I've mentioned this before, but it deserves its own thread; especially considering that it now throws new light on the dimensions of our potential, and our current failure.

Others here have written about megacycles, though S&H did not in T4T or Generations. A saeculum is a cycle in the life of a particular nation or culture. It is based around the return of conditions after the length of a human life. It probably has different timing in different countries. Megacycles might be based on them, but consist of perhaps 4 or 5 saecula.

The cycle of civilization is different. My research about it was based in astrology (planetary cycles), but other authors such as Arnold Toynbee and Brooks Adams have written about the cycle as driven by civilization's own inner dynamics and processes of growth and decay. Even my art history teacher gave us a rundown on these cycles as they have occured in art history.

The main difference is, this cycle is international, and civilizations go through it simultaneously. They may be at different stages in the process, but only because they may exist through several cycles, if they survive that long-- and one civilization may be undergoing its first cycle, another its second, etc. after a period of internal death and rebirth in another form. For example, the Roman Republic reinvented itself as the Empire, and in the Renaissance European civilization transformed itself from Christendom into global imperialism.

There is a period of birth out of chaos and destruction, and new creative energy and inspiration is released at the same time. This is the new moon of the cycle (specifically Neptune conjunct/aligned with Pluto every 493 years). This matures into a golden age about 100 years later that includes magnificent art, and a gathering together of political power in different countries or empires. Coming out of the chaos, there is still a degree of instability which limits what the nation can do, and this chaos might get worse again during the following century. But some nations get it together and have their golden age during this second century.

As the 3rd century begins there is an urge to expansion, art gets more exhuberant and dynamic, and the stability is enough that great projects can be done. The greatest temples are built during this 3rd century. Stability leads to increased crystalization, however, and concentrations of power. Often at the midpoint there is some kind of schism, or the breakdown process begins, as the civilization gets too stiff and begins to lose the roots of its early inspiration. Still, this is often the time of the highest achievements, and often this is when science makes its greatest advances. This is the full moon of the cycle, marked by the Neptune-Pluto opposition. As the 3rd century ends though, civilization begins to decline. It breaks down into civil war or invasion; or in better cycles, a time of tranquility, pleasure, and decadent complacency. Often during this 4th century the new ideas and fruits of the civilization are distributed over a wider area and among the people. This is a time of dissemination and implementation of ideas by states and emperors, such as "enlightened despots." As the 4th century ends, often a revolution begins. Or, the power of the state may revive, and it makes advances or developments that sow the seeds of the future cycle. Art shows dramatic exaggeration of feelings and portrays tragedy, adventure and wistful romance. The process of breakdown accelerates as the 5th century progresses. Chaos develops, and there are many revolts among the people, peasants, workers, etc. New economic arrangements often result, and technology advances. The forces of internal destruction are on the rise, and huge invasions and movements of peoples occur. Realism dominates the arts.

Dates and further descriptions here:
http://philosopherswheel.com/fortunes.htm

We are in the golden age phase of the cycle, the conjunction having occured in 1892. We in America have now blown our chance to have a golden age in our time, since we decided to direct our energies instead into war, useless scandals, trickle-down economics and divisive class wars by the upper class against the lower class. Our nation has not come together as it had the potential to do in the 1960s, and move into greatness. However, a renaissance has occured on the local and personal level. This was the launching of a New Age, the human potential movement, the new paradigm, multi-media arts, psychedelia and counter-cultures. It was not given the chance or the energy needed to develop into a great civilization. But perhaps America may be one of those nations that has its golden age somewhat later in the cycle, just like the Elizabethan Age came about half a century after the Renaissance era in England.

To a large extent, America's place in the cycle of civilization is embedded in the larger cycle of the West, which began in the Renaissance and ended in the great world wars. A true golden age has not really emerged out of it in our current cycle; and if it does, it may be global in scope. Our European civilization, still led by Europe-- with America remaining its backward backwater-- is now in a new phase of global cultural leadership, rather than leadership as a set of great political, imperial and economic powers.

It is clear that this mega-cycle does not depend too much on the saeculum, which is only the cycle of a particular nation-- much like the cycle of an individual, which we can read in a birthchart. There is no golden age or renaissance period in the American saeculum itself, as it currently exists. A "high" in our nation is obviously not a golden age, but a time of spiritual death and materialism. If there was a golden age in our cycle, it might occur in the third turning, or perhaps the second. But our third turnings are culture wars, rather than times of cultural achievement. And our first turnings are mostly times of material or political accomplishment only.

This indicates that our nation may not be mature enough, or creative enough, even to have a golden age. We'd rather fritter away our energies in division and superficial squabbles. Our nation is based primarily on material and political aspirations, and the political side has now failed. Not only that, now our economic foundations are shattered too. It is tough for a society to have a golden age in the midst of a 4T. In the longer megacycle though, we are still in the period of renaissance or golden age, but are entering a time when it is less powerful. We can't yet experience a time when our nation is both unified and dedicated to higher more-creative and spiritual pursuits-- periods that all great civilizations have had. We had the potential in many ways, but have been unable to use it because of our delusions.

The saeculum does not depend on astrological cycles, or on those of the cycle of civilization. It is based on generations, and the archetypal lengths of human life and generations. Still, it is evident to me that the other cycles have their influence, and many patterns can be seen that influence the saeculum. I have posted on these before. Our saeculum is first-of-all dependent on the times of our colonial and national birth. It recurs according to the 84-year cycle of Uranus to its original place. But it also jives to some extent with the signs occupied by Uranus. This is a cycle I noticed before reading anything in Generations or T4T. As Uranus has descended, as it were, into the early signs of the zodiac, periods of brillance in the arts and spirituality have faded, and economic concerns have begun to predominate. This also happens with Neptune, and in many civilizations. In the case of Uranus, descent into the early signs Aries, Taurus etc. has coincided with the onset of 4T. That's where we are now.

The problem with all of this, Eric, is that I can't see any evidence that there IS a cycle of civilizations. Civilizations follow very different patterns and have very different life-spans. Consider just a few examples:

Rome: founded as city-state on a salt route, emerged as a prosperous trading/agricultural city. Threatened by neighbors, developed a strong military. Dominated for a time by a monarchy of foreign origins. The monarchy was verthrown and an oligarchic republic established. A series of conflicts both internal and external occurred. Internal conflicts were a fairly typical class war between the hereditary nobility (Patricians) and the rising merchant class (Plebeians). The strength of Rome's trade economy gave the latter the power to extract concessions from the former. The external conflicts initially were with other Italian city-states, then with Carthage. Winning that series of wars made Rome the dominant power in the western Mediterranean. Another series of wars expanded Roman power to the east until the Republic dominated the entire Mediterranean. The governing structures of the Republic, designed for a city-state, proved unsatisfactory for governing a great empire and the Romans increasingly resorted to autocracy of various degrees (Marius' five sequential consulships, Sulla's two-year Dictatorship, Pompey's repeated special commissions and commands, finally Caesar's lifetime dictatorship). A form of constitutional monarchy was ultimately established, preserving the institutions of the Republic but creating a government layer above them to rule the Empire. The Roman Empire consolidated and remained stable for several centuries. It divided the administrative functions in two between the Western and Eastern Empires. It underwent a change of religion. The Western Empire, beset by barbarians, fell, with the Church the only surviving institution. The Eastern Empire endured for centuries more, finally falling to the Turks in the 15th century. End of the civilization.

Egypt: founded as a number of independent settlments along the Nile. Developed early military technology (bronze weapons, chariots). Consolidated into two kingdoms, then the southern (Upper) kingdom conquered the northern (Lower) kingdom and its king became Pharaoh and wore a double crown. A very conservative, stable monarchy followed that lasted for thousands of years. There were two periods of political instability that are considered to divide the history of Egypt into three periods: the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms. Under the New Kingdom, Egypt became a conqueror and held for a time an empire in East Africa and the Middle East. Egypt was conquered several times by various foreign powers: the Hyksos, Hittites, Libyans, Nubians, and Assyrians; however, all of these conquests were brief and had little lasting impact on Egyptian culture. The same might have been true of the bloodless "conquest" by Alexander the Great, leading to the foundation of the city of Alexandria and a Macedonian Egypt grafted onto the ancient civilization, but then again perhaps not; the mercantile prosperity of Alexandria and its service as the contact between Egypt and the Mediterranean gave it an independent strength that none of the former conquerors had had. We may consider Alexandrian Egypt as a new, hybrid civilization, part Egyptian, part Greek. Eventually this civilization fell to the Romans, and we may mark this as effectively the end of it.

China: Emerged as agricultural settlements and eventually cities in the river valleys of eastern Asia, the earliest records going back to the 17th century BCE. First unified under the Qin dynasty in the 3rd century BCE. It was followed immediately by the Han dynasty that created the lasting cultural character of China. The Han established a Chinese empire in east Asia, but collapsed over a period of roughly 400 years, ending in 220 CE. A period of disunity followed, followed by another period of unification under the Sui, Tang, and Song dynasties. During this period, a number of technological and social advances occurred, such as the use of paper money, and expanded rice cultivation in central and southern China which allowed the population to double. In the 13th century a horrible catastrophe occurred that is estimated to have wiped out 50% of the Chinese people: the genocidal Mongol conquest that established the Yuan dynasty. In the 14th century, this dynasty was overthrown by a peasant uprising and the Ming dynasty established, under which China experienced another golden age. In the 17th century another uprising overthrew the Ming dynasty, and a period of confusion led to the Chin (Manchu) dynasty. This was the last Chinese imperial dynasty. During this time China was contacted and to a considerable degree dominated by European powers and the United States. A further period of upheaval in the 20th century, including the war with Japan and more uprisings and insurgencies, led to the Kuomintang Republic and then to the Communist People's Republic, which is in charge today although it has undergone vast changes in approach from its early founding days.

Now consider this. Rome experienced a long rise to power, a transition in government type in the course of that rise, division into two parts, and the fall of one part and then, centuries later, the other part. Egypt experienced a consolidation under a single ruler, and then an extremely conservative, slow-changing society that was very stable for thousands of years until it finally fell to foreign conquerors. China experienced a fluctuation between periods of stable government and upheaval, disunity, and conquest from without, none of which managed to destroy the Chinese civilization. (China is in fact the oldest civilization still in existence, although by no means the first to arise.)

Three great civilizations, three very different courses of history. I simply don't see a pattern here, do you?

Look more at the article I posted. That has more info on the cycle and its dates. If you read that and report back, perhaps I can fill you in more on your question. But yes of course I see the cycle operating quite clearly in all these civilizations; they all went through multiple cycles. I am certainly satisfied with the years research I did on this, though, as usual, I would not expect you to agree with it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Look more at the article I posted. That has more info on the cycle and its dates. If you read that and report back, perhaps I can fill you in more on your question. But yes of course I see the cycle operating quite clearly in all these civilizations; they all went through multiple cycles. I am certainly satisfied with the years research I did on this, though, as usual, I would not expect you to agree with it.

I've read that article before. The problem, though, is that while one can see the influence of Neptune or Pluto cycles on history, one cannot derive from this a conclusion about the fates of civilizations. Too much depends on the circumstances, the cultural character, and the choices made to do that. I described the three civilizations I did because, of pre-industrial civilizations, those three followed such different courses: Rome the steady linear rise followed by consoildation and then collapse; Egypt the incredibly stable, conservative society that finally could not endure the end of its isolation; China the very UNstable society that kept having one upheaval after another from within or without, but somehow endured. There may be common cycles involved in this, but the way they manifested in the three cultures was radically different.

Now I'll add a fourth: Western Europe. Emerged from the collision of Germanic tribes with the shattered Roman Empire. Adopted Christianity as a unifying, civilizing force, but remained divided and warlike until very recently. Rose out of a semi-primitive Dark Age to build a high pre-industrial culture in the High Middle Ages. Combined the printing press with the alphabet to achieve widespread literacy. This resulted in a massive acceleration of change through the creation of scientific method. This led, in a short period of time (just a few centuries), to the industrial revolution, an explosion of wealth, the overthrow of monarchies and aristocracies and their replacement with democratic republics, and the establishment of overseas colonial empires on an unprecedented scale. As industrialization spread outward from the first few nations to develop it, conflicts arose among European powers that were resolved in a series of increasingly-destructive wars. The culmination of this process was in the World Wars of the 20th century, in which the great European empires collapsed and so many Europeans were killed that the survivors began a process of unification and pacification that continues today.

There is a fourth pattern -- rapid and radical change arising from a technological explosion -- not only not duplicated in any prior civilization, but one that couldn't have been duplicated, as it depended on factors unique to the time and place. I'll add one other observation: the European empires of the 17th-20th centuries are gone. But the nations of Europe remain, and are in many ways more prosperous and advanced than ever.

I'm not disagreeing with you that we may see cycles at work, just cautioning you that there may be limits to their application, and we should avoid jumping to conclusions about what faces us. It would be hard to identify a more drastic take-down and karmic comeuppance than struck Great Britain, France, and Germany in the 20th century, but, after adapting to what happened, all of those countries have achieved an unprecedented level of peace and prosperity. With that example before us, it's very possible I think for America to achieve a similarly successful rendezvous with reality, perhaps avoiding the bloodbath that Europe endured in the process.

I would also like to observe that an American Golden Age is behind us; the three decades after World War II merit that description surely. Something to think about.

I'm not disagreeing with you that we may see cycles at work, just cautioning you that there may be limits to their application, and we should avoid jumping to conclusions about what faces us. It would be hard to identify a more drastic take-down and karmic comeuppance than struck Great Britain, France, and Germany in the 20th century, but, after adapting to what happened, all of those countries have achieved an unprecedented level of peace and prosperity. With that example before us, it's very possible I think for America to achieve a similarly successful rendezvous with reality, perhaps avoiding the bloodbath that Europe endured in the process.

I would also like to observe that an American Golden Age is behind us; the three decades after World War II merit that description surely. Something to think about.

OK that's something I can respond to.

I don't think I'm jumping to conclusions. You can only derive possibilities from where we are on cycles; not definite statements. I would not discount that America might succeed.

I disagree that 1945-75 was a golden age. Not enough was accomplished in the creative arts. It was mostly a material success; an America dominance. That doesn't qualify. But at least the last 10 years of that, maybe more, was a good start. There just was no follow through. But it might seem like a golden age compared to what went before and came after.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

OK that's something I can respond to.

I don't think I'm jumping to conclusions. You can only derive possibilities from where we are on cycles; not definite statements. I would not discount that America might succeed.

I disagree that 1945-75 was a golden age. Not enough was accomplished in the creative arts. It was mostly a material success; an America dominance. That doesn't qualify. But at least the last 10 years of that, maybe more, was a good start. There just was no follow through. But it might seem like a golden age compared to what went before and came after.

Not enough was accomplished in the creative arts. Like the Golden Age of movies and the Golden Age of science fiction, both quite new genres. Like the emergence of rock music, which has marked all popular music and a fair amount of larger-scale music. And, yes, i know of its roots in jazz and the blues and ragtime, but the entire world's music has been infected by rock now. Oh, no, check out the arts you take for granted and trace them to their roots.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The problem with all of this, Eric, is that I can't see any evidence that there IS a cycle of civilizations. Civilizations follow very different patterns and have very different life-spans. Consider just a few examples:

Rome: founded as city-state on a salt route, emerged as a prosperous trading/agricultural city. Threatened by neighbors, developed a strong military. Dominated for a time by a monarchy of foreign origins. The monarchy was verthrown and an oligarchic republic established. A series of conflicts both internal and external occurred. Internal conflicts were a fairly typical class war between the hereditary nobility (Patricians) and the rising merchant class (Plebeians). The strength of Rome's trade economy gave the latter the power to extract concessions from the former. The external conflicts initially were with other Italian city-states, then with Carthage. Winning that series of wars made Rome the dominant power in the western Mediterranean. Another series of wars expanded Roman power to the east until the Republic dominated the entire Mediterranean. The governing structures of the Republic, designed for a city-state, proved unsatisfactory for governing a great empire and the Romans increasingly resorted to autocracy of various degrees (Marius' five sequential consulships, Sulla's two-year Dictatorship, Pompey's repeated special commissions and commands, finally Caesar's lifetime dictatorship). A form of constitutional monarchy was ultimately established, preserving the institutions of the Republic but creating a government layer above them to rule the Empire. The Roman Empire consolidated and remained stable for several centuries. It divided the administrative functions in two between the Western and Eastern Empires. It underwent a change of religion. The Western Empire, beset by barbarians, fell, with the Church the only surviving institution. The Eastern Empire endured for centuries more, finally falling to the Turks in the 15th century. End of the civilization.

Egypt: founded as a number of independent settlments along the Nile. Developed early military technology (bronze weapons, chariots). Consolidated into two kingdoms, then the southern (Upper) kingdom conquered the northern (Lower) kingdom and its king became Pharaoh and wore a double crown. A very conservative, stable monarchy followed that lasted for thousands of years. There were two periods of political instability that are considered to divide the history of Egypt into three periods: the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms. Under the New Kingdom, Egypt became a conqueror and held for a time an empire in East Africa and the Middle East. Egypt was conquered several times by various foreign powers: the Hyksos, Hittites, Libyans, Nubians, and Assyrians; however, all of these conquests were brief and had little lasting impact on Egyptian culture. The same might have been true of the bloodless "conquest" by Alexander the Great, leading to the foundation of the city of Alexandria and a Macedonian Egypt grafted onto the ancient civilization, but then again perhaps not; the mercantile prosperity of Alexandria and its service as the contact between Egypt and the Mediterranean gave it an independent strength that none of the former conquerors had had. We may consider Alexandrian Egypt as a new, hybrid civilization, part Egyptian, part Greek. Eventually this civilization fell to the Romans, and we may mark this as effectively the end of it.

China: Emerged as agricultural settlements and eventually cities in the river valleys of eastern Asia, the earliest records going back to the 17th century BCE. First unified under the Qin dynasty in the 3rd century BCE. It was followed immediately by the Han dynasty that created the lasting cultural character of China. The Han established a Chinese empire in east Asia, but collapsed over a period of roughly 400 years, ending in 220 CE. A period of disunity followed, followed by another period of unification under the Sui, Tang, and Song dynasties. During this period, a number of technological and social advances occurred, such as the use of paper money, and expanded rice cultivation in central and southern China which allowed the population to double. In the 13th century a horrible catastrophe occurred that is estimated to have wiped out 50% of the Chinese people: the genocidal Mongol conquest that established the Yuan dynasty. In the 14th century, this dynasty was overthrown by a peasant uprising and the Ming dynasty established, under which China experienced another golden age. In the 17th century another uprising overthrew the Ming dynasty, and a period of confusion led to the Chin (Manchu) dynasty. This was the last Chinese imperial dynasty. During this time China was contacted and to a considerable degree dominated by European powers and the United States. A further period of upheaval in the 20th century, including the war with Japan and more uprisings and insurgencies, led to the Kuomintang Republic and then to the Communist People's Republic, which is in charge today although it has undergone vast changes in approach from its early founding days.

Now consider this. Rome experienced a long rise to power, a transition in government type in the course of that rise, division into two parts, and the fall of one part and then, centuries later, the other part. Egypt experienced a consolidation under a single ruler, and then an extremely conservative, slow-changing society that was very stable for thousands of years until it finally fell to foreign conquerors. China experienced a fluctuation between periods of stable government and upheaval, disunity, and conquest from without, none of which managed to destroy the Chinese civilization. (China is in fact the oldest civilization still in existence, although by no means the first to arise.)

Three great civilizations, three very different courses of history. I simply don't see a pattern here, do you?

Just to nit-pick, I consider Rome to be part of the greater Classical Mediterranean Civilization which existed from about 1000 BC to a slow fade out between 200AD and 600AD.

Civilizations, IMO follow a fairly obvious historical pattern:

0. Warlord states aping other civilizations or Pre-Civilizational large chiefdoms

1. Loosely-bound polities that are often feudal in nature or some similar structure. there is often a symbolic "sacral" figure formally holding the entities together (the Pope, the Zhou kings, the early Japanese emperors).

2. Centralized states pull together at the expense of the early ceremonial sacral unity if it existed. Mercantile elites supersede and then absorb or merge with the old landed feudal elites, old feudal order evaporates.

3. Warfare between states leaves only one hegemonic power on top, the Universal Empire.

4. The Universal State decays and is invaded by Warlord states. may undergo cycles of invasion and restoration until the civilization is submerged by another.

The West is obvious currently shifting from 2 to 3.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Not enough was accomplished in the creative arts. Like the Golden Age of movies and the Golden Age of science fiction, both quite new genres. Like the emergence of rock music, which has marked all popular music and a fair amount of larger-scale music. And, yes, i know of its roots in jazz and the blues and ragtime, but the entire world's music has been infected by rock now. Oh, no, check out the arts you take for granted and trace them to their roots.

I agree with Pat here, Eric. I think your own biases are getting in the way. In many ways the period from 1946 to 1975 truly was a Golden Age, the height of the West's economic, military, and cultural power combined.

Originally Posted by Odin

I agree with Pat here, Eric. I think your own biases are getting in the way. In many ways the period from 1946 to 1975 truly was a Golden Age, the height of the West's economic, military, and cultural power combined.

Most people agree with me. Except that when I point out what most people say, that these are uninspired times or bleak or dark or declining, etc., then some folks always rise up to say how great our age has been (or in this case, the American decades). And then when I point out how much potential we have to be creative, since these things are never mentioned by almost anyone, then some folks say our times are too dark, cynical or to full of problems for us to think about anything creative and inspired. Nobody really thinks that the artistic creations of our time are better than those of other times; but when I point this out, some people immediately say I am just speaking about my taste.

It is a bit of a daunting task, just to explain the obvious-- where we are in history. You don't really need a cycle to see it; just a pair of eyes and a functioning brain. The fact: we have more potential to be creative than any people in history. We have media tools like none ever that make it possible for anyone to express their inspiration, and are aware of all other cultures in history and currently-existing than any people has ever been. A true awakening happened in the 60s that opened that creative potential to millions. But the opportunity was squandered. Very little has been created that will stand the test of time. What was created in 1945-75, for example, will be seen as no better than what was created at other times. If anything, better work has been done since 1975, because the creative tools of these times have been made available very widely in more recent years.

And a statement like this "the height of the West's economic, military, and cultural power combined" just betrays our level of unawareness to the situation. Power is not a golden age. To think that, as Odin and Brian do, is as I said above, to mistake the authors' definition of a "High" with a golden age. That's not my definition. A golden age is not a time of great technological and political power and spirit death.

A golden age is revealed by what is created artistically most of all, but also a time of political organization and accomplishment, bringing a nation together. Certainly there were advances in science in our time, but that part of it not just directed to technology, was based on much more brilliant work during the last very-creative period during and coming out of the last awakening.

Where we are in history ought to give us pause. We are in a golden age. How many realize this, and have risen to the challenge to create? Not many, at least that are recognized. That is the point. Either you get it, or you make excuses for not getting it. I get the latter quite a bit, including the other posts here so far. Our priorities, as Joseph Campbell pointed out, are economic. We are affixed on economic issues, even though we have more wealth than any people in any time ever. And, distracted by squabbles and class war against the lower class, etc., so that the tone of our society is not that of a golden age, but is cynical and pessimistic. Many golden ages have a strong spiritual element too, which inspires people to create; and that exists today, but is looked down-upon.

There is certainly some creative work going on that came out of the inspiration of the awakening. Mostly in music and multi-media arts. But none of it is recognized. That hurts our perception of ourselves and our times. What we see and is widely available is mostly trash. Mostly what we tune into is trash too, by comparison to the good, inspired stuff.

Let me add again, the American saeculum as it exists cannot produce a golden age. It is not one of the phases. A golden age historically combines the best of the High and the best of a 2nd or 3rd turning. The two pre-America 100-year saecula of England did produce two such periods (defined by the authors as 1st turnings, although the second one-- Elizabethan England-- actually partly happened during what the authors described as a 4th turning). But we don't have that kind of cycle. Such "golden age" as may potentially exist today can only be explained and defined by the cycle of civilization.

Originally Posted by Odin

Just to nit-pick, I consider Rome to be part of the greater Classical Mediterranean Civilization which existed from about 1000 BC to a slow fade out between 200AD and 600AD.

Civilizations, IMO follow a fairly obvious historical pattern:

0. Warlord states aping other civilizations or Pre-Civilizational large chiefdoms

1. Loosely-bound polities that are often feudal in nature or some similar structure. there is often a symbolic "sacral" figure formally holding the entities together (the Pope, the Zhou kings, the early Japanese emperors).

2. Centralized states pull together at the expense of the early ceremonial sacral unity if it existed. Mercantile elites supersede and then absorb or merge with the old landed feudal elites, old feudal order evaporates.

3. Warfare between states leaves only one hegemonic power on top, the Universal Empire.

4. The Universal State decays and is invaded by Warlord states. may undergo cycles of invasion and restoration until the civilization is submerged by another.

The West is obvious currently shifting from 2 to 3.

No. The universal empire was the British one. The American one followed, but it is merely a shadow. It is declining too. Warfare is declining as well. What will follow this time is likely a global civilization, or the rise of the Orient. That is where we are.

In the past, golden ages have been catalyzed and organized by good leadership, although that's not more important than bottom-up inspiration. But a society led by George W. Bush could not rise up to become the golden age it could have been. Sandra Day O'Connor cheated us out of our destiny.

Not all societies saeculums climax together.

Originally Posted by disgruntledxer

not all societies saeculums climax together.

:d:d:d:d:d:d

Originally Posted by disgruntledxer

Not all societies saeculums climax together.

Right. That's why I'm talking about a different cycle; the cycle of civilization.

I guess roadbldr meant his d:d:d as laughing. I'm surprised at that, from a social conservative like you R.b.

I personally think that the cycle of civilizations is a function of variable megacycles.

Nations can remain more or less intact throughout these cycles, but between 240 and 330 years after a legal entity is founded it is usually replaced by a new one. The number of megacycles is related to the economic and cultural power of the civilization, as well as its position in history. More modern states undergo more dramatic revolutions with higher frequency.

Megacycles color the saeculum like seasons influence a turning. The beaches and picnic tables of summer 2010 are busier than the beaches and picnic tables of winter 2010. Food is still most abundant at harvest time. Relatively.

A new nation begins as an idea, an alternative to the reality of mega-crisis. When it begins to take roots and succeed, there are challenges to its hegemony, and this often ends up as the crisis of a mega-high: the unifying civil war.

In the wake of a unifying civil war, the recovery becomes a high and economic output grows rapidly. Material luxury leads to artistic and spiritual longing, and the crisis of a mega-awakening is a crisis of fighting domestic poverty while expanding influence over other vulnerable nations. Artistic and spiritual achievement does not recede with the crisis as deeply, because beauty and truth and justice are common themes to the crusade.

Perfect as it sounds, this eventually leads to mega-unraveling. Those who have been invaded are not so keen to be ruled and the relative glut of domestic wealth leads to idle thinking. A further risk is that spiritual pursuit goes too far in suppression of science. This is the crisis of a mega-unraveling.

From here until the new nation is founded, we can only expect things to stagnate (social progress), decline (art), or improve very slowly (technology) despite the coming influence of an austere 1T (cold spring 2020-2040). The 2T (summer time 2040-2060) will be "hotter," and more violent than usual. This will be coinciding with a lot of important resource limitations on earth if we don't make major changes to our economic systems. The 3T (fall 2060-2080) will be more oppressive, desperate, divided, and authoritarian than anything yet imagined.

The 4T of America's megacrisis (winter 2080-2100)... well... that could and would probably destroy most of the planet if we let things get that far.



Credit where it's due: my original draft described more of the research and logical paths I took to reach these conclusions, but even I felt it was too wordy and self-absorbed. So, it is specifically relevant that I acknowledge (in no particular oder) influence from Kurt's populist/sociological perspective, Chas's arts perspective, Kaiser's knowledge of war, revolution, & realpolitik, and Mikebert's targeting of the economic cycles. Not to say that they agree with my conclusions either, just that I'm too distracted by too many interests to ever focus so much on any one of them in that much saecular detail.

Here his my thinking on the Mega-Turnings:

Norman Saeculum (William I to Henry II)
Mega-High
Expansion of Norman Aristocrats. The 1st Crusade

High Medieval Saeculum (Henry II to Edward I)
Mega-Awakening
The peak of Papal power. Emergence of the Franciscans and Dominicans. The rise of the universities and the Scholastics

Black Death Saeculum (Edward I to Edward III)
Mega-Unraveling
Plague. Famine. Start of the 100-Years War. The Great Schism. Decay of the feudal order.

Late Medieval Saeculum (Edward III to Henry VII)
Mega-Crisis
Rise of the centralized dynastic absolutist state and early Capitalism. Dawn of the printed word and the end of the feudal military tradition.

Reformation Saeculum
Mega-High
Remnants of the High Medieval Mega-Awakening, a united Western Christendom and Scholasticism, fade away. Colonization of the New World begins.

Puritan Saeculum
Mega-Awakening
Birth of the intellectual and religious form of the Modern West. Puritainism, Descartes, Galileo, Spinoza, Locke, Newton. Moral revolt against Royal Absolutism (only succeeds in Britain).

Revolutionary Saeculum
Mega-Unraveling
The revolt against absolutism is intellectualized into the beginnings of Classical Liberalism. The new intellectual form implants into the Western mind. The American and French Revolutions.

Unification Saeculum
Mega-Crisis
Birth of the Industrial Nation State and Industrial Corporate Capitalism. American Civil War, Unification of Germany and Italy.

Great Power Saeculum
Mega-High
The height of relative Western Power. Scramble for Africa. Birth of Consumerism. Corporatism. The Totalitarian Nation-State

Millennial Saeculum
Mega-Awakening
Moral revolt again the Industrial Nation State and Corporate Capitalism. The Modern intellectual form is attacked, as is traditional religion. Environmentalism. Participatory technology information revolution.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No. The universal empire was the British one. The American one followed, but it is merely a shadow. It is declining too. Warfare is declining as well. What will follow this time is likely a global civilization, or the rise of the Orient. That is where we are.

Victorian Britain had the largest overseas empire, but it was one of many Western Great Powers. After the World Wars there was only one Western Great Power left standing, the US. Much like Rome after the 2nd Punic War and the Macedonian War. The European nation-states are mere shadows of their former selves, their elites are but a single unified transnational corporate elite centered in the US. Only in High Culture does Europe remain on top, as it did in Roman Greece. The US right now is pretty much Rome at the time of Gaius Marius.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Where we are in history ought to give us pause. We are in a golden age. How many realize this, and have risen to the challenge to create? Not many, at least that are recognized. That is the point. Either you get it, or you make excuses for not getting it. I get the latter quite a bit, including the other posts here so far. Our priorities, as Joseph Campbell pointed out, are economic. We are affixed on economic issues, even though we have more wealth than any people in any time ever. And, distracted by squabbles and class war against the lower class, etc., so that the tone of our society is not that of a golden age, but is cynical and pessimistic. Many golden ages have a strong spiritual element too, which inspires people to create; and that exists today, but is looked down-upon.

There is certainly some creative work going on that came out of the inspiration of the awakening. Mostly in music and multi-media arts. But none of it is recognized. That hurts our perception of ourselves and our times. What we see and is widely available is mostly trash. Mostly what we tune into is trash too, by comparison to the good, inspired stuff.

Let me add again, the American saeculum as it exists cannot produce a golden age. It is not one of the phases. A golden age historically combines the best of the High and the best of a 2nd or 3rd turning. The two pre-America 100-year saecula of England did produce two such periods (defined by the authors as 1st turnings, although the second one-- Elizabethan England-- actually partly happened during what the authors described as a 4th turning). But we don't have that kind of cycle. Such "golden age" as may potentially exist today can only be explained and defined by the cycle of civilization.

As Sturgeon's Law goes, 95% of everything is crap, and that was true back in Will Shakespeare's time as now. He was an Elizabethan equivalent to the great screenwriters of the 20th century (Chas often compares him to the guy that created The Twilight Zone), but for every great master there is a ton of mediocre ones, but the stuff the mediocre guys made did not survive to today. The great movies of the 20th century will be watched for ages, the mediocre ones will be forgotten, and a future culture critic will call our times a Golden Age. 400 years from now, perhaps, Casablanca, Citizen Kaine, and The Lion King will be looked upon as we look upon Shakespeare's plays today.

Originally Posted by Odin

As Sturgeon's Law goes, 95% of everything is crap, and that was true back in Will Shakespeare's time as now. He was an Elizabethan equivalent to the great screenwriters of the 20th century (Chas often compares him to the guy that created The Twilight Zone), but for every great master there is a ton of mediocre ones, but the stuff the mediocre guys made did not survive to today. The great movies of the 20th century will be watched for ages, the mediocre ones will be forgotten, and a future culture critic will call our times a Golden Age. 400 years from now, perhaps, Casablanca, Citizen Kaine, and The Lion King will be looked upon as we look upon Shakespeare's plays today.

Serling, Odin. Rod Serling.

And even Shakespeare, in comparison to some of his other contemporaries, pales in comparison. If Marlowe had lived longer, we probably would've never even heard of Shakespeare.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Serling, Odin. Rod Serling.

And even Shakespeare, in comparison to some of his other contemporaries, pales in comparison. If Marlowe had lived longer, we probably would've never even heard of Shakespeare.

~Chas'88

Thanks, I was having a brain fart.

Originally Posted by Odin

Victorian Britain had the largest overseas empire, but it was one of many Western Great Powers. After the World Wars there was only one Western Great Power left standing, the US. Much like Rome after the 2nd Punic War and the Macedonian War. The European nation-states are mere shadows of their former selves, their elites are but a single unified transnational corporate elite centered in the US. Only in High Culture does Europe remain on top, as it did in Roman Greece. The US right now is pretty much Rome at the time of Gaius Marius.

If you say Rome in the time of Tiberius, then you would match the civilization cycle.

But some astrologers also point to the longer cycle of "ages" and link Rome at the end of the Aries Age (some years after the Punic Wars) to America today at the end of the Piscean Age, as you have done. There are 2160 years between these ages; a much longer cycle. Alexander the Great and Napoleon are among the parallels seen by Dane Rudhyar and others. But Dane also has written about the 493 year cycle.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Serling, Odin. Rod Serling.

And even Shakespeare, in comparison to some of his other contemporaries, pales in comparison. If Marlowe had lived longer, we probably would've never even heard of Shakespeare.

~Chas'88

Marlowe? I think I need to look up info on him.

is this who you are talking about Chas?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Marlowe

Originally Posted by millennialX

is this who you are talking about Chas?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Marlowe

Who else? His Dr. Faustus was sublime...

~Chas'88