Originally Posted by Marc S Lamb

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I wasn't addressing you, I think you are doing a good job

That was pretty obvious.

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But I feel like I'm treading in Mr. Alexander's territory, so-to-speak, and was not sure how good a job I am doing.

And BTW, though we may be in a particularly slow 4T opening cascade, I side with you on the skeptical side on whether the REAL THING has actually presented itself yet. If I'm right, when it comes it will be one hell of a ride.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I wonder a bit first about your 3-gen lineups. As I understand S&H and turnings, a 1T is what it is because prophets are absent (too old or too young), 2Ts are what they are because Nomads are absent, 3Ts because Heroes are absent, and 4Ts what they are because Artists are absent. That makes a lot of sense. So shouldn't the line-ups in pre-modernity be:

1T: Nomad elders, Heroes in mid-life, Artists in youth
2T: Hero elders, Artists in midlife, Prophets in youth
3T: Artist elders, Prophets in mid-life, Nomads in youth
4T: Prophet elders, Nomads in mid-life, Artists in youth.

If this were the line-up, you could keep virtually everything the same, since the same archetype is absent. It is only a question of being in the crib or rocking chair in modern saecula, vs. not there at all in pre-modern saecula.

I see your point. But my take is that any turning's "line-up" (constellation) is only achieved at the end of a turning. The whole rest of the turning is about the various life phases being filled by the archetypal generations in question. During a 1T Prophets are being born and raised, not Artists.

By my 3 phase saecular mode (i.e., "Saeculum I") the Artists would be entering and filling the "Primacy" phase and Heroes would be entering the third, Elderhood phase during a 1T. Then, come the beginning of the 2T, Prophets (as they come fully of age and enter Primacy) would begin rebelling against the stifling communitarianism of their Artist and Hero elders, yet continue the emphasis on subjectivity (spiritualism) that they would share their next-elders, the Artists, but not their two-apart elders, the Heroes.

One thing you have pointed out that I did not fully notice is that in my proposed trilogical dynamic the "missing" archetype is different in each of the turnings than from the tetralogical form. In the trilogical 1T it is the Nomad that is utterly missing by the end of the turning. In the tetralogical 1T it is the Prophet that is missing, yet not as "utterly". There is still always some Prophet around. Remember, the Childhood phase is being filled (theoretically) with Prophets at the same pace that they are exiting the Elderhood phase in the standard S&H model. But there is still a significant omission in the dynamic.

I wonder how this differential omittance would affect the turnings. I believe it would tie in with an observation I made in my original post. In the standard model (Saeculum II) the Hero archetype falls during a 2T climax and passes in the 3T. In the trilogical model, the Hero falls at the outset and passes during the 2T. Likewise, a Prophet archetype's Jeremiadic vision's peak inspiration occurs at the outset of a 4T, not at the 4T climax.

All of this coupled with your observation make for interesting implications about how Saeculum I turnings may have had different characteristics compared to Saeculum II's.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The question is, is that how it was historically? I gather you are saying no. Certainly not in the saeculum in which the USA was founded, if George Washington was a nomad.

But I look at that saeculum as the first modern one. Being only 92 years, with a few adjusted dates it fits into the 84-year Uranus cycle that is consistent for peak times of Crisis: 1692, 1776, 1860, 1944. Ben Franklin was still around as a prophet, and Washington was certainly a Nomad, not a Prophet. He was not the inspiration of what happened; just the manager. I wonder if before this saeculum began, whether in fact in your 3-gen mode, it wasn't as I suggested. I dunno; perhaps not.

I submit that the saecula from the Rennaisance to the Civil War were Saeculum I under stress, creating an unstable hybrid of type 1 and type 2. In these the Prophet came closer and closer to a GC role. Indeed, in the American Revolution/Constitutional Crisis Sam Adams and esp. Ben Franklin came close to GC roles, but it is Washington that history will remember as the "Father of our country". Strange thing to say of a Nomad by our standards today, eh? Abraham Lincoln may have actually been the first Prophet GC in Anglo-American history.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If not, though, it seems to me the question still holds as you raised it. How would pre-modern turnings be what they are? That is, if you have an entirely different kind of youth generation involved rebelling against its elders, and an entirely different elder gen maintaining the status quo? What you have instead, in your line-up, is the mid-lifers entirely in charge of the direction of the turning, with younger and older gens having virtually no influence, and no rebellions going on. That may be the fact, and maybe that's how it worked. I'm not sure how generational dynamics could really be at work in such a one-generation dominant society, though.

The trilogical model does indeed call out for a rebellion. The generation entering Primacy rebels against the characteristic that has prevailed in the two previous generations. It just so happens that the generation in Primacy that raised them subconciously and unwittingly set the table for such a rebellion, but so it goes. Indeed, in the standard model, for example, GI's instilled "critical thinking" and such in youthful Boomers and then were somehow surprised when your bunch started screaming "burn, baby, burn". No, rebellion is part and parcel of my trilogical model just as it is in the standard tetralogical one.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

My suspicion has been this: that pre-modern saecula only apply to upper classes. Lower classes, the vast majority, continued without any saecula, since change did not occur and young people did not rebel against their parents or their place in society, and did not move. They did not participate in the great events; only sometimes suffered the results. Only upper classes made history. Saeculum II is what it is, a cycle of change and rebellion affecting all of society more swiftly, because the masses of people have been brought into the cycle. In the USA, the Civil War was the crucial period in which this happened, but it started in the Revolution.

This does not solve the problem of a one-generational dynamic among upper classes, however.

I am not so sure that the masses were not involved in Saeculum I. They still had the power to "make history" by how they reacted en masse to events. If a Crisis famine produced a leader who acted like Mike Alexander's Colonel Tiy of Battlestar Galactica fame, the peasants would probably have killed him. The 4T Crisis famine called for action. It was the 2T Awakening famine that called for appeals to God.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I gather that in the Civil War anomaly, the shortening of the youth phase meant squeezing out the heroes, creating an adjustment of the 3-phase premodern to the 4-phase modern saeculum. I have argued that the Civil War was in effect the conflict between the pre-modern and modern societies. The modern won (at least until today, when the pre-modern seems to be making a comeback in the "red zone").

Right now I see the loss of that cycle's Hero archetype as the result of a hiccup that occurred during the transition from Type 1 to Type 2.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't know if there is any evidence that Saeculum I morphs into a faster II at times of stress. I doubt it; that would mean some shortened turnings in Greco-Roman and Renaissance periods. You'd need to demonstrate this.

I was just musing. I was trying to explain how S&H so convincingly found a tetralogical dynamic at work in ancient stories/histories. The other posibility I explored was that archetypal forms were mythographically distilled into a four part story since the generational archetypes, of which there are unavoidably four, were easier to convey that way.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

About 5 or more generations: I have suggested that 5 gens could end the cycle entirely, or at least moderate it. That would be a good thing. The cycle is dysfunctional. It happens because of a lack of perspective, causing extreme shifts in mood and priorities. The main dysfunction is Cartesian (Descartes is indeed seen as the godfather of modern culture by many). Spiritual and Secular pursuits have been divorced from each other, and so we shift violently from Awakening to Crisis.

We would benefit by having older generations around longer to give us that perspective, and younger ones making their presence felt earlier to give us new stimulus. Change might be slower with more older people around, giving us the wisdom of the previous cycle. But perhaps that is what we need. Modern life is too stressful, and the post-modern and new age ideal has been to slow things down and lessen stress. Also the integration of Spiritual and Secular. Change could come through other ways besides rebellion, repression and conflict. The way things are now, traditions have no time to develop, and people shift from one thing to another so fast that our society is superficial to an amazing degree. We need more grounding, more real creative vision, and less mere novelty. Nothing truly creative can emerge without awareness of the past; otherwise things just repeat.

Thus a faster saeculum may be leading to one with less extreme shifts and smoother changes, with less resistance to them on the one hand, and more respect for tradition and depth of experience on the other.

An interesting astrological footnote. Trines (3-part cyclic rhythm) are harmonious, Squares (4-part rhythms) are conflicting, Quintiles (5-part) are creative.

I have postulated that a five or six phase saeculum (Saeculum III?) would seemingly moderate, but then again it could just be a royal mess.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I wonder a bit first about your 3-gen lineups. As I understand S&H and turnings, a 1T is what it is because prophets are absent (too old or too young), 2Ts are what they are because Nomads are absent, 3Ts because Heroes are absent, and 4Ts what they are because Artists are absent. That makes a lot of sense. So shouldn't the line-ups in pre-modernity be:

1T: Nomad elders, Heroes in mid-life, Artists in youth
2T: Hero elders, Artists in midlife, Prophets in youth
3T: Artist elders, Prophets in mid-life, Nomads in youth
4T: Prophet elders, Nomads in mid-life, Artists in youth.

If this were the line-up, you could keep virtually everything the same, since the same archetype is absent. It is only a question of being in the crib or rocking chair in modern saecula, vs. not there at all in pre-modern saecula.

I see your point. But my take is that any turning's "line-up" (constellation) is only achieved at the end of a turning. The whole rest of the turning is about the various life phases being filled by the archetypal generations in question. During a 1T Prophets are being born and raised, not Artists.

By my 3 phase saecular mode (i.e., "Saeculum I") the Artists would be entering and filling the "Primacy" phase and Heroes would be entering the third, Elderhood phase during a 1T. Then, come the beginning of the 2T, Prophets (as they come fully of age and enter Primacy) would begin rebelling against the stifling communitarianism of their Artist and Hero elders, yet continue the emphasis on subjectivity (spiritualism) that they would share their next-elders, the Artists, but not their two-apart elders, the Heroes.

One thing you have pointed out that I did not fully notice is that in my proposed trilogical dynamic the "missing" archetype is different in each of the turnings than from the tetralogical form. In the trilogical 1T it is the Nomad that is utterly missing by the end of the turning. In the tetralogical 1T it is the Prophet that is missing, yet not as "utterly". There is still always some Prophet around. Remember, the Childhood phase is being filled (theoretically) with Prophets at the same pace that they are exiting the Elderhood phase in the standard S&H model. But there is still a significant omission in the dynamic.

I wonder how this differential omittance would affect the turnings. I believe it would tie in with an observation I made in my original post. In the standard model (Saeculum II) the Hero archetype falls during a 2T climax and passes in the 3T. In the trilogical model, the Hero falls at the outset and passes during the 2T. Likewise, a Prophet archetype's Jeremiadic vision's peak inspiration occurs at the outset of a 4T, not at the 4T climax.

All of this coupled with your observation make for interesting implications about how Saeculum I turnings may have had different characteristics compared to Saeculum II's.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The question is, is that how it was historically? I gather you are saying no. Certainly not in the saeculum in which the USA was founded, if George Washington was a nomad.

But I look at that saeculum as the first modern one. Being only 92 years, with a few adjusted dates it fits into the 84-year Uranus cycle that is consistent for peak times of Crisis: 1692, 1776, 1860, 1944. Ben Franklin was still around as a prophet, and Washington was certainly a Nomad, not a Prophet. He was not the inspiration of what happened; just the manager. I wonder if before this saeculum began, whether in fact in your 3-gen mode, it wasn't as I suggested. I dunno; perhaps not.

I submit that the saecula from the Rennaisance to the Civil War were Saeculum I under stress, creating an unstable hybrid of type 1 and type 2. In these the Prophet came closer and closer to a GC role. Indeed, in the American Revolution/Constitutional Crisis Sam Adams and esp. Ben Franklin came close to GC roles, but it is Washington that history will remember as the "Father of our country". Strange thing to say of a Nomad by our standards today, eh? Abraham Lincoln may have actually been the first Prophet GC in Anglo-American history.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If not, though, it seems to me the question still holds as you raised it. How would pre-modern turnings be what they are? That is, if you have an entirely different kind of youth generation involved rebelling against its elders, and an entirely different elder gen maintaining the status quo? What you have instead, in your line-up, is the mid-lifers entirely in charge of the direction of the turning, with younger and older gens having virtually no influence, and no rebellions going on. That may be the fact, and maybe that's how it worked. I'm not sure how generational dynamics could really be at work in such a one-generation dominant society, though.

The trilogical model does indeed call out for a rebellion. The generation entering Primacy rebels against the characteristic that has prevailed in the two previous generations. It just so happens that the generation in Primacy that raised them subconciously and unwittingly set the table for such a rebellion, but so it goes. Indeed, in the standard model, for example, GI's instilled "critical thinking" and such in youthful Boomers and then were somehow surprised when your bunch started screaming "burn, baby, burn". No, rebellion is part and parcel of my trilogical model just as it is in the standard tetralogical one.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

My suspicion has been this: that pre-modern saecula only apply to upper classes. Lower classes, the vast majority, continued without any saecula, since change did not occur and young people did not rebel against their parents or their place in society, and did not move. They did not participate in the great events; only sometimes suffered the results. Only upper classes made history. Saeculum II is what it is, a cycle of change and rebellion affecting all of society more swiftly, because the masses of people have been brought into the cycle. In the USA, the Civil War was the crucial period in which this happened, but it started in the Revolution.

This does not solve the problem of a one-generational dynamic among upper classes, however.

I am not so sure that the masses were not involved in Saeculum I. They still had the power to "make history" by how they reacted en masse to events. If a Crisis famine produced a leader who acted like Mike Alexander's Colonel Tiy of Battlestar Galactica fame, the peasants would probably have killed him. The 4T Crisis famine called for action. It was the 2T Awakening famine that called for appeals to God.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I gather that in the Civil War anomaly, the shortening of the youth phase meant squeezing out the heroes, creating an adjustment of the 3-phase premodern to the 4-phase modern saeculum. I have argued that the Civil War was in effect the conflict between the pre-modern and modern societies. The modern won (at least until today, when the pre-modern seems to be making a comeback in the "red zone").

Right now I see the loss of that cycle's Hero archetype as the result of a hiccup that occurred during the transition from Type 1 to Type 2.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't know if there is any evidence that Saeculum I morphs into a faster II at times of stress. I doubt it; that would mean some shortened turnings in Greco-Roman and Renaissance periods. You'd need to demonstrate this.

I was just musing. I was trying to explain how S&H so convincingly found a tetralogical dynamic at work in ancient stories/histories. The other posibility I explored was that archetypal forms were mythographically distilled into a four part story since the generational archetypes, of which there are unavoidably four, were easier to convey that way.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

About 5 or more generations: I have suggested that 5 gens could end the cycle entirely, or at least moderate it. That would be a good thing. The cycle is dysfunctional. It happens because of a lack of perspective, causing extreme shifts in mood and priorities. The main dysfunction is Cartesian (Descartes is indeed seen as the godfather of modern culture by many). Spiritual and Secular pursuits have been divorced from each other, and so we shift violently from Awakening to Crisis.

We would benefit by having older generations around longer to give us that perspective, and younger ones making their presence felt earlier to give us new stimulus. Change might be slower with more older people around, giving us the wisdom of the previous cycle. But perhaps that is what we need. Modern life is too stressful, and the post-modern and new age ideal has been to slow things down and lessen stress. Also the integration of Spiritual and Secular. Change could come through other ways besides rebellion, repression and conflict. The way things are now, traditions have no time to develop, and people shift from one thing to another so fast that our society is superficial to an amazing degree. We need more grounding, more real creative vision, and less mere novelty. Nothing truly creative can emerge without awareness of the past; otherwise things just repeat.

Thus a faster saeculum may be leading to one with less extreme shifts and smoother changes, with less resistance to them on the one hand, and more respect for tradition and depth of experience on the other.

An interesting astrological footnote. Trines (3-part cyclic rhythm) are harmonious, Squares (4-part rhythms) are conflicting, Quintiles (5-part) are creative.

I have postulated that a five or six phase saeculum (Saeculum III?) would seemingly moderate, but then again it could just be a royal mess.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Please clarify by what you mean by "archetype prime."

I was using "prime" in the way it is used in a mathematical chart where X' (i.e., "X prime") is related to yet different from X.

So like in your examples, when you have a fifth life phase and therefore two generations of the same archetype (let's say Heroes in this cycle) we could call the GI's a Hero generation, and the Millenials Hero' (hero prime) when discussing how they interact together in a dynamic.

We could just as easily say "Secondary Heroes" or something. I was just looking for some kind of shorthand.

Hey, I love your musings on the fifth generation problem. Could you explore it further??

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Please clarify by what you mean by "archetype prime."

I was using "prime" in the way it is used in a mathematical chart where X' (i.e., "X prime") is related to yet different from X.

So like in your examples, when you have a fifth life phase and therefore two generations of the same archetype (let's say Heroes in this cycle) we could call the GI's a Hero generation, and the Millenials Hero' (hero prime) when discussing how they interact together in a dynamic.

We could just as easily say "Secondary Heroes" or something. I was just looking for some kind of shorthand.

Hey, I love your musings on the fifth generation problem. Could you explore it further??

Excellent point about a turning mood being caused by the effective absence of an archetype. That explains why we could have an Unraveling with a sizable number of G.I.s around. As a group the G.I.s opted out of the larger society. Actually, Strause & Howe had a table in Generations which implies that.

The effective absence of an archetype might permit the general pattern of turnings to continue with a "fifth wheel" generation-provided that that generation opts out of the larger society. This works for post-elder Civics & Idealists, perhaps also for post-elder Nomads. I suspect that post-elder Adaptives will be shoved out of the way by a society gripped by Crisis urgency.

If this should prove to be the pattern for "fifth wheel" generations, perhaps a hexalogic saeculum will work if the above generations still opt out during the respective turnings.

For example, imagine a substantial number of Silents being somewhat active during the next High while Boomers opt out. (Of course, some Transcendentals took an interest in the Missionary Awakening-perhaps Xers will retire while Boomers will come out of remission during the next Awakening).

Perhaps each turning will then get a double dose of a particular archetype-the coming-of-age-generation and an old one coming out of remission. Perhaps this would work if the older genration's contribution was minor.

I wonder if the turnings would work even with a septimal saeculum. For example, what if both the Missionaries and the Progressives had been somewhat active during the Boom Awakening?

With eight generations-would the dormant archetype still be dormant?

Excellent point about traditions not having enough time to form.

Excellent point about a turning mood being caused by the effective absence of an archetype. That explains why we could have an Unraveling with a sizable number of G.I.s around. As a group the G.I.s opted out of the larger society. Actually, Strause & Howe had a table in Generations which implies that.

The effective absence of an archetype might permit the general pattern of turnings to continue with a "fifth wheel" generation-provided that that generation opts out of the larger society. This works for post-elder Civics & Idealists, perhaps also for post-elder Nomads. I suspect that post-elder Adaptives will be shoved out of the way by a society gripped by Crisis urgency.

If this should prove to be the pattern for "fifth wheel" generations, perhaps a hexalogic saeculum will work if the above generations still opt out during the respective turnings.

For example, imagine a substantial number of Silents being somewhat active during the next High while Boomers opt out. (Of course, some Transcendentals took an interest in the Missionary Awakening-perhaps Xers will retire while Boomers will come out of remission during the next Awakening).

Perhaps each turning will then get a double dose of a particular archetype-the coming-of-age-generation and an old one coming out of remission. Perhaps this would work if the older genration's contribution was minor.

I wonder if the turnings would work even with a septimal saeculum. For example, what if both the Missionaries and the Progressives had been somewhat active during the Boom Awakening?

With eight generations-would the dormant archetype still be dormant?

Excellent point about traditions not having enough time to form.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Two, even if you are highly skeptical (which is quite fine -- this whole three phase thing is something of a lark) please employ your imagination as to how this would/did work in premodernity. Assume that the saeculum was in action, did interact with history, yet had 27 year generations.

The problem is Crises or Heroes, depending on how you look at it. Let's start with a presaecular population and throw a a series of famines and plagues at them instead of a war. Now there is no "enemy" against which the society can organize. They are suffering from "Acts of God". The logical approach is prayer and self-examination. Why is this happening? Are we being punished? What can we do about it? A number of approaches make sense. One is to intensify existing religious practicies by becomeing more devout. Another is to abandon current practices as corrupt or alienated from the true spirit of God and seek new, more authentic approaches to God. For example, can you find anywhere in Scripture where it says you can buy your way into heaven (indulgences)? Or is this a scam? Martin Luther obviously thought it was a scam.

In other words, the logical response of a pre-saecular population would be to fall into an Awakening. [Note: Ken Horner believes that the Black Death was an Awakening, and has pointed out that what I just wrote supports his assessment. I think it was a Crisis, because I don't believe the European population in 1347 was presaecular].

So we have an Awakening and three phases of life (I have no problem at all with your three phases, I completely agree that the age of transition from youth to full adulthood was older in the past). During this awakening, the adults would be wrangling over religion and neglecting the kids--thus producing Nomads in the youth phase. Assuming the older generation was more conservative I would expect most of the advocates for change ("New Light") would be in the adult phase and so would be Prophets. The Elders would unspecified traditionalists. So we have created two gens.

We shift to the next turning when the plagues and famines are over. We now see Prohets moving into elderhood during this time and gaining control of society's institutions. This is the Unraveling period, and according to S&H, should be a time of culture wars. In this example, culture wars translate to religious wars and we should see a continuation of the strum and drang from the Awakeing, except now its political rather than environmental. Child nurture tightens as the different camps circle the wagons; nobody is engaging in self examination anymore. Conflict eventually stops simply because both sides are exhausted and there is an uneasy truce. Also pragmatic Nomads who have less stake in the religious disputes are moving into maturity.

As soon as both sides collect their resources there will be another conflict, this time a full scale Civil War to the death, or so the aging prophets believe. However by the time the unraveling ends and the two sides are ready to go at it, the Prophets are gone. They aren't there to act as Grey Champions. And the Nomads aren't really interested in starting anything--this is not their saecular role (child nurture is). If they were really interested, then they would have been more active in the unraveling conflict and less nurturing of their kids, and the next gen would be Nomads.

So you don't get a Crisis and you don't forge Heroes out of the new generation. You might get another Awakening, in which the new nutured generations attacks the Prophet built legacy from the unraveling. But the Nomads might tamp things down so you have to wait for another turning for them to die out and then you get another Awakening for a three stroke cycle with every third turning an Awakening. It would be a saeculum sort of like S&H's Civil War saeculum, devoid of Heroes (according to S&H).

If you start the cycle with a war and so a Crisis turning, you do manufacture Heroes in adulthood and Artists in youth. And the next turning might very well produce a High-like situation, which breeds Prophets. [Any spoiled generation has Prophet potential, just as any neglected generation has Nomad potential.] And I can even see the Prophets stir up trouble (which is their saecular function after all) in the form of an Awakening in the turning after that. And this awakening will produce Nomads and Prophets, as I described above. But when you get to the Unraveling, you can the same problem. The Prophets aren't there to get the Crisis going. Hence there is no Crisis.

Recall that my solution had social moments externally generated. Thus a social moment is forced on the adult population of Nomads and younger "neutrals". Suppose we have the same set of famines and plagues that in the presaecular population produced an Awakening. What happens now?

The presence of a generation (Nomads) disinclined towards religious interpretations of problems (having experienced the shit end of an Awakening in their childhood) prevents this externally-imposed social moment from become an Awakening. Instead it become a Crisis by default. This Crisis then manufactures Heroes, and we start all over again.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Two, even if you are highly skeptical (which is quite fine -- this whole three phase thing is something of a lark) please employ your imagination as to how this would/did work in premodernity. Assume that the saeculum was in action, did interact with history, yet had 27 year generations.

The problem is Crises or Heroes, depending on how you look at it. Let's start with a presaecular population and throw a a series of famines and plagues at them instead of a war. Now there is no "enemy" against which the society can organize. They are suffering from "Acts of God". The logical approach is prayer and self-examination. Why is this happening? Are we being punished? What can we do about it? A number of approaches make sense. One is to intensify existing religious practicies by becomeing more devout. Another is to abandon current practices as corrupt or alienated from the true spirit of God and seek new, more authentic approaches to God. For example, can you find anywhere in Scripture where it says you can buy your way into heaven (indulgences)? Or is this a scam? Martin Luther obviously thought it was a scam.

In other words, the logical response of a pre-saecular population would be to fall into an Awakening. [Note: Ken Horner believes that the Black Death was an Awakening, and has pointed out that what I just wrote supports his assessment. I think it was a Crisis, because I don't believe the European population in 1347 was presaecular].

So we have an Awakening and three phases of life (I have no problem at all with your three phases, I completely agree that the age of transition from youth to full adulthood was older in the past). During this awakening, the adults would be wrangling over religion and neglecting the kids--thus producing Nomads in the youth phase. Assuming the older generation was more conservative I would expect most of the advocates for change ("New Light") would be in the adult phase and so would be Prophets. The Elders would unspecified traditionalists. So we have created two gens.

We shift to the next turning when the plagues and famines are over. We now see Prohets moving into elderhood during this time and gaining control of society's institutions. This is the Unraveling period, and according to S&H, should be a time of culture wars. In this example, culture wars translate to religious wars and we should see a continuation of the strum and drang from the Awakeing, except now its political rather than environmental. Child nurture tightens as the different camps circle the wagons; nobody is engaging in self examination anymore. Conflict eventually stops simply because both sides are exhausted and there is an uneasy truce. Also pragmatic Nomads who have less stake in the religious disputes are moving into maturity.

As soon as both sides collect their resources there will be another conflict, this time a full scale Civil War to the death, or so the aging prophets believe. However by the time the unraveling ends and the two sides are ready to go at it, the Prophets are gone. They aren't there to act as Grey Champions. And the Nomads aren't really interested in starting anything--this is not their saecular role (child nurture is). If they were really interested, then they would have been more active in the unraveling conflict and less nurturing of their kids, and the next gen would be Nomads.

So you don't get a Crisis and you don't forge Heroes out of the new generation. You might get another Awakening, in which the new nutured generations attacks the Prophet built legacy from the unraveling. But the Nomads might tamp things down so you have to wait for another turning for them to die out and then you get another Awakening for a three stroke cycle with every third turning an Awakening. It would be a saeculum sort of like S&H's Civil War saeculum, devoid of Heroes (according to S&H).

If you start the cycle with a war and so a Crisis turning, you do manufacture Heroes in adulthood and Artists in youth. And the next turning might very well produce a High-like situation, which breeds Prophets. [Any spoiled generation has Prophet potential, just as any neglected generation has Nomad potential.] And I can even see the Prophets stir up trouble (which is their saecular function after all) in the form of an Awakening in the turning after that. And this awakening will produce Nomads and Prophets, as I described above. But when you get to the Unraveling, you can the same problem. The Prophets aren't there to get the Crisis going. Hence there is no Crisis.

Recall that my solution had social moments externally generated. Thus a social moment is forced on the adult population of Nomads and younger "neutrals". Suppose we have the same set of famines and plagues that in the presaecular population produced an Awakening. What happens now?

The presence of a generation (Nomads) disinclined towards religious interpretations of problems (having experienced the shit end of an Awakening in their childhood) prevents this externally-imposed social moment from become an Awakening. Instead it become a Crisis by default. This Crisis then manufactures Heroes, and we start all over again.

Let's lay it out.

In a three-phase old saeculum you have:

1T: Prophets as adored kids, artists as active conforming young adults, heroes as leading "lets build it" elders. Nomads are completely out of the picture.

2T: Nomads as neglected kids, prophets as hell-raising young adults, artists as wishy-washy leaders, no heroes.

3T: Heroes as scheduled kids, nomads as increasingly protective young adults, prophets as prophetic leaders, no artists.

4T: Artists as scared kids, heroes as "lets get it done" adults, nomads as leaders. Hmmm. I see the problem.

Let's lay it out.

In a three-phase old saeculum you have:

1T: Prophets as adored kids, artists as active conforming young adults, heroes as leading "lets build it" elders. Nomads are completely out of the picture.

2T: Nomads as neglected kids, prophets as hell-raising young adults, artists as wishy-washy leaders, no heroes.

3T: Heroes as scheduled kids, nomads as increasingly protective young adults, prophets as prophetic leaders, no artists.

4T: Artists as scared kids, heroes as "lets get it done" adults, nomads as leaders. Hmmm. I see the problem.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Let's lay it out.

In a three-phase old saeculum you have:

1T: Prophets as adored kids, artists as active conforming young adults, heroes as leading "lets build it" elders. Nomads are completely out of the picture.

2T: Nomads as neglected kids, prophets as hell-raising young adults, artists as wishy-washy leaders, no heroes.

3T: Heroes as scheduled kids, nomads as increasingly protective young adults, prophets as prophetic leaders, no artists.

4T: Artists as scared kids, heroes as "lets get it done" adults, nomads as leaders. Hmmm. I see the problem.

Yes. Notice how the 4T constellation seems to be tailor-made for stability.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Let's lay it out.

In a three-phase old saeculum you have:

1T: Prophets as adored kids, artists as active conforming young adults, heroes as leading "lets build it" elders. Nomads are completely out of the picture.

2T: Nomads as neglected kids, prophets as hell-raising young adults, artists as wishy-washy leaders, no heroes.

3T: Heroes as scheduled kids, nomads as increasingly protective young adults, prophets as prophetic leaders, no artists.

4T: Artists as scared kids, heroes as "lets get it done" adults, nomads as leaders. Hmmm. I see the problem.

Yes. Notice how the 4T constellation seems to be tailor-made for stability.

I've been sort of lurking on this thread. Once again, though, I don't see any reason presented here to doubt my own model of the saeculum as caused by an interaction between technological (or other material) change and human conservatism. Material change renders values and institutions obsolete and requires that they be updated, but human conservatism resists changing values and institutions, requiring a turnover of generations before progress can be made, and rendering the transition more traumatic than it would be otherwise.

Think of it as increasing pressure applied to an intermittently resistant material. As the values or institutions become more and more obsolete, the pressure increases; as existing generations age and a new one comes of age, the resistance declines; at some point the two lines cross and a social moment occurs. The social moments oscillate between challenges to values and challenges to institutions because different kinds of upheaval and response are required for each, and whichever one was last updated is least obsolete at any given time.

In earlier saeculae, the pace of technological change was slower and so the pressure did not build as quickly. Social moments took longer to materialize. In today's saeculum, the pace of change is faster, pressure increases more quickly, and social moments materialize more promptly.

The authors were somewhat imprecise, and in modern times incorrect, in calling the saeculum the length of a "long human life." I prefer thinking of it as a cycle of four Turnings, whatever its length.

I think there is probably a limit to how short a saeculum can be, and it is possible we have reached that limit, though I don't know this. A turnover of generations must occur in sufficient numbers to spark a social moment. That probably creates a ratchet effect. But if so, it suggests that the intensity of social moments might be increasing from here on while the frequency holds steady.

I've been sort of lurking on this thread. Once again, though, I don't see any reason presented here to doubt my own model of the saeculum as caused by an interaction between technological (or other material) change and human conservatism. Material change renders values and institutions obsolete and requires that they be updated, but human conservatism resists changing values and institutions, requiring a turnover of generations before progress can be made, and rendering the transition more traumatic than it would be otherwise.

Think of it as increasing pressure applied to an intermittently resistant material. As the values or institutions become more and more obsolete, the pressure increases; as existing generations age and a new one comes of age, the resistance declines; at some point the two lines cross and a social moment occurs. The social moments oscillate between challenges to values and challenges to institutions because different kinds of upheaval and response are required for each, and whichever one was last updated is least obsolete at any given time.

In earlier saeculae, the pace of technological change was slower and so the pressure did not build as quickly. Social moments took longer to materialize. In today's saeculum, the pace of change is faster, pressure increases more quickly, and social moments materialize more promptly.

The authors were somewhat imprecise, and in modern times incorrect, in calling the saeculum the length of a "long human life." I prefer thinking of it as a cycle of four Turnings, whatever its length.

I think there is probably a limit to how short a saeculum can be, and it is possible we have reached that limit, though I don't know this. A turnover of generations must occur in sufficient numbers to spark a social moment. That probably creates a ratchet effect. But if so, it suggests that the intensity of social moments might be increasing from here on while the frequency holds steady.

Okay I'm pretty excited so this might not be very organized.

I'm thinking about collective mood. If you are in a feudal society, the masses, (serfs) are bound to the land and are unable to communicate outside of their little area. That seems to make a mass collective mood very unlikely. Even a peasant revolt that spread within some geographical confine would be squashed by trained fighters from the elite. (These revolts probably couldn't get very big) So, if turnings operate by collective mood and that affects parenting style, mayhaps a lack of collective mood would lead to lack of saeculum. In a feudal society, all you have are a few powerful people fighting amongst themselves. Even the crusades were top down movements.

A main point is that a collective mood requires communication to be established. After the Roman Empire collapsed and people fell into feudalism, one of the most important things to disappear was infrastructure and means of communication. (Especially roads) So as I see it, the Saeculum is a bottom up phenomenon which cannot operate without an effective means of spreading a collective mood.

Now what happened to change things? First, the Black Death happened. Peasants began to move about, to leave their plots of land. More of a middle class also began to emerge as well as a population of people in towns. It was becoming easier to communicate with other people. Then right around the time that S&H start the saeculum, the printing press is invented. Now literate people can read new ideas to the non-literate poeple, spreading a collective mood.

What would be interesting is to see when Russia, which finally got rid of serfdom in 1863, started its first saeculum.

Sorry if this is so disjointed. Please refine away!

Okay I'm pretty excited so this might not be very organized.

I'm thinking about collective mood. If you are in a feudal society, the masses, (serfs) are bound to the land and are unable to communicate outside of their little area. That seems to make a mass collective mood very unlikely. Even a peasant revolt that spread within some geographical confine would be squashed by trained fighters from the elite. (These revolts probably couldn't get very big) So, if turnings operate by collective mood and that affects parenting style, mayhaps a lack of collective mood would lead to lack of saeculum. In a feudal society, all you have are a few powerful people fighting amongst themselves. Even the crusades were top down movements.

A main point is that a collective mood requires communication to be established. After the Roman Empire collapsed and people fell into feudalism, one of the most important things to disappear was infrastructure and means of communication. (Especially roads) So as I see it, the Saeculum is a bottom up phenomenon which cannot operate without an effective means of spreading a collective mood.

Now what happened to change things? First, the Black Death happened. Peasants began to move about, to leave their plots of land. More of a middle class also began to emerge as well as a population of people in towns. It was becoming easier to communicate with other people. Then right around the time that S&H start the saeculum, the printing press is invented. Now literate people can read new ideas to the non-literate poeple, spreading a collective mood.

What would be interesting is to see when Russia, which finally got rid of serfdom in 1863, started its first saeculum.

Sorry if this is so disjointed. Please refine away!

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

Even the crusades were top down movements.

Not all of them:
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0857642.html
http://www.ordotempli.org/the_childr...usade_1212.htm

Here are some other mass movements of ordinary people:
The Pastoureaux in 1251 and 1320.
The Flaggelants in 1260 and 1348

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

Even the crusades were top down movements.

Not all of them:
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0857642.html
http://www.ordotempli.org/the_childr...usade_1212.htm

Here are some other mass movements of ordinary people:
The Pastoureaux in 1251 and 1320.
The Flaggelants in 1260 and 1348

I am thinking in more of a macro sense. A lot of mass movements in those days were travelling bands that picked up people as they breezed through an area and didn't change the collective mood. Most of these movements are known now for their futility.

Such as the Children's Crusade and the Flagellants.

Please actually consider my idea instead of gleefully ripping it apart.

I am thinking in more of a macro sense. A lot of mass movements in those days were travelling bands that picked up people as they breezed through an area and didn't change the collective mood. Most of these movements are known now for their futility.

Such as the Children's Crusade and the Flagellants.

Please actually consider my idea instead of gleefully ripping it apart.

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

I am thinking in more of a macro sense. A lot of mass movements in those days were travelling bands that picked up people as they breezed through an area and didn't change the collective mood. Most of these movements are known now for their futility.

Such as the Children's Crusade and the Flagellants.

Please actually consider my idea instead of gleefully ripping it apart.

I was not ripping on you. Don't be so touchy! You wrote this:

If you are in a feudal society, the masses, (serfs) are bound to the land and are unable to communicate outside of their little area. That seems to make a mass collective mood very unlikely. Even a peasant revolt that spread within some geographical confine would be squashed by trained fighters from the elite. (These revolts probably couldn't get very big)

I pointed out that mass movements did happen and they did spread. Perhaps communication was a lot better than you are speculating in the High Middle Ages.

You then identify a time of potential change:

Now what happened to change things? First, the Black Death happened. Peasants began to move about, to leave their plots of land. More of a middle class also began to emerge as well as a population of people in towns.

This figure shows growth of towns in Europe.

Now before you get your shorts in a bundle, I want you to consider the timing you are assuming. The figure shows there was a growth in towns, it just happened earlier than you thought.

I argued earlier that mass movements occurred in the 12th through 15th centuries. Commnications seems to have been better that you imagined. But what about before 1100? At this time the growth in towns is still in the future. What I am saying is something like you are envisoning may well have occurred around 1100. I will point out that I have been unable to clearly identify the saeculum before 1100, although I have been able to assign a Roman Saeculum. Dave McGuiness's saeculum in the 7th through 10th centuries has super-long 33-year turnings.

There is much wierdness before 1100. Perhaps something like what you suggest happened around 1100 rather than 1350. In short, my guess is the modern saeculum in the West began with the end of the Dark Ages about a millennium ago.

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

I am thinking in more of a macro sense. A lot of mass movements in those days were travelling bands that picked up people as they breezed through an area and didn't change the collective mood. Most of these movements are known now for their futility.

Such as the Children's Crusade and the Flagellants.

Please actually consider my idea instead of gleefully ripping it apart.

I was not ripping on you. Don't be so touchy! You wrote this:

If you are in a feudal society, the masses, (serfs) are bound to the land and are unable to communicate outside of their little area. That seems to make a mass collective mood very unlikely. Even a peasant revolt that spread within some geographical confine would be squashed by trained fighters from the elite. (These revolts probably couldn't get very big)

I pointed out that mass movements did happen and they did spread. Perhaps communication was a lot better than you are speculating in the High Middle Ages.

You then identify a time of potential change:

Now what happened to change things? First, the Black Death happened. Peasants began to move about, to leave their plots of land. More of a middle class also began to emerge as well as a population of people in towns.

This figure shows growth of towns in Europe.

Now before you get your shorts in a bundle, I want you to consider the timing you are assuming. The figure shows there was a growth in towns, it just happened earlier than you thought.

I argued earlier that mass movements occurred in the 12th through 15th centuries. Commnications seems to have been better that you imagined. But what about before 1100? At this time the growth in towns is still in the future. What I am saying is something like you are envisoning may well have occurred around 1100. I will point out that I have been unable to clearly identify the saeculum before 1100, although I have been able to assign a Roman Saeculum. Dave McGuiness's saeculum in the 7th through 10th centuries has super-long 33-year turnings.

There is much wierdness before 1100. Perhaps something like what you suggest happened around 1100 rather than 1350. In short, my guess is the modern saeculum in the West began with the end of the Dark Ages about a millennium ago.

Sorry for being touchy. I just hate when ideas I work hard on are ignored or dismissed, especially ones that I think are important. (as happens sometimes on this board.) I was being paranoid. I agree with you that the phenomeon could go back that far. In fact it actually clears up a few things in my mind. The most important thing is that there were several hundred years where communication basically did not exist. Nor did the saeculum. It's possible that the Black Death cut off an emerging seculum or delayed it. What I think needs to be figured out is how long, after communication is reestablished, does it take for the saeculum to make itself known? Thanks for elaborating.

Sorry for being touchy. I just hate when ideas I work hard on are ignored or dismissed, especially ones that I think are important. (as happens sometimes on this board.) I was being paranoid. I agree with you that the phenomeon could go back that far. In fact it actually clears up a few things in my mind. The most important thing is that there were several hundred years where communication basically did not exist. Nor did the saeculum. It's possible that the Black Death cut off an emerging seculum or delayed it. What I think needs to be figured out is how long, after communication is reestablished, does it take for the saeculum to make itself known? Thanks for elaborating.