Originally Posted by JDW

"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.

I sincerely hope you don't equate the two issues, but you're right that "not ever" or "never" are very high bars to reach.

Originally Posted by JDW ...

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.

I seriously doubt this. The line of history points towards a less violent bent. Most of the world has abandoned the death penalty, and we will too ... eventually. I'm less certain that mercy killing will disappear, but I'm comfortable believing that it will be restricted to volunteers. Of course, belief isn't proof or even evidence.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I sincerely hope you don't equate the two issues, but you're right that "not ever" or "never" are very high bars to reach.

It's not my intention to go there. I try (though often unsuccessfully) to rise above the polarizing aspects of an atonement-driven society, particularly on this discussion board. My purpose here is to anticipate the future - not so much to have it all figured out, but to understand it as it happens.

That being said, I may end up being one of the few old geezers that actually gets the new advancement prophets, even if their values are completely different from mine. Society under the atonement paradigm may not equate abortion and forced euthanasia, but what if the advancement prophets see find their justification for the latter in the former. For a parallel, how many Boomers took their parents' cigarettes, social drinks and flirting as justification for their drug use and free love? Or how many Boomers took society's science experiments as precedent for experimenting with new religions?

The Consciousness Revolution did not happen in a vacuum. GIs had allowed themselves to become anesthetized to the point that they did not understand how a feeling generation would be influenced by their actions. The reverse will be true in the not-so-distant future. The coming 1T will likely be a period in which Millennial values virtually escape intellectual scrutiny. During that time, a new generation of thinkers will be influenced by a society that is clueless to what they are observing.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I seriously doubt this. The line of history points towards a less violent bent.

The expectation of history being linear is what drives the turnings and makes awakenings especially a surprise. In my first iteration of the eight-stroke cycle, I used the term moral saeculum to refer to atonement and doctrinal saeculum to refer to advancement.

Note the last three advancement cycles, each of which involved a doctrinal shift involving three notable movements:

Reformation: Transition from papal to quasi-Old Testament mindset, introduced
• Lutheranism
• Anglicanism
• Calvinism

Awakening: Transition from quasi-Old Testament to New Testament mindset, introduced
• Wesleyan Methodism
• Evangelical Calvinism
• Deism/Unitarianism

Great Power: Transition from New Testament to secular mindset, introduced
• Progressivism/"Modernism"
• Fundamentalism
• Pentecostalism

Who can say for sure what is next?

Originally Posted by JDW

The expectation of history being linear is what drives the turnings and makes awakenings especially a surprise. In my first iteration of the eight-stroke cycle, I used the term moral saeculum to refer to atonement and doctrinal saeculum to refer to advancement.

Note the last three advancement cycles, each of which involved a doctrinal shift involving three notable movements:

Reformation: Transition from papal to quasi-Old Testament mindset, introduced
• Lutheranism
• Anglicanism
• Calvinism

Awakening: Transition from quasi-Old Testament to New Testament mindset, introduced
• Wesleyan Methodism
• Evangelical Calvinism
• Deism/Unitarianism

Great Power: Transition from New Testament to secular mindset, introduced
• Progressivism/"Modernism"
• Fundamentalism
• Pentecostalism

Who can say for sure what is next?

Looking on a broader scale, worldwide religiosity is down dramatically, and is falling here too. Where it's strong, and especially where it's growing, the society is in flux. Religion is always a good point of retreat when the physical world becomes oppressive.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Looking on a broader scale, worldwide religiosity is down dramatically, and is falling here too. Where it's strong, and especially where it's growing, the society is in flux. Religion is always a good point of retreat when the physical world becomes oppressive.

Or until a society proves itself to be so spiritually dead & materially obsessed that it needs a new direction (i.e. the emergence of a new Religion).

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Looking on a broader scale, worldwide religiosity is down dramatically, and is falling here too. Where it's strong, and especially where it's growing, the society is in flux. Religion is always a good point of retreat when the physical world becomes oppressive.

I'm not exactly sure what your point you are trying to make, but want to clarify that "doctrine" is not limited to what you might think of as religion. The dominant doctrines of each of the last four advancement/atonement cycles have been Papal (which may or may not be the precise term I want to use) -> Calvinist -> Wesleyan -> Progressive. Progressive will be replaced by something. There is no guarantee that either one of us will like it.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Or until a society proves itself to be so spiritually dead & materially obsessed that it needs a new direction (i.e. the emergence of a new Religion).

~Chas'88

We all need to believe in something. Some beliefs are rooted in fact and data. Others, in feelings and impressions. Since we're still fundamental animals, operating at the instinct level at least partially, stresses tend to trigger feel-good responses. Religion hasn't been around forever for no reason.

Originally Posted by JDW

I'm not exactly sure what your point you are trying to make, but want to clarify that "doctrine" is not limited to what you might think of as religion. The dominant doctrines of each of the last four advancement/atonement cycles have been Papal (which may or may not be the precise term I want to use) -> Calvinist -> Wesleyan -> Progressive. Progressive will be replaced by something. There is no guarantee that either one of us will like it.

I won't argue with that at all. As I noted in my last post, we are not yet pure intellect. Feelings still lead us around, and societal stresses are ideal triggers.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We all need to believe in something. Some beliefs are rooted in fact and data. Others, in feelings and impressions. Since we're still fundamental animals, operating at the instinct level at least partially, stresses tend to trigger feel-good responses. Religion hasn't been around forever for no reason.

My comment was mostly about how people need to believe in things. When one spiritual idea has been taken as far as it can go to the point that it has become bankrupt then it is inevitable something has to emerge to replace it.

When the Romans began turning their own emperors into gods, that arguably began the bankrupt period which laid the ground for the spread of Christianity to eventually overtake the Empire.

Originally Posted by JDW

The expectation of history being linear is what drives the turnings and makes awakenings especially a surprise. In my first iteration of the eight-stroke cycle, I used the term moral saeculum to refer to atonement and doctrinal saeculum to refer to advancement.

Note the last three advancement cycles, each of which involved a doctrinal shift involving three notable movements:

Reformation: Transition from papal to quasi-Old Testament mindset, introduced
• Lutheranism
• Anglicanism
• Calvinism

Awakening: Transition from quasi-Old Testament to New Testament mindset, introduced
• Wesleyan Methodism
• Evangelical Calvinism
• Deism/Unitarianism

Great Power: Transition from New Testament to secular mindset, introduced
• Progressivism/"Modernism"
• Fundamentalism
• Pentecostalism

Who can say for sure what is next?

The Great Power saeculum also saw the rise of New Thought and theosophy, just as the previous civil war saeculum had introduced romanticism and the transcendentalists. These were precursors and influences on the "new age" consciousness revolution. So, a shift is happening among some people away from old-thought Christianity that is authority-based and outer-directed, worshiping a separate deity, to a realization that the divine is within and connects us to all.

Advancement and Atonement are not accurate labels. As I have pointed out, there were many advancements during the "atonement" saeculum now reaching its end. Just as there were many atonements in the Great Power and other cycles. What you call the progress in each saeculum, atonement or advancement, is arbitrary. There is a double rhythm, but those terms do not describe it well.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

My comment was mostly about how people need to believe in things. When one spiritual idea has been taken as far as it can go to the point that it has become bankrupt then it is inevitable something has to emerge to replace it.

When the Romans began turning their own emperors into gods, that arguably began the bankrupt period which laid the ground for the spread of Christianity to eventually overtake the Empire.

I like that idea. I don't call it "a need to believe in something," but people have a need to relate to larger eternal realities and purposes and to seek ultimates, rather than just be satisfied with the physical, transitory needs. So, when a religion no longer satisfies these needs sufficiently for people in a particular society or saeculum, something will replace it.

Mark and Lennon wrote:

We all need to believe in something. Some beliefs are rooted in fact and data. Others, in feelings and impressions. Since we're still fundamental animals, operating at the instinct level at least partially, stresses tend to trigger feel-good responses. Religion hasn't been around forever for no reason..... we are not yet pure intellect. Feelings still lead us around, and societal stresses are ideal triggers.

From another point of view, "belief" is just a substitute for not having knowledge yet. Religion in its spiritual basis, is not based on feeling or belief alone, but on knowledge. People have mystical or transcendent experiences that convey knowledge to them about reality. As Deepak Chopra has said, "religion is belief in other peoples' experiences; spirituality is having your own." The goal is not to become pure intellect; reason alone does not provide truth. It is more accurate to say that we are still evolving toward greater wholeness, in all our faculties, and in relation to a greater whole.

And "feeling" can also be given the status of knowledge. It depends on what you are using these words for. Feelings or emotions can be based on physical instincts and fear-responses, and these can be expressed in religion, war, economics and so on; but humans also have finer feelings that convey knowledge, such as empathy, compassion, wonder, awe, intuition, psychic impressions, etc.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Advancement and Atonement are not accurate labels. As I have pointed out, there were many advancements during the "atonement" saeculum now reaching its end. Just as there were many atonements in the Great Power and other cycles. What you call the progress in each saeculum, atonement or advancement, is arbitrary. There is a double rhythm, but those terms do not describe it well.

Let me clarify again: The terms have more to do with which one society tends to make the conscious priority. Of course there can be advancement while society focuses on atonement, and vice versa. It’s just that when both ideas come into conflict, the one that society is not focused on will take a back seat. (As I mentioned above, the British “atoned” for slavery at the end of their advancement cycle – because they could.)

This is as good a time as any to share my thoughts that certain aspects of the Consciousness Revolution were predetermined by the end of WWII. Given the do-whatever-it-takes-to-win American mindset, it was inevitable that the next awakening generation would question the necessity of war, as well as the effects of nuclear, chemical and biological innovations on the environment. It would also seem that eliminating racial and ethnic prejudice was bound to be an issue.

What was not inevitable was that Boomers would be outright rebellious. That was determined by the events of the American High. The failure for the most part would belong to the churches. Christian ministers should have seen these issues coming, but they did little to address them. In fact, it could be argues that church attendance was often a show that Americans were better than the atheistic Soviets. As Eisenhower is reported to have said, “Our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply-felt religious faith, and I don't care what it is.”

In contrast, consider the previous 1Ts in which Heroes prepared the awakeners: Puritans in Merrie England grew up with the newly translated KJV Bible in their homes. Awakeners, such as George Whitefield, were influenced by Matthew Henry’s commentary, or by Cotton Mather in the case of Benjamin Franklin. Transcendentals were prepared by Francis Asbury and the colonial circuit rider preachers. Missionaries were prepared by Dwight Moody’s emphasis on evangelism.

I am inclined now to regard John Wycliffe as a Hero that consolidated William of Ockham’s Advancement / Doctrinal position of “Apostolic Poverty” and took it to a much greater level. Just before he died of a stroke, in 1384, Wycliffe was able to translate much of the Bible into the common language, and others continued to do so after his death. A whole new generation of Lollards would awaken as a result. Here is my working addition to the Late Medieval Saeculum:

The Lollard Persecution/Oldcastle’s Revolt/Hussite Wars (Second Turning, 1410-1434) began with the 1410 burning at the stake of John Badby, a layman and craftsman who refused to renounce his Lollardy. He was the first layman executed in England for the crime of heresy. After heading a failed Lollard conspiracy, John Oldcastle was hanged in 1417. In Bohemia meanwhile, following Jan Hus’ martyrdom in 1415, the Hussite Wars (1419-1434) ended with the Ultraquist faction defeating the Taborites and making peace with the Roman Church.

As others have pointed out, the Generation/Turning theory becomes more difficult the further back in history we go – the reason being that we are missing a lot of information, especially birth years. I’m fairly certain, however, that 13th century English history tells the story of an Atonement cycle that begs to be called the “Magna Carta Saeculum.” Note that the reform (in this case by the Barons) was directed toward the State and not the Church. Without offering hard boundaries, let me suggest guidelines for determining them:

Second Turning: This should definitely include the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 and the First Barons’ War (1215–1217) and could include up to 1225 when Henry III reissued the Magna Carta.

Third Turning: This could begin anytime after 1217, with King John dead and with divided baron interests temporally set aside to support new king Henry. It would end by 1258.

Fourth Turning: This would almost have to include 1258, when Henry was forced to reissue the Magna Carta and certainly includes the Second Barons’ War 1264-1267.

First Turning: Now that temporal reforms had been made, a new Prophet generation was born that included William of Ockham (born c. 1287), who would grow up to challenge the Church on an intellectual level with “Apostolic Poverty,” and Thomas Bradwardine (born c. 1290), whose De Causa Dei would influence John Wycliffe (Hero, born c. 1330).

Turning/generation theory becomes more difficult further back in history for other reasons, too. Far fewer people were involved in turnings and generations before the age of revolution. People did not change much between generations, and there were no generation gaps. Turnings develop when there is a storm; like a hurricane. It is the storm of progress; of people breaking away from the past and pursuing new lives than what their parents did. Turnings speed up too in modern times for that reason. So there are patterns discernible in the ancient and medieval worlds, but agreement is more difficult and the turnings harder to define.

Boomers were more rebellious in youth because they were more modern, and progress had happened. More seemed possible, and more authority could be questioned. The Churches were in decline, but therefore they did not confine the boomers within such outdated approaches to spirituality.

For the record, I am purposely looking into this independent of Mikebert's research and plan to reconcile the results later.

Originally Posted by JDW

What was not inevitable was that Boomers would be outright rebellious. That was determined by the events of the American High. The failure for the most part would belong to the churches. Christian ministers should have seen these issues coming, but they did little to address them. In fact, it could be argues that church attendance was often a show that Americans were better than the atheistic Soviets. As Eisenhower is reported to have said, “Our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply-felt religious faith, and I don't care what it is.”

In contrast, consider the previous 1Ts in which Heroes prepared the awakeners: Puritans in Merrie England grew up with the newly translated KJV Bible in their homes. Awakeners, such as George Whitefield, were influenced by Matthew Henry’s commentary, or by Cotton Mather in the case of Benjamin Franklin. Transcendentals were prepared by Francis Asbury and the colonial circuit rider preachers. Missionaries were prepared by Dwight Moody’s emphasis on evangelism.

Ahem... Billy Graham. His Great Revival Movement (specifically his Los Angeles 1949 Tent Revival) was what exactly did what I bolded in your comment. Ike was atheist or at least agnostic (and not baptized) until Graham nudged him into accepting his wife Mamie's faith. Billy Graham's popularity and message (he had a lot to say about how the atheism of the Soviet Union) is what made that occur. If you want more info on that period in American Religious history, watch this episode of the documentary God in America: Episode 5: The Soul of a Nation. A lot of the success of this movement was the fact that in 1949 the Soviets had successfully tested an atomic bomb and the Cold War began in full, with Americans searching for something to differentiate themselves from the Soviet Union. As such a marriage between religion and politics incomprehensible to our founding fathers became the answer...

And once religion marries politics, it becomes a proponent of the state... and we all know how certain Boomers felt about the state.


As for Prophets...

I think Prophet archetypes could be relatively easily categorized into one of two general "types". The religious and the cultural. Both types exist in all Prophet generations, it just really depends upon how "well-off" as a nation you are for the balance of how much of each type you'll have.

Wealthier nations produce more cultural prophets who engage in an intense questioning of traditional values.

Poorer nations produce more religious prophets who engage in splinter groups of religious values in an attempt to keep the traditional values fresh or to revitalize them (all those monastic movements of the Medieval world: Cistercians for example).

As you can see we got both types of Prophets in this past Awakening, it's just the cultural prophets came out hard hitting early on and were of a larger dominance than the religious prophets. The religious prophets came out later on and took advantage of the Cultural prophets' splintering to move their agenda forward.

For the first time in American history, I'd argue the Consciousness Revolution was an Awakening where Cultural Prophets could outweigh or outnumber the Religious Prophets. In the Missionary Awakening, the split was more even-handed, in the Consciousness Revolution--the cultural ones easily had a majority.

This realization really hit me upon looking at the Roman history--for centuries it chugged along with examples of saeculums, but then suddenly in the Late Roman Republic an example of an outright culturally-dominant Prophet generation emerged and threw the Romans for a loop as they questioned the values that had made Rome and the Republic great to begin with. Such culturally-dominant Prophets then appear much more frequently from there on until the fall of the Western Roman Empire--the last cultural Prophets before the fall of the Western Roman Empire had adopted Germanic fashion and mannerisms (tight pants... noticeable mustaches & long beards, leathers, long hair, etc.)... a kind of foretelling of what was to come... in a way.

After that, when you finally have the sources to determine generations again (at least in Saxon England circa Mikebert's analysis) in the Medieval Europe, we're back to very religious-dominant Prophet generations, with cultural Prophets either being unknown or individuals who are ignored and considered eccentrics.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

This realization really hit me upon looking at the Roman history--for centuries it chugged along with examples of saeculums, but then suddenly in the Late Roman Republic an example of an outright culturally-dominant Prophet generation emerged and threw the Romans for a loop as they questioned the values that had made Rome and the Republic great to begin with. Such culturally-dominant Prophets then appear much more frequently from there on until the fall of the Western Roman Empire--the last cultural Prophets before the fall of the Western Roman Empire had adopted Germanic fashion and mannerisms (tight pants... noticeable mustaches & long beards, leathers, long hair, etc.)... a kind of foretelling of what was to come... in a way.

After that, when you finally have the sources to determine generations again (at least in Saxon England circa Mikebert's analysis) in the Medieval Europe, we're back to very religious-dominant Prophet generations, with cultural Prophets either being unknown or individuals who are ignored and considered eccentrics.

~Chas'88

Interesting. According to Ian Morris in his book Why The West Rules, For Now the Classical Mediterranean during the last 2 centuries BC was on a path of exponential societal development, reaching 46 points on Morris's scale of social development before the ecological constraints of pre-industrial agricultural societies caused social development to abruptly plateau around AD 50. After AD 200 social development started falling and would drop down to around 30 during the Middle Ages. Western Eurasia would not reach those levels again until 1750.

China would reach 46 points during the Song dynasty and came very close to industrialization, but then the Jurchens and Mongols screwed things up.

I think we just found an objective threshold, here.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

For the first time in American history, I'd argue the Consciousness Revolution was an Awakening where Cultural Prophets could outweigh or outnumber the Religious Prophets. In the Missionary Awakening, the split was more even-handed, in the Consciousness Revolution--the cultural ones easily had a majority.

This realization really hit me upon looking at the Roman history--for centuries it chugged along with examples of saeculums, but then suddenly in the Late Roman Republic an example of an outright culturally-dominant Prophet generation emerged and threw the Romans for a loop as they questioned the values that had made Rome and the Republic great to begin with. Such culturally-dominant Prophets then appear much more frequently from there on until the fall of the Western Roman Empire--the last cultural Prophets before the fall of the Western Roman Empire had adopted Germanic fashion and mannerisms (tight pants... noticeable mustaches & long beards, leathers, long hair, etc.)... a kind of foretelling of what was to come... in a way.
~Chas'88

Maybe these cultural prophets result in different kinds 1Ts and civic generations than when religious ones are dominant?

But anyway, I've also wondered why boomers as a whole seemed so much more rebellious and questioning and breaking with tradition than the few prophet generations that came before them. I figured it had to do with more wealth and prosperity.

Reaching 46 points about 1750? The next Prophets would be the ones who most resembled the Boomers. After the Transcendentals came the Missionaries, who over all differed in tone from both Transies and Boomers-the double rhythm at work.

BTW, the first steam boat appeared about a quarter of a century after 1750. The 46 points may be just at the thresh hold for industrialization, but this may not take hold.

As for those Roman era Prophets who copied Germanic styles-could they be considered a variation on hippies?

Originally Posted by hkq999

Maybe these cultural prophets result in different kinds 1Ts and civic generations than when religious ones are dominant?

But anyway, I've also wondered why boomers as a whole seemed so much more rebellious and questioning and breaking with tradition than the few prophet generations that came before them. I figured it had to do with more wealth and prosperity.

That's a good question. Yes, prosperity had a lot to do with the Boomers being who we are. We also grew-up in a sterile age, where we were expected to remain less worldly because the adults were in charge of that. It was comfortable inside the bubble, but the taste of freedom that came when it burst was intoxicating. Add freedom to naivete, with the wherewithal to be as idiotic as we wanted to be, and the rest is history.

For all of that, we did excel. You might ask, to what end?

Or rather, at what?

Originally Posted by Kepi

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

That's a good question. Yes, prosperity had a lot to do with the Boomers being who we are. We also grew-up in a sterile age, where we were expected to remain less worldly because the adults were in charge of that. It was comfortable inside the bubble, but the taste of freedom that came when it burst was intoxicating. Add freedom to naivete, with the wherewithal to be as idiotic as we wanted to be, and the rest is history.

For all of that, we did excel. You might ask, to what end?

Or rather, at what?

We got educated at the highest rate ever, and the offshoot of that are companies like Microsoft and Apple, and major advances in healthcare like microsurgery. In the arts, which I'll address loosely, we created a huge volume of popular music and a whole lot of cinema eye-candy. Feel free to argue that we're less artsy than the Silents, but we did deliver.

Then again, we also did some nasty stuff.

Yeah, I don't want to completely take away from the pop culture of the boomers, which was pretty much your crowning achievement, but uh, come on. A lot of it was either done by late Silents, and/or shamelessly ripped off from folk and the blues.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We got educated at the highest rate ever, and the offshoot of that are companies like Microsoft and Apple, and major advances in healthcare like microsurgery. In the arts, which I'll address loosely, we created a huge volume of popular music and a whole lot of cinema eye-candy. Feel free to argue that we're less artsy than the Silents, but we did deliver.

Then again, we also did some nasty stuff.

I must have picked up some snark from my dad. In that, even though I've written a number of times he was a wanna be Boomer, in that, he was a Silent. One of his snark elements was regarding "goddam PhDs!"

When the high tech hallowed halls got flooded with a bunch of newly minted boomer scientists and engineers during the late 60s and early 70s, he would bitch about what a bunch of know it alls they were, how much they loved to debate everything to the nth degree, and meanwhile, often didn't know their assholes from holes in the ground. Now that is some real snark there old man ... LOL!

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Ahem... Billy Graham. His Great Revival Movement (specifically his Los Angeles 1949 Tent Revival) was what exactly did what I bolded in your comment. Ike was atheist or at least agnostic (and not baptized) until Graham nudged him into accepting his wife Mamie's faith. Billy Graham's popularity and message (he had a lot to say about how the atheism of the Soviet Union) is what made that occur. If you want more info on that period in American Religious history, watch this episode of the documentary God in America: Episode 5: The Soul of a Nation. A lot of the success of this movement was the fact that in 1949 the Soviets had successfully tested an atomic bomb and the Cold War began in full, with Americans searching for something to differentiate themselves from the Soviet Union. As such a marriage between religion and politics incomprehensible to our founding fathers became the answer...

And once religion marries politics, it becomes a proponent of the state... and we all know how certain Boomers felt about the state.

Thanks for the link, Chas. We need a thread just for this PBS series. Has anybody started one yet?