Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I know what a real handgun is. I watch Perry Mason all the time. No, those were NOT semi-automatics!

Wow, I do believe we have a confirmed case here.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Wow, I do believe we have a confirmed case here.

Not really, but that's funny.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not really, but that's funny.

Not really, except in the sense of being completely true.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Here's where we're getting confused. Semi-automatic refers to the cycling action on a firearm, nothing else. It answers the question of "how do I get a round from the magazine, clip, tube from where it's chambered into position for firing?" So pump action, bolt action, lever action, and single action revolvers are your other options (double action revolvers function like semi-automatics, readying a round in the same action you fire it, so I'd count it to, for the sake of argument).

I'm not sure about this. Are you saying that fully automatic weapons do not use the same sort of automatic reloading mechanism as a semi-automatic weapon? My understanding was the the term "automatic" refered to the loading mechanism. That is, both fully- and semi-automatic weapons would feature automatic loading capabilities. Is this not correct?

Now, I would argue that in order to be an assault rifle, selective fire, in which semi-automatic and either full auto, burst fire (2, 3 or any other shot burst), or both must be present to qualify, in which case classifying what is being fired in spree shootings as an assault rifle is false.

My understanding has been that the term assault rifle refers to a miltary weapon with automatic loading that can operate in fully or semi-automatic mode. Such weapons are illegal for civilians. So the use of the term civilian assault weapon (not "rifle") in regard to civilian mass shootings can not refer to fully automatic weapons because they are illegal and largely unavailable.

So the term civilian assault weapon does not refer to an actual military weapon. Instead it would refer to a weapon that can duplicate relevant performance features of a millitary weapon in a way that is consistent with the requirement that it be legal (i.e. it cannot be fully-automatic).

Now, on the otherhand (and this is my chief concern), if we were to say that there were a class of weapon that was an "assault rifle", what would it encompass?

I would think a semi-automaatic weapon with a detachable external magazine that can hold a large number of round would qualify. If I understand correctly automatic loading is pretty fast and so a shooter with a 100 round magazine should be able to fire rounds pretty much as fast as he can pull the trigger, maybe something like 100 rounds in a minute. I don't now how long it takes to switch a magazine, but if it takes a short time then I would think one might be perform this sort of withering fire with magazines smaller than 100 round.

Can one fire 100 rounds in a minute or less with a pump action, bolt action, lever action, single action revolvers, or any other non-semiautomatic without using a large capacity external magazine? Are there guns with internal magazines that would hold 100 rounds or 50 rounds or even 30 rounds?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... My understanding was the the term "automatic" refered to the loading mechanism. That is, both fully- and semi-automatic weapons would feature automatic loading capabilities. Is this not correct?...

-Terminology differs, although your use of semi-automatic (i.e., one pull of the trigger fires a single shot) being synonymous with "self-loading" is a little archaic in a military sense.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I'm not sure about this. Are you saying that fully automatic weapons do not use the same sort of automatic reloading mechanism as a semi-automatic weapon... That is, both fully- and semi-automatic weapons would feature automatic loading capabilities. Is this not correct?...

-Both types use essentially the same loading system, which usually works something like this:

1) Firer pulls trigger;

2) Trigger releases hammer;

3) Hammer hits firing pin;

4) Firing pin hits the primer (which detonates the powder, etc);

5) The bolt ejects the expended cartridge case, which pushes the hammer back in place (usually down).

The difference is that in a semi-auto, the cycle ends there, because the trigger holds it in place automatically.

In a full automatic, the trigger does not hold the hammer in place (unless you let go of the trigger) so in an automatic, when the bolt returns forward, the hammer goes forward again, repeating the cycle. But, when you let go of the trigger, the hammer is held in place (just like in semi'), stopping the cycle.

In selective fire weapons, there is an adjustable sear which allows you to set it on semi- (hammer always held down when the bolt goes back) or auto (hammer only holds down the hammer if you let it go).
There's a variation called "burst" in which the bolt cycles a set number of times on auto (say, three times), but then stops when it hits its limit.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Terminology differs, although your use of semi-automatic (i.e., one pull of the trigger fires a single shot) being synonymous with "self-loading" is a little archaic in a military sense.

I didn't use semi-automatic in that sense, I used automatic in that sense because:

Both types (of automatic) use essentially the same (automatic) loading system,

I have another question. Is is a difficult procedure to modify a military weapon so that it only operates in semi-automatic mode? Would such a weapon be legal?

Is the reverse possible? Can one fairly easily modify a civilian gun like the Bushmaster AR-15 so that it can fire in fully automatic mode?

Can you do the same with a non-automatic loading weapon, or would it be easier to start with a semi-automatic?

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Prince

PS: I'd be interested in your(or even some others') opinion on this:
(I posed this question to Mikebert, but didn't receive a response).

Any general thoughts on the Dawes Plan and/or Young Plan
i/r/t contributing to WWII(ie: Weimar's Economy)?

Part of me thinks that it was somewhat intentional, honestly. We had to know that any country that'd been blown straight to hell and back like that so they were financing everything. The currency was useless, the industry was shot. The only reason to demand blood from a stone like that is to ensure they remain crippled.

I tend to feel the same way about England and the Ottoman Empire and the boundary redistributions. They knew it would cause bad blood to boil, and that's what they wanted. I think the mentality being "if they fight eachother, they won't want to bother with us."

This might be the most interesting thing about World War I, as it's really the last time in Western History where royalty was relevant, and so you see both the new capitalist style and the old world feudal style at work. The new world elite wanted to siphon money where the old world elite wanted the authority to redraw borders and reward their cronies. That maybe where the true transfer of power really was. Not so much in various democratic innovations over time, but simply in the all out steam roll of war as a means by which we create production while delivering more or less nothing of value (at the time exploding you enemy's hospital must feel great, but after the war, wouldn't you rather have a hospital?). It created such a harshly 1 sided transfer in the balance of power that royalty and old world power structures, already on the back burner from capitalist achievement, more or less got clubbed and left to rot.

Now on the other side of the equation, long term, what actually works? I mean, we're still seeing major consequences in the middle east from World War I (hint, where's Kurdistan?), however the same countries that managed to economically cripple Germany had to go back there again to kill what they'd turned it into (unintentionally, obviously) and then felt the need to dump enough money into it to keep it as the second largest economy after the next war.

Ultimately, the level of stability capitalism requires to maintain an advanced economy may cause other change to stagnate, and ultimately find this to be it's undoing.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

...I have another question. Is is a difficult procedure to modify a military weapon so that it only operates in semi-automatic mode? Would such a weapon be legal?

-Define difficult, but it can be done.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

...Is the reverse possible? Can one fairly easily modify a civilian gun like the Bushmaster AR-15 so that it can fire in fully automatic mode?

-Define easy, but it can be done.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

...Can you do the same with a non-automatic loading weapon, or would it be easier to start with a semi-automatic?

-It would require a complete overhaul to modify a bolt action or lever action to semi or auto. It would be easier to make it from scratch.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I have another question. Is is a difficult procedure to modify a military weapon so that it only operates in semi-automatic mode? Would such a weapon be legal?

You'd have an easier time just creating a new gun in most cases. As far as legality, in most cases yes, because there's just not that significant a difference between that weapon as a semi-automatic weapon and what's already available on the market.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Is the reverse possible? Can one fairly easily modify a civilian gun like the Bushmaster AR-15 so that it can fire in fully automatic mode?

Not easily. In either case, switching action means that in most cases you're just going to have to create or buy a new gun. Back when it was relatively easy to make something like this happen, now though, they're intentionally manufactured to make doing that more difficult.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Can you do the same with a non-automatic loading weapon, or would it be easier to start with a semi-automatic?

It'd be easiest to start from scratch. That's generally the problem with guns in general. It's old world technology. The difficult part is knowing how and... Well, the internet.

Also, let's talk about utility. Automatic weapons, while I get why they're illegal, aren't drastically more efficient or lethal than any other gun. They're most effective when used in teams, and you really need an excess in ammo. A bullet is a bullet. Keep in mind a lot of sniper rifles are still bolt action, because the manual pull is less likely to alter accuracy.

When it comes to "military style" weapons, the real difference maker is weight, and the function of that has really no advantage outside a military context. Frankly, semi-automatic weapons are, more or less, optimum all purpose fire arms. There's very little practical difference between, say, an AR-15 and a standard semi-automatic hunting rifle, aside from round size. In terms of lethality, round size really favors the hunting rifle.

If we were facing a situation where teams of people were using automatic weapons, I could totally see a ban working and being somewhat valid. We already have that, though. The thing about spree shooters, on the other hand, is just how bad at all this they are. They choose weapons that are ill suited for their purpose, they spray bullets everywhere and all and all they just suck at what they decided to do for the most part.

Changes to existing laws as proposed look to make it more difficult to get guns illsuited for the purpose of what they're doing while keeping it relatively simple to aquire better ones. There's a reason that nobody wants a semi-automatic version of a mack10, because it's just an unweildy handgun at that point. Now, let's say somebody makes the parts and puts it into the semi-auto knock off to make a fully automatic, real deal, mack10. In the first instance, he's a jackass with a crap gun. In the second instance, he's a jackass with a crap gun whose run out of ammo before I finished typing this sentence. The same dude with a Remmington M1911 (.45 cal semi-auto pistol) and any given half decent 12 guage pump action shot gun is going to be way more effective.

I want these losers buying semi-auto Mack10 knockoffs and AR-15's, because these guys are probably dumping every last dollar in creditcards they have on guns and ammo. I want them to keep buying crap garbage that is illsuited for the job because it's matte black and looks tough because it looks like stuff that SWAT guys use.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

My understanding has been that the term assault rifle refers to a miltary weapon with automatic loading that can operate in fully or semi-automatic mode. Such weapons are illegal for civilians. So the use of the term civilian assault weapon (not "rifle") in regard to civilian mass shootings can not refer to fully automatic weapons because they are illegal and largely unavailable.

Incorrect. Civilian purchase and ownership of automatic weapons is not illegal (at least at the federal level; some states ban automatic weapons while others do not).

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Incorrect. Civilian purchase and ownership of automatic weapons is not illegal (at least at the federal level; some states ban automatic weapons while others do not).

It's not illegal, it's just that the ban on sale has made getting one exceedingly expensive. I'd love, for instance, to shoot a tommy gun one day. I wouldn't even want to own one (I just wouldn't get a lot out of it for the money, even if it were cheaper). But getting ahold of someone who has one... Kinda tough, mostly because that runs a person in the over 10k range, and I'd by far rather spend that on something else.

So while they're not illegal by technicality under law, they are effectively rendered illegal due to cost.

Originally Posted by Kepi

It's not illegal, it's just that the ban on sale has made getting one exceedingly expensive. I'd love, for instance, to shoot a tommy gun one day. I wouldn't even want to own one (I just wouldn't get a lot out of it for the money, even if it were cheaper). But getting ahold of someone who has one... Kinda tough, mostly because that runs a person in the over 10k range, and I'd by far rather spend that on something else.

So while they're not illegal by technicality under law, they are effectively rendered illegal due to cost.

Illegal and expensive are two very distinct things and these distinctions are important.

Oh and there are quite a few shooting ranges that will allow you to rent an automatic weapon (have fun paying the ammo bill though). Additionally there are a few gun shows that allow the same should you be so inclined.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I would favor banning all handguns, but that does not seem politically possible at the moment. Meanwhile, if the vast majority of handguns are now semi-automatics, then that means this has recently changed. That change should be disregarded; it is an effort by greedy gun companies to make money, by making it easier to kill more people more quickly, and Gen X gun nuts and libertarians like you fall for it. A real handgun is a pistol; it has 6 chambers for 6 rounds, and each round is fired by one pull of a trigger.

Flamebait + fuel for positive feedback loop.

Yet another thread hijacked by gun nuts. Too bad. What on earth does this have to do with the idea of a megasaeculum, pray tell?

1. A post written by someone who takes the opposing side, bashes Gen X, and assigns a motive to an industry related to <topic which belongs on other thread>. May I suggest that posts constructed in this manner all but ensure further posts about <insert topic which belongs on other thread> ?
2. Hijacked? You better believe it. POC/Kepi's posts are about proper topic. Most of the other posts are about topic which has hijacked this thread.
3. I didn't write about topic which hijacked thread. I just wrote about the process said hijacking has created a positive feedback loop. Cool, aren't they? Positive feedback loops have a life of their own. Rags pages Mikebert wrt positive feedback loops. I think he's well aware of this from his fields of study.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Flamebait + fuel for positive feedback loop.

1. A post written by someone who takes the opposing side, bashes Gen X, and assigns a motive to an industry related to <topic which belongs on other thread>. May I suggest that posts constructed in this manner all but ensure further posts about <insert topic which belongs on other thread> ?

Guilty; cannot always resist the temptation to answer the gun trolling.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Holy shit... The ignorance in this post makes my head hurt.

That's Eric the Obtuse, an unending fountain of massive stupidity.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Illegal and expensive are two very distinct things and these distinctions are important.

Oh and there are quite a few shooting ranges that will allow you to rent an automatic weapon (have fun paying the ammo bill though). Additionally there are a few gun shows that allow the same should you be so inclined.

I see little functional difference between creating conditions of excessive expense and rendering something illegal. It's one thing if it's supply and demand. However, when it's rules which effectively make it impossible for the average person to afford the product, you're effectively outlawing it.

Originally Posted by Silifi

In another thread, a discussion came up about how this crisis would turn out. When we look at other crises, in American history, we see situtations that look only barely plausible given what things look like today.

Some people have proposed a double saeculum. Intense Awakening, Divisive Crisis, Mild Awakening, United Crisis.

This makes sense. However, what I see is a much larger mechanism at work. A Quadruple Saeculum, or The MegaSaeculum.

My initial proposal was this:

1. Divisive Awakening (English Civil War) => Mild Crisis (Glorious Revolution)
2. Intellectual Awakening (Enlightenment) => Revolutionary Crisis (American Revolution)
3. Spiritual Awakening (Transcendentalism) => Divisive Crisis (American Civil War, War of the Roses)
4. Mild Awakening (Progressive Movement) => Triumphant Crisis (World War II, Spanish Armada)

Then, The Grey Badger proposed an addition to this:

1. Divisive Awakening => Mild Crisis (Unraveling)
2. Intellectual Awakening => Revolutionary Crisis (Crisis)
3. Spiritual Awakening => Divisive Crisis (High)
4. Mild Awakening => Triumphant Crisis (Awakening)

Now, I did notice one minor problem, which is that Britain didn't have a civil war in the middle of the 19th Century. So, I'll make one more change:

1. Spiritual Awakening => Bitter Crisis (High)
2. Mild Awakening => Triumphant Crisis (Awakening)
3. Divisive Awakening => Mild Crisis (Unraveling)
4. Intellectual Awakening => Revolutionary Crisis (Crisis)

Of course, every Awakening is, to an extent, Spiritual, Intellectual, and Divisive. However, only sometimes are one of those traits particularly emphasized, and sometimes none of them are.

All of these types will have to be looked over and researched. However, what I've been particularly interested in is the third type. The type I think we're in today.

This MegaUnraveling seems to be inspired because of the results of the past Crisis: A triumphant Hero generation that believes it can do anything. They're the most likely to show hubris of any other Civic archetypes, and they arguably have the most impact on culture.

There are two cases of these generations: Elizabethian Generation, and the GI Generation.

The Elizabethian Generation was essentially an Anglican Generation. They strongly supported the new Church, they strongly supported the Monarchy. They undoubtedly had an influence not only on political issues, but also on that primary cultural issue of the day: religion.

The GI Generation, too, had come to exert a powerful influence on culture. The perpetuation of family values in the newly created suburbs was a symbol not just of material wealth, but of a culture centered around the nuclear family.

The Puritans and the Boomers hated this, to say the least, so they rebelled with huge intensity against their elders. This type of intense generational conflict was not found in other cycles: normally, the Civics just sort of roll over once they see what's happening, and focus more on what they know rather than actively pushing back.

But in these two cycles, the Heros did push back. The Cavaliers (not to be confused with the generation) defended King Charles at all costs, to the point of violence. The GIs, fearing the wrath of the Baby Boomers, suddenly switched parties, as they had been mostly democrat, and elected Nixon to fight the Boomers.

We had an all-out generational war in both cases. In neither case was an interim generation capable of compromising these differences. In other cycles, we had a strongman who stepped in to end the conflict, but not neccessarily tilting towards either one. Andrew Jackson. Teddy Roosevelt. These were all Artists, in the past.

But in these Divisive Awakenings, these Artists are marginalized, and when they do become powerful, they are killed. There can be no compromise generation.

Instead, one side has to win. In the English Civil War, the Puritan Oliver Cromwell stepped in as the victor, finally defeating the Elizabethians and the Elizabethian ideal.

In the most recent Awakening, boomers almost won, against Nixon, but they ultimately lost as GI Ronald Reagan stepped in to solidify GI ideals.

But at the end of it all, the next generations grew tired of the Prophets and their divisive nature. With the Glorious Revolution, there was no attempt to place another Puritan in power. And with this years 4T, we don't want another Boomer.

I believe you got this right the first time. Think about the adjectives that were used to describe the megaturnings.


Mild most accurately describes a high.
Divisive or convulsed most accurately describes an awakening.
Rational intellect supports the individualism that is most intrinsic of an unraveling.
Spiritual zeal is most suitable for all out hegemony and the most discouraging of compromise.


Dominic Flandry pretty much it the nail on the head with most of his original post in the thread he created linked below even if the last paragraph was more personal projection of political preference than presentation of theory.
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...6493#post36493

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We can study cycles in fixed media, so the existance of cycles in the 10,000 year long Agricultural Age (I don't think there were, but assume them for the point of discussion) should be easier to see than ones straddling the Agricultural, Industrial and Information Ages.

They are easier to see. Strauss and Howe identified 16 Anglo-American turnings between 1435 and 1844 with an average length of 25.6 years. I have identified 17 additional Anglo turnings between 992 and 1435 that average 26.1 years in length. Both show the same pattern of successive High-Awakening-Unraveling-Crisis as described by S&H. I have found a fair degree of empirical evidence that strongly support the existence of a repeating pattern with characteristic length of 26 years, which IMO establishes the existence of the 1435-1844 cycle identified by S&H back to the end of the 10^th century. These turnings fit into a megasaeculum scheme I posted about some time ago that defines a ~300 year (or 3-saeculum) cycle that spans 2400 years. I suspect in time I could extend the saeculum all the way back to the 7^th century BC using this megasaeculum as a framework.

For example, can we find cycles in the Japan of the Shoguns? I think that was discussed several years ago, and no one had much luck.

I doubt anyone ever seriously tried. Cycles are necessarily not visible to direct inspection. Otherwise the saeculum would have be detected and described long before S&H were even born. If a cycle exists, then to find it one either needs to look at historical information not previously available, or perform a suitable data transformation that the underlying pattern visible. I don’t believe anyone here now has ever done anything more than direct inspection which must fail.

For example take the price index I posted. Nobody could have used the economic story this index tells as raw data for consideration of cyclical history until the end of the 1950’s because the raw data from which the index was constructed was only assembled then. And indeed the first papers finding cyclical prices in medieval times date from then. Even when you have the index, simple inspection doesn’t show any turnings. You have to transform the data into a different space in which the patterns are easier to see. I transformed the raw price into price distress, inspection of which does show regular fluctuations of generational length.

The religious building index I constructed is an example of a new piece of history. An historian writing before S&H on developments in monasticism would likely describe an handful of important exemplars (for which a lot of information in available) to illustrate developments and discuss his topic using these examples. This sort of a history work does not contain suffiicient detail to discern turnings.

On the other hand, Wikipedia has articles on individual medieval monasteries, many hundreds, maybe even thousands. Obvious a boatload of folks have written articles on monasteries, most of which focus on architecture. Most of these articles have a history section and the often give dates are which successive structures were founded. So, in many cases one can click on an article and in a minute or so write down dates for its founding. It turns out Wikipedia has categories of articles. So there is a page titled Christian monasteries from the 12^th century which contains like 500 links to wiki articles on individual monasteries that have a founding date in the 12^th century. So I click on all the links that don’t have names that are obviously not English to find founding dates for large numbers of British monasteries founded in the 12^th century. I do this for other centuries. And eventually I get a list of 400+ founding dates for Britain spanning the medieval period which I can put into a timeline and perform frequency analysis. I did this and am doing his for church buildings too.

I found patterns in founding frequency that match up with the price patterns suggesting some fluctuation that affects both prices and the monastic/church expansion rate. Not only that but this pattern aligns well with Dave McG’s turning scheme. Finally, the alignment is plausible. High relative prices should indicate a relative food shortage, which should translate to bad economic times. Institutional (or corporate) expansion should proceed more rapidly during good times (low prices) than during bad times (high prices) and this is what is seen. My mechanism for the saeculum posits that a stress cycle interacts with generations to produce social moments (2Ts and 4Ts) when times are hard (stressful) and non social moments (1Ts and 3Ts) when times are better (less stressful). And this is what I observed.

I don’t think any sort of suitable analysis has been done on Japan so is to be expected that no valid saeculum has been found. In no way, shape, or form does this say anything about the existence of a Japanese saeculum. Not finding something because you did not look for it properly does not mean it’s not there.

Note: until there was Wikipedia, and all these people wrote up articles on monasteries, this data collection I did could not be easily done by anyone. That suggests it only became easy to do around 2005-2006 or so. So it is reasonable that nobody has used correlations between foundation rate of medieval buildings and prices to identify these turnings a long time before very recent times. And for all I know, unpublished work along these lines has recently been done and even work that has been published in venues not easily found by Google searches.

Now that mikebert has brought this thread back, perhaps my thoughts on this have a place to emerge again. I was just thinking how forgetful the younger folks here are about our place in history, and how liberating it would be to remember. In spite of building cycles, there's still little doubt from my research that the most significant cycle is the 500-year one. That's the one the defines era and civilizations. There are exceptions to the rule, but the pattern is clear, as I wrote in my book:

http://philosopherswheel.com/fortunes.htm

We are still near the beginning of this cycle; only 120 years in. That means we live in the midst of a morning for humanity. It is a time of awakening, not in the Strauss and Howe sense, but in the sense that the decks have been cleared, and a new civilization era has begun. New life has come, and the old worldview and structures have passed away. We have the amazing new tools, both technical and psychological/spiritual, to create a new world and a new civilization, and to liberate ourselves from all the outdated authorities and forces within and without us that have kept us from being creative and loving. We can create a new world. Wake up; it's morning. All you have to do is feel it.

We boomers could feel it more strongly perhaps when we were young, because it was also a second turning time. But the turning cycles are secondary to the civilization cycle. The latter defines where we are; the former defines the nature of generations, but they come and go much more quickly than civilizations do. The fortunes of one nation are vastly-less significant than the fortunes of civilization. But the popular idea here that we are in a mega-unravelling, is based only on the significance of one nation, the United States of America, and its history and founding in 1776 during the 4T of a supposed mega-crisis. But the USA was simply an expression and natural outgrowth of civilization in its Western European Renaissance/Enlightenment cycle. That cycle ended in the time of transition in the 1890s and the great wars. We live in another new world now, with new worldviews and new powers.

And the supposed mega-turnings don't match the theory. Although the previous saeculum contained civilization's great change of age in its 2T, it was predominantly materialist and collectivist throughout. 2Ts are spiritual and individualist, so the Great Power saeculum could not have been a mega-awakening. And the civil war cycle was individualist and romantic, as well as being severely divided and turbulent. It could not have been a mega-high, which is opposite by nature in all those respects. No proposed mega-turning can possibly explain where we are in history; mega-saeculum are not significant enough to do that.

So let's look higher and deeper, beyond your generation's 3T cynicism, and you can see what a great time of new beginning you live in. Let's get on about creating a new world! It's morning!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Let's get on about creating a new world! It's morning!

I recognize that sentiment... who are you and what have you done with Eric, doppelgänger? Justin exposed you once, this is the second time you've shown your colors! Have you tied Eric up in his basement? Quick who lives in Cali who can check to see if Eric's all right?

What gave you away:



~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I recognize that sentiment... who are you and what have you done with Eric, doppelgänger? Justin exposed you once, this is the second time you've shown your colors! Have you tied Eric up in his basement? Quick who lives in Cali who can check to see if Eric's all right?

What gave you away...

~Chas'88

Sorry, had to cut off the video....

I said morning in civilization, Chas, not morning in America! That was my whole point. The Reagan counter-revolution was nothing but the 3T cycle in the USA; it is ephemeral and meaningless in the long run, although it certainly shaped the views of a lot of Gen Xers, and even some boomers, silents and millies.

No, as you can tell from my book and my siggie, this last post above is the true me! It is what I am all about.

So.... can you feel the new world blooming around you, Chas?

To the best of my knowledge, Japanese turnings have been listed only as far back as the Meiji Restoration.

I think we could use a definition and a description of a Mega-Awakening.

We should also consider a saeculum that is not part of a Mega-Awakening. Presumably, this means a cycle in which only the 2T has anything with an Awakening flavor.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

We should also consider a saeculum that is not part of a Mega-Awakening. Presumably, this means a cycle in which only the 2T has anything with an Awakening flavor.

As I shared Northrop Frye's "outline" for the evolution of literature, which is a rough outline for a Super Saeculum that one can trace that's happened twice now. Once with the classical period, and now a second time since the fall of Rome.

The stages:

Myth
Romance
Mimetic (split into two smaller stages of High Mimetic and Low Mimetic)
Ironic

And they seem to last about somewhere between 400 - 500 years. We recently crossed over into the second Ironic phase we've been in that he can tell, according to Frye.

~Chas'88