Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

First there is simply the recognized tendency for parents to try to correct "errors" committed by their parents. This creates a swing between protective and neglecting parenting styles. This would produce a two-part cycle in a primitive society with short lifespans.

I can see the two stoke cycle from nurture variation

....lifespans increased enough that significant numbers of one "austerity" generation would be around when a new "austerity" generation came into its own. Thus there would end up being alternating types of each generation type resulting in four generation types rather than two.

I don't see how four types of generations simply as a consequence of longer lifespan. Why can't the two-part cycle simply continue?

Also the generations would slightly pre-date the turnings since as a new generation began to influence events, the mode of parenting would gradually adjust in response. By the time the impact of a new generation has noticable effects, the new parenting paradigm is in place, turning out the next generational archetype. However, the parenting modes won't change until the up-and-coming generation has significant influence (the time that takes to occur is variable -- and I believe related to the availabilty of positions of power).

Here's where it's getting fuzzy. I can see a swing between over and under protection of kids. What else are you assigning to parenting?

Of course, I am skeptical of any saecula concept with an odd number of turnings (as this would mean back-to-back generations of the same general type).

Why? Three turnings with three generation types or five turnings with five generational types wouldn't have any overlapping.

Originally Posted by AAA1969

Exactly what percentage of the population lived past 45 in the 1300s and before? An extremely small percent. (This goes along with the "famine" problem mentioned earlier.)

More than you'd expect. Lifespans were horrifically short because so many infants and children died. If you were hardy and got through the problems of disease (smallpox and the like) and the perils of childbearing and/or war, you had a good shot at making it into old age.

So if you look at the adult population, you have a decent number of elders.

Also, if you look at the elites, who are the leaders, a fair number made it past mid-life. You have plenty of kings and queens and abbots and the like dying in their sixties, seventies, and even eighties.

Originally Posted by AAA1969

Exactly what percentage of the population lived past 45 in the 1300s and before? An extremely small percent. (This goes along with the "famine" problem mentioned earlier.)

More than you'd expect. Lifespans were horrifically short because so many infants and children died. If you were hardy and got through the problems of disease (smallpox and the like) and the perils of childbearing and/or war, you had a good shot at making it into old age.

So if you look at the adult population, you have a decent number of elders.

Also, if you look at the elites, who are the leaders, a fair number made it past mid-life. You have plenty of kings and queens and abbots and the like dying in their sixties, seventies, and even eighties.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I don't see how four types of generations simply as a consequence of longer lifespan. Why can't the two-part cycle simply continue?

Let's say we've got a primitive two-part saecula. Now, suppose they develop agriculture and the life expectancy of the elite jumps a great deal. Soon an austerity period occurs where there are many elders who presided over the previous austerity period -- exacerbating the austerity period, making it more stagnant than usual. This is followed by a social moment where the generation that drove the previous social moment is still around -- causing an enhanced social moment.

Next, we have an elder austerity generation that experienced a rather troubled austerity period which was thoroughly rejected by the enhanced social moment. This elder austerity generation co-exists with a new austerity generation that grew up in the enhanced social moment. Thus a strong desire for stability is present and the austerity period will be less tumultuous. This is followed by a social moment where the older generation recalls the previous enhanced social moment and is not likely to want their institutions removed, but the new social moment generation drives modifications, refinements and creates new criticisms. Pretty soon you have the S&H turnings.

The four turnings are just two nurturing cycles with alternating intensities. Presumably, a six turning saecula would have 5th and 6th turnings with intensities between those of the standard turnings (i.e. 5th would be a 1st, 3rd hybrid and 6th a 2nd, 4th hybrid). My first guess is that a 5th turning would show an optimism that was neither collective nor individual where social good flowed naturally from individual zeal. A 6th turning would be critical of the current order but not ready to overturn the existing paradigm, i.e. it would be a housecleaning period where corruption was rooted out (or, more darkly, where bloody purges would occur).

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Why? Three turnings with three generation types or five turnings with five generational types wouldn't have any overlapping.

But it would necessarily break the nurturing cycle. With three turnings you would have protective, neglecting, protective, then protective again. In my schema, a Nomad is a variation on the Artist, a Hero a variation on the Prophet. You can't have a new protected generation type without a new neglected generation type as well.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I don't see how four types of generations simply as a consequence of longer lifespan. Why can't the two-part cycle simply continue?

Let's say we've got a primitive two-part saecula. Now, suppose they develop agriculture and the life expectancy of the elite jumps a great deal. Soon an austerity period occurs where there are many elders who presided over the previous austerity period -- exacerbating the austerity period, making it more stagnant than usual. This is followed by a social moment where the generation that drove the previous social moment is still around -- causing an enhanced social moment.

Next, we have an elder austerity generation that experienced a rather troubled austerity period which was thoroughly rejected by the enhanced social moment. This elder austerity generation co-exists with a new austerity generation that grew up in the enhanced social moment. Thus a strong desire for stability is present and the austerity period will be less tumultuous. This is followed by a social moment where the older generation recalls the previous enhanced social moment and is not likely to want their institutions removed, but the new social moment generation drives modifications, refinements and creates new criticisms. Pretty soon you have the S&H turnings.

The four turnings are just two nurturing cycles with alternating intensities. Presumably, a six turning saecula would have 5th and 6th turnings with intensities between those of the standard turnings (i.e. 5th would be a 1st, 3rd hybrid and 6th a 2nd, 4th hybrid). My first guess is that a 5th turning would show an optimism that was neither collective nor individual where social good flowed naturally from individual zeal. A 6th turning would be critical of the current order but not ready to overturn the existing paradigm, i.e. it would be a housecleaning period where corruption was rooted out (or, more darkly, where bloody purges would occur).

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Why? Three turnings with three generation types or five turnings with five generational types wouldn't have any overlapping.

But it would necessarily break the nurturing cycle. With three turnings you would have protective, neglecting, protective, then protective again. In my schema, a Nomad is a variation on the Artist, a Hero a variation on the Prophet. You can't have a new protected generation type without a new neglected generation type as well.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Marc:

You wrote this: Parents will always (in a general sense) seek to bring their children up by picking and choosing from the good and bad of their own childhoods. If they were over-protected, and didn't like it, they will tend to under-protect their own kids. It is a pendulum that swings back and forth.

This clearly implies the swing from over-protected to under protected occurs over one biological generation. Thus a complete cycle takes two generations: from grandparent to grandchild or about 50-60 years

The nuture cycle in the saeculum extends over four generations, over 100 years in the early saeculum, which is what is being discussed here. The S&H nuture cycle is too long to reflect a parent-child dynamic.

Yearly seasons, like night and day, are a two stroke cycle. Yet there is a reason why there are four seasons. I find it remarkable that most cyclers don't know this. Furthermore they don't know how or why this occurs.

The over to under protective nurturing aspect takes only two generations to complete, not three or four. The other two "generational seasons" represent, more or less, first, a time of nurture loosening, and then a time of tightening. As a matter of seeing the cycle in action now, this child-nurture aspect is by far the most easy to see.

"Why are you addressing this to me? It's not my model you are criticizing."

I attempted to comfirm your point.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Marc:

You wrote this: Parents will always (in a general sense) seek to bring their children up by picking and choosing from the good and bad of their own childhoods. If they were over-protected, and didn't like it, they will tend to under-protect their own kids. It is a pendulum that swings back and forth.

This clearly implies the swing from over-protected to under protected occurs over one biological generation. Thus a complete cycle takes two generations: from grandparent to grandchild or about 50-60 years

The nuture cycle in the saeculum extends over four generations, over 100 years in the early saeculum, which is what is being discussed here. The S&H nuture cycle is too long to reflect a parent-child dynamic.

Yearly seasons, like night and day, are a two stroke cycle. Yet there is a reason why there are four seasons. I find it remarkable that most cyclers don't know this. Furthermore they don't know how or why this occurs.

The over to under protective nurturing aspect takes only two generations to complete, not three or four. The other two "generational seasons" represent, more or less, first, a time of nurture loosening, and then a time of tightening. As a matter of seeing the cycle in action now, this child-nurture aspect is by far the most easy to see.

"Why are you addressing this to me? It's not my model you are criticizing."

I attempted to comfirm your point.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Let's say we've got a primitive two-part saecula. Now, suppose they develop agriculture and the life expectancy of the elite jumps a great deal. Soon an austerity period occurs where there are many elders who presided over the previous austerity period -- exacerbating the austerity period, making it more stagnant than usual. This is followed by a social moment where the generation that drove the previous social moment is still around -- causing an enhanced social moment.

You seem to be assuming that a cycle in alternating social moments and austerity pre-exists. What is the mechanism for this? Is this caused by the straightforward nuture cycle. Something like this: Overnutured youths become self-absorbed adults who challenge the system producing a social moment. During the social moment, youths are undernurtured by self-absorbed parents and when they grow up are prepared to settle for austere, but more stable times. They give their own children what they never got and end up producing nurtured kids who become self-absorbed, hubristic adults and the cycle is completed.

Next, we have an elder austerity generation that experienced a rather troubled austerity period which was thoroughly rejected by the enhanced social moment. This elder austerity generation co-exists with a new austerity generation that grew up in the enhanced social moment. Thus a strong desire for stability is present and the austerity period will be less tumultuous.

Here you have introduced a GC-type role. You have two "austerity" generations, which are two generations apart. You have the younger austerity generation who "grew up in the (previous) enhanced social moment. This puts the junior austerity generation in the rising adult slot (age 27-53) and the elder austerity generation in the elder slot (Age 81+). THe comments about missing GCs are intended to show that this slot doesn't play a role in the old saeculum because they are too old. Hence the elder austerity is not an available component.

This is followed by a social moment where the older generation recalls the previous enhanced social moment and is not likely to want their institutions removed, but the new social moment generation drives modifications, refinements and creates new criticisms. Pretty soon you have the S&H turnings.

Again more elder roles. You are using something like the S&H generational constellation of three adult generations. I don't see how the S&H turnings necessarily follow.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Why? Three turnings with three generation types or five turnings with five generational types wouldn't have any overlapping.

But it would necessarily break the nurturing cycle. With three turnings you would have protective, neglecting, protective, then protective again. In my schema, a Nomad is a variation on the Artist, a Hero a variation on the Prophet. You can't have a new protected generation type without a new neglected generation type as well.

You might not employ a nurturing cycle in a mechanism for a three stroke model.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Let's say we've got a primitive two-part saecula. Now, suppose they develop agriculture and the life expectancy of the elite jumps a great deal. Soon an austerity period occurs where there are many elders who presided over the previous austerity period -- exacerbating the austerity period, making it more stagnant than usual. This is followed by a social moment where the generation that drove the previous social moment is still around -- causing an enhanced social moment.

You seem to be assuming that a cycle in alternating social moments and austerity pre-exists. What is the mechanism for this? Is this caused by the straightforward nuture cycle. Something like this: Overnutured youths become self-absorbed adults who challenge the system producing a social moment. During the social moment, youths are undernurtured by self-absorbed parents and when they grow up are prepared to settle for austere, but more stable times. They give their own children what they never got and end up producing nurtured kids who become self-absorbed, hubristic adults and the cycle is completed.

Next, we have an elder austerity generation that experienced a rather troubled austerity period which was thoroughly rejected by the enhanced social moment. This elder austerity generation co-exists with a new austerity generation that grew up in the enhanced social moment. Thus a strong desire for stability is present and the austerity period will be less tumultuous.

Here you have introduced a GC-type role. You have two "austerity" generations, which are two generations apart. You have the younger austerity generation who "grew up in the (previous) enhanced social moment. This puts the junior austerity generation in the rising adult slot (age 27-53) and the elder austerity generation in the elder slot (Age 81+). THe comments about missing GCs are intended to show that this slot doesn't play a role in the old saeculum because they are too old. Hence the elder austerity is not an available component.

This is followed by a social moment where the older generation recalls the previous enhanced social moment and is not likely to want their institutions removed, but the new social moment generation drives modifications, refinements and creates new criticisms. Pretty soon you have the S&H turnings.

Again more elder roles. You are using something like the S&H generational constellation of three adult generations. I don't see how the S&H turnings necessarily follow.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Why? Three turnings with three generation types or five turnings with five generational types wouldn't have any overlapping.

But it would necessarily break the nurturing cycle. With three turnings you would have protective, neglecting, protective, then protective again. In my schema, a Nomad is a variation on the Artist, a Hero a variation on the Prophet. You can't have a new protected generation type without a new neglected generation type as well.

You might not employ a nurturing cycle in a mechanism for a three stroke model.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The reason that isn't so, is because of the rhythm. In 1964, our consensus values had last undergone an overhaul way back in the early part of the 20th century, but our new institutions dated only from the late 1940s. So they were less than 20 years out of date, while our values were more like 80 years out of date.

How can the institutions be more up-to-date than the values they reflect?

Actually, the great majority of our values are never out of date. Survival, the rule of law, prosperity, fairness, these are all values that persist in relevance saeculum after saeculum. Only a small percentage of our values are actually the subject of debate.

Similarly, our institutions serve a great many purposes. Most of these have nothing to do with the values debate, and our institutions can fail due to changing material circumstances in ways that do not relate to the values debate, or relate to it only tangentially. For example, in the last Crisis, a major subject in the values debate concerned the rights of labor in a capitalist economy (or indeed whether we ought to have a capitalist economy). But through the first three Turnings, although the economy failed to provide fair treatment to workers (according to one side of the debate), it did succeed in providing a tolerable level of prosperity with rising standards of living for most people -- punctuated by severe economic panics, but although these were ghastly by today's standards, they did not endure long enough for the economy to be considered a failure. The values that had governed in the Civil War saeculum and triumphed in its Crisis, came under challenge in the 1890s. But the economy wasn't seen to be broken and requiring radical change until the 1930s. In the course of the Depression, measures to improve the lot of labor were also implemented. It had long been claimed that prosperity had to be widely shared if it was to endure, but not until the saeculum's 4T was that actually demonstrated. The end of slavery, and the shift of government policy to an unalloyed pro-business stance, sufficed as a workable system until our industrial economy reached maturity -- even though abuses in it were seen early and provoked a values restructuring.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The reason that isn't so, is because of the rhythm. In 1964, our consensus values had last undergone an overhaul way back in the early part of the 20th century, but our new institutions dated only from the late 1940s. So they were less than 20 years out of date, while our values were more like 80 years out of date.

How can the institutions be more up-to-date than the values they reflect?

Actually, the great majority of our values are never out of date. Survival, the rule of law, prosperity, fairness, these are all values that persist in relevance saeculum after saeculum. Only a small percentage of our values are actually the subject of debate.

Similarly, our institutions serve a great many purposes. Most of these have nothing to do with the values debate, and our institutions can fail due to changing material circumstances in ways that do not relate to the values debate, or relate to it only tangentially. For example, in the last Crisis, a major subject in the values debate concerned the rights of labor in a capitalist economy (or indeed whether we ought to have a capitalist economy). But through the first three Turnings, although the economy failed to provide fair treatment to workers (according to one side of the debate), it did succeed in providing a tolerable level of prosperity with rising standards of living for most people -- punctuated by severe economic panics, but although these were ghastly by today's standards, they did not endure long enough for the economy to be considered a failure. The values that had governed in the Civil War saeculum and triumphed in its Crisis, came under challenge in the 1890s. But the economy wasn't seen to be broken and requiring radical change until the 1930s. In the course of the Depression, measures to improve the lot of labor were also implemented. It had long been claimed that prosperity had to be widely shared if it was to endure, but not until the saeculum's 4T was that actually demonstrated. The end of slavery, and the shift of government policy to an unalloyed pro-business stance, sufficed as a workable system until our industrial economy reached maturity -- even though abuses in it were seen early and provoked a values restructuring.

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.

In the three phase saeculum as I've proposed it, the three phases are:

Elderhood (54-80)
Primacy (27-53)
Youth (0-26)

Those in the Primacy phase don't lend themselves well to the description of "young adults" overall as usually thought of when discussing the standard four phase dynamic.

In fact, I see the Primacy phase as being more powerful within the trilogical dynamic than any phase is in the tetralogical one. By the end of a War Crisis setting for example (after the generations had just about fully filled the life phases) the Primacy Heroes would include senior grunts, tactical manager/leaders, and secondary strategic leaders. These are roles filled today by mid-to-old Rising Adults AND Midlifers AND young Elders respectively (the young Elder role included because of shortened life span in premodernity). That's one POWERFUL stage.

Meanwhile the Youth would have included young grunts and scared kids and the Elders would've included senior strategic leaders and the dependent aged.

I will flesh this out even more when I submit a more detailed account of my proposed trilogical dynamic. Mike A. has correctly requested that I do so. I am very busy these days but will likely have an opportunity next week.

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.

In the three phase saeculum as I've proposed it, the three phases are:

Elderhood (54-80)
Primacy (27-53)
Youth (0-26)

Those in the Primacy phase don't lend themselves well to the description of "young adults" overall as usually thought of when discussing the standard four phase dynamic.

In fact, I see the Primacy phase as being more powerful within the trilogical dynamic than any phase is in the tetralogical one. By the end of a War Crisis setting for example (after the generations had just about fully filled the life phases) the Primacy Heroes would include senior grunts, tactical manager/leaders, and secondary strategic leaders. These are roles filled today by mid-to-old Rising Adults AND Midlifers AND young Elders respectively (the young Elder role included because of shortened life span in premodernity). That's one POWERFUL stage.

Meanwhile the Youth would have included young grunts and scared kids and the Elders would've included senior strategic leaders and the dependent aged.

I will flesh this out even more when I submit a more detailed account of my proposed trilogical dynamic. Mike A. has correctly requested that I do so. I am very busy these days but will likely have an opportunity next week.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

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.

I agree with this analysis and couple it with Mike's Famine Cycle.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

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 am moving in the same direction.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

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 think the saecular minimum is tied to the first phase/second phase boundary being limited at full pubescence. I believe that boundary is still approaching the limit and that limit is itself still dropping. But that limit will probably be eventually reached and the limit will itself reach a biological lower limit. I imagine that overall limit is 16 at the lowest.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

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.

I agree with this analysis and couple it with Mike's Famine Cycle.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

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 am moving in the same direction.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

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 think the saecular minimum is tied to the first phase/second phase boundary being limited at full pubescence. I believe that boundary is still approaching the limit and that limit is itself still dropping. But that limit will probably be eventually reached and the limit will itself reach a biological lower limit. I imagine that overall limit is 16 at the lowest.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

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.

Well consider the prophet archetype in ancient stories. The "prophet" is usually an old man giving futile warnings to hubristic adults. Often the prophet doesn't live to see the real depths of the calamaties that follow (or they simply fade from the action). In a longer cycle (which should be common in agricultural societies) you would expect the last remaining members of a Prophet generation to die during the catalyst phase of the Crisis. And, those cranky old geezers would be recognized historically as "prophets" because their premonitions of doom turned out to be "right."

Indeed, I see the 4T elder Prophet, "Gray Champion" model of the tetralogical dynamic preceded by the 3T elder Prophet, "Jeremiah" figure I see in the trilogical one.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

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.

Well consider the prophet archetype in ancient stories. The "prophet" is usually an old man giving futile warnings to hubristic adults. Often the prophet doesn't live to see the real depths of the calamaties that follow (or they simply fade from the action). In a longer cycle (which should be common in agricultural societies) you would expect the last remaining members of a Prophet generation to die during the catalyst phase of the Crisis. And, those cranky old geezers would be recognized historically as "prophets" because their premonitions of doom turned out to be "right."

Indeed, I see the 4T elder Prophet, "Gray Champion" model of the tetralogical dynamic preceded by the 3T elder Prophet, "Jeremiah" figure I see in the trilogical one.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

First off, WJB, excellent thread.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

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.

Actually, it appears that shortened turnings did occur in Ancient Rome. On the aforementioned thread Mike Alexander and I came to a common hypothesis of 80 year saecula from the 1st century B.C. up to the 3rd century A.D. (although, admittedly, there was lots of disagreement everywhere else). In my opinion this is evidence for my theory that the degree of mass politics in a society is strongly linked to turning length.

I may need your help down the line with explaining how Saeculum I may have morphed temporarily into Saeculum II on occasion in ancient times.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

First off, WJB, excellent thread.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

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.

Actually, it appears that shortened turnings did occur in Ancient Rome. On the aforementioned thread Mike Alexander and I came to a common hypothesis of 80 year saecula from the 1st century B.C. up to the 3rd century A.D. (although, admittedly, there was lots of disagreement everywhere else). In my opinion this is evidence for my theory that the degree of mass politics in a society is strongly linked to turning length.

I may need your help down the line with explaining how Saeculum I may have morphed temporarily into Saeculum II on occasion in ancient times.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

If only the most open minded, flexible, & vital individuals of an old generation can constructively participate...will their old peer personality matter?
Or will an old generation develop a role(s) outside that of the four archetypes?

Will Saeculum III be Saeculum II with an older generation performing extra-saeculum roles?


BTW, Andy '85, you are doing just fine.

Extra-saecular !!!! Now there's a mind-blowing concept. Time to mull . . .

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

If only the most open minded, flexible, & vital individuals of an old generation can constructively participate...will their old peer personality matter?
Or will an old generation develop a role(s) outside that of the four archetypes?

Will Saeculum III be Saeculum II with an older generation performing extra-saeculum roles?


BTW, Andy '85, you are doing just fine.

Extra-saecular !!!! Now there's a mind-blowing concept. Time to mull . . .

Originally Posted by Croakmore

One oscillator travels the larger circle of this doughnut, while the other transits its perpendicular cross-section. You could demonstrate it nicely with a Slinky by joining its two end to form a torus. Then flex and twist it anyway you like, but it still retains its 2-stroke "seasonality."

Sean, how badly have I missed your point?

--Croak

Ah, I'm not sure.

Don't worry, as per Mike's request I'm going to try to re-explain how I think the premodern trilogical dynamic may have worked. It's essentially the same as S&H's model except the loss of one phase makes the shadow concept work differently and I've had to add the concept of "Focus Load".

Hey, once you've read the book, you're going to want to see the movie.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

One oscillator travels the larger circle of this doughnut, while the other transits its perpendicular cross-section. You could demonstrate it nicely with a Slinky by joining its two end to form a torus. Then flex and twist it anyway you like, but it still retains its 2-stroke "seasonality."

Sean, how badly have I missed your point?

--Croak

Ah, I'm not sure.

Don't worry, as per Mike's request I'm going to try to re-explain how I think the premodern trilogical dynamic may have worked. It's essentially the same as S&H's model except the loss of one phase makes the shadow concept work differently and I've had to add the concept of "Focus Load".

Hey, once you've read the book, you're going to want to see the movie.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by AAA1969

Exactly what percentage of the population lived past 45 in the 1300s and before? An extremely small percent. (This goes along with the "famine" problem mentioned earlier.)

More than you'd expect. Lifespans were horrifically short because so many infants and children died. If you were hardy and got through the problems of disease (smallpox and the like) and the perils of childbearing and/or war, you had a good shot at making it into old age.

So if you look at the adult population, you have a decent number of elders.

Also, if you look at the elites, who are the leaders, a fair number made it past mid-life. You have plenty of kings and queens and abbots and the like dying in their sixties, seventies, and even eighties.

Pre-adult mortality does explain most of the difference in life expectancy and a lot of people in pre-modernity did make it past 60. But my understanding is that even factoring out child mortality we've increased average adult life expectancy a good 5-10 years over the 19th century and 10-15 over most of human history.

This means, yes, up to half the adult population made it to their early 60's, but that's a lot lower than today, and their overall condition in those last years may not have been terribly vibrant. That is why I am assuming a very powerful Primacy stage in my model.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by AAA1969

Exactly what percentage of the population lived past 45 in the 1300s and before? An extremely small percent. (This goes along with the "famine" problem mentioned earlier.)

More than you'd expect. Lifespans were horrifically short because so many infants and children died. If you were hardy and got through the problems of disease (smallpox and the like) and the perils of childbearing and/or war, you had a good shot at making it into old age.

So if you look at the adult population, you have a decent number of elders.

Also, if you look at the elites, who are the leaders, a fair number made it past mid-life. You have plenty of kings and queens and abbots and the like dying in their sixties, seventies, and even eighties.

Pre-adult mortality does explain most of the difference in life expectancy and a lot of people in pre-modernity did make it past 60. But my understanding is that even factoring out child mortality we've increased average adult life expectancy a good 5-10 years over the 19th century and 10-15 over most of human history.

This means, yes, up to half the adult population made it to their early 60's, but that's a lot lower than today, and their overall condition in those last years may not have been terribly vibrant. That is why I am assuming a very powerful Primacy stage in my model.