Originally Posted by radind

In my worldview, matter and energy are interchangeable. So , I still have the problem of how energy ( or matter ) got here.

Yes, that's not a little problem to understand.

It's OK though, it's not your problem alone

Matter and energy are interchangable. But if we call it energy, the problem of how it got here, can be looked at from a spiritual viewpoint. Energy was generated, and that generator is the soul or spirit. This is what Plato and Aristotle talked about, and all philosophers since who have been influenced by them. For such basic matters, I think they got it basically right. The question of how it got here is, in other words, what caused it? But there can be no other cause except the first cause; what causes itself. Otherwise, you never get to the cause; it's infinite regress. That first cause we call God, or Spirit. That which moves or causes itself.

But since God is eternal, there's no reason to think that he started energy sometime. It's ALWAYS starting. Energy is "caused" by the soul, the "God" in everyone, all the time everywhere. The creative impulse is in all of us, and there's no basis for attributing a prior cause to it. That's just materialism, or mechanistic causation. If you are not a materialist, you don't have to accept it. That which moves itself, is YOU. The God of which you are a part, and everyone is a part.

That doesn't answer all the mystery of how things come into being. But maybe it makes it a little bit easier. If there is no matter, there's no need to explain it. And energy is the expression of God. Beyond that, some scientists talk about the quantum vaccuum. There's the mystery of what dark energy is. Maybe to understand it in full detail is impossible. Maybe, if God exists, and we're IT, then it's enough to appreciate the miracle and the mystery. It's beyond our total comprehension. And that's OK with me.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I use an explicit formula to create generations/turnings.

Start with an assumed turning, say 2001-2020 for the present 4T. This turning was created by the generation in leadership, whose average age today is 61 and was 58 in 2001. Assume todays average of 61 holds for 2020. Subtract 58 from 2001 and 61 for 2020 to get the generation responsible for a 2001-2020 4T:

2001-58 = 1943, 2020-61 = 1959. The 1943-59 generation, let's call them "core Boomers", are the chief architects of the current 4T. These folks were "forged" into Boomers by their experiences during coming of age (at age 22). By adding 22 to 1943-59 we get the period when this happened: 1965-1981. We can call this the "core Awakening". It was itself a turning created by an earlier generation.

I obtain birth dates for this generation from 1965-1981 in the same was I got birth dates for the Boomers, by subtracting the average ago of leaders in 1965 and 1981 from those years:

1965-57 = 1908, 1981 – 57 = 1924. So the generation who created the 1965-1981 core awakening was born in 1908-1924. Let’s call these the core GIs. They came of age 22 years after birth in 1930-1946. This is the 4T that forged the GI and itself was created by an earlier generation. And you just keep going. All you need at the average ages of leaders. Howe provides these at his website. I defined this age as the average of the mean age of Representatives, the mean age of Senators, the mean age of Governors, and the mean age of Supreme Court Justices. I use a centered 5 year moving average to smooth the data.

This is just a mechanical rule for constructing generational/turning schemes using the S&H generations create history; history creates generations.

I used it to obtain the core 4Ts of the past that are generated when you start with current 4Ts beginning in 2001, 2005, or 2008. The 2001 gives a set most consistent with when the past 4Ts actually happened.

When coming up with a turning scheme, the temptation is to move the turnings a few years up or down if it makes more sense and figure you still have a saeculum. You don’t. If you start the Civil War 4T in 1850, that means that the generational alignment for the next 4T is going to be in place around 1920. I will point out that the country heaved with internal instability at that time. There were all sorts of triggers: Red Summer (read about that, it was huge), the Red Scare, the battle of Blair Mountain war (the only time the US air force was deployed against American civilians inside the US).

And yet it all fizzled out; there was a “return to normalcy”. That is no 4T. The S&H explanation is the generations were not aligned. This means there could not have been prophet generation moving into power in 1920. That means there would not be a prophet generation coming to age in the 1880’s, it must have been later. But this means there could not be a core awakening in the 1880’s, it must have been later. But this means there could not be a Hero generation coming of age in the 1850’s, and that means the 4T started later.

What I am saying is when you choose a set of turning dates you are saying something about the turnings that will come after and those which came before. The formula provides a simply way to check this out instead of this enormously long text description I just typed.

It seems like you are basing your scheme on the dates of the boomer generation. But that generation was of shorter duration, according to the authors. Perhaps for two reasons; first, people who read their books don't like boomers, and those on the cusp of the Boom don't like boomers, so they don't want to identify with them. Second, there were more boomers than other generations, so it made sense to shorten the dates because they filled up society in a shorter period of time. And, it's just the dates that S&H found through their observation and biographical study. It doesn't mean that other generations are 16-18 years long. Most are longer. The cycle does not need to be exactly the same length every time, whether generation or turning. Events don't go like clockwork, so it's more than just what makes sense. It doesn't make sense to think society operates on such a rigid timeclock.

But you are going back to your earlier idea of a 72-year saeculum, it looks like. Or 70 more or less. So I guess that means the 4Ts started in
2001
1930
1860
1790.

But the Revolution 4T didn't start in 1790, but closer to 1770. Doesn't fit.

Also, you assume that the leaders in power create a turning. I wouldn't go that far at all. Leaders mostly don't create society; they follow movements and social moods.

The fizzled-out 4T of 1920 to me seems like a dead ringer for the fizzled-out 4T in 2001, with the same return to normalcy that followed, under the same kind of inept prophet leadership too.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Yes, because i do not see the world the way you do i have a limited viewpoint. It is called reality. But in order for us to make the last these last days bearable lets keep our personal opinion of each other to ourselves mkay? I will if you will.

You say that I am giving my personal opinion of you. So, if you say boomers are concerned with morals, what does this mean? Does your view include the mystical experience and idealistic philosophy that many boomers adopted? Does it have to do with the ideals and visions boomers have put forth as solutions to today's problems and the needs of the time? If it doesn't, then your notion of "morals" is too limited, in my view. And given your hostility toward the spiritual insights I tried to share with you, it would figure to me that your question about boomer "morals" would not include those kind of insights.

And if "morals" doesn't, in fact, include those kinds of insights and views, then mikebert's question cannot be answered. Because, as I pointed out, "where a spiritual awakening comes from" cannot be explained without a spiritual reality within our being and existence from which it comes.

Originally Posted by radind

There is no benefit in belittling anyone. In my view, the Boomers as a group don't come across as moral( depends on your worldview). However, the group does come across as moralistic in the sense of telling everyone else what to do.
Each person and each group has both positive and negative traits.

Moralistic appears a belittling term. I listed the ideals that the Boomers represent. Are these moralistic? Does putting them forth imply telling everyone else what to do?

So, my view is my personal opinion.

What, then, are the positive traits of boomers, in your opinion? How are they relevant to our ongoing history and the issues of this turning?

I would have preferred that we not elect another boomer, but it appears that they will one more turn at bat.

Why prefer not electing another Boomer? Why not elect another boomer president? Don't boomers have some potential as good leaders?

I would prefer that we elect another Boomer, or two, just to give us Boomers a chance at a better presidential record than the first two alone gave us. One just pretty good, and one horrid. And neither one the "gray champion" that the T4T theory predicts.

But, that's just my personal opinion.

Originally Posted by Odin

For the Boomers the explaination I have always been told is that they have no memories of the Depression and WW2 and so did not have the traumatized desire for stability GIs did, but at the same time they soaked in all the questioning of society done by Missionary, Lost, and GI thinkers as a result of the paroxysms of the early 20th century, and as a result of the post-war prosperity had the affluence and freedom from basic material needs, which is why things suddenly turned wacky in the mid 60s.

A good point. Boomers were the first generation to know the Crisis of 1940 from film clips and not from first-hand knowledge. A Boomer like me may have vivid images of the Second World War and the Holocaust, and even of the disillusioned masses moving about in the wake of the economic meltdown of which the Great Stock Market Crash was but the beginning. We could see it all as if there except for most of the images being in monochrome. Monochrome is clear enough. What we could never do was to think like the people of the time. We saw the aftermath of the Crisis and not the Crisis itself.

The post-Crisis culture was not of our making, and we were not asked whether we liked it. We showed the GIs that we did not like the insipid, commercial culture. We proved more like the people who knew the Civil War only from photographs and novels.

And, yes, Muzak was awful.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Moralistic appears a belittling term. I listed the ideals that the Boomers represent. Are these moralistic? Does putting them forth imply telling everyone else what to do?


What, then, are the positive traits of boomers, in your opinion? How are they relevant to our ongoing history and the issues of this turning?



Why prefer not electing another Boomer? Why not elect another boomer president? Don't boomers have some potential as good leaders?

I would prefer that we elect another Boomer, or two, just to give us Boomers a chance at a better presidential record than the first two alone gave us. One just pretty good, and one horrid. And neither one the "gray champion" that the T4T theory predicts.

But, that's just my personal opinion.

We have different impressions of the boomers. I just note the following and will leave it with this.

http://www.lifecourse.com/about/meth.../boom-gen.html
… "The Boom Generation (Prophet, born 1943–1960) basked as children in Dr. Spock permissiveness, suburban conformism, Beaver Cleaver friendliness, and Father Knows Best complacency. From the Summer of Love to the Days of Rage, they came of age rebelling against the worldly blueprints of their parents. Even as they proclaimed themselves “flowerpower” arbiters of public morals, youth pathologies worsened—and SAT scores began a 17-yearslide. In the early 1980s, many young adults became self-absorbed “yuppies” with mainstream careers and perfectionist lifestyles. In the early 1990s, they entered midlife and national power, trumpeting values and visions, touting a “politics of meaning,” and waging scorched-earth Culture Wars. Today, their net worth blighted by the Great Recession, most Boomers are postponing “retirement”—and preparing for an elderhood in which wisdom and meaning will have to substitute for creature comforts. (AMERICAN: Bill & Hillary Clinton, George & Laura Bush, Steve Jobs, Cornel West, Robin Williams; FOREIGN: Tony Blair, Binyamin Netanyahu)”…


http://www.lifecourse.com/about/meth...rchetypes.html


… "Boom
(Prophet)
moralistic”…

I use 80 years as the most likely length of the cycle, for 80 years is roughly the length of the duration of childhood memories, at least among responsible people. Most societies (barring a revolution) have some responsible people into their 80s -- but not their 90s. It's telling that the 2014 election ousted the last GI member of Congress at age 90.

Childhood memories can be extremely vivid. But just think of it: going into the new millennium many people remembered the Roaring Twenties. Today practically nobody remembers the Roaring Twenties first-hand. In Generations (1989), Howe and Strauss reminded us that ten years earlier many people remembered the first decade of the twentieth century -- and by 1989 practically nobody did.

Even children have the capacity to learn about adult mistakes -- but adult mistakes that they see going on. They may not have the same capacity to learn from adult mistakes from before they were born, unless the mistake was such turpitude as genocide. For such one needs overpowering images like diagrams of slave ships or of corpses stacked like cordwood.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You say that I am giving my personal opinion of you. So, if you say boomers are concerned with morals, what does this mean? Does your view include the mystical experience and idealistic philosophy that many boomers adopted? Does it have to do with the ideals and visions boomers have put forth as solutions to today's problems and the needs of the time? If it doesn't, then your notion of "morals" is too limited, in my view. And given your hostility toward the spiritual insights I tried to share with you, it would figure to me that your question about boomer "morals" would not include those kind of insights.

And if "morals" doesn't, in fact, include those kinds of insights and views, then mikebert's question cannot be answered. Because, as I pointed out, "where a spiritual awakening comes from" cannot be explained without a spiritual reality within our being and existence from which it comes.

My idea on morals are certainly not limited. You of all people should know that as i have shown it to you a lot. I question boomer morality as they are according to Strauss and Howe a generation that is supposed to be trumpeters of morality, correct? I wanted to know why and Mikebert explained it wonderfully.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You say that I am giving my personal opinion of you. So, if you say boomers are concerned with morals, what does this mean? Does your view include the mystical experience and idealistic philosophy that many boomers adopted? Does it have to do with the ideals and visions boomers have put forth as solutions to today's problems and the needs of the time? If it doesn't, then your notion of "morals" is too limited, in my view. And given your hostility toward the spiritual insights I tried to share with you, it would figure to me that your question about boomer "morals" would not include those kind of insights.

And if "morals" doesn't, in fact, include those kinds of insights and views, then mikebert's question cannot be answered. Because, as I pointed out, "where a spiritual awakening comes from" cannot be explained without a spiritual reality within our being and existence from which it comes.

So, in your view if i am not a mini clone of the hippie boomers then my view on morality is worth shit to you. Nice. Well done proving that narcissism within you.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

My idea on morals are certainly not limited. You of all people should know that as i have shown it to you a lot. I question boomer morality as they are according to Strauss and Howe a generation that is supposed to be trumpeters of morality, correct? I wanted to know why and Mikebert explained it wonderfully.

The idea that boomers are about trumpeting morality, is a severely limited concept.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

So, in your view if i am not a mini clone of the hippie boomers then my view on morality is worth shit to you. Nice. Well done proving that narcissism within you.

See, you don't seem capable of dialogue without insult.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The idea that boomers are about trumpeting morality, is a severely limited concept.

They certainly are here mate. NZ has a good share of boomers doing that and it is interesting that two boomers also mention it is a strong point for that type of generation. Did i say all do though? Hell no. My mother does not go on like that thankfully.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

See, you don't seem capable of dialogue without insult.

If you do not want me mentioning my perception of you, do not mention your perception of me. You have no idea what my morals are all about.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

See, you don't seem capable of dialogue without insult.

Btw, are you avoiding what i mentioned and just focusing on the observation "narcissist".....so do you think that i should be a mini boomer "hippie boomer" in order to have the "correct morals?" I hope you can explain yourself out of this as that is a very narrow way of looking at ones moral code.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

...do you think that i should be a mini boomer "hippie boomer" in order to have the "correct morals?"

There's plenty of diversity among American Boomers in their moral values. The stereotypical hippie-who-became-a-religious-fundamentalist shows more a trend in emphasis on elements of Boomers in America. They hippie types rarely achieved prominence outside the arts. Boomers had their well-known anti-war resisters... but also some of the most fervent pro-war types, too.

I'm tempted to believe that the Boomers who got ahead were the suck-up types, the kiss-up, kick-down people who got rewarded for huckstering, selling out to the most rapacious plutocrats, or finding and exploiting the bargaining weaknesses of subordinates. Any hippie stage would have gotten in their way. Had some of them been living in the antebellum South they would have praised themselves for their generosity in administering the lash to slaves. Yes, there are people who believe that no human suffering is ever in excess if it turns or protects a profit. Such people were very happy in Russia before the First World War.

The worst Idealists are the ones who impose fearsome exploitation upon the common man yet expect to be seen as benefactors of those that they exploit. In the event of a revolution those are the first people to face the firing squad or guillotine (in a more modern setting it might be nitrogen asphyxiation). They have no clue that they are evil.

...I have a prediction on how American society solves this problem: we will return education in part to its old purpose of improving at the least the educated elites. The Multiversity, an attempt to meet the anything-goes desires of early-wave Boomers while maintaining some academic rigor, will go. Liberal arts will be the norm except for undeniably technical training as undergraduate degrees. Freshmen and sophomores will again spend much more time in philosophy and literature. That's how things were for GIs and most Silent fortunate enough to attend college. Any fool can learn consumerism and the delights of bureaucratic power, booze, and sex.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...



...I have a prediction on how American society solves this problem: we will return education in part to its old purpose of improving at the least the educated elites. The Multiversity, an attempt to meet the anything-goes desires of early-wave Boomers while maintaining some academic rigor, will go. Liberal arts will be the norm except for undeniably technical training as undergraduate degrees. Freshmen and sophomores will again spend much more time in philosophy and literature. That's how things were for GIs and most Silent fortunate enough to attend college. ...

As a late silent, I was fortunate to obtain a BS degree at a strong liberal arts college. Many years later I developed an interest in history that I did not have while in school. I also worked with many hard core engineers and scientists and understand the desirability of a liberal arts education. It would be a great benefit to have more liberal arts training in the leadership and management ranks.
However, I don't see any near term trend in that direction. A technical education has become vital to survival in the modern world , but I would prefer to see more balance in terms of including liberal arts. I see a continued focus on technical training with little balance.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Btw, are you avoiding what i mentioned and just focusing on the observation "narcissist".....so do you think that i should be a mini boomer "hippie boomer" in order to have the "correct morals?" I hope you can explain yourself out of this as that is a very narrow way of looking at ones moral code.

No-one has to be of any generation or be labelled a certain type in order to be interested in philosophy or spiritual matters. I don't know why you think so.

Boomers during the Awakening were not primarily interested in "moral codes" or "correct morals." Their idealism consisted of spiritual awakenings and soul discovery, social and political causes, personal growth, developing creative potential, healing themselves psychologically and physically; a whole range of interests. That's including the occult revival and "wicca." I don't remember a single boomer youth that I knew in the youth movements of the sixties and early 70s who was interested in "moral codes." That is an old fashioned way of speaking that was of interest to prophets/idealists from traditional times, some hundreds of years ago.

It's probably true that some elder critics and non-awakened pundits, even sometimes including Strauss and Howe themselves, referred to boomer interests as "morals" (or more-probably as "immoral"). They had no other language except traditional authoritarian terms like that. Once the "counter-awakening" got going among Jesus freaks and fundamentalists in the 70s, they started speaking about a few of the Bible's statements that they wanted to focus on in order to scare people into converting. I don't know even then if they referred to "moral codes" plural, since only one of them had any validity to them (the Bible generally), but conservatives would talk about "moral relativism" and posting the 10 commandments in public places, etc.

I always thought it was unfortunate that Strauss and Howe used the word "public morals" to describe the interests of Idealists/Prophets, but they did describe a lot more than that when discussing their experiences during awakenings.

Originally Posted by radind

As a late silent, I was fortunate to obtain a BS degree at a strong liberal arts college. Many years later I developed an interest in history that I did not have while in school. I also worked with many hard core engineers and scientists and understand the desirability of a liberal arts education. It would be a great benefit to have more liberal arts training in the leadership and management ranks.
However, I don't see any near term trend in that direction. A technical education has become vital to survival in the modern world , but I would prefer to see more balance in terms of including liberal arts. I see a continued focus on technical training with little balance.

I agree (as a boomer). I notice talk about holding colleges accountable for the "success" of their education by giving students info on how much money other students make after graduating. What counts in education now is only how successful people are economically as a result of their education. One pundit I heard said, however, that philosophy students do well because they go into various professional fields.

Also, Marco Rubio's idea that education should happen online (in places like Udacity) to save money is getting traction. I certainly wanted a lot more from college life than sitting and studying at a computer. But today, many people have no such idea about what going to college means. Young people today are impoverished about their outlook on what life is all about, probably because economic limits and pressures are so much greater now.

The right wing goal of making people work all the time, and thus cutting off their interests in anything else conservatives find subversive, by cutting social programs and wages, seems to have worked for quite some time now.

Originally Posted by radind

As a late silent, I was fortunate to obtain a BS degree at a strong liberal arts college. Many years later I developed an interest in history that I did not have while in school. I also worked with many hard core engineers and scientists and understand the desirability of a liberal arts education. It would be a great benefit to have more liberal arts training in the leadership and management ranks.
However, I don't see any near term trend in that direction. A technical education has become vital to survival in the modern world , but I would prefer to see more balance in terms of including liberal arts. I see a continued focus on technical training with little balance.

It's true that the tech fields have an overabundance of very bright people who have 20-20 tunnel vision. It's one of the reasons I retired. I got tired of he same failure modes that "no one saw coming".

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

It's true that the tech fields have an overabundance of very bright people who have 20-20 tunnel vision. It's one of the reasons I retired. I got tired of he same failure modes that "no one saw coming".

One of the reasons I retired is that the bureaucracy took all the fun away.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No-one has to be of any generation or be labelled a certain type in order to be interested in philosophy or spiritual matters. I don't know why you think so.

Boomers during the Awakening were not primarily interested in "moral codes" or "correct morals." Their idealism consisted of spiritual awakenings and soul discovery, social and political causes, personal growth, developing creative potential, healing themselves psychologically and physically; a whole range of interests. That's including the occult revival and "wicca." I don't remember a single boomer youth that I knew in the youth movements of the sixties and early 70s who was interested in "moral codes." That is an old fashioned way of speaking that was of interest to prophets/idealists from traditional times, some hundreds of years ago.

It's probably true that some elder critics and non-awakened pundits, even sometimes including Strauss and Howe themselves, referred to boomer interests as "morals" (or more-probably as "immoral"). They had no other language except traditional authoritarian terms like that. Once the "counter-awakening" got going among Jesus freaks and fundamentalists in the 70s, they started speaking about a few of the Bible's statements that they wanted to focus on in order to scare people into converting. I don't know even then if they referred to "moral codes" plural, since only one of them had any validity to them (the Bible generally), but conservatives would talk about "moral relativism" and posting the 10 commandments in public places, etc.

I always thought it was unfortunate that Strauss and Howe used the word "public morals" to describe the interests of Idealists/Prophets, but they did describe a lot more than that when discussing their experiences during awakenings.

To answer that I will post what you said in an earlier post.

"Does your view include the mystical experience and idealistic philosophy that many boomers adopted? Does it have to do with the ideals and visions boomers have put forth as solutions to today's problems and the needs of the time? If it doesn't, then your notion of "morals" is too limited, in my view."

I read that as saying if i did not adopt what was popular in the 60's then my morals mean nothing in comparison. I got mine in a different way although you mentioned wicca....remember I said i also explored that. It was not very fair given i was not alive back in the 60's and it is a very different era now. I know you will say it can be done now, but keep in mind different generations will look back at the 60s in a very different way. It was obviously new and exciting back then. Nowadays it is different. Ok so I can call boomers more of a spiritual generation. In comparison others you could not call them spiritual to what was going on at the time. Culturally i suppose it was needed to get rid of the conformity and find oneself.

It is still true that no-one has to be of any generation or be labelled a certain type in order to be interested in philosophy or spiritual matters. I don't know why you think so.

I saw a number of millennials at the New Living Expo this Saturday. That proves it.

Morals certainly includes the ideals which boomers put forth. That doesn't mean other generations didn't put forth ideals. But you read it that way. Your interest seems to be to take offense, rather than understand.

I take it you didn't understand the rest of my post? YOU asked about the morals of boomers. That's why I mentioned boomers, and related to you the wider interests we had that are relevant to today's 4T.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is still true that no-one has to be of any generation or be labelled a certain type in order to be interested in philosophy or spiritual matters. I don't know why you think so.

I saw a number of millennials at the New Living Expo this Saturday. That proves it.

Morals certainly includes the ideals which boomers put forth. That doesn't mean other generations didn't put forth ideals. But you read it that way. Your interest seems to be to take offense, rather than understand.

I take it you didn't understand the rest of my post? YOU asked about the morals of boomers. That's why I mentioned boomers, and related to you the wider interests we had that are relevant to today's 4T.

Did I say that ONLY boomers will be into the new age hippie stuff? NO. Remember i said i was into wicca for a time. You seem to assume i say that it is dead and no generation will be into it. I am not saying that. I am saying it will not be as NEW and EXCITING as it was back in the day. It will only be so with something different coming along. But are we millies known for being a spiritual generation comparable to the boomers? No.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is still true that no-one has to be of any generation or be labelled a certain type in order to be interested in philosophy or spiritual matters. I don't know why you think so.

I saw a number of millennials at the New Living Expo this Saturday. That proves it.

Morals certainly includes the ideals which boomers put forth. That doesn't mean other generations didn't put forth ideals. But you read it that way. Your interest seems to be to take offense, rather than understand.

I take it you didn't understand the rest of my post? YOU asked about the morals of boomers. That's why I mentioned boomers, and related to you the wider interests we had that are relevant to today's 4T.

Many people here do not understand you. You are a living question mark, Eric.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is still true that no-one has to be of any generation or be labelled a certain type in order to be interested in philosophy or spiritual matters. I don't know why you think so.

I saw a number of millennials at the New Living Expo this Saturday. That proves it.

Morals certainly includes the ideals which boomers put forth. That doesn't mean other generations didn't put forth ideals. But you read it that way. Your interest seems to be to take offense, rather than understand.

I take it you didn't understand the rest of my post? YOU asked about the morals of boomers. That's why I mentioned boomers, and related to you the wider interests we had that are relevant to today's 4T.

Around you, oh hell yeah.