Originally Posted by TimWalker

It's good to know where we are...or rather, when we are. If we are in a long term Mega-Unraveling, then I have to consider myself lucky that I got to experience a portion of the American Century. So what does a Mega-Unraveling imply in a 21st century context? As for what comes after, the next Age, I am stumped.

A Mega-Crisis in the next saeculum.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Here's my suggestion on looking at the different year lengths of our "device".

Micro-Turning - ~4 - 7
Turning - ~17 - 25
Saeculum - ~77 - 100
Mega Saeculum - ~400 - 500
Super Saeculum - ~1600 - 2000 (Northrop Frye has a good analysis of these using the evolution of literature--not consciously done, but that's how I interpret his ideas, they're more about the changes in cultural beliefs)

~Chas'88

Ironically, the 1600-2000 made me think of the Mega-Saeculum that ran from ~1500 to ~1900. The one called Western Civilization a.k.a. The Modern Era. Barzun had a brilliant history of that, though his agenda shows in its title, "From Dawn to Decadence." (subtitled "We've already gone to the dogs"?)

Originally Posted by Mikebert

My understanding of what most people here mean by "mega" is a series of nested quaternary harmonics. This is based on the idea that exactly four turnings fall into one saeculum. If you extend this concept to one cycle larger you have a "megasaeculum" which consists of four "megaturnings", each of which are comprised of four turnings. That is a mega turning would the same length as a saeculum. And if you go one higher cone could have a "macro-megasaeculum" or a “super-saeculum", which would consist of four megasaecula or 16 regular saecula.

If this the idea then the length of the megasaeculum would be around 350 ± 50years long (4 x 77-100) and not 400-500. Similarly the super-saeculum would be about 1400 (4 x 350) and so on.

A wee bit too clockwork, I think.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Here are my observations of the successive centuries of the common era. Here MA, MH and MC refer to mega-awakening, mega-high and mega-crisis periods, respectively, where such period are rough a century (saeculum) in length.

Cent	Turning	Comment
1	MA	Christian Awakening
2	MH	Five Good Emperors
3	MC	Mass political unrest; End of Principate
4	MA	Christianity come of age
5	MC	Mass invasion; End of Roman political system in the West
6	MH?	Age of Justinian; resurgence of the Eastern Roman Empire
7	MA	Islamic Awakening
8	MH	Carolingian Enlightenment
9	MC	Viking/Magyar Crisis, start of Feudalism
10	MA	Cluniac Reforms
11
12	MH	"12th century Renaissance"
13	MA	Mendicant friars
14	MC	Black Death; End of Feudalism
15	MH	The Renaissance
16	MA	Reformation
17	MC	Thirty Years War; beginning of modern state system
18	MH	The Enlightenment
19	MA	Socialism and the Scientific Paradigm
20	MC	Mass genocide; end of autocracy

There is a rough pattern of repetition. MA’s are spaced an average of 3 centuries apart, MC’s are spaced an average of 3.25 centuries apart. MH’s are spaced an average of 3 centuries apparent. But the pattern is not precise and not consistent a harmonic structure.

So what IS your take on the 11th Century?

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

A wee bit too clockwork, I think.

That was my point.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

So what IS your take on the 11th Century?

That’s the nub of it, isn’t it? There is a fair amount of agreement on a 12^th century Renaissance . There is also significant support for a Carolingian Renaissance, or was I am calling the 8^th century MH, although more of it actually fell into the 9^th century. There is some support for a 10^th century Renaissance.

For crises there is general agreement on crises in the third, fourteenth and seventeenth centuries.

There is less support for a European crisis of the 9^th century. I am referring to the collapse of the Carolingian empire and the Viking Crisis in England as the crisis of the 9^th century. The triple medieval renaissance concept has the late 8^th, 9^th and 10^th centuries all Renaissance periods. I am discounting the less widely supported Ottonian Renaissance and asserting that one cannot be in a High and a Crisis simultaneously, and so the early portion of the Carolingian Renaissance that occurred before the Empire started to fall apart in ca. 830 would then be the “8^th century High” which is followed by the Crisis of the ninth century, which was accompanied by political disintegration until well in the 10^th century, before settling out in the 11^th century. Towards the end of the 11^th century economic growth from a new base began, which was accelerated by the Crusades and the Cluniac monastic reforms of the 10^th century (which I call a MA) and gave rise to rapid economic expansion and the flourishing of the arts that rising wealth supports.

As for the 11^th century it gets missed by all these assignments of crisis or renaissance largely because it really didn’t have any features not possessed by adjacent centuries. It sort of is what it is.

The mega-awakening (MA) is my invention. I came up with it when I was looking at the origins of our modern version of Western Civilization, which I place in the 10^th century. I believe Western Civilization came from West Asian civilization, one of the three main “trunks” of human civilization in the Axial Age. West Asian civilization includes the old Persian Empire, including Israel and Egypt, Greece, and points west. West Asia civilization split into eastern (Islamic) and western (Christian) portions as a result of the 7^th century MA.

The Christian half of West Asian civilization split again into Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Roman) following the 10^th century MA. America is descended from this latter branch, and I am tracing the development of the modern world, particularly in the features where it differs for other world civilizations (e.g. capitalism).

The cultural innovations needed for capitalism emerged stepwise over the period between the 10^th and 13^th century MAs and first flowered in the 12^th century MH. These new developments were necessarily incorporated into Christianity, which was the core (and nearly the entirety) of Medieval culture. So capitalistic notions were religious impulses at this time. The next thing needed was a reworking of Christianity that would allow the capitalistic cultural innovations to become what we call capitalism (a kind of political economy). This happened over the period between the 13^th and 16^th century MAs and first flowered in the 15^th century MH.

Coming out of the 16^th century MA was what we call modernity, with its new capitalistic political-economy, and cultural developments independent of Christianity such as Humanism, new philosophies and the beginnings of Science. But the same problems existing with this new more secular version of capitalistic society that existed in its first centuries after Cluny, and to which the mendicant friars arose as a solution. The solution that emerged in the next MA (the 19^th century one) was the political left and right. By balancing between capitalist and socialist impulses a better society (i.e. one more in line with Christian concepts of the good) might be achieved.

But has this worked? I don’t think so. Left and right are increasingly useless conceptual tools. Today I note young people calling themselves Freegans, and the Freeware movement that are echoes of the mendicants. Indeed we now have a pope Francis channeling the spirit of Assisi. The modern environmental movement has issued a direct challenge to the Cluniac innovations, something that has not been part of any MA since the 10^th century. If the measuring rod for MAs is the saeculum and not the century, then we are due for a MA to begin around the end of the 4T. Could these recent trends be a foreshadowing of what is the come?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

That was my point.

The thing is - natural phenomena don't work like clockwork, even (in the long run, as Caesar's Romans learned the hard way) planetary orbits. )His calendar reform). Winters may be short or long, as may summers. Humans can extend their childhood will into the "balding Peter Pan" stage, or have it abruptly cut short when they're barely old enough to scrounge for food. Likewise with the cycles of history.

So when you set up a set of things in which the numbers work precisely, but don't match the observed data, it isn't that the cycles don't exist. It's that they have this organic irregularity, of which the numbers are a rough approximation.

To put it another way: "There are roughly half a million people in Albuquerque" is a lot closer to the truth than "There are precisely 543,219 people here".

Think about it.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

That’s the nub of it, isn’t it? There is a fair amount of agreement on a 12^th century Renaissance . There is also significant support for a Carolingian Renaissance, or was I am calling the 8^th century MH, although more of it actually fell into the 9^th century. There is some support for a 10^th century Renaissance.

For crises there is general agreement on crises in the third, fourteenth and seventeenth centuries.

There is less support for a European crisis of the 9^th century. I am referring to the collapse of the Carolingian empire and the Viking Crisis in England as the crisis of the 9^th century. The triple medieval renaissance concept has the late 8^th, 9^th and 10^th centuries all Renaissance periods. I am discounting the less widely supported Ottonian Renaissance and asserting that one cannot be in a High and a Crisis simultaneously, and so the early portion of the Carolingian Renaissance that occurred before the Empire started to fall apart in ca. 830 would then be the “8^th century High” which is followed by the Crisis of the ninth century, which was accompanied by political disintegration until well in the 10^th century, before settling out in the 11^th century. Towards the end of the 11^th century economic growth from a new base began, which was accelerated by the Crusades and the Cluniac monastic reforms of the 10^th century (which I call a MA) and gave rise to rapid economic expansion and the flourishing of the arts that rising wealth supports.

As for the 11^th century it gets missed by all these assignments of crisis or renaissance largely because it really didn’t have any features not possessed by adjacent centuries. It sort of is what it is.

The mega-awakening (MA) is my invention. I came up with it when I was looking at the origins of our modern version of Western Civilization, which I place in the 10^th century. I believe Western Civilization came from West Asian civilization, one of the three main “trunks” of human civilization in the Axial Age. West Asian civilization includes the old Persian Empire, including Israel and Egypt, Greece, and points west. West Asia civilization split into eastern (Islamic) and western (Christian) portions as a result of the 7^th century MA.

The Christian half of West Asian civilization split again into Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Roman) following the 10^th century MA. America is descended from this latter branch, and I am tracing the development of the modern world, particularly in the features where it differs for other world civilizations (e.g. capitalism).

The cultural innovations needed for capitalism emerged stepwise over the period between the 10^th and 13^th century MAs and first flowered in the 12^th century MH. These new developments were necessarily incorporated into Christianity, which was the core (and nearly the entirety) of Medieval culture. So capitalistic notions were religious impulses at this time. The next thing needed was a reworking of Christianity that would allow the capitalistic cultural innovations to become what we call capitalism (a kind of political economy). This happened over the period between the 13^th and 16^th century MAs and first flowered in the 15^th century MH.

Coming out of the 16^th century MA was what we call modernity, with its new capitalistic political-economy, and cultural developments independent of Christianity such as Humanism, new philosophies and the beginnings of Science. But the same problems existing with this new more secular version of capitalistic society that existed in its first centuries after Cluny, and to which the mendicant friars arose as a solution. The solution that emerged in the next MA (the 19^th century one) was the political left and right. By balancing between capitalist and socialist impulses a better society (i.e. one more in line with Christian concepts of the good) might be achieved.

But has this worked? I don’t think so. Left and right are increasingly useless conceptual tools. Today I note young people calling themselves Freegans, and the Freeware movement that are echoes of the mendicants. Indeed we now have a pope Francis channeling the spirit of Assisi. The modern environmental movement has issued a direct challenge to the Cluniac innovations, something that has not been part of any MA since the 10^th century. If the measuring rod for MAs is the saeculum and not the century, then we are due for a MA to begin around the end of the 4T. Could these recent trends be a foreshadowing of what is the come?

Food for thought! About the 11th Century - try running separate timelines on England and the Continent and see what you get. Sometimes they'll merge and sometimes not - the Norman Conquest was probably not a Crisis Era for France!

Just as the Reconquista only affected Spain and Portugal, and of course the New World, though it was roughly contemporary a very similar period in England.

[I belong to the Friends of Medieval Studies at the University of New Mexico, and the Spanish Middle Ages/Renaissance/Colonial Era is a favorite topic for the annual lecture series. One learns a lot about that archetypical transition age. And incidentally - the cartoon movie Puss in Boots actually captured the flavor of the era very, very nicely. Including an English couple as the villains!]

As for today's neo-Mendicant movement - we shall see what we shall see. I've been taking it as an individual-based but growing reaction to the contracting economy and the holes beginning to show in the official "It's all Progress!" mythology. Pope Francis may be the salvation of the Roman Catholic Church in this century.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Food for thought! About the 11th Century - try running separate timelines on England and the Continent and see what you get. Sometimes they'll merge and sometimes not - the Norman Conquest was probably not a Crisis Era for France!

Just as the Reconquista only affected Spain and Portugal, and of course the New World, though it was roughly contemporary a very similar period in England.

[I belong to the Friends of Medieval Studies at the University of New Mexico, and the Spanish Middle Ages/Renaissance/Colonial Era is a favorite topic for the annual lecture series. One learns a lot about that archetypical transition age. And incidentally - the cartoon movie Puss in Boots actually captured the flavor of the era very, very nicely. Including an English couple as the villains!]

As for today's neo-Mendicant movement - we shall see what we shall see. I've been taking it as an individual-based but growing reaction to the contracting economy and the holes beginning to show in the official "It's all Progress!" mythology. Pope Francis may be the salvation of the Roman Catholic Church in this century.

As one not too versed in medieval history, I am curious as to what you mean by neo-Mendicant as I have never heard of this before now. But you might say that there are holes in the economic ozone, especially when it comes to the fact that its rules have not caught up with today's realities. On another thread just yesterday I posted that in some ways we are, or at least seem to be heading towards, a new brand of feudalism as most of us are now slaves to the Lords and Ladies of Wall Street and other corporate concerns. And yet we continue to be told that these are exciting times to be alive in, and are encouraged to be open to the many possibilities that are likely to present themselves today. We are also mightily encouraged to grasp the chance to hasten the process of growth and learning through especially continuing education. Yet all I see is the slamming shut of more doors. Your take on this is definitely more than welcome.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Food for thought! About the 11th Century - try running separate timelines on England and the Continent and see what you get. Sometimes they'll merge and sometimes not - the Norman Conquest was probably not a Crisis Era for France!

I am in the process of doing for France what I did for England. I am putting together the monastery/cathedral index now. So far it appears that the index in France runs in a countersense to that in England during the 11 century. That is, this dataset suggests where there is a social moment in England (2T or 4T) there is a nonsocial moment (1T or 3T) in France. But I am a long way from being able to draw turnings in the 11^th century.

I have yet to actual construct the political timelines and look for Butlerian spirals. But even then I can’t proceed because I can’t do generations until I have defined adjacent turnings, which I am going to have to build by moving back from the Plague crisis. It’s going to take a while.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I am in the process of doing for France what I did for England. I am putting together the monastery/cathedral index now. So far it appears that the index in France runs in a countersense to that in England during the 11 century. That is, this dataset suggests where there is a social moment in England (2T or 4T) there is a nonsocial moment (1T or 3T) in France. But I am a long way from being able to draw turnings in the 11^th century.

I have yet to actual construct the political timelines and look for Butlerian spirals. But even then I can’t proceed because I can’t do generations until I have defined adjacent turnings, which I am going to have to build by moving back from the Plague crisis. It’s going to take a while.

Certainly a 4T in England in 1066, never heard of a corresponding one in France.

There were philosophical movements during the Hellenistic Age. The general idea was to achieve peace of mind. So I am wondering if we may see philosophical movements in the future. I don't expect another Enlightenment; the times are different.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Certainly a 4T in England in 1066, never heard of a corresponding one in France.

Who is proposing a crisis in France?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Who is proposing a crisis in France?

Nobody; but the entire Medieval world being on the same timeline has indeed been argued, and that necessitates a Crisis in France at the time England had one, or near enough.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

There were philosophical movements during the Hellenistic Age. The general idea was to achieve peace of mind. So I am wondering if we may see philosophical movements in the future. I don't expect another Enlightenment; the times are different.

Oh, decidedly. Philosophical movements, and we may be ripe for some developments in religion as well. Conventional theist religion, that is. Since, as in Greece, half the mainstream religion seems to be fading, another half is in violent and angry reaction ("Socrates is a blasphemer!"), etc - usually the signal for a reinvention on its way. Probably in the next 2T.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Nobody; but the entire Medieval world being on the same timeline has indeed been argued, and that necessitates a Crisis in France at the time England had one, or near enough.

I would say, a takeover of the throne by a guy who thought it was rightfully his, in one famous battle, does not a "crisis" make.

I'm thinking of the American Century as a kind of addendum to the European Age. Now, with the fading of the American century, we are Post-Modern.

Using the mining metaphor for cultural achievement: though the main lode is played out, perhaps their are minor veins that were overlooked. After that...endless video games?

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Using the mining metaphor for cultural achievement: though the main lode is played out, perhaps their are minor veins that were overlooked. After that...endless video games?

Endless video games and turtles all the way down.

"Turtles?"

Originally Posted by TimWalker

"Turtles?"

Oh, first an explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Perhaps we should modify it to "Endless video games being played by intellegent turtles all the way down."

I would guess that civilization could be reconstituted in response to new technologies. There may be civilizational stages that have yet to be seen by historians. However, this is very speculative.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Here's my suggestion on looking at the different year lengths of our "device".

Micro-Turning - ~4 - 7
Turning - ~17 - 25
Saeculum - ~77 - 100
Mega Saeculum - ~400 - 500
Super Saeculum - ~1600 - 2000 (Northrop Frye has a good analysis of these using the evolution of literature--not consciously done, but that's how I interpret his ideas, they're more about the changes in cultural beliefs)

~Chas'88

It seems like the sample size is way too small to find any predictable pattern in anything larger than a Saeculum. In fact, even if you just use the Saeculum theory, S&H only looked at five full cycles in detail in their original Generations Book. Of those cycles, the fifth was incomplete and the third was an anomaly. They did go a little further back in the fourth turning, but didn't explore those earlier cycles with nearly as much detail as they did the later cycles. I know others here have filled in the blanks and have gone further back, but I don't feel there was as much biographical research done as there was in the original Generations book to support the existence of those cycles. Now once you start adding Mega Saeculums and Super Seaculum's you're really stretching things.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I would say, a takeover of the throne by a guy who thought it was rightfully his, in one famous battle, does not a "crisis" make.

It did for Saxon England what the War Between the States did for the Deep South, only more so, since this was a conquest by another people entirely, who set up an entirely different order. It trashed them out as thoroughly as the original Saxon invasion in the 5th Century did the Britons. And the English themselves are quite convinced there were both Crises of a civilization-changing order.

If that's not a Crisis, what else were the U.S.'s pitiful ones? A SCA tournaments in the park on a Sunday afternoon?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I would say, a takeover of the throne by a guy who thought it was rightfully his, in one famous battle, does not a "crisis" make.

Him alone no, but considering that England had been in a Saxon civil war of sorts since 1051, all of a sudden it becomes one. Harold caused a lot of grief for Edward the Confessor before he died. The relationship between Edward the Confessor and Harold is strikingly similar to that of Henry VI and Edward IV four hundred years later. In that parallel, William the Conquerer is an older equivalent of Henry VII.

~Chas'88