It has occurred to me that television may provide some connective tissue for a virtual realm, as a sort of common ground.

Regarding 500 year cycles-I imagine that the relationship of the second cycle to the first cycle...would resemble the Epi-Olmec in its relationship to the Olmec mother culture.

Concievably, our version of an Epi-Olmec would run its course, and then be followed by a Universal Empire phase. A concievable variation would a Babylonic phase following the Epi-Olmec phase, before the Empire phase.

To speak of a mega-saeculum, you would have to decide certain things. First, is it going to be four saecula long, so a mega-saeculum has the same structure as a saeculum? If so, that's about 330 years. If you include the pre-revolution saecula though, it might be considerably longer, maybe over 400.

Or, do you embed the mega-saeculum inside the 500 year cycle of civilization, which is international in scope? If so, that would include 5 or 6 saecula.

If you do it the first way, then you have to decide where to start. Our own Gen Xers and Millies think we are in a mega-unraveling, just because that's the portion of our own saecula that they know best. But that idea is easily dismissed. The civil war saeculum from 1794 (or earlier) to 1865 (or later) would have to be the "mega-high," even though it was a romantic and individualistic era with little high-like building going on, and even though it ended with the greatest crisis in American history. The "mega-awakening" from say 1868 to 1946 had very little "awakening" going on; the most-significant awakening experiences having happened in the previous cycle with Joseph Smith's awakening experience and the transcendentalist movement. The most significant awakening events in the "Great Power" cycle happened in Europe, not America; in our country the main focus was the social gospel and the New Deal, which was an economic class conflict, and the principle movement of the time was socialism and collectivism, as well as the USA's rise to world power. That is not a spiritual or cultural focus at all, but the reverse. Our own "mega-unraveling" from 1946 to 2029 would be called such even though it starts with the greatest high our country has experienced, world hegemony, and has been the most stable and prosperous saeculum in our history, with (so far) the mildest crisis.

The mistake is to think our history begins right after the Revolution. Actually, if you want to consider a mega-saeculum cycle for America only, you'd start it in 1607 with the establishment of the colonies. Then you'd have these cycles so far (without the "anomaly"):

Colonial 1607-1704
Revolution 1704-1787
Civil War 1787-1868
Great Power 1868-1946
Millennial 1946-2029

I can't see any cycle embedded in that sequence at all. The only conceivable "mega-awakening" cycle would be the Civil War, since it is the most-spiritual and romantic, but that would make our saeculum a mega-crisis, when it fact as I said it is the period when America reached its height of power and prosperity, and remained the #1 economy in the world virtually throughout, and only due to lose that status in the very last crisis years of this millennial saeculum.

So the best approach is to embed the saecula in the cycle of civilization. That recognizes that American USA history is embedded in Western European history, especially Britain (rather than American history including pre-colombian). The USA is an outgrowth of the Renaissance and Enlightenment movements in Europe. The Revolution was mostly merely passing the baton to the already-established colonial institutions, not the beginning of our country.

Since the cycle of civilization includes the beginning dates of circa 1400 and circa 1890, then it includes 5 or 6 saecula. The best way to look at this mega-cycle is to use the terms for the artistic phases, and correspond them to the turnings, and put in at least one extra double mega-turning somewhere. The crisis always falls during the end and beginning years, when one civilization ends and another begins. The previous cycle of civilization to our own would include:

The late medieval saeculum 1390s-1487 (crisis)
Tudor Saeculum 1487-1594 (renaissance/high)(includes golden age)
New World 1594-1704 (baroque/awakening)(expansive silver age)
Revolutionary 1704-1787 (rococo/unraveling)
Civil War 1787-1868 (romantic and realist/unraveling)(includes romantic copper age)

The Great Power saeculum would encompass the time of transition to the next cycle:
1868-1946 (mega-crisis, the Great Depression and World Wars/Holocaust)

Our cycle of civilization thus includes:

Millennial 1946-2029 (renaissance/high)(golden age)
2029-2112 (2nd renaissance/high)
2122-2195 (baroque/awakening)(includes silver age early in the cycle)
2195-2278 (rococo/unraveling)
2278-2362 (romantic and realist/2nd unraveling)(copper age, early in the cycle)

The start of the next cycle of civilization in 2385 would fall early during the next saeculum, from 2362 to 2445, which would thus be the next mega-crisis.

Looking back over history, the 500 year thing has been dominant, because it is about major epochs of history.

BTW, I mentioned epi-olmec because of The Rise of the Creative Class by Richard Florida.

Most Likely the current modern epoch which began with the protestant reformation and is currently in its waning days, was an awakening epoch. The following epoch that would likely begin in mid-century and last through about the 26th century would be an unraveling epoch.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Most Likely the current modern epoch which began with the protestant reformation and is currently in its waning days, was an awakening epoch. The following epoch that would likely begin in mid-century and last through about the 26th century would be an unraveling epoch.

Very good! Now we have three time scales to work with: the saeculum, ~80 years long; the mega-saeculum, of which each 80-year saeculum is a mega-Turning; and now the epoch, which is a mega-saeculum in itself and is equivalent to a Civilization. So on that scale -- and throwing in Chas'88's finely divided Turnings - we are in the:

Crisis-Awakening decade of a Fourth Turning in a mega-Unraveling and at or near the end of an Awakening Epoch.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Very good! Now we have three time scales to work with: the saeculum, ~80 years long; the mega-saeculum, of which each 80-year saeculum is a mega-Turning; and now the epoch, which is a mega-saeculum in itself and is equivalent to a Civilization. So on that scale -- and throwing in Chas'88's finely divided Turnings - we are in the:

Crisis-Awakening decade of a Fourth Turning in a mega-Unraveling and at or near the end of an Awakening Epoch.

No, a high mini-turning of a Fourth Turning in a mega-high early in an unravelling epoch.

And by the way, Generation Y EQUALS Millennials. The x/y cusp needs a new name. I call them Explorers.

Just a few of the things I need to correct about prevalent opinion on this site.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

To speak of a mega-saeculum, you would have to decide certain things. First, is it going to be four saecula long, so a mega-saeculum has the same structure as a saeculum? If so, that's about 330 years. If you include the pre-revolution saecula though, it might be considerably longer, maybe over 400.

Or, do you embed the mega-saeculum inside the 500 year cycle of civilization, which is international in scope? If so, that would include 5 or 6 saecula.

If you do it the first way, then you have to decide where to start. Our own Gen Xers and Millies think we are in a mega-unraveling, just because that's the portion of our own saecula that they know best. But that idea is easily dismissed. The civil war saeculum from 1794 (or earlier) to 1865 (or later) would have to be the "mega-high," even though it was a romantic and individualistic era with little high-like building going on, and even though it ended with the greatest crisis in American history.

In Europe, sure. But America? Not really. Just because America is descended from Western Civilization, doesn't mean that we're completely the same and integrated. I think enough evidence, especially for this particular saeculum, abounds which suggests that we're on a different schedule than Europe.

I mean sure we had an expression of Romanticism, but really that was a much more minor thing over here compared to the spirit of the age where we as a nation were busy pushing out into the frontier (which in the beginning of the Saeculum, I'll remind you was as close as Ohio) building, settling, and founding. The entire saeculum in the US is marked by a kind of classicism of "Federalism" and a large push to "settle west" and "stretch to the Pacific". And while Romanticism does come to our shores, it's mostly restricted to the already well-settled New England elite who traveled to Europe and kept in close contact with it. The rest of the country? It's more obsessed with pushing the boundaries and settling and pushing further west and establishing itself. And as we do so, we're obsessed with the question of "what is it that we're establishing"? And that question eventually devolves into a slavery/anti-slavery rhetoric that eventually evolves into the Civil War as we finally establish the kind of society we're establishing on this continent once and for all. Making a more civilized and well-organized America is the major focus of the Saeculum (usually that definition requires a Protestant labeling, until the 1840s when that notion is challenged by large numbers of Irish immigrants--but for the large part the Protestant requirement stays in put). Carving out the wilderness and establishing it into the Protestant American utopia is the spirit of the age in America for the large part. Where it isn't (as much), is in upper class societies in cities that have strong ties to Europe. The biggest question of the saeculum (answered by the Crisis) is over whether what we've established shall survive, live up to the challenges laid down before us by our forefathers, and thrive.

The Great Power saeculum in America was all about making your dreams a reality. If you could dream it, you could make it (the inspiration behind all those inventions). And it was about learning to coexist with new kinds of people within our well established Protestant American Utopia (mainly Catholic and Jewish Immigrants). We had to actually live with African-Americans now, and doing such irrevocably changed popular culture and expanded our horisons. Speaking of expanding our horizons, the Protestant American Utopia that had been established by the Civil War Saeculum, had to learn to live with new Immigrant peoples and ideologies that challenged and forced us to redefine our definition of America from a Protestant Utopia to an Abrahamic (mostly Christian) Utopia, with a culture that Hitler complained was far too influenced by "blacks and jews" to be considered "pure" (not that I'd agree with him that being "pure" was a good thing). If that doesn't scream Awakening, I don't know what does.

I won't disagree with you on Europe (though their brand of Romanticism lasted until WWI, made an Individualistic comeback in the Roaring 20s, but was ended with the existence of the nuclear bomb, Eric). But America I will.

I've been also thinking and meditating on what created this atmosphere of pessimism and cynicism for the country, which you oft complain of.

The triple whammie of WWI (it killed off Romantic notions of war in Europe), WWII, and the Nuclear Bomb. Have created this "pessimistic, cynical, and splintering" society. Most especially the Nuclear Bomb. Without the Nuclear Bomb, our saeculum would be an entirely different one altogether (and probably one more to your liking IMHO, and one more receptive to your ideas--if you want to blame anything for the stopping of the spread of the "new age" I'd chalk it up to the nuclear bomb). Without the detonation of the Nuclear bombs on Japan, Absurdism and Post-Modernism (which thrive off of cynicism and pessimism I'll add) wouldn't be what most artists are concerned with today. Also because of Absurdism and Post-Modernism it helped contribute to the split of popular culture and the artistic culture, which led to further fragmentation into genres (as well as the rise in African-American influence I'd definitely add). Absurdism was birthed immediately out of the utter devastation of WWII and the detonation of the nuclear bomb, the two events gave the artists who are concerned with Absurdism this idea that we are existing in an utter wasteland and that the progressive humanism that got us this far is responsible for leading us into some of the most destructive acts of all humanity, that creates the unbridled cynicism of which you complain against. And in the immediate aftermath of WWII America became utterly terrified of the bomb and began to view total annihilation as a matter of WHEN not IF. In turn, people turned inward, since they could no longer look outward without running up against that realization. Some of the people turning inward came across your discoveries Eric, but most people didn't. Most people instead became more materialist and selfish because of the failures of progressive humanism.

If you ever have the time, I'd suggest reading: Der Besuch der alten Dame (The Visit), Waiting for Godot, Endgame, Rhinoceros, The Birthday Party, and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? The last one should be the most familiar to you. They'll give you an idea of the source of this pessimism and cynicism that you don't understand. They've all been made into movies, but the movies do what all movies do and lessen the cynicism of the original piece. You'll better get the idea of what you're dealing with and doing battle with by doing so. And if nothing else they'll give you an understanding of your "enemy" so to speak. They're all Post-War plays that bespeak of dealing with the horrors that came from WWII and what the percieved "state of things" is in Western Society after that.

~Chas'88

ETA: Oh and by the way, I went for children's novels in my much earlier post because they're responsible for largely introducing the world we live in to our youngest members and prepare them for the world which they'll come to live in for the rest of their life. And they usually manage to do so with a highly imaginative and symbolic manner that bespeaks more often of archetypes in a much more concise and less complicated manner than most adult fiction. Not that I don't like looking at adult fiction as well--but in terms of argument, I don't have time in these posts to argue through all the nuances and still have a life.

By the way, I ran across a list of "children's films" recently and I was bemused to find "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" listed as such, it reminded me of our discussion and your invocation of it, and reminded me that I had yet to respond.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

In Europe, sure. But America? Not really. Just because America is descended from Western Civilization, doesn't mean that we're completely the same and integrated. I think enough evidence, especially for this particular saeculum, abounds which suggests that we're on a different schedule than Europe.

Not different by much, I'm sure; only a few years here and there. It doesn't matter to the point at all though. The point was that American history comes out of European history, and the origins of America are the European Renaissance and Enlightenment. That is the cycle of civilization, not the saeculum. And the saeculum can best be understood within the larger civilization cycle, rather than an arbitrary mega-cycle of 4 saecula.

I mean sure we had an expression of Romanticism, but really that was a much more minor thing over here compared to the spirit of the age where we as a nation were busy pushing out into the frontier (which in the beginning of the Saeculum, I'll remind you was as close as Ohio) building, settling, and founding. The entire (civil war) saeculum in the US is marked by a kind of classicism of "Federalism" and a large push to "settle west" and "stretch to the Pacific". And while Romanticism does come to our shores, it's mostly restricted to the already well-settled New England elite who traveled to Europe and kept in close contact with it. The rest of the country? It's more obsessed with pushing the boundaries and settling and pushing further west and establishing itself. And as we do so, we're obsessed with the question of "what is it that we're establishing"? And that question eventually devolves into a slavery/anti-slavery rhetoric that eventually evolves into the Civil War as we finally establish the kind of society we're establishing on this continent once and for all. Making a more civilized and well-organized America is the major focus of the Saeculum (usually that definition requires a Protestant labeling, until the 1840s when that notion is challenged by large numbers of Irish immigrants--but for the large part the Protestant requirement stays in put). Carving out the wilderness and establishing it into the Protestant American utopia is the spirit of the age in America for the large part. Where it isn't (as much), is in upper class societies in cities that have strong ties to Europe. The biggest question of the saeculum (answered by the Crisis) is over whether what we've established shall survive, live up to the challenges laid down before us by our forefathers, and thrive.

The larger questions of civilization remained centered in Europe. And the "whammies" you talk about below that so affected us as well as Europe were entirely generated by those forces and trends in Europe, not America. The civilizing of the West was just one of the last chapters in the 500-year era of exploration, conquest and colonization of imperial Europe, and the Western pioneers were still extensions of the European expansion that began with Henry the Navigator and Columbus.

The Great Power saeculum in America was all about making your dreams a reality. If you could dream it, you could make it (the inspiration behind all those inventions). And it was about learning to coexist with new kinds of people within our well established Protestant American Utopia (mainly Catholic and Jewish Immigrants). We had to actually live with African-Americans now, and doing such irrevocably changed popular culture and expanded our horizons. Speaking of expanding our horizons, the Protestant American Utopia that had been established by the Civil War Saeculum, had to learn to live with new Immigrant peoples and ideologies that challenged and forced us to redefine our definition of America from a Protestant Utopia to an Abrahamic (mostly Christian) Utopia, with a culture that Hitler complained was far too influenced by "blacks and jews" to be considered "pure" (not that I'd agree with him that being "pure" was a good thing). If that doesn't scream Awakening, I don't know what does.

I won't disagree with you on Europe (though their brand of Romanticism lasted until WWI, made an Individualistic comeback in the Roaring 20s, but was ended with the existence of the nuclear bomb, Eric). But America I will.

Romanticism declined in Europe after the 1848 revolutions. The last half of the 19th century was as realist and cutthroat and gilded in Europe as it was in America. Materialism enthroned, not a romantic age in the least. Whole books have been written about that era in Europe called A Generation of Materialism and in America Age of Excess. There was little if any difference between these eras in America and Europe, and it was very realist and materialist, not romantic. I know people here don't want to see the historical facts, but the facts are pretty clear beyond whatever clever ways that people here on this site these days find to avoid them.

Again, I don't see any dreams spoken of here in your post worthy of the name. My art history teacher once spoke of our recent times as "Europe coming to America to die." That's what this immigration amounted to. But now is the time for the rebirth that always follows death; a rebirth into a new age and new civilization. At the least, it will be a new globalism, and the immigrants prepared the way for this during the Great Power Saeculum, which occurred entirely within a period when one civilization died and the new one was yet to be born.

I mean, calling the Great Power Saeculum "a mega-awakening" is fine, if you want to exclude everything about an awakening from your view of American history. Which would probably be fine with most people here. But actually, awakenings DO occur and they are important to other people.

I've been also thinking and meditating on what created this atmosphere of pessimism and cynicism for the country, which you oft complain of.

The triple whammie of WWI (it killed off Romantic notions of war in Europe), WWII, and the Nuclear Bomb. Have created this "pessimistic, cynical, and splintering" society. Most especially the Nuclear Bomb. Without the Nuclear Bomb, our saeculum would be an entirely different one altogether (and probably one more to your liking IMHO, and one more receptive to your ideas--if you want to blame anything for the stopping of the spread of the "new age" I'd chalk it up to the nuclear bomb).

These were the events of the "holocaust" that ended the old 500 year cycle that had begun with the renaissance. This was the death of the old world; but it is now dead, even if its remains (such as scientism and materialism, as well as commercialism, free-market delusion, and religious fanaticism) are all around us. This is just a cyclic recurrance of similar events that have happened every 500 years throughout history. Maybe it's taking longer to come out of it this time, as sometimes happens (it seems to have taken a bit longer to fully emerge from the Dark Ages in the 10-11th century, for example; and clearly we have been in an age almost as dark, culturally), but there's no reason to stay and wallow in the time of transition forever. It's time to come fully into the golden age, as we always have before, which as Kenneth Clark pointed out, happened after disasters that were at least as destructive as those of our own time (italics his). Since in the larger context our golden age among others in history is probably the most similar to the Roman golden age, that happened in the midst of the larger Hellenistic age, it may not always seem as golden culturally as the Hellenic Age or the Renaissance, but the Augustan Age and the Pax Romana is still regarded as a paragon of golden ages.

Without the detonation of the Nuclear bombs on Japan, Absurdism and Post-Modernism (which thrive off of cynicism and pessimism I'll add) wouldn't be what most artists are concerned with today. Also because of Absurdism and Post-Modernism it helped contribute to the split of popular culture and the artistic culture, which led to further fragmentation into genres (as well as the rise in African-American influence I'd definitely add). Absurdism was birthed immediately out of the utter devastation of WWII and the detonation of the nuclear bomb, the two events gave the artists who are concerned with Absurdism this idea that we are existing in an utter wasteland and that the progressive humanism that got us this far is responsible for leading us into some of the most destructive acts of all humanity, that creates the unbridled cynicism of which you complain against. And in the immediate aftermath of WWII America became utterly terrified of the bomb and began to view total annihilation as a matter of WHEN not IF. In turn, people turned inward, since they could no longer look outward without running up against that realization. Some of the people turning inward came across your discoveries Eric, but most people didn't. Most people instead became more materialist and selfish because of the failures of progressive humanism.

The cynicism I complain about is mostly just Generation X cynicism. People think everything revolves around their own experience in time. I myself would not have thought that the creative optimism of boomers would have been rejected so quickly by the next generation. For boomers, the "turning inward" was just part of the celebration of new life, not an escape from the bomb and such. It was just an escape from boredom of the bombed-out and spirit-dead culture that 1Ts generally and regularly are. Our generation looked up from our schoolbooks and shopping malls in suburbia (what Bob Dylan eloquently called "the ancient empty streets too dead for dreamin' ") and thought, there has to be more to life than this! And we found it.

Gen Xers just need to get over their rejection of boomers, and join in with the new spirit. As they grow over their particular youth resentment against boomers, whom they confuse with all the elder generations that came before them, and come to grips with the world as it is, they will see that the generational conflicts don't matter. What matters is to discover the new life possibilities of our times, to create the new world that beckons to us now that the old one has died, and to deal with the real problems we face now in a heroic 4T way that will inspire themselves and other generations to come, and fully launch us onto the plateau of that golden age. It's just that the current posters here are pretty-badly out of the loop, for some reason. Most are still hooked on out-of-date Enlightenment and Realist worldviews. So they can't see beyond the dead remains of the dead culture all around them.

ETA: Oh and by the way, I went for children's novels in my much earlier post because they're responsible for largely introducing the world we live in to our youngest members and prepare them for the world which they'll come to live in for the rest of their life. And they usually manage to do so with a highly imaginative and symbolic manner that bespeaks more often of archetypes in a much more concise and less complicated manner than most adult fiction. Not that I don't like looking at adult fiction as well--but in terms of argument, I don't have time in these posts to argue through all the nuances and still have a life.

By the way, I ran across a list of "children's films" recently and I was bemused to find "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" listed as such, it reminded me of our discussion and your invocation of it, and reminded me that I had yet to respond.

I still don't understand how the children's novel you chose (I don't even remember the name now) could even remotely compare in quality, influence or popularity to the Oz books.

PS: why not just say EDIT instead of using an acronym that most people don't know? (ETA)?

In Terms of Epochal Eras and when compared to earlier epochs, our era is most equivalent to the early eleventh century and the early 16th century. The allied victory in WW2's closest earlier equivalents are the victory over the magyars and the appearance of joan of arc respectively.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

In Terms of Epochal Eras and when compared to earlier epochs, our era is most equivalent to the early eleventh century and the early 16th century. The allied victory in WW2's closest earlier equivalents are the victory over the magyars and the appearance of joan of arc respectively.

Yes, that is the cycle of civilization, and you can add the early 6th (barbarian invasions and battles with Attila), early 1st (conquests of the caesars) and early 5th BC (Greek-Persian war) to that list, and even further back.

The Hellenistic Roman golden age is most like our own in many ways, because of the cultural resemblance of the Roman Empire to the United States. This includes the Renaissance as a revival of ancient culture, and the development of each into the large secular domineering states that were culturally and historically based on the previous epochs (Hellenic and Renaissance).

Last time around there was an interaction between the saeculum and the 500 year thing. Consider the turnings described by S&H...starting with the late Medieval half-saeculum, the developments that played out in the saeculum ushered in a major new epoch. As the saeculum has clearly been a force during this interregnum, I presume that there will be an interaction between turnings and the onset of a new major epoch. I imagine that this epoch will be characterized by one or major themes, themes that have yet to fully gel.

I have been puzzled as to the exact character of a new era. This interregnum seems to encompass multiple transitions...leads to a fog of possibilities.

If you consider the double rhythm, you get a saeculum length of about 160 years. This cycle clearly applies to alternating 2Ts.... Not entirely surprising, as S&H commented that Awakenings are almost entirely endogenous to the saeculum.

Scroll down to idiotgirrl for further discussion.

Regarding the suggestion that the Cultural Creatives could be the vangard of a new Idealistic period-Sorokin stated that Islam had an initial, main Idealistic period...later, there was-to a lesser extent-a second Idealistic period, lasting about a century.

We may be experiencing a kind of interregnum comparable to the Hittites' Middle Kingdom (see previous links). In their case, the Hittites would later experience the second major period of their history. In our case we too seem to be experiencing an interregnum. Unforetunately, in our case we could experience a nightmare scenario that could usher in a new Dark Age, if not the extinction of humanity.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

We may be experiencing a kind of interregnum comparable to the Hittites' Middle Kingdom (see previous links). In their case, the Hittites would later experience the second major period of their history. In our case we too seem to be experiencing an interregnum. Unfortunately, in our case we could experience a nightmare scenario that could usher in a new Dark Age, if not the extinction of humanity.

If we don't ditch the Republican mentality, and don't thereby recognize our need to require companies to switch from using fossil fuels, that could indeed happen. Our current 4T is the time to face up to this challenge, so we can begin building a sustainable society in the next 1T, and further reform it early in the next 2T. We need to face that challenge, among others, such as (1) a return to an economically more-equal society, and (2) a ramping down of the military-industrial complex, and the related culture of gun violence.

I have reached the conclusion that the next age is unknowable-there is a fog of possibilities, and I mean many possibilities.

That said, does anybody have any insights based on what they think will happen (as opposed to what they want to happen)?

Well of course I do.

http://philosopherswheel.com/book.htm
http://philosopherswheel.com/hna.html (work in progress)

Also see some of my posts in the 2300 thread, and the 2130 thread, if you haven't already.

I expect that the fading half-millenium will someday be called the European Age, or European Era, or European Epoch. A few years back I mentioned a book that described this major epoch/500 year thing. In the book it was mentioned that it might take a couple centuries for a new era to be fully clarified. So if WWI (nearly a century ago) was the beginning of the end, then concievably the next Epoch may finally gel in the early 22nd century. This would be in the aftermath of the projected Crisis of 2100. If the New Heros enjoy reasonable success and become confirmed as Civics, then the new 1T will feel crisply modern to them. And they will probably refer to their new era as the (new) Modern Age.

In which case our present will likely seem quaint, and the European era will seem like ancient history.