Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: The MegaSaeculum - Page 11







Post#251 at 03-31-2013 07:17 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
03-31-2013, 07:17 AM #251
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Kepi View Post
The 3T is just not the time to start or join a cult, which at this point in time, Christianity would have been.
Cults get started in all turnings. Here's a list of religious group/movement starts since 1800 from my database.

Year Name Founder Birth
1801 Sacred Heart Society
1804 Disciples of Christ Barton Stone 1772
1810 Churches of Christ Alex Campbell 1788
1830 Mormons Joseph Smith 1805
1831 Millerites William Miller 1782
1837 Institute of the Daughters of Mary
1838 Tenrikyo Nakayama Miki 1789
1838 New Thought Phineas Park Quimby 1802
1840 Anglo-Israelism John Wilson 1800
1844 Christadelphians John Thomas 1805
1848 Oneida Community John Humphrey Noyes 1811
1852 Bahai Baha ullah 1817
1857 Christain Reformed Gysbert Hann 1801
1859 Konkokyo Kawate Bunjiro 1814
1863 Seventh Day Adventists James White 1821
1865 Salvation Army William Booth 1829
1869 Jehovah's Witnesses Charles Russell 1852
1875 Theosophy Helen Blavatsky 1831
1879 Christain Scientist Mary Baker Eddy 1821
1882 Knights of Columbus Mike McGivney 1852
1884 Church of God (7 day) None
1886 Church of God (Cleveland) Dick Spurling 1810
1887 Unity School of Christianity Charles Fillmore 1854
1890 Lux Mundi
1893 Ramkrishna Vendata Society Swami Vivekanda 1863
1897 Christain & Missionary Alliance Albert Simpson 1843
1901 Pentacostalism Charles Parham 1873
1904 Integral Yoga Sri Aurobindo 1872
1908 Snake Handlers George Hensley 1880
1908 Church of Nazarene Phineas Breeze 1883
1910 "The Fundamentals"
1912 Gurdjieff Georgii Gudshiev 1870
1914 Assembly of God Eudorus Bell 1866
1914 Universal Negro Improvement Assoc Marcus Garvey 1887
1915 Rosicrucians (AMORC) H Spencer Lewis 1883
1919 Int'l Peace Movement Rev Jealous Devine 1880
1920 Cao Daism Ngo Minh Chieu 1878
1920 Bruderhof Eberhard Arnold 1883
1920 Self-Realization Paramahausa Yogananda 1893
1922 Meher Baba Merwan Irani 1894
1923 Foursquare Gospel Armee Semple McPherson 1890
1925 The local Church Watchman Lee 1903
1927 Religious Science Ernest Holmes 1887
1927 United Church Religious Sciences
1928 Worldwide Church of God Herbert Armstrong 1892
1928 Opus Dei Josemaria Escrivia 1902
1929 Branch Davidians Victor Tasho Houteff 1885
1930 Nation of Islam Wallace Dodd Fahd 1871
1930 Christian Identity Howard Rand 1889
1931 Association of Research & Enlightenment Edgar Cayce 1877
1932 I AM Guy Ballard 1878
1935 AA William Wilson 1895
1937 Soka Gakkai Makiguchi 1871
1938 Moral Re-Armament Frank Buchman 1878
1940 Shirdi Sai Baba Sathya Baba 1926
1942 The Way Victor Weirwille 1916
1944 Silva Mind Control Jose Silva 1914
1946 Branhamism William Branham 1909
1947 Shinreikyo Kyososama 1891
1948 Latter Rain Oral Roberts 1918
1950 Urantia William Saddler 1875
1951 Wicca Gerald Gardner 1884
1951 Campus Crusade Bill Bright 1921
1954 Unarius Academy Ernest Norman 1904
1954 Scientology L. Ron Hubbard 1911
1954 Altherius Society Sir George King 1919
1954 Unification Church Sun Myung Moon 1920
1955 Anada Yoga Society Prabhat Sarkar 1921
1955 Peoples Temple Jim Jones 1931
1956 Transcendental Meditation Maharishi Mahesh Yogi 1917
1957 Southern Christian Leadership Conference Martin Luther King 1929
1957 Nichere Shoshu
1958 Summit Lighthouse Mark Prophet 1918
1958 Discordianism Malaclypse
1960 Sukyo Mahikari Okada Kotama 1901
1960 Charismatics Dennis Bennet 1917
1961 Foundation of Human Understanding Roy Masters 1928
1962 Universal Life Church Kirby Hensley 1911
1963 The Process Robert de Grimston 1935
1964 Sri Chinmoy Chimoy Kumar Ghose 1931
1964 Rajneeshism Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh 1931
1965 Course in Miracles Helen Schumann 1909
1965 Eckankar Paul Twitchell 1922
1965 Calvary Chapel Chuck Smith 1927
1966 Hare Krishna Swami Prabhupada 1896
1966 Church of Satan Anton LeVay 1930
1967 Amunnnubi Rooakhptah Dwight York 1945
1968 Holy Order of MANS Earl Blighton 1904
1968 Children of God David Berg 1919
1968 Anada Self Realization Donald Walters 1926
1969 Sikh Dharma Yogi Bhajan 1929
1970 Adidam Albert Jones 1939
1970 Shaja Yoga Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi 1923
1971 Movement of Inner Spiritual Awareness (MSIA) John-Roger 1934
1971 Divine Light Mission Prem Pal Singh Rawat 1957
1971 Jesus People John Herrin
1972 MOVE John Africa 1931
1972 The Twelve Tribes Elbert Eugene Spriggs 1937
1973 Christain Reconstructionist Cornelius Van Til 1895
1973 Jesus Army Noel Stanton 1926
1973 Institute of Noetic Sciences Edgar Mitchell 1930
1973 Raelian Religion Claude Vorilhan 1946
1974 Synanon Chruch Charles Dederich 1913
1974 Vineyard John Wimber 1934
1974 Rebirthers Leonard Orr 1938
1974 Lifespring John Hanley
1975 Heaven's Gate Marshall Applewhite 1931
1975 Church of Set Mike Aquino 1949
1975 Willow Creek Bill Hybels 1952
1979 Nation of Yahweh Yahweh ben Yahweh 1935
1979 Ramtha JZ Knight 1946
1979 International Churches of Christ Kip McKean 1952
1979 Messianic Jews
1982 Suma Ching Hai Hue Dang Trinh 1950
1983 Synchronicity Contemporary Meditation Master Charles 1945
1984 Order of the Solar Temple Luc Jouret 1947
1984 New Life Church Ted Haggard 1956
1985 Concerned Christians Monte Kim Miller 1954
1986 Aum Shinriyko Asahara Shoko 1955
1989 Restoration of 10 Commandments Joseph Kibwetere 1932
1990 Promise Keepers Bill McCartney 1940
1991 Mind-Body Medicine Deepak Chopra 1947
1991 Falun Gong Li Hongzhi 1952
1992 Shambhala International Sakyong Rinpoche 1962
1993 Chen Tao Hon-Ming Chen 1956
1994 Toronto Blessing Rodney Howard-Browne 1952
1995 Scientific Pantheism Paul Harrison 1945







Post#252 at 03-31-2013 07:35 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
03-31-2013, 07:35 AM #252
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Kepi View Post
Kinda like Billy Graham's crusade in the last 4T.
I don't see how its anything like Billy Graham's crusade. Jesus was a faith healer. Graham was not. Jesus had visions, Graham did not. The early Jesus movement showed signs of religious ecstasy and practiced communal living. Graham's movement had none of that. Probably most importantly to your larger point, the Jesus movement was an outsider movement and persecuted from its earliest days while Graham had establishment support.







Post#253 at 03-31-2013 01:07 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
03-31-2013, 01:07 PM #253
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
I don't see how its anything like Billy Graham's crusade. Jesus was a faith healer. Graham was not. Jesus had visions, Graham did not. The early Jesus movement showed signs of religious ecstasy and practiced communal living. Graham's movement had none of that. Probably most importantly to your larger point, the Jesus movement was an outsider movement and persecuted from its earliest days while Graham had establishment support.
Good summary!
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#254 at 03-31-2013 03:53 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
03-31-2013, 03:53 PM #254
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Kepi View Post
Compare and contrast the Synoptic Gospels and Acts with The Gospel of John, The Books of John, and Revelations. The former are dated prior to the destruction of the temple, the latter are dated after.
The exact dates are unknown. A majority of scholars believe that Mark was written first, Matthew and Luke used material in Mark, and John was written later.

The dates I have in my database are (ranges in parentheses come from Wikipedia).
70 Gospel of Mark (68-73)
80 Gospel of Mathew (70-100)
85 Gospel of Luke (80-100)
85 Acts of the Apostles (same as Luke)
95 Revelation
100 Gospel of John (90-110)

Based on this there is not much time difference between the Synoptic Gospels (ca. 70-85) and Revelations (ca. 95).







Post#255 at 03-31-2013 08:13 PM by JordanGoodspeed [at joined Mar 2013 #posts 3,587]
---
03-31-2013, 08:13 PM #255
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
3,587

Although to be fair, if we assume a pre-modern 100 year saeculum, the timing would be about right between his crucifixion and the end of the last Roman-Jewish war, with the destruction of the temple (and birth of Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity proper[see your gospel publication dates]) in an Awakening, the Kitos war in an Unraveling, and the Bar Kokhba revolt as the final crisis.

Would have to do more research before I was really convinced one way or another, though.







Post#256 at 04-01-2013 01:25 AM by Kepi [at Northern, VA joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,664]
---
04-01-2013, 01:25 AM #256
Join Date
Nov 2012
Location
Northern, VA
Posts
3,664

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
I don't see how its anything like Billy Graham's crusade. Jesus was a faith healer. Graham was not. Jesus had visions, Graham did not. The early Jesus movement showed signs of religious ecstasy and practiced communal living. Graham's movement had none of that. Probably most importantly to your larger point, the Jesus movement was an outsider movement and persecuted from its earliest days while Graham had establishment support.
Well, if we're only going to count long term, successful, outlier movements, we're going to be in short supply of data. Also, considering the era and time it's not like there was a lot of actual medicine and people didn't consider visions to be outside the realm of realistic consideration. It'd be like claiming everyone in the 1200's to be prophets because they believed in alchemy.

Also, do you lack for pentacostals where you live? No matter what turning it is, or which generation it is, they're experiencing religious ecstacy as that's the point of the denomination. They believe in faith healing, they believe in powers granted by the holy spirit for no other reason than religious ecstacy. It's not whether the option exists, it's how society reacts to it.

That's why the 3T is not a good time to start a cult, not because people don't do it, but because you're looking at smaller turnout. The People's Temple vs. Heaven's gate. The 3T is just not a high time for religious expression, and adding something new is usually disasterous.

Meanwhile looking at this 4T alone, there are some pretty 2T responses. Check out Occupy Wallstreet. I mean, these guys have their hearts in the right place, but they seem to think they're going to bring down an unfair capitalist system with camping and chanting to raise awareness. It's as out there as faith healing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8jc...e_gdata_player

Then check this out. It's a late 3T - early 4T group that is definitely on a hard 2T trip. Mad Conductor - Bayou Moon Stompin'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUgK...e_gdata_player

Now, this is some 2Tesque expressions, but the reality is that in the 4T they're not a big draw. We can throw the numbers of starting Christianity at 3k, it's still only 400 people experiencing a vision of Jesus ascending to heaven, and it's still a drop in the bucket of the overall society's experience. The majority's experience was that of being normal, day to day Hebrew folks, going through normal, day to day stuff. If Christianity was the 2T, the lack of increased consciousness shattering the old world order is pretty bizarre. Instead, until 70AD it's Scribes ruling the temple, and Pharisees counting your footsteps.

Now, your dating, even though those are later than I remember, creates an even stranger distinction, which is that for an entire turning, more or less, Christianity had either no writings or no writings we have a copy of prior to. There's the hypothesized Q document, which is likely a book of sayings. If we're going with the 2 source hypothesis with Q being very early, and sourcing Matthew and Luke, then you still have the fact that early Christianity felt the need to write things down starting between 60 and 70 AD, which still would imply an awakening in or around that time, because it implies you have more interest and demand than you do reliable sources to provide the information. It's a sign it's moved beyond the leadership's ability to control with word of mouth alone.

I still maintain the Synoptics are earlier than that (I'd put Matthew around 45, just because to go a full turning with absolutely no disseminated writings except a book of sayings seems relatively unlikely, and Mark maybe around 55. Luke is iffy, but even if you put it as late as 80-100, it still comes from clearly an earlier tradition than any of the works attributed to John, and the works attributed to John imply an entirely different mentality, the difference of a revolution in understanding.







Post#257 at 04-01-2013 02:51 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-01-2013, 02:51 AM #257
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Kepi View Post
Now, this is some 2Tesque expressions, but the reality is that in the 4T they're not a big draw. We can throw the numbers of starting Christianity at 3k, it's still only 400 people experiencing a vision of Jesus ascending to heaven, and it's still a drop in the bucket of the overall society's experience. The majority's experience was that of being normal, day to day Hebrew folks, going through normal, day to day stuff. If Christianity was the 2T, the lack of increased consciousness shattering the old world order is pretty bizarre. Instead, until 70AD it's Scribes ruling the temple, and Pharisees counting your footsteps.
Such was the case with all turnings before 1700. Most people were not involved.
Now, your dating, even though those are later than I remember, creates an even stranger distinction, which is that for an entire turning, more or less, Christianity had either no writings or no writings we have a copy of prior to. There's the hypothesized Q document, which is likely a book of sayings. If we're going with the 2 source hypothesis with Q being very early, and sourcing Matthew and Luke, then you still have the fact that early Christianity felt the need to write things down starting between 60 and 70 AD, which still would imply an awakening in or around that time, because it implies you have more interest and demand than you do reliable sources to provide the information. It's a sign it's moved beyond the leadership's ability to control with word of mouth alone.
The books were written to increase propaganda and challenge Roman authority. We know Christianity was still small and growing slowly at this time; conclusions are not relevant.
I still maintain the Synoptics are earlier than that (I'd put Matthew around 45, just because to go a full turning with absolutely no disseminated writings except a book of sayings seems relatively unlikely, and Mark maybe around 55. Luke is iffy, but even if you put it as late as 80-100, it still comes from clearly an earlier tradition than any of the works attributed to John, and the works attributed to John imply an entirely different mentality, the difference of a revolution in understanding.
The scholars largely agree on the times; your speculations hardly carry any weight. The sources for John are probably just as old as for the others, from what I have heard; John just used different sayings. If his work was "the awakening," that was 30 years after the temple. Some of the difference was the increasing desire to deify Jesus in order to cement church authority.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#258 at 04-01-2013 03:48 AM by Kepi [at Northern, VA joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,664]
---
04-01-2013, 03:48 AM #258
Join Date
Nov 2012
Location
Northern, VA
Posts
3,664

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Such was the case with all turnings before 1700. Most people were not involved.

The books were written to increase propaganda and challenge Roman authority. We know Christianity was still small and growing slowly at this time; conclusions are not relevant.

The scholars largely agree on the times; your speculations hardly carry any weight. The sources for John are probably just as old as for the others, from what I have heard; John just used different sayings. If his work was "the awakening," that was 30 years after the temple. Some of the difference was the increasing desire to deify Jesus in order to cement church authority.
"The Scholars" do no such thing. I've seen dates as early as the mid 30's and as late as the 3rd century. The variance and reasoning is as wide as anything occurring around 2000 years old. Saying that "The Scholars largely agree" is a pretty gross oversimplification.

I'm also not saying that the Book of John is the awakening or caused it, I'm saying it's the result of the awakening that was the destruction of the Temple. The synoptics exist on one side of understanding, while the texts attributed to John exist on the other... Much like the SCLC Civil Rights leadership was different from the Black Power movement. They coexisted, but largely the older order was of a distinctly different temperment than the new.

Cement church authority for what purpose? You still, presumably, had several Apostals still living at the time. "I knew Jesus," to a bunch of people following you because you knew Jesus is about all you'd need. As for the deification of Jesus, that's an extremely dangerous gambit if the sentiment wasn't already there, because if these early Christians didn't believe in some sort of divinity of Jesus, they're still mostly Jewish, and that would go directly against the first commandment.

Now, this was the time where certain traditions labeled gnostic were starting to brew, and it could be that printing the gospels and other related works were in order to compete with gnostic ideas. However, a bunch of heretical, very platonic ideas about the physical realm being an evil world imprisoning us from a good, pure spiritual world is very awakening. If anything, platonist additions to anything is a facet of the 2T as far as I'm concerned.







Post#259 at 04-01-2013 07:19 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
04-01-2013, 07:19 AM #259
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Kepi View Post
Well, if we're only going to count long term, successful, outlier movements, we're going to be in short supply of data. Also, considering the era and time it's not like there was a lot of actual medicine and people didn't consider visions to be outside the realm of realistic consideration. It'd be like claiming everyone in the 1200's to be prophets because they believed in alchemy.
I donít understand what you are saying here. Thereís plenty of data. Iíve got close to a thousand entries in my database, hundreds of these could be further explored by reading just a bit about them and scores worthy of more than that. Case in point I actually deleted John of the Cross because I had him down as a ďfounderĒ of the Discalced Carmelites, which years later I decided was not a ďnew movementĒ and so had deleted it, never realizing that John was a mystic (and so belongs in the list based on that).

As for the faith healing, Jesus was apparently the real deal. He did healings and drove out demons in ways that made a real impression on the people given that his movement did not die out as did those of the other would-be messiahs of the time. The gospels mention two others of these (John the Baptist and Barabbas) surely there were many others in the century before and then decades after the gospel period.

My point about Graham is, I donít see how he fits better than say, someone like Oral Roberts, who did healings, had visions, and preached a radical gospel. Unlike Graham he did not have establishment support, instead he built his own movement.

Alchemy and astrology were the science of the day in 13th century Europe, they aligned with a hero archetype, not a prophet.

Also, do you lack for pentacostals where you live? No matter what turning it is, or which generation it is, they're experiencing religious ecstasy as that's the point of the denomination. They believe in faith healing, they believe in powers granted by the holy spirit for no other reason than religious ecstasy.
Not too many in West Michigan. It was originally settled by the Dutch so there's a lot of Reformed. Romans Catholics are well-represented (two Catholic grade school plus one high school in a city of 150K). Lot of United Methodists (we attend one), Lutherans, and Baptists, and then a large number of the new churches, mostly conservative in doctrine, but mostly not too much into the charismatic thing, we're Midwesternerís here.
It's not whether the option exists, it's how society reacts to it. That's why the 3T is not a good time to start a cult, not because people don't do it, but because you're looking at smaller turnout. The People's Temple vs. Heaven's gate. The 3T is just not a high time for religious expression, and adding something new is usually disastrous.
You posited that 3Tís were not a good time to start a religious movement or to grow one. I posted a list that shows religious movements get started in all turnings, including 3Tís. I also noted that major successful movements that got started in Awakening like Methodism, did a lot of growing during the subsequent 3T.

You repeat your assertion and make a comparison between a 1T-start, 2T-growth (Peopleís temple) versus a 2T-start and 3T-growth (Heavenís Gate) to support it. The Mormons provide a clear counter-example for 2T-start + 3T-growth for the Transcendental Awakening. For the next 2T, the Pentecostalism movement provides a good example of a successful 2T movement that grew in the subsequent 3T (Assemblies of God). The Vedanta Society may be another.

For the most recent 2T, International Churches of Christ seems like a good example. Perhaps Hare Krishnas and Messianic Judaism too.







Post#260 at 04-01-2013 08:52 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
04-01-2013, 08:52 AM #260
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Kepi View Post
Meanwhile looking at this 4T alone, there are some pretty 2T responses. Now, this is some 2Tesque expressions, but the reality is that in the 4T they're not a big draw.
I'm not getting your point. Sure lots of 2T stuff isn't a draw in a 2T or a 3T. But it's it not all that much a draw in a 2T either. If the stuff is crap, it doesn't draw in any turning.

Take communes. These pop up lots of times. They do not last unless the participants practice celibacy (the only long-lasting ones are those of celibate religious orders). We saw hippie commune stuff in the last 2T. Sounds classic 2T. There were also boomlets in communal living in the 1830's and 1890's too (both 2Ts). A pattern? Well, there was another boomlet in the 1930's, I guess not.

I learned about this "cycle" in communal living from my research into the economic long cycle (Kondratiev), in which it was linked to the late downwave portion of the long cycle (Kondratiev "winter" season) which is roughly dated as 1835-1843, 1873-1896, 1929-1946, and ??? (the paper dated from the 1970's, when the idea of K-cycles was resurrected because of the economic crisis at the time). We are only now in the Kondratiev winter and so the last boomlet in communal living was a miss for the idea that communes were a K-winter phenomonon, just as the 1930's boomlet was a miss for the idea that communes are a 2T thing.

We can throw the numbers of starting Christianity at 3k, it's still only 400 people experiencing a vision of Jesus ascending to heaven, and it's still a drop in the bucket of the overall society's experience. The majority's experience was that of being normal, day to day Hebrew folks, going through normal, day to day stuff.
This is true of all new movements and all turnings.

If Christianity was the 2T, the lack of increased consciousness shattering the old world order is pretty bizarre. Instead, until 70AD it's Scribes ruling the temple, and Pharisees counting your footsteps.
In a 2T the majority's experience is that of being normal, day to day folks, going through normal, day to day stuff. This certainly was my experience of the 2T, and that of everyone I knew. Sure there was fringe stuff, crazy right wingers, and end-of-the-world types. I recall working at my church paper drive when some middle-aged guy gave me literature that foretold the end of the world in 1975. Laughed it off then (I was 14). Now that it seems quaint like the Millerites. We have this stuff nowadays too. This stuff pops up all the time and it is pretty much ignored by most people.

Christianity and the other successful movements grew because their message resonated, not because they happened to encounter a receptive population. I don't think what makes 2T's different is that spiritual messages resonate better so that movements that would fail in other turnings get a boost. I think a failing message will fail no matter what the turning.

Now, your dating, even though those are later than I remember...
The traditional dates are earlier.

(this dating) creates an even stranger distinction, which is that for an entire turning, more or less, Christianity had either no writings or no writings we have a copy of prior to. There's the hypothesized Q document, which is likely a book of sayings. If we're going with the 2 source hypothesis with Q being very early, and sourcing Matthew and Luke, then you still have the fact that early Christianity felt the need to write things down starting between 60 and 70 AD, which still would imply an awakening in or around that time, because it implies you have more interest and demand than you do reliable sources to provide the information. It's a sign it's moved beyond the leadership's ability to control with word of mouth alone.
Paul's letters are also early. I can think of an obvious reason to write things down after 70 AD. Before the destruction of Jerusalem, the church there housed the authoritative traditions concerning the life of Jesus, as well as actual first-hand witnesses to what Jesus had said and done. There was no need for written documentation. That changed with the loss of the Jerusalem church, creating a need to write things down while some witnesses still lived.

I still maintain the Synoptics are earlier than that (I'd put Matthew around 45, just because to go a full turning with absolutely no disseminated writings except a book of sayings seems relatively unlikely, and Mark maybe around 55.
That is the tradition and most theological conservatives go with the earlier traditional dating. (The earlier dating makes Jesusí prediction of the destruction of the Temple a literal prophecy that came true). As for no writings you are forgetting Paul.
Luke is iffy, but even if you put it as late as 80-100, it still comes from clearly an earlier tradition than any of the works attributed to John, and the works attributed to John imply an entirely different mentality, the difference of a revolution in understanding.
Or perhaps different individuals take on things? There were other gospels and writings arguing various interpretations of events. The church fathers decided to make the three Synoptic gospels, the gospel of John, Paulís letters, Revelations, and a few other letters from early church figures canonical, probably because they were believed to date from very early in the movement. Later writers (e.g. Justin Martyr) could be influential, but none of them would get put into the canon.







Post#261 at 04-01-2013 09:09 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
04-01-2013, 09:09 AM #261
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Kepi View Post
Now, this was the time where certain traditions labeled Gnostic were starting to brew, and it could be that printing the gospels and other related works were in order to compete with Gnostic ideas. However, a bunch of heretical, very platonic ideas about the physical realm being an evil world imprisoning us from a good, pure spiritual world is very awakening. If anything, Platonist additions to anything is a facet of the 2T as far as I'm concerned.
This is a good point to add to your John vs. Synoptic observations. I would posit that the destruction of Jerusalem created a crisis (small c) which helped catalyze a social moment. Turning scheme A has a social moment in 70-102 and Turning scheme B has a social moment over 75-95. You are suggesting one beginning around 70 AD. So we have basically agreement between you, Dave McGuiness, Kurt Horner, and me that the period after 70 AD represents a break with the past and the start of a social moment. Letís keep it at the social moment level for the present.

Eric, do you see a transition from a non-social moment to a social moment around 70 AD?

As you may or may not know, my mechanism for the saeculum involves a "helper cycle" that produces alternating social- and nonsocial-moments. The generational constellation affects societies response to these social moments, making them either an Awakening (inner-focused response) or Crisis (outer-focused response). Some sort of "helper" is neccesary because the generational constellation is mechanistically incapable of producing a stable cycle all by itself. GIven this idea of a helper, saeculae can be identified in a two-step process: find the social moments first, then figure out what kind of turnings they are.

Would either of you like to review my saeculum model methodology and ideas? It's the early flawed approach, but theres still a lot of good stuff in it. I put it online seven years ago, but it's missing the figures now, making it hard to follow. If you send me a private message with an e-mail, I'll send you the Word document that has all the figures.
Last edited by Mikebert; 04-01-2013 at 09:22 AM.







Post#262 at 04-01-2013 02:53 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-01-2013, 02:53 PM #262
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Kepi View Post
"The Scholars" do no such thing. I've seen dates as early as the mid 30's and as late as the 3rd century. The variance and reasoning is as wide as anything occurring around 2000 years old. Saying that "The Scholars largely agree" is a pretty gross oversimplification.

I'm also not saying that the Book of John is the awakening or caused it, I'm saying it's the result of the awakening that was the destruction of the Temple. The synoptics exist on one side of understanding, while the texts attributed to John exist on the other... Much like the SCLC Civil Rights leadership was different from the Black Power movement. They coexisted, but largely the older order was of a distinctly different temperment than the new.
But you have no basis for saying the synoptics were written before the Temple destruction and diaspora, since the majority of scholars say it was written during or afterward. You can have that opinion, but there's no basis for choosing that opinion over others.

You also said Matthew came before Mark. Scholars all agree that Mark was the first of the Four.
Cement church authority for what purpose? You still, presumably, had several Apostles still living at the time. "I knew Jesus," to a bunch of people following you because you knew Jesus is about all you'd need. As for the deification of Jesus, that's an extremely dangerous gambit if the sentiment wasn't already there, because if these early Christians didn't believe in some sort of divinity of Jesus, they're still mostly Jewish, and that would go directly against the first commandment.
They were Jewish. Cementing church authority was what religions and Christianity did; in order to illicit obedience to their exclusive faith. Christianity was the most exclusive of all. The point of John was that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God, and that noone can come to the Father but by Him. The synoptics only referred to Jesus as son of man. John added the elements from which the dogma was built. John is also a very mystical gospel, if interpreted that way. But deciding just when John developed those ideas, or what their source is, is harder to pin down. It could have come partly from recorded or remembered sayings of Jesus that were not in Q.
Now, this was the time where certain traditions labeled gnostic were starting to brew, and it could be that printing the gospels and other related works were in order to compete with gnostic ideas. However, a bunch of heretical, very platonic ideas about the physical realm being an evil world imprisoning us from a good, pure spiritual world is very awakening. If anything, platonist additions to anything is a facet of the 2T as far as I'm concerned.
There was a lot of competition between the various sects, and the Christian fathers wanted their flock to believe their religion was the one and only way. That's where John came in handy.

Platonism was around, and in the 3rd century neo-platonism and hermeticism developed as a synthesis of the esoteric mystical heritage from the various Mediterranean cultures. Aristotle's philosophy was also part of this heritage.

Plato did not hold that the physical world was evil. What imprisons us is taking the shadows of physicality as the reality. For Plato, the archetypes were the reality, and the first or source archetype was The Good, or The One, from which the universe emanates through levels of Being. Neo-platonists developed this unwritten doctrine of Plato's. But neo-platonism did influence Augustine and other Christian philosophers from about the 2nd or 3rd century onward.

Gnosticism existed before this. Gnostic gospels were written in the first and second centuries and rejected by the church as not conducive to their purpose of establishing an obedient flock with Jesus as Lord over them, as opposed to a mystical interpretation which says Jesus revealed the God in all of us and everywhere. Plato influenced the Gnostics. But it seems the Gnostics mis-interpreted Plato, and introduced the idea themselves that the physical world was evil. Plotinus/neo-platonism rejects that view. Acc to wikipedia:

But Plotinus' main objection to the Gnostic teachings he encountered was to their rejection of the goodness of the demiurge and of the material world. He attacked the Gnostics for their vilification of Plato's ontology of the universe as contained in the Timaeus. Plotinus accused Gnosticism of vilifying the demiurge or craftsman that shaped the material world, and so ultimately for perceiving the material world as evil, or as a prison... (Plotinus indicated that if gnostics really believed this world to be a prison, then they might at any moment free themselves from it by committing suicide.)
I doubt you can locate Gnostics into a specific turning and call it an awakening. It originates before Christ, and one leading Gnostic Valentinus dates from after 100 AD. Other sects started later.

Mikebert makes an excellent point about why the gospels were written during and after the Roman-Jewish war and the Temple destruction instead of before. They didn't need to be written down while the early church with the early fathers was still functioning in Jerusalem. By the way for the Jews this was a war to the death, and many died. That certainly fits our definition of a 4T.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 04-01-2013 at 04:06 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#263 at 04-01-2013 03:14 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-01-2013, 03:14 PM #263
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
This is a good point to add to your John vs. Synoptic observations. I would posit that the destruction of Jerusalem created a crisis (small c) which helped catalyze a social moment. Turning scheme A has a social moment in 70-102 and Turning scheme B has a social moment over 75-95. You are suggesting one beginning around 70 AD. So we have basically agreement between you, Dave McGuiness, Kurt Horner, and me that the period after 70 AD represents a break with the past and the start of a social moment. Letís keep it at the social moment level for the present.

Eric, do you see a transition from a non-social moment to a social moment around 70 AD?
I'm not sure what a social moment is; it's a time when momentum for a shift in society is strongest, I guess. Certainly the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was a social moment in that sense. It was one of the great shifts in Jewish and Christian history.
As you may or may not know, my mechanism for the saeculum involves a "helper cycle" that produces alternating social- and nonsocial-moments. The generational constellation affects societies response to these social moments, making them either an Awakening (inner-focused response) or Crisis (outer-focused response). Some sort of "helper" is neccesary because the generational constellation is mechanistically incapable of producing a stable cycle all by itself. Given this idea of a helper, saeculae can be identified in a two-step process: find the social moments first, then figure out what kind of turnings they are.

Would either of you like to review my saeculum model methodology and ideas? It's the early flawed approach, but theres still a lot of good stuff in it. I put it online seven years ago, but it's missing the figures now, making it hard to follow. If you send me a private message with an e-mail, I'll send you the Word document that has all the figures.
I don't have a workable copy of Word (Microsoft is not good at transmitting old programs to new systems), but I can copy a PM and paste it in my own word processors. I think any analysis of saecula before about 1700 needs to take into account the difference between more-democratic/middle class industrial modern mass societies, and pre-modern elitist agricultural/aristocratic societies in which most people did not participate or change, as I have discussed here. Do you methods take account of that difference ( IOW pre vs. post Revolution)?

I think your model is probably insightful. You might want to revise and simplify it and post it here.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 04-01-2013 at 04:31 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#264 at 04-01-2013 08:04 PM by Kepi [at Northern, VA joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,664]
---
04-01-2013, 08:04 PM #264
Join Date
Nov 2012
Location
Northern, VA
Posts
3,664

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
Letís keep it at the social moment level for the present...

...As you may or may not know, my mechanism for the saeculum involves a "helper cycle" that produces alternating social- and nonsocial-moments. The generational constellation affects societies response to these social moments, making them either an Awakening (inner-focused response) or Crisis (outer-focused response). Some sort of "helper" is neccesary because the generational constellation is mechanistically incapable of producing a stable cycle all by itself. GIven this idea of a helper, saeculae can be identified in a two-step process: find the social moments first, then figure out what kind of turnings they are.

Would either of you like to review my saeculum model methodology and ideas? It's the early flawed approach, but theres still a lot of good stuff in it. I put it online seven years ago, but it's missing the figures now, making it hard to follow. If you send me a private message with an e-mail, I'll send you the Word document that has all the figures.
I'd like to check out what you've got. I'll shoot you an e-mail.

Also want to clarify a few things. I was raised Pentacostal, and turned away from it for theological reasons as well as just a lot of experiences which caused me to distrust the intentions and/or competence of the leadership. So when you say "faith healing" and "religious ecstacy" it creates a difference in my mind between what was going on in NT times and what the Pentacostals were doing. I don't think Oral Roberts or the early Pentacostals were cut from the same cloth as those involved in the charasmatic churches I walked away from, but I still theologically disagree with much of their principals. I don't doubt that Jesus healed people, raised the dead, and preformed miracles (if he hadn't I don't think that aspect would have survived as a tradition).

So the comparison between Roberts has a degree of comparability, but where I see the comparison with Graham is the accessibility. Jesus was all about inclusivism and providing and ministering to people who weren't "good" enough. The sick, the afflicted, the poor... All the people that didn't fit with and suffered the Pharisees order (which represented the personal as political). I see the similarity in there with Graham's belief that all men are equal before the cross, and I think that's in line with Jesus's teachings as represented in the gospels as opposed to holiness doctrine which creates a degree of exclusivity over and above salvation.

Also, I didn't include the Pauline letters because they're not narrative works, they're doctrinal. I can't just hand you Romans or Galations without a Gospel and expect someone to grasp the basic concepts. You need the Gospels, and to a lesser extent Acts, to get the concepts, then Paul for the exposition. So yeah, Paul is important, but you need a gospel at least to make sense of it. I mostly feel the same way about the nongospel Books of John, but tradition has them being in the same time frame so they're worth a note.

Quote Originally Posted by Eric
Stuff.
The reason I say Matthew was before Mark is because I see the Gospels as a series of arguments/expositions on points. Otherwise, there'd only be need for a single gospel. The fact that there are multiples implies a degree of contention, even within agreement. Mark reads as a direct response to Matthew, rather than vice versa. Matthew may have been revised afterwards, which accounts for most (not all, most) scholars dating it later. Similarly, Luke was kinda off on it's own points, but it relies on at least Matthew or Mark existing prior.

Now when we're talking Q, we're talking about a completely unverifiable document. On the one hand, the theory makes the most sense. On the other hand, nobody actually has ever heard of it. So while we have reason to believe Q exists, we have no reason to believe another sayings book existed based on John alone. Now, there is the theory that The Gospel of Thomas was an early work and that John is in direct response to it, but that's definitely a minority theory and it would have an interesting relationship with how we classify the Gospel of Thomas (the majority says it's gnostic, although the argument that it's not is pretty compelling, personally I'd say it's proto-gnostic).

Also on gnosticism, while it's true there are gnostic concepts prior to Christianity, the fact remains that they're more likely seperate traditions, likewise Valentinus took Gnosticism to a firm direction. However, there was likely a point where Gnosticism was specifically a vein of Christianity rather than a specifically seperate subset.

And lastly, Jerusalem was a pretty rough fight, kinda like Vietnam. The difference is that the fight was to the death of the symbol, not the total depopulation of the area (Jordan Goodspeed commented on this earlier, and wanted to posit that the Kritos War was the 3T and the Crisis was the Bar Kokhba Revolt, which also makes sense). To the death of the symbol strikes me as a 2T event.







Post#265 at 04-01-2013 08:06 PM by Kepi [at Northern, VA joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,664]
---
04-01-2013, 08:06 PM #265
Join Date
Nov 2012
Location
Northern, VA
Posts
3,664

@ Mikebert - the system says your inbox is full, lemme know when I can send again.







Post#266 at 04-01-2013 08:13 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
04-01-2013, 08:13 PM #266
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
I'm not sure what a social moment is;
Its S&H's generic term for the Crisis and Awakening turnings. The question was whether you think a Crisis or Awakening turning began around 70 AD.

I think any analysis of saecula before about 1700 needs to take into account the difference between more-democratic/middle class industrial modern mass societies, and pre-modern elitist agricultural/aristocratic societies in which most people did not participate or change, as I have discussed here. Do you methods take account of that difference ( IOW pre vs. post Revolution)?
Yes. I ascribe to Kurt Horner's idea that the since the early 19th century turning length dropped in length from ~26 years to ~20 years reflect a change in comiong of age from age of inheritance to age of suffrage. It's described in my model pages (see below).

I think your model is probably insightful. You might want to revise and simplify it and post it here.
I have a web version, it is just missing the figures:

http://my.net-link.net/~malexan/Saec...odel-index.htm







Post#267 at 04-01-2013 08:20 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
04-01-2013, 08:20 PM #267
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Kepi View Post
@ Mikebert - the system says your inbox is full, lemme know when I can send again.
I cleaned it out, it should work now







Post#268 at 04-01-2013 09:39 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
04-01-2013, 09:39 PM #268
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Kepi View Post
Except the Awakening didn't actually do anything. The anti-war movement failed to stop war. The Women's movement failed to establish laws that helped women's interests (Row v. Wade was passed by a Supreme Court with no prophet Justices (not just no Boomers, no prophets), and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by an overwhelmingly GI majority Congress and women's inclusion to the act was made by Rep. Howard W. Smith, a Dixiecrat style Democrat who was believed to have added women to sink the Bill). Gay Rights failed to establish laws and even a general culture which was friendly or even neutral to gay folks outside of very limited urban areas. The Civil Rights Movement started in the high, was only effective under Silent leadership, and was in decline early in the Awakening.

Infact, I'd say that there was more done in the unravelling in terms of fostering a culture that respected the rights and coexistance of people in the United States than the Awakening accomplished. The Awakening was cage rattling over victories that had already been won, not a genuine awakening.
I have to disagree with the Awakening not doing anything, it completely transformed the culture. A GI would feel right at home with our institutions, we still have the ones they built in the last 4T, but the culture shock would stun them. A Black president? Gay people getting married? Women in positions of power? Couples cohabiting for years before getting married? Green politics? (GIs grew up in a world were the Earth was thought to be an endless resource to be expoited for the needs of humanity) Personal computers? (GIs though computers would always be huge things, just more powerful huge things, the notion of a personal computer was apparently beyond them).

2Ts transform a society's culture and values, 4Ts transform a society's institutions. When there are institutional changes in a 2T it's mainly the last surge of energy from aging Civics.
Last edited by Odin; 04-01-2013 at 09:41 PM.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#269 at 04-01-2013 09:57 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
04-01-2013, 09:57 PM #269
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Chas'88 View Post
It should be noted that we have a cycle here, as some people's Scapegoats are other people's Dying Gods, and the modes circle back around on one another.
The first thing that popped into my head when reading this is Jesus.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#270 at 04-01-2013 10:03 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
04-01-2013, 10:03 PM #270
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Chas'88 View Post
Bolding and underling by me, for the sake of Eric, Tim, and Pat.

First Essay (continued)

Comic Fictional Modes (Part One)


The theme of the comic is the integration of society, which usually takes the form of incorporating a central character into it. The mythical comedy corresponding to the death of the Dionysiac god is Apollonian, the story of how a hero is accepted by a society of gods. In Classical literature the theme of acceptance forms part of the stories of Hercules, Mercury, and other deities who had a probation to go through, and in Christian literature it is the theme of salvation, or, in a more concentrated form, of assumption: the comedy that stands just at the end of Dante's Commedia. The mode of romantic comedy corresponding to the elegiac is best described as idyllic, and its chief vehicle is the pastoral. Because of the social interest of comedy, the idyllic cannot equal the introversion of the elegiac, but it preserves the theme of escape from or on the frontier (the pastoral of popular modern literature is the Western story). The close association with animal and vegetable pastures (or the cattle and ranches) of the idyllic, and the same easy connection with myth recurs in the fact that such imagery is often used, as it is in the Bible, for the theme of salvation.

The clearest example of high mimetic comedy is the Old Comedy of Aristophanes. The New Comedy of Menander is closer to the low mimetic, and through Plautus and Terence its formulas were handed down to the Renaissance, so that there has always been a strongly low mimetic bias to social comedy. In Aristophanes there is usually a central figure who constructs his (or her) own society in the teeth of strong opposition, driving off one after another all the people who come to prevent or exploit him, and eventually achieving a heroic triumph, complete with mistress, in which he is sometimes assigned the honors of a reborn god. We notice that just as there is a catharsis of pity and fear in tragedy, so there is a catharsis of the corresponding comic emotions, which are sympathy and ridicule, in Old Comedy. The comic hero will get his triumph whether what he has done is sensible or silly, honest or rascally. Thus Old Comedy, like tragedy contemporary with it, is a blend of the heroic and the ironic. In some plays this fact is partly concealed by Aristophanes' strong desire to get his own opinion of what the hero is doing into the record, but his greatest comedy, The Birds, preserves an exquisite balance between comic heroism and comic irony.

New Comedy normally presents an erotic intrigue between a young man and a young woman which is blocked by some kind of opposition, usually paternal, and resolved by a twist in the plot which is the comic form of Aristotle's "discovery," and is more manipulated than its tragic counterpart. At the beginning of the play the forces thwarting the hero are in control of the play's society, but after a discovery in which the hero becomes wealthy or the heroine respectable, a new society crystallizes on the stage around the hero and his bride. The action of the comedy thus moves towards the incorporation of the hero into the society that he naturally fits. The hero himself is seldom a very interesting person: in conformity with low mimetic decorum, he is ordinary in his virtues, but socially attractive. In Shakespeare and in the kind of romantic comedy that most closely resembles his there is a development of these formulas in a more distinctively high mimetic direction. In the figure of Prospero we have one of the few approaches to the Aristophanic technique of having the whole comic action projected by a central character. Usually Shakespeare achieves his high mimetic pattern by making the struggle of the repressive and the desirable societies a struggle between two levels of existence, the former like our own world or worse, the latter enchanted and idyllic. The point will be dealt with more fully later.

For the reasons given above the domestic comedy of later fiction carries on with much the same conventions as were used in the Renaissance. Domestic comedy is usually based on the Cinderella archetype, the kind of thing that happens when Pamela's virtue is rewarded, the incorporation of an individual very like the reader into the society aspired to by both, a society ushered in with a happy rustle of bridal gowns and banknotes. Here again, Shakespearean comedy may marry off eight or ten people of approximately equal dramatic interest, just as a high mimetic tragedy may kill the same number, but in domestic comedy such diffusion of sexual energy is more rare. The chief difference between high and low mimetic comedy, however, is that the resolution of the latter more frequently involves a social promotion. More sophisticated writers of low mimetic comedy often present the same success-story formula with the moral ambiguities that we have found in Aristophanes. In Balzac or Stendhal a clever and ruthless scoundrel may achieve the same kind of success as the virtuous heroes of Samuel Smiles and Horatio Alger. Thus the comic counterpart of the alazon seems to be the clever, likeable, unprincipled picaro of the picaresque novel.

In studying ironic comedy we must start with the theme of driving out the pharmakos from the point of view of society. This appeals to the kind of relief we are expected to feel when we see Jonson's Volpone condemned to the galleys, Shylock stripped of his wealth, or Tartuffe taken off to prison. Such a theme, unless touched very lightly, is difficult to make convincing, for the reasons suggested in connection with ironic tragedy. Insisting on the theme of social revenge on an individual, however great a rascal he may be tends to make him look less involved in guilt and the society more so. This is particularly true of characters who have been trying to amuse either the actual or the internal audience, and who are the comic counterparts of the tragic hero as artist. The rejection of the entertainer, whether fool, clown, buffoon, or simpleton, can be one of the most terrible ironies known to art, as the rejection of Falstaff shows, and certain scenes in Chaplin.

In some religious poetry, for example at the end of the Paradiso, we can see that literature has an upper limit, a point at which an imaginative vision of an eternal world becomes an experience of it. In ironic comedy we begin to see that art has also a lower limit in actual life. This is the condition of savagery, the world in which comedy consists of inflicting pain on a helpless victim, and tragedy in enduring it. Ironic comedy brings us to the figure of the scapegoat ritual and the nightmare dream, the human symbol becomes existential, as it does in the black man of a lynching, the Jew of a pogrom, the old woman of a witch hunt, or anyone picked up at random by a mob, like Cinna the poet in Julius Caesar. In Aristophanes the irony sometimes edges very close to mob violence because the attacks are personal: one thinks of all the easy laughs he gets, in play after play, at the pederasty of Cleisthenes or the cowardice of Cleonymus. In Aristophanes the word pharmakos means simply scoundrel, with no nonsense about it. At the conclusion of The Clouds, where the poet seems almost to be summoning a lynching party to go and burn down Socrates' house, we reach teh comic counterpart of one of the greatest masterpieces of tragic irony in literature, Plato's Apology.

But the element of play is the barrier that separates art from savagery, and playing at human sacrifice seems to be an important theme of ironic comedy. Even in laughter itself some king of deliverance from the unpleasant, even the horrible, seems to be very important. We notice this particularly in all forms of art in which a large number of auditors are simultaneously present, as in drama, and, still more obviously, in games. We notice too that playing at sacrifice has nothing to do with any historical descent from sacrificial ritual, such as has been suggested for Old Comedy. All the features of such ritual, the king's son, the mimic death, the executioner, the substituted victim, are far more explicit in Gilbert and Sullivan's Mikado than they are in Aristophanes. There is certainly no evidence that baseball has descended from a ritual human sacrifice, but the umpire is quite as much of a pharmakos as if it had: he is an abandoned scoundrel, a greater robber than Barabbas; he has the evil eye; the supporters of the losing team scream for his death. At play, mob emotions are boiled in an open pot, so to speak; in the lynching mob they are a sealed furnace of what Blake would call moral virtue. The gladiatorial combat, in which the audience has the actual power of life and death over the people who are entertaining them, is perhaps the most concentrated of all the savage or demonic parodies of drama.

The fact that we are now in an ironic phase of literature largely accounts for the popularity of the detective story, the formula of how a man-hunter locates a pharmakos and gets rid of him. The detective story begins in the Sherlock Holms period as an intensification of the low mimetic, in the sharpening of attention to details that makes the dullest and most neglected trivia of daily living leap into mysterious and fateful significance. But as we move further away from this we move toward a ritual drama around a corpse in which a wavering finger of social condemnation passes over a group of "suspects" and finally settles on one. The sense of a victim chosen by lot is very strong, for the case against him is only plausibly manipulated. If it were really inevitable, we should have tragic irony, as in Crime and Punishment, where Raskolnikoff's crime is so interwoven with his character that there can be no question of any "whodunit" mystery. In the growing brutality of the crime story (a brutality protected by the convention of the form, as it is conventionally impossible that the man-hunter can be mistaken in believing that one of his suspects is a murderer), detection begins to merge with the thriller as one of the forms of melodrama. In melodrama two themes are important: the triumph of moral virtue over villainy, and the consequent idealizing of the moral views assumed to be held by the audience. In the melodrama of the brutal thriller we come as close as it is normally possible for art to come to the pure self-righteousness of the lynching mob.

We should have to say, then, that all forms of melodrama, the detective story in particular, were advance propaganda for the police state, in so far as that represents the regularizing of mob violence, if it were possible to take them seriously. But it seems not to be possible. The protecting wall of play is still there. Serious melodrama soon gets entangled with its own pity and fear: the more serious it is, the more likely it is to be looked at ironically by the reader, its pity and fear seen as sentimental drivel and owlish solemnity, respectively. One pole of ironic comedy is the recognition of the absurdity of naive melodrama, or, at least, of the absurdity of its attempt to define the enemy of society as a person outside that society. From there it develops toward the opposite pole, which is true comic irony or satire, and which defines the enemy of society as a spirit within society. Let us arrange the forms of ironic comedy from this point of view.

Cultivated people go to a melodrama to hiss the villain with an air of condescension: they are making a point of the fact that they cannot take his villainy seriously. We have here a type of irony which exactly corresponds to that of two other major arts of the ironic age, advertising and propaganda. These arts pretend to address themselves seriously to a subliminal audience of cretins, an audience that may not even exist, but which is assumed to be simple-minded enough to accept at their face value the statements made about the purity of a soap or a government's motives. The rest of us, the realizing that irony never says precisely what it means, take these arts ironically, or, at least, regard them as a kind of ironic game. Similarly, we read murder stories with a strong sense of the unreality of the villainy involved. Murder is doubtless a serious crime, but if private murder really were a major threat to our civilization it would not be relaxing to read about it. We may compare the abuse showered on the pimp in Roman comedy, which was similarly based on the indisputable ground that brothels are immoral.

The next step is an ironic comedy addressed to the people who can realize that murderous violence is less an attack on a virtuous society by a malignant individual than a symptom of that society's own viscousness. Such a comedy would be the kind of intellectualized parody of melodramatic formulas represented by, for instance, the novels of Graham Greene. Next comes the ironic comedy directed at the melodramatic spirit itself, an astonishingly persistent tradition in all comedy in which there is a large ironic admixture. One notes a recurring tendency on the part of ironic comedy to ridicule and scold an audience assumed to be hankering after sentiment, solemnity, and the triumph of fidelity and approved moral standards. The arrogance of Jonson and Congreve, the mocking of bourgeois sentiment in Goldsmith, the parody of melodramatic situations in Wilde and Shaw, belong to a consistent tradition. Moliere had to please his king, but was not temperamentally an exception. To comic drama one may add the ridicule of melodramatic romance in the novelists from Fielding to Joyce.

Finally comes the comedy of manners, the portrayal of a chattering-monkey society devoted to snobbery and slander.
In this kind of irony the characters who are opposed to or excluded from the fictional society have the sympathy of the audience. Here we are close to a parody of tragic irony, as we can see in the appalling fate of the relatively harmless hero of Evelyn Waugh's A Handful of Dust. Or we may have a character who, with the sympathy of the author or the audience, repudiates such a society to the point of deliberately walking out of it, becoming thereby a kind of pharmakos in reverse. This happens for instance at the conclusion of Aldous Huxley's Those Barren Leaves. It is more usual, however, for the artist to present an ironic deadlock in which the hero is regarded as a fool or worse by the fictional society, and yet impresses the real audience as having something more valuable than his society has. The obvious example, and certainly one of the greatest is Dostoievsky's The Idiot, but there are many others. The Good Soldier Schweik, Heaven's My Destination and The Horse's Mouth are instances that will give some idea of the range of the theme.

What we have said about the return of irony to myth in tragic modes thus holds equally well for comic ones. Even popular literature appears to be slowly shifting its center of gravity from murder stories to science fiction--or at any rate a rapid growth of science fiction is certainly a fact about contemporary popular literature. Science fiction frequently tries to imagine what life would be like on a plane as far above us as we are above savagery; its setting is often of a kind that appears to us as technologically miraculous. It is thus a mode of romance with a strong inherent tendency to myth.

Next Post: Comic Modes Part Two (my hands are aching)...

I pause here for what I've bolded to be seen by Eric (different types of ironic comedy), Tim (Dionysian/Apollonian duality), and Pat (science fiction).

~Chas'88
So Comedic literature is already shifting back to the Mythic mode in the form of Science Fiction?
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#271 at 04-01-2013 10:10 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
04-01-2013, 10:10 PM #271
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Chas'88 View Post
What this cycle purports to trace is what he refers to as the "Naive cycle", or:



And by popular or primitive he would say what is generally being "written and consumed" publicly. For the large part we've yet to leave Irony behind--although Science Fiction, Super Hero stories, and Fantasy give Comic Irony (Thrillers, Murder Mysteries, Spy films, etc.) a run for its money, they have yet to completely overtake them (although I say that with Millennials they inch a step closer to possibly doing so). Tragic Irony I see pop up on occasion, but it's still not as popular or pervasive in our society as Comic Irony is. For the large part we still base our films and television shows (CSI, Skyfall, The Da Vinci Code, Law & Order, NCIS, etc.) around the Comic Irony pattern, though there are attempts to break out of it, as I've mentioned before. Also Millennials--like the GIs before them (GIs like Asimov are best noted as authors for their contributions to Sci-Fi, while Millennials seem obsessed with High Fantasy)--are more willing to lap up and write in the dissenting views, while Boomers, Xers, and Silents all tend to consume Comic Irony as a staple part of their diet (with of course notable exceptions).

Also take note of how GIs were mainly "future" driven in focusing on Science Fiction, while Millennial tastes are "past" driven in focusing on Fantasy? Both are Romance formulas, but one speaks of an Apollonian Civic generation looking to create something new in society. While the other speaks of a Dionysian Civic generation looking to return to some golden past society.

Looking again at the Dionysian and Apollonian qualities of literature, it becomes plaintively obvious what the Boomers should be doing and have done. In the most basic form Apollonian virtues are "comic" ones, about building something greater, an ascension to a new plane of existence, and creating a new society or a new order. Dionysian virtues are "tragic" ones, about the fall from grace, the death and destruction of society (typically in tragedy this is portrayed through the breakup of a family if not a society ceasing to exist), but also the communion ceremony. So the Great Power Saeculum, as people have reiterated consistently is an Apollonian Saeculum (at least for the US) as it lead to the creation of a new order, the United States' ascension to the role of Super Power, etc. The Millennial Saeculum thus is Dionysian, which means it's about our "fall" from being a Super Power, and thus is the "musical answer" to the "musical question" raised in the Great Power Saeculum.

How did the Civil War Saeculum handle its Dionysian ritual? Well, we had a communion ceremony over Lincoln's body. No, I'm quite serious with that, after all that's what the train ride of Lincoln's body was for most of the nation, and from his death the rest of the society was rejuvenated. Lincoln literally became our Dionysus/Christ figure and his "sacrifice" could be seen as enacting the ritual which needed to be required to satisfy the Dionysian rhythm, perhaps "early" perhaps "right on time" all that depends upon your viewpoint. After all, Lincoln's been called the "last casualty of the Civil War".

The Civil War Saeculum was about the "fall" of the system established by the Revolutionary Saeculum. However falling apart does not always mean that that can't be a good thing. After all what was the system that was established by the Revolutionary Saeculum built on (at least partially) but slavery? And what has our "Great Power" been established on but nothing but constant US imperialism and warfare?

Uhh... and now that I'm done that ramble, returning to your question:

It's not the "Sentimental cycle" because as Frye would have it, sentimental literature can be written at any time and thus would no cycle to it theoretically. The most popular example being writing a modern version of a romance a la The Lord of the Rings or The Chronicles of Prydain. However, having said that,I'm sure there's some sort of beat to "sentimental" literature as people who like what they read in sentimental literature would be more likely to buy more of it. And thus you could theoretically see if there are trends based on how popular specific genres are compared to one another, and from there formulate some kind of theory based on book sales equaling social mood. For example, after The Lord of the Rings was published there was a whole era of popular High and Low Fantasy books and films released that remained fairly "popular" until the end of the 1980s.

~Chas'88
You know, I have just realized that the Ironic mode tends to repel me and I prefer to read Mythic, Romantic, and High Mimetic stories.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#272 at 04-01-2013 10:46 PM by Kepi [at Northern, VA joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,664]
---
04-01-2013, 10:46 PM #272
Join Date
Nov 2012
Location
Northern, VA
Posts
3,664

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
I have to disagree with the Awakening not doing anything, it completely transformed the culture. A GI would feel right at home with our institutions, we still have the ones they built in the last 4T, but the culture shock would stun them. A Black president? Gay people getting married? Women in positions of power? Couples cohabiting for years before getting married? Green politics? (GIs grew up in a world were the Earth was thought to be an endless resource to be expoited for the needs of humanity) Personal computers? (GIs though computers would always be huge things, just more powerful huge things, the notion of a personal computer was apparently beyond them).

2Ts transform a society's culture and values, 4Ts transform a society's institutions. When there are institutional changes in a 2T it's mainly the last surge of energy from aging Civics.
That has more to do with the demographics and economics of the time, rather than any significant cultural actions. Remember, the Civil Rights Act was in 1964, the first year of the awakening, by civic leadership. I think if we got in our TARDIS grabbed a Civic from 1964 and brought them to now, they'd have no problem figuring things out. There'd be nuances that'd need explaining, but it'd hardly be alien. I think they'd be more off put that our institutions have degenerated so much.







Post#273 at 04-01-2013 11:15 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-01-2013, 11:15 PM #273
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
Its S&H's generic term for the Crisis and Awakening turnings. The question was whether you think a Crisis or Awakening turning began around 70 AD.


Yes. I ascribe to Kurt Horner's idea that the since the early 19th century turning length dropped in length from ~26 years to ~20 years reflect a change in coming of age from age of inheritance to age of suffrage. It's described in my model pages (see below).



I have a web version, it is just missing the figures:

http://my.net-link.net/~malexan/Saec...odel-index.htm
Do you agree with me that it's likely there are no generations in pre-modern turnings? I question whether there are, because given the length of turnings, and the shorter lifespans, it is likely that there were at most only two living generations during any turning. Can a generational dynamic exist with only two living generations? How can the next generation fill a void left by the previous generation, unless it's a different, more-truncated cycle (maybe just dominant/recessive)? Also, can there be generations, when fathers and sons may be in the same generation (since they are about 27 years long, assuming they match turning lengths?). And there's also the fact that people didn't change their careers and lifestyles from generation to generation; things stayed the same. Only the elite could have participated in any society; most people were peasants. Politics and technology did not bring the kind of change that generates generation cycles. So there may be cycles and phases in societies, just as there are in economies and arts, but I doubt you can assign or attribute these phases to generations. In other words, there may have been social moments like the Roman-Jewish War, or even the cult of Christ, but whether Paul or John or Jesus were prophets or civics, seems a meaningless question. I've mentioned these questions many times, but people go right on discussing generations and turnings in ancient and medieval times as if these were modern societies.

On the other hand, maybe there was enough social change in the Greco-Roman world or the Renaissance world to generate weak, long saecula. I kind of doubt it though, since society even in those relatively slightly-progressive times was restricted to elites.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 04-01-2013 at 11:18 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#274 at 04-01-2013 11:32 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-01-2013, 11:32 PM #274
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Kepi View Post
...where I see the comparison with Graham is the accessibility. Jesus was all about inclusivism and providing and ministering to people who weren't "good" enough. The sick, the afflicted, the poor... All the people that didn't fit with and suffered the Pharisees order (which represented the personal as political). I see the similarity in there with Graham's belief that all men are equal before the cross, and I think that's in line with Jesus's teachings as represented in the gospels as opposed to holiness doctrine which creates a degree of exclusivity over and above salvation.
Graham was all about the exclusivity, and being a Republican, he cares and has done diddly shit about the poor. His ministry is about belief in Jesus, not healings like Jesus did. Graham is more like a pharisee of our time. He wants people to obey the morals. He does not represent the leading edge of religious awareness today; he represents what is out of date. Jesus was the opposite of that.
Also, I didn't include the Pauline letters because they're not narrative works, they're doctrinal. I can't just hand you Romans or Galations without a Gospel and expect someone to grasp the basic concepts. You need the Gospels, and to a lesser extent Acts, to get the concepts, then Paul for the exposition. So yeah, Paul is important, but you need a gospel at least to make sense of it. I mostly feel the same way about the nongospel Books of John, but tradition has them being in the same time frame so they're worth a note.
Paul's letters are full of important doctrines and ideas and have many inspired passages. First Corinthians is one of the most eloquent writings in all of religious literature.
The reason I say Matthew was before Mark is because I see the Gospels as a series of arguments/expositions on points. Otherwise, there'd only be need for a single gospel. The fact that there are multiples implies a degree of contention, even within agreement. Mark reads as a direct response to Matthew, rather than vice versa. Matthew may have been revised afterwards, which accounts for most (not all, most) scholars dating it later. Similarly, Luke was kinda off on it's own points, but it relies on at least Matthew or Mark existing prior.
I don't know how you can make such confident statements. The scholars seem more qualified than you to date a gospel. Most of them think Matthew expands on Mark, which seems obvious. Matthew added a lot more. Gospels are accounts, not arguments, but they may have had some different agendas behind them.
Now when we're talking Q, we're talking about a completely unverifiable document. On the one hand, the theory makes the most sense. On the other hand, nobody actually has ever heard of it. So while we have reason to believe Q exists, we have no reason to believe another sayings book existed based on John alone. Now, there is the theory that The Gospel of Thomas was an early work and that John is in direct response to it, but that's definitely a minority theory and it would have an interesting relationship with how we classify the Gospel of Thomas (the majority says it's gnostic, although the argument that it's not is pretty compelling, personally I'd say it's proto-gnostic).
I'm not sure where John came from. I heard some experts say there were Jesus sayings it was based on, but we don't know for sure. There may have been sayings that Mark and Matthew didn't know about.
Also on gnosticism, while it's true there are gnostic concepts prior to Christianity, the fact remains that they're more likely separate traditions, likewise Valentinus took Gnosticism to a firm direction. However, there was likely a point where Gnosticism was specifically a vein of Christianity rather than a specifically separate subset.
Who says?
And lastly, Jerusalem was a pretty rough fight, kinda like Vietnam. The difference is that the fight was to the death of the symbol, not the total depopulation of the area (Jordan Goodspeed commented on this earlier, and wanted to posit that the Kritos War was the 3T and the Crisis was the Bar Kokhba Revolt, which also makes sense). To the death of the symbol strikes me as a 2T event.
It was a fight to the death of the Jewish society.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#275 at 04-02-2013 01:03 AM by Kepi [at Northern, VA joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,664]
---
04-02-2013, 01:03 AM #275
Join Date
Nov 2012
Location
Northern, VA
Posts
3,664

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Graham was all about the exclusivity, and being a Republican, he cares and has done diddly shit about the poor. His ministry is about belief in Jesus, not healings like Jesus did. Graham is more like a pharisee of our time. He wants people to obey the morals. He does not represent the leading edge of religious awareness today; he represents what is out of date. Jesus was the opposite of that.

Paul's letters are full of important doctrines and ideas and have many inspired passages. First Corinthians is one of the most eloquent writings in all of religious literature.

I don't know how you can make such confident statements. The scholars seem more qualified than you to date a gospel. Most of them think Matthew expands on Mark, which seems obvious. Matthew added a lot more. Gospels are accounts, not arguments, but they may have had some different agendas behind them.

I'm not sure where John came from. I heard some experts say there were Jesus sayings it was based on, but we don't know for sure. There may have been sayings that Mark and Matthew didn't know about.

Who says?

It was a fight to the death of the Jewish society.
Graham is a registered Democrat, and he's gone all over the fence with his political views. Also, one of the things I've noticed is that Americans who have experience with poverty in the third world tend to discount poverty in the 1st, though it can be just as dire. It doesn't mean they're right, but I've seen both sides of it and I definitely understand why they do it. Billy Graham was an evangelist before being a moralist, and turned down Jerry Fawell's invite to join the moral majority citing social justice concerns greater than those of morality. He also questioned literal hell, which caused Fred Phelps to leave his ministry. He's got some good mixed with the bad, for sure, but your displaced anger at Nixon isn't a good judgement on Graham.

I like Paul's letters. My personal favorite verses are Galatians 2:16-21. However, they're dependant on some format of the gospel being explained to the newly initiated before Paul's works can really make sense. So while they're very important, the necessity for a gospel, written or oral, prior to is essential.

It's because I've read the gospels, when I read them that's the strong impression I get. Matthew doesn't seem to expand on Mark as much as Mark seems to criticize Matthew. I've read them both repeatedly and that's what I get.

Considering the Gnostic label wasn't chosen by Gnostics, it was put on them by people who opposed their teachings. Valentinians, for instance, follow different traditions from Sethians. Some people question if the Coptic Gospels are gnostic, even though they seem to have gnostic leanings they're also fundamentally different in cosmology. People don't just change cosmology all of the sudden, especially in large groups like that.

Exactly, it was a fight to the death of the old social order and the birth of the new. Establishment of Rabbinical Judiasm is a very strange response to the destruction of the temple. I'd expect a more institutional, less spiritually driven response out of the 4T.
-----------------------------------------