Originally Posted by Tim Walker '56

As listed by Carroll Quigley:

1. Mixture 6000-5000 B.C.

2. Gestation 5000-4500

3. Expansion 4500-2500

4. Conflict 2500-800

5. Universal Empire: a. Core 1700-1650 b. Whole Civilization 725-450

6. Decay 450-350

7. Invasion 350-200


The "Core" empire listed above was that of Hammurabi. Like that of Alexander the Great, Hammurabi's empire began to fall apart with his death. The Kassites took over, and the long division between Babylon and Assyria began.

Time for review.

The "Core" empire (Hammurabi's) is associated the paleo-Gilded Age. Actually, this can be considered the beginnings of Decay. The Dominant Minority, however, was eclipsed by a new ruling group, the Kassites, who chose to rule well, rather than run the country into the ground.

The author chose to blame Babylon's problems on a fragmentation due to the presence of foreign groups. However, his descriptions were similar to Turchin's description of the Roman Empire-an atomized society (if "society" is the right term) in which internal trust has broken down, because of a Dominant Minority. " From now on came an era of privatization and outsourcing ...there would be no such thing as society, just individual men and women and families, some wealthy, some poor,some weak, some powerful."

BTW, the author described Babylon as a highly conservative society. There were some minor cultural innovations. There was something of a religious revival. But overall, conserving the past was the emphasis.

What might have been..... The Ruin of the Roman Empire The Emperor Who Brought It Down, The Barbarians Who Could Have Saved It by James J. O'Donnell. Refers to Emperor Justinian in Constantinople. In regards to Persia: "First, he should have made peace at the eastern frontier on a basis of agreed spheres of influence and a common interest in trade.....Second, if it was venturesome for Justinian to imagine establishing warmer relationships with the shah of Persia, it was far less difficult to think of building a diplomatically successful future with the monarchs of the western Mediterranean. By Justinian's time, a rational apportionment of lands had created stable rulers in Spain, Gaul, Italy, and Africa. For them to enter or cement a partnership with Constantinople could, would, and should have linked afresh the old territories of the Roman empire in a unity that would have been far stronger, with its distributed centers, than the overstretched and incoherent territorial unity of classical antiquity......"

Ruin..... Author discussed Romanization of the barbarians, and the Roman like nature of their regimes. So...could there have been an Association of Quasi-Roman Regimes?

Ruin..... The author compared the "barbarian" descendants in Italy to modern Israelis, and said Franks had a "Tex-Mex" flavor.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Ruin..... The author compared the "barbarian" descendants in Italy to modern Israelis, and said Franks had a "Tex-Mex" flavor.

Charlemagne's Chile Rellenos. Merovingian menudo ... the mind reels.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Thinking about where we are at...... Socially we seem to be in a time similar to the Hellenistic Age. The beginning of which was an expansive time for the ancient Greeks. But we also seem to be sliding into a period of decline similar to the "Middle Kingdom" of the Hittites. Which fits with us being in a Crap Sack crisis.

We seem to be a long way from a Renaissance.

Maybe the next saeculum will play out as a Crap Sack saeculum.

Perhaps, considering the world wide contribution to global warming, we may be edging toward a point of no return.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Thinking about where we are at...... Socially we seem to be in a time similar to the Hellenistic Age. The beginning of which was an expansive time for the ancient Greeks. But we also seem to be sliding into a period of decline similar to the "Middle Kingdom" of the Hittites. Which fits with us being in a Crap Sack crisis.

We seem to be a long way from a Renaissance.

That's where we are though; if people would awaken to that fact, as they did in the 2T, and as some continued to be in the 3T. The typical attitudes of people on forums like this, though, shows no awareness of the possibilities that exist today for a renaissance.

Maybe the next saeculum will play out as a Crap Sack saeculum.

If it does, it will be solely because we did not take advantage of the opportunity that existed (and still exists) to create a golden age. Certainly Americans are more held back than other peoples; a renaissance is more likely in other lands now, until the red states are no longer able to hold us back with such retrograde attitudes. A handcuffed president cannot lead a nation out of the crap sack; no matter what you may think of his lack-lustre performance, it's mostly because he has no support from his people.

I do think our age is like the hellenistic; that's a well-known opinion among historians. Where we are exactly might vary, according to which cycle you buy into. As I see it, we are at about the time of Augustus or Tiberius and the time of Christ. Others might see us at over 100 years before that. Cynics who don't have access to the cyclic info might think it's much later than that. But that means the best we can hope for might be something like the golden age that Rome had; some good achievements, but certainly not the paradisical age of aquarius a lot of us new agers hoped for.

The possibilities of a new global society are interesting, though. No people has ever had so much access to all the inspired works of humanity's entire past and present worldwide, nor so many tools for life and creativity. But we just seem unable to catch enough inspiration to make it seem like a renaissance is happening. Instead, it appears only in fringe subcultures. But, considering the size of our population, maybe a small portion of today's folks would equal a much larger portion of creative folks active in past golden ages. Expecting the whole society to be in a new renaissance, is probably a vain hope in our mass commercial society. Most people focus on all the problems, as if other times whether golden or not did not have even worse problems. They did. We are living in utopian luxury compared to our forefathers and ancestors. It's entirely an attitude problem. Gen X cynicism obviously has not helped in that regard.

Another response to Tim; to say our crisis era will fail and a "crap sack saeculum" will follow, is to ignore what I have said about the 2020s. I keep telling you guys, it's too early to give up. Demographics favor the left over the next two or three decades, and the right-wing is the source of all our problems today. They will go out of power kicking and screaming, yes; but they will go. Cosmic sources suggest a successful outcome to this 4T. Please remember that, and remember also that change will accelerate once the 2020s begin, and more so each year from now all the way to 2028. The 2010s are 1850s redux. Leaders are mediocre, as then. Neptune moving from murky Pisces into activist Aries in 2025 means the fog of confusion and unwillingness to act will end; and even the late degrees of Pisces are more activist. All the other aspects and planetary positions confirm this. Don't disregard astrology. If you do, your only possible outlook is cynicism and despair. By the mid-2020s, change will come so fast it will make your head spin. I promise!

4Ts can go very badly.

The Collapse and Recovery of the Roman Empire by Michael Grant. For Classical civilization, this was the last post-classic phasebefore disintegration. Marked by a change in political organization-the Tetrarchy. Reconsitution of the army, notably by adding calvary. Reform of coinage.

Review of the Hellenistic Age.

Review of Neomedievalism:

A

B

C

As I commented on a media thread, we may anticipate that society will become at least partially virtual. Of course, there is no close historical analog.

Came across an anthology of short stories by Poul Anderson. Included was an article he wrote: Science Fiction and History

"It seems...possible that elements from our own past will return to claim us. While technological revolutions, which have social consequences, may well be irreversible, social characteristics not immediately related to technology have always been labile....

"Some philosophers of history have maintained that it moves, or tends to move, through cycles; if events don't repeat, classes of events do.

"...Rome had its own New Age....

"Nor is it necessarily simpleminded to anticipate no new orderings of society, different in kind from any that have gone before....Instead, we have gotten changes rung on the same half-dozen or so themes...Granted, countless details of tribalism, monarchy, hierocracy, hierocracy, democracy, etc., have varied throughout history, and so has the overall mix.....

"Americans naturally tend to think the future in terms of republican government and democratic ethos. Yet theirs, the oldest continuously existing republic on Earth, has barely passed its two hundredth birthday. Republics have generally been short lived and democracies (which are not the same thing) still more so....."

A newspaper headline pointed out that it has been a century since the start of WWI (the beginning of the end of the European Age) and 70 years since D Day (the tide turning in the biggest conflaguration in history.

Kassites also did strange things, like free livestock en masse. They had Indian names, maybe because they came to Babylon from near Iran or Turkmenistan and it was part of their political/religious ideology somehow. They were sort of unusual, both primitivistic and highly traditionalistic.

The Hittites were also interesting, and we know much more about them. They basically built fortress cities with semi pyramid like designs. Literal fortresses, as if their whole culture was based on a siege mentality. There's a good documentary on YouTube that Jeremy Irons narrated.

I rented the DVD about the Hittites. An interesting people. In terms of their history, our present most resembles "The Middle Kingdom" period. A time of weakness/decline. Culturally, our present resembles the Hellenistic Age.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

I rented the DVD about the Hittites. An interesting people. In terms of their history, our present most resembles "The Middle Kingdom" period. A time of weakness/decline. Culturally, our present resembles the Hellenistic Age.

Hmm, interesting comparison. Alexander the Two Horned, Dhul Karnein. The Muslims say he was a believer, or at least that Allah gave him leave to conquer the east and the west. His wall is said to be the Caspian Gate.

But Alexander conquered the east only: so some people say the Two Horned was really Cyrus. Or maybe Moses (like Michaelangelo's depiction). But Moses fought wars in Africa, against the Ethiopians according to midrash.

The Afghans say Moses fought against some of their ancestors, but also that some of their ancestors were Banu Israil. But that would hint that some of their ancestors were from the nation of Imlaq or the Mulekim----whose root is linked to the tribe Ephraim in the Song of Deborah. So we come full circle.

The Hittites also have some interesting associations. Cyrus Gordon noticed some details about Abram corresponded to Hittite law. Also, the best archaeological match for Solomon's Temple is the Neo-Hittite site of Ain Dara, near Aleppo.

Time plays funny tricks. Man tries to forget the past, but the earth remembers.

On the other hand, it has occurred to me that society might morph into an unprecedented variant, due to modern technology. In fact, as mentioned on the technology thread, we seem to be off cycle because of the 1880-1930 Accelerando.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

On the other hand, it has occurred to me that society might morph into an unprecedented variant, due to modern technology. In fact, as mentioned on the technology thread, we seem to be off cycle because of the 1880-1930 Accelerando.

The Western powers that be are scared senseless of social changes from new technology. Genomic tech in particular. Info tech (capacity for something more like a hive mind) is feared by the masses.

Both fears are pointless, because both tech advances are here to stay. They will blossom in time. Whether one faction or another harnesses and develops the full potential is their choice. The early birds get the worm.

Then there is drone tech. Hmm. Tech is morally neutral - but to be human is to be a moral agent. Many are called, few are chosen. That's how it always is. People try to hold into the past until they can't anymore.

Originally Posted by Anc' Mariner

The Western powers that be are scared senseless of social changes from new technology. Genomic tech in particular. Info tech (capacity for something more like a hive mind) is feared by the masses.

Both fears are pointless, because both tech advances are here to stay. They will blossom in time. Whether one faction or another harnesses and develops the full potential is their choice. The early birds get the worm.

Then there is drone tech. Hmm. Tech is morally neutral - but to be human is to be a moral agent. Many are called, few are chosen. That's how it always is. People try to hold into the past until they can't anymore.

I think we may have finally crossed the Rubicon. Most technology from prior eras was immediately identifiable as a beneficial advance. No, not all tech was applauded by everyone - the Luddites being the most obvious example, but we were still well on the supply-limited side of the curve. The efficiencies were quickly absorbed, and society advanced. Can we still say that now? Even assuming that we can support the ever greater baskets of goods and services we are able to produce, can we absorb the changes as quickly as they happen? Can people really reinvent themselves several times in a lifetime, just to accommodate emerging tech? Will the concept of work even survive?

I should note that I think that technological advancements are typically a net plus, and that still is true. What we lack is a social and economic model that will work when we destroy jobs literally as fast as we create them. What will be left for humans that is uniquely ours to do? It won't be all that long before machines will be be to produce any good or service we can conceive, and even conception may become a technological product at some point. Will we simply be left to recreate and procreate? Sounds dull.

@ML: Reminds me of Jeremy Rifkin's book "The End of Work." It seems we have so much tech ability, but we don't know how to get along and really know each other. Modern life is atomistic and isolating.

If some people who think they have big differences get together and cross the Abyss - really get to know the Other they have feared so much - maybe then there is some hope. I think info tech - like a collective virtual "place" where we can see into each others' minds, with no secrets. Really see what moves the people who are different from us in ethos and moral orientation - and living together, can give a chance.

Think of your worst irreconcilable enemies. Maybe they are physically far away, but in your mind they are with you always. Maybe as inhuman figures of evil, and worse - knowing for them you might represent a collectively evil force in society. Dehumanization on both sides, colored by fear that is somehow existential.

What if you lived and worked with them, shared all your hopes and thoughts and feelings with them - including the darkest ones - what would that be like? And they would share yours. Everyone together, maybe just for a season.