{Cycle Periods [continued]}[21st September 1990]

[Redbook7:315-316][19900921:1045b]{Cycle Periods [continued]}[21st September 1990]

.1045

[continued]

*What is in doubt is the existence of discrete phenomena co-periodic with these ** cycles, as opposed to phases in longer phenomena corresponding to the same cycles.

The answer to that may simply be based chiefly on observation, and a little common sense. It is obvious that *** Individual[’s] cycles cannot extend beyond the 64 year period, albeit rising with modern longevity towards a theoretical 128 years. It is surely no accident that 64 years – still the normal working life – represents the smallest so far discernible complete cycle of change in the collective affairs of Mankind:**** perhaps the time needed for a phase to work its way out of Mankind (ie more than just an adult generation?).

Looking for a larger complete cycle of change and return based on such 64 year cycles as discrete or discernible phases in the same structure of change, it is hard to imagine completion in 2 x 64 years, ie 128 years. It is not so hard to imagine such# a complete cycle based on 4 x 64 years, ie 256 years, but more satisfactory actually to find the smallest (so far – I may not have been looking hard enough) complete cycles of change and return based on a ‘full’ circle of 8 x 45^o#* arcs of 64 years each, ie 512 years.

*[Sentence repeated, in ts & blog only, from end of last previous entry]

**[128 and 256 year – see last previous entry]

***[complete – see last previous entry]

****[excluding economic – see last previous entry]

#[‘such’ presumably referring to complete cycles, not to completeness]

#*[ms has 30^o; this is clearly a mistake (a surprising absence-of-mind error which has been made previously, but visually a 45^o angle was always what was in mind)]

[continued]

[PostedBlogger06032022]