Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There is nothing elite about my congresspeople.

A Congressperson is an elite in the sense I defined it because they are a Congressperson. An elite is simply one who has power over the government, who wields influence, like the nobility of old. One of our modern innovations is we can elect ordinary people to serve as elites. And it's not just elected people, but people like Markos Moulistas, labor leaders, and leaders of activist groups. If you think about it, many of the ordinary people who serve as elites are actually extrordinary people and so might be considered elite in the common sense of the word. But the important characteristic of elite in the discussion we are having is that they exert influence on government policies. The sort of influence that the Barons exerted at Runnymeade, the merchants in 1297 and 1336, the common people in 1381 and more generally Parliament after 1295.

Yes, I would be making that confusion! I assume that the "saeculum" is a cycle based on the mechanism S&H explain.

My view is the saeculum is a long cycle like other long cycles/waves (Fisher's great wave, Modelski's leadership cycle, Kondratiev, Quincy Wright's war cycle etc.). That is, it is a way to organize history into a series of repeating patterns that may have some explanatory or predictive value.

Thus, I believe that when S&H saw a repeating series of different kinds of generations with associated historical periods, they saw something that might be real. This doesn't mean that the mechanism they proposed is correct.

But I would agree with your statement then. Except that I note that you speak of generations and the S&H generational archetypes in discussing these earlier cycles.

I do not think their mechanism is valid in general. The reason is that the mechanism they proposed to make a generation doesn't work. S&H posit that generations are created by the impact of eventful history on the occupants of the different phases of life:

Now suppose a decisive event say, a major war or revolution suddenly hits the society. Clearly, the event will affect each age group differently according to its central role. In the case of a major war, we can easily imagine youths encouraged and willing to keep out of the way (dependence), rising adults to arm and meet the enemy (activity), midlifers to organize the troops (leadership) and elders to offer wisdom and perspective (stewardship). We can also imagine how most people will emerge from the trauma with their personalities permanently reshaped in conformance with the role they played (or were expected to play but didn't). The decisive event, therefore creates four distinct cohort-groups--each about twenty-two years in length and each possessing a special collective personality that will later distinguish it from its age-bracket neighbors as it ages in place.(Generations, p 61)

A problem emerges when the generation-forming decisive event occurs over a period of time. Suppose the generation-causing period runs for 10 years, from the beginning of year 88 to the end of year 97. In this case how do we identify those who "occupy a phase of life" during the event? At the start of the event people born over the years 44-65 will occupy the rising adult phase of life. At the end of the event people born over the years 32-53 will occupy the mature adult phase of life. Those born between years 44 and 53 will have been in two phases of life during the event and so will be imprinted into which generation?

On the other hand, S&H identified their cycle in part by characterizing generations. This strongly suggests that generations are involved in the cycle somehow.

A second problem is that many posters do not strongly identify with the generation they are supposed to be in. A mechanism is which generations create history all by themselves must necessarily posit very strong generational characteristics that will sufficiently influence behavior so as to produce the correct kind of turning. If one’s generational archetype is actually only a tendency, rather than a definitive aspect of one’s personality (as seems more likely) generations are going to need some help in producing history.

I solve this problem by introducing a “helper cycle” that operates independently of generations and helps provide the timing. For the pre-industrial period this cycle was the Kondratiev cycle (K-cycle). For the medieval and early modern era I proposed a Malthusian model for the cause of the K-cycle.

Basically two K-cycles fall into one saeculum. One half of the K-cycle features high economic stress, the other low. Thus the saeculum in terms of the K-cycle looks like this: 1T( Low)-2T(High)-3T(Low)-4T(High). As far as the K-cycle and economic stress are concerned there is no difference between the 1T and 3T, or the 2T and 4T. History bears this out in some respects; e.g. the English civil war (2T) was a more harsh crisis than the Glorious Revolution (4T).

In other respects, there are differences between turnings having the same stress status (i.e. between 2T and 4T or 1T and 3T). These differences arise because of the generations. When a high stress period begins, the societal response of old Artists and young Prophets will be different than that of old Nomads and young Heroes. The former gives rise to an Awakening because the central Crisis generation is in youth and not in a position to create history. Thus the 2T response is going to be weak on the Nomad endowment of pragmatism. A Crisis occurs because Artists (the central Awakening generation) are in youth. The 4T response will be weak on the Artist endowment of open-mindedness (leading to indecisiveness). The type of turning that happens depends on the generations active at the time, that is, what S&H call the constellation. I assign the task of timing primarily to the helper cycle. In actuality, both the helper cycle and the constellation reinforce each other to give a more uniform timing.

Out of curiosity, have you ever looked at the turning causing the generation instead of the other way around?

Originally Posted by Kepi

Out of curiosity, have you ever looked at the turning causing the generation instead of the other way around?

Yes, it goes both ways. It's in that document I sent you pages 24-25. Crisis turnings arise out of the interaction between Nomads and the stress cycle. A secular crisis social moment is embedded within a Crisis turning (e.g. 1932-1945 inside 1929-1946). Social moments are from Generations and can be found in Table 1. The generation coming of age during a Crisis social moment will be forged into a Hero generation by a combination of a the effects of the crisis moment on the beliefs and personality of the rising generation and the type of nurture they had received as children. There is a bit of slop over the exact age at which someone comes of age, the length of the Hero generation will tend to be longer than the crisis social moment that created it, i.e. generation length = social moment length + slop.

In the same way a spiritual awakening social moment embedded in an Awakening turning gives rise to a Prophet generation.

There are basically two kinds of nurture, tighter which gives rise to repressed generations and laxer which gives rise to derepressed generations. A repressed generation that is empowered by coming of age in a Crisis ends up becoming a Hero, if it misses this experience, it defaults to Artist. A derepressed generation that is enlightened by coming of age in an Awakening ends up becomes a prophet, if it misses this experience it defaults to Nomad.

This is the basic mechanism for the time when generations were 26 years long, in which they were only two adult generations, the one playing the mid-life leadership role and the one coming of age. The first helps create the turning, the second is created by it.

I haven't focused as much on the post-1822 turnings, for which generations have run about 20 years long. For them the basic S&H model may work, since 20 is not all that far from 22.

I was thinking a bit broader. I.e., it's not just social moment that creates generation, but that it's the course of the turning that the generation is fostered in that lays the latent framework, and not necessarily the required repression. Some parents are permissive. Some kids go to hippy dippy schools. That doesn't mean they're not going to be civics or that they'll be poor ones.

Generations also had 1857 as the start of the (Civil War) Crisis Era.

Originally Posted by Kepi

I was thinking a bit broader. I.e., it's not just social moment that creates generation, but that it's the course of the turning that the generation is fostered in that lays the latent framework, and not necessarily the required repression. .

The terms "course of the turning that the generation is fostered" and "repressed" or "derepressed" say the same thing. The word repressed is a one-word term to described the sort of average upbringing that produced Artists (default) or Heroes (Artists with Crisis COA experience).

The term comes from biology; an enzyme is repressed when it is not being synthesized (i.e. it is not needed). I chose it because S&H use the word suffocated or suppressed to describe Artist upbringing; repressed has a similar sense. S&H also call nurture leading to Artists as "tightening", which implies less freedom, i.e. repression. The opposite is of course derepressed.

Some parents are permissive. Some kids go to hippy dippy schools. That doesn't mean they're not going to be civics or that they'll be poor ones

Sure, there are all kinds of nurture in every generation, just as all archetypes exist. The question is relative amounts. The idea is that the nurture during the High is significantly different from that during the Unraveling, partly because it is being performed by two completely different sets of people spaced ~50 years apart. Even so, some of the High parents will provide repressed nurture and some Unraveling parents will provide derepressed nurture. But parents aren't the only influencers of youth. Peers are too, and a peer environment in which repressed nurture is more common will be different than one in which derepressed nurture is more common.

Nevertheless these differences are only tendencies, there are lots of exceptions to the rule, and this is why the generations cannot create history by themselves. Since they are not really all that different from each other, they cannot really create turnings that are much different from each other, resulting in only very slight generational differences.

Suppose a saeculum got started with an externally-imposed crisis with a successful outcome, kind of like S&H described with their war example. Two generations are forged from this experience. Those in the leadership phase of life become Nomads and those who COA become Heroes. The nurture provided is repressed. The crisis ends and now Artists are being created. With the crisis over nurture starts to loosen, as Artist parents desire to let their kids have some of the things they couldn’t have because of the times. Things return to the pre-crisis norm. The new generation will become gradually less repressed until they become a mix of youthful Artists and Nomads and there is no saeculum. The whole thing damps out almost immediately. S&H say this is what happens in premodern societies. But in modern societies (i.e. after 1485, the traditional dividing line between Modern and Medieval) the saeculum magically starts to continue on by itself. I think S&H have it almost right, except this is what happens in all pre-democratic societies, that is, the ones with the long turning lengths. That is two thirds of the saecula S&H identified are of this "premodern" kind that doesn't exist. Except they do exist and so do similar turnings before 1435.

What if some other cycle regularly imposed a crisis on the society that galvanizes action in accordance to phase of life roles? If the next imposition occurs before the generational structure created by the first crisis has dissipated away, it will happen to a society that is somewhat different in terms of its mix of archetypes as the society before the original crisis and so the kind of social moment created could be different i.e. the first crisis that developed as a Crisis could be followed by a second crisis that develops into something different from a Crisis. And the saeculum would be created.

The empirical reality seems to be that there are periodic awakenings as well as periodic crises that have been noted and described by other workers. Based on this observed fact, the "crisis different than a Crisis" is an Awakening, and there are only two kinds that alternate. So a proposed mechanism has to produce this result, be self-sustaining and be of the proper length.

If this second independent cycle continues to "goose" the generations every ~50 years into providing one of two flavors of social moments and nonsocial moment turnings, then a saeculum of the correct length giving rise to alternating Awakenings and Crises, spaced 50 years apart will occur. All that is needed is a 50-year helper cycle, preferably one that has been independently observed. The Kondratiev cycle is such a cycle: it is of the correct length and its timing correlates with the turnings.

Kepi,

I think I have an idea what you are getting at. You are thinking why cannot each turning impact the generations through COA or other mechanism, in a way similar to how social moments are supposed to impact generations? This idea rests on an assumption that an Unraveling is very different from a High and so generations reared in or who COA in one are different than those from another. That is, all four turnings create generations and vice versa.

This is actually what S&H had in mind, I believe. The problem is there is no evidence for this from the pre-1820 period. Social moments can be distinguished empirically from non social moments by economic patterns in prices or output (K-cycle) and by sociological patterns in social indicators (social unrest, crime levels, alcohol consumption etc.). Awakenings have been identified by other workers and can sometimes show up in indicators of religious behaviors (the start of new orders/religious movements/heresies, important writings, mystical experiences and events etc.) I know of no indicators that serve to separate a High from an Unraveling. For the period of long turnings, they are defined simply in terms of the adjacent social moments. The lack of any evidence that differences exist means one cannot assume that they create different generations, so my mechanism does not give them a role.

The situation today is different. We today can see differences between the High and the Unraveling, but we live in the modern era of short generations for which a very different mechanism applies. I believe S&H developed their model based on the modern situation and then looked for generations going back to build evidence that there really is a cycle. You have to have a fair number of fairly regular oscillations before a trend can be considered a repeating wave, or actual cycle.

I see in earlier posts mikebert laid out earlier food and later wages cycles as well as building cycles that indicate some fluctuation between periods. They are not uniform, but there is a general pattern. I don't know his sources for these periods, but perhaps he mentions them in the longer papers not posted but available by request.

Mike looks to these other cycles as causes or indicators, since generations is not yet adequate. I also look to astrology, since "as above, so below" is a cosmic law present in all life and existence. Civilization cycles have existed since civilization began, corresponding to planetary cycles, including the economic cycles that mike studies and the art cycles that I am more familiar with, but saecula involving generations is a modern cycle because it depends on greater social mobility and change between generations, and more people living a normal lifespan, than was possible before the various Revolutions and the years leading up to them.

It seemed like the periods of "awakening" in the Middle Ages and early Renaissance Era were more pronounced in Italy and maybe France, visible in artistic upsurges (proto-renaissance, early renaissance) and in monastic movements like the Franciscans. Italy was after all the original home of the "saeculum" celebrated by Augustus. But mikebert mentioned the Mendicant movement, which parallels in time one of the Italian Awakening periods, so that is a possibility. But mostly I don't see much in the way of "spiritual awakenings" in the English-speaking world until the First Great Awakening in America, unless I am missing something. The Reformation hardly qualifies as an awakening in that sense; it was a protest movement that became a peasant rebellion, but again mostly on the continent. In Britain it was mainly the activities ordered by Henry VIII for his own personal reasons, and consisted mostly of shutting down and destroying monasteries rather than opening them.

It seems, if mike's data is correct, that the saeculum was in its early phases a general economic fluctuation, perhaps reflected in some of the political crises among the elite class. It was like a gathering storm, symbolically speaking, from the 11th century soon after the Medieval cycle of civilization began (c.900-1400). It acquired greater definition and speed in the 15th century, as the previous 500-year cycle of civilization to our own (The Renaissance Era, c.1400-1900) began, with a recognizable but still-vague pattern, with a religious protest movement begun by the King serving as "the awakening," and a crisis consisting of a long international period of tension involving the competing powers from this Reformation (the ruling Protestant Power vs. the foreign Catholic Power). The storm is gathering speed and starting to "turn," but is still not a hurricane, in other words.

In the next saeculum the future United States is founded at Jamestown, and this is a crisis/foundational moment because of the high stress and death rates of the colony. Plymouth goes more smoothly (a High). Thus the cycle began that became the American saeculum, which is charted by Uranus' return to its place at the founding in Jamestown in 1607 and the periodic Crises/foundational moments that coincided with it. Since this return is 84-years apart, it coincides with the gradual defining of the storm from tropical storm status into a hurricane, with generations becoming more clearly involved, and the cycle corresponding more closely to the normal human lifespan, as more of the people live it out (thanks in part to improving sanitation).

But this transition is not fully complete until the civil war saeculum, and the anomaly in it reflects the hybrid generations that resulted from a society in the process of fully ramping up to modern speed, and the change in the southern aristocratic section that was still on the pre-modern clock. In the Civil War saeculum then, the eye of the hurricane becomes clearly defined for the first time; and we have reached at least a category 3 storm.

It was category 4 during the next 2 cycles, but may be weakening again today.

Here’s a piece that describes some of the mega-awakenings as turning points. I give a portion here (subheadings added)

Aftermath of the Rise of Christianity mega-awakening
With the decline and fall of the Western Roman Empire and its protecting and unifying arm, there arose a new function in the office of the papacy. Leo, Bishop of Rome in 452 A.D., marched out to meet Attila the Hun, who was threatening Rome, and in 455 A.D., negotiated for the preservation of the city with the Vandals, who had plundered it. These maneuvers of Leo created recognition for his authority in Rome, which coupled with Leo’s own reasoning regarding the succession of ecclesiastical authority from Peter in Rome, helped pave the way for our modern understanding of papal leadership in the Roman Catholic Church.

The papacy throughout the Middle Ages reflected the waxing and waning of civil authority. Popes rose to the military defense of Rome when civil government was weak, or were sometimes deposed by emperors who disagreed with them, all the while the office continued to gain prominence. Violence marred the papacy, as it became a prize over which to fight or kill. Many who saw the need for reform left the organized Church, and migrated to the remote living places of the monasteries. As a result, the monasteries became pools of energized people seeking a change for the papacy, and for the Church in general. But the monasteries were in dire need of reform, too. Since there was always a strong connection between the bishops and the monasteries in the Western Church, some monasteries became puppets of corrupt bishops, who used them for personal gain. Abbots, who presided over the various monasteries, sometimes secured their positions, not by virtuous living, but by purchasing their seats, or even through homicide.

Cluniac mega-awakening and aftermath
A flicker of hope for the reformation of monasticism, the papacy, and the Church as a whole, was felt in the ripple effects of a devout monk named Berno. In 909 A.D., a monastery in Cluny, of east-central France, was established, and its leadership turned over to this earnest monk. Berno, a disciple of the Benedictine Rule, revived its use within the monastery. Abbots following Berno continued to lead with the same discipline and, soon, a sweeping change in monasticism spread as the “Cluniacs” created a monastic awakening. Eventually, the Cluniacs set their sights on the reformation of the Church, and of the papacy. However, the movement began to lose its power as it accumulated unprecedented wealth through gifts and holdings. The simplicity of the Benedictine lifestyle became lost, as the power of abbots increased, causing their attention to be diverted to political plots. Their criticism of the Church’s wealth became null in light of their own prosperity. These internal factors soon overwhelmed the kindled flame that once held promise for true and pervasive reformation, and the light of the Cluniacs’ candle began to dim.

Mendicant mega-awakening
But the pendulum of monasticism would not linger long on the era of financial prosperity that seemed to clog the flow of change sought by the reformation-seeking Cluniacs. A glimpse of what was to come was seen briefly in the life of Peter Waldo, “a merchant from Lyons,” in the second half of the twelfth century. Waldo, influenced by the story of a monk, sought a monastic life, marked by preaching and poverty. He and his disciples, the “Waldensians,” were persecuted for their beliefs, and eventually fled to the remote hills of the Alps. Waldo’s understanding of the Gospel, in light of the changing economic situation, and the disparity between the rich and the poor, seemed to create a new philosophy toward monastic living, soon to become known as “mendicant” monasticism.

Mendicant monasticism encouraged poverty, and begging for charity, as a means of existence. This understanding clearly marked the life of an Italian mystic, Giovanni Bernardone, known today as St. Francis of Assisi (1182–1226). The son of a wealthy merchant father, St. Francis “led a worldly, carefree life11” in his youth. However, after a profound religious experience, St. Francis renounced his former ways, and took for himself a life of poverty. He did not remove himself from society, but remained within its bustle, preaching the Gospel, and helping the poor. He saw poverty not only as a means to remain disciplined, but he recognized its effectiveness in identifying with the poor. He gathered disciples, and his movement gained momentum. Pope Innocent III eventually granted St. Francis authorization to begin a new order, and his “order of lesser brothers12” was born.
St. Francis feared that as the movement grew, its constituents might lose their humility. So, he ordered in his will that the followers were not allowed to own anything, or make an appeal to the pope for later leniency in terms of the order.

Another significant mendicant order was founded by St. Dominic (1170–1221), who, like St. Francis of Assisi, withdrew to a monastic life, while remaining in connection with the world around him. St. Dominic was concerned by the dualistic heresy of the Albigenses, but felt that there was a better way to convert them than through force, as attempted by Pope Innocent III. Since the Albigenses were devoted to extreme asceticism, and the orthodox priests were, by contrast, living comfortably, St. Dominic decided to combat the heresy through a combination of a disciplined monastic lifestyle, marked by poverty and mendicancy, and rigorous study. As a result, the Dominicans gave the church reputable schools of great learning, producing eminent theologians who would later challenge the Church with a whole new approach to understanding God and faith.

The impact of the Franciscans and Dominicans during the Middle Ages caused mendicant monasticism to be widely received and practiced throughout Europe. It also brought about reform within the walls of monasticism by discouraging the prosperity that tempted its leadership and caused it to appear hypocritical in its teachings.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

There is also the double rhythm of the saeculum.

I am not familiar with this. Where does the idea come from?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It seemed like the periods of "awakening" in the Middle Ages and early Renaissance Era were more pronounced in Italy and maybe France, visible in artistic upsurges (proto-renaissance, early renaissance) and in monastic movements like the Franciscans. Italy was after all the original home of the "saeculum" celebrated by Augustus. But mikebert mentioned the Mendicant movement, which parallels in time one of the Italian Awakening periods, so that is a possibility.

Eric. Can you expand on the artistic upsurges? Perhaps something like the Catholic to Protestant story (The MegaSaeculum posts 295, 296, 297) I told or the mega-awakening list (The MegaSaeculum post 299).

But mostly I don't see much in the way of "spiritual awakenings" in the English-speaking world until the First Great Awakening in America, unless I am missing something. The Reformation hardly qualifies as an awakening in that sense; it was a protest movement that became a peasant rebellion, but again mostly on the continent. In Britain it was mainly the activities ordered by Henry VIII for his own personal reasons, and consisted mostly of shutting down and destroying monasteries rather than opening them.

A very good point. To address this I first need to address the scale at which the saeculum operates. I have been exploring evidence* for the idea that the saeculum has operated on most or all of Western Europe since at least the 14th century. By establishing this unity one can look at religious developments in Iraly, Spain. France, Germay, the British isles, the Low Countries and Scandinavia combined, which gives a much larger canvas on which to draw.

As for the English Reformation, Henry was an educated man, fluent in four languages, and well-versed in theology. Yes, his desire for a divorce precipitated the English break with the church and Henry did close Catholic institutions (and seized their wealth), but Henry would not have tried to pull this off if it had been against the religious zeitgest. At another time he would have faced a popular insurrection from religiously orthodox nobles. He had no son and claimants to the throne can always be found--it's not like English kings before him had never been deposed.

However, England had experienced a form of home-grown Protestantism with the Lollard movement over the previous 150 years. There were many nobles and wealthy commoners who had Protestant sympathies, and most everyone would prefer Henry to get his revenues from somebody other than them (i.e. Long's Law).

*Unrest periods analysis: Investigation of a pre-1435 saeculum:
post 14 (18^th cent)
post 18 (17^th cent)
post 19 (16^th cent)
post 21 (14-15^th cent)

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Eric. Can you expand on the artistic upsurges?

I meant upsurges in the arts, the proto-renaissance centered in Siena and Florence in the early 14th century, which featured the works of Giotto, the Lorenzetti Bros., Dante and Petrarch, and the early Renaissance from the contest to create the Florence Cathedral doors won by Ghiberti in 1401 to the works of Masaccio, Donatello and Brunelleschi and others in the 1420s. The spirituality and philosophy of the times were often expressed in the arts in those days.

Here's a good article on the proto-renaissance:
http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/hist...enaissance.htm

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I am not familiar with this. Where does the idea come from?

I probably started it many years ago, based on astrological trends (Neptune is almost-exactly twice the 84-year cycle of Uranus, which equals the saeculum, and its position in the US horoscope in 1861 was at the "house of home" or Nadir of the chart).

Others have noticed it too. The saeculum seems to alternate between outward and inwardly-focused. The civil war was inwardly-focused, on an internal crisis in America, and was powered by a culturally-focused prophet generation, the transcendentals. Although the great-power saeculum also featured an internal crisis, it prominently featured an external threat, WWII, and was powered by a prophet generation that was more interested in enterprise and building things (the missionaries). The Revolution would have fit into the outward-centered turning because of the invasion of British troops, and so would the Armada Crisis, while the Wars of the Roses and Glorious Revolution were more internally-focused. Sometimes the inwardly-focused crises here are called "atonement" cycles (I forget the other term for the outwardly-centered ones). Obviously these are only crisis tendencies, and there are aspects of internal and external crisis in each.

If the patterns holds, this crisis will be more internally focused, and the inwardly-focused boomers are a major reason why. In addition, I would surmise that, periodically, it is the nation itself and its institutions that are in crisis, rather than an external threat such as the Spanish, the British or the Nazis. That is what the boomers and Xers have grown up with-- an internal crisis-- and what the Millennials face in their coming of age: a nation that needs to change; the need for a revolution or a possible break-up of the country. That is why Boomers and Xers have tended to be divided among each other (or Xers divided from Boomers), because it is in the nation itself where "the crisis enemy is," not overseas. We are divided in this country between those who favor change and those who support the status quo.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I probably started it many years ago, based on astrological trends (Neptune is almost-exactly twice the 84-year cycle of Uranus, which equals the saeculum, and its position in the US horoscope in 1861 was at the "house of home" or Nadir of the chart).

Others have noticed it too. The saeculum seems to alternate between outward and inwardly-focused. The civil war was inwardly-focused, on an internal crisis in America, and was powered by a culturally-focused prophet generation, the transcendentals. Although the great-power saeculum also featured an internal crisis, it prominently featured an external threat, WWII, and was powered by a prophet generation that was more interested in enterprise and building things (the missionaries). The Revolution would have fit into the outward-centered turning because of the invasion of British troops, and so would the Armada Crisis, while the Wars of the Roses and Glorious Revolution were more internally-focused. Sometimes the inwardly-focused crises here are called "atonement" cycles (I forget the other term for the outwardly-centered ones). Obviously these are only crisis tendencies, and there are aspects of internal and external crisis in each.

If the patterns holds, this crisis will be more internally focused, and the inwardly-focused boomers are a major reason why. In addition, I would surmise that, periodically, it is the nation itself and its institutions that are in crisis, rather than an external threat such as the Spanish, the British or the Nazis. That is what the boomers and Xers have grown up with-- an internal crisis-- and what the Millennials face in their coming of age: a nation that needs to change; the need for a revolution or a possible break-up of the country. That is why Boomers and Xers have tended to be divided among each other (or Xers divided from Boomers), because it is in the nation itself where "the crisis enemy is," not overseas. We are divided in this country between those who favor change and those who support the status quo.

Atonement and Advancement. It's the same duality in literature between Comic (Advancement) and Tragic (Atonement).

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Atonement and Advancement. It's the same duality in literature between Comic (Advancement) and Tragic (Atonement).

~Chas'88

Thanks; I understand, and I think there's something there; although I think it's a rather negative comparison. Isn't an internal crisis more of a basis for "advancement," if it means abolition of slavery for example, than just dealing with foreign invaders, for example? (and depression and world war was pretty "tragic" too). But I suppose it has something to do with the fact that we are turning on ourselves for our conflict, rather than on an external threat or project.

How Comic & Advancement are the same thing:

Both are about the progression of society towards a higher plane of being than from what it started out as. Essentially a "rise" in power, or as it's called in Comedy an "ascension" in rank. It's equivalent in the comedy to finding out the raised-poor love interest is really the long lost child of a wealthy noble. Or Cinderella ascending to become a Princess through marriage. In mythical and heroic terms you can see it where a mortal human ascends to become accepted as "one of the gods" or a lesser god like Mercury through his own wits and wiles manages to ascend to become a more prominent god. You see this in Advancement Saeculums where a rise to a new sense of power is achieved, where England rises to become a global power (Tudor Saeculum), where America rises to become a global power (Great Power Saeculum), or the rise of the United States as a nation (Revolutionary Saeculum).

How are Tragic & Atonement the same thing?

They are about the fall from a high place, the upset of that high achievement due usually to a mistake that's been made or a sin which was the basis for our rise to power that has to be "atoned" for. The sin that was part of our rise to power that we had to atone for in the Civil War? That's obvious: Slavery. Our fall? From an united nation to a divided nation. How was it atoned for? By holding a communion ceremony over Lincoln's body in which we transformed him into the "dying god" archetype from which we could give new order.

What's our sin this time around upon which we conduct Imperialist Warmongering. It was part of our rise to power with WWII "bringing us out of the Depression" (whether it did or not isn't the point as it's the narrative that the public has accepted). What will be the fall? It could be from us being the sole super power to a lesser power amongst many other more "equal" global powers that try to keep one another in check. It could be from us bankrupting and destroying the nation by fighting elsewhere, causing a systemic collapse where we break apart into smaller pieces--akin to the Soviet Union. There's a few options. One sure-fire way to ensure the Crisis values would be if we had a repeat of the "dying god" meme with a president. In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, the power of the "dying god" meme that you see in Mark Antony's speech turns a crowd that was "happy to see Caesar's death" into a crowd seeking to avenge & memorialize him forevermore. That would be one surefire way to "heal the divide", as Lincoln did in the Civil War, and provide new life for the nation.

So Boomers, who amongst you is willing to die for his country?*

~Chas'88

*please note this is extremely dark humor, if you can't tell. I don't advocate the killing of anyone and would rather no one died... but, you still can't deny the power of the "dying god" myth. After all it's the basis of a major world religion that a lot of Americans share.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

How Comic & Advancement are the same thing:

Both are about the progression of society towards a higher plane of being than from what it started out as. Essentially a "rise" in power, or as it's called in Comedy an "ascension" in rank. It's equivalent in the comedy to finding out the raised-poor love interest is really the long lost child of a wealthy noble. Or Cinderella ascending to become a Princess through marriage. In mythical and heroic terms you can see it where a mortal human ascends to become accepted as "one of the gods" or a lesser god like Mercury through his own wits and wiles manages to ascend to become a more prominent god. You see this in Advancement Saeculums where a rise to a new sense of power is achieved, where England rises to become a global power (Tudor Saeculum), where America rises to become a global power (Great Power Saeculum), or the rise of the United States as a nation (Revolutionary Saeculum).

How are Tragic & Atonement the same thing?

They are about the fall from a high place, the upset of that high achievement due usually to a mistake that's been made or a sin which was the basis for our rise to power that has to be "atoned" for. The sin that was part of our rise to power that we had to atone for in the Civil War? That's obvious: Slavery. Our fall? From an united nation to a divided nation. How was it atoned for? By holding a communion ceremony over Lincoln's body in which we transformed him into the "dying god" archetype from which we could give new order.

What's our sin this time around upon which we conduct Imperialist Warmongering. It was part of our rise to power with WWII "bringing us out of the Depression" (whether it did or not isn't the point as it's the narrative that the public has accepted). What will be the fall? It could be from us being the sole super power to a lesser power amongst many other more "equal" global powers that try to keep one another in check. It could be from us bankrupting and destroying the nation by fighting elsewhere, causing a systemic collapse where we break apart into smaller pieces--akin to the Soviet Union. There's a few options. One sure-fire way to ensure the Crisis values would be if we had a repeat of the "dying god" meme with a president. In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, the power of the "dying god" meme that you see in Mark Antony's speech turns a crowd that was "happy to see Caesar's death" into a crowd seeking to memorialize him forevermore. That would be one surefire way to "heal the divide", as Lincoln did in the Civil War, and provide new life for the nation.

So Boomers, who amongst you is willing to die for his country?*

~Chas'88

*please note this is extremely dark humor, if you can't tell. I don't advocate the killing of anyone and would rather no one died... but, you still can't deny the power of the "dying god" myth. After all it's the basis of a major world religion that a lot of Americans share.

I see; good points. I would still say though that the "atonement" of ending slavery was also an "advancement," conducted by activists who wanted to improve life in their country. It was certainly about righting a moral wrong. So today are the issues boomers have been concerned and active about. Abolishing slavery was not an advancement in national power, that's right; although I would say the north was advancing in economic power in that saeculum. Maybe ambition is a better word than advancement; something that implies gaining in power rather than a term that also means making improvements or reforms.

We may not have the dying god president this time, since the "curse" or presidents dying in office appears to be broken. And the Crisis probably won't even end until the full term (assuming (s)he's elected to one in 2020 and 2024) is over in Jan. 2029. But perhaps another kind of communal atonement ceremony might happen.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Thanks; I understand, and I think there's something there; although I think it's a rather negative comparison. Isn't an internal crisis more of a basis for "advancement," if it means abolition of slavery for example, than just dealing with foreign invaders, for example? (and depression and world war was pretty "tragic" too). But I suppose it has something to do with the fact that we are turning on ourselves for our conflict, rather than on an external threat or project.

Thing is, it doesn't fit with the narrative of the times. It wasn't an "advancement" idea, it was an atoning idea. We were atoning for a wrong that was still being committed. The narrative that popped up from the Civil War was that it was "God's judgment" on the United States for including slavery in its constitution. Southern apologists and revisionist historians be damned, that was the narrative that the majority of the nation accepted after the Civil War was over, so that was that Saeculum's story. Slavery was a sin that had to be atoned for, and we paid for it with Civil War, and Lincoln took upon the rest of our sin upon his own shoulders and died so that we would not have to endure further punishment. Again, that's not how I view it, but it's the popular narrative of how we as a society think of the Civil War Saeculum--that's its "story" so to say. It's why Lincoln is as important as he is, because we've turned him into the "dying god" who "took our sins upon himself" so that we might be spared further punishment. Lincoln became our secular version of Christ.

In that way you can look at "atonement Idealists" as the ones who point the light on "collective crimes" and attempt to wash them away.

Personally I'm more and more interested in looking to HOW history is remembered and TOLD as a narrative, because that's usually how we "remember" history in our popular sentiment (or at least how we have up to this point), and how that narrative shapes our view of ourselves and our actions.

~Chas'88

Advancement saeculums are typically a rags to riches story of how we rose to power through our inherent goodness, our own merits, and hard work. That's quite obviously the story of the Great Power Saeculum itself.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I see; good points. I would still say though that the "atonement" of ending slavery was also an "advancement," conducted by activists who wanted to improve life in their country.

Well that's always a part of every good tragedy, by "righting the wrong" society is given a new chance and is "reborn" and allowed to thrive from wrong being righted. That after all is the meaning of the communion ceremony. From Christ's death his church ever after gains eternal life.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Thing is, it doesn't fit with the narrative of the times. It wasn't an "advancement" idea, it was an atoning idea. We were atoning for a wrong that was still being committed.

Does atonement imply change and reform, as you see it? Because we did more than atone and get punished for it; we actively campaigned in order to change it.

The narrative that popped up from the Civil War was that it was "God's judgment" on the United States for including slavery in its constitution. Southern apologists and revisionist historians be damned, that was the narrative that the majority of the nation accepted after the Civil War was over, so that was that Saeculum's story. Slavery was a sin that had to be atoned for, and we paid for it with Civil War, and Lincoln took upon the rest of our sin upon his own shoulders and died so that we would not have to endure further punishment. Again, that's not how I view it, but it's the popular narrative of how we as a society think of the Civil War Saeculum--that's its "story" so to say. It's why Lincoln is as important as he is, because we've turned him into the "dying god" who "took our sins upon himself" so that we might be spared further punishment. Lincoln became our secular version of Christ.

In that way you can look at "atonement Idealists" as the ones who point the light on "collective crimes" and attempt to wash them away.

More than wash them away. Work and fight hard to change and abolish an ongoing practice, liberate ourselves from it, and thus improve, reform and advance our society.

Personally I'm more and more interested in looking to HOW history is remembered and TOLD as a narrative, because that's usually how we "remember" history in our popular sentiment (or at least how we have up to this point), and how that narrative shapes our view of ourselves and our actions.

~Chas'88

Although that narrative changes from one saeculum to the next, yes I understand.

"Goodness and hard work;" hmmm; very materialistic goodness, hard work to amass power.... very destructive to the environment and at great expense to the less priviledged classes and races.... ambition, not necessarily advancement.....

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

"Goodness and hard work;" hmmm; very materialistic goodness, hard work to amass power.... very destructive to the environment and at great expense to the less priviledged classes and races.... ambition, not necessarily advancement.....

You're an atonement idealist, you're not supposed to see that as favorable which you are attempting to "correct" and atone for. Otherwise you wouldn't be an atonement idealist. However from their perspective, the US was "absolved" from the sin of slavery, and thus was "saved" as a nation. The "sin-o-meter" hadn't been re-evaluated or adjusted to make their current actions sins of anything. You Boomers readjusted the "sin-o-meter" to view the way the previous saeculum had made its gains into flaws, errors, and sins.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Well that's always a part of every good tragedy, by "righting the wrong" society is given a new chance and is "reborn" and allowed to thrive from wrong being righted. That after all is the meaning of the communion ceremony. From Christ's death his church ever after gains eternal life.

~Chas'88

I'm not so sure that in most tragedies, the wrong is actually righted; in the time of the events. Christ did not right any wrongs; his atonement gave new life to a new religion, which may have done some good (and some evil) later, depending on your point of view. The tragedies of Shakespeare don't end up having righted any wrongs, just people getting punished for them. I like To Kill a Mockingbird. It brings the issues to life, but the wrongs aren't righted; Tom Robinson is found guilty and gets killed. The wrong of slavery was righted, and the Glorious Revolution gave us a partial democracy. The Tudors brought a new dynasty that ended dynastic wars.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

You're an atonement idealist, you're not supposed to see that as favorable which you are attempting to "correct" and atone for. Otherwise you wouldn't be an atonement idealist.

~Chas'88

Yes, and I suspect these terms are yet another part of the trend here to knock us.

Why should the terms themselves be based upon the point of view of the "advancement idealists" and not ours?

I think the atonement/advancement paradigm works on the similarities between 1t/3t and 2t/4t. But... as much as those sets of turnings share similarities, I think they're even more accurately described as opposites.

Five years after being elected, Lincoln was dead and the union was saved. Five years after Obama's election, he's still promising to negotiate with the south - no matter what!

The issue of a growing regional culture divide is the same, but the social approach to it is as opposite as it gets. In the mega-high, the result would be greater unification - in a mega-unraveling, the result would be greater fragmentation.