Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> Right now I am really busy. I am trying to get a job, do well in
> school, and trying to prevent my parents from getting a divorce
> (I'm sure you know enough about that subject Wink )

Matt, please don't get involved with this. In this thread we're
always talking about things that can't be avoided - the U.N. couldn't
prevent a Darfur massacre, the World Health Organization can't
prevent a bird flu pandemic - whatever is going to happen is going to
happen irrespective of what anyone does. There's absolutely nothing
you can do that will have any effect whatsoever. Both your parents
may listen to you because they're concerned about you, or in the
worst case one will hope that you'll side with him/her against the
other. But whatever is going on has to do with issues that you don't
understand, and nothing you say or do can affect those issues, so
nothing you say or do can either cause a divorce or prevent one, just
as nothing you can do can either cause or prevent a tsunami. Just
look out for yourself and hope for the best.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> As for the Indians, you wrote "Could you do just one thing? I'd
> really appreciate the Indian tribe timelines that you've
> identified, so that I can add them to Chapter 9 (List of Crisis
> Wars) in my book. Just the names of the tribes and the crisis wars
> and dates would be great."

> Well, I don't know why you asked for this. I am not through with
> this research. If you are planning to get your book out soon I
> suppose I could give the ones I have now within a week but I'd
> prefer to fill in the holes.

That's part of it, but I don't want to lose the work you've already
done. You're involved in other things now, and you've put this
Indian tribe project temporarily aside, but "temporarily" has a way
in life of becoming "permanently," and what you've already done will
be lost.

You've given me two alternatives, but they aren't disjoint. Please
do both. Please give me the ones that you have now, and please give
me an updated list when you've had time to fill in the holes.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> Finding the crisis wars is hard, but creating a narrative is near
> impossible. For an influential tribe, such as the Iroquois, a
> narrative can be created... but for most tribes I can only write a
> couple sentences unless I really researched, and I don't have the
> time for that.

I understand that -- I understand that very well. That's why I only
asked for the list of crisis wars and dates, which I hope you can do
very quickly and easily.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> I don't know much about economics, but as for "maximum ruin", the
> DJIA is nearing 11,000. I just wish I could understand why.

What you're seeing is a period of national insanity. When I realized
in 2002 that we were entering a new 1930s style depression, the
market was around Dow 8000, and I assumed that the market would keep
falling. That's been completely wrong, of course. I didn't realize
how aggressively the Fed would pump free money into the economy (with
zero effective interest rates), and I didn't realize how even people
like Alan Greenspan, who are supposed to know better, could simply
ignore the most obvious indicators, such as price/earnings ratios.

I would think what was going on was impossible if I hadn't studied
previous bubbles. Here's the Tulipomania bubble:

Tulips were the high-tech item of the early 1600s. Amsterdam was the
major gateway between London and Paris, and the city had benefited
hugely from having established Europe's first central bank in 1609,
giving Dutch merchants a big competitive advantage around the world.
It was still the biggest bank in Europe in the 1630s, and the whole of
the Netherlands was prosperous, not having yet been affected by the
Thirty Years War.

Tulips did not originate with the Dutch. The first bulbs had arrived
from Turkey only a few years earlier, in the late 1500s. By means of
breeding experiments, Dutch botanists were able to produce tulips
with spectacular colors. These tulips were sought by wealthy people,
and by 1624, one particularly spectacular bulb sold for the cost of a
small house.

Prices remained elevated for over another decade, and soon investors
from all over Europe began purchasing a kind of "Tulip future," a
certificate purchased in the fall which can be traded for a specific
actual tulip to be grown the following spring. In some ways, these
certificates were similar to "stock options" in the 1990s.

In 1636, speculation in tulip futures went through the roof, and on
February 3, 1637, the tulip market suddenly crashed, causing the
loss of enormous sums of money, even by ordinary people, including
many ordinary people in France and other countries.

A mood of retribution began immediately, and even the tulips
themselves suffered. Evrard Forstius, a professor of botany, became
so reviled by the mere sight of tulips that he attacked them with
sticks whenever he saw them! At this point, the Thirty Years War
enveloped all of Europe.

What's going on today is no more surprising than what went on in
1636, and it's just as insane.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Second, you're claiming a cycle of exactly 90 years, and none of these things are that exact. Cycle lengths will vary + or - 10% or more -- actually, they'll vary according to a standard normal
distribution. The only way you could get a cycle length exactly the same each time is to tie it to an astronomical event, such as the passing of a comet near the earth, like Halley's Comet.

To add to what I said yesterday, if a fundamentally driven cycle is repeatable and has a fixed average length, then a normal distribution of outcomes would be expected for the aggregate. For the individual cycle, though, the outcomes are not normally distributed but seem to be distributed by fixed attractors that are present within the expected distribution. Over time, the cycle length changes as the fundamental underlying factors change and the cycle is pulled toward another distribution of fixed attractors. This is apparently what has happened with the generational cycle.

I look at the Industrial/Information Age worldview cycle fundamentally as an energy fractal. It has a technological overlay that distributes the energy to produce output, which is indirectly (and incorrectly) expressed in the financial aggregates. The concept of energy intensity attempts to quantify the relationship between energy and output. The development of the fractal is influenced by fundamentally driven cycles that are incorporated into the fractal.

A series of fixed attractors such as the Saros cycle is not necessarily a fundamental cycle, although there may be fundamental influences that we are not aware of.

To illustrate this, let's use the peak of the Exploration/Commercial Age worldview cycle, indirectly expressed as the peak of the South Sea Bubble, as a reference point. According to historical accounts, the South Sea Bubble peaked at the commencement of August, 1720. There are various fixed attractors that emanate from August, 1720, one of which is the Metonic cycle. Eleven Metonic cycles from August, 1720 plus one month is the stock market peak of September 3, 1929. Fifteen Metonic cycles from August, 1720 is August, 2005. This may also be the peak of the Industrial/Information Age worldview cycle if the "peak oil" analysts such as Deffeyes are correct. It should be understood, though, that improvements in energy intensity are ongoing, so energy supply declines could be offset for a time after peak energy output by greater increases in energy efficiency through the technological distribution mechanism. As I mentioned before, since more debt is in real estate, a peak should manifest there first. One of the financial measures of real estate is the Philadelphia Housing Index of 21 homebuilders, HGX. This index peaked in late July, 2005 and fell 20% over the next 3 months. It has since recovered about half of that loss.

The time window for the peak of a long term cycle is fairly wide and there are other attractors that emanate from different points and seem to cluster together in various areas of the time window. Some are stronger than others but, to use an analogy, that doesn't prevent a moth from being attracted to a 60 watt light bulb in a hallway full of various sized bulbs, some of which may be bigger than 60 watts. Also, the peak will be obfuscated in various ways such as by excess liquidity creation, which will have the effect of boosting prices without a corresponding boost in output.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Clark,

Originally Posted by Clark

> 90 years is a multiple of the Saros cycle, which is an
> astronomical eclipse cycle. As is 72 years, which I seem to recall
> has been discussed in other places on this site.

> As an interesting aside, the Panic of 1857, the Wall Street Crash
> of 1929, and the 9-11 attacks were separated by 72 years, or 4
> Saros cycles.

So what are you arguing? Are you arguing that investors keep track
of Saros cycles, and then change their investing behavior when a
lunar eclipse occurs at a certain node with the moon at a certain
distance from the earth?
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclips...s/SEsaros.html

I don't think so.

Sincerely,

John

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

I'm not arguing anything. I'm making an observation.

Do investors keep track of generational cycles?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Clark,


Second, you're claiming a cycle of exactly 90 years, and none of
these things are that exact. Cycle lengths will vary + or - 10% or
more -- actually, they'll vary according to a standard normal
distribution. The only way you could get a cycle length exactly the
same each time is to tie it to an astronomical event, such as the
passing of a comet near the earth, like Halley's Comet.

Sincerely,

John

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

In this post, you said that a repeatable astronomical event can be tied to a cycle that has a fixed length. Now it can't?

Dear Clark,

Originally Posted by Clark

> 90 years is a multiple of the Saros cycle, which is an
> astronomical eclipse cycle. As is 72 years, which I seem to recall
> has been discussed in other places on this site.

When I said that, "The only way you could get a cycle length exactly
the same each time is to tie it to an astronomical event...," I didn't
mean that you could simply go out and find a random astronomical event
with the cycle length you're interested in, and then that would be all
that was needed.

In fact, the reason I said that was actually as an argument for why
you shouldn't count on any sort of fixed cycle lengths.

If you want to attach an astronomical event to some economic cycle,
you'd have to show some real relationship for credibility. For
example, since the Saros cycle has to do with obscure moon orbits,
perhaps there's a way to argue that the Saros cycle is physically
tied into el niño, and that connection might affect economic cycles.

Originally Posted by Clark

> To add to what I said yesterday, if a fundamentally driven cycle
> is repeatable and has a fixed average length, then a normal
> distribution of outcomes would be expected for the aggregate. For
> the individual cycle, though, the outcomes are not normally
> distributed but seem to be distributed by fixed attractors that
> are present within the expected distribution. Over time, the cycle
> length changes as the fundamental underlying factors change and
> the cycle is pulled toward another distribution of fixed
> attractors. This is apparently what has happened with the
> generational cycle.

I don't know what this means. What's a "fixed average length"?
Doesn't the average length always have to be fixed? What are "fixed
attractors ... within the expected distribution?" I've heard of
point attractors and cyclic attractors and strange attractors, but
what's a "fixed attractor"? Do you mean an astronomical cycle of
fixed cycle length? If so, then that does that have to do with being
an attractor?

Maybe you've done some deeper analysis that I don't understand, but
based on what you've posted I don't have confidence that you know how
to interpret the mathematical terms that you're using.

Originally Posted by Clark

> I look at the Industrial/Information Age worldview cycle
> fundamentally as an energy fractal. It has a technological overlay
> that distributes the energy to produce output, which is indirectly
> (and incorrectly) expressed in the financial aggregates. The
> concept of energy intensity attempts to quantify the relationship
> between energy and output. The development of the fractal is
> influenced by fundamentally driven cycles that are incorporated
> into the fractal.

I have no idea what energy fractal you're talking about. A fractal
is a structure that's similar to itself at different magnifications.
How does that relate to what you're talking about?

Originally Posted by Clark

> There are various fixed attractors that emanate from August, 1720,
> one of which is the Metonic cycle.

I looked up Metonic cycle, and I guess we're back to the moon. But
you can't make something true simply by saying that it's true. You
certainly haven't shown any relationship between the South Sea Bubble
and moon cycles in any way that I find credible.

----

What I perceive you to be saying is the following: "I've found events
A, B and C that occur at exact 90 year intervals; by the way, it
turns out that certain moon cycles are also 90 years long.
Therefore, they're all related." If that's really what you're
saying, then the conclusion is wrong, and in fact there's no
relationship among any of them at all.

Write a computer program that generates 1000 random numbers. If you
study those numbers long enough, then you'll find some patterns.
That's why you have to do a great deal to credibly claim that you've
found a real cyclic pattern.

If you're looking for an economic cycle that's somewhere between 10
and 100 years long, then I don't believe you'll find it. I believe
that the only two cycles in that range are the K-cycles and the
generational cycles. There may be short cycles (a few days or months
to a few years) and there may be very long cycles (such as a 400-500
year "civilizational" cycle), but none between them.

If you want to credibly claim to have found a cycle, then you need to
do several things. You need to show a sequence of actual events that
establish the cycle -- you need at least 5 or 10 such events for
credibility, and preferably several dozen. Then you need to provide
a theoretical reason for why the pattern exists. I understand that
you're asking for these theoretical reasons, and that's why you
posted the question in the first place, but you should at least
take a guess yourself. Finally, you should not claim a fixed cycle
length, since it's impossible -- unless you can show a physical
relation between your cycle and an astronomical event.

Sincerely,

John

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

Wow - a lot has gone on in this thread since I last posted in it!

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

If you're looking for an economic cycle that's somewhere between 10
and 100 years long, then I don't believe you'll find it. I believe
that the only two cycles in that range are the K-cycles and the
generational cycles. There may be short cycles (a few days or months
to a few years) and there may be very long cycles (such as a 400-500
year "civilizational" cycle), but none between them.

I know of three--the Kitchin cycle (the standard 4-year business cycle), Juglar cycle (~9-year investment cycle), and Kuznets cycle (~18 year real-estate cycle).

Click on the following link for descriptions of each, plus the Kondratiev.

http://www.usastores.com/Consensus/longterm/spec3.htm

There also seems to be a 10-year cycle, in that with the sole exception of the 1940s due to World War II (and to a lesser extent the 1950s due to the Korean War), every decade since at least the 1920s has played host to some sort of downturn early in the decade: The post-World War I "Forgotten Depression," the Depression itself (actual economic contraction ceased in 1933), the 1953-54 recession (onset delayed by the Korean War), the 1960-61 recession, the 1970-71 recession, the 1980-82 near-depression, the 1990-92 recession, and the 2001-03 recession (observing the time at which the unemployment rate peaked as the end of the last two). In addition, except for the 1970s (slump of 1973-75), the U.S. economy has gone straight up for the rest of the decade following the early-decade downturn in every decade starting with the 1960s.

I think John does a good job leading this discussion on saecular cycles and attractors. This is important, of course, to grasp the meaning of a saeculum. But I’m not sure it needs to be so complicated.

For reasons biological, and not yet thoroughly understood, the modern human animal requires about 20 years to grow up (+ or – only about 10%); that is, to take on an adult role in a modern society. I’ll yield to that temporal imperative all of its causes I cannot comprehend — some gravitation, some electromagnetic, some molecular, some organic, some maybe even quantum mechanical — because in my sublime ignorance I can find comfort in “knowing” that biological humans require about 20 years to build a cohort group with its own identity. Why not 10? Why not 40? I really don’t know. Biology is still an inadequate science. But, in the face of all those reasons and causes unknown to me, I can still conclude with confidence that a 20-year cycle for cohort consolidation really does exist.

So there’s your operative cycle. It usually goes around four times. It’s fundamentally biological, with a lot of complicated juices kicking around. Trying to identify the specific causes for this compounded cyclical pattern is like trying to spot four-leaf clovers while your running down the field for a touchdown.

Why are high school reunions so popular? Do strange attractors go to work there, tool? Nah. It’s nothing more than a common curiosity people have about their cohorts, their peers, the ones who transited the same corridor of progress. Why not more junior high school class reunions? Why not more college class reunions? Because they fall outside the boundaries of the cohort development cycle. It is a cycle unto itself, and it seems to have a quartering effect over the lifespan of a modern human. So it is not too surprising that the saeculum has about the same temporal boundaries.

If the saeculum itself has an attractor, I’d fancy it as a Lorenz attractor, where chaos is a driving force.

--Croakmore

Dear Anthony,

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

> Wow - a lot has gone on in this thread since I last posted in it!
> Rolling Eyes

The moving hand writes, and having writ, moves on.

Sincerely,

John

Originally Posted by The Pervert

> I know of three--the Kitchin cycle (the standard 4-year business
> cycle), Juglar cycle (~9-year investment cycle), and Kuznets cycle
> (~18 year real-estate cycle).

> Click on the following link for descriptions of each, plus the
> Kondratiev.

> http://www.usastores.com/Consensus/longterm/spec3.htm

Thanks for pointing that page out. It's a good summary.

While we're talking about this kind of stuff, someone e-mailed me to
tell me that war cycles may be correlated with "small ice ages."
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...maries/war.jsp
According to this theory, fluctuations in weather patterns cause
temperatures to go up and down, and when they go down for a while,
wars start. They claim that they've proven for centuries of China
wars.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Anthony,

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

> There also seems to be a 10-year cycle, in that with the sole
> exception of the 1940s due to World War II (and to a lesser extent
> the 1950s due to the Korean War), every decade since at least the
> 1920s has played host to some sort of downturn early in the
> decade: The post-World War I "Forgotten Depression," the
> Depression itself (actual economic contraction ceased in 1933),
> the 1953-54 recession (onset delayed by the Korean War), the
> 1960-61 recession, the 1970-71 recession, the 1980-82
> near-depression, the 1990-92 recession, and the 2001-03 recession
> (observing the time at which the unemployment rate peaked as the
> end of the last two). In addition, except for the 1970s (slump of
> 1973-75), the U.S. economy has gone straight up for the rest of
> the decade following the early-decade downturn in every decade
> starting with the 1960s.

I was doing some surfing the other day and came across this
paragraph:

> The return of prosperity in the 50's and early 60's meant good
> economic growth but with a couple of qualifications: There was
> steady, if low, inflation; and unemployment, although negligible
> by Depression standards, was not as low as in previous periods of
> growth. There also occurred three recessions in a ten year period.
> It now appears that the high tax rates of the time, retained by
> President Eisenhower for the fiscally responsible purpose of
> paying down the debt from World War II, may have been responsible
> for the recessions. But the steady inflation, almost invisible at
> the time, may also have been a wise corrective to the political
> power of the labor unions, who otherwise exercised steady pressure
> to drive up wages. The result, overall, was optimism and growth
> such as had not been seen since the 20's and, at last, a decisive
> answer on the part of the democracies to the claims that had been
> made for economic success by the totalitarian regimes.
> Unfortunately, this success at the same time nurtured a generation
> that took economic growth for granted, would still find the claims
> of totalitarian ideologies attractive, and sometimes would not
> even be exposed to the new defenses of capitalism that post-war
> prosperity motivated.
> http://www.friesian.com/money.htm

In addition to being an interesting paragraph in its own right, it
says that there were three recessions in the Eisenhower
administration. They occurred in 1953, 1958 and 1960.

The table below shows that there have been 21 recessions from 1899 to
2001:

Code:

    Dates of Recession          President         Party
    --------------------------  ------------      -----
    June 1899-December 1900     McKinley           R
    September 1902-August 1904  T. Roosevelt       R
    May 1907-June 1908          T. Roosevelt       R
    January 1910-January 1912   Taft               R
    January 1913-December 1914  Wilson             D
    August 1918-March 1919      Wilson             D
    January 1920-July 1921      Wilson             D
    May 1923-July 1924          Coolidge           R
    October 1926-November 1927  Coolidge           R
    August 1929-March 1933      Hoover             R
    May 1937-June 1938          FDR                D
    November 1948-October 1949  Truman             D
    July 1953-May 1954          Eisenhower         R
    August 1957-April 1958      Eisenhower         R
    April 1960-February 1961    Eisenhower         R
    December 1969-November 1970 Nixon              R
    November 1973-March 1975    Nixon              R
    January 1980-July 1980      Carter             D
    July 1981-November 1982     Reagan             R
    July 1990-March 1991        Bush               R
    March 2001-November 2001    Bush               R
    http://quinnell.us/politics/knowledge/recessions.html
    Source: http://www.nber.org/cycles/

Since there have been 21 recessions from 1899 to 2001, recessions
occur every 4.5-5 years or so. So I don't think your concept of a 10
year cycle has any support at all.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Richard,

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> I think John does a good job leading this discussion on saecular
> cycles and attractors. This is important, of course, to grasp the
> meaning of a saeculum. But I’m not sure it needs to be so
> complicated.

> For reasons biological, and not yet thoroughly understood, the
> modern human animal requires about 20 years to grow up (+ or –
> only about 10%); that is, to take on an adult role in a modern
> society. I’ll yield to that temporal imperative all of its causes
> I cannot comprehend — some gravitation, some electromagnetic, some
> molecular, some organic, some maybe even quantum mechanical —
> because in my sublime ignorance I can find comfort in “knowing”
> that biological humans require about 20 years to build a cohort
> group with its own identity. Why not 10? Why not 40? I really
> don’t know. Biology is still an inadequate science. But, in the
> face of all those reasons and causes unknown to me, I can still
> conclude with confidence that a 20-year cycle for cohort
> consolidation really does exist.

> So there’s your operative cycle. It usually goes around four
> times. It’s fundamentally biological, with a lot of complicated
> juices kicking around. Trying to identify the specific causes for
> this compounded cyclical pattern is like trying to spot four-leaf
> clovers while your running down the field for a touchdown.

Since I've been working on this for quite some time now, I would
respectfully disagree with your implication that I'm essentially
wasting my time.

I don't see the saeculum as four rigid 20-year eras, which is obvious
anyway since I've been writing about "fifth turnings."
http://fourthturning.com/forums/view...=145535#145535
In addition, I don't believe that any of S&H's six cycles could be
split up that way.

In my view, the saeculum timing is driven by the Artists and the
Prophets.

The Awakening begins 15-20 years after the end of the crisis war. The
Awakening is not biological, but psychological -- it's a political
dispute between Prophets and their parents. It's driven by kids
rebelling against their parents.

The next Crisis period begins about 50-55 years after the end of the
previous crisis war because that's when the last of the Artists
disappear (retire or die), and the Prophets and Nomads take charge.

Those are the two reasonably fixed dates in the cycle. The other
dates are more variable.

The Unraveling period begins at the end of the Awakening, but the
Awakening period is highly variable in length. It appears to end
with an "internal rebellion" or "political rebellion" that defines the
winner in the struggle between Prophets and Heroes. Examples are
Nixon's resignation (1974), which signaled the Prophets as winners,
and the Tienanmen Square massacre (1989), which signaled China's
Heroes as winners.

The length of the crisis period is also variable -- it can last a
couple of years if there's a quick crisis war, or it can last 20-30
years if no crisis war occurs for a long time. The crisis period
ends when the crisis war climaxes.

So, the problems that you're describing with S&H's theory occur
because you're assuming their generational model has to be too
inflexible. By making the turning transitions a lot more flexible, as
in the last two paragraphs, the problems you describe disappear.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> Why are high school reunions so popular? Do strange attractors go
> to work there, tool? Nah. It’s nothing more than a common
> curiosity people have about their cohorts, their peers, the ones
> who transited the same corridor of progress. Why not more junior
> high school class reunions? Why not more college class reunions?
> Because they fall outside the boundaries of the cohort development
> cycle. It is a cycle unto itself, and it seems to have a
> quartering effect over the lifespan of a modern human. So it is
> not too surprising that the saeculum has about the same temporal
> boundaries.

I don't understand this. Did the children of the survivors of the
War of the Roses attend high school class reunions? And how is that
related to the Armada crisis?

Sincerely,

John

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

[[Edited 12/4/2005 to expand content.]]

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

The table below shows that there have been 21 recessions from 1899 to
2001:

Code:

    Dates of Recession          President         Party
    --------------------------  ------------      -----
    June 1899-December 1900     McKinley           R
    September 1902-August 1904  T. Roosevelt       R
    May 1907-June 1908          T. Roosevelt       R
    January 1910-January 1912   Taft               R
    January 1913-December 1914  Wilson             D
    August 1918-March 1919      Wilson             D
    January 1920-July 1921      Wilson             D
    May 1923-July 1924          Coolidge           R
    October 1926-November 1927  Coolidge           R
    August 1929-March 1933      Hoover             R
    May 1937-June 1938          FDR                D
    November 1948-October 1949  Truman             D
    July 1953-May 1954          Eisenhower         R
    August 1957-April 1958      Eisenhower         R
    April 1960-February 1961    Eisenhower         R
    December 1969-November 1970 Nixon              R
    November 1973-March 1975    Nixon              R
    January 1980-July 1980      Carter             D
    July 1981-November 1982     Reagan             R
    July 1990-March 1991        Bush               R
    March 2001-November 2001    Bush               R
    http://quinnell.us/politics/knowledge/recessions.html
    Source: http://www.nber.org/cycles/

Since there have been 21 recessions from 1899 to 2001, recessions
occur every 4.5-5 years or so. So I don't think your concept of a 10
year cycle has any support at all.

Sincerely,

John

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

Actually the table strengthens my argument, in that there were also recessions at the beginning of both the 1900s and 1910s.

And perhaps you misread my intent: I'm not claiming that economic downturns can only occur in the early part of a decade - just that there always seems to be one at that time, barring a war (and the trend goes back even further than I had originally thought). I never meant to assert that there could not be mid-decade or late-decade recessions as well (although the former has not occurred since the mid-1970s and the latter has not occurred since the late 1950s).

Well I guess we'll see what happens around 2010-2012.

Dear Anthony,

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

> Actually the table strengthens my argument, in that there were
> also recessions at the beginning of both the 1900s and 1910s.

> And perhaps you misread my intent: I'm not claiming that economic
> downturns can only occur in the early part of a decade - just that
> there always seems to be one at that time, barring a war (and the
> trend goes back even further than I had originally thought). I
> never meant to assert that there could not be mid-decade or
> late-decade recessions as well (although the former has not
> occurred since the mid-1970s and the latter has not occurred since
> the late 1950s).

> Well I guess we'll see what happens around 2010-2012.

I assume you're joking. If recessions occur every 4 1/2 - 5 years,
then of course many of them occur in the early part of the decade.

Sincerely,

John

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

John,

Given the fact that there have been only three recessions since 1980 (counting the two in the early '80s as one, with only a breathing spell in between), where do you get the idea of a 4 1/2-to-5-year periodicity of recessions? Yet you can set your watch by the way the economy has behaved at the beginning of every decade since the start of the 20th Century, except where more-or-less major war has intervened (World War II and Korea).

However, like any system of human origin, this cycle had a beginning and will have an end, undergoing stages of growth, maturation and senescence along the way. Since 1980, this cycle has been in full swing, at its peak stage of development; but the question is, for how much longer?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Richard,

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> For reasons biological, and not yet thoroughly understood, the
> modern human animal requires about 20 years to grow up (+ or –
> only about 10%); that is, to take on an adult role in a modern
> society. I’ll yield to that temporal imperative all of its causes
> I cannot comprehend — some gravitation, some electromagnetic, some
> molecular, some organic, some maybe even quantum mechanical —
> because in my sublime ignorance I can find comfort in “knowing”
> that biological humans require about 20 years to build a cohort
> group with its own identity. Why not 10? Why not 40? I really
> don’t know. Biology is still an inadequate science. But, in the
> face of all those reasons and causes unknown to me, I can still
> conclude with confidence that a 20-year cycle for cohort
> consolidation really does exist.

> So there’s your operative cycle. It usually goes around four
> times. It’s fundamentally biological, with a lot of complicated
> juices kicking around. Trying to identify the specific causes for
> this compounded cyclical pattern is like trying to spot four-leaf
> clovers while your running down the field for a touchdown.

Since I've been working on this for quite some time now, I would
respectfully disagree with your implication that I'm essentially
wasting my time.

I don't see the saeculum as four rigid 20-year eras, which is obvious
anyway since I've been writing about "fifth turnings."
http://fourthturning.com/forums/view...=145535#145535
In addition, I don't believe that any of S&H's six cycles could be
split up that way.

In my view, the saeculum timing is driven by the Artists and the
Prophets.

The Awakening begins 15-20 years after the end of the crisis war. The
Awakening is not biological, but psychological -- it's a political
dispute between Prophets and their parents. It's driven by kids
rebelling against their parents.

Rigid? Who said anythging about rigid? I'm heading in the opposite direction. And I don't see the need for a five-legged horse on a farm with all the other four-legged animals, if the metaphor holds up. You're wrong. The saeculum is indeed driven by biological forces -- the same forces that drive psychological patterns, which certainly do have gravitational roots in the natural order of things. You can't ignore the driving force of a season cadence --one, two, three, four -- not even if you're an insect or a slime mold. I'm sticking to my biological imperative, unless you can show me somehow that humans are not biological.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

The next Crisis period begins about 50-55 years after the end of the
previous crisis war because that's when the last of the Artists
disappear (retire or die), and the Prophets and Nomads take charge.

Those are the two reasonably fixed dates in the cycle. The other
dates are more variable.

The Unraveling period begins at the end of the Awakening, but the
Awakening period is highly variable in length. It appears to end
with an "internal rebellion" or "political rebellion" that defines the
winner in the struggle between Prophets and Heroes. Examples are
Nixon's resignation (1974), which signaled the Prophets as winners,
and the Tienanmen Square massacre (1989), which signaled China's
Heroes as winners.

The length of the crisis period is also variable -- it can last a
couple of years if there's a quick crisis war, or it can last 20-30
years if no crisis war occurs for a long time. The crisis period
ends when the crisis war climaxes.

So, the problems that you're describing with S&H's theory occur
because you're assuming their generational model has to be too
inflexible. By making the turning transitions a lot more flexible, as
in the last two paragraphs, the problems you describe disappear.

This befuddles me. My Occam's Razor has no trouble at all shaving off extra legs and psychological imperatives. If you say a saeculum is "driven" by Artists and Prohhets isn't that equivalent to saying a four-stroke engine is "driven" by Compression and Ignition? Well, of course it is. You have to have a Winter and Spring to get to Summer and Fall. Is there another season I don't know about?

I think it is too early to put extra legs on a horse when we don't even know what breed it is or how well it runs around. And I don't care what metaphors you use, because there is no escaping them; the essential thing is the temporal requirements of a maturing human being. Yes, some mature quicker than others, but I can't fathom a fifth stage wedged in there somewhere to make a lifespan lopsided. The same principle should apply to a saeculum.

I can see a three-legged horse, like the Civil War Saeculum. I can also see a Little Ice Age where seasons are subtracted, not added, to the annual cycle. S&H made it clear from the start that turnings are naturally seasonal, even to the extent that their cadence is captured in the Book of Ecclesiastes. It's algorithmic; it has a wave function with a measurable frequency and collapsing amplitudes. Maybe it's just too obvious.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> Why are high school reunions so popular? Do strange attractors go
> to work there, tool? Nah. It’s nothing more than a common
> curiosity people have about their cohorts, their peers, the ones
> who transited the same corridor of progress. Why not more junior
> high school class reunions? Why not more college class reunions?
> Because they fall outside the boundaries of the cohort development
> cycle. It is a cycle unto itself, and it seems to have a
> quartering effect over the lifespan of a modern human. So it is
> not too surprising that the saeculum has about the same temporal
> boundaries.

I don't understand this. Did the children of the survivors of the
War of the Roses attend high school class reunions? And how is that
related to the Armada crisis?

Gosh, those poor children of the Armada Crisis must gone to sea at a very early age. Doesn't biology count for something? Why is it so complicated?

--Croakmore

Dear Richard,

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> Rigid? Who said anythging about rigid? I'm heading in the opposite
> direction. And I don't see the need for a five-legged horse on a
> farm with all the other four-legged animals, if the metaphor holds
> up. You're wrong. The saeculum is indeed driven by biological
> forces -- the same forces that drive psychological patterns, which
> certainly do have gravitational roots in the natural order of
> things. You can't ignore the driving force of a season cadence
> --one, two, three, four -- not even if you're an insect or a slime
> mold. I'm sticking to my biological imperative, unless you can
> show me somehow that humans are not biological.

I'm totally confused by this. Is four legs a metaphor for four
turnings? I'm not sure. And how does your "biological imperative"
differ with anything I've said?

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> If you say a saeculum is "driven" by Artists and Prohhets isn't
> that equivalent to saying a four-stroke engine is "driven" by
> Compression and Ignition?

What I said was that the saeculum TIMINGS are driven by the time the
Prophets reach maturity and the time that the Artists disappear
(retire or die). (But you'd have to add in that the beginning and end
of the crisis war also affects the timing.) Once again, if "legs"
are "turnings" then you need to address what I've written before, and
you have to address what happens when a saeculum lasts 100 years or
more, since the turning model doesn't address that case at all.
http://fourthturning.com/forums/view...=145535#145535

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> Gosh, those poor children of the Armada Crisis must gone to sea at
> a very early age. Doesn't biology count for something? Why is it
> so complicated?

Once again I have absolutely no idea what this means.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> Trying to identify the specific causes for this compounded
> cyclical pattern is like trying to spot four-leaf clovers while
> your running down the field for a touchdown.

This is from your previous message. At the time I read it, I thought
I knew what you were talking about, but now I see that I didn't.
Perhaps you could help me unerstand this as well.

Sincerely,

John

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

John,

I've read your link and I have a somewhat better understanding of your five-legged horse (if the metaphor has any legs at all). And I commend you for theorizing about those long saeculae, if indeed they are that long. There's probably no way to investigate those things without certain divinations of the time line. My concern is always about assuming too much without careful enough consideration of a null hypothesis, just as you would do in a statistical argument (and know how much you like 'em).

Nevertheless, neither I nor Princess Summerfall Winterspring think you can cut up a saeculum five ways, certainly not any easier than you can ADD a season to a year. But you can SUBTRACT a season from a year, as I have already ponted out. I'm just not convinced a saeculum needs to be that frilly. My point is pretty well summarized by a quote from scientist/historian Robert S. Morison: As we grow microscopically more precise, we become macroscopically more confused.

--Croak

Dear Richard,

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> Nevertheless, neither I nor Princess Summerfall Winterspring think
> you can cut up a saeculum five ways, certainly not any easier than
> you can ADD a season to a year. But you can SUBTRACT a season from
> a year, as I have already ponted out. I'm just not convinced a
> saeculum needs to be that frilly. My point is pretty well
> summarized by a quote from scientist/historian Robert S. Morison:
> As we grow microscopically more precise, we become macroscopically
> more confused.

Understood, but I just have a couple of comments.

First, we're really talking about a semantics problem. If you enter
a fourth turning and there's no crisis war for 30 years, then what do
you call the 40-year crisis era? You can just say it's a very long
4T, but I think the second 20 years are going to be distinctly
different from the first 20 years, so I called it a "fifth turning."
But it's only a name.

Second, I feel certain that Clarabelle could have found a way to give
the Princess a fifth leg.

Third, here are some 5-legged entities:


( http://users.specdata.com/home/pullo/F_R.HTM )
5-legged lunar module


( http://www.technical-products.com/ch...roduction.shtm )
5-legged desk chair


( http://www.galenfrysinger.com/asian_elephants.htm )
5-legged elephant


( http://www.ragoarts.com/results_2005_05.05AC.php )
5-legged table


( http://www.leonardsdirect.com/reprod...d/282/picid/0/ )
5-legged club chair


( http://www.crfinefurniture.com/1page...undbamboo.html )
5-legged stool


( http://www.woodford.redbridge.sch.uk...ako/5legs.html )
5-legged race


( http://www.bpmlegal.com/xliao.html )
5-legged sawhorse


( http://www.dispatch.co.za/2000/05/05/ )
5-legged cow


( http://english.sina.com/p/1/2005/0614/34746.html )
5-legged frog


( http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Issues/Amphibians.cfm )
5-legged frog


( http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/South...og.popcorn.ap/ )
5-legged dog


( http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm...es.animaltales )
5-legged sheep

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

...Second, I feel certain that Clarabelle could have found a way to give
the Princess a fifth leg.

...if not Buffalo Bob, himself.

John, the rest of your post made me laugh and laugh. But I don't know about all those five-legged critters lurking out there on the Internet. It's spooky, all right. Still, you and I both know those five-legged chimeras don't trump the standard four-legged ones as the winning combination. Five is a very odd fit in nature. I'll have to think about it.

--Croakmore

Are those girls wearing skirts or shorts?

Britain: intriguing, perplexing.

And you say you don't have much time on your hands...

:wink:

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

If you enter a fourth turning and there's no crisis war for 30 years, then what do you call the 40-year crisis era?

That cannot happen according to the GD mechanism. Unless you have changed the basic mechanism, GD calls for a new crisis war as soon as those who can recall the last one have passed from the scene. You cannot enter into a crisis period until the war survivors are largely gone, and then the next significant war that comes along should develop into a crisis war.

Dear Mike,

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

> That cannot happen according to the GD mechanism. Unless you have
> changed the basic mechanism, GD calls for a new crisis war as soon
> as those who can recall the last one have passed from the scene.
> You cannot enter into a crisis period until the war survivors are
> largely gone, and then the next significant war that comes along
> should develop into a crisis war.

I've always distinguished between a crisis war and a crisis period
(fourth turning), in the same way that S&H do, as far as I can tell.
So there's no conflict.

You've caught me on a good day, because I've been giving this whole
question quite a bit of thought lately.

I look at the GD generational model in two layers. The basic layer
looks at crisis wars - nothing else - so the following kind of
diagram suffices:



As long as the "big dots" are spaced at sufficiently well-behaved
intervals, then the basic layer is fine, and it makes no difference
whether there are generational changes or anything else between the
crisis war.

The second layer attempts to fill in the spaces between the big dots.
This layer is less certain and less well validated than the basic
layer, and it's an attempt to formalize and validate as much of S&H's
generational change model as possible.

One of the things I've been using my web site for in the last few
years is to identify characteristics of the various eras, especially
the crisis era. In brief, here are some of the things I've written
about:

(*) Crisis era (prior to crisis war): Xenophobia - opposition
to immigration; political stagnation; return to stereotypical gender
roles -- "cruise control" -- society in denial about dangers; high
anxiety; low value placed on individual lives vs high value placed on
national survival.

(*) Unraveling (China): Financial bubble.

(*) Awakening (Iraq, Iran): Political conflict - generational
conflict; avoidance of war.

(*) Austerity/High (Turkey, now Sudan): Recovery,
consolidation, austerity.

The work on "fifth turnings" is very recent, and is based on evidence
that came out after the London subway bombings, as I've previously
described.

Finally, I'm looking at inter-crisis periods in a completely
different way, a much more abstract way: What is the minimum set of
assumptions (axioms) that I have to make about humans to be able to
prove that the crisis war cycle (the "basic layer" described above)
must occur, and then what does this imply about "generational
changes" between the crisis wars?

This is an extension of what I did in Chapter 7 of Generational
Dynamics for Historians (the current draft of which can be read
for free on my web site). In that chapter, I tried to identify the
minimum set of axioms required to force the crisis war cycle, but I
didn't look at the times between the crisis wars.

For humans, this can be derived from a set of "biological
imperatives" (to use Croakmore's term), including the following: When
Prophets come of age; when a nation has replenished its army after a
genocidal war; when Artists disappear (retire or die).

The following is a summary of the development of the abstract model.
I'm leaving out a lot of details that are in Chapter 7 of the book.
In particular, I'm not specifically re-stating some of the
assumptions that I've listed there.

Suppose that intelligent life is evolving on a planet, and there are
several sub-species competing with one another to be dominant.

1. Every sub-species has a "maximum effective lifespan" or "lifespan"
for short. Think of a human being as a large piece of machinery with
multiple parts or sub-systems. We can ask this question: What's the
mean time between failure (MTBF) of each of the individual subsystems
in the human being? From the point of view of evolutionary
efficiency, there's no point in having a nervous system with MTBF =
90 years if the circulatory system has an MTBF = 70 years. Those extra
20 years would simply be wasted.

Therefore, all the body's "subsystems" will evolve to have the same
MTBF. The common MTBF of all the body's subsystems is the "maximum
effective lifespan" or "lifespan" of a member of the sub-species.

In humans, the lifespan is 80 years. We note that there are many
people still working hard in their 70s, but few in their 80s, and
this has been true for a long time (e.g., in ancient Greece).

2. Sub-species compete with one another to become dominant by means of
genocidal wars (crisis wars) from time to time.

3. A sub-species improves its ability to win genocidal wars by two
means: (a) Having a long lifespan, so that the society is led by
leaders with "wisdom"; (b) having a short lifespan, so that more of
the population is young and vigorous. These two conflicting
requirements generate an equilibrium value, the ideal lifespan for the
sub-species. (80 years in humans.) The sub-species will evolve to
this ideal lifespan (survival of the fittest).

4. After a genocidal crisis war, the sub-species will avoid genocidal
wars until at least the point where its soldiers have been replenished
- the "point of minimum replenishment." In humans this appears to be
45-50 years after the end of the previous crisis war.

5. A sub-species will have "peak genocidal power," when it has lots
of young, vigorous soldiers, and just enough (but not too many) wise
elders. In humans, this appears to be 55-60 years after the end of
the previous crisis war. This is the beginning of the "fourth
turning" or crisis era.

6. The most successful sub-species will have crisis wars during the
period of peak genocidal power.

This is still speculative, but it would be very useful to rigorously
ascertain this minimum set of axioms. The reason why it would be
very useful is because of the following assertion, which I believe to
be true but can't prove except by a great deal of historical
analysis:

If some "attribute of turning X" is not among the minimum set of
axioms required to force the generational crisis war cycle, then it
will not be a necessary attribute for human turnings.

In other words, S&H examined six crisis war cycles, and came up with
a set of common attributes for each of the turnings in the cycles.
Question: Which of those attributes are required, and which are
optional? Answer: The set of required attributes is exactly equal to
the minimum set of axioms required to force the generational crisis
war cycle, or anything that can be logically derived from those
axioms.

I'm very excited about this stuff because I think it will validate
the entire generational paradigm, including both S&H's work and my
own, to academic standards. The only question is whether bird flu or
something else will get me before I have a chance to finish it. I'm
thinking of changing the title of my new book to Generational
Dynamics for Historians and Mathematicians. What do you think?

Sincerely,

John

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