How does a "we" become a mere "me"?

Although it has been a while, I've dealt with the notion of "Advent", what it's about, how it not only marks a change of seasons, but also what it means in a yearly sense.

There's no real need to rehash old themes. This year is not all that different from previous ones: there's too much trouble, pain, strife, war, death, and suffering going on out there; the greedy still can't get enough; the poor are still looked down upon, if they're not outright despised; the first salvos in the so-called "war" on Christmas have already been fired; and my own desire to hear a collective voice of reason in the hectic remains unfulfilled. Too few people care ... about any of what this "season" should bring; and even fewer are willing to budge even an inch out of their own self-righteous comfort zones to fill the season with any kind of reason.

Margaret Thatcher, the Female Godhead of Neoliberalism, maintained -- and her acolytes and adherents proclaim -- that there is no such thing as society; it is merely a collection of individuals. That is unchallenged dogma in the meantime, and even the briefest glimpse at anything calling itself news confirms its "truth". But, religions -- and neoliberalism has taken on this mantle -- cannot exist apart from cultures, so that is the next falsehood that must be destroyed, and all of us worldwide, though more markedly we in the West, are rallying to the Call for Destruction. Just like the often illiterate and ignorant destroyers of culture known as ISIS, even we non-military, supposedly peace-loving, non-violent types are just as effective as they are at destroying common history as well.

Without a society; that is, without some kind of social grouping that views itself as "us", it is difficult to imagine a culture forming. A culture, in this sense, the linguistic, artistic, musical, literary, and value-oriented backdrop that provides the context in which a given group can function. In certain regards it is all those unspoken rules, guidelines, customs and mores that let everyone knew "how things are done around here". That group will then organize itself in relation to other groups in civil (political) and economic (commercial) ways. Politics and commerce are, by their very nature, unable to support culture. Given the influence she enjoyed throughout the West, when Mdme Thatcher conceptually eliminated "society", she did as much to destroy our culture as Muslim radicals do when they go around blowing up cultural heritage sites or chiseling facades off of walls. We readily recognize the one, and deal very ineptly with the other.

Though only one example, it is indicative of why we find ourselves in crisis these days ... and everything has become a crisis. Whatever it was that made us "us" has been so weakened, so debilitated that we're left primarily with ourselves. And individuals are never a sound basis upon which to build.

An iceberg sunk the Titanic, and it could happen to us

The thing about icebergs is you can't see most of what they are, but they're there anyway. The thing about prejudices is that you don't know where they come from, but they're there anyway. The thing about stereotypes is that you don't know why you believe them, but you believe them anyway. The thing about myths is that you don't know where they come from, but you believe them anyway as well. Just like we don't know how to account for 75% of the mass of the visible universe, we can't account for the motivations for most of what we believe and what makes us act the way we do.

Truth be told, we don't know what we're doing, nor why we're doing it most of the time. Why is that?

Sigmund Freud, G-d bless him, opened Pandora's box at the turn of the last century. We can think what we want about his theories on how the mind works, but one thing you can't take away from him is his insight into the fact that the unconscious determines much more of what we do and how we act than we would like to admit ... well, more than we are willing to admit. No, Siggie didn't get a whole lot right, but in that regard, he hit the proverbial nail smack on the head.

Just because we "know" this, doesn't mean for a second that we've done anything about it. Most of us are still driven by our unconscious. More of us are Mr. Hydes than we are Dr. Jekylls, whether we want to admit it or not. Why is that? Well, quite simply because we are (truly) afraid of shining the light of day (or knowledge or truth) on the dark (that is, unknown, unconscious, repressed) part of ourselves.

We like to think we are good, upstanding, and humane, yet, at night, when we turn off the lights, in the twilight prior to sleep, we are plagued by the ghosts of fear (of others), hate (of Muslims, or ), uncertainty (about how we're seen by others), guilt (perhaps someone has seen through our personal facade), and simple trepidation (how do we continue to keep up appearances). Our problem is that what we proclaim to be good, right, and proper is based on unconscious assumptions and beliefs that most of us don't even know we have. In other words, we have our own (personal) myths that we hold to be true.

In some cases, these myths tell us that we are the "good guys", that what we do is for the best of all, that our history is one of benevolence and enlightenment, that our intentions were always pure and that our actions, even when they fell short of their goal, were unselfish and noble. Yes, that is what we would like to believe, but for those who have taken the time to look honestly and intently in the mirror, we know that the reality has fallen rather short of the desire.

We in the West are not alone in this. It is, it would seem, a universal illness of our age. We like to think we are informed, knowledgeable, enlightened, even wise. And so our myths get a bad name, because we accept them blindly, without thinking, without consciousness.

Myths, however, are real, and they are true in that realm in which they operate. What we also need to know is that we must engage them as they are, and unlike the unmovable and unbreakable iceberg that sunk the world's mightiest ship, we can reshape and remold them into those stories who unfortunately tell us who we are, but mercifully, can show us who we really want to be.

There's a Grand Scheme of Things

We moderns, as I said before, like to think that life started with us, but it didn't. We like to think we're the smartest version of the species yet to appear, but I certainly have my doubts. I'm not saying the Ancients were smarter or cleverer (though they did figure out that fire and wheel thing, and whether we've really improved on either is open to debate), rather they were, in their own way, every bit as intelligent and insightful as we are today. The Ancients weren't errant, trial-and-error-driven, superstitious, child-like, simpletons. They were highly evolved, curious, interested and adventurous people. They didn't figure everything out, and neither have we, and if we took them half-seriously and were not so condescending in our attitude, there could be a thing or two we could learn from them.

Some archaeologists, for example, are convinced the Sphinx is much older than the Great Pyramids. It is obvious that the Sphinx has a lion's body, and it's just as obvious that the head has been resculpted. How old could it be? Well, if the body has anything to tell us, I'd start thinking perhaps as much as 12,000 years old. That's long before most archaeologists believe humans were capable of such constructions, but there's hardly a day that goes by that new evidence does not appear that humans have been acting like humans much farther back in history than expected, at least based on what we "know". And, to come back to my Creationist friends, could it be that the world being only 6,000 years old has something to do with the beginning of recorded history? It was the so-called People of the Book who first introduced the notion. Could it be that not t-h-e world, but a, or their particular world (understood as a way of accepting reality ... much like was say today that some people "live in their own world") came into being then?

Off track? Maybe, but maybe not. One of the hallmarks of modernity is its insistence on facts and factual knowledge (even if lots of folks prefer to ignore the same if these facts don't fit into their own little "world", like climate-change deniers, etc.). One of the hallmarks of our ancient ancestors is that to them, the story was more important, for it was the story that communicated meaning and made sense of their lives and the world in which they found themselves. Our incessant appetite for facts kills meaning. Facts are like sugar calories: they're fine every now and again, but you can't live off sugar, you need other nutrients to keep yourself alive and healthy. Myth -- true myth -- provides a rich variety of intellectual and psychological nutrients that help us find meaning in this otherwise hunger-producing world in which we live.

Hardline science wants us to believe that we live in a coincidentally and accidentally, created, formed and evolved world, that we ourselves are the product of blind chance, that there is no meaning to be found and when we think we have found some, it turns out we only made it up to placate our own fears. Why we have fears and why we can make things up to placate them doesn't matter to hardline science for that is outside the purview of their interests. This is why the state of science today, the state of our knowledge, is in such bad shape. If nothing else, our ancient forebears were trying, and it would appear to me, making some progress in understanding their (read: our) relationship to all that surrounds us. Sculpting a bull because it links us to observed natural, astronomical phenomena hardly seems like a random act to me, especially when I think it could take years to finish that sculpture.

For me, given the choice, between haphazard, meaningless chance and a meaningful relationship to the world around me ... I'll opt for the latter every single time. I think we owe at least that much to those who came before us.

There's a Grand Scheme of Things?

If you recall from last time, we were standing outside looking at the eastern horizon at the vernal equinox. We notice the constellation that is there. If we did that every year of our normal lives (which we found out several posts ago was "threescore and ten" or 70 years, that constellation that we would observe would appear to move about 1 degree to the West over the course of our life. That's not very fast, but if you passed this habit onto your children and they to their children and so on and so on, at some point, someone in your family would notice that the original constellation had passed and a new constellation had taken its place. This is what is known as the Precession of the Equinoxes.

So what, you may be asking. Well, this is why I find it so interesting. I had to explain this phenomenon to you because we don't care and hence don't know. This was, however, for a very long time a very big deal. Plato, and the Ancient Greeks knew about it, the Egyptians certainly knew about it, the Ancient Babylonians and Assyrians knew about it. And, if my simple example shows, how many observations would have to be made to see the parade of constellations go through several changes?

As I told you last time, it takes about 26,000 years to go through all twelve constellations. Analogous to our own solar year of 12 months, the precession was referred to as the Great Year, each "month" thereof spanning just over 2,100 years. Since we already use the word "month" to refer to our own time reckoning, these "Great Months" are referred to as "ages" and are given the name of the constellation that serves as backdrop for that given period.

Almost everyone has heard of the "Age of Aquarius" (Aquarius is the Water Bearer), and it's to this precession that it refers. The one preceding it is/was known as the Age of Pisces (the Fish), before that it was the Age of Ares (the Ram), and before that the Age of Taurus (the Bull). And if we do the math, Fish - Ram - Bull = 3 x 2,100 or about 6,000 years ago. An interesting number in this particular context, I would think, because don't the Creationists believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old? Is there anything to this?

Did you ever ask yourself why the Bull plays such a major role in some cultures and why there are so many very old stories involving bulls? One only has to think about Crete and the Minotaur (man with the head of a bull) to whom sacrifice had to be brought and Ariadne's thread. Or why as part of his labors, Hercules was required to capture the Cretan Bull? Have you ever asked yourself why you find pictures of Moses, for example, bringing down the 10 Commandments from Mt. Sinai, depicted with small ram's horns. And why was Moses so upset with his people that he smashed the original tablets on ... yes ... the Golden Calf (a young bull)? Or why in Ancient Egypt there were actual boulevards leading up to certain temples that were lined with statues of rams? Or why is it that Jason was off looking for a Golden Fleece? And, do you really think that it's a mere coincidence that a couple of thousand years later when a young rabbi got hung on a cross that he was known for wanting to make his disciples "Fishers of Men", or that his followers recognized each other by the sign of the fish?

Yes, I know this is all just oddly coincidental. That these animals played such a significant role in the myths, legends and tales is simply a matter of accident. I don't know about you, but for me that's all just a little too much coincidence.

A Grand Scheme of Things?

Gebser's model, which has underlain the last several posts, is one way of looking at ourselves over the not-so-long span of our existence. We moderns tend to discard the past, especially the distant past, because we have been taught to believe that our eldest forebears were, well, more or less childlike and naive, not particularly bright (like we are today), and rather helpless in the face of the big, bad world into which they were thrown. This is, of course, a self-aggrandizing, egotistical, and arrogant belief. Maybe that's why we take to it and hold on to it so dearly. What I like most about Gebser's model is his insistence on (and documented support for) the fact that humans have always been intelligent (though there have always been geniuses and idiots among us) and whatever it is that we humans figured out is still of value to us today. In other words, we can learn from them, if we're only willing to take them seriously and take a serious look at all they did.

Gebser's ideas are also not new. He's not the first person to come up with the idea that change may be "built into the system", in a manner of speaking. He links his model to what he sees to be as evidence of changes in human mentation. Eons before he came up with this approach, however, the topic of cosmic change, let us say, a Grand Scheme of Things, was a highly developed science (using the word in its most fundamental sense: "a way of knowing"). Have you ever heard of the Precession of the Equinoxes? Most haven't, so let me explain it briefly, for it forms the basis of one of humankind's oldest models of change, one that might even qualify as that elusive Grand Scheme of Things.

Up front, a few basic facts and tidbits of knowledge that are necessary to understand the concept. The earth rotates on its axis, once every 24 hours (or one day). The earth revolves around the sun once every 365.25 days (or one year). The earth's axis is tilted at about 23 degrees; that is, it does sit perfectly vertically and the path of revolution around the sun is elliptical. When viewed from outside, the earth would appear to "wobble" and it is sometimes closer to the sun and sometimes actually vertical in relation to the suns's axis, and this is what causes the seasons, which are experienced most clearly in what are called the temperate climate zones. Now, this "wobble" isn't a shaky kind of wobble and if we could push a stick through the earth (like through an apple) from north to south and we observed the point of the stick from a great distance, we would see that it inscribes a circle. The fact worth noting is that it takes about 26,000 years to complete that circle.

The moon revolves around the earth, the earth around the sun, the sun around the center of the Milky Way (our galaxy) and so on. Everything out there in space is moving. We, of course, don't have the sensation that we're moving, so if we go out, say, every night at the same time and look up at the stars, we would notice that they don't always appear in the same place. They appear to be moving, albeit slowly, but moving nevertheless, but it takes a very long time to recognize that they are.

OK, so, if we went out at night on the first day of spring (March 21, the so-called vernal equinox) and looked due east, we would see a certain set of stars on the horizon. As it turns out, there are several sets of these stars, called constellations, which are familiar to us from astrology (hence the hapless pick-up line, "What's your star sign?" As most of you know, there are twelve of these signs, one for every month of the year, even though we count our months from 1 to 28, 30 or 31 days, and the astrological months always start around the 20th to the 22nd of each calendar month.

Well, you may be wondering where all of this is leading, but you'll have to come back next time for me to tell you.

Who's calling the tune?

Far be it from me to want to sound condescending. I know much of what I'm saying can come across like that, but it's not my intent. I can assure you of that. What I've been going on about over the last several posts is, at least in my mind, a pretty big deal. We may think that life is merely business as usual, we may want to believe things really aren't any different from how they've always been, and we may even wish that we weren't involved. But it's not, they are and we are. Once you take a step back and get a glimpse of the big picture, you realize that while a lot of the details are very similar, their context has shifted and that makes all the difference in the world.

We can also continue to believe that small, individual, often petty, decisions can get things going in a different direction, but we missed that opportunity. Things are, whether we like or not, coming to a head. As I never tire of pointing out, just about all that we have set up for ourselves, all the systems that we simply take for granted -- social institutions, schools, our economic and banking system, politics, religion, nations, you name it -- are broken. All of them are causing way more problems than they are producing benefits, and the various varieties of each are at odds with or in confrontation with the others. So, do we just let things take their course?

That is one option, no doubt about it. It's not my preferred one, but it's an option nevertheless. We can also decide that each of us will keep his or her own and try to overwhelm, overcome, or outright defeat the others. This the active side of simply letting things take their course. It will, in my estimation, merely accelerate the decline we're experiencing. Another option, of course, is to place the responsibility in the hands of our elected leaders and representatives. We all know they are devoted civil servants keen on making sure that we the people are well provided for. Or, we can take matters into our own hands and see to it that we each get ours and everyone else can fend for themselves. It is these latter two options that seem to be taking on most form in the West. Truth be told, a moment's serious reflection will reveal that both of them are naive and dangerous. Is this all we can do?

Not really. I believe our best option is to simply wake up. We've been gliding along in our fat, dumb and happy lives for much too long. We've lost sight of what's important in the grander, not the individual, scheme of things. It's time for us to become aware of ourselves, our decisions, and the consequences of our actions. In other words, we need to get smart about what else can be done other than business as usual. And it is long overdue that we finally become worthy of the name "human being": not acting towards others like we wouldn't want them acting toward us; recognizing that all of us, regardless of skin color, beliefs or culture all desire the same things and are entitled to the same things as everyone else, like peace, security, enough to eat, a modicum of happiness, and a bit of meaning in our lives; accepting that differences are not better or worse, they're only different and maybe there is something we can learn from that; standing up for what we know is right because it's right for everyone, without exception, and not for a privileged few.

It's not a long list, to be sure, but we can call the tune ourselves or pay the piper. It's up to us. It's up to each and every one of us.

Second verse, same as the first

Now, back to our previously scheduled program ...

We left off wondering whether the efficiency and deficiency of the apparent shift to the next structure of consciousness is being presented as an immediate choice. I know that there are a number of you who simply can't believe that we could be changing the fundamental way we think and interact with the world. It's not an easy notion to accept. All you have to do is turn on your TV or radio, or simply leave the house to run a few errands and you are likely to be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of stupidity you encounter. The ridiculousness of so much that we have to endure doesn't immediately indicate that something totally different is on the way. I understand that, believe me, but at the same time I'm here to tell you that this is an exceedingly narrow view of life and of humanity.

I will be the first to admit and acknowledge that we, as a species, are slow learners. It takes us forever to really get something, and when we do, we tend to forget it rather quickly. We keep making the same mistakes over and over and over again. The way we express our difficulties in coping have changed throughout the span of our existence, but a lot of the fundamental problems still remain. So, yes, I'm aware that there are many of you who simply believe that we humans are simply bad at best, or rotten to the core at worst, but this too is a too narrow view.

Exceptions confirm the rule. As bad as we can be as a species, we also know that we are capable of wonderful, if not wondrous, things, that we can rise to glorious heights of accomplishment as well. In other words, we have it in us, but it's just that most of us have managed to bury it so deeply that we have trouble finding it. We too often think we need to be hard, cold, and decisive because the state of the world forces us to be that way. But all of the truly great human beings were above average in the same down-and-dirty world in which the rest of us live. The truly great among us are great not because of the world, but in spite of it. That's something none of us should ever forget.

This is why I believe we do have a choice. In fact, I firmly believe that we always have had a choice, we just weren't aware of that fact. We have thought that the world is as it is, mostly because that's the way it is, and because most everyone around us told us that that's the way the world is and there's not a lot we can do about it. It wasn't true. It isn't true. It's a mere misperception of how things really are.

So, once again, we're faced with a choice, but this time around -- and this is where this shift differs greatly from those that came before -- we can win the big one, or we can turn out the lights. All of our genius and technological "progress" has provided us with a number of luxuries, that's for sure, but they've also given us the ability to completely destroy ourselves, to wipe our and many other species of life off the face of the earth. While some people are worried that one country (Iran) might get a (that is, one) nuclear bomb, there are already enough of such devices on "active duty" that if used would essentially force this planet to start all over again. And it took us about 15,000,000,000 years to get here this time around.

We humans have always been a particularly destructive species, but we could overdo it this time. We have a choice, but we have to want to make it, and we have to be aware of the consequences of our choice. A lot hangs in the balance. Are we up to the challenge?

Upsides, downsides, and time-compression

One of the features of the transition of consciousness that we are experiencing that interests me in particular is the rate of change. When looked at historically, we find that the efficient and deficient modes of each structure of consciousness has been shorter ... much shorter ... than the one that preceded it. I don't know why that is, but it appears that it is that way.

If you recall, I already outlined what I believe the time spans of the different structures of consciousness to be, and if we consider that our latest deficient phase is a mere 500 years in the making, well, I think you can agree that things seem to be speeding up. Could they be speeding up to the point where the emergence of the efficient as well as the deficient modes could be simultaneous? Could it be that right up front, we have to decide whether we want the efficient or deficient mode? I know that's a difficult thought to get one's head around, so I won't pursue it further. If you're so inclined, though, I invite you to think about just that "at your leisure".

This is, of course, only one way to understand the notion of time-compression. I mean, we all think that life is passing us by more quickly than we've ever experienced it before, and this applies to everyone, not just to us older folks. My children complain about "not having enough time" to get things done that need to be done, and everyone wants to know where their days went and why is my 20th reunion already being planned, and why there just aren't enough hours in a day.

Another way to think about time-compression, however ... and it's my preferred way (after all, the one just described merely depresses me at my age, and at my age, the last thing I need is depression) ... is that what we once thought over, dead, and long-forgotten turns out to be more up-to-date, current, and "now" than we ever imagined. Think about it.

More and more discoveries are being made to show that "humans" (however you may define the term) have been around, doing "human things", for much longer than we suspected. We've had to revise our "accepted anthropological wisdom". The advances made in understanding the human genome and consciousness are forcing us to rethink both biology and physics. What is surprising, however, is the fact that very ancient and long-forgotten "knowledge" is making a come-back. It could just be that the Ancient Egyptians knew more than we give them credit for. It could be that historical linguistics needs to be revised. We are becoming ever more aware of the availability of information and we are being challenged more than ever to deal with this information in a sensible and meaningful way ... and we're having a hard time doing that. Why? Because the things we are finding out are at odds with the things that we thought we knew, with what we have been made to believe is true. In other words, the very foundation of who we are is being called into question. This is a hard nut to crack, and it is one that most people will resist. Nevertheless, our future, our entire existence depends on the decisions we make now. No pressure. But if you don't know, you need to get smart fast.

So, for those of you who are so inclined, and for those of you who would like to think more, let me suggest a couple of sources: in physics, Penrose, Goswami, Greene, and Bleicher aren't a bad place to start; in biology, try Sheldrake; in philosophy, I recommend Midgley; for language and linguistics, Stan Tenen and the work of the Meru Foundation; as far as Ancient Wisdom is concerned, the best place to start is with René Schwaller de Lubicz; as far as mythology is concerned, try Hamlet's Mill by Santillana & Dechand. There's more. Much, much more, of course, but you have to start somewhere.

Start somewhere.

Upsides, downsides, and rolling downhill

We should keep in mind that Gebser postulates both an efficient (an upswing, uptake, positive surge) and a deficient (downswing, negative surge) phase of each structure of consciousness. Magic, for example, becomes deficient when it no longer supports our interaction with the world but degenerates, say, into the mere casting of spells or the yearning for power. (It should be remembered that Anglo-speakers "spell", that is, specify the letters that constitute a word; in olden times, knowing (and being able to write) the runes that constituted someone's name gave the writer power over that other person. Think about the implications we carry around with us even today.) The very rise of what we in the West like to think of as "civilization", with the Greeks, was a reaction against the mythologies that had become so diffuse and confusing that they no longer supported our interaction with the world.

Our own shift toward the deficient aspect of the Mental structure of consciousness can be clearly identified, and Gebser places in squarely in the Renaissance and the "discovery" of perspective. Leonardo da Vinci wrote one of the first treatises on the subject, and if you look at painting prior to that time, you will notice a very big difference in how the world was (could be) graphically represented. Granted, perspective opens up a whole new way of seeing things (and the pun is intended), but at the same time, it is exceedingly limiting for it focuses only on an aspect of the whole and it almost always differs from the point-of-view that even similarly minded people may have of a given subject. We have got to the point where it is almost impossible for most people to even consider seeing the world from a point-of-view different from their own. What's happening in Washington is obvious anyone who is even slightly aware of what Gebser is trying to tell us.

But, as the first two examples, the Magical and Mythical, have illustrated, the shift comes when the chaos finally becomes intolerable. When we "lose the plot", to put it in modern terms, things go downhill, and even the slowest and least observant among us realize that we're accelerating in our degeneracy. Yes, when things start going downhill, things start falling apart very fast.

And let's face it, we're right in the thick of things. There's not one of our "systems" these days that is not on the verge of collapse. First, we have the "little" systems, as I like to call them, things like social services, healthcare, social security, and the like. But the "big" systems are imploding too. Science is in a crisis due to its inability and unwillingness to address issues like "consciousness" seriously, or because it refuses to acknowledge new discoveries that not only challenge our "accepted wisdom", but turn it on its head. Politics have become impossible, and I don't care in which country or under which system you have to live. Economics has failed us miserably: if it all worked as planned, why aren't we all rich and living a life luxury? Religion? Even the Pope has taken a new tack and has shook up the traditional Church Establishment. In psychology, the behaviorist model has not only been discredited, it has been exposed for what it is: a mere method of manipulation; the latest "crisis" is trying to find a way to come to terms with the increasing degree of ephemeralization (doing ever more with ever less) and virtualization (the over-abstraction of reality). Even our sociology is being challenged as social networks reveal the impossible dichotomy of "human interaction" and access to unlimited amounts of information, much of which we never even knew existed. The Chinese believe one should be blessed to live in exciting times, well, they are getting their wish as far as I'm concerned.

Truth be told, we have no idea what to do. Most of us are simply lost, confused, frustrated, and overwhelmed. We have every reason to be, but we have to come to terms with the fact that things ... hell, nothing ... is as it used to be. What we also have to come to terms with is the fact that they never will that way again.

What humankind has done in every consciousness shift prior to this one is to hold fast to what they thought they "knew". It hasn't worked yet, and I can assure you, it's not going to work this time around. We need to get with it, to ride the wave, to go with the flow ... there are lots of ways to say it, but they all boil down to the same thing: it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Integration not regression

It's not like we have never been confronted with such significant changes before. We humans, as a species, have experienced a number of what we would probably describe these days as "traumatic" shifts. It doesn't happen all that often, and what makes so much of a difference this time around is that we possess the wherewithal to obliterate ourselves and everything else on the planet. I'm sure that no one deep down truly wants that to happen, but the possibility exists because of choices we have made. A lot of things started out with good intentions, but it is so, so easy to show examples where good intentions have ended very, very badly.

Whether you know (or believe) it or not, in each and every great transition throughout our history (written or not) the change that allowed us to remain alive and vibrant on this planet was not a technological one, it wasn't a social one or a political one either. It was a change of mind, a deep, far-reaching change, not only in the way we think, but in the way we perceive and experience reality. I know that's a difficult idea to come to terms with, but that's what it's going to take this time, too. The question is how much time do we have to prepare? Or, perhaps better, are we even up to the challenge?

If the Swiss-German cultural philosopher Jean (Hans) Gebser is right (and I believe he's got as reasonable, and better documented, theory as any), then we're looking at the fourth such major shift (though Gebser himself calls them "mutations"). When humans appeared on earth is something of a hotly debated issue. Whether it was a million or two million years ago is, for our purposes, irrelevant. What life was like for these early ancestors of ours is hard to determine, but it could have very well been more unconscious and dreamlike than anything else, it would have been what Gebser called Archaic.We also know, from archaeological evidence that around 300,000 years ago, humankind started making tools and conquered fire and everything changed. Yes the world was not well understood, and we very erroneously look down on these folks as undeveloped and primitive, but they were sophisticated in their own ways, even though the core of their consciousness was Magical. Around 40,000 years ago, we started codifying what we experienced and thought in paintings and stories; that is, our consciousness became Mythical. Then, as we all learned in school, out of nowhere, practically, and for no apparent reason at all, about two-and-a-half millennia ago, the Ancient Greeks appeared on the scene and set the stage for how we've been viewing the world ever since (well, more or less, but I'll get into more detail here the next time), that is as an almost exclusive Mental construct.

In each and every case (thus far), when we've transitioned from one type of mentation (if you will) it was because we managed, for better or for worse, to bring the best of what we had/knew/conceived and had made part of ourselves into the next phase or stage, so to speak. It is obvious that things cannot continue as they are. Too much of what we thought we knew and thought to be true is simply dysfunctional, if not outright broken. I'm not saying that the next shift will be painless, for it won't be, but even though it's coming faster and with less run-up than those that came before, we have the advantage that we can already get an idea of what is happening and what might need to be done. In other words, we have a chance, as well, to integrate what is of value from what's come before and let the rest go. This is the challenge we are faced with now.

Glubb, glub, glub ...

Let's go back to Gen. Glubb. He never once said what we should do, how we may be able to avoid the -- according to him -- inevitable catastrophe. He simply provided us with a few key indicators that the collapse is near. Picking up, in a sense, where he left off, Ross Ashcroft bundled a lot of Glubb's (and others') thinking into a video (hey, who reads anymore?) that deals with the same topic. The video is entitled "The Four Horsemen", making direct reference to the Apocalypse of St. John, or as it is better known, The Book of Revelation in the Bible, one of the "standard guides" to the end of the world ... or at least to the end of the world as we know it. (It is freely available on YouTube (what isn't these days) -- at least for my most loyal readers -- in both English and German.)

Ross interprets Glubb's decadence characteristics in a slightly different way. Most specifically, he more or less ignores, Glubb's "influx of foreigners" and replaces them "a weakening of religion" with an "obsession with sex" and a "debased currency". We have already seen that Glubb wasn't all that far off, and these two new factors, well, it would appear that these factors aren't all that far off either. Let's say, they are later additions, not corrections.

Think Internet, think pornography: it's the most widely distributed form of content available. There's something there for everyone's (so-called) "tastes": adult, child, professional, amature, hard, soft, male-female, male-male, female-female, and every imaginable combination ... you want it, you can find it. What was once tabu is now mainstream, if "Fifty Shades of Gray" is any indication of the state-of-the-art (and I use the term loosely). That's a given.

And, we all know, our money's not worth anything anymore anyhow. Wars have been fought (Gulf War II), nations have been destroyed (e.g., Iraq, Libya) because they "choose" the "wrong" reserve currency. The gold standard was abandoned a long time ago, but the "gold standard" of currency remains the US dollar, and we all know the Americans will do anything -- and I mean anything to ensure that doesn't change, regardless of how little the dollar is worth.

The point is that -- and I don't think I'm overstating the case -- things are going from bad to worse. Glubb makes a sound, and noteworthy point. Ashcroft underlines and enhances it in a very meaningful way. Things are not getting better, they are getting worse. It looks like we're going down for the count, or, in swimming terms: go down a third time and you drown.

Again, the point is not so much how terrible things are, but rather that we (humanity, Western Civilization, whatever) is faced with yet another total collapse. It is clear to me, and it should be clear to anyone who has even taken a passive, fleeting look at how the world or economies or cultures work, to know that the choices we have made in all of these areas are simply not sustainable. Whether we could have avoided this crisis, or whether it would have been possible to do things to avoid all the suffering that is to come are moot points. It just doesn't matter. Things are as they are, and things are going to come as they are going to come.

We shouldn't deceive ourselves into thinking that things aren't as bad as we think or that the crash won't be as hard as we fear. It will be both, but, in the end, it doesn't matter. Whatever comes, comes. Many, many people, cultures, and civilizations have suffered and lived through similar crises in the past. The only reason that we will have to suffer is because those who came before us, our forebears, refused to learn from history. So, we've got a choice. We know what's coming. We know what's going to happen. And, most importantly, we know why. We have a huge opportunity before us. The question is whether we are going to take advantage of this opportunity or whether we are going to waste it, like all those who have preceded us have done. The choice is ours. Which one will we make?

The schizophrenic search

We may be on the eve of destruction. Things aren't getting better, that's for sure. We are living in critical times, and that is also for sure, as is the fact that change is coming whether we like it or not. This is scaring a lot of people and whenever and wherever anyone is frightened, there are tons of media types just waiting to make sure that fear is spread. As the saying goes, "if it bleeds, it leads", or as I like to say, "if it's scummy, we'll make money". OK, it's not exactly the same, but close enough."

So what's a poor, simple person to do? Well, conservatives, I have to say, make a dash for the past. They get all fired up about turning back the clock to the "good old days", when life made sense, when things were manageable. They've lost the plot for the simple reason that the good old days were bad, for anyone living in those times life made as little sense as it does today (we only think the past makes sense because we have the knowledge and experience of everything that happened in-between to color our judgement), and I can assure you, my parents were as much at a loss for what was the best things to do in their lives and for their children as I am with my own kids. We have to come to terms with what we have, not with what we would like to think we might have had if things has been somehow different.

Liberals, I have to add, are no better. They're looking at life through a rear-view mirror (thank you, Marshall McLuhan) as well. They foolishly believe there was a time when politics mattered, when debate was virulent, when the best argument won, when morals could be legislated. But, alas, that time never existed either. They think it did. They think their dreams were institutionalized, but the teeny, tiny steps of progress that were made, were just that: teeny, tiny. We really haven't come very far.

This is our modern, most common, form of schizophrenia: thinking that the past holds solutions for the future. We love to look backwards, to times that never really existed except in our own rose-colored-glasses tinted memories. Gen. Glubb's critique didn't just miraculously appear. He was analyzing at a time when we these days believe things were halfway OK. No, dear reader, the world's been going to hell in a handbasket for some time now. The only change from then to now is the rate of acceleration.

All the wailing and gnashing of teeth we're hearing these days isn't going to change a thing. What we're wailing about, for the most part, is for how things used to be. To my American friends, all I can say is, get over your holy Constitution. It is nothing all that special, it has not changed the world for the better, it's one of the most misquoted and misused, if not abused, documents ever to have been written, and, worst of all, it was formulated in a mindset and a way of viewing the world that hasn't existed for two centuries. It's time to simply let it go and look for some common sense relevant to today. To my non-American friends (i.e., everyone else), all I can say is, you've got nothing up on the Americans, you haven't managed to go right where you think they went wrong, you also don't have a now-relevant solution to the problem either.

Why? Because you're all, we're all, looking in the wrong direction for a solution. Glubb, believe it or not, provides us with a reasonable starting point for thinking about all of this, but he doesn't have the "answer" or the "solution" either. We, you & I, have to figure out what needs to be done, but he, like many other reasonable authors, provides us with a starting point for maybe thinking about things in a slightly different way. What this might be, we'll look at next time.

The decline and fall of the American empire

It will thrill some readers and appall others, but America is the latest in the last string of world empires that the world has been forced to enjoy (or endure, depending on your perspective. Right up front, let's compare the state of America today, with the criteria Glubb outlines in his article, which we talked about last time:

1. Average empire lifespan of 250 years? USA: 1776 - 2015 = 239 years; we're in the 10th generation since our founding.
2. Age of Pioneers? Check. Louisiana Purchase, Westward expansion, Manifest Destiny.
3. Age of Conquests? Check. Genocide of Native Americans, Monroe Doctrine, War with Mexico, Spanish-American War.
4. Age of Commerce? Check. Gilded Age, Roaring 20s, Post-WW2 boom. American-driven globalization. IMF, WTO, etc.
5. Age of Affluence? Check. Thriving middle class in 50s and 60s; increase in the number of millionaires and billionaires, but most unequal wealth distribution in developed world.
6. Age of Intellect? Check. More than our share of Nobel-Prize winners in science, medicine and economics; everybody should be able to go to college.
7. Age of Decadence? Check. A no-brainer.

Even though it's so obvious, we do need to stop and look at the last item, The Age of Decadence if for no other reason than to see how far along we might be. So how do we size up?

• Defensiveness (or much military)? Check. Defense budget larger than next 24 countries combined. Over 1,000 military bases worldwide. Still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan; thinking about Libya, and who knows where else. Militarization of police.
• Pessimism? Check. Financial crash and exoneration of guilty bankers. Fear of losing everything (bankruptcy because of medical bills, living from paycheck-to-paycheck, fear of unemployment.
• Materialism? Check. Lavish displays of wealth. Whole TV shows dedicated to the lives and lifestyles of the rich and famous.
• Frivolity? Check. Have there ever been as many sitcoms, game shows, and ludicrous reality shows as now? Consider as well how overboard we've gone on sports.
• The welfare state? Check. While some of you are thinking Food Stamps and Long-term unemployment benefits, I'm thinking corporate subsidies. The United States spends almost twice as much on corporate subsidies than on social saftety-net programs.
• An influx of foreigners? Check. Have you noticed how shrill the immigration debate has become? And, how is that fence along the Mexican border coming along?
• A weakening of religion? Check. Except for the Pope who is speaking out against the oppression of the poor, two other trends are noticeable: atheists are standing up for their "equal rights" or how about the Satanic Temple's holiday display in Florida? Furthermore, the only rise in traditionally understood religion we're seeing is in evermore literalist and fundamentalist belief systems.

Of course, we all know that it is current American policy to secure even more worldwide resources to feed its materialistic addiction, and the global financial community isn't going to stop until they have everything and the rest of us have nothing. No, it would seem to me that we're pretty much a spot-on example of Glubb's analysis. It can only be a matter of time, and not all that much time either.

There is an almost natural tendency to believe that we're somehow better or different than all the rest, and this fate will simply not befall us. I wouldn't be so sure. Glubb points out rather clearly that it is precisely this attitude that guarantees the repetition of history. As Santayana taught us, whoever fails to learn from history is condemned to repeat it.

The fate of empires

A former British general and diplomat, John Bagot Glubb, wrote a somewhat dated (because of its language and cultural framework), but certainly not outdated (due to it's conceptual content) article a while back that dovetails well with what I wrote about last time. It's entitled "The Fate of Empires". It's been long out of print, but can be found on the Internet in more than one place, just in case you're interested. As the title implies, Glubb takes a closer, but still strategic look at eleven empires the world has experienced over the past 3,000 years to see if they have anything in common, and it turns out they do, so let me summarize the most salient points of his analysis for you:

1. We do not learn from history because our approach to it is fragmented (focused on brief time periods) and parochial (these days, nation-centered).
2. The lifespan of an empire is about 250 years, or approximately 10 generations in human terms.
3. They all go through the same six "ages", as Glubb calls them: the Ages of Pioneer, Conquests, Commerce, Affluence, Intellect, and Decadence.
4. The Age of Decadence (of most particular interest to us) is marked by a number of factors, including defensiveness (actually, too much military), pessimism (the feeling that things are going to end badly anyway), materialism, frivolity and the welfare state ("bread and circuses"), an influx of foreigners, and a weakening of religion.

Glubb does use examples from the empires he analyzed to support these conclusions, and I have to admit, even though he has rather archaic notions of "race" (whereby he actually means civilization or culture, for the most part), "foreigners" (anyone who is "not us"), and "sense of duty", he takes great pains to point out that it is not any single feature or factor that brings about the fall of an empire and no one and nothing is better than anyone or anything else, only different. In all cases, the structure, the pattern, and the results are always the same.

For Glubb, and I agree with him here, the reason for the decline and fall is, in my words, simply become fat, dumb and happy and would rather be entertained than do anything about the seemingly inevitable crash. That is, Glubb believes that if we actually understood history, in the broader, strategic sense that he is trying to point out, we could counteract what only appears to be the path of inevitability. This isn't like our own lifespans or the shifting of the seasons, this is a matter of taking action to, stated in more lighthearted terms, finally break a bad habit.

Perhaps he's right, but I can't help but think that we may already be past a point of no return. Is this just another example of end-of-empire pessimism on my part. Perhaps, but it could be that some things just may be so broken that they can't be fixed anymore. While reading Glubb, I couldn't help but feel he was talking about the United States. After all, it's pretty easy to see how applicable his analysis is to our own situation.

You don't agree? You think we're somehow different? Well, let's take a closer look at it all. Next time.

Post-Prague concerns

Oh yes, why was I in Prague to begin with? It is only fair. You deserve an answer.

As I implied last time, I was there on business. CEDEFOP, the EU's organization overseeing vocational education and training (or VET, as it is commonly known in these parts), held their annual ECVET Forum. (And since most of you don't know: ECVET is the European Credit System for VET, and its premise is quite simple and noble: you learn a trade or occupation and what you learn should be creditable and acceptable wherever you go in Europe; the system wants to make the acceptance of things learned elsewhere and elsewhen easier all across the Union.) As are most annual conferences, this one was also about getting interested stakeholders together, exchanging ideas and simply making known how far everyones' efforts have brought the program. As conferences go, yes, very standard fare. So, why should I mention it at all.

Every once in a while we come up with new and exciting ideas that promise to make the world a better place. These are very well-intended ideas, to be sure, but we all know where the road paved with good intentions leads. Sometimes it helps to slow down and think some thoughts through to their end. Let me start, though, with the smaller issues and work my way up to the deeper, more profound ones.

I think most of us would agree that it makes a lot of sense to accept that, say, a machinist or an automotive mechatronics technician, or a logistics dispatcher, who was trained and has professional experience in Place A should not have too many difficulties being recognized in Place B as a trained and experienced professional. That, however, is the case. Too often, a young trades- or craftsperson from one country moves to another and hiring companies in the new country are hesitant to recognize those qualifications, simply because they're from somewhere else. As is too often the case, citizens of one country like to think that their qualifications are simply de facto better than those from other countries. Chauvinism takes on many forms. Now we have an unemployed immigrant on our hands. And, yes, you are right: now we have a problem.

For my American readers, you have to understand that the EU consists of 27 countries that speak 25 different languages, that have over 50 different histories (depending where you were when), and 25 different general and vocational educational systems. We should also keep in mind that education is something that is very deeply rooted in every culture. There are simply a lot of pre-set barriers that have to be overcome. That is the idea behind ECVET.

But, as you can well imagine, progress is slow. Old habits die hard. Not-invented-here and if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it syndromes abound. Bureaucracy too easily gets in the way. These are all significant challenges. The upside is that Europe is willing to take them on. It's a good fight, for a good cause ... at least on the surface.

Next time, we dig a little deeper.

The long tail

Let's face it, Americans are highly competitive, almost ... no, to a fault. There are only winners and losers. If you don't win, you lose. Ties are like kissing your sister and the silver medal is just the one who lost gold. Too bad. I don't think most of them know how much they are missing because of this one, small quirk of thought.

A world that only has winners and losers is just another type of monoculture, that ... well, American agriculture appears to love so much as well. No, dear friends, sustainability only comes through diversity, as tough as it is to accept. It's not all about who wins, it's about who has something to contribute. And that's one of the only reasons I like modern technology.

Huh? Wha'? Whazzat? Yeah, technology. For all the evils of the Internet that too many governments think they have to get under control, the widespread, cheap access to technology has allowed us to find all the losers who aren't. Yep. For you business freaks, it's called the long tail.

Being there may be more important than being promoted. Oh sure, I suppose there are enough talented artists ... especially musicians ... who big labels pick up and squeeze dry. But, truth be told, they have never really interested me all that much. While most of my friends were hip on the Beatles and the rebels were pushing the Stones, I was a Kinks man. Go figure.

I'm not going on a promotional tour here ... don't get excited, but there's a lot more exciting stuff off the beaten track than there is out there in the mainstream. You have to want to look. You have to want to go through some dry spells, but swimming in the hidden swimming hole was always more fun than being out there with everybody else in the lake.

Leap day

Ooops! missed a day ... jumped right past it. Hey, that's why they call it Leap Day, don't they. I mean, that is what they call this extra day in February that comes around every four years, isn't it? And if it isn't, well, it should be.

I personally think the day should be a holiday. After all, it only comes every four years. It's only there to make the counting right (after all, we've already done the time the day represents), so it only seems fair that we shouldn't have to work because we've already done everything we needed to do up till now.

Once again, it's the little people who are getting screwed. Oh, it's not that the big folks, the rich and famous, have the day off and we don't. No, that's not it at all. Truth be told, though, all of those folks don't have to work anymore, so if they do, it's for the pure fun of it, so every day is, in a sense, a holiday for them.

The rest of us, though? Well, I don't know about you, but as for me, this working thing gets me down sometimes. Same old grind, same old same-old. Considering what comes out of it all in the end, I also think that most of us work way too much as it is. I read recently that if we had plowed our productivity gains over the past 50 years into working time instead of into profit (which only a few have benefitted from, I might add), we'd only have to be working about one day a week. OK, in that case, we wouldn't have a debate about February 29 at all. As it is, though, I think it should be a holiday. After all, we've already got a name for it.

The weather

No letters. No calls. Only silence. Even the outside commotion seemed muffled, muted.

The sky was gray, faceless. Woody sat, on just such a day, staring intently out the window. There wasn't much of a view: only the buildings across the small span of unkempt grass and hedges.

"Wha'! The phone's ringing," Woody thought. "Nah, it never rings."

It rang. Woody turned and stared at the phone, sitting on the nightstand across the room. It rang again. Again.

"Who the hell could that be? Nobody's called in a long time. Nobody's called."

Again.

He looked at his hand on the arm of the chair and by sheer force of will lifted it, then the other, and finally driving his whole body out of the chair, he found himself lumbering toward the phone.

Again, it rang.

"Alright, alright, I'm coming … man, the phone …."

He lifted the receiver and put it gingerly to his ear.

"The time is 11:20. The weather: cloudy and cool, " a mechanical voice spoke.

Woody smiled and hung up. He turned and walked almost lightly to his chair, sat down and gazed out the window again. A renewed sense of worth flooded his entire being.

A touch of sadness

I used to have a clip from a German educational newsletter hanging on my fridge. Translated it went something like, "Our youth is rotten, lazy and godless, they will never be capable of sustaining our culture." It was from a Babylonian clay tablet from 3,000 BCE. It would seem that some things never change.

OK, the Babylonians aren't around anymore, so I suppose there was at least a grain of truth in what they were thinking. On the other hand, the question I really liked asking myself was who let the children get that way in the first place? Yes, it was the parents, the older generation, the ones who should have known better.

It's easy to say the kids are the problem. Yes, we have youth problems. We had them in the 20s, the 60s, the 80s, the 90s, the 00s ... we've got them today. But is it really all that surprising? Aside from the sickly sweetness of the statement that it takes a whole village to raise a child, there is something in that statement as well. Our kids see everything we do these days. And what it is that they get to see?

Violence as the alleged solution to problems (e.g. Iran, OWS protests). Injustice directed at certain segments of the population (e.g. "illegal immigrants"). Grown people whining about not getting what they want (e.g. deregulation advocates). Demagoguery, like spoiled rich people demonizing everyone else, even those who are trying (how weird is it that rich folks quote Marx to make their case?). Cowering (anyone see John King's handling of a non-answer to a valid question?).

There was a time when great writers (Jefferson, Voltaire ...) were held in high-esteem, not quote-opted to justify the opposite of what the context of their writing portrayed. There was a time when reason trumped loudness. There was a time when common sense was relatively common. There was a time when it mattered what our children thought of us.

I don't have the clip on my fridge anymore. UV got to it, but it doesn't really matter. All I have to do is turn on the tube to remind myself that the more things change, the more they stay the same.