I don't know if this has already been covered, but has anybody really thought about why a 3T is an Unraveling? I will suggest that it has to do with the question of what slips through the cracks in the struggle between the Radical Awakening, the Counter-Awakening and the Reaction.

Let's make a list of what unraveled during this past 3T:

1) Fiscal responsibility. The Radical Awakeners tended to support liberal taxes and spending. The Counter-Awakeners (conservatives) preferred less spending (except for military) and reasoned that tax cuts would force liberals to reduce spending. (The Reactionaries just figured, "whatever.") What we ended up with was some tax cuts, while spending grew. Both sides would blame each other for the rising debt.

2) Abstinence. This word was never even in the vocabulary of the Radical Awakeners. Meanwhile, the Counter-Awakeners even while promoting abstinence kept their focus on abortion, as in "At least she kept the baby." The result: even many "social conservatives" felt comfortable with premarital sex.

3) Politeness. The Radical Awakeners have naturally enjoyed pushing boundaries (particularly if they can get a rise out of Counter-Awakeners in the process). Being too focused on political battles to pay attention to manners, Counter-Awakeners responded in kind by supporting right-wing personalities that gave the left a taste of their own medicine. Both sides ended up adopting 1980s' Reactionary music not much different from what Tipper Gore and Susan Baker railed against.

The things that unraveled in the 3T haven't exactly stopped unraveling. However now seems less random and more agenda driven.

Thoughts?

I have no dog in this fight, but

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I disagree, Prophets passing down their own values which people must conform to is very much conformity--it's just been rebranded to be Boomer approved conformity. Rather than conformity to the past civic ideals, Prophets demand that people conform to their beliefs/ideals. Nomads reject that. Civics accept it (for the large part--there will always be dissinters). And Artists stifle under it.

After all, what is speaking in a PC manner, but conformity? And that's just one of the many examples I can think of.

The only anti-conformists I'd say are Nomads. Prophets, Artists, and Civics, all deal with different levels of conformity to ideals. Prophets just get the honor of redefining what ideals to conform to.

~Chas'88

Where I come from "PC" is simply being a polite person rather than a rude jerk. I swear most people who whine about "political correctness" do so because they get their jollies from the attention gotten for being intentionally offensive.

Originally Posted by Kepi

The backlash is going to be awesome.

If the "backlash" is anything like the loads of bigots trolling Reddit and 4chan, it's going to be awful...

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I disagree, Prophets passing down their own values which people must conform to is very much conformity--it's just been rebranded to be Boomer approved conformity. Rather than conformity to the past civic ideals, Prophets demand that people conform to their beliefs/ideals. Nomads reject that. Civics accept it (for the large part--there will always be dissinters). And Artists stifle under it.

After all, what is speaking in a PC manner, but conformity? And that's just one of the many examples I can think of.

The only anti-conformists I'd say are Nomads. Prophets, Artists, and Civics, all deal with different levels of conformity to ideals. Prophets just get the honor of redefining what ideals to conform to.

~Chas'88

I see Millies as the nonconformists here in the 4T. We think the system is broken and needs reform. Most Boomers seem to love how things are running though and this is why we won't get changes until around 2025 or so.

Originally Posted by Odin

If the "backlash" is anything like the loads of bigots trolling Reddit and 4chan, it's going to be awful...

It need not be this way.

What I envisage is the total destruction of the current order. Not simply overturning one political regime in an election, or even an exchange of the ruling class via revolution, but of a complete disintegration of Western society as it is presently constructed: the abolition of Christianity, of the idea of the 'rights of man' as something embodied within the physical person (and as such eternal, unchanging and connected to 'identity'), the repudiation of liberal-capitalism, the destruction of the nation-state.

This is a profoundly negative, nihilating project, the work of centuries. I propose no constructive element; that can be worked out later. But everything solid and static in our lives today is worthy of being put to the flame. And we may well already have begun the process without any conscious agent directing it.

Originally Posted by Einzige

It need not be this way.

What I envisage is the total destruction of the current order. Not simply overturning one political regime in an election, or even an exchange of the ruling class via revolution, but of a complete disintegration of Western society as it is presently constructed: the abolition of Christianity, of the idea of the 'rights of man' as something embodied within the physical person (and as such eternal, unchanging and connected to 'identity'), the repudiation of liberal-capitalism, the destruction of the nation-state.

This is a profoundly negative, nihilating project, the work of centuries. I propose no constructive element; that can be worked out later. But everything solid and static in our lives today is worthy of being put to the flame. And we may well already have begun the process without any conscious agent directing it.

Destroying the concept of rights and freedom of religion will make for a wonderful society.... NOT.
We should trade the flawed system we have now for a more flawed system where rights don't exist.
That should work well.

In other words, replace something with nothing. An atom-ized ex-society. Actually, I expect the rapacious and power hungry would soon impose a new order, and it wouldn't be pretty.

Originally Posted by Odin

I have no dog in this fight, but

Where I come from "PC" is simply being a polite person rather than a rude jerk. I swear most people who whine about "political correctness" do so because they get their jollies from the attention gotten for being intentionally offensive.

I'm not so sure about that. PC is beyond politeness, and stretches all the way to verbal blindness. If Joe Biden uses the term Shylock to evoke the consummate greed of the Shakespearean character, is he being anti-Semitic? I suspect that eveyone knows he's not an anti-Semite, but that's the first reaction that gets raised. There's a similar hyper-sensitivity to anything that may have a racial overtone. An elderly Northerner made a reference to a piece of legislation being a tar-baby (certainly bad form), and did it in a public forum here in Virginia. A panel member mentioned that it was probably unintentional, and for that, his daughter was denied a judgeship. PC, two degrees removed.

I'm not an advocate of using the N word ever, but I'm also incensed by the purposefully thin-skinned response to every supposed slight that passes for public discourse these days. We're human. If the intent is obvious, and not slanderous or officious by design, let it go.

After posting #873 above, I went back and read the chapter on The Third Turning and realized I probably misapplied the term "unraveling." The authors appear rather to be describing the splintering of society towards individualism.

So my next question is, was the recent 3T splintering a characteristic consistent with the 1760s, the 1840s and the 1920s? Or, alternately, was it the product of the Consciousness Revolution, specifically? The reason I ask this is that the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th amendments were all passed by 36 of 48 states during a time of supposed fragmentation. I propose that such consensus was more characteristic of the Great Power Cycle itself.

Originally Posted by JDW

After posting #873 above, I went back and read the chapter on The Third Turning and realized I probably misapplied the term "unraveling." The authors appear rather to be describing the splintering of society towards individualism.

So my next question is, was the recent 3T splintering a characteristic consistent with the 1760s, the 1840s and the 1920s? Or, alternately, was it the product of the Consciousness Revolution, specifically? The reason I ask this is that the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th amendments were all passed by 36 of 48 states during a time of supposed fragmentation. I propose that such consensus was more characteristic of the Great Power Cycle itself.

I tend to think of the 16th through 19th amendments as holdovers from the Missionary Awakening. All of those issues were adapted in whole or in parts by many states during that era and the inertia carried over into the first half of the 3T. However,

Originally Posted by herbal tee

I tend to think of the 16th through 19th amendments as holdovers from the Missionary Awakening. All of those issues were adapted in whole or in parts by many states during that era and the inertia carried over into the first half of the 3T. However,

I was waiting for you to finish your thought.

What do you make of the fact that 46 out of 48 states agreed to ratify Prohibition and that 36 of those (along with the two that never ratified it) agreed to repeal it, when it proved unworkable? When has there been anything approaching that kind of consensus in our saeculum?

I'm further proposing that Atonement saecula are more polarizing, whereas in Advancement saecula there is more of an effort to work together. My thought here is that the Missionaries had all the hubris and patriotism that GIs did, but without the blinders. Likewise, Millennials may end up having all the righteous indignation and nonconformity of Boomers, but without the perceptiveness.

Originally Posted by Einzige

It need not be this way.

What I envisage is the total destruction of the current order. Not simply overturning one political regime in an election, or even an exchange of the ruling class via revolution, but of a complete disintegration of Western society as it is presently constructed: the abolition of Christianity, of the idea of the 'rights of man' as something embodied within the physical person (and as such eternal, unchanging and connected to 'identity'), the repudiation of liberal-capitalism, the destruction of the nation-state.

This is a profoundly negative, nihilating project, the work of centuries. I propose no constructive element; that can be worked out later. But everything solid and static in our lives today is worthy of being put to the flame. And we may well already have begun the process without any conscious agent directing it.

So, essentially the end of Western Civilization as we know it?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'm not so sure about that. PC is beyond politeness, and stretches all the way to verbal blindness. If Joe Biden uses the term Shylock to evoke the consummate greed of the Shakespearean character, is he being anti-Semitic? I suspect that eveyone knows he's not an anti-Semite, but that's the first reaction that gets raised. There's a similar hyper-sensitivity to anything that may have a racial overtone. An elderly Northerner made a reference to a piece of legislation being a tar-baby (certainly bad form), and did it in a public forum here in Virginia. A panel member mentioned that it was probably unintentional, and for that, his daughter was denied a judgeship. PC, two degrees removed.

I'm not an advocate of using the N word ever, but I'm also incensed by the purposefully thin-skinned response to every supposed slight that passes for public discourse these days. We're human. If the intent is obvious, and not slanderous or officious by design, let it go.

Oh, I completely agree that it has gotten over the top in many respects, but on the other hand, that fact should NOT be an excuse for people to be jerks.

PC is not simple curtesy. The distinctiveness of PC is in its anal quality. It's as though someone has a stick up his ass. A Political Correct society has a big stick up its collective ass.

Originally Posted by JDW

I don't know if this has already been covered, but has anybody really thought about why a 3T is an Unraveling?

...

The things that unraveled in the 3T haven't exactly stopped unraveling. However now seems less random and more agenda driven.

Thoughts?

I had to think about this a lot when examining the Micro-Turning theory. What I came up with was best comparing it to the literary structure of most stories:

High: Stasis grows old, while the early beginnings of new ideas are set up under the surface - compare to an Exposition

Awakening: New ideas are discovered, mix and influence one another in a collective congealing - compare to an Inciting Moment

Unraveling: The new ideas stop being discovered but are more developed and begin to clash with one another, but also withdraw from one another to garner ideological purity - compare to Rising action

Crisis: The ideas come head to head - compare to a Climax

High: Ideas stabilize themselves and assert their authority after having "won" - compare to Falling Action & Denoument

A High it should also be noted belongs both to the previous Saeculum and to the new Saeculum.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Odin

Oh, I completely agree that it has gotten over the top in many respects, but on the other hand, that fact should NOT be an excuse for people to be jerks.

No one was. Basic human decency and kindness should still be valued, but that's again basic human decency.

Though I will say that one feature of the last 2T was the opening up of "jerk" culture to a degree of making nearly acceptable and pervasive by the beginning of the Unraveling. It was much more acceptable after the last 2T to be a "jerk" openly than it was prior to that. By the end of the Unraveling we see movements working against that and trying to put the genie back into the bottle, but in the late 2T/early 3T culture, being a jerk openly and honestly was to some degree celebrated as honesty of emotional expressions (Boomer concern) and expression of doubt & cynicism (Xer concern). Combine the two worst aspects of those two features and you get the liberation of "Jerk Culture" as I call it which flourished at the time.

One of the large reasons though that "Jerk Culture" became as "liberated" as it did was in reaction to the Silent Generation. Think about it, it became more acceptable to be an "open & honest" Jerk than it was to be, well a sneaky, back-handed, back-stabbing stereotype of a Silent. In order to understand why Jerk culture was celebrated we have to understand it was in part IMO a reaction against Silents who, while polite, could back-stab, could be manipulative, could be nosy, could be meddling, etc.

Against such boogeymen, "honest" Jerks who "lived and let lived", and thus could be held up in a positive light of "well, at least they're honest".

We're now seeing a big reaction against the pervasiveness of Jerk culture (which flourished in the last 3T) and is now becoming unacceptable, but in order IMO to understand why it became acceptable in the first place we have to understand what it was a reaction against.

Originally Posted by JDW

After posting #873 above, I went back and read the chapter on The Third Turning and realized I probably misapplied the term "unraveling." The authors appear rather to be describing the splintering of society towards individualism.

So my next question is, was the recent 3T splintering a characteristic consistent with the 1760s, the 1840s and the 1920s? Or, alternately, was it the product of the Consciousness Revolution, specifically? The reason I ask this is that the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th amendments were all passed by 36 of 48 states during a time of supposed fragmentation. I propose that such consensus was more characteristic of the Great Power Cycle itself.

It depends upon what form of individualism you're speaking about. The 1920s and the 1660s are both very recognizably similar Unraveling environments and rhymes--both of which are focused on female, political, and sexual liberation as proposed by Nomads. Those two decades should most definitely be compared to one another. Likewise I'd consider comparing the 1650s and the 1910s as being rather similar in terms of those same social more arenas. A good documentary which covers the changes in those arenas.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Einzige

It need not be this way.

What I envisage is the total destruction of the current order. Not simply overturning one political regime in an election, or even an exchange of the ruling class via revolution, but of a complete disintegration of Western society as it is presently constructed: the abolition of Christianity, of the idea of the 'rights of man' as something embodied within the physical person (and as such eternal, unchanging and connected to 'identity'), the repudiation of liberal-capitalism, the destruction of the nation-state.

This is a profoundly negative, nihilating project, the work of centuries. I propose no constructive element; that can be worked out later. But everything solid and static in our lives today is worthy of being put to the flame. And we may well already have begun the process without any conscious agent directing it.

From a larger point of view, the old order has already been destroyed. Western society died in the great wars and the following Awakening. It no longer exists; we live in a world culture.

What is needed now is indeed construction, imagining and building the new order that came out of the Awakening. But Xers need to awaken to that Awakening, instead of continuing to embrace the nihilation expressed in the music of their youth. The new age needs to continue to dawn once again.

Christianity still exists, and will continue to exist. But it has long since already been deposed as the dominant or default world view. Some people may go to church, although fewer people do. Some may retreat into the phony "Christianity" or "Islam" of fundamentalist fanaticism in the red states and the Middle East. But this is nothing but yelling and stomping up and down on top of ruins. Christianity has been deposed and replaced by science, and scientistic materialism is the default world view. It is this that needs to be smashed, but I did not see you mention it in your list above. Nor did I see there the effects of runaway scientific technology, such as global warming and environmental destruction-- which is certainly the greatest problem of our times. Meanwhile the new age world religion is the way of the future. Religion as it exists today needs to be subsumed by real spirituality, based on inner experience rather than obedience to exclusive and irrational doctrines.

I agree, liberal-capitalism and the nation state needs to be repudiated and destroyed. But, like it or not, our era is collectivized, particularly in economic spheres. Our age is one of great masses of people and consequently large organizations, governments and corporations. This age will not go away in our lifetimes, unfortunately, and not for another 400 years; it is the current cycle of civilization, and it is ruled by economic combinations and powers. So, we need to mitigate and reform its worst tendencies. Libertarian economics is a passing phase, and is disappearing; it does not fit the age we live in, and uses slogans of freedom to further enable corporate power and inequality. Nation states are gradually being subsumed into the new world order, and this will continue, even as larger states break into smaller ones. We will need to make sure this new order respects local control and local economics, but locality will still function within the larger world order.

We certainly can't dispense with the rights of "man" (humans), and their violation is still a great problem in places like the reactionary Islamic Middle East, and even in "law and order" America. Humans are souls, not just physical bodies. A soul is a source of movement and thought from within. By definition, it has rights, and violation of rights violates life itself. But what needs to end are the use of these "rights" as a slogan and an excuse to take the rights of others away, such as happens in neo-liberal economics.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

It depends upon what form of individualism you're speaking about. The 1920s and the 1660s are both very recognizably similar Unraveling environments and rhymes--both of which are focused on female, political, and sexual liberation as proposed by Nomads. Those two decades should most definitely be compared to one another. Likewise I'd consider comparing the 1650s and the 1910s as being rather similar in terms of those same social more arenas. A good documentary which covers the changes in those arenas.

~Chas'88

Random thoughts:

Let's think about the 1980s/90s versus the 1910s/20s. The Xer reaction to be ultra-patriotic in contrast with the Boomers, whereas the Lost reaction was to indulge in those things that Prohibition did not allow. Those are quite different.

Also, I am sure you are aware that the Great Awakening united the colonies, whereas the Antebellum Awakening split the country. [Considering that Transcendentalism came very late in the awakening, I prefer my term better.] I think that these two events highlight was is typical for their respective (advancement/atonement) qualities.

As for your comment, nomad female liberation was strictly a reaction to the Puritan awakening, whereas it was actually aided by the Missionary awakening.

Another interesting point I'd like to bring up: The Klan was the product of the Antebellum Counter-Awakening, became part of the Missionary Radical Awakening, and emerged as nothing more than a Reaction to the Consciousness Revolution.

I noticed that this Reddit thread really exhibits the difference between Advancement and Atonement thinking.

the link title is an Advancement attitude:

"Every problem can be solved by engineering! Who cares about ethics?"

While many comments are Atonement in nature. Here is mine:

These people terrify me. This is the kind of thinking that leads to horrible, horrible evils in the name of "progress". It is like they are a caricature of the technological triumphalism of the 1950s.

And another poster who is an actual Bio-Ethicist:

Ha. I do bioethics for a living and can confirm that this is what 75% of tech/bio/whatever researchers believe. And then they do bad things, the public gets upset, and the tech/bio/whatever people whine - "how were we to know?!" Because we told you this would happen, dumbdumbs.

And I responded with a famous line from "Jurassic Park":

"Your scientists were so busy trying to figure out if they could they didn't stop to think about if they should!"

-Ian Malcom.

This thought came to me today: Advancement cycles involve the rational acceptance of "necessary evil," whereas during atonement cycles the very issue becomes the basis for polarization. During the Reformation, for example, state sponsorship of Protestant churches was a necessary evil to oppose the Catholic Church, but during the Puritan cycle there was division between those who saw the Crown meddling in church affairs as evil and those who saw it as righteous!

Rational discussion regarding the evils of slavery was actually easiest during the Revolutionary cycle. Most of the Founding Fathers including many slave owners recognized it as evil, but also as necessary for the survival of the country and for unity's sake. England was actually able to abolish slavery peacefully because they were able to somewhat rationally determine that it was not necessary. It was not until the Civil War cycle that the South had to dig in with the idea that there was something righteous and good about slavery - or more importantly the southern way of life that was built around it. No southerner could admit that he was fighting for the expressed purpose of keeping people in bondage.

During the Great cycle, war and atomic weapons became necessary evils in order to defeat the enemy and advance the country. Even abortion was eventually seen as a necessary evil by some. Since the Consciousness Revolution, the Left has generally seen war as evil, while the Right has seen it as righteous. Meanwhile, the Right has seen abortion as evil, while the Left has seen the "Pro-Choice" cause as Righteous. All other issues seem to fit into this mold as well.

Could it be that in the next cycle forced euthanasia could become a necessary evil to solve issues of scarcity? Your thoughts, ladies and gentlemen?

Originally Posted by JDW

Could it be that in the next cycle forced euthanasia could become a necessary evil to solve issues of scarcity? Your thoughts, ladies and gentlemen?

Over my dead b... oh wait...

But seriously, that is something that utterly horrifies me, and IMO anyone who thinks it is a good idea needs to have their sanity checked. But I am an autistic person, so I'm biased for obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by Odin

Over my dead b... oh wait...

But seriously, that is something that utterly horrifies me, and IMO anyone who thinks it is a good idea needs to have their sanity checked. But I am an autistic person, so I'm biased for obvious reasons.

I doubt that euthanasia will ever be OK, except in the form of voluntary suicide. I see that becoming popular as lives extend to the point that our last years are merely healthcare enabled suffering. The issue, in that form, is freedom versus slavery.

Several states are already on the voluntary suicide bandwagon. There will be a lot of heated argument about line drawing, for instance:

• Who is competent to decide?
• Can "dying" wills be used to permit advance directives?
• What will be considered adequate grounds for the practice?
• Who may assist?

Feel free to add to the list.

Originally Posted by JDW

I don't know if this has already been covered, but has anybody really thought about why a 3T is an Unraveling? I will suggest that it has to do with the question of what slips through the cracks in the struggle between the Radical Awakening, the Counter-Awakening and the Reaction.

Let's make a list of what unraveled during this past 3T:

1) Fiscal responsibility. The Radical Awakeners tended to support liberal taxes and spending. The Counter-Awakeners (conservatives) preferred less spending (except for military) and reasoned that tax cuts would force liberals to reduce spending. (The Reactionaries just figured, "whatever.") What we ended up with was some tax cuts, while spending grew. Both sides would blame each other for the rising debt.

2) Abstinence. This word was never even in the vocabulary of the Radical Awakeners. Meanwhile, the Counter-Awakeners even while promoting abstinence kept their focus on abortion, as in "At least she kept the baby." The result: even many "social conservatives" felt comfortable with premarital sex.

3) Politeness. The Radical Awakeners have naturally enjoyed pushing boundaries (particularly if they can get a rise out of Counter-Awakeners in the process). Being too focused on political battles to pay attention to manners, Counter-Awakeners responded in kind by supporting right-wing personalities that gave the left a taste of their own medicine. Both sides ended up adopting 1980s' Reactionary music not much different from what Tipper Gore and Susan Baker railed against.

The things that unraveled in the 3T haven't exactly stopped unraveling. However now seems less random and more agenda driven.

Thoughts?

I would say that the biggest thing that unraveled during the 3T was the idea of job security. How could you have ever left out this one?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I doubt that euthanasia will ever be OK, except in the form of voluntary suicide. I see that becoming popular as lives extend to the point that our last years are merely healthcare enabled suffering. The issue, in that form, is freedom versus slavery.

"Ever" is a strong word when you consider that abortion has already made the transition from taboo to a necessary evil to a woman's right.

Under the current saeculum we cannot imagine society consciously approving of the taking of an innocent human life. That is, either one has to be opposed to it or one must argue either that it's not an actual human life (in the case of abortion advocates) or that the person is not innocent (as is the case with death penalty advocates). If the pattern of history holds true, the next Prophet generation will not think in this manner. Depending on how they judge the moral compass that Millennials try to impress upon them, they may accept forced euthanasia, even while privately admitting that it is wrong, if it can be argued that it is necessary for the common good.