"Sherman wasn't doing title checks on his March to the Sea."
This thought occurred to me while watching a PBS show (American Experience, I think) about "Gone with the Wind" author Margaret Mitchell. In response to some intractability on schoolwork, her mother took her on a tour of local estates that had been ravaged by Sherman fifty years earlier. In that area, at least, the families never rebuilt, leaving the wrecks of these huge estate houses as ghosts of the war. And inspiring, no doubt, the dream of a rebuilt Tara.
In any case, while anticipating the next incident in the Crisis, it's important to look beyond conventional wisdom. And to carefully consider the real implications of extreme options. Paying off the mortgage may be a good idea, but it won't help if Sherman rides through your town.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Newtown
It does feel different, even after Columbine and UVA and too many others. Certainly that they were children - 6 and 7 years old - has a lot to do with it, as does how many were murdered. Perhaps, too, it's the time of the Turning that has us more upset - that it's Reactives and Civics identifying with the parents - for those others, the victims were Civics, their parents Boomers and Xers. While the Crisis puts us on edge, there's some idea of an underlying normalcy, which this shatters.
There are calls for change, of course. How much this relates to the Crisis will probably be shown in whether anything is implemented - what do we do, if anything.
There are calls for change, of course. How much this relates to the Crisis will probably be shown in whether anything is implemented - what do we do, if anything.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Shadow
On a cold rainy November day, my thoughts are turning to Highlander. Not really sure why.
Which is why I'm going to take a post to talk about The Shadow.
I saw this Alec Baldwin superhero feature in the theater, and wanted to like it much more than I did. The reasons I had at the time appear clearer now, and more succinctly described: it's a Redemption story that's instead portrayed as a Hero story. Everything about the protagonist - the timing of the story, his more practical than moral methods, especially his unsavory origin - points to a Reactive character. These usually work best in redemptive plots, where the previous evil (original sin?) is overcome. While there are hints that this was considered, the story ends up more about how he Saves The World. Even there, though, he does it without any real sacrifice. In fact we might say that it's more of a Prophet story, where he succeeds through sheer moral superiority. In any case, it's a muddied resolution: too Bad at the start to just Be Good at the end, not bad enough to be Redeemed, not enough sacrifice to be Heroic.
I remember thinking at the time that it would have worked with a Highlander-like treatment of flashbacks to his earlier life, and his struggle to contain it - that the point is that The Shadow really does know the evil that lurks in the hearts of men. Found out later that - go figure - Mulcahy directed both. Ah, well.
Which is why I'm going to take a post to talk about The Shadow.
I saw this Alec Baldwin superhero feature in the theater, and wanted to like it much more than I did. The reasons I had at the time appear clearer now, and more succinctly described: it's a Redemption story that's instead portrayed as a Hero story. Everything about the protagonist - the timing of the story, his more practical than moral methods, especially his unsavory origin - points to a Reactive character. These usually work best in redemptive plots, where the previous evil (original sin?) is overcome. While there are hints that this was considered, the story ends up more about how he Saves The World. Even there, though, he does it without any real sacrifice. In fact we might say that it's more of a Prophet story, where he succeeds through sheer moral superiority. In any case, it's a muddied resolution: too Bad at the start to just Be Good at the end, not bad enough to be Redeemed, not enough sacrifice to be Heroic.
I remember thinking at the time that it would have worked with a Highlander-like treatment of flashbacks to his earlier life, and his struggle to contain it - that the point is that The Shadow really does know the evil that lurks in the hearts of men. Found out later that - go figure - Mulcahy directed both. Ah, well.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Obama
At first, I didnt see Obama's re-election as having a lot of generational or Crisis overtones. Sure, there was plenty of "the most important election of our lives" rhetoric, and a surprising amount if allusion to 1776 and 1860. There's nothing as controversial as slavery or revolution being brought up - and then I realized that was probably the Republicans' mistake. Romney appeared to be - at best - a return to the Bush years. Whether you consider that to mean "when America was great" or "the same old failed policies" it wasn't enough to get a Crisis-era electorate enthused. Going in a more controversial direction - yes, like Ron Paul - might have enabled a redirection of energies from across the political spectrum. And that is what the Crisis is about, after all.
Monday, October 8, 2012
1492
I started work on a way to better comprehend history, using generational cycles to memorize significant dates. One of the first dates I came up with was 1492 - although not for the reason you're probably thinking. A good one for Columbus Day, still.
==============================================
1492 - Crisis - The End of the Reconquista
==============================================
In the south of Spain, the beautiful palace known as Al Hambra ("The Red One," short for Calat Al Hambra, "The Red Fortress") is a pinnacle of the spread of Islam. The religion began about 900 years before our historical journey, inspired by the One True God of whom Mohammed spoke. It spread across thousands of miles, east past India, west across the top of Africa and into the Iberian Peninsula, but was destined to go no further in this direction. The peak was in 718, when Islam controlled all of the peninsula (what is now Spain and Portugal), and even areas of what is now France (and was then Francia or the Frankish Empire).
The Reconquista ("Reconquest") was the period during which the Iberian Peninsula moved from Islam to Christian hands. The Crusades were unable to stop the advance north through the Holy Land, but the shorter supply lines in Europe eventually - over hundreds of years - stopped, then helped push back, the Moorish invaders. By 1130, half of the peninsula was in the hands of Christian rulers, and they continued to push Islam out.
In April 1491, King Ferdinand of Aragon (with the support of his wife Queen Isabella of Castile) attacked Islam's final outpost in Grenada. His battles with the remains of Islam in the peninsula had started 10 years earlier. In December 1481, Muslims had attacked and subjugated the Castilian outpost of Zahara. The two sides were technically under a truce, although a Castilian raid may have instigated the attack. The resulting outrage gave sufficient support for a series of campaigns (the Granada War) that eventually left no part of Europe under Muslim control.
On January 2, 1492, Al Hambra was the location for the final surrender of Grenada to Ferdinand and Isabella. Among those attending was a merchant from Italy who was planning an exploratory sea voyage to the west. It is probably no coincidence that Ferdinand and Isabella were willing to give the merchant the financing he sought. With a goodly treasury and a sense of triumph, they may have considered the route to the Indies a relatively easy goal. In any case, Christopher Columbus would set off on his voyage five months later.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Agreeing
There are a number of possibilities for what happens at the peak of this Crisis - a subject I intend to come back to. The last week, though, suggests that it could be what I call "The Last Crusade," a war against Islam. Whether the Mohammed parody was the actual impetus or an effective cover, I see comments from left and right - professional bloggers and Facebook friends - indicating that many folks consider the current state unsustainable.
I won't try to predict what the implications of this potential peak would be, much less the effective outcome. It's simply a possibility that fits well with what has gone before. And which seems more likely at this moment because of the universality of sentiment.
Perhaps that is a sign of the Crisis: when people start to agree on the action, even though they might disagree on the reason.
I won't try to predict what the implications of this potential peak would be, much less the effective outcome. It's simply a possibility that fits well with what has gone before. And which seems more likely at this moment because of the universality of sentiment.
Perhaps that is a sign of the Crisis: when people start to agree on the action, even though they might disagree on the reason.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Caution
I perhaps get too much of my material from Mystery Science Theater 3000. Still, the collection of older movies watched collectively in the 3rd and 4th Turnings yields interesting context and comparisons. One surprising revelation came watching "Hired!," a training short for car salesmen.
The newly hired young Chevrolet salesperson trying to put together lead lists is reminiscent of other Grey Flannel Suit men from the 1T. He is having some trouble getting sales, mostly attributed to insufficient training from his boss. The state of the economy isn't mentioned, which is surprising because it's not from the First Turning: It was released in 1940. The Great Depression is just barely over (people might not even realize it), Germany has just marched into Poland, and the Battle of Britain is ongoing. The economy has nonetheless recovered to the point where people are back to selling cars, hiring new salesmen, and training them and their bosses.
(The generational breakdown, though, is right in line with late 4T. The boss is a Reactive griping about the young Civic who is unable to sell effectively. Complaining to his father (evidently a Missionary (Prophet)), gets him an earful about the training his mentor gave him. The advice turns out to be appropriate to today's Xers and Millennials, too.)
The Crisis happens different ways in different places, and at different times. Just as it was hard to say when it started, we should expect the end to be hard to see as well. Watch out when you think we are done. The really hard part might still be ahead of us.
The newly hired young Chevrolet salesperson trying to put together lead lists is reminiscent of other Grey Flannel Suit men from the 1T. He is having some trouble getting sales, mostly attributed to insufficient training from his boss. The state of the economy isn't mentioned, which is surprising because it's not from the First Turning: It was released in 1940. The Great Depression is just barely over (people might not even realize it), Germany has just marched into Poland, and the Battle of Britain is ongoing. The economy has nonetheless recovered to the point where people are back to selling cars, hiring new salesmen, and training them and their bosses.
(The generational breakdown, though, is right in line with late 4T. The boss is a Reactive griping about the young Civic who is unable to sell effectively. Complaining to his father (evidently a Missionary (Prophet)), gets him an earful about the training his mentor gave him. The advice turns out to be appropriate to today's Xers and Millennials, too.)
The Crisis happens different ways in different places, and at different times. Just as it was hard to say when it started, we should expect the end to be hard to see as well. Watch out when you think we are done. The really hard part might still be ahead of us.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
11
This is less the 11th anniversary of 9/11, than the 10th anniversary of one year later.
Every day between that Tuesday and one year later, we expected that the follow up was coming. Surely Al Qaeda hadn't put all this effort into a single day - certainly, another one must be on the way? And there was the occasional possibility - Flight 587, the anthrax attacks, the Beltway sniper. None were as horrific, as terrible, as we expected. The entry into war in Afghanistan was mild enough, for most Americans, and so it went for that whole year.
When the one-year anniversary happened, it was like crossing a finish line. There were commemorations, retrospectives, but mostly a chance to put an endpoint on what had happened. And here we are again, with a chance to move forward. One that, maybe, we will accept.
Every day between that Tuesday and one year later, we expected that the follow up was coming. Surely Al Qaeda hadn't put all this effort into a single day - certainly, another one must be on the way? And there was the occasional possibility - Flight 587, the anthrax attacks, the Beltway sniper. None were as horrific, as terrible, as we expected. The entry into war in Afghanistan was mild enough, for most Americans, and so it went for that whole year.
When the one-year anniversary happened, it was like crossing a finish line. There were commemorations, retrospectives, but mostly a chance to put an endpoint on what had happened. And here we are again, with a chance to move forward. One that, maybe, we will accept.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Singles
In this Saeculum we've gone from single pop songs in the 50s, to huge rock operas taking 4 vinyl sides, then back around to single digital tunes. Maybe the 4T is just too much to keep track of bigger chunks of music.
Hmm... "Fanfare for the Common Man," which is pretty close to a "single" in classical music (right down to its 3-minute length) was composed by Copland in 1942, in the middle of the war.
Then again, maybe it's that the 2T is the only time with ideas big enough to support that much unified and organized music. Was the Ring cycle done during the Progressive era? I think it might have been. If so, we can expect that singles will be the way music is consumed for another 40 years, at which time someone will figure out a way to package digital music into a form that requires an hour of steady listening.
Hmm... "Fanfare for the Common Man," which is pretty close to a "single" in classical music (right down to its 3-minute length) was composed by Copland in 1942, in the middle of the war.
Then again, maybe it's that the 2T is the only time with ideas big enough to support that much unified and organized music. Was the Ring cycle done during the Progressive era? I think it might have been. If so, we can expect that singles will be the way music is consumed for another 40 years, at which time someone will figure out a way to package digital music into a form that requires an hour of steady listening.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Grrls
My previous post about Russia included a reference to "young women" protesting the cozy relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Putin regime. That was almost certainly about Pussy Riot, recently sentenced to two years in prison for "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred." Which (confirmation bias acknowledged) is a reinforcement of the Awakening beginning there.
One article called the band "punk," although they claim to be inspired by the Riot Grrl bands of the '90s. And I just took a day to check that, because duh, "Riot" is their last name: of course that's an influence. (Although it might be different in Russian.) Still, punk was a solid Awakening movement: youth-oriented, anti-establishment - not too spiritual, unless you want to count nihilism that way. One big question, though, if this is right: what does a Russian Awakening imply, for Russia and for everyone else?
It's not too easy to tell, since (by my previously suggested timeline) the Awakening was during WWII - difficult to sort the 2T events from that. The previous one would have been around the time the serfs were freed, and the Crimean War. The latter would make sense: it started, as I recall, with a fight in the Holy Land involving the Orthodox church and other guardians of holy places there. And ends with them defending themselves against outside attackers, particularly in a number of sieges...
One article called the band "punk," although they claim to be inspired by the Riot Grrl bands of the '90s. And I just took a day to check that, because duh, "Riot" is their last name: of course that's an influence. (Although it might be different in Russian.) Still, punk was a solid Awakening movement: youth-oriented, anti-establishment - not too spiritual, unless you want to count nihilism that way. One big question, though, if this is right: what does a Russian Awakening imply, for Russia and for everyone else?
It's not too easy to tell, since (by my previously suggested timeline) the Awakening was during WWII - difficult to sort the 2T events from that. The previous one would have been around the time the serfs were freed, and the Crimean War. The latter would make sense: it started, as I recall, with a fight in the Holy Land involving the Orthodox church and other guardians of holy places there. And ends with them defending themselves against outside attackers, particularly in a number of sieges...
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Bwian
"Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" has been stuck in my head since Eric Idle performed it at the Olympic Games closing ceremony, so let's take a moment to look at 1979s "Life of Brian."
Released toward the end of the Awakening that saw at least two other alt-Jesus movies, Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar. I'm not sure which of the three was really trying to be the most serious...
Based on what I now understand about Awakenings, would not be at all surprised to find that there really were Prophets lining the streets in early 1st century Judea (i.e. like the one Brian ends up "preaching" on.)
The Judean People's Front in-fighting is evidently based on similar political struggles in the 1970s UK left. But splintering into squabbling sections appears to be a common event in Awakenings - how many new churches showed up just in the first 20 years of the Reformation, after all.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Drinking
In the Mystery Science Theater version of the appallingly bad 1959 film "The Killer Shrews," Joel and the bots make prodigious fun of the characters' drinking habits. Every scene has one person or another pouring themselves a drink. According to one screenwriting book, this is an easy trap for a writer to fall into: It's a simple way to keep the character in the room and active without being a distraction. As of the mid-90s, though, the volume of drink in the film is so obsequious that it really was distracting on its own.
And then came "Mad Men," which suggested that drinking was so prevalent in the late '50s that it was a requirement that there be liquor carts in offices - and whiskey was a reasonable business expense. Once you start seeing this, it's obvious in many films of the era. "The Apartment" is soaked in alcohol, including a full-blown dancing-on-desktops office party. Alcoholism cautionary tale "The Lost Weekend" won Best Picture for 1945. And "The Misfits" has so much drinking from the start that one might think it was "Killer Shrews'" inspiration.
And it all makes more sense in the context of the then-recent Crisis. Veterans drank to handle their memories - and because during the war that was one of the few available pastimes. Actually, those same reasons could be attributed to ex-soldiers, ex-sailors, ex-defense workers, ex-Rosies, ex-mothers/wives/children, ex-anyone involved or alive during the War. And those born after would do it because, well, everyone else was.
And here we are today, with "mixologist" becoming a recognized career option, bars doing great business, brewpubs appearing everywhere, wineries in every vineyard, spirits artisanal (and otherwise) expanding selections. Drinking is a way to deal with our current Crisis for a few hours at a time. It has enough variety for anyone to find an elixir of choice, price points from lower to upper classes, and production requirements adaptable to the local economic situation. I won't predict that liquor carts will again be standard office furniture 30 years from now...although I won't be too surprised if they are.
And then came "Mad Men," which suggested that drinking was so prevalent in the late '50s that it was a requirement that there be liquor carts in offices - and whiskey was a reasonable business expense. Once you start seeing this, it's obvious in many films of the era. "The Apartment" is soaked in alcohol, including a full-blown dancing-on-desktops office party. Alcoholism cautionary tale "The Lost Weekend" won Best Picture for 1945. And "The Misfits" has so much drinking from the start that one might think it was "Killer Shrews'" inspiration.
And it all makes more sense in the context of the then-recent Crisis. Veterans drank to handle their memories - and because during the war that was one of the few available pastimes. Actually, those same reasons could be attributed to ex-soldiers, ex-sailors, ex-defense workers, ex-Rosies, ex-mothers/wives/children, ex-anyone involved or alive during the War. And those born after would do it because, well, everyone else was.
And here we are today, with "mixologist" becoming a recognized career option, bars doing great business, brewpubs appearing everywhere, wineries in every vineyard, spirits artisanal (and otherwise) expanding selections. Drinking is a way to deal with our current Crisis for a few hours at a time. It has enough variety for anyone to find an elixir of choice, price points from lower to upper classes, and production requirements adaptable to the local economic situation. I won't predict that liquor carts will again be standard office furniture 30 years from now...although I won't be too surprised if they are.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Hymns
Presumably because of independence Day being this week, the exit hymn at church was "The Battle Hymn of the Republic." (They called it "Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory" - whatever. ) Since reading Strauss & Howe, though, I can't handle it in church. The righteous martial attitude is too much. Not that I dislike it, but that it's like "The War Prayer": far too truthful.
The American Civil War is called an anomaly by Strauss & Howe because it's the one place in American history where their theory skips a beat. There is not a proper Hero/Civic generation from that war. The explanation is that the war happened too soon, as the "debate" between pro- and anti-slavery Prophets (Transcendentalist generation) quickly moved out of the political sphere and into warfare. The Gilded (Reactive) instead ended up in the trenches, with leadership roles filled by the Prophets. The combination of our-cause-is-just leaders and get-it-done followers is one reason for an exceptionally deadly conflict - as indicated by what the Union was marching to. For comparison, let's consider songs associated with other conflicts.
American Revolution: Yankee Doodle, a cute little nothing about getting above your station and trying to make it work for you.
War of 1812: The Star Spangled Banner, a poem about a symbol of home and freedom and what has to be done to keep them.
World War I : Over There. Do you know the words besides the title? In any case, it's a song of pride, in doing the right thing because that's what you do.
World War II: Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy, maybe, and swing music in general. "O How I Hate to Get Up in the Morning," too: songs about the ubiquity of military life and the impact of the war. Still an enjoyable tune that is escapist in tone.
Note here that none of the above get sung in church, except rarely the national anthem.
And then there's John Browns Body... So we're starting here from a song celebrating an attempt to foment insurrection by a Prophet who was willing to use Any Means Necessary. Translated to a more general, well, hymn of violence, it hasn't lost any of it's fervor. The Lord is "trampling out," wielding a "terrible swift sword," and "His truth is marching on." No quarter asked nor given here, no question of choices to be made, no ditties about downtime, just zeal and righteous destruction.
The American Civil War is called an anomaly by Strauss & Howe because it's the one place in American history where their theory skips a beat. There is not a proper Hero/Civic generation from that war. The explanation is that the war happened too soon, as the "debate" between pro- and anti-slavery Prophets (Transcendentalist generation) quickly moved out of the political sphere and into warfare. The Gilded (Reactive) instead ended up in the trenches, with leadership roles filled by the Prophets. The combination of our-cause-is-just leaders and get-it-done followers is one reason for an exceptionally deadly conflict - as indicated by what the Union was marching to. For comparison, let's consider songs associated with other conflicts.
American Revolution: Yankee Doodle, a cute little nothing about getting above your station and trying to make it work for you.
War of 1812: The Star Spangled Banner, a poem about a symbol of home and freedom and what has to be done to keep them.
World War I : Over There. Do you know the words besides the title? In any case, it's a song of pride, in doing the right thing because that's what you do.
World War II: Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy, maybe, and swing music in general. "O How I Hate to Get Up in the Morning," too: songs about the ubiquity of military life and the impact of the war. Still an enjoyable tune that is escapist in tone.
Note here that none of the above get sung in church, except rarely the national anthem.
And then there's John Browns Body... So we're starting here from a song celebrating an attempt to foment insurrection by a Prophet who was willing to use Any Means Necessary. Translated to a more general, well, hymn of violence, it hasn't lost any of it's fervor. The Lord is "trampling out," wielding a "terrible swift sword," and "His truth is marching on." No quarter asked nor given here, no question of choices to be made, no ditties about downtime, just zeal and righteous destruction.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Prophecies
The subtitle of The Fourth Turning is "An American Prophecy," and of course both Strauss and Howe are Boomers, the current Prophet generation. Part of their Prophecy is that a great and deadly War (Crisis) is coming soon, One That Will Remake the World. (And which, go figure, will be followed by a new Golden Age (High), which is what any good Prophecy should also have.)
Unlike other prophets, they do let us see behind the curtain to know how it is done. That we all can understand the future and the past better, now, is their greater gift. It's still amusing - and reassuring - that their theory of history predicts that, as Boomers/Prophets, their vision of the future would be apocalyptic - that is, they are exactly the people who would see history in the way that they do.
Unlike other prophets, they do let us see behind the curtain to know how it is done. That we all can understand the future and the past better, now, is their greater gift. It's still amusing - and reassuring - that their theory of history predicts that, as Boomers/Prophets, their vision of the future would be apocalyptic - that is, they are exactly the people who would see history in the way that they do.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Gatsby
My concern about the new Gatsby movie is that it's going to be treated like a lament of the excesses of the 1920s, as if Fitzgerald knew about the Crash and isn't it clear that this was going to happen? The book came out in 1925, four years before Black
Monday, so it was popular even when most investors (including the public) were expecting the party to continue indefinitely.
As a Reactive - like Gatsby and Nick and Fitzgerald - I see "The Great Gatsby" as symbolic of aspiration, of trying your best and beyond, of wanting to be more. It's a tragedy that he fails, not that he tries.
And he doesn't fail because he's bad - no shock, that, him being a Reactive and all - but because he's taking on Society. Some positive aspects of society oppose him: Daisy is married with a child and it's Not Okay - but it's the negative that gets in his way and ultimately kills him. It's the upper-class jerk Daisy is married to who's seeing the lady and leads people to think Gatsby was driving, and who is unapologetic about the lie and its consequences.
Monday, so it was popular even when most investors (including the public) were expecting the party to continue indefinitely.
As a Reactive - like Gatsby and Nick and Fitzgerald - I see "The Great Gatsby" as symbolic of aspiration, of trying your best and beyond, of wanting to be more. It's a tragedy that he fails, not that he tries.
And he doesn't fail because he's bad - no shock, that, him being a Reactive and all - but because he's taking on Society. Some positive aspects of society oppose him: Daisy is married with a child and it's Not Okay - but it's the negative that gets in his way and ultimately kills him. It's the upper-class jerk Daisy is married to who's seeing the lady and leads people to think Gatsby was driving, and who is unapologetic about the lie and its consequences.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Tolkien
Off-the-cuff analysis:
"The Lord of the Rings" is Fourth Turning - huge war, big changes, nothing quite the same after.
"The Hobbit" is Third Turning - individuals in search of riches, minimal government initiative, notable wars that don't much change the balance of power, and minor subplots that later turn out to be a much bigger deal.
Haven't read "The Silmarillion" although it sounds like it covers a couple of them, perhaps a Golden Age First Turning corrupted by Sauron leading to the rebellious attempt by Men to set foot on the lands to the West. But don't quote me in that.
"The Lord of the Rings" is Fourth Turning - huge war, big changes, nothing quite the same after.
"The Hobbit" is Third Turning - individuals in search of riches, minimal government initiative, notable wars that don't much change the balance of power, and minor subplots that later turn out to be a much bigger deal.
Haven't read "The Silmarillion" although it sounds like it covers a couple of them, perhaps a Golden Age First Turning corrupted by Sauron leading to the rebellious attempt by Men to set foot on the lands to the West. But don't quote me in that.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Russia
The Los Angeles Times has an article about the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the secular rules of the country. The title -- "Russian Orthodox Church is in spiritual crisis, critics say" -- evokes the possibility of an Awakening beginning there, which might help solve the question some have about Russia's Saeculum: was the period from 1912 to 1945 one unusually long Crisis, or was it experiencing a different set of Turnings?
Besides that title, the indications of Russia's current turning include:
"Twenty years of democratic Russia" drawing the period since the fall of the USSR into a single box
Corruption - a strong sign of a First Turning - being openly discussed and opposed, specifically in terms of an expensive watch worn by the patriarch in an official photo - and then inexpertly erased. (An echo of Stalin there that suggests a unity between that 80-year-ago time and now.)
Indications of popular protest against the existing regimes, both secular and religious, with a group of young women "dancing" against the status quo.
Together, they suggest the imminent transition from a High to an Awakening. An obvious problem then is, when was their Crisis? It would have to have been from about 1970 to 1992. The peak would have started in the late 1980s, possibly as soon as Chernobyl. Which works, in its way, even if it's not the sort of Crisis we've seen in the United States. And it would indicate a previous Crisis around the time of the October Revolution. Further, this suggests that Stalin's regime was during the corresponding High. The Purges further support this view, as the search for enemies is a common post-Crisis occurrence, leading to witch hunts both literal (Salem, 1692) and metaphorical (McCarthy, 1950).
Besides that title, the indications of Russia's current turning include:
Together, they suggest the imminent transition from a High to an Awakening. An obvious problem then is, when was their Crisis? It would have to have been from about 1970 to 1992. The peak would have started in the late 1980s, possibly as soon as Chernobyl. Which works, in its way, even if it's not the sort of Crisis we've seen in the United States. And it would indicate a previous Crisis around the time of the October Revolution. Further, this suggests that Stalin's regime was during the corresponding High. The Purges further support this view, as the search for enemies is a common post-Crisis occurrence, leading to witch hunts both literal (Salem, 1692) and metaphorical (McCarthy, 1950).
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Summary
One of the tricky parts of the historical analysis that Strauss & Howe enabled is having a concise description of how it all works. Here's my attempt.
History can be seen as cyclical. One of the most obvious patterns is the ~90 year repeat of major conflicts - (... 1776, 1861, 1945... ) A less obvious but notable one is a similar repeat of spiritual upheaval that consistently happens halfway between these crisis periods (1740, 1820, 1896...) Starting from these, Strauss & Howe propose a theory of history as a two-step cycle, comprised of an ~80 year cycle called a Saeculum and a 20 year cycle called a Turning. There are four distinct Turnings in a Saeculum:
The First Turning, or High, follows a Crisis period. It celebrates (and attempts to perpetuate) the concerted effort that enabled victory - or at least survival. The most recent example in the U.S. was the post-World War II era.
The Second Turning, or Awakening, is a period of spiritual tumult as society rebels against the conformance of the High. These include the Great Awakening of the early 1700s and Protestant Reformation.
During the Third Turning, or Unraveling, the loss of social structures yields an abundance of individual freedom and innovation, albeit without a unified focus or interest in solving societal problems. The Roaring 20s and the 1990s "dot-com" era were part of Unravelings.
The Fourth Turning, or Crisis, is a period of secular upheaval as society attempts to fix problems that can no longer wait. It usually culminates in a war that defines the culture through the next Saeculum.
Driving and defining these cycles are the human participants that pass through them. A generation raised during a particular Turning has common experiences that will affect how they live the rest of their lives. The impact of Turnings results in generational archetypes that repeat with the Turnings.
The dangerous Crisis yields cautious Artists.
The static High brings forth rebellious Prophets.
The zealous Awakening spawns cynical Nomads.
The chaotic Unraveling raises united Heroes.
The archetypes active at a point in time then defines the Turning, resulting in these consistently recurring cycles. While exceptions occur (the best-known being the too-early American Civil War) these cycles have been traced back over the last 600 years of Anglo-American history, and have been identified in other modern cultures, as well as ancient civilizations like Rome and Greece.
History can be seen as cyclical. One of the most obvious patterns is the ~90 year repeat of major conflicts - (... 1776, 1861, 1945... ) A less obvious but notable one is a similar repeat of spiritual upheaval that consistently happens halfway between these crisis periods (1740, 1820, 1896...) Starting from these, Strauss & Howe propose a theory of history as a two-step cycle, comprised of an ~80 year cycle called a Saeculum and a 20 year cycle called a Turning. There are four distinct Turnings in a Saeculum:
Driving and defining these cycles are the human participants that pass through them. A generation raised during a particular Turning has common experiences that will affect how they live the rest of their lives. The impact of Turnings results in generational archetypes that repeat with the Turnings.
The archetypes active at a point in time then defines the Turning, resulting in these consistently recurring cycles. While exceptions occur (the best-known being the too-early American Civil War) these cycles have been traced back over the last 600 years of Anglo-American history, and have been identified in other modern cultures, as well as ancient civilizations like Rome and Greece.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Insight
I updated the blog description the other day. Being forced to be concise ("500 word limit") can yield useful insights. In this case it was about the nature of the Crisis as Strauss & Howe see it.
Their descriptions often point to a single huge event, and The Crisis Is That: The American Revolution, the Spanish Armada, the Civil War. This can lead to the impression that a Crisis is about a single Event. However, that is not only not the rule, it's really the exception.
The Crisis is a period of time during which culture-redefining changes happen. The changes may be primarily traced to a particular source, but that doesn't mean That is the real cause. Most of the time, the Crisis is a series of changes - some related, some not - implemented over the course of this two-decade-and-change period. They reveal a desire to fix pressing problems at hand. (Whether the problems are really THE most important ... well, it's not clear whether that is considered.) As one fix is implemented, another problem becomes evident. This reinforces the notion that Crises aren't thrust upon us, but are caused by the people at this point in history.
The American Revolution itself led to the organization of the Federal government - related problems. The Great Depression was followed by World War II - less related. And the Depression can be seen as separate periods where the resolution was handled in different ways: a few years under Hoover, an initial period of welcome change by FDR, a period in which change (such as "packing" the Supreme Court) was less welcome, and then the lead-in to the war.
Seeing reactions to Obama and his policies does suggest parallels to that period. Both he and those opposed to him initiate measures that they believe will resolve significant problems. They each may have larger goals they are pursuing, although those can easily be lost in the day-to-day tactical moves that all involved are making. We shouldn't expect to see a huge change, because we wouldn't necessarily recognize it as such. And one person's massive realignment is another's "What took you so long?" Even after the fact, tying together the different events is a matter of interpretation, not causation.
Their descriptions often point to a single huge event, and The Crisis Is That: The American Revolution, the Spanish Armada, the Civil War. This can lead to the impression that a Crisis is about a single Event. However, that is not only not the rule, it's really the exception.
The Crisis is a period of time during which culture-redefining changes happen. The changes may be primarily traced to a particular source, but that doesn't mean That is the real cause. Most of the time, the Crisis is a series of changes - some related, some not - implemented over the course of this two-decade-and-change period. They reveal a desire to fix pressing problems at hand. (Whether the problems are really THE most important ... well, it's not clear whether that is considered.) As one fix is implemented, another problem becomes evident. This reinforces the notion that Crises aren't thrust upon us, but are caused by the people at this point in history.
The American Revolution itself led to the organization of the Federal government - related problems. The Great Depression was followed by World War II - less related. And the Depression can be seen as separate periods where the resolution was handled in different ways: a few years under Hoover, an initial period of welcome change by FDR, a period in which change (such as "packing" the Supreme Court) was less welcome, and then the lead-in to the war.
Seeing reactions to Obama and his policies does suggest parallels to that period. Both he and those opposed to him initiate measures that they believe will resolve significant problems. They each may have larger goals they are pursuing, although those can easily be lost in the day-to-day tactical moves that all involved are making. We shouldn't expect to see a huge change, because we wouldn't necessarily recognize it as such. And one person's massive realignment is another's "What took you so long?" Even after the fact, tying together the different events is a matter of interpretation, not causation.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Evil
An early scene in Roger Zelazny's "Lord of Light" has the title character giving a sermon on the nature of Evil. His audience consists of Buddhist monks with a worldview that doesn't recognize Evil or Good as independent concepts - or,at least, as concepts relevant to their spiritual goals. The sermon therefore describes the world to them in different terms, of Beauty versus Ugliness. Re-definition allows the same point to be made, avoiding their cultural blind spot.
An article in Forbes has a young (Millennial) developer at game developer OMGPop refusing to accept a job offer from mega-developer Zygna after the startup was acquired. He had specific job-related reasons to refuse, but eventually translated them into a more expansive moral reason: Zygna is Evil.
As the source article on Gamasutra points out, there is a willing rejection in business to describe businesses or the business world or the pursuit of profit as Evil. Indeed, a business and it's employees are pursuing survival, usually, and we do not want to punish that. With an insight that is just what might be expected from a Millennial, he defines Evil in terms of "destroying one's own ecosystem," endangering the survival of others and even of itself.
I call this a Millennial view of the world because of its assumption of interdependence, that everything has to work together for Good to happen. It's not a perspective that I would have come up with, certainly. I consider evil in terms of malice, of intentional effort in pursuit of personal goals where the well-being of others is disregarded or actively opposed. In his formulation, evil can be independent of active intention.
Which isn't to say that it's better nor worse than my definition. His could punish "Evil" based on unintended consequences; mine could ignore longer-term dangers because, hey, who could have known? (Was the 2008 financial crisis due to Evil? Discuss.) It is useful to consider alternatives, and the distinct shared experiences of each generation can yield new ways of examining old - ancient!- problems.
In any case, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Crisis ending with some punished under a definition of Evil much like this Millennial one - or the next High defining its inevitable Enemies of the State in similar terms.
An article in Forbes has a young (Millennial) developer at game developer OMGPop refusing to accept a job offer from mega-developer Zygna after the startup was acquired. He had specific job-related reasons to refuse, but eventually translated them into a more expansive moral reason: Zygna is Evil.
As the source article on Gamasutra points out, there is a willing rejection in business to describe businesses or the business world or the pursuit of profit as Evil. Indeed, a business and it's employees are pursuing survival, usually, and we do not want to punish that. With an insight that is just what might be expected from a Millennial, he defines Evil in terms of "destroying one's own ecosystem," endangering the survival of others and even of itself.
I call this a Millennial view of the world because of its assumption of interdependence, that everything has to work together for Good to happen. It's not a perspective that I would have come up with, certainly. I consider evil in terms of malice, of intentional effort in pursuit of personal goals where the well-being of others is disregarded or actively opposed. In his formulation, evil can be independent of active intention.
Which isn't to say that it's better nor worse than my definition. His could punish "Evil" based on unintended consequences; mine could ignore longer-term dangers because, hey, who could have known? (Was the 2008 financial crisis due to Evil? Discuss.) It is useful to consider alternatives, and the distinct shared experiences of each generation can yield new ways of examining old - ancient!- problems.
In any case, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Crisis ending with some punished under a definition of Evil much like this Millennial one - or the next High defining its inevitable Enemies of the State in similar terms.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Games!
"Ludi Ludi Ludi!" said the announcement, posted in Rome at some point in the distant past. "Games Games Games!" I've been looking for where I saw it - online? in Rome itself? In one of those tourist books? - but I remember the exuberance, the repetition, the insistence of those three words. Bread and circuses, indeed.
A phrase, of course, that is central to the "Hunger Games" series of books and upcoming movie. The country there takes its name, Panem, from the Latin, "panem et circenses."
One might take the title of the first book as a dark inversion, as well: play the Games to get more bread. Each of the 12 Districts in Panem must send 2 teenagers to the Games. The 24 children thus gathered will fight to the death, last one alive the winner, earning glory for themselves and more food for their District. Fun stuff.
My relevant thought is that it feels like a change to how the Hero generation is portrayed. Not just indulged; beyond aimless; post-dependent: Now willing to dig in for the fight - and dangerous to those who threaten their peers. Not the first time for this: Harry Potter is transformed similarly, but over the course of seven novels. (An L.A. Times review invokes the recent "Hanna" and "Kick-Ass" as well.) The ubiquity of the marketing carries an implicit belief that this concept is becoming mainstream, that there's no reason NOT to believe in a deadly huntress taking on the system to protect her sister and District.
For Strauss and Howe, it's a given that the Hero generation is indulged (Third Turnings are associated with economic booms), protected ( more than Nomads, but not as smothered as Artists) and praised. And also that they are the ones who willingly take on the enemies of society, often making ultimate sacrifices up to and beyond their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. The jump from one to the other is difficult to comprehend, especially as they are coming of age. ("These spoiled, reckless kids are going to save our world?") That ignores what may be their most significant attribute, admittedly one that doesn't easily distill to a single word. They are close knit, work together - do all sorts of things together - stand as one, watch out for one another, and expect the same in return. Like Katniss, they will go into the arena for the sake of others - especially if it will help them keep what they currently have.
I may wait to confirm which of those incentives - helping peers or staying on top - has more impact, though, so check back in about 20 years.
A phrase, of course, that is central to the "Hunger Games" series of books and upcoming movie. The country there takes its name, Panem, from the Latin, "panem et circenses."
One might take the title of the first book as a dark inversion, as well: play the Games to get more bread. Each of the 12 Districts in Panem must send 2 teenagers to the Games. The 24 children thus gathered will fight to the death, last one alive the winner, earning glory for themselves and more food for their District. Fun stuff.
My relevant thought is that it feels like a change to how the Hero generation is portrayed. Not just indulged; beyond aimless; post-dependent: Now willing to dig in for the fight - and dangerous to those who threaten their peers. Not the first time for this: Harry Potter is transformed similarly, but over the course of seven novels. (An L.A. Times review invokes the recent "Hanna" and "Kick-Ass" as well.) The ubiquity of the marketing carries an implicit belief that this concept is becoming mainstream, that there's no reason NOT to believe in a deadly huntress taking on the system to protect her sister and District.
For Strauss and Howe, it's a given that the Hero generation is indulged (Third Turnings are associated with economic booms), protected ( more than Nomads, but not as smothered as Artists) and praised. And also that they are the ones who willingly take on the enemies of society, often making ultimate sacrifices up to and beyond their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. The jump from one to the other is difficult to comprehend, especially as they are coming of age. ("These spoiled, reckless kids are going to save our world?") That ignores what may be their most significant attribute, admittedly one that doesn't easily distill to a single word. They are close knit, work together - do all sorts of things together - stand as one, watch out for one another, and expect the same in return. Like Katniss, they will go into the arena for the sake of others - especially if it will help them keep what they currently have.
I may wait to confirm which of those incentives - helping peers or staying on top - has more impact, though, so check back in about 20 years.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Medicine
Dr Leo Spaceman on the "critically acclaimed"* comedy "30 Rock" once replied to a patient's inquiry with the observation "Medicine is not science."While meant to show that he is not the sharpest graduate of the Ho Chi Minh School of Medicine, it turns out to be more true than intended. Google "is medicine a science" and you'll get varied opinions on that subject. It's evidently a very real epistemological question for those who think about such things.
Brought into the Presidency just as the Crisis was becoming manifest, Obama's first policy focus was on reforming health care in the United States. There was plenty of reason to think that was needed, from people dying because they didn't have insurance, to massive Medicare fraud, to the crazy state of hospitals here.
That last being what sent me in this direction, after seeing the former site of the North Hollywood Medical Center. Google still shows the buildings, but it's currently a vacant lot in the process of becoming apartments. Before that, it was used for filming most of the seasons of "Scrubs." Which is to say that the next best valued uses for a decent sized medical facility were a) as a set for filming a medical comedy and b) as housing in an inflated but still lethargic market. Not as a hospital.
Which brings us to the Supreme Court spending three days on whether the healthcare reform passed - barely - two years ago is constitutional. The first day was concerned with whether they even could examine the question, under laws that require a tax to be paid before a suit can be brought. Tuesday, though, was the start of the big question: Can the federal government require people to purchase insurance? And if so, what is the constitutional justification?
Regulating interstate commerce, of course, is the go-to argument for this. And the precedent that said growing marijuana for your own medical use in a state that had legalized said use and without any crossing of state lines would seem to indicate that this is a wide-reaching power. I would hope this would be applied consistently, since otherwise it seems too much like these folks make up their mind on the outcome, then make the law fit.
The real problem, though, is that the American mindset doesn't like any of the options. The white-hatted cowboy wouldn't let the sick widow die for lack of funds, but he also knows that the free and open range is a place where not everything is able to survive. Americans like the idea that anything is possible, that nobody is stuck where they are and there's always a second chance, - that the town will always join together to help the unfortunate, and never for a lynch mob.
And even if you're a glass-half-full person, you have to acknowledge that's not true. Shifting back to the specific issue at hand, three people with equivalent- even identical - insurance options can have three radically different outcomes. One could go to a nationally-ranked facility, one to a local clinic, the other might do nothing -"it's just a cough." One doctor is an expert in this specific issue and the other dismisses it. Surgery usually cures it unless an infection happens; antibiotics administered are as good except with allergies; a radical treatment works perfectly unless you are in the unlucky 2%.
Maybe Dr. Spaceman is right: Medicine isn't science, since we can't run repeatable experiments well enough to KNOW just how to fix anyone who walks in for treatment. Perhaps no matter how we mess with the economics of the system, or the standards of the professionals, or the availability of preventative options, horror stories will happen.
* All bloggers are required to use "critically acclaimed" for this show. It's in the Terms of Service.
Brought into the Presidency just as the Crisis was becoming manifest, Obama's first policy focus was on reforming health care in the United States. There was plenty of reason to think that was needed, from people dying because they didn't have insurance, to massive Medicare fraud, to the crazy state of hospitals here.
That last being what sent me in this direction, after seeing the former site of the North Hollywood Medical Center. Google still shows the buildings, but it's currently a vacant lot in the process of becoming apartments. Before that, it was used for filming most of the seasons of "Scrubs." Which is to say that the next best valued uses for a decent sized medical facility were a) as a set for filming a medical comedy and b) as housing in an inflated but still lethargic market. Not as a hospital.
Which brings us to the Supreme Court spending three days on whether the healthcare reform passed - barely - two years ago is constitutional. The first day was concerned with whether they even could examine the question, under laws that require a tax to be paid before a suit can be brought. Tuesday, though, was the start of the big question: Can the federal government require people to purchase insurance? And if so, what is the constitutional justification?
Regulating interstate commerce, of course, is the go-to argument for this. And the precedent that said growing marijuana for your own medical use in a state that had legalized said use and without any crossing of state lines would seem to indicate that this is a wide-reaching power. I would hope this would be applied consistently, since otherwise it seems too much like these folks make up their mind on the outcome, then make the law fit.
The real problem, though, is that the American mindset doesn't like any of the options. The white-hatted cowboy wouldn't let the sick widow die for lack of funds, but he also knows that the free and open range is a place where not everything is able to survive. Americans like the idea that anything is possible, that nobody is stuck where they are and there's always a second chance, - that the town will always join together to help the unfortunate, and never for a lynch mob.
And even if you're a glass-half-full person, you have to acknowledge that's not true. Shifting back to the specific issue at hand, three people with equivalent- even identical - insurance options can have three radically different outcomes. One could go to a nationally-ranked facility, one to a local clinic, the other might do nothing -"it's just a cough." One doctor is an expert in this specific issue and the other dismisses it. Surgery usually cures it unless an infection happens; antibiotics administered are as good except with allergies; a radical treatment works perfectly unless you are in the unlucky 2%.
Maybe Dr. Spaceman is right: Medicine isn't science, since we can't run repeatable experiments well enough to KNOW just how to fix anyone who walks in for treatment. Perhaps no matter how we mess with the economics of the system, or the standards of the professionals, or the availability of preventative options, horror stories will happen.
* All bloggers are required to use "critically acclaimed" for this show. It's in the Terms of Service.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Calm
The stock market is up - largely due to Apple - gold is down, oil is flat, and so (more or less) are Treasuries. The Greece deal seems to have soothed the overall financial markets, and iPad 3 demand at least suggests consumer confidence.
Then again, there don't seem to be any great options for Afghanistan or Iran. For the former, there's no desire to stay - just not to appear chased off by some unfortunate events. For the latter, even assuaging Israel and avoiding intervention just feels like kicking the can down the road. The exceptional protection for Iran's nuclear facilities bring to mind Peenemunde more than General Electric. They give every indication of having weapons production (rather than fuel) as their goal. And the difference in reaction to, say, Iraq versus North Korea indicates that it's in Iran's best interest to become a nuclear power sooner rather than later.
Sometimes, though, kicking the can down the road is just what's needed. If there isn't support based on what's currently known (and on attitudes towards intervention / pre-emption / all-out war), then it's not action that can (or should be) forced. Waiting for fullness, as Valentine Smith would say, will allow whatever is necessary to be complete. Or, if it shouldn't happen, it will make the wisdom of avoiding it that much clearer.
Which brings us to a period - a day,a month, perhaps longer - where the Crisis isn't that bad. A hint of stress in the air, maybe. There was a point right after the credit crunch where it seemed too late to prepare, and the only option was to hang on for the ride. It's like that in reverse, right now: At the end of the loop-de-loop, we know the cars are being pulled up to the top of the next hill. Any good ride Designer will keep you guessing about what the next surprise is. Unless he's showing it to you intentionally, of course. Either way, it's the right time to take a deep breath.
Then again, there don't seem to be any great options for Afghanistan or Iran. For the former, there's no desire to stay - just not to appear chased off by some unfortunate events. For the latter, even assuaging Israel and avoiding intervention just feels like kicking the can down the road. The exceptional protection for Iran's nuclear facilities bring to mind Peenemunde more than General Electric. They give every indication of having weapons production (rather than fuel) as their goal. And the difference in reaction to, say, Iraq versus North Korea indicates that it's in Iran's best interest to become a nuclear power sooner rather than later.
Sometimes, though, kicking the can down the road is just what's needed. If there isn't support based on what's currently known (and on attitudes towards intervention / pre-emption / all-out war), then it's not action that can (or should be) forced. Waiting for fullness, as Valentine Smith would say, will allow whatever is necessary to be complete. Or, if it shouldn't happen, it will make the wisdom of avoiding it that much clearer.
Which brings us to a period - a day,a month, perhaps longer - where the Crisis isn't that bad. A hint of stress in the air, maybe. There was a point right after the credit crunch where it seemed too late to prepare, and the only option was to hang on for the ride. It's like that in reverse, right now: At the end of the loop-de-loop, we know the cars are being pulled up to the top of the next hill. Any good ride Designer will keep you guessing about what the next surprise is. Unless he's showing it to you intentionally, of course. Either way, it's the right time to take a deep breath.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Homelanders
By my estimation, the Crisis began in 2005, with Hurricane Katrina as a marker if not the Catalyst. That would mean that the oldest a Homelander could be is 10 years old (2012-2005+3). If you think the start was 2008's financial meltdown, the oldest would be 7.
But it seems like young people these days are being seen less as Heroes than they use to be. A college student on trial for "bias intimidation," a 10-year-old girl killed in a fight with another girl - Occupy activists treated less as saviors and more as bums. Overall, it's feeling like the Adaptives are taking the stage, except (as noted above) it's too early for that.
There are periods in life where children have to rebel just to distinguish themselves from their parents. Even though it's natural it's not easy to watch or to be involved with them at those times. Perhaps Millenials are just entering a "difficult stage" between hope for the future and guardians of our way of life.
But it seems like young people these days are being seen less as Heroes than they use to be. A college student on trial for "bias intimidation," a 10-year-old girl killed in a fight with another girl - Occupy activists treated less as saviors and more as bums. Overall, it's feeling like the Adaptives are taking the stage, except (as noted above) it's too early for that.
There are periods in life where children have to rebel just to distinguish themselves from their parents. Even though it's natural it's not easy to watch or to be involved with them at those times. Perhaps Millenials are just entering a "difficult stage" between hope for the future and guardians of our way of life.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Feature
The crazy times of the Crisis - of trying to decide which way to zig when the world is zagging, of living in the proverbial "interesting times" - gave this recent insight:
Adaptives and Prophets will look at the world of the First Turning and say "It's boring and safe and every day is the same!"
Reactives and Heroes will reply "Yes! That's the point!"
Adaptives and Prophets will look at the world of the First Turning and say "It's boring and safe and every day is the same!"
Reactives and Heroes will reply "Yes! That's the point!"
Monday, February 13, 2012
Whitney
What can you say: it's not exactly a shock that Whitney Houston died at a relatively early age. Substance abuse does that to a body, and once it gets to a certain point it's just a matter of time. I wonder that people are calling it a "tragedy," even, since that carries the implication that it's unexpected.
Every generation has its burdens to bear. Civics take the brunt of the dying in the Crisis, and Adaptives are overshadowed by it their whole lives. Prophets have grand ideas and a goal of remaking the entire world that, mostly, doesn't quite happen. Reactives end up known for these notable artistes that,well, almost had it all.
Every generation has its burdens to bear. Civics take the brunt of the dying in the Crisis, and Adaptives are overshadowed by it their whole lives. Prophets have grand ideas and a goal of remaking the entire world that, mostly, doesn't quite happen. Reactives end up known for these notable artistes that,well, almost had it all.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Polonius
Polonius, the king's counsellor from Shakespeare's "Hamlet," appears to me to be a Reactive. Among the reasons (which I may come back to) fare:
-- A person of his age at the time the play was written would have been a Reactive, raised during the Reformation.
-- Polonius is often said to be based on William Cecil Burghley, a (Reactive) counsellor to (also Reactive) Queen Elizabeth.
One problem is the traditional portrayal of Polonius as a sycophantic buffoon. This isn't easily squared with the practical attributes associated with the Nomad archetype. There are ways to play him that make this quite reasonable, though, especially when the Act II scene with Reynaldo is included. His surveillance of his son Laertes shows that he is very careful with those close to him, and able to plan an eminently practical method of determining just what is happening in Paris.
Except, of course, that halfway though a sentence he loses his train of though and has to ask Reynaldo to remind him where he was. One could treat this as another bit of trickery on his part, making sure that Reynaldo is paying attention. I might have said so myself ... Until yesterday, when exactly that happened to me while trying to explain How Something Works. So now, I'd have to say that it should be played straight. It's just an example of what sometimes happens when you are Of a Certain Age. As we all are, eventually.
-- A person of his age at the time the play was written would have been a Reactive, raised during the Reformation.
-- Polonius is often said to be based on William Cecil Burghley, a (Reactive) counsellor to (also Reactive) Queen Elizabeth.
One problem is the traditional portrayal of Polonius as a sycophantic buffoon. This isn't easily squared with the practical attributes associated with the Nomad archetype. There are ways to play him that make this quite reasonable, though, especially when the Act II scene with Reynaldo is included. His surveillance of his son Laertes shows that he is very careful with those close to him, and able to plan an eminently practical method of determining just what is happening in Paris.
Except, of course, that halfway though a sentence he loses his train of though and has to ask Reynaldo to remind him where he was. One could treat this as another bit of trickery on his part, making sure that Reynaldo is paying attention. I might have said so myself ... Until yesterday, when exactly that happened to me while trying to explain How Something Works. So now, I'd have to say that it should be played straight. It's just an example of what sometimes happens when you are Of a Certain Age. As we all are, eventually.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Moonbase
A bit late on this but: Sorry Newt, a lunar base is very unlikely in your lifetime.
During the waning days of the Third Turning, it was just barely possible IF a prize (like a MUCH larger X-Prize) had been available. Dr. Pournelle's 30 people / 3 years / $10 billion could have done it. Just imagine trying to suggest an amount like that now. We have larger problems to deal with which will prevent either party from being able to move it forward in that form.
The alternative is a First Turning project comparable to Apollo or the Transcontinental Railroad. Even assuming a 2005 start to the 4T, we're at least 15 years from being able to start that.
"Ah," I hear you say, "The Transcontinental Railroad was built during the American Civil War, so why couldn't it happen now?" Certainly that could happen (although it wasn't finished until several years after) if there's some reason that a lunar base helps in this 4T. The only hypothetical I can imagine for that involves an energy war where Solar Power Satellites become worthwhile. Not saying it couldn't happen, just seems really unlikely. Even that would have to wait until the peak of the Crisis, which might be too late for Mr. Gingrich.
During the waning days of the Third Turning, it was just barely possible IF a prize (like a MUCH larger X-Prize) had been available. Dr. Pournelle's 30 people / 3 years / $10 billion could have done it. Just imagine trying to suggest an amount like that now. We have larger problems to deal with which will prevent either party from being able to move it forward in that form.
The alternative is a First Turning project comparable to Apollo or the Transcontinental Railroad. Even assuming a 2005 start to the 4T, we're at least 15 years from being able to start that.
"Ah," I hear you say, "The Transcontinental Railroad was built during the American Civil War, so why couldn't it happen now?" Certainly that could happen (although it wasn't finished until several years after) if there's some reason that a lunar base helps in this 4T. The only hypothetical I can imagine for that involves an energy war where Solar Power Satellites become worthwhile. Not saying it couldn't happen, just seems really unlikely. Even that would have to wait until the peak of the Crisis, which might be too late for Mr. Gingrich.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Survival
The news last week was showing a video of government officials being chased by an angry mob, their vehicles being pummeled. It looked like they barely escaped with their lives.
This was in *Australia*. Not Italy, Spain,Greece, one of those hot-headed Mediterranean countries. Old conservative Anglo-Saxon Australia. That says something.
Based on my analysis, there are two Rules to surviving the Crisis:
1) Be on the winning side.
2) Don't be where the fighting is happening.
If Australia is any indication, the place where the fighting will be, will be government. Stay away.
This was in *Australia*. Not Italy, Spain,Greece, one of those hot-headed Mediterranean countries. Old conservative Anglo-Saxon Australia. That says something.
Based on my analysis, there are two Rules to surviving the Crisis:
1) Be on the winning side.
2) Don't be where the fighting is happening.
If Australia is any indication, the place where the fighting will be, will be government. Stay away.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Innovations
This Internet blackout / anti-SOPA day is a reminder of how Third Turning innovations can so completely change the world. In the 3T, individuals are free to make a difference - not constrained by the consolidating forces active in the Fourth or First, not as pummeled by the uncertainty of the Second. To step back through 3Ts is to see radical innovation over and over...
1992 - Tim Berners-Lee invents the World Wide Web
1927 - Lindbergh's flight shows that intercontinental airplane travel will be a reality
1755 - Ben Franklin is able to prove that lightning IS electricity
1666 - Isaac Newton not only revolutionizes how we view the heavens but invents Calculus while he's at it.
~ 1450 - The Gutenberg Bible heralds mass media.
The commonalities between the Web and the printing press are already clear. (Sure, the Internet existed before the Web, but being able to"browse" fr site to site and automatically get pictures and then sounds and then animations and so on was what really changed it from a geek's realm to the property of the world.) The impact of the blackout is the way it can affect the political world directly. As the printing press and the ubiquity of the written Word made it possible for Martin Luther to overturn the established order 60 years later. This is a beginning - stay tuned.
1992 - Tim Berners-Lee invents the World Wide Web
1927 - Lindbergh's flight shows that intercontinental airplane travel will be a reality
1755 - Ben Franklin is able to prove that lightning IS electricity
1666 - Isaac Newton not only revolutionizes how we view the heavens but invents Calculus while he's at it.
~ 1450 - The Gutenberg Bible heralds mass media.
The commonalities between the Web and the printing press are already clear. (Sure, the Internet existed before the Web, but being able to"browse" fr site to site and automatically get pictures and then sounds and then animations and so on was what really changed it from a geek's realm to the property of the world.) The impact of the blackout is the way it can affect the political world directly. As the printing press and the ubiquity of the written Word made it possible for Martin Luther to overturn the established order 60 years later. This is a beginning - stay tuned.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Herod
Whenever someone has a REALLY bad reputation, there's an above average chance that he's a Reactive.
I was reminded of this after the celebration of the Epiphany a few days ago. My analysis of the start of the Christian era is basically
- 44 BC : Crisis begins with Caesar's assassination
- 17 BC : High begins as Augustus consolidates power
- ~ 5 AD Awakening begins - quite possibly around the time Jesus is found in the Temple
- ~ 30 AD Unraveling begins, possibly around the time of the Crucifixion
- 70 AD Crisis ends - around destruction of Jerusalem but also simultaneous with the Year of the 4 Emperors and other Roman events.
Looking at Herod, he not only acts like a Reactive but is born and dies at the expected time as well. The Temple was rebuilt during his reign, indicating both the ability to manage large public works projects ... and the political savvy to get the religious locals on his side. There is a standard assumption that the Slaughter of the Innocents is just hagiography, intended to draw parallels with Moses. Generational theory, though, suggests that the similarities are to be expected. During a High, attacks on outsiders and threats to the social order are common - they can even be seen as a primary indicator of the First Turning. The Spanish Inquisition,the Salem Witch trials, and the Red Scare all happened soon after their respective Crises. It's easy to see how the newly established social order - with the support of institutions strengthened during the Crisis - would find new enemies to attack. Prophets are born during the High and so are going to show up at the same time as these other responses to the changing world. Killing male children of subject peoples might not ever have been *common* but it's hardly surprising that it happened more than once over a period of some thousand years or so,
And this is quite aside from the evidence that Herod was a real piece of work anyway. Living through the post-Caesar wars, he appeared to have no difficulty making sure he was on the winning side. He even killed several members of his own family. Indeed, the surprising thing is that the Magi weren't wise enough to see what they were asking: "We hear you survived a nasty succession crisis in Rome that ended just a few years ago. So, heard anything about a new King of the Jews that this star proclaims?" They shouldn't have needed an angel in a dream to predict how that might turn out.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Progress
One of the things about being a Reactive is recognizing how quickly the world is changing. I'm sure it'll accelerate - the real differences may not be visible until the Crisis ends - but already the waves can be seen.
The particular item that inspired this was a billboard above Sunset Blvd. advertising something called a "dayclub." Presumably like a nightclub, but open during the day. Plus a bar named the Frolic Room, bright neon lights outside and with a doorman -- in the middle of the day. And when/why did bars start doing late-night happy hours, e.g from midnight to 2AM?
(Explain if you wish, but my concern is how these unusualities appear to have become normal before I noticed they existed at all.)
And of course I should have taken a picture. The idea that my pocket networked computer and media server, here, can also acquire images as I see them hasn't yet reached my normal levels of consciousness. Just another clue of how soon we will be dinosaurs.
The particular item that inspired this was a billboard above Sunset Blvd. advertising something called a "dayclub." Presumably like a nightclub, but open during the day. Plus a bar named the Frolic Room, bright neon lights outside and with a doorman -- in the middle of the day. And when/why did bars start doing late-night happy hours, e.g from midnight to 2AM?
(Explain if you wish, but my concern is how these unusualities appear to have become normal before I noticed they existed at all.)
And of course I should have taken a picture. The idea that my pocket networked computer and media server, here, can also acquire images as I see them hasn't yet reached my normal levels of consciousness. Just another clue of how soon we will be dinosaurs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)