ten commandments.

In the customs of Judea and Galilee under the Romans, there were three methods of marriage. One was to have sexual intercourse that was publically known--usually by the couple moving in together (equivilent to common law marrriage). Another was a public declaration by the families (betrothal). The last, called Kiddushin was betrothal followed by a ceremony in which the Ketubah (marriage contract) was read and signed. All were accepted, but the first was considered a low-class method. Only in the third way were the rights of the woman preserved by the Ketubah. By the end of the Talmudic period (about 500 CE) the last two were made into one ceremony.

With respect to the legal recognition of who the father is, when a woman becomes pregnant, the child is considered the child of her husband--no matter what the kid looks like! If she has no husband, then the man who steps forward to claim the child is considered the father, and the child is considered legitimate. It is through the mother that the child recieves status as a member of the people Israel. This was done because for 500 or more years before the Common Era (the time of Jesus), Israel and Judea were repeatedly overrun, invaded, conquered and governed by others. These wars were associated with much rape and mayhem. By making the rules work this way, a woman who was raped and made pregnant by mauraders, foreign soldiers or whoever, was protected and her child was also protected.

Hmm, it sounds like you have something to teach the good priest who wrote Rabbi Jesus who is supposedly such an expert on 1st Century Judaism. :wink:

Beth El Hebrew Congregation (a Reform temple) didn't teach me much about who is considered a mamzer, so I accepted the good priest's word for it. :lol:

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Holy crap! I almost feel like discarding my moniker, and begin posting as Marc Lamb again... [long pause... snap out of it, Devil]... whew, I'm back on earth 8).

Nice posts, fellas! Rare, but nice.

Now, back to typical fourthturning.com discussion: "Should I cross my legs?... I totally er..have faith that Jesus stuck his thing in Mary Magdalene."

In the New Testament there are hints of romantic and maybe sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Generally Christian doctrine for centuries has denied that any romantic relationship existed between Jesus Son of Mary and Mary Magdalene.

For a Jewish man in the first century AD, being celibate was considered not a normal thing. However choosing a prostitute like Mary Magdalene as his wife was not socially acceptable and would have shocked many of his followers.

I am pretty sure the Catholic church very quietly recanted the Magdelene as prostitute thing a little while ago. They consciously mashed the two Marys together, and now that ppl are allowed to read the bible, they took em back apart. This is of course over something like an 800 year period.

Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)

... I am pretty sure the Catholic church very quietly recanted the Magdelene as prostitute thing a little while ago. They consciously mashed the two Marys together, and now that ppl are allowed to read the bible, they took em back apart. This is of course over something like an 800 year period.

I've always been partial to the possibility of Mary Magdalene as the financier of at least one itinerant Jewish Rabbi. In a way, it makes sense, since he needed to keep his entourage fed, clothed and on-message. I don't remember sending the fishermen out to fish, but everyone ate.

washingtonpost.com
Doubts About Mandate for Bush, GOP
By John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, May 2, 2005; A01

FOR DISCUSSION ONLY



The day after he won a second term in November, President Bush offered his view of the new political landscape.

"When you win there is a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view," he said, "and that's what I intend to tell the Congress, that I made it clear what I intend to do as president . . . and the people made it clear what they wanted, now let's work together."

Six months ago, this comment was widely viewed as more than just a postgame boast. Among campaign strategists and academics, there was ample speculation that Bush's victory, combined with incremental gains in the Republican congressional majority, signaled something fundamental: a partisan and ideological "realignment" that would reshape politics over the long haul.

As the president passed the 100-day mark of his second term over the weekend, the main question facing Bush and his party is whether they misread the November elections. With the president's poll numbers down, and the Republican majority ensnared in ethical controversy, things look much less like a once-a-generation realignment........................
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100948_pf.html

Originally Posted by Bat Mitzvah Girl

Originally Posted by A.LOS79

http://&#39;79 X/MILLIE CUSP <br /> <br...Suggestions::)

Your post completely lost me. Was there supposed to be a link to something?

I'd appreciate some clarification.


:?: :? :?:

I think it was supposed to be a chart comparing evidence supporting the idea that we're in a 3T versus evidence supporting the idea that we're in a 4T. Unfortunately it's hard to do charts and tables on this forum. I think this is what was meant:

3T Evidence: Terry Schiavo drama, Michael Jackson trial, Stronger Culture Wars, Election 2004(was gridlock, no landslide like 2000)

4T Evidence: Social Security panic, Iraq, 9-11, Homelanders have started(2004)

I tend to agree with the list of 3T evidence above. I have often stated that the 2004 election results matching the 2000 results is a sure sign of a lack of political realignment/regeneracy - what you would expect in a Fourth Turning. But it has occurred to me lately that the re-election of Bush does fit the Fourth Turning idea of putting faith in leadership despite its obvious deficiencies...

I buy the SS reform on the table as a 4T indicator. It's finally being discussed, and that's definitely new. But 9/11 and Iraq I don't think are reliable indicators. A Homelander initial birthyear of 2004 means we're still 3T, so that's misplaced.