11-Nov-10 News -- After sham election, Burma's junta scrambles to prevent unrest
Opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi may be released after 27 years
** 11-Nov-10 News -- After sham election, Burma's junta scrambles to prevent unrest
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 11#e101111
11-Nov-10 News -- Burma's junta scrambles to prevent unrest
Re: 11-Nov-10 News -- Burma's junta scrambles to prevent unrest
Hello,
Just a point about the Generational Theory.
You say Burma is on a Unravelling era and China not, why if you compare the 8/8/88 with the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, they should be in the same era for this theory, no?
What makes the difference?
Regards
Just a point about the Generational Theory.
You say Burma is on a Unravelling era and China not, why if you compare the 8/8/88 with the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, they should be in the same era for this theory, no?
What makes the difference?
Regards
Re: 11-Nov-10 News -- Burma's junta scrambles to prevent unrest
Dear Bertrand,
The Awakening era climax does not occur at a fixed time. It appears
that it can occur anywhere from about 25 to 50 years after the end of
the crisis war.
One issue that needs more research is why Awakening era climaxes in
different nations sometimes tend to be clustered, even when the
nations have had crisis wars at different times. This happened in
1848 and 1989. It implies that international events can trigger an
Awakening era crisis in several countries at the same time.
Another interesting case is Iran, which is now 22 years after the end
of its crisis war, and is facing a critical conflict between the older
generation (mullahs) and the younger generation. This is a
fascinating situation, since an Awakening era climax may be near.
John
China's last crisis war, Mao's Communist Revolution, ended in 1949.burt wrote: > Just a point about the Generational Theory. You say Burma is on a
> Unravelling era and China not, why if you compare the 8/8/88 with
> the Tienanmen Square massacre in 1989, they should be in the same
> era for this theory, no? What makes the difference?
The Awakening era climax does not occur at a fixed time. It appears
that it can occur anywhere from about 25 to 50 years after the end of
the crisis war.
One issue that needs more research is why Awakening era climaxes in
different nations sometimes tend to be clustered, even when the
nations have had crisis wars at different times. This happened in
1848 and 1989. It implies that international events can trigger an
Awakening era crisis in several countries at the same time.
Another interesting case is Iran, which is now 22 years after the end
of its crisis war, and is facing a critical conflict between the older
generation (mullahs) and the younger generation. This is a
fascinating situation, since an Awakening era climax may be near.
John
Re: 11-Nov-10 News -- Burma's junta scrambles to prevent unrest
Yes, I understand that, but I thought that the Awakening era climax marked a turning point, and, in that case China and Burma should be in the same era because no other major event marked the 2 countries since 1989 and 1988 respectively.John wrote: China's last crisis war, Mao's Communist Revolution, ended in 1949.
The Awakening era climax does not occur at a fixed time. It appears
that it can occur anywhere from about 25 to 50 years after the end of
the crisis war.
Where do I make a mistake? Are turning point unrelated with climax situation? If so what is a turning point?
Regards
Re: 11-Nov-10 News -- Burma's junta scrambles to prevent unrest
Burt, from my understanding, the "Crisis" events are primary in GenDyn, though the Awakening events often affect (or at least forshadow) the secondary characteristics of primary events(e.g. fault lines).
Have you read John's paper, "International Business Forcasting Using System Dynamics with Generational Flows"? If not, a link can be found here: http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 04#e101004.
Have you read John's paper, "International Business Forcasting Using System Dynamics with Generational Flows"? If not, a link can be found here: http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 04#e101004.
Re: 11-Nov-10 News -- Burma's junta scrambles to prevent unrest
Dear Bertrand,
point in time where the second turning transitions into the third
turning. But the Awakening Era climax is not that kind of turning
point. It can occur in the middle of the Awakening era, or in the
middle of the Unraveling era.
But it IS a turning point in a more informal sense, since it signals
the victory of one generation over the other. 8/8/88 in Burma
occurred in the middle of the Awakening era, and it created the "88
generation" movement. The 1989 Tienanmen Square massacre occurred in
the middle of an Unraveling era, and it created the Falun Gong
movement. These are all "turning points" in a sense, but they're
not generational era transitions.
John
I assume that by the phrase "turning point," you're referring to theburt wrote: > Yes, I understand that, but I thought that the Awakening era
> climax marked a turning point, and, in that case China and Burma
> should be in the same era because no other major event marked the
> 2 countries since 1989 and 1988 respectively. Where do I make a
> mistake? Are turning point unrelated with climax situation? If so
> what is a turning point?
point in time where the second turning transitions into the third
turning. But the Awakening Era climax is not that kind of turning
point. It can occur in the middle of the Awakening era, or in the
middle of the Unraveling era.
But it IS a turning point in a more informal sense, since it signals
the victory of one generation over the other. 8/8/88 in Burma
occurred in the middle of the Awakening era, and it created the "88
generation" movement. The 1989 Tienanmen Square massacre occurred in
the middle of an Unraveling era, and it created the Falun Gong
movement. These are all "turning points" in a sense, but they're
not generational era transitions.
John
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 guests