Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I don't think I was clear. What I am saying is there were no Civil War heroes as S&H said. Thus there is no Hero archetype to move up the generational diagonal. The reason why S&H don't think there were any Heroes is because what should have been Civil War heroes "seem much more Artist-like in the final analysis".

But when prophets came of age in 1886 we didn't get an Awakening. The data clearly show that the Awakening occured later. Why? The paradigm model that I currently favor offers an explanation.

It says an Awakening could not begin in 1886 because the political environment was unfavorable. The paradigmic generation associated with the Civil War era (b 1835-1852) was too young (at age 42) to bring about the political characteristics (a liberal era) needed for a social moment. There was no critical election at that time. The 1884, 1888 and 1892 elections saw the same Democrat (Grover Cleveland) run for office, winning twice (1884, 1892) and winning the popular vote, but not the election in 1888 (just like Gore in 2000). By 1896, the Civil War paradigmic generation was (at 52) old enough to have their influence. So we got the critical election and Awakening then.

Now a paradigmic generation is not the same as an archetypical generation (the kind S&H talk about). Archetypical generations are born during turnings, they reflect the nurture typical of that turning. The environment from age 4 to coming of age produces their respective archetype. Paradigms reflect belief systems, not personality type, they are created in young adults, who can be of any archetype.

I didn't understand the difference you were making between "archetypal" and "paradigmic" generations. Thank you. I will digest this.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

In both the 2nd and 3rd Awakenings there were no Heroes around. For the first, the Republicans were too old. Look at page 50 of T4T. The average age of Republicans at the 1831 climax of the Transendental Awakening was 77. The average age of the GIs at the 1974 climax of the New Consciousness Awakening was 62 . . .

. . . Now compare the average ages of the paradigmic generations. In 1831 the Jeffersonian paradigmic generation was collectively 49. In 1974 the New-Deal paradigmic generation was 62. Considering the change in life expectancy betwen 1831 and 1974, these two generations are at the appropriate ages to exert their effects.

As you know, I suspect a "trilogical" dynamic at work prior to 1820 that makes the "tetralogical" shadow archetype mechanism unnecessary.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

When you mentioned that "flat-lining" of unrest in S&H's putative High, it brought to mind the flat-lining of birth rates during that time that was "the exception that proved the rule". Birth rates were in structural decline from the 1840's through the 1930's, with a leveling off during the S&H's Gilded High. Thus relatively speaking the Missionaries overall were a baby boom type generation as Prophets should be.

I am not sure this claim can be made.

The data in your chart doesn't match up with what I remember from my readings. Where is the data from?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

All I'm saying is that we're talking here about judgments made on the basis of very few events per year.

Yes. Both our methodologies suffer from this problem. Your method is more senistive because it is based on consideration of just one event, the Crisis War. It's all or nothing. If observers don't agree with the choice of which wars are crisis wars, the whole thing collapses.

If there were just one or two more unrest events in England a little earlier, then we'd have the English awakening beginning in 1610, which is the date that McLoughlin gives.

There are unrest events earlier. There are more of them later. If you dig really deep you will find more events. If you look for more events, I expect that in the process of finding 2 or 3 more events in the 1600-1620 period will also uncover more events in the 1620-1650 period. If you look explicitly in the 1600-1620 period only for events, then you are cherry picking. You have to pick timelines that cover a long period before and after the period of interest, so that other periods have an equal chance of having events. That is, you have to record all the events from your source.

I see from your book that "Fisher reports so many revolts in the early 17th century that they were assembled into groups and treated as single events to keep this event peak from dwarfing all the others." This kind of data grouping could have a big effect when all we're talking about is three or four events every five years. I'm sure there must have been some Puritan-based unrest events in England in the 1610s, and even one or two of those would change the graph significantly.

No it wouldn't. In the graph I presented in this thread, I show all the events--there is no need to group them as I am only presenting a single century. Also, all eight of these groups (24 events represented as eight clusters) occurred between 1625 and 1655. There are over five times as many events in the 1621-1650 period (40) as there are in the 1590-1620 period (7). So you would have to add several dozen events in the latter period to change the plot and by finding that many you would find many more in the 1621-1650 period. You will probably never be able to move the end of the Awakening before the ECW.

I just don't understand how you can even count unrest events when the English Civil War was going on. It just doesn't make sense to me to talk about a strike as an unrest event when the context of massive
slaughter going on all around. It's like the draft riots during the
American Civil War and using those as evidence of an awakening. I
just don't understand it.

Here are the English events from the ECW period:

1642 Outbreak of English Civil War
1645 Scottish revolts
1649 Charles I executed
1649 Levellers draw up Agreement of People as basis for new constitution, leaders arrested

One of the is the outbreak of the war itself. The rest are related to the war.

In America:

1646 Death penalty for heresy in MA
1648 Boston Coopers and Shoemakers form guilds
1648 Margaret Jones hanged for wirtchcraft in Boston
1648 Swedish and Dutch settlers feud

In France

1644 French Revolts, group IV (this a group of three revolts all with a couple of years of 1644.

Elsewhere:
1642 Hapsburg Revolts group II (three more revolts centered in 1642)
1644 Leyden Textile Worker's strike
1647 Ukranian Revolts
1647 Italian Revolts
1647 Spanish bankruptcy
1648 Leyden Textile Worker's strike

Unrest was pretty much everywhere during the period of the ECW.

Is it your belief that the Thirty Years War was an awakening? Here's a description:

Originally Posted by Peter N. Stearns

> THE LEGACY OF THE THIRTY YEARS' WAR: This war left two legacies --
> massive destruction of land and population and the end of Catholic
> supremacy in Europe. Armies moved back and forth across Europe,
> destroying crops and routing people from their homes. Estimates
> indicate that European population declined by as much as 30
> percent in some areas. The war also resulted in major dislocation
> and migration throughout Europe. Even countries largely untouched
> by armies suffered loss of trade. The Baltic grain trade was
> devastated. The Peace of Westphalia not only ended the war and
> established territorial boundaries, it codified the principle that
> the prince would choose the religion (Calvinism, Lutheranism, or
> Catholicism) of his territory. This principle weakened the Holy
> Roman Empire because it recognized princely sovereignty. It also
> furthered the gradual decline of the Catholic Church in the 17th
> and 18th centuries.

> THE GENERAL CRISIS OF THE 17TH CENTURY has sparked intense debate
> among historians. The term "crisis," originally used in the
> medical sense, refers to an economic and political turning point.
> Historians cite the shift of economic growth in Europe from the
> Mediterranean (especially Spain and Italy) toward western Europe
> (particularly England and France) in demonstrating this turning
> point. They also recognize the repeated challenges to political
> authority. The 17th century witnessed numerous revolutions
> (England, the Fronde, the Dutch Republic, etc.) and revolts.
> Peasant revolts regarding taxes spread throughout the 17th
> century. These revolts focused either on new taxes or on
> extensions of old ones but were characterized by a desire to
> return to the status quo.

From your graph, I gather you'd have to call all this an awakening
event also. And there were indeed religious elements to all of this.
But to do so ignores the context of a massive genocidal slaughter
going on, with huge masses of people being slaughtered, starved and
raped. It's like counting a few raindrops in the midst of a raging
typhoon.

Much of the unrest reflected the ongoing Thirty Years War. The historical record is packed with unrest during the Thirty Years War, but not during the War of Spanish Succession. According to my POV, the reason is the first is a social moment turning (Awakening) while the second is a non-social moment turning (High). In the first, the Spanish are reacting to events, a world in rebellion against the established order (of Catholic and Spanish dominion). In the latter the French are trying to create a new order (of French continental dominace). The second is an expression of French national power and pride--which peaks during the High. The first is a time when it begins to fall apart for Spain. What WW I was to Britain the Thirty Years war was for Spain.

All I'm saying is that there's another way of looking at this. The 30 Years War began in 1618 in Germany and ended in 1648. Because of it's length, it could not have been a crisis war for the entire 30 year period in all regions. Instead, it must have been a "rolling" crisis war, with the crisis period ending in some regions earlier than in others.

That means that the following awakening would also be a "rolling" awakening. Furthermore, if we change your 20 year rule to a 10 year rule (since we're using a trailing 10-year average of unrest events), then it makes sense to talk about an awakening on the Continent in 1640-1660, and that would match your data. Then by adding a couple more unrest events to England in the 1610s and 1620s, then we would have the English awakening starting in 1610. So from that point of view our results would match completely.

This view reflects your theoretical POV that the saeculum must be localized. I don't agree, I think the saeculum operates on a transnational scale. I find that, looking at data from several European nations and American, that an Awakening ran over approximately 1621-1649 throughout the Western world.

This methodology for identifying awakening periods is very similar to the Generational Dynamics methodology as follows:

As I've said before, S&H use a "bottom-up" methodology of reading
histories and diaries and using them to construct the generational
turnings.

Generational Dynamics is "top-down." It starts by taking S&H's
description of a crisis period, and uses that description to identify
crisis periods throughout history. Then the generations and turnings
cam be reconstructed from the crisis periods.

Your awakening methodology is remarkably similar. You've started by
taking S&H's description of an awakening period, and you use that
deescription to identify awakening periods throughout history. Then
the generations and turnings can be reconstructed from the awakening
periods.

So you have a "top-down" methodology which is very similar to mine,
and both are based on S&H's descriptions of the different turnings.

So if your methodology and mine were to produce similar results, then
it would provide validation for everyone.

This is quite true. However we have significant theoretical differences in the way we look at the saeculum. For you, any big signficant war like the Napoleonic wars must be a Crisis period. For me, the Napoleonic war should be a High, because according to the war model for the Kondratiev cycle, periods of massive war are necessarily non-social moments. They cannot be Crises, by definition.

The reason is any lengthy series major war will produce a long period of inflation. But a 20-25 year period of inflation is a Kondratiev upwave, by definition. Thus, lengthy periods of major war (some of which are bound to be crisis wars) will occur during upwaves. Thus ALL crisis wars occur in Kondratiev upwaves.

But, during the period the war/finance model of the Kondratiev cycle holds sway (ca 1675-1860) social moments occur during Kondratiev downwaves. During this time, crisis wars cannot occur during secular crises, by definition. That is, the Napoleonic War and the War of Spanish Succession cannot be a Secular Crisis turning because they are large war. The larger and more bloody the war, the less likely it can be a Crisis. Read the sections starting on page 16 and 26 in The Kondratiev Cycle.

I am not saying my model is right, I simply don't use the typhoon concept. I am aware that one could use Crises as a starting point for trying to empirically characterize the cycle (which is what both of us are trying to do). However I had no way of characterizing crises. When I look at the the Black Death, the War of the Roses, the Spanish Armada, the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, the Civil War and the Great Depression I could see no unifying theme behind all of them. Your approach is one I didn't think of. I see strengths and weakness in your approach, just as there are strengths and weakness to my approach or S&H's approach.

But before we and look for points of sysnthesis between our respective approaches we need to udnerstand each others approach. I believe I demonstrated that I understand your model by my earlier summary which you said was correct. That was why I wrote the summary, to verify that I know where you are coming from. I think the way to proceed is for you to provide a description of my model, as I did with your model. You will have to read chapter 2 in The Kondratiev Cycle very carefully to grasp the two models (population and war/finance). This way I can be sure we are on the same page.

Dear Mike,

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

> Yes. Both our methodologies suffer from this problem. Your method
> is more senistive because it is based on consideration of just one
> event, the Crisis War. It's all or nothing. If observers don't
> agree with the choice of which wars are crisis wars, the whole
> thing collapses.

No, that's not true. A crisis war involves many, many events. There
are multiple belligerents, multiple battles, multiple motivations,
and so forth. There are probably hundreds of such "events."
Identification of a crisis war involves judgment based on numerous
factors -- in fact, I've listed dozens of factors, including
historical factors, political factors, outcomes, and so forth.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

> I believe I demonstrated that I understand your model by my
> earlier summary which you said was correct.

Judging from the paragraph of yours that I just quoted, obviously
not.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

> I think the way to proceed is for you to provide a description of
> my model, as I did with your model.

In my last message I already did that, at the same level of detail
that you described my model. Still, a further analysis of your model
is on my huge pile of tasks to be completed, and what I'm mostly
focusing on right now is writing up the GD methodology at some
length, but I'll come up with something as soon as I can.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

As you know, I suspect a "trilogical" dynamic at work prior to 1820 that makes the "tetralogical" shadow archetype mechanism unnecessary.

Yes, but your trilogical model stops working after 1820. So what happens then? How do we get from 25+ year gens to 18 year gens? This issue is what the paradigm model deals with.

Your approach is kind of fuzzy when we get to the transition. You claim that after 1820, the S&H mechansim just starts working. Yet does it? For the Transcendental Awakening the Heroes are too old. For the Missionary Awakening the Heroes are out to lunch. And for the Civil War crisis the Heroes mysteriously fail to appear. What we have here is a serious dereliction of duty on the part of supposedly Heroic generations

In fact the only two social moments for which the S&H model works completely are the two from which it was designed. The two generations involved are the author's and their parents' generations. The authors state that their interest in this subject came from the generation gap between these two generations. It is apparent to me that the four archetypes are directly modeled on GIs, Silents, Boomers and Xers. But if the model only works for these four, then it is no model at all, but rather a nifty description of the unique interactions between these four generations.

The original idea in Generations was that their model was supposed to apply to all nine social moments described. The fact that one anomaly disrupted two of the social moments was not so big of a problem (it still worked for 78% of them). But by bringing in the longer earlier turnings they really created a need for something (e.g. the trilogical mechanism) to deal with the longer earlier turnings. Introducing the trilogical model to save things before 1820 doesn't help their model because now it works only 40% of the time. We should scrap the S&H model entirely if we are going to employ a different model before 1820. The paradigm model I suggest fits all five of the post-1820 social moments tolerably well.

On the other hand, their research did reveal that generations like they describe apparently existed both before and after 1820. I don't think they are wrong there. I simply question whether these generations create themselves in the way that S&H posit, or whether other factors are involved.

What S&H found was a pattern of repeating generations and a pattern of repeating social moments (cyclic history) that were correlated in a significant fashion. They hypothesized a causative relation between the two: generations create (cause) cyclic history. Cyclic history creates (causes) generations. But correlation is not necessarily causation. What we could have is a lurking variable. A third factor could cause both cyclic history and repeating generations. Then history and generations (having a common cause) would necessarily correlate with each other.

The data in your chart doesn't match up with what I remember from my readings. Where is the data from?

After 1909 from NCHS. Before 1909 from:

Ansley Cole and Melvin Zelnik, New Estimates of Fertility and Population in the United States, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

No, that's not true. A crisis war involves many, many events. There are multiple belligerents, multiple battles, multiple motivations, and so forth. There are probably hundreds of such "events."
Identification of a crisis war involves judgment based on numerous factors -- in fact, I've listed dozens of factors, including historical factors, political factors, outcomes, and so forth.

But its evalation comes down to one binary variable, either it is a crisis war or it is not. Imagine each war as a bit, with a 1 being a crisis war and a 0 being a midcycle war. Let us use Britain and consider the major wars from the Armada to WW II:

War of the Armada (1585-1604)
Thirty Years's War (1618-1648)
English Civil War (1642-1649)
Scottish War (1650-1651)
Anglo-Dutch Naval War (1652-1655)
English-Spanish War (1656-1659)
Anglo-Dutch Naval War (1665-1667)
Dutch War of Louis XIV (1672-1678)
War of the League of Augsburg (1688-1697)
War of the Spanish Succession' (1701-1713)
War of the Austrian Succession (1739-1748)
Seven Years War (1755-1763)
War of the American Revolution (1778-1784)
Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815)
War of 1812 (1812-1814)
Crimean War (1853-1856)
World War I (1914-1918)
World War II (1939-1945)

We can represent these wars as a string of 0's and 1's.

1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

An error in a single bit seriously damages the cycle. It is necessary that all evaluations come out in accordance with this specification. This is what I meant.

For example, you and I disagree on the WSS. I see it like WW I, a mid cycle war, so my specification is

1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Just one switched bit, but what a difference that makes.

If I didn't get your mechanism right, why did you write this?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Mike,

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

> I'll start with Generational Dynamics. As I understand it, the key
> to GD is the Crisis War. Crisis Wars occur across what John calls
> fault lines, which are fundamental divisions between people of all
> ages that periodically boil over into intense, extremely violent
> conflagrations--the Crisis Wars. Unlike S&H's theory, in which a
> Crisis creates four different generations based on phase of life,
> GD has the Crisis War uniting the generations, creating a
> consensus aversion to future Crisis Wars. As long as those who
> remember the Crisis War (the crisis generation) still are active
> in running society, there will be no new crisis war. Thus the
> average spacing of Crisis Wars (i.e. the length of the saeculum)
> is roughly an average human lifespan. John lists English Crisis
> Wars over the last millennium and the average spacing is 73 years,
> close to the Biblical "three score and ten".

> The Crisis War is followed by an Austerity period (what S&H call a
> High) during which all the adults belong to the crisis generation
> and a new non-crisis generation is being born. This is a period of
> maximum consensus, when differences across fault lines are most
> suppressed for the sake of avoiding another crisis war. When the
> new generation that "knows not the crisis" comes of age,
> conditions arise for generational conflict between young and old.
> This conflict occurs across what John calls the generation gap. It
> does not develop into a conflict across the fault line (i.e. a
> Crisis War) because of the restraining influence of elder members
> of the "crisis generation".

> This period of generational struggle is the Awakening. After 15-20
> years the Awakening is exhausted. Society has been changed by the
> Awakening. New differences between people appear, which can give
> rise to new fault lines over which a struggle can occur. Such
> struggle does not occur in the period after the Awakening because
> members of the Crisis-adverse "crisis generation" are still in
> power. This post-Awakening era is the Unraveling. The Unraveling
> lasts as long as it takes for two things to happen. First, the old
> crisis generation must "age out" of power. Second a pretext for
> serious conflict over a fault line must appear after the crisis
> generation is gone. This makes the Unraveling the longest and most
> variable-length turning. Thus, a characteristic of the GD-based
> saeculum would be a spacing between Awakenings and the next Crisis
> that is longer than the spacing between the Crisis and the next
> Awakening. Turning length should not be uniform: the Unraveling
> should be longer (on average) than the other three turning types.

This is really a very good summary. Thank you. The only word I
would change is "homogenized," which I think is too strong. I think
"united" is a better choice.

I took this to mean that I had described your mechanism correctly, with one word change (that I have made here). What did I get wrong here?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

As you know, I suspect a "trilogical" dynamic at work prior to 1820 that makes the "tetralogical" shadow archetype mechanism unnecessary.

Yes, but your trilogical model stops working after 1820. So what happens then? How do we get from 25+ year gens to 18 year gens? This issue is what the paradigm model deals with.

I do not see the drop go from 27ish to 18ish overnight in 1820. I see it already dropping a little before that point, with the onset of the Industrial Revolution reducing it much faster, with some minor, but continuing, reduction into the 20th century, where it now stands somewhere around 20. I suspect it is yet still dropping toward 18 but growing asymptotic.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Your approach is kind of fuzzy when we get to the transition. You claim that after 1820, the S&H mechansim just starts working. Yet does it? For the Transcendental Awakening the Heroes are too old. For the Missionary Awakening the Heroes are out to lunch. And for the Civil War crisis the Heroes mysteriously fail to appear. What we have here is a serious dereliction of duty on the part of supposedly Heroic generations

No, the transition occurs over the course of decades. If you recall, ontogenic compaction, already underway, is greatly stimulated by industrialization, for the reasons I described. The trilogical mechanism was already under stress by the American Revolution Crisis, as the Awakeners were young enough to play a role, but old enough so that we still had one last Nomad GC.

Due to an extraordinarily long ("Era of Good Feelings") 1T, the vagaries of history gave us one last pre-tetralogical length generation in the Transcendentals at the same time that generational compaction started to kick in strong. The result was an overdominant Prophet generation come the mid-19th century.

This saecular dissonnace led to the "hiccup" I described that heralded the completed arrival of S&H's tetralogical mechanism. I suspect each modernizing society experiences this in a different way. It looks like Britain, for example, may have somehow skipped a Crisis altogether around that time.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

In fact the only two social moments for which the S&H model works completely are the two from which it was designed. The two generations involved are the author's and their parents' generations. The authors state that their interest in this subject came from the generation gap between these two generations. It is apparent to me that the four archetypes are directly modeled on GIs, Silents, Boomers and Xers. But if the model only works for these four, then it is no model at all, but rather a nifty description of the unique interactions between these four generations.

The original idea in Generations was that their model was supposed to apply to all nine social moments described. The fact that one anomaly disrupted two of the social moments was not so big of a problem (it still worked for 78% of them). But by bringing in the longer earlier turnings they really created a need for something (e.g. the trilogical mechanism) to deal with the longer earlier turnings. Introducing the trilogical model to save things before 1820 doesn't help their model because now it works only 40% of the time. We should scrap the S&H model entirely if we are going to employ a different model before 1820. The paradigm model I suggest fits all five of the post-1820 social moments tolerably well.

I'll give you the advantage of parsimony there. But I'll have to continue digesting your paradigmic model before I see a necessary concession to William of Ockham. :wink:

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

On the other hand, their research did reveal that generations like they describe apparently existed both before and after 1820. I don't think they are wrong there. I simply question whether these generations create themselves in the way that S&H posit, or whether other factors are involved.

What S&H found was a pattern of repeating generations and a pattern of repeating social moments (cyclic history) that were correlated in a significant fashion. They hypothesized a causative relation between the two: generations create (cause) cyclic history. Cyclic history creates (causes) generations. But correlation is not necessarily causation. What we could have is a lurking variable. A third factor could cause both cyclic history and repeating generations. Then history and generations (having a common cause) would necessarily correlate with each other.

I see both trilogical and tetralogical mechanisms as ambigenic with the former leaning toward exogenic and the latter endogenic.

The data in your chart doesn't match up with what I remember from my readings. Where is the data from?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

After 1909 from NCHS. Before 1909 from:

Ansley Cole and Melvin Zelnik, New Estimates of Fertility and Population in the United States, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963

Thanks Mike. Is that a book you have in your possession or is there a link?

Quoting David Kaiser, Jul 26 '97 post:

"...the Empire certainly was transformed (Canada, India, each in a different way), the suffrage was thoroughly reformed, and the role of religion may have changed a lot in the 1850-70 period, and I think that could fit a reasonable definition of a crisis."


Quoting Kurt '63, Dec. 10 '97 post:

"As for a potential Crisis, I would suggest to you that there was replacement of the civic order in the 1866 to 1884 era. I would further suggest that the Crisis revolved around three issues: rights for women, political reform, and the Irish question...the very nature of the political system was changed during this era, with suffrage being vastly extended, and the very nature of voting reformed. Rotten boroughs were eliminated, as was the multiple voting priveleges enjoyed by many of the upper-crust. The dominance of the nobility and gentry was broken, and the common (middle-class) man was propelled into power. Could these events have happended at any time? I would suggest that such a shift of society could ONLY have happened during a Crisis."

From print out derived from paleo 4T site, Western European thread.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Quoting David Kaiser, Jul 26 '97 post:

"...the Empire certainly was transformed (Canada, India, each in a different way), the suffrage was thoroughly reformed, and the role of religion may have changed a lot in the 1850-70 period, and I think that could fit a reasonable definition of a crisis."


Quoting Kurt '63, Dec. 10 '97 post:

"As for a potential Crisis, I would suggest to you that there was replacement of the civic order in the 1866 to 1884 era. I would further suggest that the Crisis revolved around three issues: rights for women, political reform, and the Irish question...the very nature of the political system was changed during this era, with suffrage being vastly extended, and the very nature of voting reformed. Rotten boroughs were eliminated, as was the multiple voting priveleges enjoyed by many of the upper-crust. The dominance of the nobility and gentry was broken, and the common (middle-class) man was propelled into power. Could these events have happended at any time? I would suggest that such a shift of society could ONLY have happened during a Crisis."

From print out derived from paleo 4T site, Western European thread.

Nonetheless some sort of attenuated, or at the very least atypical, crisis, if so. What would make that happen?

Again, I don't know so much about the British history of this era, but just as a long, overdominating Prophet generation led to a disasterous 4T in America, could have a short, temperate Prophet cohort have led to a relatively non-violent, reformist crisis in Britain?

I know some here see the Napoleonic Wars as 1T, but I can't swallow that. I see a crisis from 1789 (or earlier) to 1815. Yet, there are 2T signs in Western Europe easily as early as 1830. Just as a long 1T led to a long Prophet group in America, maybe a shortened 1T led to the opposite in much of Europe?

Dear Mike,

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

> I took this to mean that I had described your mechanism correctly,
> with one word change (that I have made here). What did I get wrong
> here?

Yes I did say that you summarized GD correctly, but I was forced to
change my mind yesterday when you made your "sensitivity" comparison,
implying that you believe that a war is equivalent to an unrest
event, which means that you believe that GD as almost derivative of
your awakening methodology, which indicated to me a basic
misunderstanding of GD.

A number of years ago, an editor criticized me for the way I had
structured a technology article I had written. I wanted to critique
technology T. The way I did it was by starting the article by
identifying person P as the leading expert on T, and then criticizing
P's approach to T. The editor pointed out that I was simply setting
up P in the first paragraph in order to knock him down later in the
story, and that was unfair to both T and P. What you've done is to
begin with a good summary of GD, and then use it to knock down GD by
manipulating some of the details, which is a variation of what I did
"when I was your age."

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

> But its evalation comes down to one binary variable, either it is
> a crisis war or it is not. Imagine each war as a bit, with a 1
> being a crisis war and a 0 being a midcycle war. Let us use
> Britain and consider the major wars from the Armada to WW II:

> War of the Armada (1585-1604)
> Thirty Years's War (1618-1648)
> English Civil War (1642-1649)
> Scottish War (1650-1651)
> Anglo-Dutch Naval War (1652-1655)
> English-Spanish War (1656-1659)
> Anglo-Dutch Naval War (1665-1667)
> Dutch War of Louis XIV (1672-1678)
> War of the League of Augsburg (1688-1697)
> War of the Spanish Succession' (1701-1713)
> War of the Austrian Succession (1739-1748)
> Seven Years War (1755-1763)
> War of the American Revolution (1778-1784)
> Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815)
> War of 1812 (1812-1814)
> Crimean War (1853-1856)
> World War I (1914-1918)
> World War II (1939-1945)

> We can represent these wars as a string of 0's and 1's.

> 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

> An error in a single bit seriously damages the cycle. It is
> necessary that all evaluations come out in accordance with this
> specification. This is what I meant.

> For example, you and I disagree on the WSS. I see it like WW I, a
> mid cycle war, so my specification is

> 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

> Just one switched bit, but what a difference that makes.

This is where the "sensitivity" argument leads to an incorrect
conclusion about GD.

When you say that you "see" WSS like WW I, then you're reaching an
intuitive conclusion of your own, and you're not applying the GD
criteria, which clearly evaluate WSS to a crisis war. Furthermore,
your statement implies that you see the evaluation criteria for a war
as weak and indefinite as the evaluation criteria for unrest events.
But clearly that isn't true: I provided lengthy, detailed criteria for
evaluating wars, and you've provided no criteria whatsoever (that I'm
aware of) for evaluating unrest events.

Let me remind you of some of the criticisms that you (and others) made
of me back when we were discussing the evaluation of crisis wars: You
said that my criteria were too vague to be applied by anyone else but
me; you said that I couldn't conclude that I had applied the criteria
fairly unless I had evaluated all wars. Your criticisms led me
rewrite the evaluation criteria into an almost computer-like
algorithm, and include the concept of "near-forgotten" wars.

But now those same criticisms apply to your evaluation of unrest
events, and it's hard for me to see how you can respond. Your
criteria for evaluating unrest events are too vauge to be applied by
anyone else but you, and you can't conclude that you've counted
unrest events fairly until you've evaluated all possible "events."
There's no simple "near-forgotten unrest event" concept, and you still
have no inclusion criteria that could be applied by anyone else but
you.

---

Now, you're right about one thing: The distinction between crisis and
non-crisis wars is absolutely crucial. It's the most important
concept in GD, and incidentally it's also the most important concept
that distinguishes "The Fourth Turning" from "Generations."

After my book came out, the challenge that you and a number of other
people posed for GD was to prove that the distinction between crisis
and non-crisis wars makes sense. Since then I've done a lot of work
on describing that distinction. With any luck, I'll be out with a
new book before long, responding to all the challenges.

When you say that an error in evaluating a crisis war dramatically
changes the cycle, you're absolutely right. But that's the great
strength of GD. But the method for evaluation a crisis war bears no
relationship, as far as I can see, to whatever method you use to
evaluate unrest events.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Dear Mike,

In your book, The Kondratiev Cycle, you present a number of
models for relating such things as food production, population, debt
levels, inflation rates, technical innovations, and other variables
to each other.

The reason that so many different models are presented is that no
single model seems to provide the significant correlations you're
looking for. Modelski's book is subject to the same observation.

You finally settle on the K-S model, but then have to spend a great
deal of time dealing with anomalies of various kinds. On pages
139-141, you say that pre-industrial cycles reflected physical and
biological forces, but post-industrial cycles are no longer
physically driven, but following generational (awakening) cycles.

You provide no theoretical support for this view. It's simply an
ad hoc attempt at a plausible explanation of why the cycle
length changes. This is ultimately unsatisfying, since we have no
way of knowing exactly what caused the cycle lengths to change, and
we have no way of knowing whether a similar new change is occurring
today due, perhaps, to the computer revolution.

I would like to present an alternate explanation of the cycle length
changes. This explanation is fully supported by the theory developed
in Generational Dynamics, and it's a much simpler and more elegant
explanation.

The graph below is simple numeric model for the years 1000-2010. At
the bottom are timelines for 11 different local regions, with
generational cycle lengths of 75 to 85 years. In each case, there's
a crisis war lasting 10 years, with an amplitude of 30 units, and
there are also one-year non-crisis wars sprinkled throughout the
timelines at random places.

What is the graph measuring? It could be any of your variables --
battle deaths, financial cycles, unrest events -- anything that might
be generational. (In the case of unrest events, then the bumps would
represent awakenings, not crisis wars.)

Above the graphs for the local regions is the "technology effect"
graph. This is graphed as a simple sin wave with period 50 years,
and an amplitude of 10 units, which corresponds to the K-cycle.

The 11 local regions are set up so that the cycles merge over time,
leading to a major "clash of civilizations" world war in the 2000s
decade.

The top graph is the grand total of all the ones below it.



Early in the millennium, when all the generational periods are
diffused over time, it's the technology effect (K-cycle) that
dominates most of the time.

By the end of the millenium, when the generational periods are
merging, it's the generations that dominate, and produce higher
spikes.

All of the behaviors that your book tries to explain as anomalies or
as post-industrial changes appear somewhere in this model, and in
this model they're fully explained by localization and merging.

There are many ways to make this model a more realistic
representation of what actually happened. The crisis periods could
be spread out more randomly, still merging in the 2000s.

Another idea would be to call the above graph "Western Europe," and
create a second graph, "Eastern Europe," displaced by 20 years, but
still merging in the 2000s. Then adding the two together, we would
have the analogue to WW I and WW II.

As far as I can tell, this is a much simpler and more elegant
explanation of the anomalies that you've found in the K-S cycle, and
by the occam's razor principle ought to be preferred.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

I do not see the drop go from 27ish to 18ish overnight in 1820. I see it already dropping a little before that point, with the onset of the Industrial Revolution reducing it much faster, with some minor, but continuing, reduction into the 20th century, where it now stands somewhere around 20. I suspect it is yet still dropping toward 18 but growing asymptotic.

No, the transition occurs over the course of decades. If you recall, ontogenic compaction, already underway, is greatly stimulated by industrialization, for the reasons I described. The trilogical mechanism was already under stress by the American Revolution Crisis, as the Awakeners were young enough to play a role, but old enough so that we still had one last Nomad GC.

Due to an extraordinarily long ("Era of Good Feelings") 1T, the vagaries of history gave us one last pre-tetralogical length generation in the Transcendentals at the same time that generational compaction started to kick in strong. The result was an overdominant Prophet generation come the mid-19th century.

This doesn't answer the question, it deosn't explain the decrease in turning length mechanistically. The old model requires a forcing function to work. This forcing function would produce a long crisis from ca 1870 to 1896. Obvously it no longer operate after 1860, when the Civil War cut short the unraveling. S&H argue that the appearance of missionaries in 1860 created an Awakening beginning in 1886, which forces a High to come in the earlu part of the rising unrest trend after 1860. To make room they truncate the Crisis to just five years. But the religious trend data doesn't support the 1886-1908 Awakening. The data actually supports a crisis on normal length after 1860, something like 1860-77. So now you have a the Missionary prophet generation that was born in a crisis (like adaptives) and who were young in a high (like adaptives), but are actually prophets based on generational biography.

What this says is, neither early childhood nurture nor coming of age experience is what forges a generation. That is, history does not create generations. It also says that neither coming of age nor elder dominant generations create turnings, because the coming of age of Missionaries in the 1880's failed to prodcue an Awakening, and there were not elder heroes at all. That is, generations do not create history.

If the S&H mechanism doesn't work in the 19th century, then a different mechansim is needed. Simply referring to how generation length has slowly fallen over time doesn't eliminate the need for a new mechanism that will work for generations with lengths much below 25.

By eliminating the connection between archetypical generations and history one may well ask what is the significance the archetypical generations? The answer I believe is they influence the culture. The cycles of history have material (economic) causation before 1860 and political causation after 1820. Cultural matters in the old cycle were added onto the base cycle by archetypical generations running through the trilogical pattern. This cultural influence "colors" a turbulent period into an Awakening or Crisis. At this time the long turnings gave plenty of time for huge archetypical generations to develop, which will dominate the culture when they move into adulthood.

After 1820, turnings are increasingly produced by a political mechanism employing politically-based generations and decreasingly influenced by the old Kondratiev-linked mechanism. Archetypical generations still exist, but the shorter generations mean that they no longer dominate the culture in the way they did before. They still have influence though. For example the trend towards recreational drug use in the late 19th century, and the popularity of cocaine and opium as well as the rising trend in aclohol use in the US from the 1880's to about 1910 all correlate with the advent of the Missionaries. Similar trends in the 1960's and 1970's correlate with the Boomers. On the other hand, the religious impulse does not seem to be stronger amongst post 1820 prophets as it was before. Here is a list of people from my religious database dividned by archetypical generation. The Lost and Silent (both recessive generations) are the most represented, while the prophets are the least.

I also checked paradigm-based gens. Here I found the Missionaries (1.25/yr) and GI's (1.27/yr) were the most religious with the Lost (0.95/yr) the least and the Silent (1.10/yr) and Boom (1.06) about the same. It is still possible that with the addition of very recent religious groups to the list the Boom might overtake the Silent.

Missionary (0.74/yr)
Swami Vivekanda (b 1863) - Ramkrishna Vendata Society
Eudorus Bell (b 1866) - Assembly of God
(b 1866) - Thomas Tsugi flourished
Georgii Gudshiev (b 1870) - Gurdjieff
Makiguchi (b 1871) - Soka Gakkai
Wallace Dodd Fahd (b 1871) - Nation of Islam
Sri Aurobindo (b 1872) - Integral Yoga
(b 1873) - Therese of Lisieux flourished
Charles Parham (b 1873) - Pentacostalism
William Saddler (b 1875) - Urantia
Edgar Cayce (b 1877) - Association of Research & Enlightenment
Frank Buchman (b 1878) - Moral Re-Armament
Guy Ballard (b 1878) - I AM
Ngo Minh Chieu (b 1878) - Cao Daism
Rev Jealous Devine (b 1880) - Int'l Peace Movement
Joeseph Moscati (b 1880) - Saint/Beatified
George Hensley (b 1880) - Snake Handlers

Lost (1.22/year)
Eberhard Arnold (b 1883) - Bruderhof
H Spencer Lewis (b 1883) - Rosicrucians (AMORC)
Phineas Breeze (b 1883) - Church of Nazarene
Gerald Gardner (b 1884) - Wicca
Victor Tasho Houteff (b 1885) - Branch Davidians
Ernest Holmes (b 1887) - Religious Science
Padre Pio (b 1887) - Saint/Beatified
Isidore Bakunja (b 1887) - Saint/Beatified
Marcus Garvey (b 1887) - Universal Negro Improvement Assoc
(b 1888) - Jose Maria Robles Hurtado flourished
Howard Rand (b 1889) - Christian Identity
Armee Semple McPherson (b 1890) - Foursquare Gospel
Kyososama (b 1891) - Shinreikyo
Theresa Benedicta of the Cross (b 1891) - Saint/Beatified
Herbert Armstrong (b 1892) - Worldwide Church of God
Paramahausa Yogananda (b 1893) - Self-Realization
Merwan Irani (b 1894) - Meher Baba
Maximilian Kolbe (b 1894) - Apparition of Mary in Poland
Mamillian Kolbe (b 1894) - Apparition of Mary in Poland
Cornelius Van Til (b 1895) - Christain Reconstructionist
William Wilson (b 1895) - Alcoholics Anomonous
Swami Prabhupada (b 1896) - Hare Krishna

GI (1.04/year)
Okada Kotama (b 1901) - Sukyo Mahikari
Josemaria Escrivia (b 1902) - Opus Dei
Watchman Lee (b 1903) - The local Church
Earl Blighton (b 1904) - Holy Order of MANS
Ernest Norman (b 1904) - Unarius Academy
Edel Mary Quinn (b 1907) - Likely Saint candidate
Helen Schumann (b 1909) - Course in Miracles
William Branham (b 1909) - Branhamism
Mother Theresa (b 1910) - Likely Saint candidate
Kirby Hensley (b 1911) - Universal Life Church
L. Ron Hubbard (b 1911) - Scientology
Charles Dederich (b 1913) - Synanon Church
Jose Silva (b 1914) - Silva Mind Control
Alphonsa of India (b 1916) - Likely Saint candidate
Victor Weirwille (b 1916) - The Way
Dennis Bennet (b 1917) - Charismatics
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (b 1917) - Transcendental Meditation
Mark Prophet (b 1918) - Summit Lighthouse
Oral Roberts (b 1918) - Latter Rain
David Berg (b 1919) - Children of God
Sir George King (b 1919) - Altherius Society
Sun Myung Moon (b 1920) - Unification Church
Prabhat Sarkar (b 1921) - Anada Yoga Society
Bill Bright (b 1921) - Campus Crusade
Paul Twitchell (b 1922) - Eckankar

Silent (1.28/yr)
Noel Stanton (b 1926) - Jesus Army
Donald Walters (b 1926) - Anada Self Realization
Sathya Baba (b 1926) - Shirdi Sai Baba
Chuck Smith (b 1927) - Calvary Chapel
Roy Masters (b 1928) - Foundation of Human Understanding
Yogi Bhajan (b 1929) - Sikh Dharma
Martin Luther King (b 1929) - Southern Christian Leadership Conference
Pat Robertson (b 1930) - Christian Coalition
Edgar Mitchell (b 1930) - Institute of Noetic Sciences
Anton LeVay (b 1930) - Church of Satan
Marshall Applewhite (b 1931) - Heaven's Gate
John Africa (b 1931) - MOVE
Chimoy Kumar Ghose (b 1931) - Sri Chinmoy
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (b 1931) - Rajneeshism
Jim Jones (b 1931) - Peoples Temple
Joseph Kibwetere (b 1932) - Restoration of 10 Commandments
John Wimber (b 1934) - Vineyard
John-Roger (b 1934) - Movement of Inner Spiritual Awareness (MSIA)
Yahweh ben Yahweh (b 1935) - Nation of Yahweh
Robert de Grimston (b 1935) - The Process
Leonard Orr (b 1938) - Rebirthers
Albert Jones (b 1939) - Adidam
Bill McCartney (b 1940) - Promise Keepers

Boom (0.94/yr)
Paul Harrison (b 1945) - Scientific Pantheism
Master Charles (b 1945) - Synchronicity Contemporary Meditation
JZ Knight (b 1946) - Ramtha
Claude Vorilhan (b 1946) - Raelian Religion
Deepak Chopra (b 1947) - Mind-Body Medicine
Luc Jouret (b 1947) - Order of the Solar Temple
Mike Aquino (b 1949) - Church of Set
Hue Dang Trinh (b 1950) - Suma Ching Hai
Rodney Howard-Browne (b 1952) - Toronto Blessing
Li Hongzhi (b 1952) - Falun Gong
Kip McKean (b 1952) - Boston Church of Christ Revivial
Bill Hybels (b 1952) - Willow Creek
Steve Hill (b 1954) - Brownsville Revival
Monte Kim Miller (b 1954) - Concerned Christians
Asahara Shoko (b 1955) - Aum Shinriyko
Hon-Ming Chen (b 1956) - Chen Tao
Prem Pal Singh Rawat (b 1957) - Divine Light Mission

Thanks Mike. Is that a book you have in your possession or is there a link?

I got it from the Western Michigan University library.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Yes I did say that you summarized GD correctly, but I was forced to change my mind yesterday when you made your "sensitivity" comparison, implying that you believe that a war is equivalent to an unrest event, which means that you believe that GD as almost derivative of your awakening methodology, which indicated to me a basic misunderstanding of GD.

I asked if I summarized your mechanism correctly. That is, what causes the cycle? My question had nothing to do with your empirical methods of identifying the cycle. So I ask again, did I summarize the GD mechanism correctly?

I did not mean to imply that a war is equivalent to an unrest event. I said that the empirical characterization is sensitive to the determination of crisis wars. A single disagreement about whether a particular war is or is not a crisis war has serious effects. I disagree with the idea that the WSS is a crisis war and WW I is not. For me WW I and the WSS evaluate the same. This single difference poses a major problem for the determination of the cycle. On the other hand you can find a bunch of events I missed in the 17th century and it won't change things much.

When you say that you "see" WSS like WW I, then you're reaching an intuitive conclusion of your own, and you're not applying the GD
criteria, which clearly evaluate WSS to a crisis war.

No they don't. They do in your opinion. I disagree. Application of the GD criteria requires judgement. In matters of judgement, opinions will differ. You have never done what I asked: Compare WW I with the WSS side by side on each criterion separately and show specifically where they are different. You always just say "it evaluates to a crisis war" or "it evaluates to a non-crisis war" without specifically applying each criterion to both wars side-by-side and showing how the wars differ. I am asking you to do this, sort of like an example problem in a textbook.

But clearly that isn't true: I provided lengthy, detailed criteria for evaluating wars. Your criticisms led me rewrite the evaluation criteria into an almost computer-like algorithm, and include the concept of "near-forgotten" wars

Yes, but you have never explicitly demonstrated, point by point, their application to determine difficult cases like WSS vs. WW I. You won't demonstrate the method. Instead you get huffy when my assessment disagrees with yours.

You've provided no criteria whatsoever (that I'm aware of) for evaluating unrest events.

That's right. I have purposely left the criteria open. I would like to work with a group of people who would vote on which events to include and which to discard. The best way to do this would be have many people contribute events and vote on their inclusion. Then it isn't so dependent on my opinion of what constitutes unrest.

Let me remind you of some of the criticisms that you (and others) made of me back when we were discussing the evaluation of crisis wars: You said that my criteria were too vague to be applied by anyone else but me; you said that I couldn't conclude that I had applied the criteria
fairly unless I had evaluated all wars.

Yes, this is because of the sensitivity issue. But your algorithm is less computer-like than you describe. Assessment of many of the points requires judgement, that is, expressions of opinion, not fact. Opinions differ.

But now those same criticisms apply to your evaluation of unrest events, and it's hard for me to see how you can respond.

Its easy to respond. Of course the criticisms apply. Surely you have opinions on what might constitute unrest? Surely they won't be the same as mine. Each of us would obtain different lists of events. However we may find that analysis of the events you find gives essentially the same results as analysis of the events I find. This is what I am getting at by sensitivity or its inverse, robustness.

Or we could agree to a consensus list and analyze that. I don't want to have a tight description of what is or is not an unrest event, because I am not certain how exactly to measure, or assess "social tension". This is a work in progress.

In your mind what would be indicators of increasing social tension or popular unrest? Should I count riots? What about peasant revolts? Strikes? Slave uprisings? What about "demonstrations" or protest marches? Do these count? Here's a toughie. What about legislation passed in response to unrest, or unrest-producing conditions? For example do I count the Elizabethan poor laws passed in response to increasing pauperization reflecting population pressure (the putative cause of social moments in my model). What about laws/treaties affecting divisions between people that can produce conflict? For example, things like the Edict of Nantes or the peace of Augsburg.

One is faced with a timeline containing a hundred events and will abstract a half a dozen or so of these as "unrest events". Sometimes its easy, "so and so becomes King" obviously doesn't count. What about something like The Atterbury Plot or The Gunpowder plot or an assassination? The best way to deal with this would be to have a panel of amateur historians each construct a list of "unrest events" for a particular century and then vote to obtain a consensus or majority opinion on what to include. Would you be interested in such a panel?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

You finally settle on the K-S model, but then have to spend a great deal of time dealing with anomalies of various kinds. On pages 139-141, you say that pre-industrial cycles reflected physical and biological forces, but post-industrial cycles are no longer physically driven, but following generational (awakening) cycles.

You provide no theoretical support for this view. It's simply an ad hoc attempt at a plausible explanation of why the cycle length changes. This is ultimately unsatisfying, since we have no way of knowing exactly what caused the cycle lengths to change, and we have no way of knowing whether a similar new change is occurring today due, perhaps, to the computer revolution.

Exactly. When I wrote The Kondratiev Cycle I had no model for the post-1860 saeculum, what I called the post-industrial cycle. I have one now, but its not in that book.

I no longer believe that industrialization is a factor. I don't think the modern saeculum is economically driven, I now think the saeculum and the eocnomic cycles are both driven by the generational paradigm as expressed through politics. Thus, secular stock market trends correlate with turnings, but there is no causative connection between the two. Both reflect generational paradigms as expressed though politics.

This is why I asked you to describe the mechanism of the pre-1860 (pre-industrial) cycle. There are two mechanisms. The population mechanism and the war-debt mechanism. Ignore for now the technology cycles and the Schumpeter-Dent model.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

All of the behaviors that your book tries to explain as anomalies or as post-industrial changes appear somewhere in this model, and in this model they're fully explained by localization and merging.

How is the correlation between unrest and Kondratiev upwaves prior to 1650 explained by this model?

How is the correlation between unrest and Kondratiev downwaves after 1700 explained by this model?

How is the downward shift in turning length around 1820 explained by this model?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Your method is more sensitive because it is based on consideration of just one event, the Crisis War. It's all or nothing. If observers don't agree with the choice of which wars are crisis wars, the whole thing collapses.

No, that's not true.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

When you say that an error in evaluating a crisis war dramatically changes the cycle, you're absolutely right.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

On the other hand, the religious impulse does not seem to be stronger amongst post 1820 prophets as it was before. Here is a list of people from my religious database divided by archetypical generation. The Lost and Silent (both recessive generations) are the most represented, while the prophets are the least.

I also checked paradigm-based gens. Here I found the Missionaries (1.25/yr) and GI's (1.27/yr) were the most religious with the Lost (0.95/yr) the least and the Silent (1.10/yr) and Boom (1.06) about the same. It is still possible that with the addition of very recent religious groups to the list the Boom might overtake the Silent.

Missionary (0.74/yr)
Swami Vivekanda (b 1863) - Ramkrishna Vendata Society
Eudorus Bell (b 1866) - Assembly of God
(b 1866) - Thomas Tsugi flourished
Georgii Gudshiev (b 1870) - Gurdjieff
Makiguchi (b 1871) - Soka Gakkai
Wallace Dodd Fahd (b 1871) - Nation of Islam
Sri Aurobindo (b 1872) - Integral Yoga
(b 1873) - Therese of Lisieux flourished
Charles Parham (b 1873) - Pentacostalism
William Saddler (b 1875) - Urantia
Edgar Cayce (b 1877) - Association of Research & Enlightenment
Frank Buchman (b 1878) - Moral Re-Armament
Guy Ballard (b 1878) - I AM
Ngo Minh Chieu (b 1878) - Cao Daism
Rev Jealous Devine (b 1880) - Int'l Peace Movement
Joeseph Moscati (b 1880) - Saint/Beatified
George Hensley (b 1880) - Snake Handlers

Lost (1.22/year)
Eberhard Arnold (b 1883) - Bruderhof
H Spencer Lewis (b 1883) - Rosicrucians (AMORC)
Phineas Breeze (b 1883) - Church of Nazarene
Gerald Gardner (b 1884) - Wicca
Victor Tasho Houteff (b 1885) - Branch Davidians
Ernest Holmes (b 1887) - Religious Science
Padre Pio (b 1887) - Saint/Beatified
Isidore Bakunja (b 1887) - Saint/Beatified
Marcus Garvey (b 1887) - Universal Negro Improvement Assoc
(b 1888) - Jose Maria Robles Hurtado flourished
Howard Rand (b 1889) - Christian Identity
Armee Semple McPherson (b 1890) - Foursquare Gospel
Kyososama (b 1891) - Shinreikyo
Theresa Benedicta of the Cross (b 1891) - Saint/Beatified
Herbert Armstrong (b 1892) - Worldwide Church of God
Paramahausa Yogananda (b 1893) - Self-Realization
Merwan Irani (b 1894) - Meher Baba
Maximilian Kolbe (b 1894) - Apparition of Mary in Poland
Mamillian Kolbe (b 1894) - Apparition of Mary in Poland
Cornelius Van Til (b 1895) - Christain Reconstructionist
William Wilson (b 1895) - Alcoholics Anomonous
Swami Prabhupada (b 1896) - Hare Krishna

GI (1.04/year)
Okada Kotama (b 1901) - Sukyo Mahikari
Josemaria Escrivia (b 1902) - Opus Dei
Watchman Lee (b 1903) - The local Church
Earl Blighton (b 1904) - Holy Order of MANS
Ernest Norman (b 1904) - Unarius Academy
Edel Mary Quinn (b 1907) - Likely Saint candidate
Helen Schumann (b 1909) - Course in Miracles
William Branham (b 1909) - Branhamism
Mother Theresa (b 1910) - Likely Saint candidate
Kirby Hensley (b 1911) - Universal Life Church
L. Ron Hubbard (b 1911) - Scientology
Charles Dederich (b 1913) - Synanon Church
Jose Silva (b 1914) - Silva Mind Control
Alphonsa of India (b 1916) - Likely Saint candidate
Victor Weirwille (b 1916) - The Way
Dennis Bennet (b 1917) - Charismatics
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (b 1917) - Transcendental Meditation
Mark Prophet (b 1918) - Summit Lighthouse
Oral Roberts (b 1918) - Latter Rain
David Berg (b 1919) - Children of God
Sir George King (b 1919) - Altherius Society
Sun Myung Moon (b 1920) - Unification Church
Prabhat Sarkar (b 1921) - Anada Yoga Society
Bill Bright (b 1921) - Campus Crusade
Paul Twitchell (b 1922) - Eckankar

Silent (1.28/yr)
Noel Stanton (b 1926) - Jesus Army
Donald Walters (b 1926) - Anada Self Realization
Sathya Baba (b 1926) - Shirdi Sai Baba
Marshall Applewhite (b 1927) - Heaven's Gate
Chuck Smith (b 1927) - Calvary Chapel
Roy Masters (b 1928) - Foundation of Human Understanding
Yogi Bhajan (b 1929) - Sikh Dharma
Martin Luther King (b 1929) - Southern Christian Leadership Conference
Pat Robertson (b 1930) - Christian Coalition
Edgar Mitchell (b 1930) - Institute of Noetic Sciences
Anton LeVay (b 1930) - Church of Satan
John Africa (b 1931) - MOVE
Chimoy Kumar Ghose (b 1931) - Sri Chinmoy
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (b 1931) - Rajneeshism
Jim Jones (b 1931) - Peoples Temple
Joseph Kibwetere (b 1932) - Restoration of 10 Commandments
John Wimber (b 1934) - Vineyard
John-Roger (b 1934) - Movement of Inner Spiritual Awareness (MSIA)
Yahweh ben Yahweh (b 1935) - Nation of Yahweh
Robert de Grimston (b 1935) - The Process
Leonard Orr (b 1938) - Rebirthers
Albert Jones (b 1939) - Adidam
Bill McCartney (b 1940) - Promise Keepers

Boom (0.94/yr)
Paul Harrison (b 1945) - Scientific Pantheism
Master Charles (b 1945) - Synchronicity Contemporary Meditation
JZ Knight (b 1946) - Ramtha
Claude Vorilhan (b 1946) - Raelian Religion
Deepak Chopra (b 1947) - Mind-Body Medicine
Luc Jouret (b 1947) - Order of the Solar Temple
Mike Aquino (b 1949) - Church of Set
Hue Dang Trinh (b 1950) - Suma Ching Hai
Rodney Howard-Browne (b 1952) - Toronto Blessing
Li Hongzhi (b 1952) - Falun Gong
Kip McKean (b 1952) - Boston Church of Christ Revivial
Bill Hybels (b 1952) - Willow Creek
Steve Hill (b 1954) - Brownsville Revival
Monte Kim Miller (b 1954) - Concerned Christians
Asahara Shoko (b 1955) - Aum Shinriyko
Hon-Ming Chen (b 1956) - Chen Tao
Guru Maharj Ji (b 1957) - Divine Light Mission

Mike,

1. Are you sure about all of the people who you list actually fit in these archtypal generations actually belong there? I'd be leery of some of the people from outside North America, for example, especially near the cusps of generations. In my analysis of how generations interacted with Enneatypes, I used only people from the US, Canada, and Great Britain...and those only if they immigrated to the US or were important to Americans and not near generational cusps!

2. Have you crosschecked this list with your religious events list? I spotted at least two founders of a religion listed on your religious events list absent from your list of religious luminaries, although this might be a good thing; the religion was Discordianism, which "should on no account be taken seriously but is far more serious than most jokes."

Here are two links on Discordianism, in case you want to include it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism
http://religiousmovements.lib.virgin...nrms/disc.html

And here's another resource to peruse for information on religious movements, in case you need another one or haven't found this already:

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Missionary (0.74/yr)
Swami Vivekanda (b 1863) - Ramkrishna Vendata Society
Eudorus Bell (b 1866) - Assembly of God
(b 1866) - Thomas Tsugi flourished
Georgii Gudshiev (b 1870) - Gurdjieff
Makiguchi (b 1871) - Soka Gakkai
Wallace Dodd Fahd (b 1871) - Nation of Islam
Sri Aurobindo (b 1872) - Integral Yoga
(b 1873) - Therese of Lisieux flourished
Charles Parham (b 1873) - Pentacostalism
William Saddler (b 1875) - Urantia
Edgar Cayce (b 1877) - Association of Research & Enlightenment
Frank Buchman (b 1878) - Moral Re-Armament
Guy Ballard (b 1878) - I AM
Ngo Minh Chieu (b 1878) - Cao Daism
Rev Jealous Devine (b 1880) - Int'l Peace Movement
Joeseph Moscati (b 1880) - Saint/Beatified
George Hensley (b 1880) - Snake Handlers

Lost (1.22/year)
Eberhard Arnold (b 1883) - Bruderhof
H Spencer Lewis (b 1883) - Rosicrucians (AMORC)
Phineas Breeze (b 1883) - Church of Nazarene
Gerald Gardner (b 1884) - Wicca
Victor Tasho Houteff (b 1885) - Branch Davidians
Ernest Holmes (b 1887) - Religious Science
Padre Pio (b 1887) - Saint/Beatified
Isidore Bakunja (b 1887) - Saint/Beatified
Marcus Garvey (b 1887) - Universal Negro Improvement Assoc
(b 1888) - Jose Maria Robles Hurtado flourished
Howard Rand (b 1889) - Christian Identity
Armee Semple McPherson (b 1890) - Foursquare Gospel
Kyososama (b 1891) - Shinreikyo
Theresa Benedicta of the Cross (b 1891) - Saint/Beatified
Herbert Armstrong (b 1892) - Worldwide Church of God
Paramahausa Yogananda (b 1893) - Self-Realization
Merwan Irani (b 1894) - Meher Baba
Maximilian Kolbe (b 1894) - Apparition of Mary in Poland
Mamillian Kolbe (b 1894) - Apparition of Mary in Poland
Cornelius Van Til (b 1895) - Christain Reconstructionist
William Wilson (b 1895) - Alcoholics Anomonous
Swami Prabhupada (b 1896) - Hare Krishna

GI (1.04/year)
Okada Kotama (b 1901) - Sukyo Mahikari
Josemaria Escrivia (b 1902) - Opus Dei
Watchman Lee (b 1903) - The local Church
Earl Blighton (b 1904) - Holy Order of MANS
Ernest Norman (b 1904) - Unarius Academy
Edel Mary Quinn (b 1907) - Likely Saint candidate
Helen Schumann (b 1909) - Course in Miracles
William Branham (b 1909) - Branhamism
Mother Theresa (b 1910) - Likely Saint candidate
Kirby Hensley (b 1911) - Universal Life Church
L. Ron Hubbard (b 1911) - Scientology
Charles Dederich (b 1913) - Synanon Church
Jose Silva (b 1914) - Silva Mind Control
Alphonsa of India (b 1916) - Likely Saint candidate
Victor Weirwille (b 1916) - The Way
Dennis Bennet (b 1917) - Charismatics
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (b 1917) - Transcendental Meditation
Mark Prophet (b 1918) - Summit Lighthouse
Oral Roberts (b 1918) - Latter Rain
David Berg (b 1919) - Children of God
Sir George King (b 1919) - Altherius Society
Sun Myung Moon (b 1920) - Unification Church
Prabhat Sarkar (b 1921) - Anada Yoga Society
Bill Bright (b 1921) - Campus Crusade
Paul Twitchell (b 1922) - Eckankar

Silent (1.28/yr)
Noel Stanton (b 1926) - Jesus Army
Donald Walters (b 1926) - Anada Self Realization
Sathya Baba (b 1926) - Shirdi Sai Baba
Marshall Applewhite (b 1927) - Heaven's Gate
Chuck Smith (b 1927) - Calvary Chapel
Roy Masters (b 1928) - Foundation of Human Understanding
Yogi Bhajan (b 1929) - Sikh Dharma
Martin Luther King (b 1929) - Southern Christian Leadership Conference
Pat Robertson (b 1930) - Christian Coalition
Edgar Mitchell (b 1930) - Institute of Noetic Sciences
Anton LeVay (b 1930) - Church of Satan
John Africa (b 1931) - MOVE
Chimoy Kumar Ghose (b 1931) - Sri Chinmoy
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (b 1931) - Rajneeshism
Jim Jones (b 1931) - Peoples Temple
Joseph Kibwetere (b 1932) - Restoration of 10 Commandments
John Wimber (b 1934) - Vineyard
John-Roger (b 1934) - Movement of Inner Spiritual Awareness (MSIA)
Yahweh ben Yahweh (b 1935) - Nation of Yahweh
Robert de Grimston (b 1935) - The Process
Leonard Orr (b 1938) - Rebirthers
Albert Jones (b 1939) - Adidam
Bill McCartney (b 1940) - Promise Keepers

Boom (0.94/yr)
Paul Harrison (b 1945) - Scientific Pantheism
Master Charles (b 1945) - Synchronicity Contemporary Meditation
JZ Knight (b 1946) - Ramtha
Claude Vorilhan (b 1946) - Raelian Religion
Deepak Chopra (b 1947) - Mind-Body Medicine
Luc Jouret (b 1947) - Order of the Solar Temple
Mike Aquino (b 1949) - Church of Set
Hue Dang Trinh (b 1950) - Suma Ching Hai
Rodney Howard-Browne (b 1952) - Toronto Blessing
Li Hongzhi (b 1952) - Falun Gong
Kip McKean (b 1952) - Boston Church of Christ Revivial
Bill Hybels (b 1952) - Willow Creek
Steve Hill (b 1954) - Brownsville Revival
Monte Kim Miller (b 1954) - Concerned Christians
Asahara Shoko (b 1955) - Aum Shinriyko
Hon-Ming Chen (b 1956) - Chen Tao
Guru Maharj Ji (b 1957) - Divine Light Mission

Thanks Mike. Is that a book you have in your possession or is there a link?

I got it from the Western Michigan University library.

Interesting post and fascinating list.

A couple of corrections from the one area that The Wonk is expert in. In the Seventies, Prem Rawat was known as "Guru Maharaj Ji" and his organization, which he inherited from his father, Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, or "Shri Maharaj Ji" (a Lost, born in 1900), was called "Divine Light Mission. Shri Maharaj Ji was the founder of Divine Light Mission, but during his day, it was entirely an Indian movement. So I don't know if you want to include him. I don't even know if someone who was born, lived, and died in India could be properly considered a "Lost". :?

In the west, at least, Divine Light Mission was dissolved in the early 1980s. Prem Rawat, who is also known as "Maharaji" (he dropped the "Guru" and combined the "Maharaj" and "Ji") is in charge of the Prem Rawat Foundation. Since he became a US citizen in 1977, he's definitely a late-wave Boomer.

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb

Have you crosschecked this list with your religious events list? I spotted at least two founders of a religion listed on your religious events list absent from your list of religious luminaries, although this might be a good thing; the religion was Discordianism, which "should on no account be taken seriously but is far more serious than most jokes."

I used the religious movements website as my source. They didn't give the birth dates of the founders of Discordianism. So my database lists the founding year and the name of one of the founders, but no birth date.

Originally Posted by Hermione Granger

A couple of corrections from the one area that The Wonk is expert in. In the Seventies, Prem Rawat was known as "Guru Maharaj Ji" and his organization, which he inherited from his father, Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, or "Shri Maharaj Ji" (a Lost, born in 1900), was called "Divine Light Mission. Shri Maharaj Ji was the founder of Divine Light Mission, but during his day, it was entirely an Indian movement. So I don't know if you want to include him. I don't even know if someone who was born, lived, and died in India could be properly considered a "Lost". :?

In the west, at least, Divine Light Mission was dissolved in the early 1980s. Prem Rawat, who is also known as "Maharaji" (he dropped the "Guru" and combined the "Maharaj" and "Ji") is in charge of the Prem Rawat Foundation. Since he became a US citizen in 1977, he's definitely a late-wave Boomer.

I looked up the entry again. I suppose the 1971 founding date they give for Divine Light Mission refers to the US branch. They also give Prem Pal Singh Rawat as the orignianl name of the founder (they say that Guru Maharaj Ji is a title rather than a name). I changed the name to Prem Pal Singh Rawat.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

This doesn't answer the question, it deosn't explain the decrease in turning length mechanistically. The old model requires a forcing function to work. This forcing function would produce a long crisis from ca 1870 to 1896.

I either don't understand what you mean by "mechanistically" or I am not explaining my hypothesis well enough.

The "forcing function" before was the famine cycle, combined with the inherent necessity of the four-part archetypal expression (my assumption) intensified by the former. When the famine cycle declined in importance a combination of momentum and the connnection to the War/Debt cycle continued it, until it became largely endogenic in it's tetralogical form.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Obvously it no longer operate after 1860, when the Civil War cut short the unraveling. S&H argue that the appearance of missionaries in 1860 created an Awakening beginning in 1886, which forces a High to come in the earlu part of the rising unrest trend after 1860. To make room they truncate the Crisis to just five years. But the religious trend data doesn't support the 1886-1908 Awakening. The data actually supports a crisis on normal length after 1860, something like 1860-77. So now you have a the Missionary prophet generation that was born in a crisis (like adaptives) and who were young in a high (like adaptives), but are actually prophets based on generational biography.

Assuming the data are correcnt, this is true unless specifically "religious" events are what Prophets are responsible for rather than an infusion of "passion" and/or "individualism". I suppose a Hero or a Nomad can start a religion. But whether they can infuse society with the passion and growing individualism a Prophet-inspired Awakening can is perhaps another matter.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

What this says is, neither early childhood nurture nor coming of age experience is what forges a generation. That is, history does not create generations. It also says that neither coming of age nor elder dominant generations create turnings, because the coming of age of Missionaries in the 1880's failed to prodcue an Awakening, and there were not elder heroes at all. That is, generations do not create history.

If the S&H mechanism doesn't work in the 19th century, then a different mechansim is needed. Simply referring to how generation length has slowly fallen over time doesn't eliminate the need for a new mechanism that will work for generations with lengths much below 25.

By eliminating the connection between archetypical generations and history one may well ask what is the significance the archetypical generations? The answer I believe is they influence the culture. The cycles of history have material (economic) causation before 1860 and political causation after 1820. Cultural matters in the old cycle were added onto the base cycle by archetypical generations running through the trilogical pattern. This cultural influence "colors" a turbulent period into an Awakening or Crisis. At this time the long turnings gave plenty of time for huge archetypical generations to develop, which will dominate the culture when they move into adulthood.

After 1820, turnings are increasingly produced by a political mechanism employing politically-based generations and decreasingly influenced by the old Kondratiev-linked mechanism. Archetypical generations still exist, but the shorter generations mean that they no longer dominate the culture in the way they did before. They still have influence though. For example the trend towards recreational drug use in the late 19th century, and the popularity of cocaine and opium as well as the rising trend in aclohol use in the US from the 1880's to about 1910 all correlate with the advent of the Missionaries. Similar trends in the 1960's and 1970's correlate with the Boomers. On the other hand, the religious impulse does not seem to be stronger amongst post 1820 prophets as it was before. Here is a list of people from my religious database dividned by archetypical generation. The Lost and Silent (both recessive generations) are the most represented, while the prophets are the least.

I am not willing at this point to cut archetypes from historical generation.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I also checked paradigm-based gens. Here I found the Missionaries (1.25/yr) and GI's (1.27/yr) were the most religious with the Lost (0.95/yr) the least and the Silent (1.10/yr) and Boom (1.06) about the same. It is still possible that with the addition of very recent religious groups to the list the Boom might overtake the Silent.

Missionary (0.74/yr)
Swami Vivekanda (b 1863) - Ramkrishna Vendata Society
Eudorus Bell (b 1866) - Assembly of God
(b 1866) - Thomas Tsugi flourished
Georgii Gudshiev (b 1870) - Gurdjieff
Makiguchi (b 1871) - Soka Gakkai
Wallace Dodd Fahd (b 1871) - Nation of Islam
Sri Aurobindo (b 1872) - Integral Yoga
(b 1873) - Therese of Lisieux flourished
Charles Parham (b 1873) - Pentacostalism
William Saddler (b 1875) - Urantia
Edgar Cayce (b 1877) - Association of Research & Enlightenment
Frank Buchman (b 1878) - Moral Re-Armament
Guy Ballard (b 1878) - I AM
Ngo Minh Chieu (b 1878) - Cao Daism
Rev Jealous Devine (b 1880) - Int'l Peace Movement
Joeseph Moscati (b 1880) - Saint/Beatified
George Hensley (b 1880) - Snake Handlers

Lost (1.22/year)
Eberhard Arnold (b 1883) - Bruderhof
H Spencer Lewis (b 1883) - Rosicrucians (AMORC)
Phineas Breeze (b 1883) - Church of Nazarene
Gerald Gardner (b 1884) - Wicca
Victor Tasho Houteff (b 1885) - Branch Davidians
Ernest Holmes (b 1887) - Religious Science
Padre Pio (b 1887) - Saint/Beatified
Isidore Bakunja (b 1887) - Saint/Beatified
Marcus Garvey (b 1887) - Universal Negro Improvement Assoc
(b 1888) - Jose Maria Robles Hurtado flourished
Howard Rand (b 1889) - Christian Identity
Armee Semple McPherson (b 1890) - Foursquare Gospel
Kyososama (b 1891) - Shinreikyo
Theresa Benedicta of the Cross (b 1891) - Saint/Beatified
Herbert Armstrong (b 1892) - Worldwide Church of God
Paramahausa Yogananda (b 1893) - Self-Realization
Merwan Irani (b 1894) - Meher Baba
Maximilian Kolbe (b 1894) - Apparition of Mary in Poland
Mamillian Kolbe (b 1894) - Apparition of Mary in Poland
Cornelius Van Til (b 1895) - Christain Reconstructionist
William Wilson (b 1895) - Alcoholics Anomonous
Swami Prabhupada (b 1896) - Hare Krishna

GI (1.04/year)
Okada Kotama (b 1901) - Sukyo Mahikari
Josemaria Escrivia (b 1902) - Opus Dei
Watchman Lee (b 1903) - The local Church
Earl Blighton (b 1904) - Holy Order of MANS
Ernest Norman (b 1904) - Unarius Academy
Edel Mary Quinn (b 1907) - Likely Saint candidate
Helen Schumann (b 1909) - Course in Miracles
William Branham (b 1909) - Branhamism
Mother Theresa (b 1910) - Likely Saint candidate
Kirby Hensley (b 1911) - Universal Life Church
L. Ron Hubbard (b 1911) - Scientology
Charles Dederich (b 1913) - Synanon Church
Jose Silva (b 1914) - Silva Mind Control
Alphonsa of India (b 1916) - Likely Saint candidate
Victor Weirwille (b 1916) - The Way
Dennis Bennet (b 1917) - Charismatics
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (b 1917) - Transcendental Meditation
Mark Prophet (b 1918) - Summit Lighthouse
Oral Roberts (b 1918) - Latter Rain
David Berg (b 1919) - Children of God
Sir George King (b 1919) - Altherius Society
Sun Myung Moon (b 1920) - Unification Church
Prabhat Sarkar (b 1921) - Anada Yoga Society
Bill Bright (b 1921) - Campus Crusade
Paul Twitchell (b 1922) - Eckankar

Silent (1.28/yr)
Noel Stanton (b 1926) - Jesus Army
Donald Walters (b 1926) - Anada Self Realization
Sathya Baba (b 1926) - Shirdi Sai Baba
Chuck Smith (b 1927) - Calvary Chapel
Roy Masters (b 1928) - Foundation of Human Understanding
Yogi Bhajan (b 1929) - Sikh Dharma
Martin Luther King (b 1929) - Southern Christian Leadership Conference
Pat Robertson (b 1930) - Christian Coalition
Edgar Mitchell (b 1930) - Institute of Noetic Sciences
Anton LeVay (b 1930) - Church of Satan
Marshall Applewhite (b 1931) - Heaven's Gate
John Africa (b 1931) - MOVE
Chimoy Kumar Ghose (b 1931) - Sri Chinmoy
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (b 1931) - Rajneeshism
Jim Jones (b 1931) - Peoples Temple
Joseph Kibwetere (b 1932) - Restoration of 10 Commandments
John Wimber (b 1934) - Vineyard
John-Roger (b 1934) - Movement of Inner Spiritual Awareness (MSIA)
Yahweh ben Yahweh (b 1935) - Nation of Yahweh
Robert de Grimston (b 1935) - The Process
Leonard Orr (b 1938) - Rebirthers
Albert Jones (b 1939) - Adidam
Bill McCartney (b 1940) - Promise Keepers

Boom (0.94/yr)
Paul Harrison (b 1945) - Scientific Pantheism
Master Charles (b 1945) - Synchronicity Contemporary Meditation
JZ Knight (b 1946) - Ramtha
Claude Vorilhan (b 1946) - Raelian Religion
Deepak Chopra (b 1947) - Mind-Body Medicine
Luc Jouret (b 1947) - Order of the Solar Temple
Mike Aquino (b 1949) - Church of Set
Hue Dang Trinh (b 1950) - Suma Ching Hai
Rodney Howard-Browne (b 1952) - Toronto Blessing
Li Hongzhi (b 1952) - Falun Gong
Kip McKean (b 1952) - Boston Church of Christ Revivial
Bill Hybels (b 1952) - Willow Creek
Steve Hill (b 1954) - Brownsville Revival
Monte Kim Miller (b 1954) - Concerned Christians
Asahara Shoko (b 1955) - Aum Shinriyko
Hon-Ming Chen (b 1956) - Chen Tao
Prem Pal Singh Rawat (b 1957) - Divine Light Mission

Thanks for the info!!!

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

The "forcing function" before was the famine cycle, combined with the inherent necessity of the four-part archetypal expression (my assumption) intensified by the former. When the famine cycle declined in importance a combination of momentum and the connnection to the War/Debt cycle continued it, until it became largely endogenic in it's tetralogical form.

To what does the pronoun "it" refer? Its referent is the famine cycle, but I think you mean it to refer to the saeculum:

When the famine cycle declined in importance a combination of momentum and the connnection to the War/Debt cycle continued the saeculum, until the saeculum became largely endogenic in it's tetralogical form.

What you appear to be saying here is that as the famine/war cycles fade another mechanism endongenous to the saeculum took over. That is, generations started to create history and history generations all by themselves at some point because the old forcing function weakened.

One issue with this is that the war cycle continued on to WW I and could have continued to serve as a forcing function until then. It did not, the saeculum began marching to a different beat about 40-50 years earlier.

To take this into account I would change what you wrote to this:

When the famine cycle declined in importance a combination of momentum and the connnection to the War/Debt cycle continued the saeculum. During the 19th century the saeculum became largely endogenic in it's tetralogical form, and so became uncoupled from the famine/war cycle.

This is more or less how I deal with the drop in turning length in The Kondratiev Cycle. But it doesn't really say anything other than state what we already know (turning length changed in the 19th century) in a different way.

When I ask for a mechanism I mean a description in causal terms of how generations create history and vice versa. S&H did provide a mechanism, but it does not work.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb

Have you crosschecked this list with your religious events list? I spotted at least two founders of a religion listed on your religious events list absent from your list of religious luminaries, although this might be a good thing; the religion was Discordianism, which "should on no account be taken seriously but is far more serious than most jokes."

I used the religious movements website as my source. They didn't give the birth dates of the founders of Discordianism. So my database lists the founding year and the name of one of the founders, but no birth date.

Here is the name and birthdate of one of the founders:

Kerry Wendell Thornley AKA Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst (April 17, 1938 - November 28, 1998)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Thornley

I seem to be to unable to locate a birthdate for Greg Hill.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

When I ask for a mechanism I mean a description in causal terms of how generations create history and vice versa. S&H did provide a mechanism, but it does not work.

Ah, but it does work, but only from the mid-19th century onward. Prior to that we're either dealing with A) a disconnect between "archetypal" and "paradigmatic" generations, B) a trilogical mechanism coupled to first the famine cycle and then the war/debt cycle, C) Generational Dynamics' war & generation cycle, D) something else.

I'd say "D" is most likely, but for some reason I prefer "B" . . . :wink:

Hey, thanks for cleaning up my presentation. You hit my meaning right on the mark.

The biggest objection to generational dynamics would be a Bush victory - and that's getting more likely by the minute; for if it happens, it will be living proof that 9/11 didn't catalyze any Crisis, and that none is forthcoming, since a Bush re-election would mean the continuance of 3T economic policies in perpetuity.

And seemingly getting slightly off the subject, Dick Cheney's comment (which got pretty-boy trial lawyer John Edwards so lathered up) about what would happen if Kerry won - that there would be another major terrorist attack - is actually true as far as it goes (and such an attack would constitute the regeneracy of a Crisis era proven to have already existed, in this case starting with 9/11).

This is beginning to look to me like the things Ravi Batra was predicting throughout the '80s - that there would be a Great Depression starting in 1990. One Friday in October of 1989 there was a big drop in the DJIA, and I was absolutely sure that Batra's depression had arrived - but of course it was not to be.

Have I been fooled again?