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).

Just to add something to the 27 year thing. I'm pretty into genealogy. Probably becuase it makes me feel like I'm a part of history. Anyway, my German and English ancestors definitely fit that pattern of leaving home later. One interesting thing, though is that they all married young women from the next generation. If this is true for other families, which I think it is, this could mean that there were large number of "mixed marriages". Women weren't that powerful back then, but they did seem to exert influence over their husbands and certainly over the child rearing process. I really have no idea how this would play out but it seemed interesting and maybe even relevant.

Just to add something to the 27 year thing. I'm pretty into genealogy. Probably becuase it makes me feel like I'm a part of history. Anyway, my German and English ancestors definitely fit that pattern of leaving home later. One interesting thing, though is that they all married young women from the next generation. If this is true for other families, which I think it is, this could mean that there were large number of "mixed marriages". Women weren't that powerful back then, but they did seem to exert influence over their husbands and certainly over the child rearing process. I really have no idea how this would play out but it seemed interesting and maybe even relevant.

Originally Posted by Marc S Lamb

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).

I am as interested in the dynamics as anyone else here. But superficial analysis and sloppy thinking doesn't help in understanding anything.

Originally Posted by Marc S Lamb

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).

I am as interested in the dynamics as anyone else here. But superficial analysis and sloppy thinking doesn't help in understanding anything.

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

Just to add something to the 27 year thing. I'm pretty into genealogy. Probably becuase it makes me feel like I'm a part of history. Anyway, my German and English ancestors definitely fit that pattern of leaving home later. One interesting thing, though is that they all married young women from the next generation. If this is true for other families, which I think it is, this could mean that there were large number of "mixed marriages". Women weren't that powerful back then, but they did seem to exert influence over their husbands and certainly over the child rearing process. I really have no idea how this would play out but it seemed interesting and maybe even relevant.

Good point.

I will consider that as I mull over how to demonstrate a "cohortia" scenario for Mike.

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

Just to add something to the 27 year thing. I'm pretty into genealogy. Probably becuase it makes me feel like I'm a part of history. Anyway, my German and English ancestors definitely fit that pattern of leaving home later. One interesting thing, though is that they all married young women from the next generation. If this is true for other families, which I think it is, this could mean that there were large number of "mixed marriages". Women weren't that powerful back then, but they did seem to exert influence over their husbands and certainly over the child rearing process. I really have no idea how this would play out but it seemed interesting and maybe even relevant.

Good point.

I will consider that as I mull over how to demonstrate a "cohortia" scenario for Mike.

WJB - FWIW, Spartans finished their "basic training" at age 20 when they became full-fledged members of the army. They, however, did not become adults, with full marriage rights, until age 30, when they became voting members of the Apella. On the other hand, the Gerousia, except for the 2 Kings, was restricted to men aged 60 and over. Make of this what you will.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

WJB - FWIW, Spartans finished their "basic training" at age 20 when they became full-fledged members of the army. They, however, did not become adults, with full marriage rights, until age 30, when they became voting members of the Apella. On the other hand, the Gerousia, except for the 2 Kings, was restricted to men aged 60 and over. Make of this what you will.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

It seems a logical notion to me, given any generational scheme of progressive history, that while the perhaps most important feature of the cycle remains the child nurturing aspect, the strongest interaction, and thus the one most obvious and powerful, is the interaction of two generations: a generation passing from it's prime of life vs. the up and coming generation.

Thus the "power zone" of the cycle dynamic plays the most crucial role at any given moment in time. This is a duel essentially waged between two generations, with the future (children) and the past (great grandfathers) playing a smaller secondary role in the drama. In fact the future and the past generations can be totally ignored at various points in the cycle as a means of promoting the cycle forward.

In a Crisis era, those younger will cling to, as FDR called it, "ancient traditions," and the aged wisdom as they face the uncertain future. In a Spiritual era, that future has come, it now exists, it's here and now, and thus children are neglected because the people are no longer looking to the old future, but something yet unseen.

While the statistical numbers are clearly there, this means of looking backward and forwards may be more art than science, or perhaps a keen balance between the two.

But more importantly, this may suggest that in times past we can only see the two "power zone" generations of a Cotton Mather and Benjamin Rush, the hero and the nomad, while an unseen "Gray Champion" plays a very minor role. Thus FDR may very well have been a pragmatic nomad himself.

One further thing to keep in mind; when considering this "future is now," those two generations who made it happen are either pleased or ultimately disappointed. This is where the next generation plays a crucial role like the Boom did back in the seventies. They did not make it the future happen, and they too were ultimately divided as to why it all ended the way it did. Their role of idealists is that they were children when society was looking forward, and they will always carry a longing for those "Happy Days." This is what they pass on to the next generations, if the cycle is to move forward again.

It seems a logical notion to me, given any generational scheme of progressive history, that while the perhaps most important feature of the cycle remains the child nurturing aspect, the strongest interaction, and thus the one most obvious and powerful, is the interaction of two generations: a generation passing from it's prime of life vs. the up and coming generation.

Thus the "power zone" of the cycle dynamic plays the most crucial role at any given moment in time. This is a duel essentially waged between two generations, with the future (children) and the past (great grandfathers) playing a smaller secondary role in the drama. In fact the future and the past generations can be totally ignored at various points in the cycle as a means of promoting the cycle forward.

In a Crisis era, those younger will cling to, as FDR called it, "ancient traditions," and the aged wisdom as they face the uncertain future. In a Spiritual era, that future has come, it now exists, it's here and now, and thus children are neglected because the people are no longer looking to the old future, but something yet unseen.

While the statistical numbers are clearly there, this means of looking backward and forwards may be more art than science, or perhaps a keen balance between the two.

But more importantly, this may suggest that in times past we can only see the two "power zone" generations of a Cotton Mather and Benjamin Rush, the hero and the nomad, while an unseen "Gray Champion" plays a very minor role. Thus FDR may very well have been a pragmatic nomad himself.

One further thing to keep in mind; when considering this "future is now," those two generations who made it happen are either pleased or ultimately disappointed. This is where the next generation plays a crucial role like the Boom did back in the seventies. They did not make it the future happen, and they too were ultimately divided as to why it all ended the way it did. Their role of idealists is that they were children when society was looking forward, and they will always carry a longing for those "Happy Days." This is what they pass on to the next generations, if the cycle is to move forward again.

To determine if four archetypes can fit into three phases of life, we must not forget that the early saeculae were substantially longer.

To determine if four archetypes can fit into three phases of life, we must not forget that the early saeculae were substantially longer.

Cars move so much faster than horses do.

I guess my main point is fours company, fives a crowd. You just can't have five generations playing this game, it ain't gonna work. :wink:

Cars move so much faster than horses do.

I guess my main point is fours company, fives a crowd. You just can't have five generations playing this game, it ain't gonna work. :wink:

Here one may speculate about the relationships between elder and coming-of-age generations of the same archetype.

HIGH

Adaptive
Idealist (alienated)
Nomad
Civic
Adaptive
Child-Idealist

Strauss & Howe wrote that the Adaptive archetype is the one that lives the most comfortably in relation to younger generations.

Awakening

Idealist
Nomad (?)
Civic
Adaptive
Idealist
Child-Nomad

Strauss & Howe actually speculated on the relationship between old-old Boomers and coming-of-age New Idealists. Because of the Civil War Anomaly there was some interaction between old Transcendentals and young Missionaries.

As for adult Nomad generation, would they tend to be reclusive? The Nomad's archetypal contribution of pragmatism is deemed stodgy and old fashioned. One thing-it has been noted that old Nomads get along better with coming-of-age Idealists than do the besieged Civics.


Unraveling

Though they had some politicians in office, the G.I. post-elders participated little in the larger society. One speculation by Strauss & Howe-that G.I.s might help raise Millenials-appears not to have happened.

Nomad
Civic (alienated)
Adaptive
Idealist
Nomad
Child-Civic


CRISIS

Civic
Adaptive
Idealist
Nomad
Civic
Child-Adaptive

Here one may speculate about the relationships between elder and coming-of-age generations of the same archetype.

HIGH

Adaptive
Idealist (alienated)
Nomad
Civic
Adaptive
Child-Idealist

Strauss & Howe wrote that the Adaptive archetype is the one that lives the most comfortably in relation to younger generations.

Awakening

Idealist
Nomad (?)
Civic
Adaptive
Idealist
Child-Nomad

Strauss & Howe actually speculated on the relationship between old-old Boomers and coming-of-age New Idealists. Because of the Civil War Anomaly there was some interaction between old Transcendentals and young Missionaries.

As for adult Nomad generation, would they tend to be reclusive? The Nomad's archetypal contribution of pragmatism is deemed stodgy and old fashioned. One thing-it has been noted that old Nomads get along better with coming-of-age Idealists than do the besieged Civics.


Unraveling

Though they had some politicians in office, the G.I. post-elders participated little in the larger society. One speculation by Strauss & Howe-that G.I.s might help raise Millenials-appears not to have happened.

Nomad
Civic (alienated)
Adaptive
Idealist
Nomad
Child-Civic


CRISIS

Civic
Adaptive
Idealist
Nomad
Civic
Child-Adaptive

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

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.

What you need to show is how a four phase model can produce long generations. It's not really three phases, it's still four, just one of the phases (elderhood) is vacant.

S&H have a role played by elders. But this role was not played in the past because the elder slot was empty (it still existed though). For example, prophets still occupied the elder slot during Crises, they simply did not play the GC role. The challenge is to modifiy the S&H mechanism to eliminate any role played by elders and see if you can get it to work.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

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.

What you need to show is how a four phase model can produce long generations. It's not really three phases, it's still four, just one of the phases (elderhood) is vacant.

S&H have a role played by elders. But this role was not played in the past because the elder slot was empty (it still existed though). For example, prophets still occupied the elder slot during Crises, they simply did not play the GC role. The challenge is to modifiy the S&H mechanism to eliminate any role played by elders and see if you can get it to work.

Originally Posted by David Krein

WJB - FWIW, Spartans finished their "basic training" at age 20 when they became full-fledged members of the army. They, however, did not become adults, with full marriage rights, until age 30, when they became voting members of the Apella. On the other hand, the Gerousia, except for the 2 Kings, was restricted to men aged 60 and over. Make of this what you will.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

Thanks Dave.

The 20 for military and 30 for full social acceptance seems to be a common theme in premodernity. I don't know what to make of the 60 though.

Originally Posted by David Krein

WJB - FWIW, Spartans finished their "basic training" at age 20 when they became full-fledged members of the army. They, however, did not become adults, with full marriage rights, until age 30, when they became voting members of the Apella. On the other hand, the Gerousia, except for the 2 Kings, was restricted to men aged 60 and over. Make of this what you will.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

Thanks Dave.

The 20 for military and 30 for full social acceptance seems to be a common theme in premodernity. I don't know what to make of the 60 though.

HIGH

Civic
Adaptive
Idealist (alienated)
Nomad
Civic
Adaptive
Child-Idealist


AWAKENING

Adaptive
Idealist
Nomad (?)
Civic
Adaptive
Idealist
Child-Nomad

UNRAVELING

Idealist
Nomad
Civic (alienated)
Adaptive
Idealist
Nomad
Child-Civic

CRISIS

Nomad
Civic
Adaptive
Idealist
Nomad
Civic
Child-Adaptive

HIGH

Civic
Adaptive
Idealist (alienated)
Nomad
Civic
Adaptive
Child-Idealist


AWAKENING

Adaptive
Idealist
Nomad (?)
Civic
Adaptive
Idealist
Child-Nomad

UNRAVELING

Idealist
Nomad
Civic (alienated)
Adaptive
Idealist
Nomad
Child-Civic

CRISIS

Nomad
Civic
Adaptive
Idealist
Nomad
Civic
Child-Adaptive

Originally Posted by Marc S Lamb

Cars move so much faster than horses do.

I guess my main point is fours company, fives a crowd. You just can't have five generations playing this game, it ain't gonna work. :wink:

Agreed.

Under my proposed paradigm, Saeculum II is in the process of entering a period of instability where a fifth cylinder (post-elderhood) will begin firing, creating dissonance. What's more, the fourth cylinder (elderhood) has already begun to fire more strongly than the engine has been designed for, and that should grow worse too.

Artists hanging on in a 4T -- Prophets hanging on in a 1T -- Nomads hanging on in a 2T -- what kind of mayhem could this create?

Or is dissonace the right concept? Could it instead de-intensify the saeculum?

Originally Posted by Marc S Lamb

Cars move so much faster than horses do.

I guess my main point is fours company, fives a crowd. You just can't have five generations playing this game, it ain't gonna work. :wink:

Agreed.

Under my proposed paradigm, Saeculum II is in the process of entering a period of instability where a fifth cylinder (post-elderhood) will begin firing, creating dissonance. What's more, the fourth cylinder (elderhood) has already begun to fire more strongly than the engine has been designed for, and that should grow worse too.

Artists hanging on in a 4T -- Prophets hanging on in a 1T -- Nomads hanging on in a 2T -- what kind of mayhem could this create?

Or is dissonace the right concept? Could it instead de-intensify the saeculum?