Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

What sort of evolutionary leaps are they looking at? "Behold - Homo Superior!"? Or "Behold! The New Jerusalem!"? The Who had a line about that ..."we won't be fooled again."

In reference to the book (The Cultural Creatives) I believe something like a Green version of The New Jerusalem.

I get a sense of strangness when I contemplate global warming. A metaphorical change in civilization's climate may coincide during a litteral change in the Earth's climate. Come to think of it, if one can apply a climate metaphor to civilization, could we think of a flickering climate as representing a transition between eras?

Originally Posted by TimWalker

In reference to the book (The Cultural Creatives) I believe something like a Green version of The New Jerusalem.

Cue up that wonder Anglican hymn used as a background for "Chariots of Fire." Now - has anybody actually seen a New Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land? No -- rather, the green and pleasant part disappeared. Sorry.

Punctuated Equilibrium versus Phyletic Gradualism. My speculation is that we are - culturally - in a period of Phyletic Gradualism, awaiting a future stage of Puntuated Equilibrium.

Sociocultural evolution; describes unilineal versus multilineal evolution, as well as punctuated equilibrium, in relation to societies.

Punctuated equilibrium may fit the stages of civilization as described by historians, and seems to operate on similar time scales in different civilizations. The catch is, what if your society seems to be off schedule (the West went through Expansion three times rather than just once), while being post-Classic? If we have been living in a transitional period, it has been a long meandering one. There is some change, and the Saeculum is operating, but no obvious leap into a distinct new era. So I suggest that for societies, it is possible to have a history of punctuated equilibrium, but also period comparable to phyletic gradualism.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Punctuated equilibrium may fit the stages of civilization as described by historians, and seems to operate on similar time scales in different civilizations. The catch is, what if your society seems to be off schedule (the West went through Expansion three times rather than just once), while being post-Classic? If we have been living in a transitional period, it has been a long meandering one. There is some change, and the Saeculum is operating, but no obvious leap into a distinct new era. So I suggest that for societies, it is possible to have a history of punctuated equilibrium, but also period comparable to phyletic gradualism.

Name the three times. We may, however, be looking at three different Civilizations.

And note that China has gone through many more than three expansions and contractions and still remained, at heart, the same Chinese culture it had always been.

Proposed Planetary Phase of Civilization.

Periods of Western EXPANSION.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Proposed Planetary Phase of Civilization.

Tonybee's Universal State by any other name.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Periods of Western EXPANSION.

Thank you. I need to print that timeline out and paste it in the back of T4T. (My copy of Spengler, Book II, is on my Kindle. No possibility of pasting a timeline into that!)

You're welcome.

I have wondered if...being off schedule?...the result might be a muddled mixture. The present has been compared to the Hellenistic Age, but also to the Roman Empire late in its career; it has also been suggested that aspects of the Middle Ages are reappearing. Perhaps different aspects of life/culture/society are now disconnected in terms of the expected time line...finding themselves at differtent points of that time line, rather than being grouped together.

Adding to the mixture....Rented a DVD entitled The Hittites. One scholar interviewed commented that for the Hittites (despite their reputation as warriors) diplomacy was as effective as warfare. And that seems to be an emerging pattern today, in which global issues call for international cooperation.

Book - copyright 2007. The Intelligent Universe AI, ET, and the Emerging Mind of the Cosmos by James Gardner. "Shocked by recent polls showing that a substantial majority of Americans reject the theory of evolution, intellectualsippi and journalists in the United States and abroad have braced themselves for an all-out assault on Darwinian science. But no such onslaught has been forthcoming. U.S. public opinion has long rejected Darwinism, yet even in states such as Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, which have large actively Christian populations, state universities go on teaching astronomy, genetics, geology, and paleontology with no concern for religious cosmology, and the United States continues to support the world's most successful scientific community. Most evagelicals find nothing odd about this seeming contradiction. Nor do they wish to change it.... The pragmatism of U.S. culture combines with the somewhat anti-intellectual cast of evangelical religion to create a very broad public tolerance for what, to some, might seem an intolerable level of cognitive dissonance...."

Rebirth

When it's been typed on this forum the above has been thrown around like it's a dirty word--as though it were what "Karl Marx" & "Socialism" is to Fox News.

However yesterday a friend & fellow artist gave me a new, simple, and succinct definition to distinguish between Modernism & Post-Modernism.

Modernism - The belief in something concrete & definitive.
Post-Modernism - The belief that there can't be anything concrete or definitive.

He and I got into a discussion about it being the future of theatre and how audiences react to Post-Modernism better than they do to Modernism in theatre. And I've seen this in how the audiences react to plays they've come to see. Shows that rely heavily on Modernistic values are attended because they're "classics" and generally while the audience gets the play they usually respond at the speaker's nights with questions along the lines of "how the hell does this play relate to my life"--and it's only the old Silents in the audience who generally respond and see connections, but the Millennials don't. Boomers & Xers are toss ups and can go either way. Meanwhile when we've put on shows that are very "Post-Modern" there is a general enthusiasm and "I get this" sense that comes from an audience. There aren't any questions about "how the hell does this play relate to my life" but instead there is a general "I know it connects to my life, but I can't express how or why it does--I just know that it does, can you help me define why it does?" that comes across in their talk backs--from everyone: Silents through Millennials. Example: We performed a new play (written in 2006) by the Irish feminist playwright: Marina Carr just recently. It was a smash hit--the first time I've seen seats sold out for multiple performances. People came to see the show & they came again because the play really resonated with them, but they couldn't quite figure out how.

In general I think Post-Modernism, as it has to deal with Art is a movement to getting in touch with Jung's "collective unconscious" which allows the audience to take from the art whatever it wants--it becomes a personal individual experience that can't quite be defined, nor should it be so. There is a power there that is the future of Theatre--uncertainty resonates. It's a connection with the imagination. Certainty, most especially Realism and Naturalism, is done better by Television & Film, and no longer needs to be done, or can be done convincingly in the theatre--not that the artists aren't up to it, but the audiences aren't responding to it any longer--it seems "quaint", "fake", and "distant". Television is actually actively destroying Realism & Naturalism with the concept of Reality TV. People see it now as fake and unrealistic & are searching for something else to fill the void.

The Great Power Saeculum was the long rise of Realism & Naturalism to power. The Millennial Saeculum has been about it's fall & debasing, as well as the rise of Post-Modernism, as much as people here hate to use that word.

Anyone want to talk? I'm actually enthused by it. It's got me thinking about what I'm saying in my own art.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

When it's been typed on this forum the above has been thrown around like it's a dirty word--as though it were what "Karl Marx" & "Socialism" is to Fox News.

However yesterday a friend & fellow artist gave me a new, simple, and succinct definition to distinguish between Modernism & Post-Modernism.

Modernism - The belief in something concrete & definitive.
Post-Modernism - The belief that there can't be anything concrete or definitive.

He and I got into a discussion about it being the future of theatre and how audiences react to Post-Modernism better than they do to Modernism in theatre. And I've seen this in how the audiences react to plays they've come to see. Shows that rely heavily on Modernistic values are attended because they're "classics" and generally while the audience gets the play they usually respond at the speaker's nights with questions along the lines of "how the hell does this play relate to my life"--and it's only the old Silents in the audience who generally respond and see connections, but the Millennials don't. Boomers & Xers are toss ups and can go either way. Meanwhile when we've put on shows that are very "Post-Modern" there is a general enthusiasm and "I get this" sense that comes from an audience. There aren't any questions about "how the hell does this play relate to my life" but instead there is a general "I know it connects to my life, but I can't express how or why it does--I just know that it does, can you help me define why it does?" that comes across in their talk backs--from everyone: Silents through Millennials. Example: We performed a new play (written in 2006) by the Irish feminist playwright: Marina Carr just recently. It was a smash hit--the first time I've seen seats sold out for multiple performances. People came to see the show & they came again because the play really resonated with them, but they couldn't quite figure out how.

In general I think Post-Modernism, as it has to deal with Art is a movement to getting in touch with Jung's "collective unconscious" which allows the audience to take from the art whatever it wants--it becomes a personal individual experience that can't quite be defined, nor should it be so. There is a power there that is the future of Theatre--uncertainty resonates. It's a connection with the imagination. Certainty, most especially Realism and Naturalism, is done better by Television & Film, and no longer needs to be done, or can be done convincingly in the theatre--not that the artists aren't up to it, but the audiences aren't responding to it any longer--it seems "quaint", "fake", and "distant". Television is actually actively destroying Realism & Naturalism with the concept of Reality TV. People see it now as fake and unrealistic & are searching for something else to fill the void.

The Great Power Saeculum was the long rise of Realism & Naturalism to power. The Millennial Saeculum has been about it's fall & debasing, as well as the rise of Post-Modernism, as much as people here hate to use that word.

Anyone want to talk? I'm actually enthused by it. It's got me thinking about what I'm saying in my own art.

~Chas'88

Nothing like my college-aged conversations with friends. In hindsight, I wish it was.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Nothing like my college-aged conversations with friends. In hindsight, I wish it was.

Nor was it representative of my undergrad experience (with exception to the classes taught by Silents). This is what makes grad school worth the headaches & no free time.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by TimWalker

The Cultural Creatives...."...In every kind of living system, evolutionary leaps are likely to be preceeded by chaotic searches and stumblings into crises that cannot be resolved at the old level. The system, in effect, falls into a hole...there is the possibility that the system will die at the trough of the hole. It may also fall short of finding a stable new level or make incomplete transitions with partial failures."

We as a society are off schedule...we are supposed to be moving into a sterile time of Universal Empire and perhaps into Decay. But I see hints that society...at least significant parts of it...seek rebirth. However, renaissance seems to require special conditions, and something like the Renaissance/Reformation era was exceptional. I think an 'incomplete transition' is more likely than a renaissance, given humanity's tendency to muddle through. There may be some cultural creativity ahead, but a quantum leap is unlikely.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

We as a society are off schedule...we are supposed to be moving into a sterile time of Universal Empire and perhaps into Decay. But I see hints that society...at least significant parts of it...seek rebirth. However, renaissance seems to require special conditions, and something like the Renaissance/Reformation era was exceptional. I think an 'incomplete transition' is more likely than a renaissance, given humanity's tendency to muddle through. There may be some cultural creativity ahead, but a quantum leap is unlikely.

That's a plausible scenario. I don't think the Renaissance-Reformation era was exceptional. About 100 years after every conjunction that indicates the cycle, there has been a renaissance or golden age. That included the Roman Empire cycle. Most transitions are "incomplete" though, since not everything changes from one cycle to the next. It seems we missed the boat for the kind of great renaissance that rejuvenates all of society. However, perhaps I was expecting too much in a society that is so much larger and more diverse than any other in history. Maybe things like the new age movement is all we could have expected in an age that values the arts so little and is focused so much on materialist lifestyles and worldviews. We can only be who we are, and that's apparently who we are. So maybe the best we can expect is the kind of "art" represented by high-tech gadgets like Apple iphones, and Steve Jobs was our Michaelangelo.

Still, in the renaissance era and other similar eras, there was opportunity for growth, change and creativity in the second century of the cycle, and that should be true now as well. Although we face the conflicts of the 4T still ahead, and unprecedented ecological challenges like global warming which we refuse to face, we probably have already made it through the worst danger of the new century, the economic crisis of 2008-2010-- at least if Europe doesn't still collapse.

Rome may be the nearest equivalent for our times, but empires per se were the feature of those times, and not ours. The question now is how soon will we move from a time of nation states and economic classes to a time of a global society of all one people within different human-ecological niches.

Moonstone

Renaissance Watch

Sorokin described art as tending to be naturalistic - such as with a secular world view - or abstract, such as with spiritual concepts. One or the other tends to prevail, depending on the dominant world view. But he also mentioned in passing that in some cultures, both kinds of art are emphasized.

One limitation is that Sorokin based his cycle on two examples-Aegean and Classical civilizations-in which ossifying secularism were in synch with a period of Decay...followed by a collapse/death of these societies. This corresponded with a growing Ideational world view. What Sorokin did not consider was this: what if the cultural exhaustion of secularism coincided with a muddling through scenario? Would society turn to spirituality, and if so, would it be Ideational? Or would a renewed interest in spirituality correspond to a different world view, such as Idealism?