The phrase, "Technic civilization," is used both in the Technic History and in the Psychotechnic History. In the Technic History, the cartelization of the Polesotechnic League is the beginning of the decline of Technic civilization whereas, in the Psychotechnic History, the period following the suppression of the Psychotechnic Institute is described as "...the adolescence of Technic civilization..." (p. 178) The Institute is related to Technic society as the medieval Church was to Western civilization, we are told on p. 175.
I want to pursue this comparison between two Technic civilizations but must prepare to visit the Gregson Institute (scroll down) as described in previous posts. See you-all back here later.
7 comments:
It's logical to call them both "Technic", because in both cases they're the first civilizations to arise -after- the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions.
Kaor, Paul!
Were he still alive I might have argued with Anderson about that theme from MIRKHEIM, that the cartelization of the Polesotechnic League marked the beginning of Technic civilization's decline. The Terran Empire which eventually succeeded the League and Commonwealth was too successful and lasted too long to convincingly date Technic Civilization's decline so early.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: depends on the definition of 'decline'. IIRC, in the schema Poul was using for that series, Western civ's decline dated from the failure of the Conciliar movement in the 14th century.
Exactly. Hord's theory spells out a very long term decline going through stages that look like Renaissances.
Kaor, Mr. and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: True, what you said about when a decline should be dated. IIRC, I even argued with Anderson about the Conciliarist Movement in one of my letters to him. Because, if Conciliarism had been successful, the Papacy would have become as impotent and powerless as the Anglican archbishop of Canterbury. And it's my firm belief a weak Papacy would be contrary to the will of God.
Paul: I agree, and in his discussion of Hord's theory Anderson that even after a civilization turned down an arguably wrong path, that did not need to preclude brilliant eras from happening.
Ad astra! Sean
I've never found much by Hord, but I have read quite a bit of Toynbee, who I understand influenced Hord.
Toynbee dates the start of the decline of Classical Civilization to the Peloponesian War. Toynbee's scheme includes some resurgences of a civilization after the first mistake. He is ambiguous about whether such a resurgence could fix the mistake and lead to revived growth. Certainly Classical Civilization had some brilliant achievements after the Peloponesion War.
Whether I believe Toynbee or Hord in their patterns of civilizational decline, is another matter.
Kaor, Jim!
It's been frustratingly hard to find anything by Hord! I've managed to find or two essays by him, and that's about it. Anderson's own article, "Concerning Future Histories," contains the best summary I've found of Hord's work.
I think Toynbee and Hord, esp. the latter, do have useful insights, within limits, on how and why civilizations rise and fall. And I think Hord might even sometimes be right about how long the different stages of such a process lasts.
That much said, I also believe Stirling is right: human affairs are too chaotic and unpredictable to be predictable. So keep that in mind as well!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment