Bill

I'm impressed with both your knowledge and analysis of the history of Rome. I see that we both picked Hadrian as the peak of Roman power.

I guess I question your choice of starting points for the current American cycles. For instance, why not pick the US civil war (1860-1865) as a "bottom," roughly equivalent to Rome in 44 BCE? Its roughly half a century from there to when Octavian had his glory days, and the early height of US Imperialism runs from the Spanish-American War (which began on April 25, 1898 and ran through at least the beginning of World War I)? At that time, we acquired the Philippeans, Cuba, and a number of other overseas properties, and the Great White Fleet sailed around the world.

Adding 150 years to 1865 yields 2015 for our next "low," but on an historical scale, plus or minus a decade would still fulfill the prophecy. If Bush were strong, we would be colonizing Iraq, not setting it free to be run as an Islamic state (at some point in the future).

==========

But I stick to my preferred time scale where roughly 140-130 BCE is roughly equivalent to roughly 1960-1970 CE on our time line. On that scale, the civil war of 44 BCE, which accompanied the rise of Julius Caesar and his adopted son, Octavian, would be scheduled for roughly 2056, more or less. This would argue that your 150 year cycle that ended in about 2056 would have begun around 1806, and that date is pretty close to when Spengler identifies as the peak of the Enlightenment, when Western Culture made the transition to Western Civilization (with the French Revolution in 1789). Perhaps the French Revolution of 1789 is the true cultural "bottom" that marks the end of a 600 year cycle and the beginning of the next 150 year cycle.

If we stick with 1789, then 1939 comes 150 years later, and that is the beginning of World War II. It would be hard to not accept that as another "bottom" of a cycle, equivalent to the Cultural upheaval of 1789, exactly 150 years earlier.

But if that is the proper cycle alignment (as I believe it is), then the next "bottom" would not be due until 2089, exactly 300 years after the French Revolution. The expectation would thus be that we should not expect the rise of a true Empire until the third cycle begins in roughly 2100, more or less. But there is still a century of discrepancy in this analysis as I would argue that 2100 is the rough equivalent of 1 CE, which would mean it would be over a century more before we get our Hadrian-equivalent.

==========

If anything, however, this shows how difficult it is to match Elliot Waves to historical trends of this magnitude when the metrics you are measuring aren't all that clear (unlike stock indexes, anyway).

Still, I think you have something worth looking at further, because these 150 year and 600 year cycles do seem to be an interesting phenomena for at least Rome and Western Civilization up to World War II.

== Bill

Ruy Lopez

Bill;

If both of us are making valid observations more or less, there should be a way to reconcile. I'll need some time to look at this. The problem lies in the long periods involved and data interpretation, assuming reliable data is available.

You may have a point assigning civil wars and decisive wars as bottoms as even in the 60 yr economic Kondratieff long wave (which is minor compared to our time frames) bottom periods involve war. If I would work on this it would be because of the possibility of being rewarded with new insights.

We have to build some kind of a model where smaller timeframes fit into larger ones and into still larger ones until we fit into the longest-term component. As you said in stocks, the task is much simpler. I think I already have a model. Here it is;

During secular bull markets:

--Besides day-trading, the next useful wave (cycle which implies periodicity is not the appropriate word) is six days.
--12 days, trading not calendar days
--4 to 4.5 weeks
--13 weeks, which is composed of three of the smaller 4 weeks
--9 months or three of the next smaller (impulse wave)
--12 months which is composed of the previous 9 (impulse waves) plus a 3-month corrective wave.
--4.5 years
--9 years, the Juglar cycle
--27 years or three Juglars or a kondratieff half cycle
--54 a full K long wave

My model stops here as this is what I can defend and demonstrate with data. Other writers push farther into longer grand and super grand cycles but I don't see the support.

Short duration waves exhibit subtantial variability but starting with the 13 week wave, higher reliability can be assumed.

Personally, I like to trade the 13 week and 9 month waves. Those aspiring to be like Warren Buffet should start with the 4.5 and 9 yr waves.

Incidentally the current operative K long wave is extending its duration from the ideal 54 years to something close to 60 years and it is in the earlier stages of the downwave winter phase.

Bill

I remember trading the 4.5 year cycle myself and used it to make some major money when I picked the market bottom in (I think) May, 1974 (more or less). But the next time the cycle came around, ti went screwy because "everybody was doing it." At that time, I didn't have the software and computing resources to be able to sort through all of the crud I was being fed, but "I lost my shirt" in the chaos that came along in later years and so I stopped trading the cycles, presuming that if "everybody is doing it," the cycles would be destroyed.

I gather that you think they have re-stabilized again; which must mean that most people aren't watching them any more. Cycles always were a contrarian market strategy, and whenever too many people jump on the bandwagon, strictly betting the average curve can kill you.

But yes, do take a look and get back to me with your analysis. You may wish to PM me when you post again, if its more than a day or two, I might not be looking.

== Bill

oneofshibumi

Bill, I apologize for the delay. I had a very busy week.

1) I selected the Trilateral Commission quote about �mental universe� to show intent. The goal to dominate all countries, using a �trans-national oligarchy,� is a process. My argument is, the Trilateral Commission�s policies has brought the U.S. and other countries closer to the Corporate-oligarchy�s objective through international conventions and institutions which have been created in the last 30 years. For example, the U.N. Convention on Contracts and Contract Obligations; Unidroit Convention on Sale of Goods, Factoring and Financial Leasing; NAFTA; MIA; changes in IMF policies (compared to the WWII deals with Europe and Japan) and the World Bank. Through concentration of the mass media to a few international companies, limiting view points and concentrating wealth. Creation and funding think tanks to uphold the values of the corporate system. The concentration of presidential executive branch authority, especially in regard to its views on foreign policy and international economics to counter the congressional nation-mindedness in the era of �world order politics,� that includes the mandate of internationalization of countries. Economically, the wealthiest 100 countries and corporations in 1976, when ranked by Gross National Product and Worldwide Company Sales, showed 77 countries and 23 companies in the top 100; in the year 2002, 49 countries and 51 companies were in the top 100. I would argue that the Trilateral Commission quotes show intent and the above information demonstrating the results of corporate action. I am not saying the corporations have complete control (i.e., internet) but that corporations have become more powerful politically, legally, and economically.

2) The quote, �The liberal premise of a separation between the political and economic realm is obsolete: ISSUES RELATED TO ECONOMICS ARE AT THE HEART OF MODERN POLITICS,� could apply to the Clinton 1992 election. However, a bad economy by itself did not win Clinton the election. The Reagan Presidency�s two terms, also consisted of a bad economy; Bush Sr. also was elected in a bad economy.

You will notice from 1980 until 1992 the Democrats never argued the years of high interest and austerity the policies entailed; the massive export of American jobs; the steady deterioration of schools, roads, and services; the true costs of deregulation not only savings and loans, but airlines and the banking system; deregulation; etc. The arguments existed to dethrone Reagan or Bush if any democratic contender wanted. In fact one candidate did bring up these issues, Jerry Brown in 1992. What did the corporate-press say about Jerry Brown? Presidential candidate Brown was described in the press as, "Governor Moonbeam," a charlatan, a political changeling, an opportunist, and a fake. Unfortunately, the public never heard his political arguments, listed above. Instead, Clinton was allowed (by the Corporate-Oligarchy managers) to argue the economy (it�s the economy, stupid) and Bush�s tax increase (read my lips) both non-threatening issues to the corporations. The major investors did not support Brown because the issues he argued went against the Corporate-Oligarchy: Corporate Internationalists, Business Nationalists, Economic Libertarians, National Security Militarists, and Neoconservatives. Furthermore, through the corporate-media, which Corporate-Oligarchy controls, Brown�s character was attacked, unlike any presidential candidate before or since.

3) Bill you wrote, �A corporation is an inanimate object; a piece of paper upon which is recorded a charter from some government. A corporation cannot do anything without the managers who direct it, and those managers are no different in Western Civilization than were the trade cartels of Rome.�

Response: Bill, the comparison of the international trade between Rome and Corporations has some similarities. However, the differences are tremendous. The main difference between trade in Rome and trade in the present is, Rome trade was between people and other people. Now, modern trade is between people and artificial people. Before the 14th Amendment, a corporation had to follow rigid rules to receive the privileges of personhood. These privileges, not rights, included: A) Limited duration of charter or certificate of incorporation. B) Limitation on amount of land ownership. C) Limitation of amount of capitalization, or total investment of owners. D) Limitations of charter for a specific purpose (to amend its charter, a new corporation had to be formed).

One-hundred and twenty years later, the Corporation owns 51% of the wealth in the world. The managers follow orders the same way a knight would follow the dictate of the King. And as King, the corporation looks out for the Corporations bottom-line and interest; the people outside of the corporation do not matter. Also, remember a corporation can �lay-off� 90% of its work force without a blink of an eye. Neither Nero nor Caligula could �lay-off� half of their own subjects. Kings and emperors have certain community responsibilities that corporations do not.

An expansion on the history of the corporation helps explain how much power these �artificial people� have achieved since corporate birth in the 1886 Supreme Court decision, Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., which gave corporations personhood. In the first 50-years after the post-Civil War ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, only 0.5% (one-half of one-percent) of the cases dealt with African-Americans and corporations represented 50% of the cases. Also, of the 307 Fourteenth Amendment cases brought before the U.S. Supreme Court between 1890 and 1910, 19 dealt with the rights of African American and 288 dealt with corporations.

What does �personhood� do for corporations?
* It gives them grounds to question in court any government action.
* Along with other legal doctrines, it makes it easier for them to gain a forum in federal courts and thereby escape the state courts, which are usually more reflective of the will of the sovereign people.
* It expands the power of appointed-for-life federal judges to essentially make law.

Think of it this way: Before 1886, people tried to define corporations to serve the public interest. This is appropriate for entities that were created for just that purpose. But after 1886, corporations had the rights of constitutional persons, and so the government was reduced to trying futilely to regular them instead.

We now have a situation where the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution does not protect us against the denial of our rights by private concentrations of power and wealth known as a Corporate-Oligarchy. We have come to accept that at work we are not entitled to the rights and privileges we normally enjoy as citizens. Corporations have made sure to convince the Supreme Court that although a corporation is not a living person it is afforded the protections and rights of the Bill of Rights, while living person at work are denied these same protections. This has set democracy back. Since the corporation, we are guilty unless proven innocent. Since the corporation, we obey orders upon penalty of discharge. Since the corporation, our most fundamental rights, that of free speech, does not apply. Since the corporation, we cannot freely associate with others to protect our interests. Since the corporation, we have to qualify for rights, forced to take extraordinary efforts to win representation elections, gain government certification, and bargain for employer recognition of even minimal rights. On the other hand, the corporations are assumed to possess civil rights, do not have to gain such rights, and consequently have more rights under the law than do people, including their �right� to free speech, hold captive meetings of their employees, and express political opinions.

I want to put people not corporations in power.

4) Bill you wrote, �What I am disturbed about is the latest ploy by the Bush administration to allow corporate dividends to go entirely untaxed by lowering the corporate tax rate (as you describe) and then passing the dividends to the shareholders while making them exempt from taxation. Now, that process is unfair for sure. However, it is also unlikely to survive for long because the need of government for money is insatiable, because the power of any given government is directly related to the revenue it receives, and the politicians are greedy folks who want the power of controlling all of that money that they gather from other people.�

When I hear you talk about government I do not know if we are in agreement. Government, for me is a tool. In theory the tool is controlled of the people. Remember that the military is one of America�s leading industries that cost a lot of money. Americans pay 47 cents of every dollar collect by federal taxes to pay for present and past military expenses.
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm


5) Bill you wrote, �Don't be so culturally myopic!�

�Spengler itemized a half-dozen Cultures that managed to achieve the status of "great Civilizations." Toynbee extended that study to itemize roughly two-dozen of them, including the Incas, Myans, and Aztecs in the Americas and certainly at least the Chinese and Japanese in Asia (the Japanese having the unfortunate luck of coming into conflict with the premier powers of Western Civilization before it could bring its own civilization into full flower; Japan has now been absorbed into Western Civilization, which is really a rather odd fit....).�

�My objection is that you are glossing over a plethora of civilizations by attempting to characterize these developments as being essentially singular when they are not. In actuality, they are cyclical.�

Response: Bill, I emphasized the Middle East, for several reasons I did not mention.

A) The Incas, Mayans, Aztecs, Chinese and Japanese grew in relative isolation into great civilizations. In the Middle-East and later in the Mediterranean area had empires that cannibalized each other with much higher frequency than is found any where else in the world. The Akkadians were conquered by the Babylon, and later Babylon was conquered by Assyria. Egypt was conquered by the Kashta and then Piankhy, etc.

B) The Incas, the Mayans and the Aztecs believed in Earth Gods. The Chinese and the Japanese believed in a Paradoxical Spirituality. The only place where the Sun God (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) arose was in the Middle East and later the Mediterranean. I would argue that both language and several thousand years of conquering and being conquered influenced the cultures and the religions of the area. And culture is reflected in language.

C) I believe I understand your objection to my generalizations. I did not clarify my point. I do not dispute that other civilizations have risen and fallen. Nor do I deny that in many ways empires in the Americas and Asia had similarities in growth and decline. I am looking at the differences not the similarities. I argue certain speech-acts developed in Indo-European languages. I believe that the Greeks development of thinking processes developed a way to create dialectic with greater objectivity. For example, Aristotle's Prior Analytic and Posterior Analytic theories are the core of his arguments on logic. This laid a base by which others could follow. Aristotle distinguishes between analytic and dialectical proof. The Socratic Method used questions to fine tune ideas. The Scientific Method based on a Greek-rooted thinking did not exist in other cultures.
http://db.hbcse.tifr.res.in/gn/BOOK/thch1.html

While I do agree that certain cyclical patterns (non-historical) can be observed over history. I also believe in a linear historical perspective, for only this perspective explains the growth of knowledge and science that has occurred in the last 300 years.

6) Bill you wrote: �People fear the truth! People do not wish to live in a world where they must accept the raw deal handed to them by the brutality of their existence! So, as is the natural habit of fearful humans, they automatically retreat into self-delusion.�

�No replacement for Western Civilization can possibly succeed until it can offer a positive message of hope, enjoyment, fulfillment, etc.�

Response: Another way to express, �people fear the truth!� could be �people feel fear when their needs for protection from life-threatening forms of life: viruses, bacteria, insects, predatory animals (especially human beings) are not being met.� Or �people feel fear when their need for order is not being met.� Gods have fulfilled that need for thousands of years.

I believe that Social Science can do a better job at defining, explaining, and predicting human societies. Needs can be satisfied more efficiently with the Social Sciences than with other types of knowledge or belief. Fear of truth becomes unsolvable or unknowable situation when the wrong type of information is used. A positive message of hope can be offered to the masses. Needs can be fulfilled much more frequently through other methods. The �mind� technology is there, in the social sciences.

7) Bill you wrote, �As I stated above, my goal is to see mankind break out of these cycles of Culture and Civilization by progressing into the third great stage of human development. From foragers-for-food (the so-called "hunter/gatherer" stage of development) to growers-of-food (after the so-called "Agricultural Revolution") we are now ready to divorce ourselves from the land to which we've been bound. We ought to be soaring out into space. But whether we will do so or not depends upon the question of how much of humanity is ready to make that sort of a leap into the next phase of the development of the human species.�

Response: You imagine an interesting future. Many of the science fiction TV shows and movies talk about space exploration. Unfortunately, for now, the only planet that we will be able to visit is Mars, if water is found. The outer planets, also called the gas giants, do not have a solid surface making exploration impossible. We could visit one of the outer planets moons, like the Jupiter�s moons Io or Europa. The distance to the closest star is several light-years. We are not even close to that type of technology, assuming that such technology is possible.

Humans cannot �divorce� themselves from the earth. At best, humans can go into space taking parts of the earth with them (air, water, food, etc.).

8) Bill you wrote, �Replacing "classical religion" with a "religion based on social science" won't affect the progress of Culture/Civilization one iota. It is never the specifics of the religion which are demanded by the life-cycle. It is rather that the religion of the "end times" must fulfill a certain role (or "fill a need" that arises in people during these times of the life-cycle).�

Bill we agree the cycle that you speak of must be broken. From my world-view, in the same way that science revolutionized culture/civilization, the social-sciences can revolutionize culture/civilization. Before, science the questions about the space consisted of what type of pulley system moved the planets around. After science the questions about space consist of what is the escape velocity necessary for an object to leave earth�s gravitational pull. The speech-acts changed before and after science.

The next great change you speak of would have to be based on new knowledge/world-view that must contain new speech-acts. I would argue one of those speech-acts would include Nonviolent Communication (NVC). One of the purposes of my original post, was to call attention to the change in knowledge acquisition of the physical world by Greek thought as compared to Temple-State (religious) thought. I believe the same geometrical growth of knowledge can occur when the social sciences are applied to the social world. Since social implies groups of people, communication between people becomes fundamental.

I believe the elimination of moralistic judgments, making comparisons, denial of responsibility, and demanding from our speech-acts would in turn evolve a different type of society. In the world of judgments our concern centers on WHO IS WHAT, an analysis or an evaluation. I would argue that this type of analysis of others is actually expressions of our own needs and values.

To express our needs and values, we first have to separate an evaluation from an observation. An example using grade school students, �Ralph is aggressive� is an evaluation. �Ralph walked up to Susan, from behind and hit her,� is an observation. Second, identify our own needs and acknowledge our responsible for our feelings. An example, �I�m angry because you hit Susan,� does not express our needs and values. However, the phrase, �I�m angry when you walk over to Susan and hit her, because I want a safe and harmonious classroom,� does express needs and values. I could now make a request, �I want you to help keep the room harmonious and apologize to Susan.� Now the student may do as I request and the conflict ends. If the student doesn�t want to do what I have requested the dialogue continues

Ralph: �I don�t want to apologize to Susan, she said I was stupid.�

Response: �Are you saying that you feel angry because you are needing more respect?�

Ralph: �Yeah! I lent her a pencil a week ago and now she insults me.�

Response �Are you saying that you feel upset because you are needing appreciation?�

Ralph: �Yeah. I need it from Susan.�

Response: �Well, tell Susan what you observed her do, (call Ralph stupid). Then, tell Susan how that made you feel (angry). Next tell Susan your needs (respect and appreciation). Finally, tell Susan what you want her to do, speak to you with more respect and appreciation.�

Ralph walks over to Susan and tells her. Susan responds no. I respond.

Response: �Susan are you feeling angry because Ralph hit you?�

Susan: �Yes, he had no right to hit me.�

Response: �So, you are saying you are angry because you are needing more respect?�

Susan: �Yes.�

Response: �Why don�t you tell Ralph what you observed him do, how he made you feel, what your needs are and what you want him to do.

Both Ralph and Susan were able to make-up and become friends again.

The solution between Ralph and Susan results from recognizing and talking about values and needs.

I believe by beginning to recognize and talk about our values and needs will create a solidarity among people that wakes them from the stupor that occurs when a person tries to satisfy needs through consumerism. As the people learn to satisfy their needs more effectively, trust is formed and differences are reduced. People become more open-minded

Ruy Lopez

Partial Reconciliation

Remember this passage written earlier;

European civilization could have 1000 year cycles. From 600BCE to 410-460CE was a dramatic era of progress, prosperity and decline. From 500 CE to 1500CE was a thousand years of basically .stagnation. From the renaissance to the present is 500 years so far and indicated to end 2500.

The above does not come from historians but my own musings which I thought was a "stretch". But when combined with your or Spengler's 2000 yrs each of Classical (1500BCE-500CE) and the current Western Civilization(500CE-2500?CE), we have a logical connection. Let me put up a quote from you;

Well, the longest cyclical trend that I could identify would be the rise and fall of individual civilizations, a process that seems to take about 2,000 years, more-or-less.

Generally, there is about 500 years worth of nearly-invisible "pre-history" (which Spengler analogized to "Winter"), 500 years of high-profile Culture ("Spring"), followed by 500 years of Civilization ("Summer"), and about 500 years of decline into the dust bin of history ("Fall").

The Synthesis Observation

Would put forward the following:

1)Each 2000 yr civilization is composed of two phases, a 1000 yr low profile, low achievement or "nearly invisible pre-history" and a second vibrant, high achievement 1000 yr. phase.
Note that the first 1000 yrs of Classical civil. (1500BCE to 500BCE) was unremarkable compared to the second phase, the grandeur of Greece and glory of Rome.(500BCE-500CE)

Next example. The period 500 to 1500CE was so unremarkable that we call it the "dark ages". But from 1500 CE to the present, which is 500 years, we have a renaissance, enlightenment and the atomic bomb. Current Western Civilization has 500 years to go and the next 200 years could still be a high achievement one.

2)I have no basis for affirming or denying Spengler's subdivision into 4 phases i.e. spring through winter. Don't know enough historical details.

Have another case as evidence that indeed a low profile stage precedes a high profile one in a life cycle.

Take the economic 60 yr. Kondratieff long wave which has two halves when applied to the stock market.

A. The fourth long wave; 1949 to 2010?
---1949 to 1974---a moderate bull market, Dow from 250 to 997
---1974 to 2010--greatest bull marketin history, Dow from 557 to 11,700

B. Third long wave; 1896 to 1949
---1896 to 1921--mild bull market
---1922 to 1949--wildest speculative fever in shortest time resulting into a rapid 3 yr crash.

C. Second long wave; 1844 to 1896----observation does not apply. Civil war probably messed up the trend.

D. First long wave; 1789 to 1844---the same pattern as the 3rd and 4th applies.

The above examples from 2000 yr civilizations and th 60 yr long wave seem to imply something "natural" regarding mankind's affairs. I do not know what.

Bill; I have no comments yet on the other shorter time frame phenomena we both brought up.

emphryio

One quick thing Shibumi.

B. Business Nationalists�Multinational corporations erode national sovereignty; nations should enforce borders for people, but also for goods, capital, and profit through trade restrictions. Enlists grassroots allies among Regressive Populists. Anti-Globalists.

This is absolutely not what an anti-globalist is. This is pretty close to the strawman the mainstream media is propagating. (When they dare mention anything at all about the subject.)

Basically governments are bribed in exchange for giving over control of their economies to the IMF or World Bank. Right wing economics then are decreed. The results have been catastrophic for the masses without exception.

Protesting this has pretty much absolutely nothing to do with nationalism, and not too much even to do with trade restrictions.

oneofshibumi

Bill wrote, �Oswald Spengler, who wrote back in the early 1920s, would not disagree one bit. It is "the internal dynamics of democracy itself" which ultimately threatens the demise of all of Western Civilization. Spengler's chapter on politics is extremely depressing to read through because, by the time you reach the end of it, you realize that there isn't any obvious way out. Western Civilization is bound for its own decline and fall because "the internal dynamics of democracy itself" will naturally destroy civilization as we know it. Solving this issue is the ultimate connundrum for social scientists.�

Response:
1 A) I researched Spengler�s theory and the context in which his book, �The Decline of the West,� and some of his other works. I understand Spengler's theory of historical Culture-cycles to mean the following. Human history is the cyclical record of the rise and fall of unrelated High Cultures. These Cultures are in reality super life-forms, that is, they are organic in nature, and like all organisms must pass through the phases of birth-life-death. Though separate entities in themselves, all High Cultures experience parallel development, and events and phases in any one find their corresponding events and phases in the others. It is possible from the vantage point of the twentieth century to glean from the past the meaning of cyclic history, and thus to predict the decline and fall of the West.

1 B) Every Culture's life-span can be seen to last about a thousand years: The Classical existed from 900 BC to 100 AD; the Arabian (Hebraic-semitic Christian-Islamic) from 100 BC to 900 AD; the Western from 1000 AD to 2000 AD. However, this span is the ideal, in the sense that a man's ideal life-span is 70 years, though he may never reach that age, or may live well beyond it. The death of a Culture may in fact be played out over hundreds of years, or it may occur instantaneously because of outer forces -- as in the sudden end of the Mexican Culture.

1 C) The cyclical movements of history are not those of mere nations, states, races, or events, but of High Cultures. Recorded history gives us eight such "high cultures": the Indian, the Babylonian, the Egyptian, the Chinese, the Mexican, the Arabian (or "Magian"), the Classical, and the European-Western 1500 to present.

2) Spengler�s eight �high cultures� dated by conventional historians:
Indian = 250 B.C.E. to 1600 C.E. = 1850 years
Babylonian = 2000 B.C.E. to 560 B.C.E. = 1440 years
Egyptian = 3100 B.C.E. to 332 B.C.E. = 2750 years
Chinese = 1027 B.C.E. to 2003 B.C.E. = 3024 years
Mexican = Mayan: 400 B.C.E. to 900 C.E. = 1300 years
= Aztec: 1200 B.C.E. to 1521 C.E. = 2700 years

Arabian (or "Magian")
= Sumer (Mesopotamia or Iraq) 3500 BC to 539 B.C.E. = 2960 years
= Persia (Iran) 530 BC to 331 B.C. = 200 years

Classical = Greek = 776 B.C.E. to 337 B.C.E. = 339 years
Rome = 30 B.C.E. to 476 C.E. = 446

Spengler�s idea regarding the average life of the �high-cultures� equaling one-thousand-years does not correspond to the majority of the �high-cultures� he mentions in �Decline of the West,� if we use conventional dating of cultures.

Spengler�s treatment of the high cultures is uneven, and he spends relatively little time on the Mexican, Indian, Egyptian, Babylonian, and Chinese. Spengler built his theory on only three civilizations: The Classical, the Arabian and the Western civilizations (the same three I mention in my original post).

3) Spengler's vast knowledge of the arts allowed him to place learned emphasis on their importance to the symbolism and inner meaning of a Culture, and the passages on art forms are generally regarded as being among the more thought-provoking. Also eyebrow-raising is a chapter (the very first, in fact, after the Introduction) on "The Meaning of Numbers," in which he asserted that even mathematics -- supposedly the one certain "universal" field of knowledge -- has a different meaning in different cultures: numbers are relative to the people who use them.

4) While both Spengler and I believe in the concept of an organic society, we use different methodologies to describe, explain and predict outcomes. Spengler�s �physiogmatic� approach (looking things directly in the face or heart, intuitively, rather than strictly scientifically) and comparative analysis between countries has several fallacies: A) Philosophical base of his theory. B) His use of a �Faustian Soul� as the prime symbol of Western culture. C) Spengler writing is very ethnocentric.

A) Spengler�s doctoral dissertation at Halle was on Heraclitus, the �dark philosopher� of ancient Greece whose most memorable line was �War is the Father of all things.� Heraclitus lived during a period of continue wars in Greece between Athens and other City-States. Spengler wrote �The Decline of Western Civlization,� the year WWI ended, 1918. To no little surprise on the part of both Spengler and his publisher, the book was an immediate and unprecedented success. It offered a rational explanation for the great European disaster, explaining it as part of an inevitable world-historic process. German readers especially took it to heart, but the work soon proved popular throughout Europe and was quickly translated into other languages. In the year 1919 was "Spengler's year," and his name was on many tongues.

Professional historians of the period, however, took �great umbrage at this pretentious work by an amateur� (Spengler was not a trained historian), and their criticisms -- particularly of numerous errors of fact and the unique and unapologetic "non-scientific" approach of the author -- filled many pages. It is easier now than it was then to dispose of this line of rejection-criticism. Anyway, with regard to the validity of his postulate of rapid Western decline, the contemporary Spenglerian need only say to these critics: Look about you. What do you see?

Spengler believed there would be another World War which would accelerate the decline of Western Civilization. Spengler prediction was correct in that there was a WWII, but he was wrong in implying that World War would lead to the decline of Western civilization.

Spengler believed his German perspective could be applied to all cultures. While his writing represented many of the feelings that Germans and Europeans in general felt after WWII, his theory is based on a minimal historic basis and his subjective interpretation of symbolism in societies.

B) According to Spengler, the prime symbol of Western culture is the �Faustian Soul� (from the tale of Doctor Faustus), symbolizing the upward reaching for nothing less than the �Infinite.� This is basically a tragic symbol, for it reaches for what even the reacher knows is unreachable.

However, humanity has reached the unreachable (like landing on the moon). The story of the European defeat of Germany in WWI would be represented in Doctor Faustus story. The character Faustus is trapped between the religious Middle Ages and the man-centered Renaissance. Faustus replaces God with his belief in man's rational ability. But the abilities he gains are a little silly and the cost to him is tremendous. Though he can see so much, he cannot see his own mistakes or eternal truths. But Faustus is not an entirely unsympathetic character. Knowledge surely is a good thing. But how far should it be taken?

The character Faustus is trapped between the religious Middle Ages and the man-centered Renaissance. Faustus replaces God with his belief in man's rational ability. But the abilities he gains are a little silly and the cost to him is tremendous. Though he can see so much, he cannot see his own mistakes or eternal truths. But Faustus is not an entirely unsympathetic character. Knowledge surely is a good thing. But how far should it be taken?

C) Spengler�s thinking in �Man and Technics� and �The Hour of Decision� permits one to characterize him as a kind of �proto-Nazi�: his call for a return to Authority, his hatred of �decadent� democracy, his exaltation of the spirit of �Prussianism,� his idea of war as essential to life, his belief in the fusion of State and Corporation, and his racism. His only criticism of Hitler�s Nazism was that their racism was to narrow. Nazis should emphasize the unity of the various European races to defend against the �colored peril.�

In contrast, Social Scientists, for example, Thuman and Bennet have highlighted "prerequisites for survival," needs that must be met in order for a society of any size, to continue:

1) Every society must be able to answer the basic biological needs of its members: food, drink, shelter, and medical care.

2) Every society must provide for the production and distribution of goods and services (perhaps through a division of labor, rules concerning property and trade, or ideas about the role of work).

3) Every society must provide for the reproduction of new members and consider laws and issues related to reproduction (regulation, marriageable age, number of children, and so on).

4) Every society must provide for the training (education, apprenticeship, passing on of values) of an individual so that he or she can become a functioning adult in the society.

5) Every society must provide for the maintenance of internal and external order (laws, courts, police, wars, diplomacy, etc).

6) Every society must provide meaning and motivation to its members.

This last prerequisite is more important than it may seem. No societal activity is possible unless people are motivated to participate. Why do we get up in the morning? How do we see ourselves in relation to other members of society? Why do we follow a society's rules? Without a sense of meaning and motivation, people will become apathetic. If this happens, a society may be threatened with decline.

If the 6 prerequisites are maintained, a society or civilization can continue to exist indefinitely. I do not believe that Spengler's theory of historical Culture-cycles can explain and predict the demise of a civilization.



Bill wrote: �Actually, the oldest pyramids in Egypt date from 4500 BCE, so I would argue that you would need to go back to at least 6000 BCE to see the rise of what you call the "temple state."

Response: We are in disagreement on the dates of Egypt�s oldest pyramids, and we have different meanings for the word Temple-State.

The Predynastic Period, 5500 - 3100 BC, begins with southern agrarian and a northern nomadic peoples transforming into an empire. The idea of individual dwellings, towns, and "urban planning" started around 4500 BC. The transition from Predynastic and Dynastic was the result of the discovery of metallurgy and the new social structures such as cities, individual dwellings, writing, and the slow process of technological evolution. Around 3100 B.C. Northern and Southern Egypt was united, becoming Ancient Egypt.
http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm

�Tombs of early Egyptian kings were bench-shaped mounds called mastabas. 1st Dynasty, around 2780 B.C.E., King Djoser's architect, Imhotep, built the first pyramid by placing six mastabas, each smaller than the one beneath, in a stack to form a pyramid rising in steps. This Step Pyramid stands on the west bank of the Nile River at Sakkara near Memphis. Like later pyramids, it contains various rooms and passages, including the burial chamber of the king.

The transition from the Step Pyramid to a true, smooth-sided pyramid took placed during the reign of King Snefru, founder of the Fourth Dynasty (2680-2560 B.C.). At Medum, a step pyramid was built, then filled in with stone, and covered with a limestone casing. Nearby at Bahshur, construction was begun on a pyramid apparently planned to have smooth sides. About halfway up, however, the angle of incline decreases from over 51 degrees to about 43 degrees, and the sides rise less steeply, causing it to be known as the Bent Pyramid. The change in angle was probably made during construction to give the building more stability. Another great pyramid was built at Dahshur with its sides rising at an angle of somewhat over 43 degrees, resulting in a true, but squat looking pyramid.�
http://www.si.edu/resource/faq/nmnh/pyramid.htm

�As the religion became more involved, true deities were sometimes confused with human beings who had been glorified after death. Thus, Imhotep, who was originally the chief minister of the 3rd Dynasty (2650-2575 B.C.E.) ruler Zoser, was later regarded as a demigod. During the 5th Dynasty (2465-2323 B.C.E.) the pharaohs began to claim divine ancestry and from that time on were worshiped as sons of Ra. Minor gods, some merely demons, were also given places in local divine hierarchies.�
http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/religions.htm

The Egyptians had a one-ruler political system, with pharaohs being worshipped by the people, as a son of a God (they had many Gods with Ra as the most powerful God). The Temple-State requires two ruling powers, a religious class (Temple) and a Royal or King class (State).

Furthermore, the Egyptians built many pyramids for their many pharaohs, the Temple-State requires a specific location where the Temple must be built. The Temple (first and second) were built on the same spot. In modern times the location receives the name, the Wailing Wall or the West wall of the Temple Mount; said to be what was left of Solomon's Temple.
http://mosaic.lk.net/g-wall.html

Daniel

oneofshibumi

Emphryio,

I did not think you understand the context I tried to provide, let me clarify.

I am not referring to an individual in general. I am not talking about the bucolic Texans who shoot Mexicans crossing the border, nor am I talking about brave activist who got stomped by police in Seattle, to bring attention to the World Bank and the IMF. Both the Texans and the activists may be Anti-globalist, but neither pay politicians to pass legislation. What I mean by Business Nationalists, for example, is Agribusiness�s coalition. This coalition plans and then pays politicians to implement legislation that produces a cheap workforce. Illegal Mexican immigrants satisfied this purpose better than legal migrants who must receive the legal minimal wage. Or, the garment industry (what�s left of it) that uses illegal immigrants paying them less than minimal wage.

The anti-globalist activists that you are referring to do not have anything to do with Business Nationalists nor do the activists approve of many aspects of their policies. However, both Business Nationalists and Anti-globalists share the desire to reform both the IMF and the World Bank.

Daniel