Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Multi-Modal Saeculum - Page 20







Post#476 at 01-01-2007 04:32 AM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
01-01-2007, 04:32 AM #476
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

*Bump*

I rember reading on another thread that the lack of elder Nomads during the 1Ts of Saeculum I gave them a far less "repressed" flavor then the 1Ts of Saeculum II and instead gave them a far more "renaisance-like" flavor.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#477 at 08-16-2007 09:26 PM by TimWalker [at joined May 2007 #posts 6,368]
---
08-16-2007, 09:26 PM #477
Join Date
May 2007
Posts
6,368

Quote Originally Posted by Tim Walker '56 View Post
I've wondered if the cusps/transition periods-before a turning mood has completely gelled-might be more affected than the core decades of turnings. There might be overlap in time as post-elder gens make post-seasonal(?) endowments while a new gen starts to come of age.

Another thought...I can only speculate about the effects. But I imagine that the more generations active, or even semi-active, the more complicated the period. With more generations there are more opportunities for cross-generational relationships.
pbrower2a post, 7-23-07 3:04 PM.







Post#478 at 08-17-2007 05:56 PM by TimWalker [at joined May 2007 #posts 6,368]
---
08-17-2007, 05:56 PM #478
Join Date
May 2007
Posts
6,368

4T thread

Last edited by TimWalker; 08-17-2007 at 06:01 PM.







Post#479 at 11-01-2007 04:43 PM by TimWalker [at joined May 2007 #posts 6,368]
---
11-01-2007, 04:43 PM #479
Join Date
May 2007
Posts
6,368

Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
Let's take your 1T example. The Missionaries were not doing to well by c. 1951, but in 2031 the Boomers might still have a strong presence and possibly not bend so easily.
I suspect that once the 1T mood has fully gelled, the younger generations will have had their fill of Boomers and crusades-and tell the old Aquarians to take a hike.
Last edited by TimWalker; 11-10-2007 at 05:17 PM.







Post#480 at 11-06-2007 04:37 PM by Cynic Hero '86 [at Upstate New York joined Jul 2006 #posts 1,285]
---
11-06-2007, 04:37 PM #480
Join Date
Jul 2006
Location
Upstate New York
Posts
1,285

Possible saeculum model.

This really has nothing to do with the past few posts but I have been looking at the various saeculum models proposed on this thread, and have came up with a theory of my own.

Some have mentioned that the saeculum has shortened over the past couple centuries, This discrepency could be countered by shortening the generations to 14-17 years but adding another generation at the late awakening early unraveling.

This would create generations birth years as follows :

1795-1810 (P)
1810-1825 (N)
1826-1840 (N/H)
1840-1854 (H)
1855-1869 (A)
1869-1883 (P)
1884-1900 (N)
1900-1915 (N/H)
1916-1930 (H)
1931-1945 (A)
1946-1960/61 (P)
1961-1976/77 (N)
1977-1992/93? (N/H)
1993?-2007? (H)
2007?-2021? (A)
2022?-2037? (P)
Last edited by Cynic Hero '86; 11-07-2007 at 01:22 PM.







Post#481 at 05-05-2009 12:34 PM by TimWalker [at joined May 2007 #posts 6,368]
---
05-05-2009, 12:34 PM #481
Join Date
May 2007
Posts
6,368

book

Exploring Long Cycles edited by George Modelski

"The Dynamic Foundations For Complex Systems" by Arthur Iberall and David Wilkinson

70-90 Years

"...at the same time that this epoch derives from the life span of the human individual, it tends also to be the upper limit for the life span of equipment and mechanistic systems (i.e., those that are hard-stressed and not built like monuments to stand up idly with little stress, save by chemical erosion). If one inventories industrial, military, and individual capital goods, one will find it is not uncommon to discover buildings, equipment, and machinery that go back to 1950, prewar 1940, 1930, and even back to 1910. It is rare to find earlier capital stock, except for gutted and renovated building shells and perhaps some machines, essentially all of whose parts have been replaced...."







Post#482 at 01-15-2010 08:05 PM by TimWalker [at joined May 2007 #posts 6,368]
---
01-15-2010, 08:05 PM #482
Join Date
May 2007
Posts
6,368

Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
I would like to submit that much of the discrepancy noted on this board between how the saeculum operated in the past and how it operates now can be solved by viewing essentially two different modes of saeculum at work, one morphing under stress into the other during the early modern period. I call these modes Saeculum I and Saeculum II.

Some of the discrepancies/issues that have been noted are:

A) 27-year versus 22 (or even 17) year generations with subsequent generational/turning compaction.

B) The enormous age of ?fourth phase? elderhood generations in earlier saeculae and the resulting breakdown in Strauss & Howe?s tetralogical explanation of generational dynamics as one goes further back in time.

C) Nomad generation constituents playing Gray Champion roles as little as three saeculae ago.

A few weeks ago my mind was trying to wrap itself around a conundrum: I found myself to be an orthodox Strauss & Howe Saecularist but I could not square the problems delineated by Mike Alexander and others with said orthodoxy. The mechanism laid out in Generations and The Fourth Turning that works so well for the 20th century seems to wane in explanatory efficacy the further back one goes into history. Even Strauss & Howe do not recognize a consistent functioning of the saeculum prior to late 15th century (why that may be will explained later).

Statistically, it is as if the authors took a sizeable, yet decidedly partial, subset of history, found a pattern (and even then one that only performed excellently in yet a smaller subset), and declared the discovery of a fundamental historiographical paradigm. As a result, one could argue (and some critics have stated) that what Strauss & Howe discovered was not much more than (what statisticians would call) an ?accidental correlation?, at least before the last century is concerned. Yet their paradigm does seem to apply to patterns in pre-modernity. How does one rectify this?

I would like to offer an explanation: I call it informally ?Mike Alexander meets the Three-Phase Solution?, or more formally ?Saeculum I?.

Saeculum I

Mike has noted a 27-year generational pattern operating in (at least) pre-modern Europe. This is 5-10 years longer than more current generational lengths (depending upon who you read and how ?currently? you look in history). He also notes a pendular effect of demographically smaller and larger generations due to a directly related alteration between periods of famine and plenty. Going one step further, he also notes that the periods of high stress (famines) oscillate between types of critical stress (i.e., Social Moments), one secular and institutional, usually involving great wars, the other spiritual and personal, involving emotive awakenings, monastic enthusiasm, and rashes of heretical fervor.

If I understand Mike correctly (and I may not) he dismisses the possibility of a 27-year phase solution to harmonize his observations with Strauss & Howe?s basic mechanism. At first glance this makes sense since a 27-year ?pueritia? or childhood phase and an 81-107 year old elderhood phase are nonsensical.

But what if the saecular mechanism operating through most of history was not a four phase, tetralogical dynamic, but rather a three phase, trilogical one? --- an interaction of three archetypes at a time instead of four, yet still operating in four turnings/constellations?

What if a 27-year ?youth? phase could actually make sense? I propose that in pre-modern society this actually did work, if we define ?youth? as pre-autonomy. As Mr. Alexander points out, biological/demographic realities created a perfect format for generational division, and this division was a 27-year delineation. And in an average demographic snapshot one could easily see the biologically-familiar three generation scenario of a 13 year old child (mid-youth), two 40 year old parents (mid-maturity), and one or two 67 year old grandparents (mid-elderhood). And by the time the youth in this example hits 27, chances are all the grandparents are gone and he or she is in the middle of raising a new crop of youngsters. What?s more the youth?s parents are now biologically old (by pre-modern standards) and ready to pass the baton of fully-realized social maturity, what I will call ?Primacy?, to a new group.

In premodernity the extended family was the rule, not the nuclear family of today. One could easily see the mature fortysomething father still holding strong functional authority over physically mature but still socially inferior sons in their early-to-mid twenties. Furthermore there was little impetus to have the young men strike out on their own at physical maturity like today. Extended family-members relied closely on one another in pre-industrial times, often in the same household, especially in the more common non-urban setting.

If one takes a look at pre-modern and early modern societies, one sees that, though there were rites-of-passage marking physical maturation, these societies? young men did not share in full societal responsibility until much after puberty.

Jesus, for example, did not begin his ministry until he was 30. This has been attributed to ancient Hebrew society?s recognition of 30 years of age as when a man reached full social maturity. Jesus might have not been taken seriously if he tried much earlier. One can note that he began showing other aspects of maturity as early as 12, and the Hebrews, then and now, held a rite-of-passage about that age denoting the beginnings of physical maturity. Ancient Hebrews also considered a male to be of military age at 20. So, as now, there were stages of maturation, but full social acceptance as an autonomous adult came considerably later than today.

Strong vestiges of this higher pre-modern limit to recognized social maturity can also be seen in the Founding Fathers not allowing any one younger than 25 to enter the House of Representatives, and younger than 30 to enter the Senate.

Perhaps further research should be done on Strauss & Howe?s interpretation of the Romans? fourfold biological divisions. I would contend that in the saeculum as it often manifested in premodernity, the Romans? ?pueritia? and ?iuventus? are actually subsets of the same phase: Pre-autonomy (Youth).

If one accepts 27 year phases of life for pre-modern society and accepts that the four generational archetypes are a constant (and I believe they are) then the four turnings looked much like they do today except that one archetype is completely missing per turning.


Saeculum I and Phases of Life

Code:
Phase           Ages
Elderhood	   54-80
Primacy	     27-53
Youth	        0-26
Saeculum I and Turnings

Code:
Phase	         1T	        2T	       3T	       4T
Elderhood	     Hero       Artist      Prophet     Nomad
Primacy	      Artist      Prophet      Nomad      Hero
Youth	        Prophet     Nomad        Hero       Artist

This new mechanism goes far in explaining much that is incongruent with the four phase model. Gone is the problem of 100 year old fourth phasers presumably affecting history. And in this arrangement, the tragic fall and passing of an elderly, hubristic Odyssean Hero-figure signals the beginning of an Awakening, not the peak or ending of one; likewise, the passing of an elderly, reproving, Jeremiadic Prophet-figure signals the beginning of a Crisis, not it?s climax or resolution.

What about the ?Shadow? mechanism described by Strauss & Howe? How do the generational archetypes affect one another and produce their archetypal shadow in a trilogical dynamic? Mike Alexander explains this in several posts. He posits a slightly different mechanism.

Mike Alexander in February 13, 2004 wrote:

During the social moment, the generation being born and growing up rebels against their elders by adopting the other outlook. Hence in a crisis spiritual Artists are born to secular Heros. Artists retain the communitarian ethic of their parents because this style is favored by the conditions of the Crisis, but Artists rebel during the High against the spirit-dead world created by their Hero parents and Nomad grandparents. On the other hand, secular Nomads are born to spiritual Prophets during the Awakening. Nomads retain the individualistic ethic of their parents as this style is favored by the conditions of the Awakening During the unraveling, Nomads rebel against their (too) spirit-filled elders by adopting a pragmatic, secular worldview. In my scheme, the "gray champions" of the crisis are Nomads.

This mechanism explains how Saeculum I manages to foster the four archetypes with three phases instead of four.

And indeed, as stated above one could argue that in the Early Modern period the Gray Champions were Nomads: Margaret of Anjou, Elizabeth I, Benjamin Church, George Washington. Using Michael Alexander?s mechanism this was probably the case in most Crises before modernity. But what of Strauss and Howe?s convincing argument of a mythic resonance through the ages of an elder Prophet- young Hero bond? What is more, what of the enduring images elder Hero-young Prophet conflict?

Saeculum II

This all begs the question, Why is Saeculum I no longer operating? First, it may actually still be operating in certain societies today (or at least until very recently) that still retain many pre-modern aspects (e.g., agricultural-based economy, poor nutrition, poor education, cyclical worldview, opposition to change). Indeed, it was the waning of these aspects and the advent of modern, and especially industrial, society that led to the shift to Saeculum II.

Part of my thesis is that under certain stress, saecular structures change mode, either temporarily, as possibly on occasion in the distant past, --- or structurally, as in modern times.

In pre-modernity the saeculum usually involved a 27-year generation due to the first phase of life being that length (as explained from Mike Alexander?s observations of the data). But around the 16th and 17th centuries forces came into play that began to alter the demarcation point between Youth and Primacy. First, with the Gutenberg Revolution, the Renaissance, Protestant Reformation, and other massive paradigm shifts (socio-cultural and techno-economic) of the early modern period, the pace of change increased to an unprecedented degree. Changes from generation to generation acted as a stressor on the 27-year-based mechanism that theretofore worked well for the relatively slow pace of change of pre-modernity. The quickened pace of life was more easily absorbed in a shorter cohort groupings therefore putting downward pressure on phase length.

Furthermore, by the 17th and 18th centuries the Famine Cycle had been (largely) allayed, further loosening the Youth phase from it?s solid 27-year mooring. From some of Mike Alexander?s other writings, one could speculate that the now less stable and pressured phases interacted in some way with the War/Debt Cycle of the time period.

Saeculum I was under stress. As the length of generations dropped by a couple of years, the permutational demarcation points between phases dropped. Soon the Youth-Primacy transition was below 25 years, Primacy to Elderhood below 50 years, and the vanguard age for Post-Elderhood was closing in on 70, allowing a ?Post-Elder? cohort group to begin affecting the saecular dynamic.

But it is with the Industrial Revolution that Saeculum I finally broke under the strain. At least four factors affected the final transition.

1. An evidentially exponential rate of change.

One could argue that the rate of change in human society has always been exponential. Only at this point, i.e., the advent of industrialization, it became much more obvious and relevant. As in the early modern period, this put additional pressure on the saecular mechanism to process change.

2. The beginning of ontogenic compaction (earlier pubescence) due to improved nutrition.

With agricultural production and variety increasing, with better transportation systems for delivery, and with higher average real purchasing power, improved nutrition in the 18th and 19th centuries (depending upon the Western country in question) began a trend continuing to this day of a younger and younger onset of physical maturity.

3. The beginning of psychogenic compaction (accelerated mental development) due to better and more comprehensive education.

This is the most controversial of the postulations. However, one could argue that improved childhood education stimulated certain mental capacities earlier and more profoundly. It is possible that the commencement of Piagetian ?concrete operations? and ?formal operations? may occur earlier (and more comprehensively) today on average than two or three centuries ago.

4. The earlier acquisition of social autonomy due to the above items, but especially because of the nuclearization of the family.

Migration to the cities, migration cross-country, less emphasis on acquired vocational skill and therefore parental mentoring in familial occupations, among other things led to the gradual breakdown in the cohesiveness and functionality overall of the traditional extended family and ushered in a new emphasis on the nuclear family. This transition largely weakened the firm hold middle-aged parents (read: father) had on young adult children. For this and other reasons stated above, full social autonomy would arrive years earlier than under the conditions Saeculum I evolved in.

Modal Shift

It is quite clear, at least in American history, that a great saecular upset occurred in the 19th century. For Strauss & Howe, this means the Civil War Anomaly. For Mike Alexander, this means a dramatic shortening of generation length. Within the context of the Multi-Modal Saeculum concept, both occurred. The combination created a Saecular hiccup, a shift from dissonance to a new equilibrium. What brought it to a climax was the vagaries of fate creating a Prophet generation (The Transcendentals) of regular length by the standards of the first saecular mode proper, but of dysfunctional length within the context of the saecular discord then occurring.

The result was the omission of an Hero archetype generation, truncated turnings and persistent saecular settling: No testaments to communitarian Olympian rationalizers, shortened fourth and first turnings, dilatory spiritualism extending into the following third turning, Nomads with Hero qualities (Gilded), Artists with Hero qualities (Progressive), and a subsequently somewhat archetypally-attenuated Prophet archetype (Missionary).

If we go by Mike Alexander?s observations, we can surmise that modal pressure became extreme around 1820. The following collapse of Saeculum I occurred in the 1860?s. And one could argue that it would not be until the following fourth turning that the saecular dynamic fully stabilized into its new mode.

What of other societies? In regards to the European saeculum, could this help explain the catastrophe of World War One? And what of industrializing societies today? This is especially germane when one considers China and the Middle East. Developing societies today are modernizing at a pace far greater than what the West experienced. What implications does this have for their modal transitions? What ?hiccups? may occur with them?

Finally, back to antiquity: How is it that Strauss and Howe found compelling evidence of a tetralogical interaction in such diverse sources as Exodus and Homer? And what of the profound Prophet-Hero interactions mentioned earlier? One explanation is that archetypal forms were mythographically distilled into a four part story since the generational archetypes, of which there are unavoidably four, are easier to convey that way.

Another explanation is that in times of profound stress or some other X factor, Saeculum I societies metamorphosed into a Saeculum II mode presaging the structural shift of recent times. However, whenever the stress or X factor passed, the saecular dynamic ?de-excited? and shifted back to the original mode (akin to an electron descending an atomic orbit after expending energy). Strauss and Howe attributed the fading of their tetralogical dynamic to when ?the inertia of tradition dampened this cycle and pushed society back to a prescribed and changeless role for each phase of life.?[The Fourth Turning, p.90]. Since the authors do not recognize a three phase alternative, and also since the trilogical saeculum (Saeculum I) is arguably not as intense as its successor, they mistake the recession of the tetralogical form as the discontinuation of the saecular mechanism altogether.

Other Modes?

If we accept the thesis of this post, that the saeculum is disposed to different modes under different conditions, and we see that the lowering of the age of social autonomy completely rearranged the phasic structure of the system, what of the new pressures being created by the extension of the human life being made possible via modern medicine?

If we accept 20 as the current age of the advent of social autonomy (compromising between Alexander?s 18 and Strauss & Howe?s 22) then the permutational effect calls for a current Elderhood phase of 60 to 79. What of the millions of Post-Elders in their 80?s and 90?s? Has the longevity of the GI generation already betrayed an effect? Will the Silent, or the Boomers, bring on a dysfunctional fifth wheel to the saecular vehicle?

Both three and four phases work well mathematically with four archetypes and turnings. The transition from a trilogical to a tetralogical dynamic, though difficult, worked. A pentalogical set-up will be highly distorting to the four archetypes. A period of profound dissonance could be in the offing once again. My belief is that, if this does come to pass, and barring other factors, we will need to wait for modern medicine to even further extend life span so we can fit in at least six phases. Six phases can fit four archetypes, if awkwardly. Eight is even better, for obvious reasons. But how would a hexalogical or octological Saeculum III dynamic work? We can only speculate.

Besides, due to factors such as eschatological calamity, an evolutionary ?singularity?, or the categorical arrest of old age due medicinal breakthroughs, such speculation may not only be highly fanciful, but moot as well.

I ask that those who, like me, ponder these issues to digest this Multi-Modal Saeculum idea and provide feedback: What?s wrong with its premises? What changes would you make? What would you add? Do you agree categorically?

Just food for thought.
Has anyone used the Saeculum I model to analyze the 5th turning model of John Xenakis?







Post#483 at 01-15-2010 10:52 PM by BookishXer [at joined Oct 2009 #posts 656]
---
01-15-2010, 10:52 PM #483
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
656

Quote Originally Posted by TimWalker View Post
Has anyone used the Saeculum I model to analyze the 5th turning model of John Xenakis?

I'm not familiar with the 5th turning model, but this was an interesting read. It reconciled some issues I had with the S&H model, variables I thought S&H either chose to overlook or worked into the theory in ways that didn't feel accurate.

I think it's plausible that pre-modern, or pre-industrialization, there is a Saeculum I mode and post-industrialization, a Saeculum II. I do wonder what impact this might have on a 4T where participants are operating on different Saecula, where some of the participants are in the midst of a shift from Saecula I to Saecula II.

Presently, I suppose that would put, as was posted, both China and the Middle East (coincidentally, thoeretically, both challengers to U.S. world power in the 4T) at the forefront of a shift.

What about former U.S.S.R republics such as Belarus? Or post-communist Eastern Europe? It's possible, given the fall of communism just 20 years ago, that these nations are not only in a different Turning, but also only recently shifted to a Saecula II mode one generation ago.

Just theorizing. Any thoughts?







Post#484 at 01-15-2010 11:52 PM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,115]
---
01-15-2010, 11:52 PM #484
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,115

Right Arrow East is east

Quote Originally Posted by BookishXer View Post
I'm not familiar with the 5th turning model, but this was an interesting read. It reconciled some issues I had with the S&H model, variables I thought S&H either chose to overlook or worked into the theory in ways that didn't feel accurate.

I think it's plausible that pre-modern, or pre-industrialization, there is a Saeculum I mode and post-industrialization, a Saeculum II. I do wonder what impact this might have on a 4T where participants are operating on different Saecula, where some of the participants are in the midst of a shift from Saecula I to Saecula II.

Presently, I suppose that would put, as was posted, both China and the Middle East (coincidentally, thoeretically, both challengers to U.S. world power in the 4T) at the forefront of a shift.

What about former U.S.S.R republics such as Belarus? Or post-communist Eastern Europe? It's possible, given the fall of communism just 20 years ago, that these nations are not only in a different Turning, but also only recently shifted to a Saecula II mode one generation ago.

Just theorizing. Any thoughts?
As one who has long suspected that 19th century improvements in transportation and communications such as the telegraph and the railroad played a role in shortening the modern saeculia, I welcome your thoughts and welcome to the forum. :
My best guess is that at least the smaller european republics which had been a part of the old Soviet Union are likely on the same cycle as Russia itself. Perhaps if for no other reason than because many of them shared the czarist era cycles and the experiences within.

A lot of us suspect that eastern europe is about one turning ahead of America and western europe. IOW, World War I was very likely a 4T war for Russia, Austria-Hungary, the Baltic republics and what became Yugoslavia. They all experienced the creation of new nation-states at the end of WWI, whereas western europe generally did not see major change or as in the case of Weimar Germany, the change did not survive the 4T that America and western europe had during WWII. Russia and most of eastern europe also experienced 4Tish events rougthly 70 years later in the late 80's/ easly 90's when the USSR literally fell apart in a fortnight, and Yugoslavia also fell apart. A slightly over 70 year cycle is a little short, but each turning would still average about 18 years, which we know from the euro-American experience is fairly common.

To speculate a bit, I think that the coming of the Protestant Reformation awakening in the 1510's and 1520's, which more or less forced western european cultures to choose sides but generally did not affect eastern europe may be the reason for the regional difference in saeculi. But I'm sure that others here can advance other plausible explainations.
Last edited by herbal tee; 01-16-2010 at 12:01 AM.







Post#485 at 01-20-2010 04:33 PM by TimWalker [at joined May 2007 #posts 6,368]
---
01-20-2010, 04:33 PM #485
Join Date
May 2007
Posts
6,368

Quote Originally Posted by BookishXer View Post
I'm not familiar with the 5th turning model, but this was an interesting read. It reconciled some issues I had with the S&H model, variables I thought S&H either chose to overlook or worked into the theory in ways that didn't feel accurate.

I think it's plausible that pre-modern, or pre-industrialization, there is a Saeculum I mode and post-industrialization, a Saeculum II. I do wonder what impact this might have on a 4T where participants are operating on different Saecula, where some of the participants are in the midst of a shift from Saecula I to Saecula II.

Presently, I suppose that would put, as was posted, both China and the Middle East (coincidentally, thoeretically, both challengers to U.S. world power in the 4T) at the forefront of a shift.

What about former U.S.S.R republics such as Belarus? Or post-communist Eastern Europe? It's possible, given the fall of communism just 20 years ago, that these nations are not only in a different Turning, but also only recently shifted to a Saecula II mode one generation ago.

Just theorizing. Any thoughts?
Check out the Generational Dynamics thread for the 5th turning meme.







Post#486 at 03-27-2014 04:21 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
03-27-2014, 04:21 PM #486
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Some of you may remember Sean Love (Zarathustra). Sean came up with a system that provided an explanation for how the generation model worked given the fact that generations were longer and lifespans shorter during the early saecula. He started this thread to discuss his multi-modal saeculum model. Recently I have located a free webpage hosting that has no advertising and have put up my saeculum stuff on it, all much revised and (I hope) better thought out:

http://mikebert.neocities.org/home.htm

The first four articles describe long cycles in generation. The American historical cycles article is a general overview of long cycles. The population article describes the evidence for a population-related long cycle and presents a model for it. The war model talks about Quincy Wright’s war cycle and tries to fit this into the Strauss and Howe cycle system. These three articles do not assume a through grounding in the Strauss and Howe cycle theory. The fourth article assumes some knowledge of Strauss and Howe. It makes use of what I have gleaned from Sean’s ideas.

Ten years ago I could not wrap my brain around the multimodal saeculum, went right over my head. More recently after digesting the stuff Chas posted about archetypes I looked at Sean’s multimodal saeculum. He had sent be a document describing his ideas in more detail. I came up with some graphical ways to represent the multimodal saeculum and wrote them up in the Generational model article. The key graphic is this one:



Sean describes each generation in terms of a pair of attributes, each of which can take one of two values, giving four combinations. In the graph the independent/communitarian pair is plotted on the vertical axis and the objective/subjective pair is plotted on the horizontal. Each of the four pairs correspond to one of the four quadrants in the graph and to a particular generation. These four quadrants also correspond to Ken Wilber’s concept of four quadrants or for ways to characterize/study natural or social things that he calls holons. Based this idea Sean assumed that human being, as holons, had four fundamental perspectives which must be considered to obtain an understanding of the thing being studies. Thus, people come in four fundamental “flavors” or archetypes that correspond to the Wilberian quadrants. Archetypes are a given.

This was key for me. It only became clear to me because of the material Chas has provided over the last year where he looked at Shakespeare’s plays as a way to interpret history in saecular terms. Since the characters in plays fall into archetype, so do the players on the world stage. Just because people can fall into archetypes doesn’t explain generations since we know like-aged people with different archetypes and people of different ages with the same archetype. But Sean’s relating of archetypes to Wilber’s quadrants let me create that graph. I could then see the archetype-generating mechanism in terms of two oscillators (2-stroke cycles) 90 degrees out of phase with each other.

I constructed a model consisting of a pair of two-stroke cycles of period 2L, out of alignment by L. It created the four generations in the correct order. Not explained is where L comes from. That is easy, L comes straight out of the other models I presented. The population model creates a two stroke cycle of feast (good times) and famine (bad times). The war model creates times of prosperity (good) and depression (bad). Both cycles are equal in length to a Kondratiev cycle, which averages about 53 years length. Thus 2L is 53, and so L is about 26 or 27 years, which is exactly as long as the old turnings. This gives L for Sean’s model . Sean says this, but he did not spell out exactly how it all worked. I think I understand now.

Now for the post-1820 period the model I came up with was the paradigm model. The paradigm model uses generations to describe how periodic crises in politics and the economy happen (we are in one now). These periods are defined by the PE cycle which is really an empirical saeculum*. The paradigms of the model directly correspond to Sean’s attributes. Individualist-Communitarian attributes map into Freedom-Progress paradigms. They are internal and external viewpoints of the same thing. Similarly the subjective-objective attributes map into less protective-more protective parent nurture in S&H’s nurture cycle, and also into spiritual-secular paradigms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*It’s what the Strauss and Howe turnings look like if you just focus on external events (history) and not take generational biographies into account. Strauss and Howe’s turnings are the same cycle, but viewed from the perspective of generational archetypes and personalities by studying biographical material. The big difference between the dating for PE cycle versus S&H is the Missionary awakening. Strauss and How focus on the fact that prophet archetypes were clearly being born in the 1860’s and 1870’s and that by 1890 it was clearly Nomads being born. The 1886-1908 S&H dating for this awakening reflects this. On the other hand, awakenings are social moments and as such they are periods of sociopolitical change. The progressive era is one such period and the 1896-1919 dating in the PE cycle reflects this. Both are equally valid, they simply reflect different ways of looking at the same thing.
Last edited by Mikebert; 03-27-2014 at 04:26 PM.







Post#487 at 03-27-2014 07:44 PM by JonLaw [at Hurricane Alley joined Oct 2010 #posts 186]
---
03-27-2014, 07:44 PM #487
Join Date
Oct 2010
Location
Hurricane Alley
Posts
186

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
Some of you may remember Sean Love (Zarathustra). Sean came up with a system that provided an explanation for how the generation model worked given the fact that generations were longer and lifespans shorter during the early saecula. He started this thread to discuss his multi-modal saeculum model. Recently I have located a free webpage hosting that has no advertising and have put up my saeculum stuff on it, all much revised and (I hope) better thought out:

http://mikebert.neocities.org/home.htm

The first four articles describe long cycles in generation. The American historical cycles article is a general overview of long cycles. The population article describes the evidence for a population-related long cycle and presents a model for it. The war model talks about Quincy Wright’s war cycle and tries to fit this into the Strauss and Howe cycle system. These three articles do not assume a through grounding in the Strauss and Howe cycle theory. The fourth article assumes some knowledge of Strauss and Howe. It makes use of what I have gleaned from Sean’s ideas.

Ten years ago I could not wrap my brain around the multimodal saeculum, went right over my head. More recently after digesting the stuff Chas posted about archetypes I looked at Sean’s multimodal saeculum. He had sent be a document describing his ideas in more detail. I came up with some graphical ways to represent the multimodal saeculum and wrote them up in the Generational model article. The key graphic is this one:

Well, that's nice of you. Now I can stop using cashed versions of things without graphics when I post on chat boards because your old .edu site eventually went blank.

Anyhow, when I first looked at this, I thought "double-helix", so the best representation is probably 3-D and not 2-D.

Also, Ken Wilbur jumped the shark at some point, but the holon thingy is a good way of looking at things, since there is an inside and an outside.

Bob, another integral theophiloslackosopher is one of the few consistent types out there of the integral world, but few people like Bob, so there are some other thoughts we could throw in here, but I'll leave it where it is.

Granted, this model is *still* too simple, but it's better than the initial 2D model.

I would love to integrate this into the overarching Spenglerian civilzational model, but that would take a lot of work.

The double-helix you have going on here is a good start.

And Mike, you will be amused that at least two people who I pay attention to are looking at the 2300 zone as topish for the S&P this go round, which is consistent with one of your preliminary "high" predictions from several years ago (at the 2100 level)...2006 maybe.
The future always casts a shadow on the present.







Post#488 at 03-28-2014 01:00 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
03-28-2014, 01:00 PM #488
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by JonLaw View Post
Anyhow, when I first looked at this, I thought "double-helix", so the best representation is probably 3-D and not 2-D.
I'm not following.

Also, Ken Wilbur jumped the shark at some point, but the holon thingy is a good way of looking at things, since there is an inside and an outside.
I wouldn't have any idea, Love brought in Wilber. I just presented his ideas in a way that was intelligible to me.

The double-helix you have going on here is a good start.
I don't see where there is a double helix. The circle is sort of like a phase curve or orbit. Basically I give ODE's for one-dimensional oscillators as a function of time for the objectivity and individuality axis, that is the x and y axes of the figure. The solutions are functions of time: x(t), y(t). The circle is an idealized orbit of the set of ordered pairs x(t), y(t) for all t over the range 0 to 4L (the duration of one saeculum). It's idealized, the actual phase plot looks like a four-legged starfish.

And Mike, you will be amused that at least two people who I pay attention to are looking at the 2300 zone as topish for the S&P this go round, which is consistent with one of your preliminary "high" predictions from several years ago (at the 2100 level)...2006 maybe.
That would be a helluva bubble, we could fall a looong way when it bursts.
Last edited by Mikebert; 03-28-2014 at 01:04 PM.







Post#489 at 03-28-2014 01:56 PM by JonLaw [at Hurricane Alley joined Oct 2010 #posts 186]
---
03-28-2014, 01:56 PM #489
Join Date
Oct 2010
Location
Hurricane Alley
Posts
186

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
I'm not following.I don't see where there is a double helix. The circle is sort of like a phase curve or orbit. Basically I give ODE's for one-dimensional oscillators as a function of time for the objectivity and individuality axis, that is the x and y axes of the figure. The solutions are functions of time: x(t), y(t). The circle is an idealized orbit of the set of ordered pairs x(t), y(t) for all t over the range 0 to 4L (the duration of one saeculum). It's idealized, the actual phase plot looks like a four-legged starfish.
Double helix, meaning that you have two different strands moving forward through time, so instead of a main long wave or k-wave, you have two separate waves operating at the same time twisting around each other.

Originally, wasn't it that you would have two variations on the same archetype, depending on where you are in time, meaning that the Nomad in this generation would be different than the Nomad in the era immediately prior?

This compacts it down to what amounts to a closed geometry and adds more variable waves.
The future always casts a shadow on the present.







Post#490 at 03-28-2014 02:00 PM by JonLaw [at Hurricane Alley joined Oct 2010 #posts 186]
---
03-28-2014, 02:00 PM #490
Join Date
Oct 2010
Location
Hurricane Alley
Posts
186

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
That would be a helluva bubble, we could fall a looong way when it bursts.
It went up about 30% last year.

If it goes up that much from here, you get 2400.

So, all you need is another year like last year.
The future always casts a shadow on the present.







Post#491 at 03-28-2014 07:09 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
03-28-2014, 07:09 PM #491
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by JonLaw View Post
Double helix, meaning that you have two different strands moving forward through time, so instead of a main long wave or k-wave, you have two separate waves operating at the same time twisting around each other.
I see them as two cycle 90 degrees apart like this:



Each cycle identifies two states. 2 x 2 is 4 and that gives 4 generations. There is no helix, much less a double helix.

Originally, wasn't it that you would have two variations on the same archetype, depending on where you are in time, meaning that the Nomad in this generation would be different than the Nomad in the era immediately prior?
I don't think that was me.

This compacts it down to what amounts to a closed geometry and adds more variable waves.[/QUOTE]







Post#492 at 03-29-2014 10:31 AM by JonLaw [at Hurricane Alley joined Oct 2010 #posts 186]
---
03-29-2014, 10:31 AM #492
Join Date
Oct 2010
Location
Hurricane Alley
Posts
186

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
Each cycle identifies two states. 2 x 2 is 4 and that gives 4 generations. There is no helix, much less a double helix.
That's the basic structure, which isn't what I'm talking about.

I was referring to when you add additional variables, similar to your more complex graphic earlier in this thread. I remember looking at the list of potential turnings during the High Middle ages somewhere in the 1,000,000 posts on this chat board. I will leave the double helix concept to die for now.

You should also get some interference patters that may have something to do with the war cycle and national will cycles, with respect to the entire world leader concept.

Also, Xenakis has some interesting ideas with his "reset" hypothesis, which gives you so-called fifth turnings. However, I suspect that that's the wrong way to look at the so-called civil war anomoly.
The future always casts a shadow on the present.







Post#493 at 03-29-2014 02:48 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
03-29-2014, 02:48 PM #493
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

I’ve been reading through some of the old posts and can see where I picked up various aspects of turning theory. Back in 2004 I was still very much in the 911-as-4T-start school. I was convinced that the saeculum bull market peak in 2000 indicated the start of Kondratiev winter. Based on my hypothesis of an aligned between the K-cycle and the saeculum, K-winter implied saecular winter. Thus when 911 provided such an obvious crisis trigger I figured that was the proof. We obviously were in a 4T and so that meant that we also be in K-winter. Apparently the fall from plateau was no longer visible with my reduced price technique. After all, I rationalized, it’s not like we could ever get another financial crisis like those we used to get every twenty years or so before WW II, and so you can’t expect a rapid fall in reduced price like we saw in 1929. Of course, I now know that we CAN still get financial crises, and surprise we also a fall from plateau that looks just like 1929:



K-winter did not begin in 2000, but in 2008. And if K-winter began in 2008, maybe saecular winter did too. That’s how Neil Howe has it on his site.

Back then my views were largely economic. Marc Lamb, (some of you might remember him) was of the opinion that politics was key. He was firmly of the opinion that 911 was a 3T event, and talked about a 40-year political cycle as part of an 80-year saeculum. Still immersed in K-cycle thinking, I saw Reagan as cycle-equivalent to Harding, and the 1980 election like 1920, based on the fact that 1929 and 1981 were Kondratiev peaks. Lambs believed Reagan to be cycle-equivalent to Teddy Roosevelt and Clinton as Wilson. He also say the 1954 and 1994 dates as important as they reflected the start of a period of party dominance in Congress, the earlier dates by Democrats and the later by Republicans. I didn’t see this 40 year cycle then. Now I do.

If Clinton is Wilson, he would also be the Democratic version of Eisenhower, the man elected 40 years before Clinton (and 40 years after Wilson). Fleshing it out and you get the following:

Critical Election-Party Dom. Party rule Subordinate Comeback Dominant Double-down
1968 Nixon-Reagan 1968-1992 1992-2000 (Clinton) 2000-2008 (Bush II)
1932 FDR 1932-1952 1952-1960 (Eisenhower) 1960-1968 (Johnson)
1896 McKinley-Roosevelt 1896-1912 1912-1920 (Wilson) 1920-1932 (Hoover)
1860 Lincoln 1860-1884 1884-8, 1892-6 (Cleveland) None
1828 Jackson 1828-1840 1840-4, 1848-52 1852-1860 (Pierce)

The cycle starts with a critical election following which a political party becomes politically dominant as measured by continuous (or near-continuous) occupation of the White House. Example: Lincoln’s 1860 victories began a string of 6 straight Republican administrations. The 1896 victory saw 4 straight, 1932 five straight and 1968 five out of the next six. Eventually the opposing party makes a comeback by electing a moderate who adopts many of the practices of the dominant party. For example Clinton won after a 24-year period when Democrats were only able to win when they ran against an unelected president appointed the only president ever to resign. Like Wilson he had a strong third party challenger who drew off votes from the Republicans. As president, Clinton represented a continuation of the Reagan era, passing NAFTA, ending “welfare as we know it” and passed a capital gains tax cut intended to boost capital gains (i.e. rising asset prices) helping stoke a stock market bubble.

Eisenhower
, a moderate Republican was in the same vein as Clinton:
Quote Originally Posted by ”Dwight Eisenhower”
Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
To say, therefore, that in some instances the policies of this Administration have not been radically changed from those of the last is perfectly true
Wilson admired Teddy Roosevelt and broadly agreed with Rooseveltian progressivism. He enacted a Democratic version of progressivism. Grover Cleveland, the “comeback kid” following the 1860 election was a “Bourbon Democrat”, a conservative Democratic and supporter of Republican economic policies like the gold standard.

After the interlude of rule by the minor party, the majority party comes back and goes double-down on their ideology. Examples include Franklin Pierce with the Ostend Manifesto, which sought to sneak in another slave state to restore parity between South and North, the 1920’s Republican corporate-friendly New Era, the “Guns and Butter” excess of the Texan Lyndon Johnson and finally the “Guns and Tax Cuts” excess of another Texan, George W. Bush.

Presumably, Lamb’s assignment of Clinton as Wilson, makes Cheney-Bush = Harding-Coolidge, in which case Obama would be Hoover, and the winner of 2016 would be FDR and a GC of this 4T. Applying the 40 cycle directly makes Bush II cycle-eqv to Johnson, and Obama equivalent to Nixon. These two comparisons suggest either an important figure winning in 2016 (FDR comparison) or a place-holder (Carter). The way I interpret these scenarios is as one of three possible scenarios:

  1. A two-term democratic president is elected in 2016 as an FDR-equivalent, this is the blue line.
  2. A two-term republican president is elected in 2016 as an FDR-equivalent, this is the red line.
  3. A one-term republican president is elected in 2016 as a Carter-equivalent, this is the purple line


The graph shows the percentage of the previous 30 years in which a Democrat was president. When this value is high the media takes progressive ideas seriously and reject conservative ideas out of hand. When this value is low, the media takes conservative ideas seriously and rejects progressive ideas out of hand. So in 2009, single payer was immediately off the table, even though Medicare for all would both be cheaper and more politically popular than either Obamacare or the pre-2009 status quo. Conversely, in the 1970’s something as sensible as taxing pollution instead of command-and-control regulation was similarly rejected as a radical right-wing notion.
Last edited by Mikebert; 03-29-2014 at 03:30 PM.







Post#494 at 03-29-2014 03:52 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
03-29-2014, 03:52 PM #494
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by JonLaw View Post
I was referring to when you add additional variables, similar to your more complex graphic earlier in this thread.
Actually the two graphs show the same thing. The first one shows the x(t) and y(t) values as a phase curve with time as an implicit variable. The second graph shows the functions of x(t) and y(t) as a discrete form. This shift from continuous to discrete is key. It is neccessary to "snap" the value of each value to one of two values. On the objectivity axis (x-axis) only 2 states exist, subjective and objective shows in the second graph as values of -1 and +1 on the blue line. These correspond to objectivity function x(t) values that are either negative or positive, that is when the circle is the the left or right of the y-axis.

The model gives differential equaltions that give the derivative of x(t) as a function of the discrete version of x(t) in the past. If you use the x(t) values themselves in the model the cycle is damped and the generations fade away within one saeculum. So you need something that forces individuals into one or the other category even if the actual difference between them is small. If you don't get sharp clear differences between adjacent cohorts in different generations the tunings are quickly damped out. That's what the math says. Sean's holon concept of a fixed tetralogy of generations fixes this problem, which forces the range of objectivity and individuality attributes in one of two categories. Without this "snap" effect generations make no sense mechanistically.







Post#495 at 03-29-2014 04:28 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
03-29-2014, 04:28 PM #495
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
Some of you may remember Sean Love (Zarathustra). Sean came up with a system that provided an explanation for how the generation model worked given the fact that generations were longer and lifespans shorter during the early saecula. He started this thread to discuss his multi-modal saeculum model....
Ten years ago I could not wrap my brain around the multimodal saeculum, went right over my head. More recently after digesting the stuff Chas posted about archetypes I looked at Sean’s multimodal saeculum. He had sent be a document describing his ideas in more detail. I came up with some graphical ways to represent the multimodal saeculum and wrote them up in the Generational model article. The key graphic is this one:



Sean describes each generation in terms of a pair of attributes, each of which can take one of two values, giving four combinations. In the graph the independent/communitarian pair is plotted on the vertical axis and the objective/subjective pair is plotted on the horizontal. Each of the four pairs correspond to one of the four quadrants in the graph and to a particular generation. These four quadrants also correspond to Ken Wilber’s concept of four quadrants or four ways to characterize/study natural or social things that he calls holons. Based (on) this idea Sean assumed that human being(s), as holons, had four fundamental perspectives which must be considered to obtain an understanding of the thing being studie(d). Thus, people come in four fundamental “flavors” or archetypes that correspond to the Wilberian quadrants. Archetypes are a given.
Interesting summary graph from you and Sean. Obviously in the upper right he meant to say "unravelling" and not "crisis." But it does jive with recent experience, putting the maximum subjectivity at the start of the awakening, and maximum independence at the top at the start of the 3T. So we have just passed the maximum objectivity point.

Of course, the additional factor is the importance of the starting points of a quadrant, extending the meaning of the starting point over the whole quadrant. Just like in the seasons, where (for example) the summer solstice, though actually the time of most sunlight, is only the start of summer because of the momentum of heat or cold in the oceans from the previous season continuing to shape our weather for the subsequent 3 months. So on Sean's graph, the maximum subjectivity point begins the awakening, and the maximum independent point begins the unravelling.

Wilber's quadrants combine a personal factor or worldview with a political one, whereas my philosophy wheel focuses only on personal (or philosophical) worldview factors. On the philosophers wheel (and other psychological/esoteric models like MBTI, the tree of life and the chakras (double helix) ), the flowing vs. structured polarity (similar to left/right brain, yin and yang, romantic vs. classic, etc.) replaces the political factor of independent (or libertarian) vs. communitarian. The Wilber quadrant seems appropriate for a social/political cycle like generations and turnings. But there is some archetypal similarity, insofar as independent/freedom compares with unstructured (i.e. "P" on MBTI), and communitarian with structured ("J").

The philosophers wheel/tree of life/chakra diagrams turn the quadrant to the right by 90 degrees (subjective vs. objective or I/WE vs. IT/ITs equals the spiritualist vs. materialist axis, or axial mundi/backbone).

Using MBTI, if we expand the meaning of introvert I and extravert E to include inner-directed vs. outer-directed (which were Jung's original meanings of these terms), and equate it with subjective=I/objective=E, then we can say the awakening quadrant is IP, the unravelling quadrant is EP, the crisis quadrant is EJ and the high quadrant is IJ. These are the first and last letters in your MBTI type.

Does your favorite or personally most-influential turning quadrant match those letters in your MBTI type? If the coming of age generation is most typical of a turning, then IP = prophet/2T, EP = nomad/3T, EJ = hero/4T and IJ = artist/1T. The middle aged generations in these quadrants would be IP = artist/2T, EP = prophet/3T, EJ = nomad/4T and IJ = civic/hero/1T. The former correlation to coming-of-age gens fits this scheme much better.

Last edited by Eric the Green; 03-29-2014 at 05:08 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#496 at 03-29-2014 04:37 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
03-29-2014, 04:37 PM #496
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
Actually the two graphs show the same thing. The first one shows the x(t) and y(t) values as a phase curve with time as an implicit variable. The second graph shows the functions of x(t) and y(t) as a discrete form. This shift from continuous to discrete is key. It is neccessary to "snap" the value of each value to one of two values. On the objectivity axis (x-axis) only 2 states exist, subjective and objective shows in the second graph as values of -1 and +1 on the blue line. These correspond to objectivity function x(t) values that are either negative or positive, that is when the circle is the the left or right of the y-axis.

The model gives differential equaltions that give the derivative of x(t) as a function of the discrete version of x(t) in the past. If you use the x(t) values themselves in the model the cycle is damped and the generations fade away within one saeculum. So you need something that forces individuals into one or the other category even if the actual difference between them is small. If you don't get sharp clear differences between adjacent cohorts in different generations the tunings are quickly damped out. That's what the math says. Sean's holon concept of a fixed tetralogy of generations fixes this problem, which forces the range of objectivity and individuality attributes in one of two categories. Without this "snap" effect generations make no sense mechanistically.
Thus my correction to Susan's model of a continuous wave pattern instead of more sharply-defined generations (related to my point about seasons above).
Last edited by Eric the Green; 03-29-2014 at 04:42 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#497 at 03-29-2014 05:19 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
03-29-2014, 05:19 PM #497
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

If it is political, and Reagan is TR (really he seems like two terms of McKinley), then the elder Bush is Taft, and Clinton is Wilson... and Dubya effectively telescopes Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover.

At some point, analogies get clumsy.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#498 at 03-29-2014 05:49 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
03-29-2014, 05:49 PM #498
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
If it is political, and Reagan is TR (really he seems like two terms of McKinley), then the elder Bush is Taft, and Clinton is Wilson... and Dubya effectively telescopes Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover.

At some point, analogies get clumsy.
At some point yes, in this case probably because ideologies and parties cross lines. Lincoln's Republicans assumed a progressive role at first, whereas Jackson's policies today would be considered similar to Republicans in his attacks on large government institutions (the national bank). So you got two Republican periods in a row (Lincoln, and McKinley-Roosevelt). In the middle of that period was the sea-change, in which progressive became socialist populism adopted by the Democrats. Mikebert's pattern works out.

From my astrological prediction point of view, it will be interesting to see what happens in 2024. Using the new moon before election as the most-reliable long-term predictor, it looks like Democrats will win 4 in a row: 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020. But the opposition is slated to win in 2024. Will this be a Republican-lite, following mikebert's pattern, or since this will be the height of the 4T crisis in which dominant parties could end (as in the 1850s/60s), will this be a new party? In any case, mikebert's pattern of "subordinate comeback" I would predict as of now to come into play in 2024. Since this is likely to be the term in which the crisis climaxes, it could be a radical situation in which the presidency itself is in danger of being abolished.

Much will also depend on who each party nominates. Hillary (if she runs) is a somewhat weak-scoring candidate; a strong-scoring candidate like Jeb Bush could beat her in 2016, just as high-scoring father Bush beat the very low-scoring Dukakis in 1988, despite favorable indications of a challenger victory from the new moon chart before the election. I would estimate now that Jeb is the only Republican who can beat her, on balance. Rubio, Ryan and Rand Paul have good scores too, but not good enough.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 03-29-2014 at 06:03 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#499 at 03-30-2014 06:26 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
03-30-2014, 06:26 AM #499
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Interesting summary graph from you and Sean. Obviously in the upper right he meant to say "unravelling" and not "crisis."
Correct. I fixed it. Also "independent" is supposed to be "individualist" so I fixed that too.


Of course, the additional factor is the importance of the starting points of a quadrant, extending the meaning of the starting point over the whole quadrant. Just like in the seasons, where (for example) the summer solstice, though actually the time of most sunlight, is only the start of summer because of the momentum of heat or cold in the oceans from the previous season continuing to shape our weather for the subsequent 3 months. So on Sean's graph, the maximum subjectivity point begins the awakening, and the maximum independent point begins the unravelling.
That is an excellent analogy. It also shows the importance of the discrete versions of the continuous variables. You have the most sunlight at the beginning of summer. Right now we have about as much sun as in early-mid September. But there is simply no comparison of the cold, wet, snowy miserable weather right now to smiling September. It's the difference between winter and summer, even though both days receive the same warming rays from the sun. Once you pass the equinox is spring, sure it can look and feel like winter, but so can fall, the other equinox season. In contrast the solstice seasons are very different for each others, opposites even, even when the amount of sun they get is very similar (e.g. early March versus early September) they are nothing alike. The descriptors "late winter" or "late summer" tell you way more than "11 hour day " or "13 hour day" does.

When a cohort enters a quadrant, and one of the two values is at a maximum, this is the non-controversial attribute, the one the new cohort accepts as useful without question. It is the other attribute, the one that is showing the steepest slope (meaning the fastest rate of change) that is the controversial attribute. This is the attribute the new cohort "blames" for the problems coming of age. And so they react against it by adopting the other attribute.

Consider the movement from the upper right to lower right quadrant. Coming of agers see no problem with the objective viewpoint, using it can explain their situation just fine. But the other attribute has big problems. They were taught how important it was to prepare for life. They worked hard, studied hard. They finshed college and have the debts to prove it. All their lives they have been told that if you work hard and prepare, you'll do fine. And then they come out and find the job market is a game of musical chairs, with half the chairs already occupied before the music has stopped. There are 5 open chairs and six of you who are extremely well-prepared to take a seat. One of you will be left standing, as will the other 8 of you that aren't so well-prepared. Your objective attribute tells you that the problem is obvious, not enough chairs. But they hear adults in power say the problem is not enough of you are sufficiently well-prepared to take what chairs there are. WTF?

The adults hold individualist perspectives, they can only see the problem in terms of the individual's ability to take a chair when the music ends. They literally cannot see how the number of chairs is relevant to the problem. So the COA cohorts reject the individualist perspective in favor of the communitarian perspective that reveals the lack of chairs as a problem collectively shared by all of them. That is they move downward through the horizontal axis and by doing so, become Heroes rather than Nomads.

Wilber's quadrants combine a personal factor or worldview with a political one, whereas my philosophy wheel focuses only on personal (or philosophical) worldview factors. On the philosophers wheel (and other psychological/esoteric models like MBTI, the tree of life and the chakras (double helix) ), the flowing vs. structured polarity (similar to left/right brain, yin and yang, romantic vs. classic, etc.) replaces the political factor of independent (or libertarian) vs. communitarian. The Wilber quadrant seems appropriate for a social/political cycle like generations and turnings. But there is some archetypal similarity, insofar as independent/freedom compares with unstructured (i.e. "P" on MBTI), and communitarian with structured ("J").

The philosophers wheel/tree of life/chakra diagrams turn the quadrant to the right by 90 degrees (subjective vs. objective or I/WE vs. IT/ITs equals the spiritualist vs. materialist axis, or axial mundi/backbone).

Using MBTI, if we expand the meaning of introvert I and extravert E to include inner-directed vs. outer-directed (which were Jung's original meanings of these terms), and equate it with subjective=I/objective=E, then we can say the awakening quadrant is IP, the unravelling quadrant is EP, the crisis quadrant is EJ and the high quadrant is IJ. These are the first and last letters in your MBTI type.

Does your favorite or personally most-influential turning quadrant match those letters in your MBTI type? If the coming of age generation is most typical of a turning, then IP = prophet/2T, EP = nomad/3T, EJ = hero/4T and IJ = artist/1T. The middle aged generations in these quadrants would be IP = artist/2T, EP = prophet/3T, EJ = nomad/4T and IJ = civic/hero/1T. The former correlation to coming-of-age gens fits this scheme much better.
I'll have to think about this
Last edited by Mikebert; 03-30-2014 at 07:05 AM.







Post#500 at 03-30-2014 07:40 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
03-30-2014, 07:40 AM #500
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
If it is political, and Reagan is TR (really he seems like two terms of McKinley), then the elder Bush is Taft, and Clinton is Wilson... and Dubya effectively telescopes Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover.
No, Over 80% of Hoover's presidency fell into a 4T, he was the first president or the last 4T. Obama is he first president of this 4T. They are the same cycle-wise. They differ in party, a closer analogy would be Obama to an Al Smith who won the 1928. For example suppose the corrupt Harding had followed the upright Coolidge rather than the reverse and he sought re-election so as the further reward his friends. Al Smith could well win. And since many Democrats were in favor of free-silver it would be politically easier for a president Smith to do what FDR did, suspend the gold standard by executive order without there being a war. Like it did in March, doing this would immediately stop the deflationary spiral and begin a partial recovery. Propserty would not return, but improving conditions would probably have gotten him reelected in 1932. What it probably would not get him was a strongly Democratic Congress and so there would be no New Deal; no clear-cut regeneracy. In other words it would look a lot like today.
-----------------------------------------