Originally Posted by Chas'88

Agreed completely. Hence why I look at our last Awakening and go: boy did it pale in comparison to what came before it.

~Chas'88

Yes and no. The last Awakening was experimental, much like the Transcendental Awakening. It operated on many levels, and few had any immediate practical application. No, there was absolutlely no chance that the race, gender and class issues would be resolved in a huge Kumbayah Circle, but the issues were given free reign and pulled to the forefront of social consciousness. I's hard to ignore something tha's alwasy in your face. We may finally have devised (by accident, but so what?) a model and a generation that will sweep most of these divisive issues into the historical dustbin. Boomer only get the credit for raising open-minded children ... but that's not insignificant. Millies will actually do the work, such as it is.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

To give credit where credit is due, I think the awakening did accomplish some good things (beyond the obviously awesome music). However, in a lot of ways, the awakening focused on individualistic gains...

The awakening, however, didn't (effectively) address unbridled greed through the pursuit of secular and physical pleasures. In many ways, the last awakening celebrated it.

Unbridled greed is a nearly perfect fit for an era of personal freedom. Like most things, it can't go on forever, or it will create a backlash no one wants ... especially Mr and Ms Greed. So far, they seem a bit oblivious to their own risk ... or they may assume that they can always buy their way out of trouble. I suspect the Romanovs and Bourbons made similar calls in their times.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Last 30 years? Nothing's been done in the last 50! You want the last major accoplishment in social progress, it's called The Civil Rights Act of 1964. And it'd have been fine if we took 20 years to regroup and make new ideas, but that's not what happened. It was millions of people taking a mental holiday for 20 years and then coming together in absolute disorganized, inefficient failure. Nothing more, nothing less. It's been social degeneration for 50 years, and economic degeneration for 60.

The insistance that we paint a happy face over 20 years to appease a generation grown children who don't have to suffer what their failings have wrought so they can continue to feel good about themselves is not something I'm interested in.

Of course nothing of substance got done for a very long time. That's what Unravelings are all about. Look at the progression: A crisis requiring the full response capablitlity of the nation, followed by a period of unprecedented building and expansion, followed by an intense period of social reexaminination ... followed by a 20-year vacation.

Vacation's over.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'm still of the opinion that more dogmatic socieities are less susceptable to the saecular cycle ... though certainly not immune. Religous dogma can alter the impacts of the social cycle, though the Western social system is not as much affected as some in the East. In the West, the church has been political from its inception. Still, I'm not sure how much impact church dogma had on the pace of the cycle, which is much more rapid in these less dogmatic times.. Is dogma a social retardant? It's possible, but I'm probably not the one to puzzle through it.

I'm glad you brought this up because when I try to run saecular timelines for various countries I'll end up with big discrepancies in the span of a saeculum. I think the biggest gap I saw was between Ireland (~70) and China (~80).

I'd speculate these questions might help answer why:

How much does the culture tolerate people who question the culture? Is it a low-context or high-context culture? What kind of media is available to disseminate communication (priests? printing presses? broadcast towers? a free or filtered internet?)

Can we quantify such variables? I don't know, I'm usually just glad to have a sketch of the big picture.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Gay rights maybe the exception in that it is a new idea, but it's in the same well, getting poisoned by post-modern thought and individualization... Plus I don't think of 1 idea which affects such a small portion of the population as a "mega-awakening."

I put a challenge to some Boomers I know elsewhere to try and prove this line of arguing wrong, here was one reply that was rather interesting:

Having now studied the Missionaries for so long. . the Awakening is, very simply, when the Prophets come on the scene introducing something very new to society. Last time around, that was unrestrained emotion. In the 1890s it was something completely different. As it was in the 1820s-1830s (more similar to the 1960s-70s.) The Missionaries were into getting things done all their lives, as well as into giving their lives moral structure/purpose.

So his only claim to Boomer fame is that they brought "unrestrained emotion" to the table.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I put a challenge to some Boomers I know elsewhere to try and prove this line of arguing wrong, here was one reply that was rather interesting:



So his only claim to Boomer fame is that they brought "unrestrained emotion" to the table.

~Chas'88

Strangely, I agree with this and think it kinda proves my point. Unrestrained emotion is completely unproductive. I only know one person who lives that way, and that's my 1 year old. I love her dearly, but I also don't let her choose what she's eating for dinner or whether or not she has to put her coat on.

My wife and I were having a discussion on gender one time, specifically regarding how we handle emotion, because she was advocating to a guy that he should "do what he feels". I told her that it was particularly dangerous advice, because letting your emotions run the show is a disaster, and that probably the essence of coming of age as a male is learning to reign in your emotions and letting your mind rule instead.

Unrestrained Emotion is a total disaster, because much like the crisis we find ourselves in, it is impossible to resolve and feel good about yourself. Every possible solution requires we stuff our emotions for a while to get something better, and obviously The Awakening is in absolute contradiction to that.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Unrestrained emotion is completely unproductive.

My wife and I were having a discussion on gender one time, specifically regarding how we handle emotion, because she was advocating to a guy that he should "do what he feels". I told her that it was particularly dangerous advice, because letting your emotions run the show is a disaster, and that probably the essence of coming of age as a male is learning to reign in your emotions and letting your mind rule instead.

Unrestrained Emotion is a total disaster, because much like the crisis we find ourselves in, it is impossible to resolve and feel good about yourself. Every possible solution requires we stuff our emotions for a while to get something better, and obviously The Awakening is in absolute contradiction to that.

Well, here's a (not so bold) theory: maybe societies over-correct from their problems. We may be drifting off into an emotional and individualistic extreme, but that doesn't mean I'd want to live under the strict social expectations of the 1950s.

If a society is an object headed in a certain direction, it would be an object with a lot of inertia because of how many people bring their sense of tradition along. Efforts to change the direction of that object would require a lot of force (over time) and by the time there was evidence the path had changed, it would be likely that the object had built up enough new inertia to head off on another new extreme.

That would, of course, give a bit of a mechanism to the saeculum and larger cycles, as well.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Well, here's a (not so bold) theory: maybe societies over-correct from their problems. We may be drifting off into an emotional and individualistic extreme, but that doesn't mean I'd want to live under the strict social expectations of the 1950s.

If a society is an object headed in a certain direction, it would be an object with a lot of inertia because of how many people bring their sense of tradition along. Efforts to change the direction of that object would require a lot of force (over time) and by the time there was evidence the path had changed, it would be likely that the object had built up enough new inertia to head off on another new extreme.

That would, of course, give a bit of a mechanism to the saeculum and larger cycles, as well.

Here's the thing, it's not a spectrum what you're talking about. This isn't an over correction, it's a tantrum. An overcompensation would still require a philosophy or thought process behind it.

Also, I'm talking as far as this saeculum, the tantrum prevents resolution. We'd just be passing our failure on to the next generation and the generations after that.

I still say that the next Prophets are going to be Neo-Victorians. Because once the genie's been let out of the bottle the only thing revolutionary left to do is to stuff it back in.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I still say that the next Prophets are going to be Neo-Victorians. Because once the genie's been let out of the bottle the only thing revolutionary left to do is to stuff it back in.

I think it could be a while for that, and I'd bet that the next prophets will be a bit more concerned about building social structures that represent and economically empower the average citizen & worker above our current elite of corrupt political & business networks.

M&L mentioned that the economic question was still up in the air at this point in the 4T, but I suggest it has been all but settled. American communes didn't survive the 2T and fell victim to personality cults, while MegaChurches spread, and spread, and ... they even kind of spread to Wall Street where they became incorporated in secular form as MegaBanks and other forms of TooBigToFail™.

The "left," as represented by Democrats and popular media experts, really has no economic plan except to be marginally less conservative than the Republicans. Incidentally, that seems to be the foreign policy plan, as well. Hell, to be honest, the Democrats are even following public opinion on social issues after the fact, instead of trying to be leaders on it.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I still say that the next Prophets are going to be Neo-Victorians. Because once the genie's been let out of the bottle the only thing revolutionary left to do is to stuff it back in.

~Chas'88

I more or less agree with this. It's either going to be a bunch of Neo-Luddite stuff or it'll be very, very rules oriented.

John has a point, but I don't think the US can structurally handle that, plus I don't think most people will look favorably on this Saeculum at all.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Here's the thing, it's not a spectrum what you're talking about. This isn't an over correction, it's a tantrum. An overcompensation would still require a philosophy or thought process behind it.

Also, I'm talking as far as this saeculum, the tantrum prevents resolution. We'd just be passing our failure on to the next generation and the generations after that.

Nothing we do as humans requires any thought at all. We are emotional at our core. 1Ts attempt to tamp that down and focus .... focus ... focus. So how did well did we do that in the last 1T? We created a boogieman, as you would expect. So while our parents were "building for a better future", we kids were doing duck and cover drills. We kept the Soviet boogieman front and center right into the 3T. Is that markedly different from the 2T response? Both were emotional outbursts, only one was buried under layers of faux-restraint.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Nothing we do as humans requires any thought at all. We are emotional at our core. 1Ts attempt to tamp that down and focus .... focus ... focus. So how did well did we do that in the last 1T? We created a boogieman, as you would expect. So while our parents were "building for a better future", we kids were doing duck and cover drills. We kept the Soviet boogieman front and center right into the 3T. Is that markedly different from the 2T response? Both were emotional outbursts, only one was buried under layers of faux-restraint.

Being homo sapiens requires no thought, being human beings requires thought and requires restraint. The last 1T was hardly reasonable or rational, it was under hangover rules. Be quiet, keep your mouth shut, everybody has a headache. It appears anything but restrained or rational, though.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I think it could be a while for that, and I'd bet that the next prophets will be a bit more concerned about building social structures that represent and economically empower the average citizen & worker above our current elite of corrupt political & business networks.

M&L mentioned that the economic question was still up in the air at this point in the 4T, but I suggest it has been all but settled. American communes didn't survive the 2T and fell victim to personality cults, while MegaChurches spread, and spread, and ... they even kind of spread to Wall Street where they became incorporated in secular form as MegaBanks and other forms of TooBigToFail™.

The "left," as represented by Democrats and popular media experts, really has no economic plan except to be marginally less conservative than the Republicans. Incidentally, that seems to be the foreign policy plan, as well. Hell, to be honest, the Democrats are even following public opinion on social issues after the fact, instead of trying to be leaders on it.

You can't really settle something by creating an unsustainable structure and calling it a done deal. Herb Stein was right. What can't go on forever won't. The real questions are: how bad will it become before the backlash comes in force, and does that mean a violent change or not? In any case, I suspect it will happen without my input, since I expect to be non-corporal at the time.

Originally Posted by Kepi

John has a point, but I don't think the US can structurally handle that, plus I don't think most people will look favorably on this Saeculum at all.

Well, I don't think the US will survive in its current legal form, either. Prophets will have to answer the questions of "How can we effectively protest and disrupt a corrupt system," and "What can we replace it with?" Civics are already starting to ponder these ideas, but there's no social leverage to put them to work and the ideas are still extremely new & untested.

The next prophets will probably have to put a lot more work in to organizing the concepts and ideals behind community-oriented social institutions, and there will probably be a lot of rules involved (ie: Much more like the Israeli kibbutzum than the hippy communes of the 60s & 70s)

But... I don't think those new prophets will be ready to put the sexual revolution back in the closet. Even AIDS was barely a speed-bump on that road to liberalizing social and sexual attitudes.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You can't really settle something by creating an unsustainable structure and calling it a done deal. Herb Stein was right. What can't go on forever won't. The real questions are: how bad will it become before the backlash comes in force, and does that mean a violent change or not? In any case, I suspect it will happen without my input, since I expect to be non-corporal at the time.

Well, nothing is sustainable if you put the time horizon out far enough! Slavery or the gilded age wasn't sustainable either, but it didn't stop economic exploitation from persisting for decades.

Right now, I figure we're well in to a 4T - to the point people are even starting to get sick of the idea of unending crises. There is no real ideological competition to the MegaCorp, just a marginal debate about marginal tax rates that still fits within a dominant paradigm of TBTF and financial sector supremacy.

If new ideas are supposed to spread & catch on in an awakening, then we shouldn't expect a real contender against this economic model for another 20-30 years.

Some thoughts to add over several posts, probably, and maybe a new thread.

First of all, here's the layout of a "megasaeculum" as I would conceive it.

Rather than start with the founding of the USA, I would start with the real beginning of the country, which was the founding of Jamestown in 1607.

One reason I do this, is because the previous saecula were not really saecula at all in our sense. They can only be cycles in the sense that an economic or civilization cycle exists; phases in the life of institutions and cultures, not driven by generations. There were no generations as we know them before the founding of America, because generations did not change, and most people didn't belong to one. As I've explained before, in ancient, medieval and renaissance times, most people were too poor and disempowered to participate or have any effect within social, economic and political structures. They stayed within the work and life of their parents, and there were no "generation gaps;" hence no generations, and no saecula.

So start a "megasaeculum" with the start of the New World, with our own civilization, and not the British or European cycles, which were all at least 100 years long, and were entirely a function of aristocrats and priests fighting each other to see who would lord over the people. There could have been no mega-cycles before America, because there were no saecula to begin with, as we know them.

The first few years of Jamestown were a crisis. Half the population died within that time. But the town endured, and was later moved inland. By the time other colonies were being founded from the 1620s on, if not before, we can call it a first turning. The establishment of the colonies was a mega-high, because that was when they were first being built as a "city on a hill" and when the sense of community was strong and enforced in the new colonies. Materialistic motives were strong in the establishment of these settlements.

There's no basis for starting the megasaeculum in 1700 after King William's War. That was not the start of America in any sense. But this was the mega-awakening, if there was one. In the course of this saeculum was the first Great Awakening, and the ideals were born from which the Revolution was made, which was the 4T and climax of this saeculum.

The mega-cycle that followed was a mega-unravelling, because it was polarized and led to the disintegration of the country in the civil war. Also, individualism was paramount, with the early pioneers settling the back country. The ideals of Jefferson and Jackson promoted the idea of individual freedom and democracy and the rights of small farmers and entreprenuers, who laid the foundations of the industrial revolution in this period.

After the Civil War is a mega-crisis, a mega fourth turning, which climaxed in the greatest crisis in our history; two crises in one, the Great Depression and World War Two. It was a time of increasing collectivism and socialism, submerging the individual into the mass, on the assembly line as well as in labor movements and unions. Huge industries grew, more than ever before or since, with no thought to their effects on the environment. In this connection, remember that fourth turnings in all saecula were industrial revolutions: the 1780s and 90s, the 1850s and 60s, as well as World War II. A green industrial revolution is about to start in our own 4T. Fourth turnings are times not only of economic crises, but industrial revolutions. Industrial activity is paramount during 4Ts. So the mega-crisis would be the time of the greatest industrial growth. That was the Great Power saeculum.

Our own era would be a mega-high, then. Generation X may take this for granted, and indulge in cynicism. So might some Boomers. But the fact remains that America established itself as the premier world power after World War Two, and has remained number one in the world ever since. The corporate establishment has maintained and even extended its power during this entire cycle, and shows no real sign of declining in its influence. So in the larger view, the increasing "individualism" since the awakening of this saeculum is more a sign of things to come than the real thing. Most people in our society continue to live within the corporate structure, and are not growing their own food or running their own business. Meanwhile people can indulge in pleasures and self-destruction, because they have the time and money to do it.

So if there is a mega-awakening, it will be the next saeculum, starting in 2028-29. Then the corporate structure could start to decline, and people could be more involved on the local level in coops and small communities as well as their own businesses.

In this post I point out that no nation's history is an island unto itself. It is always part of the larger civilization, in the West and in the world. National saecula can vary in their exact timing. I use the position of Uranus to chart this; it is the lynchpin that times the great crisis that anchors each saeculum, based on the cyclic return to founding dates. In America that is Uranus returning to 9 Gemini, it's position in 1607 and 1776, and the climax of all crisis periods. In France though, this might be Uranus in Leo. We have seen the history of the Republics; the First founded in 1792, the Third founded during Uranus' first return to Leo in the early 1870s, then the Fifth Republic founded at its next return in 1958. These were the Republics in which the form of government changed (unlike the brief Second and the Fourth). Uranus is the planet discovered during the Revolution. It represents modern times in which the people participate.

Uranus is the planet of the saeculum, representing one average human life span in modern times of 84 years. Neptune makes one-half cycle in this time, and Pluto makes one-third of its cycle. So for each nation, look to its founding dates, and its saecula in modern times lasts about 82-84 years from these dates, cited by Strauss and Howe in The Fourth Turning as the archetypal length of a saeculum.

These saecula still exist within the larger cycle of civilization. All the nations and cultures of the world resonate to this cycle, either all the time or most of the time. This is the cycle that allows us to label a period anywhere as ancient, medieval, renaissance or modern. It is the cycle that charts the rise and fall of empires, nations, worldviews, arts, science; etc. Religion may follow a 600-year cycle based on Uranus-Neptune instead, while the civilization cycle is charted by Neptune-Pluto conjunctions 493 years apart. Since Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are in a 1-2-3 resonance, they are the planets that give us the basic saeculum rhythm and its larger rhythms. Within 493 years there are six saecula of 82 1/6 years, which is about the same as Uranus' cycle of 84 and Neptune's half cycle of 82 1/2, as well as Pluto's 1/3 of a cycle of about 82 2/3 years. In the older days there may have been four cycles of about 123 years each.

The main reason I mention this is to show that America's Great Power Saeculum was really part of the larger crisis of Western and world civilization, which then went through a change of age. The Great Depression, World Wars and Holocaust were the greatest crisis that civilization has faced on this planet since the over-running of the Roman Empire by the barbarians. This time, the barbarians came from inside the gates. America may have taken advantage of the fall of the West by building its industrial and military might, and taking power in the vaccuum after its "Great Power Saeculum." But in the larger picture this was just part of the overall process of one age of civilization dying and another being born.

Our own Awakening is key to this new birth. I'll have more to say on this, because it goes against the views of folks like Kepi who look upon our awakening as nothing but a party and a vacation (or "unrestrained emotion" as he and Chas say above). Nothing could be further from the truth. It was indeed a party, and that was more important than they think. But it was also the birth of the ideas and ideals that will shape the new civilization, and which will come to prominence in the next "mega-awakening," whose Awakening turning will begin with the climax of the Revolution that began in the previous Awakening, as indicated by Uranus opposing Pluto in 2046-48, just as it conjoined Pluto in 1965-66. And this is the first revolution cycle since these two planets were both known, which I take as highly significant. These new ideas are economic and political as well as cultural and philosophical. Our Awakening generated not just some great rock music, but a wealth of writings from which our new age of civilization will be founded. More on this in another post.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I still say that the next Prophets are going to be Neo-Victorians. Because once the genie's been let out of the bottle the only thing revolutionary left to do is to stuff it back in.

~Chas'88

What genie has been let out of the bottle? We still have pretty much the same society which emerged here from World War Two. The revolution has yet to be made.

If some kind of genie was revealed by the prophets and their mentors in the 1960s, then the next phase is to start using it.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Strangely, I agree with this and think it kinda proves my point. Unrestrained emotion is completely unproductive. I only know one person who lives that way, and that's my 1 year old. I love her dearly, but I also don't let her choose what she's eating for dinner or whether or not she has to put her coat on.

My wife and I were having a discussion on gender one time, specifically regarding how we handle emotion, because she was advocating to a guy that he should "do what he feels". I told her that it was particularly dangerous advice, because letting your emotions run the show is a disaster, and that probably the essence of coming of age as a male is learning to reign in your emotions and letting your mind rule instead.

Unrestrained Emotion is a total disaster, because much like the crisis we find ourselves in, it is impossible to resolve and feel good about yourself. Every possible solution requires we stuff our emotions for a while to get something better, and obviously The Awakening is in absolute contradiction to that.

This is why the Awakening was so important. It was all about these issues. Today when we talk about nothing but economics, and we "occupy" Wall Street, we tend to forget these deeper issues. What was learned in the Awakening, then, and developed on the new age fringes of society during the unravelling, will be key to our behavior in the Crisis-- and therefore what kind of society we build from it now and in the next 1T, and what its climax will look like in the next 2T.

Seeing the Awakening as nothing but "do what feels good" is to simply buy what the mass media has propagated as "the Awakening" without studying any of the philosophy and psychology that developed in this period, and which brought back in modern form the lessons of the great teachers of the past.

It is not a question of "letting your mind rule instead," because most peoples' minds (unless they are spiritual adepts) are a runaway machine that simply perpetuates and misdirects runaway emotions. Nor does the rational mind alone allow for any deep insights. Teachers like the Buddha are who we need to listen to instead. Through meditation, we learn to "rein in" BOTH emotions and mind, and act from our own heart, will and inner vision instead. From a teacher like Jesus we can learn to follow the still small voice within. From other philosophers and psychologists like Jung we can get a better idea of what our personal landscape looks like, and connect to our deeper levels. The psychologists and philosophers of the human potential movement, like Virginia Satir and Fritz Perls, or Stan Dale and Alan Watts, or Marshall Rosenberg (non-violent communication), etc. etc., developed these ideas into the modern forms we have and the therapies that have become available to us as never before. They may teach that feelings can be insightful, and guide us to find and release inner blocks, but they don't teach to just act out your reactive emotions.

Rather than denounce the Awakening as a party of unrestrained emotion, it behooves us to study the writers of the Awakening, and those of the great teachers of human history that inspired them. Study it before you knock it.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Well, I don't think the US will survive in its current legal form, either. Prophets will have to answer the questions of "How can we effectively protest and disrupt a corrupt system," and "What can we replace it with?" Civics are already starting to ponder these ideas, but there's no social leverage to put them to work and the ideas are still extremely new & untested.

The next prophets will probably have to put a lot more work in to organizing the concepts and ideals behind community-oriented social institutions, and there will probably be a lot of rules involved (ie: Much more like the Israeli kibbutzum than the hippy communes of the 60s & 70s)

But... I don't think those new prophets will be ready to put the sexual revolution back in the closet. Even AIDS was barely a speed-bump on that road to liberalizing social and sexual attitudes.

See, I think the civics will have a new system worked out by the end of this Saeculum, personally. I don't know how well it will work, but when I think of civics I think of ants. Hive minded system builders. The more Millennials who get older, have kids and really get the picture of what's going on the more they'll advocate for, and want to build that new system.

My primary concern is actually how the Boomers and first half Xers are really going to be treated in the face of that. Remember that pretty much every boomer in the public line of site is an obstruction, representing obstructive policies. As I think we all know, backlash is a bitch, and I for one think that there might be some amplified negativity to the whole "Boomers and Early Xers get left out of the new system".

Originally Posted by Kepi

See, I think the civics will have a new system worked out by the end of this Saeculum, personally. I don't know how well it will work, but when I think of civics I think of ants. Hive minded system builders. The more Millennials who get older, have kids and really get the picture of what's going on the more they'll advocate for, and want to build that new system.

My primary concern is actually how the Boomers and first half Xers are really going to be treated in the face of that. Remember that pretty much every boomer in the public line of site is an obstruction, representing obstructive policies. As I think we all know, backlash is a bitch, and I for one think that there might be some amplified negativity to the whole "Boomers and Early Xers get left out of the new system".

Boomers are still pretty much divided in their support, even though by a small minority now boomers vote Republican. There are many Boomer allies in advocating for a new system, and they have already helped set its agenda. Think Simon Johnson, Paul Krugman, Joe Stiglitz, Jeffrey Sachs.... early Xers, I dunno, but there are progressive folks in any generation. We do depend on millies to get progress going again, though. I think they will.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Boomers are still pretty much divided in their support, even though by a small minority now boomers vote Republican. There are many Boomer allies in advocating for a new system, and they have already helped set its agenda. Think Simon Johnson, Paul Krugman, Joe Stiglitz, Jeffrey Sachs.... early Xers, I dunno, but there are progressive folks in any generation. We do depend on millies to get progress going again, though. I think they will.

I don't think Keyensians, new or otherwise, will find much favor with Millennials. Most of the ones I know are really staunchly anti-debt, only using it where other means of aquisition are completely unrealistic, that translates to an anti-inflationist stance in general.

Plus, the nicest thing I've heard any Millennial say regarding bankers is "life in prison", where "hang 'em" seems to be a median response, and probably the harshest sentiment was "I want to see them bleed." When I talk to Boomers and even some Xers, there's a sentiment of "they wouldn't have done it if they could have known".

I don't think any system that has a bank instead of a treasury will be acceptable to Millennials. Further more, I don't think a system that allows a lot of commodities trading or price alteration. Meanwhile, I don't see them going full Libertarian, either. They want their healthcare and their infrastructure. They also don't want people having say in privately produced products (ask any of 'em what they think of attempts to censor games).

So bottom line, I don't think that current "experts" are going to be seen as trust worth sources in new system construction. It'll likely be a mostly Millennial production from beginning to end because of their sheer size. It'd be the equivalent of if the Hebrews snuck out of their tents and left Moses and his cohorts in the desert in the dead of night. Maybe a few Boomers and early wave Xers will get it and be able to participlate in a meaningful way, but most will just be lost in the newness of it.

It's like working at a place that installs a totally new software suite, in that it's a great way to get rid of people who don't want to learn it or who are so integrated with old systems a new way of thinking is a liability. Not necessarily the nicest way to do things, but it's very effective.

I am responding to Chas' opinion and Kepi's agreement with it, that the next prophets will be "neo-victorians" and all in favor of lots of rules or corporate structures or whatever else such neo-victorianism entails.

I read above from Kepi that "the essence of coming of age as a male is learning to reign in your emotions and letting your mind rule instead."

This reinforces my opinion that what is going to happen in the next awakening, is more or less a repeat of the last one.

Maybe not as loud and chaotic as the last one, but essentially the same. Why? Because Gen X and older millies have rejected it and not learned much if anything from it.

You don't learn, you repeat. That's the lesson of history.

America emerged from the 1950s in a state of abject ignorance about all things human. People were walking gyroscopes, running their lives on social cues from peers and authority figures. They were men in grey flannel suits keeping up with the Joneses in the rat race. Culturally, what passed for human knowledge was the shallow rationalism from the enlightenment that Kepi exemplifies in his statement. In other words, Americans had everything to learn about what it is to be a human being.

Understandably, boomers grew up rather ignorant, and conforming silents entered a midlife crisis. They knew the way of life they were expected to continue was shallow and unfulfilling in the extreme. They looked for something more than material comfort. They wanted more fun than conforming to the rat race and being stuck in the mind and divorced from your sexuality and your feelings. They wanted to break out of confining and oppressive social roles.

So many moved from one extreme to the other, learning to act out their emotions instead of repressing them, act on impulses instead of thinking, trip out on drugs instead of stay stuck in normal reality. But in the course of this counter culture and human potential movement, many wiser folks developed and learned more authentic ways of living and relating. New therapies and philosophies were developed. A whole new age dawned which offered a better way of life, based on the wisdom of centuries that had been lost and hidden to Western culture since the enlightenment and victorian materialism.

But now, Generation X and some millies have either just forgotten all about this new culture and have gone back to merely economic and intellectual/scientific pursuits. That's largely what we see posted at this forum. In this vast mass media culture, a lot of things can get lost, and people see only the superficial reports and histories given to them by the corporations. And others reacted to the fact that the new liberations and new cultures broke down the old society and left it in chaos, forgetting that what came before was a wasteland and provided no basis whatever for a fulfilling and meaningful life, and that venturing into new territory was necessarily going to be risky and uncomfortable to normal material life as it had been known.

So they are going back to the culture of the 1950s. But that means, for sure, the next awakening will have to start all over and try again.

The other thing that happened is that the desire for people to be seen as persons instead of machines, as encouraged by Paul Goodman, Theodore Roszak and other writers of the Awakening, was coopted by free market ideologues who used this "individualism" to convince many people to support trickle-down economics. As the real awakening wound down, this false one took over, promoted by the corporations in order to stop the Awakening reforms, and leaving Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman as the economic prophets of the future, instead of Hazel Henderson, E.F. Schumacher, Charlene Spretnak and John Kenneth Galbraith, the real Awakening-era prophets that we need to follow and learn from.

But if all people remember from the Awakening are Friedman and Rand, which do nothing but take us back to before the previous 4T ("Mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again!" as Archie Bunker sang), then obviously we have to start over from square one.