Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Croakmore

It will take us a while to choke down all of this, Sean, but I certainly admire your efforts. I have one immediate reaction: you may be trying to resolve more here than such a macro-historical theory will allow. From my perspective, the beauty of S&H's generational theory is its seasonality. My need to bring Princess Summerfall Winterspring to the table is nicely satisfied by their theory. The affairs of all living things (with the possible exception of Gold's "deep hot biosphere") are fundamentally influenced by macro-associations among the sun, the moon, and of course planet Earth. Together, they impose a four-part seasonality. Cycles of a three-part kind, to me, leave the sine curve longing to complete itself. But that might even be consistent with your proposed modifications. More later.

--Croaker

Ah, my dear Batrachoid,

Seasonality is decidely not a casualty of my musings. There are still four turnings and four archetypes. It is only the number of life phases that drops to three. If this still bothers your tetralogical sensibilities, think of a
Mediterranean climate: Rainy Season, Dry Season, In-Between Season. In California this is easy to conceptualize.

Please elaborate on the forlorn sine curve and it's implications.

Well, Mr. Commoner, seasonality as metaphor was not so strange to S&H. Check out Chapter 2 of T4T: "Seasons of Time".

Yes, I am very well aware of S&H's use of seasonal metaphor and did not mean to imply in any way that your use of it is strange. My proposed three-phase model still calls for four archetypes and four turnings (four seasons). You'd still have the tetrad mostly left in place. However if the loss of just one such tetrad, i.e., with the life phases, was still bothersome to you, you could keep your dear-to-the-heart metaphor by adopting Mediterranean seasons (we have only three -- one just happens twice year!).

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Moreover, was not the Civil War Saeculum a truncated sine curve, leaving it wanting for a final stroke of the temporal piston? But I would agree that this was more of an effect than it was a cause. Or was it?

BTW: A sine curve can be viewed as a curvilinear projection of a circle.

Question just for the hell of it: If a three dimensional spiral were to interact with three directional points as it travelled onward (as if it were intersecting with the points of a columnal triangle within which it was contained) what would a two-dimensional reduction of that look like? :?:

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by Croakmore

It will take us a while to choke down all of this, Sean, but I certainly admire your efforts. I have one immediate reaction: you may be trying to resolve more here than such a macro-historical theory will allow. From my perspective, the beauty of S&H's generational theory is its seasonality. My need to bring Princess Summerfall Winterspring to the table is nicely satisfied by their theory. The affairs of all living things (with the possible exception of Gold's "deep hot biosphere") are fundamentally influenced by macro-associations among the sun, the moon, and of course planet Earth. Together, they impose a four-part seasonality. Cycles of a three-part kind, to me, leave the sine curve longing to complete itself. But that might even be consistent with your proposed modifications. More later.

--Croaker

Ah, my dear Batrachoid,

Seasonality is decidely not a casualty of my musings. There are still four turnings and four archetypes. It is only the number of life phases that drops to three. If this still bothers your tetralogical sensibilities, think of a
Mediterranean climate: Rainy Season, Dry Season, In-Between Season. In California this is easy to conceptualize.

Please elaborate on the forlorn sine curve and it's implications.

Well, Mr. Commoner, seasonality as metaphor was not so strange to S&H. Check out Chapter 2 of T4T: "Seasons of Time".

Yes, I am very well aware of S&H's use of seasonal metaphor and did not mean to imply in any way that your use of it is strange. My proposed three-phase model still calls for four archetypes and four turnings (four seasons). You'd still have the tetrad mostly left in place. However if the loss of just one such tetrad, i.e., with the life phases, was still bothersome to you, you could keep your dear-to-the-heart metaphor by adopting Mediterranean seasons (we have only three -- one just happens twice year!).

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Moreover, was not the Civil War Saeculum a truncated sine curve, leaving it wanting for a final stroke of the temporal piston? But I would agree that this was more of an effect than it was a cause. Or was it?

BTW: A sine curve can be viewed as a curvilinear projection of a circle.

Question just for the hell of it: If a three dimensional spiral were to interact with three directional points as it travelled onward (as if it were intersecting with the points of a columnal triangle within which it was contained) what would a two-dimensional reduction of that look like? :?:

As I understand it, Saeculum I shortened a bit in the 17th & 18th centuries. This permitted a "prophet mentor" role while Nomads still retained the Grey Champion role. During the Glorious Revolution in America the prophet mentor was the old Puritan who commanded Andros' troops to halt; during the American Revolution Benjamin Franklin was a prophet mentor, while George Washington was a Nomad in the Grey Champion role.

Perhaps these earlier Crises had a libertarian flavor because Nomads were in the GC role-liberty is one of their archetypal contributions. Indeed, libertarian flavored politics seems to be the only way that Nomads are even remotely Prophetic.

The saeculum shortened abruptly during the 19th century, in time for the Civil War. Prophets filled the GC role, and the political alliance in the North was an improbable one between the Authoritarian Right and the Libertarian Left, versus a Libertarian Right flavored Confederacy. Actually, the Civil War Anomaly could be described as multiple anomalies in one.

The Great Depression/WWII Crisis featured a somewhat attenuated Prophet generation (who seem to have been affected by the Civil War anomaly) in the GC role, the Missionaries. If I understand Stonewall Patton/Seadog 66 correctly, the Crisis realignment was somewhat delayed, resulting in an anomalous Authoritarian Left/Libertarian Left alliance instead of a Libertarian Right/Libertarian Left one. But, OK, the Civil War Anomaly was completely played out by the end of WWII.

Presumably the realignment for our Crisis will feature a Libertarian Right/Libertarian Left alliance. Boomers, a Prophet generation, are the obvious candidate for the GC role. But...libertarianism is one ideology that is strongly advocated by a Nomad generation!

Will our Crisis feature a Grey Champion role split between Boomers and Xers?

As I understand it, Saeculum I shortened a bit in the 17th & 18th centuries. This permitted a "prophet mentor" role while Nomads still retained the Grey Champion role. During the Glorious Revolution in America the prophet mentor was the old Puritan who commanded Andros' troops to halt; during the American Revolution Benjamin Franklin was a prophet mentor, while George Washington was a Nomad in the Grey Champion role.

Perhaps these earlier Crises had a libertarian flavor because Nomads were in the GC role-liberty is one of their archetypal contributions. Indeed, libertarian flavored politics seems to be the only way that Nomads are even remotely Prophetic.

The saeculum shortened abruptly during the 19th century, in time for the Civil War. Prophets filled the GC role, and the political alliance in the North was an improbable one between the Authoritarian Right and the Libertarian Left, versus a Libertarian Right flavored Confederacy. Actually, the Civil War Anomaly could be described as multiple anomalies in one.

The Great Depression/WWII Crisis featured a somewhat attenuated Prophet generation (who seem to have been affected by the Civil War anomaly) in the GC role, the Missionaries. If I understand Stonewall Patton/Seadog 66 correctly, the Crisis realignment was somewhat delayed, resulting in an anomalous Authoritarian Left/Libertarian Left alliance instead of a Libertarian Right/Libertarian Left one. But, OK, the Civil War Anomaly was completely played out by the end of WWII.

Presumably the realignment for our Crisis will feature a Libertarian Right/Libertarian Left alliance. Boomers, a Prophet generation, are the obvious candidate for the GC role. But...libertarianism is one ideology that is strongly advocated by a Nomad generation!

Will our Crisis feature a Grey Champion role split between Boomers and Xers?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

During the recent awakening only 29% of the people involved with events on my spiritual events timeline were prophets. 48% were artists. Yet looking at the four awakenings between the Reformation and Transcendental Awakening, 84% of the people are prophets and only 14% are artists. According to the S&H model, it's the prophets who are supposed to be doing the preaching during the awakening. This was the case for the first four Awakenings, but not for the most recent one.

This mirrors an unexpected result when I performed a generational analysis of famous people who Enneatype had been determined by Riso and Hudson. According to Strauss and Howe, Prophets should be attached to their mothers and antagonistic to their fathers. Using the parental orientations for the nine types, this should produce Prophet generations dominated by Threes (attached to mom) and Ones (detached from dad). Sure enough, the Prophets (mostly Boomers) had the highest percentages of Threes (Narcissistic Achievers), but a low percentage of Ones (Idealists). Instead, the Artists (all Silents, as the data set was dominated mostly by living generations for Prophets and Artists) had the highest percentage of Ones. That was not what I expected!

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

During the recent awakening only 29% of the people involved with events on my spiritual events timeline were prophets. 48% were artists. Yet looking at the four awakenings between the Reformation and Transcendental Awakening, 84% of the people are prophets and only 14% are artists. According to the S&H model, it's the prophets who are supposed to be doing the preaching during the awakening. This was the case for the first four Awakenings, but not for the most recent one.

This mirrors an unexpected result when I performed a generational analysis of famous people who Enneatype had been determined by Riso and Hudson. According to Strauss and Howe, Prophets should be attached to their mothers and antagonistic to their fathers. Using the parental orientations for the nine types, this should produce Prophet generations dominated by Threes (attached to mom) and Ones (detached from dad). Sure enough, the Prophets (mostly Boomers) had the highest percentages of Threes (Narcissistic Achievers), but a low percentage of Ones (Idealists). Instead, the Artists (all Silents, as the data set was dominated mostly by living generations for Prophets and Artists) had the highest percentage of Ones. That was not what I expected!

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Mike, I understand all of this and agree that this tetralogical dynamic is (most likely) the mechanism that is at work now and has been for some time. However, I don't see how the (proposed) trilogical dynamic is inherently non-perpetuating, as I believe you are implying.

What I presented was S&H's model for the saeculum, which I don't think is valid. Nevertheless I understand how it works and can present it. I did so as an example of what a mechanistic description looks like. S&H described how interaction between phase of life and a social moment can produce generational archetypes (they used a crisis as an example, which is easier to see). This mechanism implies that length of a generation/turning equals the length of a phase of life. Thus since turnings average 18 years long now and 27 years long before 1700, this means the length of a phase of life is 18 years now and was 27 years before 1700.

Since five 18-year phases of life fit into a long life (saeculum) and three 27-year phases of life fit into a saeculum, this means that before 1700 there would be three types of generations and today there are five. Since this isn't the case (S&H don't suggest this is the case) that means their mechanism isn't correct. Generations and turnings are NOT linked to the phase of life and thus have nothing to do with the time it takes for a person to reach the age of independence.
************************************************** *********
Now in your model, you talk abut this period of time from birth to the age of independence as being important. That is, you appear to be using a phase-of-life type model. Yet they you seem to be proposing three phases of life but with four generations. This outcome is not what would be produced by a phase-of-life model. I don't understand how your model works.

What you need to do is step through like S&H did with their cohortia example and show how your model works. How are generations created from history? You can start with a social moment produced by a random factor like a war for a Crisis or an act of God for an Awakening and then show how the four generations get created and then how they perpetuate themselves.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Mike, I understand all of this and agree that this tetralogical dynamic is (most likely) the mechanism that is at work now and has been for some time. However, I don't see how the (proposed) trilogical dynamic is inherently non-perpetuating, as I believe you are implying.

What I presented was S&H's model for the saeculum, which I don't think is valid. Nevertheless I understand how it works and can present it. I did so as an example of what a mechanistic description looks like. S&H described how interaction between phase of life and a social moment can produce generational archetypes (they used a crisis as an example, which is easier to see). This mechanism implies that length of a generation/turning equals the length of a phase of life. Thus since turnings average 18 years long now and 27 years long before 1700, this means the length of a phase of life is 18 years now and was 27 years before 1700.

Since five 18-year phases of life fit into a long life (saeculum) and three 27-year phases of life fit into a saeculum, this means that before 1700 there would be three types of generations and today there are five. Since this isn't the case (S&H don't suggest this is the case) that means their mechanism isn't correct. Generations and turnings are NOT linked to the phase of life and thus have nothing to do with the time it takes for a person to reach the age of independence.
************************************************** *********
Now in your model, you talk abut this period of time from birth to the age of independence as being important. That is, you appear to be using a phase-of-life type model. Yet they you seem to be proposing three phases of life but with four generations. This outcome is not what would be produced by a phase-of-life model. I don't understand how your model works.

What you need to do is step through like S&H did with their cohortia example and show how your model works. How are generations created from history? You can start with a social moment produced by a random factor like a war for a Crisis or an act of God for an Awakening and then show how the four generations get created and then how they perpetuate themselves.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

As stated in my original post, just as stress was added to Saeculum I with a drop in the age of social autonomy, stress is being added now to Saeculum II with the lengthening of life span. As both the fourth and (especially!) fifth phases grow in influence we'll be in for a new era of saecular dissonance awaiting a shift to a new equilibrium (Saeculum III).

If you are using my concept of an externally-forced saeculum for Saeculum I, then stress was not added by the drop in the age of social autonomy. The age of social autonomy is a phase of life concept. But phases of life (i.e. the age of social autonomy) could not be involved in the saeculum when generational length was 27 years long or there would be only three gens and not four.

The external cycle continued until after WW I. But after 1820 it stopped producing the timing for the saeculum, even though it was still functioning. This could not reflect a drop in the age of social autonomy, because this implies that the age of social autonomy was causing the saeculum before 1820 as well as after. For example you explain the 27 year generations by hypothesizing the age of social autonomy (and generations) were longer before 1820.

But how does the age of social autonomy cause the saeculum? The only way I can think of is through a phase of life mechanism like S&H propose. And this would then require three generations with 27-year long phase of life--not four. (Unless you can propose a different mechanism for how age of social autonomy can cause the saeculum.)

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

As stated in my original post, just as stress was added to Saeculum I with a drop in the age of social autonomy, stress is being added now to Saeculum II with the lengthening of life span. As both the fourth and (especially!) fifth phases grow in influence we'll be in for a new era of saecular dissonance awaiting a shift to a new equilibrium (Saeculum III).

If you are using my concept of an externally-forced saeculum for Saeculum I, then stress was not added by the drop in the age of social autonomy. The age of social autonomy is a phase of life concept. But phases of life (i.e. the age of social autonomy) could not be involved in the saeculum when generational length was 27 years long or there would be only three gens and not four.

The external cycle continued until after WW I. But after 1820 it stopped producing the timing for the saeculum, even though it was still functioning. This could not reflect a drop in the age of social autonomy, because this implies that the age of social autonomy was causing the saeculum before 1820 as well as after. For example you explain the 27 year generations by hypothesizing the age of social autonomy (and generations) were longer before 1820.

But how does the age of social autonomy cause the saeculum? The only way I can think of is through a phase of life mechanism like S&H propose. And this would then require three generations with 27-year long phase of life--not four. (Unless you can propose a different mechanism for how age of social autonomy can cause the saeculum.)

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Today a long life is past 90. 90+ divided by 4 is ~23. Thus average generational length is ~23 years, not 19 or 20. You can't fudge this away because over a couple of saecula a couple of years adds up to put the cycle noticeably out of sync.

I believe that S&H claimed that the cycle is more "mysterious" than mere numbers can account for. In fact the cycle can disappear altogether, according to S&H, and then reappear later. An example of this might be the 400 year period of Judges between Exodus and Samuel. Of course having completed the Exodus, this sort of grand event did not repeat like a cycle. Instead we see neat stories of an ebb and flow of deliverence of one sort or another, yet Jewish society seems to be in a mere holding pattern, and occupation of the land Joshua led them into.

At any rate, a rebuttal to Alexander from Strauss and Howe can be found on pages 102-107 in Generations. At the bottom of page 105, they are especially salient in describing the difference between the way they view the cycle and how Mike Alexander sees it.

p.s. On the biography of Joshua, btw, S&H erred greatly by casting this man as a "hero" archetype. Joshua was a member of the "Golden Calf" generation, as was the non-Jew, Caleb. The Bible clearly states that no other members of "that" generation entered the Holy Land save "Joshua, son of Nun and Caleb." This error doesn't cast doubt upon the S&H theory as much as it reveals a prejudice towards heroic archetypes on the part of the authors, imho. :wink:

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Today a long life is past 90. 90+ divided by 4 is ~23. Thus average generational length is ~23 years, not 19 or 20. You can't fudge this away because over a couple of saecula a couple of years adds up to put the cycle noticeably out of sync.

I believe that S&H claimed that the cycle is more "mysterious" than mere numbers can account for. In fact the cycle can disappear altogether, according to S&H, and then reappear later. An example of this might be the 400 year period of Judges between Exodus and Samuel. Of course having completed the Exodus, this sort of grand event did not repeat like a cycle. Instead we see neat stories of an ebb and flow of deliverence of one sort or another, yet Jewish society seems to be in a mere holding pattern, and occupation of the land Joshua led them into.

At any rate, a rebuttal to Alexander from Strauss and Howe can be found on pages 102-107 in Generations. At the bottom of page 105, they are especially salient in describing the difference between the way they view the cycle and how Mike Alexander sees it.

p.s. On the biography of Joshua, btw, S&H erred greatly by casting this man as a "hero" archetype. Joshua was a member of the "Golden Calf" generation, as was the non-Jew, Caleb. The Bible clearly states that no other members of "that" generation entered the Holy Land save "Joshua, son of Nun and Caleb." This error doesn't cast doubt upon the S&H theory as much as it reveals a prejudice towards heroic archetypes on the part of the authors, imho. :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc S Lamb

I believe that S&H claimed that the cycle is more "mysterious" than mere numbers can account for.

You can of course view the saeculum as art rather than science. In this case each of us has his own saeculum and the cycle, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It becomes a matter of taste.

The saeculum has much aethestic appeal. My comments about it have to do with its application as a scientific concept, as a explanation for history that, in principle, can be applied. It may well be none of that, in which case I will soon (by 2008) learn. And if I learn that it is not, my interest in it will likely decline and I will look for a different sort of hobby, perhaps I'll get back into gaming.

Originally Posted by Marc S Lamb

I believe that S&H claimed that the cycle is more "mysterious" than mere numbers can account for.

You can of course view the saeculum as art rather than science. In this case each of us has his own saeculum and the cycle, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It becomes a matter of taste.

The saeculum has much aethestic appeal. My comments about it have to do with its application as a scientific concept, as a explanation for history that, in principle, can be applied. It may well be none of that, in which case I will soon (by 2008) learn. And if I learn that it is not, my interest in it will likely decline and I will look for a different sort of hobby, perhaps I'll get back into gaming.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

In the proposed trilogical dynamic (Saeculum I) I utilized (my understanding) of your pre-modern mechanism adapted for three phases. In this case, the generation in Primacy raises the generation in Youth sociologically. They are in paramount control of society and set the tone for their pre-autonomous next-juniors. But in this relationship they only partially instill a shadow aspect in the Youth cohort. An aspect that has been in existence for two generations is not seen as necessary by the parental cohort and not seen as desirable by the Youth cohort. However, an aspect that has only been around only one generation will be retained as it is still functionally necessary for the saecular conditions.

You need to write this out in detail how it would work. I think you have too much fuzziness here.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

In the proposed trilogical dynamic (Saeculum I) I utilized (my understanding) of your pre-modern mechanism adapted for three phases. In this case, the generation in Primacy raises the generation in Youth sociologically. They are in paramount control of society and set the tone for their pre-autonomous next-juniors. But in this relationship they only partially instill a shadow aspect in the Youth cohort. An aspect that has been in existence for two generations is not seen as necessary by the parental cohort and not seen as desirable by the Youth cohort. However, an aspect that has only been around only one generation will be retained as it is still functionally necessary for the saecular conditions.

You need to write this out in detail how it would work. I think you have too much fuzziness here.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

What I presented was S&H's model for the saeculum, which I don't think is valid. Nevertheless I understand how it works and can present it. I did so as an example of what a mechanistic description looks like. S&H described how interaction between phase of life and a social moment can produce generational archetypes (they used a crisis as an example, which is easier to see). This mechanism implies that length of a generation/turning equals the length of a phase of life. Thus since turnings average 18 years long now and 27 years long before 1700, this means the length of a phase of life is 18 years now and was 27 years before 1700.

Since five 18-year phases of life fit into a long life (saeculum) and three 27-year phases of life fit into a saeculum, this means that before 1700 there would be three types of generations and today there are five. Since this isn't the case (S&H don't suggest this is the case) that means their mechanism isn't correct. Generations and turnings are NOT linked to the phase of life and thus have nothing to do with the time it takes for a person to reach the age of independence.
************************************************** *********
Now in your model, you talk abut this period of time from birth to the age of independence as being important. That is, you appear to be using a phase-of-life type model. Yet they you seem to be proposing three phases of life but with four generations. This outcome is not what would be produced by a phase-of-life model. I don't understand how your model works.

What you need to do is step through like S&H did with their cohortia example and show how your model works. How are generations created from history? You can start with a social moment produced by a random factor like a war for a Crisis or an act of God for an Awakening and then show how the four generations get created and then how they perpetuate themselves.

I will work on that. My goal is to show how a three phase model can produce four generations and four turnings. I will think about how to do that other than what I've done already. Unfortunately, I'm now concerned that my aprioristic belief in the overall ineluctability of the four archetypes may impede our resolving your criticisms.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

THe S&H model is an endogenous model. It is a self-perpetuating cycle that reproduces itself. The timing is supplied by the phase of life.

My saeculum model for the pre-1820 cycle is an exogenous model. Cycle timing is produced by an external impulse produced by a completely different cycle. Thus a 27-year periodicity is forced upon the saeculum. Every other "turning" is a crisis (social moment). The kind of social moment is an awakening. Thus in my cycle we have alternating awakening-type crises periods and non-crisis periods.

Your input has made me realize that the Multi-Modal model (try to say that real fast!) is ambigenous. That is, the four archetypes drive to express themselves (endogenesis) but within the confines of what they have to work with (exogenesis) be that an unavoidable and long-standing famine cycle or the laws of mathematics (i.e., 3, 4, 8 and almost 6, phases can fit into a four archetype/turning arrangement, but 5 and 7 absolutely cannot).

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

But there is a twist. Every other "crisis" (or social moment) looks like an true S&H awakening (it's full of religious events) while the other doesn't. In fact one can't always even find the non religious social moments. What's going on?

A large number of explanations can be made for this observation. Your scheme will work, but an even simpler one can be made. Simply put, an awakening is a social moment when the response is the cry "God help us" like Colonel Tiy from Battlestar Galactica (remember him?). Anyone who saw Tiy can tell you he isn't a Nomad. His approach to crisis is cry there's nothing we can do--its up to God. As a result, after the shit hits the fan it splatters on the kids--who become Nomads.

Now fast forward two turings to the next crisis. This time the guys in charge are Nomads. The cry now is "God helps those who help themselves" and action is taken in response to the crisis. The result is a less religious kind of crisis that we call a Crisis turning and the shit from the fan is deflected away from the kids who do not become Nomads. These same protected kids become the colonel Tiys for the next crisis. And that's all you need. You can put in all the other archetypes if you wish, but you don't need them to make the cycle work--all you need is Nomads.

Ah yes!, the archetypes will not be ignored.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Now if you are saying that you agree with the population mechanism for the early saeculum, you don't need much of a generational mechanism to get the turnings to come out right, and what you have written is fine.

But there is still the problem of how did the cycle change after 1820. My cycle mechanism flatly does not work.

With a multi-modalic explanation the phase of life breaks from it's long-lasting tie to the 27 year length, wanders like a heat-seeking missile without a target for a time, and then begins to settle in, slowly but surely, on physical maturity (going asymptotic to that goal as time goes by, it seems).

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

And the S&H mechansim doesn't work either because with ~20 year generations you will have at least four phases of life and at least four generations. Yet only three generations appear after 1822, a small set of Nomads, a very small set of Artists and a medium-sized set of prophets and then it starts to repeat again with a short set Nomads. Yet the next cycle after that Heroes show up. Counting off 22-year gens:

1822-1843 Nomads
Heroes missing
1844-1865 Artists
1866-1887 Prophets
1888-1909 Nomads
1910-1931 Heroes
1932-1953 Artists
1954-1975 Prophets
1976-1997 Nomads

This scheme has you and I both prophets, I'll bet you don't like that Most of the Xers here want to push the Boomer/Xer boundary back to at least 1961 if not earlier. But this shrinks the generational length even with the skipping of a hero gen.

I indeed see the length of a generation as A) malleable -the length of a phase of life sets the parameters for gen length but not in some mathematically rigid way, there is a plus-or-minus factor; and B) I see the length shortening from 27 in Saeculum I to a seeming telos of 17 in Saeculum II, though I don't think it's reached that yet.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Now suppose the four-fold generational structure is a fixed constant (your assumption). Using the concept of a saeculum as a long human life and mandating four gens and you get generationlength = 1/4 of a long human life.

My model does not make the jump that mandating four generational archetypes leads to necessarily mandating four phases of life and therefore four generations dividing up the length of a long human life.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Today a long life is past 90. 90+ divided by 4 is ~23. Thus average generational length is ~23 years, not 19 or 20. You can't fudge this away because over a couple of saecula a couple of years adds up to put the cycle noticeably out of sync. It's the difference between you being a Nomad instead of a Prophet. If generational length is 1/4 of a long human life, then you are a prophet like me. There is no way to escape this, unless you drop the phase of life model.

As stated in my posts, I see the lengthening of the average human life span as the new tensor for Saeculum II as the dropping age of social autonomy was the tensor (and ruin) of Saeculum I. As more people flood into a fifth phase, and as both fourth and fifth phasers become more socially engaged, Saeculum II will be put under increasing stress and become increasingly dysfunctional.

I can only see this rectified by enough socially active people living to, say about 102-108, so that a six phase solution can snap into place. As awkward as six phases would be, they'd work loads better than five. Line up the four archetypes/turnings on paper and see for yourself. My dabblings on this lead me to believe that the turnings could radically change in character.

Hey Mike, thanks for indulging me.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

What I presented was S&H's model for the saeculum, which I don't think is valid. Nevertheless I understand how it works and can present it. I did so as an example of what a mechanistic description looks like. S&H described how interaction between phase of life and a social moment can produce generational archetypes (they used a crisis as an example, which is easier to see). This mechanism implies that length of a generation/turning equals the length of a phase of life. Thus since turnings average 18 years long now and 27 years long before 1700, this means the length of a phase of life is 18 years now and was 27 years before 1700.

Since five 18-year phases of life fit into a long life (saeculum) and three 27-year phases of life fit into a saeculum, this means that before 1700 there would be three types of generations and today there are five. Since this isn't the case (S&H don't suggest this is the case) that means their mechanism isn't correct. Generations and turnings are NOT linked to the phase of life and thus have nothing to do with the time it takes for a person to reach the age of independence.
************************************************** *********
Now in your model, you talk abut this period of time from birth to the age of independence as being important. That is, you appear to be using a phase-of-life type model. Yet they you seem to be proposing three phases of life but with four generations. This outcome is not what would be produced by a phase-of-life model. I don't understand how your model works.

What you need to do is step through like S&H did with their cohortia example and show how your model works. How are generations created from history? You can start with a social moment produced by a random factor like a war for a Crisis or an act of God for an Awakening and then show how the four generations get created and then how they perpetuate themselves.

I will work on that. My goal is to show how a three phase model can produce four generations and four turnings. I will think about how to do that other than what I've done already. Unfortunately, I'm now concerned that my aprioristic belief in the overall ineluctability of the four archetypes may impede our resolving your criticisms.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

THe S&H model is an endogenous model. It is a self-perpetuating cycle that reproduces itself. The timing is supplied by the phase of life.

My saeculum model for the pre-1820 cycle is an exogenous model. Cycle timing is produced by an external impulse produced by a completely different cycle. Thus a 27-year periodicity is forced upon the saeculum. Every other "turning" is a crisis (social moment). The kind of social moment is an awakening. Thus in my cycle we have alternating awakening-type crises periods and non-crisis periods.

Your input has made me realize that the Multi-Modal model (try to say that real fast!) is ambigenous. That is, the four archetypes drive to express themselves (endogenesis) but within the confines of what they have to work with (exogenesis) be that an unavoidable and long-standing famine cycle or the laws of mathematics (i.e., 3, 4, 8 and almost 6, phases can fit into a four archetype/turning arrangement, but 5 and 7 absolutely cannot).

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

But there is a twist. Every other "crisis" (or social moment) looks like an true S&H awakening (it's full of religious events) while the other doesn't. In fact one can't always even find the non religious social moments. What's going on?

A large number of explanations can be made for this observation. Your scheme will work, but an even simpler one can be made. Simply put, an awakening is a social moment when the response is the cry "God help us" like Colonel Tiy from Battlestar Galactica (remember him?). Anyone who saw Tiy can tell you he isn't a Nomad. His approach to crisis is cry there's nothing we can do--its up to God. As a result, after the shit hits the fan it splatters on the kids--who become Nomads.

Now fast forward two turings to the next crisis. This time the guys in charge are Nomads. The cry now is "God helps those who help themselves" and action is taken in response to the crisis. The result is a less religious kind of crisis that we call a Crisis turning and the shit from the fan is deflected away from the kids who do not become Nomads. These same protected kids become the colonel Tiys for the next crisis. And that's all you need. You can put in all the other archetypes if you wish, but you don't need them to make the cycle work--all you need is Nomads.

Ah yes!, the archetypes will not be ignored.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Now if you are saying that you agree with the population mechanism for the early saeculum, you don't need much of a generational mechanism to get the turnings to come out right, and what you have written is fine.

But there is still the problem of how did the cycle change after 1820. My cycle mechanism flatly does not work.

With a multi-modalic explanation the phase of life breaks from it's long-lasting tie to the 27 year length, wanders like a heat-seeking missile without a target for a time, and then begins to settle in, slowly but surely, on physical maturity (going asymptotic to that goal as time goes by, it seems).

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

And the S&H mechansim doesn't work either because with ~20 year generations you will have at least four phases of life and at least four generations. Yet only three generations appear after 1822, a small set of Nomads, a very small set of Artists and a medium-sized set of prophets and then it starts to repeat again with a short set Nomads. Yet the next cycle after that Heroes show up. Counting off 22-year gens:

1822-1843 Nomads
Heroes missing
1844-1865 Artists
1866-1887 Prophets
1888-1909 Nomads
1910-1931 Heroes
1932-1953 Artists
1954-1975 Prophets
1976-1997 Nomads

This scheme has you and I both prophets, I'll bet you don't like that Most of the Xers here want to push the Boomer/Xer boundary back to at least 1961 if not earlier. But this shrinks the generational length even with the skipping of a hero gen.

I indeed see the length of a generation as A) malleable -the length of a phase of life sets the parameters for gen length but not in some mathematically rigid way, there is a plus-or-minus factor; and B) I see the length shortening from 27 in Saeculum I to a seeming telos of 17 in Saeculum II, though I don't think it's reached that yet.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Now suppose the four-fold generational structure is a fixed constant (your assumption). Using the concept of a saeculum as a long human life and mandating four gens and you get generationlength = 1/4 of a long human life.

My model does not make the jump that mandating four generational archetypes leads to necessarily mandating four phases of life and therefore four generations dividing up the length of a long human life.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Today a long life is past 90. 90+ divided by 4 is ~23. Thus average generational length is ~23 years, not 19 or 20. You can't fudge this away because over a couple of saecula a couple of years adds up to put the cycle noticeably out of sync. It's the difference between you being a Nomad instead of a Prophet. If generational length is 1/4 of a long human life, then you are a prophet like me. There is no way to escape this, unless you drop the phase of life model.

As stated in my posts, I see the lengthening of the average human life span as the new tensor for Saeculum II as the dropping age of social autonomy was the tensor (and ruin) of Saeculum I. As more people flood into a fifth phase, and as both fourth and fifth phasers become more socially engaged, Saeculum II will be put under increasing stress and become increasingly dysfunctional.

I can only see this rectified by enough socially active people living to, say about 102-108, so that a six phase solution can snap into place. As awkward as six phases would be, they'd work loads better than five. Line up the four archetypes/turnings on paper and see for yourself. My dabblings on this lead me to believe that the turnings could radically change in character.

Hey Mike, thanks for indulging me.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

In the proposed trilogical dynamic (Saeculum I) I utilized (my understanding) of your pre-modern mechanism adapted for three phases. In this case, the generation in Primacy raises the generation in Youth sociologically. They are in paramount control of society and set the tone for their pre-autonomous next-juniors. But in this relationship they only partially instill a shadow aspect in the Youth cohort. An aspect that has been in existence for two generations is not seen as necessary by the parental cohort and not seen as desirable by the Youth cohort. However, an aspect that has only been around only one generation will be retained as it is still functionally necessary for the saecular conditions.

You need to write this out in detail how it would work. I think you have too much fuzziness here.

Yes, I will work on spelling this out better.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

In the proposed trilogical dynamic (Saeculum I) I utilized (my understanding) of your pre-modern mechanism adapted for three phases. In this case, the generation in Primacy raises the generation in Youth sociologically. They are in paramount control of society and set the tone for their pre-autonomous next-juniors. But in this relationship they only partially instill a shadow aspect in the Youth cohort. An aspect that has been in existence for two generations is not seen as necessary by the parental cohort and not seen as desirable by the Youth cohort. However, an aspect that has only been around only one generation will be retained as it is still functionally necessary for the saecular conditions.

You need to write this out in detail how it would work. I think you have too much fuzziness here.

Yes, I will work on spelling this out better.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

As I understand it, Saeculum I shortened a bit in the 17th & 18th centuries. This permitted a "prophet mentor" role while Nomads still retained the Grey Champion role. During the Glorious Revolution in America the prophet mentor was the old Puritan who commanded Andros' troops to halt; during the American Revolution Benjamin Franklin was a prophet mentor, while George Washington was a Nomad in the Grey Champion role.

Perhaps these earlier Crises had a libertarian flavor because Nomads were in the GC role-liberty is one of their archetypal contributions. Indeed, libertarian flavored politics seems to be the only way that Nomads are even remotely Prophetic.

The saeculum shortened abruptly during the 19th century, in time for the Civil War. Prophets filled the GC role, and the political alliance in the North was an improbable one between the Authoritarian Right and the Libertarian Left, versus a Libertarian Right flavored Confederacy. Actually, the Civil War Anomaly could be described as multiple anomalies in one.

The Great Depression/WWII Crisis featured a somewhat attenuated Prophet generation (who seem to have been affected by the Civil War anomaly) in the GC role, the Missionaries. If I understand Stonewall Patton/Seadog 66 correctly, the Crisis realignment was somewhat delayed, resulting in an anomalous Authoritarian Left/Libertarian Left alliance instead of a Libertarian Right/Libertarian Left one. But, OK, the Civil War Anomaly was completely played out by the end of WWII.

Presumably the realignment for our Crisis will feature a Libertarian Right/Libertarian Left alliance. Boomers, a Prophet generation, are the obvious candidate for the GC role. But...libertarianism is one ideology that is strongly advocated by a Nomad generation!

Will our Crisis feature a Grey Champion role split between Boomers and Xers?

I don't know enough about Seadog's theory to comment, but I am in line with your thoughts on Nomads playing a role in prior Crises S&H would have reserved for Prophets. The CWA aside, one can note that even FDR was a VERY LATE wave Prophet.

I think this time the Boomer Prophet will play a very pivotal leadership role in the fourth turning, perhaps with strong interaction with remaining Silent, at least in the beginning (in stark contrast to GC-esque leadership going in the opposite archetypal direction with Nomads in prior saecula).

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

As I understand it, Saeculum I shortened a bit in the 17th & 18th centuries. This permitted a "prophet mentor" role while Nomads still retained the Grey Champion role. During the Glorious Revolution in America the prophet mentor was the old Puritan who commanded Andros' troops to halt; during the American Revolution Benjamin Franklin was a prophet mentor, while George Washington was a Nomad in the Grey Champion role.

Perhaps these earlier Crises had a libertarian flavor because Nomads were in the GC role-liberty is one of their archetypal contributions. Indeed, libertarian flavored politics seems to be the only way that Nomads are even remotely Prophetic.

The saeculum shortened abruptly during the 19th century, in time for the Civil War. Prophets filled the GC role, and the political alliance in the North was an improbable one between the Authoritarian Right and the Libertarian Left, versus a Libertarian Right flavored Confederacy. Actually, the Civil War Anomaly could be described as multiple anomalies in one.

The Great Depression/WWII Crisis featured a somewhat attenuated Prophet generation (who seem to have been affected by the Civil War anomaly) in the GC role, the Missionaries. If I understand Stonewall Patton/Seadog 66 correctly, the Crisis realignment was somewhat delayed, resulting in an anomalous Authoritarian Left/Libertarian Left alliance instead of a Libertarian Right/Libertarian Left one. But, OK, the Civil War Anomaly was completely played out by the end of WWII.

Presumably the realignment for our Crisis will feature a Libertarian Right/Libertarian Left alliance. Boomers, a Prophet generation, are the obvious candidate for the GC role. But...libertarianism is one ideology that is strongly advocated by a Nomad generation!

Will our Crisis feature a Grey Champion role split between Boomers and Xers?

I don't know enough about Seadog's theory to comment, but I am in line with your thoughts on Nomads playing a role in prior Crises S&H would have reserved for Prophets. The CWA aside, one can note that even FDR was a VERY LATE wave Prophet.

I think this time the Boomer Prophet will play a very pivotal leadership role in the fourth turning, perhaps with strong interaction with remaining Silent, at least in the beginning (in stark contrast to GC-esque leadership going in the opposite archetypal direction with Nomads in prior saecula).

Originally Posted by Marc S Lamb

At any rate, a rebuttal to Alexander from Strauss and Howe can be found on pages 102-107 in Generations. At the bottom of page 105, they are especially salient in describing the difference between the way they view the cycle and how Mike Alexander sees it.

There's no rebuttal. They are comparing their cycle to several others in the literature. And the section at the bottom of 105 is standard caution about how you can't make exact predictions. I have it in my stuff too.

Originally Posted by Marc S Lamb

At any rate, a rebuttal to Alexander from Strauss and Howe can be found on pages 102-107 in Generations. At the bottom of page 105, they are especially salient in describing the difference between the way they view the cycle and how Mike Alexander sees it.

There's no rebuttal. They are comparing their cycle to several others in the literature. And the section at the bottom of 105 is standard caution about how you can't make exact predictions. I have it in my stuff too.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Marc S Lamb

At any rate, a rebuttal to Alexander from Strauss and Howe can be found on pages 102-107 in Generations. At the bottom of page 105, they are especially salient in describing the difference between the way they view the cycle and how Mike Alexander sees it.

There's no rebuttal. They are comparing their cycle to several others in the literature. And the section at the bottom of 105 is standard caution about how you can't make exact predictions. I have it in my stuff too.

• "Cycles that aim for such accuracy never work over time. Sooner or later, they don't even come close, because the historical observer who obsesses over accuracy typically refuses to examine the underlying (though imprecise) dynamics of social causation." (emphasis mine)

That succinctly applies to the way you approach the cycle. As you said, "The saeculum has much aethestic appeal. My comments about it have to do with its application as a scientific concept, as a explanation for history that, in principle, can be applied."

You are not interested in the least in the "dynamics of social causation." If you can't pin a number on it, and if that number doesn't "comport well," then you throw it out. While I'm not disregarding the importance of adding up numbers, other human issues that gum up the works cannot be ignored (as you are wont to do).