our world did not end in 2012...
There is a perfectly good reason for that. or so they say.
the end is always neigh.
review original thread here
The second piece is by Gary Lachman, an author, occult scholar, and
former bassist for the band Blondie. He wrote an article entitled
“2013, Or What to Do When the Apocalypse Doesn’t Arrive,” several years
ago for my former publication
EnlightenNext magazine. In it
he identifies what he calls an “archetype of apocalypse” within the
human psyche. This archetype shows up consistently throughout history
and compels human beings to believe that a huge shift or monumental
transition—for better or worse—is about to happen (whether it be the
Second Coming or Y2K). He calls it an expression of “evolutionary
impatience” and suggests that in reality, the grand utopian visions and
doomsday scenarios that often get so much attention, so far at least,
have never really come to pass. Here’s an excerpt:
quote:
In his Study of History, an account of the rise and fall of
civilizations, the historian Arnold Toynbee argues that there are two
stereotypical responses to what he calls a “time of troubles,” the
crisis points that make or break a civilization. One is the “archaist,”
a desire to return to some previous happy time or golden age. The
other is the “futurist,” an urge to accelerate time and leap into a
dazzling future. That both offerings are embraced today is, I think,
clear.
The belief that a saving grace may come from indigenous non-Western
people untouched by modernity’s sins is part of a very popular “archaic
revival.” Likewise, the trans- or posthumanism that sees salvation in
some form of technological marriage between man and computer is equally
fashionable.
The 2012 scenario seems to partake of both camps: It proposes a
return to the beliefs of an ancient civilization in order to make a
leap into an unimaginable future. What both strategies share, however,
is a desire to escape the present. Given our own “time of troubles,”
this seems understandable enough.
Toynbee also believed in what I call the “Goldilocks theory of
history,” and to me it makes a lot of sense. If a challenge facing it
is too great, he argued, a civilization smashes. If it isn’t great
enough, the civilization overcomes it too easily, becomes decadent, and
decays. But if the challenge is “just right”—not too great and not too
small—it forces the civilization to make sufficient effort to advance
creatively.
Sadly, most of the civilizations Toynbee studied either cracked or
went soft. The verdict has yet to come in on our own, and as everyone
knows, there are no guarantees. But I’m willing to make a bet. There
are still a few years left, and, of course, things can change. But I’m
willing to wager that with any luck, 2013 will show that we got it just
right. If nothing else, trying to meet our challenges successfully
will give us all something to do when the apocalypse doesn’t arrive.
end quote
review full article here
