As I have stated before I see most turnings (but not all) as going through four stages.

Stage 1: Opening Transition
This is when the new mood implants.

Stage 2: Early Core
The “core” of a turning is the period when the mood is stable and saecularly functional.

Stage 3: Late Core
The phase after the aforementioned thresholds.

Stage 4: Senescence
This phase starts at the point where the leading edges of the generations reach and overflow into new phases.

Oh, so a growth season, like spring, bears little or no dynamic or fundamental difference from a dead season, like winter?

8) , I guess. :?

Hello! I'm a Millennial who just joined this site, and I think Howe and Strauss' theories are very interesting, and probably helpful. However, I'm not so sure there's going to be any way to accurately prove whether or not they are scientifically valid, primarily because the terms used to describe generational categories themselves (hero, artist, prophet, nomad) are all generalizations to begin with, that describe trends too numerous and complex to measure accurately. Furthermore, I think the authors may be going too far when they assign specific years to begin and end generations: I think the best they can do is estimate.

At the same time, I can't help but think they're on to something! If they are, and if there actually is a saeculum, I think there's a good chance it's mainly due to how when people are growing up, they see the holes in the understanding of the previous generations. As these people grow up, they establish new values based upon their shared experiences, but eventually become attached to these values to the exclusion of other ways of looking at the world. Then the next generation sees the gaps in both their reasoning, and that of the generation before them, and the pattern continues. If things like crises or unravelings occur, it is either due to mistakes in judgment since certain ways of looking at things were overlooked, or because the mood of the times enabled people to interpret certain events as unravelings or crises.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Sean, in your mind do all generational separations have historical markers? I'm guessing that's how it works, but those markers are often arbitrary. The boundaries often seem blurred to me, blurred even by more than one or two years. For example, I was born in 1939 but I don't seem much like a Silent. My attitude was mostly Boomer as I matured (as if I ever did). So this is why I worry if historical markers mean that much (unless of course they have biological implications like wars and plagues.

I'm going to play a Hegelian and say the generational boundaries are both distinct and fuzzy. There is definitely a zone of "fuzziness" that most here call "cusps". Those are periods when various archetypal endowments are switching between those "Directive", "Directed", and "Suppressed" categories S&H outlined in Generations.

But I also believe there is a tipping point within that zone where the boundary is distinct. This is where those aforementioned categories actually switch, esp. with the arrival of a new "Directive" group.

To take your example, those born in the late 30's and early 40's show increasing sign of Boomerishness, if you will. Overall, those qualities will be in the minority, but increasingly significant. Then, beginning with the 1943 cohort, a qualitative threshold is crossed. But for several cohorts thereafter, Silent characteristics will endure, if secondarily.

Hell, ol' Tim Leary acted like a Boomer more than 99% of Boomers did, but he was a GI for crying-out-loud. But what's important to remember is that his approach to life was "suppressed" in his generation. He was an outlier. Such behavior and worldview was just less suppressed in the 1939 Silent cohort.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

As I have stated before I see most turnings (but not all) as going through four stages.

Stage 1: Opening Transition
This is when the new mood implants.

Stage 2: Early Core
The “core” of a turning is the period when the mood is stable and saecularly functional.

Stage 3: Late Core
The phase after the aforementioned thresholds.

Stage 4: Senescence
This phase starts at the point where the leading edges of the generations reach and overflow into new phases.

Oh, so a growth season, like spring, bears little or no dynamic or fundamental difference from a dead season, like winter?

8) , I guess. :?

What are you babbling about?

Originally Posted by a_general_prism

Hello! I'm a Millennial who just joined this site, and I think Howe and Strauss' theories are very interesting, and probably helpful. However, I'm not so sure there's going to be any way to accurately prove whether or not they are scientifically valid, primarily because the terms used to describe generational categories themselves (hero, artist, prophet, nomad) are all generalizations to begin with, that describe trends too numerous and complex to measure accurately. Furthermore, I think the authors may be going too far when they assign specific years to begin and end generations: I think the best they can do is estimate.

At the same time, I can't help but think they're on to something! If they are, and if there actually is a saeculum, I think there's a good chance it's mainly due to how when people are growing up, they see the holes in the understanding of the previous generations. As these people grow up, they establish new values based upon their shared experiences, but eventually become attached to these values to the exclusion of other ways of looking at the world. Then the next generation sees the gaps in both their reasoning, and that of the generation before them, and the pattern continues. If things like crises or unravelings occur, it is either due to mistakes in judgment since certain ways of looking at things were overlooked, or because the mood of the times enabled people to interpret certain events as unravelings or crises.

Welcome Prism! Jump on in.

I agree with the mechanism you cited above. But I also think there are several other interlocking mechanisms that make the whole dynamic work.

You seem to know something of S&H's work. Have you read The Fourth Turning book? If you haven't, I must say it's a great read!

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Sean, in your mind do all generational separations have historical markers? I'm guessing that's how it works, but those markers are often arbitrary. The boundaries often seem blurred to me, blurred even by more than one or two years. For example, I was born in 1939 but I don't seem much like a Silent. My attitude was mostly Boomer as I matured (as if I ever did). So this is why I worry if historical markers mean that much (unless of course they have biological implications like wars and plagues.

I'm going to play a Hegelian and say the generational boundaries are both distinct and fuzzy. There is definitely a zone of "fuzziness" that most here call "cusps". Those are periods when various archetypal endowments are switching between those "Directive", "Directed", and "Suppressed" categories S&H outlined in Generations.

But I also believe there is a tipping point within that zone where the boundary is distinct. This is where those aforementioned categories actually switch, esp. with the arrival of a new "Directive" group.

To take your example, those born in the late 30's and early 40's show increasing sign of Boomerishness, if you will. Overall, those qualities will be in the minority, but increasingly significant. Then, beginning with the 1943 cohort, a qualitative threshold is crossed. But for several cohorts thereafter, Silent characteristics will endure, if secondarily.

Hell, ol' Tim Leary acted like a Boomer more than 99% of Boomers did, but he was a GI for crying-out-loud. But what's important to remember is that his approach to life was "suppressed" in his generation. He was an outlier. Such behavior and worldview was just less suppressed in the 1939 Silent cohort.

But, Bro, this tells me only that the edges of your generational boundaries (18, 19, 20, 21 years) are unrealistically crisp. Still, your points are well taken. One thing I can't shake loose of, however, is my own belief that a modern human lifespan can be reasonably divided into four quarters, each having about a 20-year duration. I think it would be unrealistic to say, for example, that a generation had a 19-year childhood, a 22-year young adulthood, a 21-year mid-life, and an 18-year elderhood. (Morison would agree.)

--Croak

eof

Originally Posted by Croakmore

I think it would be unrealistic to say, for example, that a generation had a 19-year childhood, a 22-year young adulthood, a 21-year mid-life, and an 18-year elderhood. (Morison would agree.)

I agree. I think that a generation's length is set usually around the time their last wave comes-of-age and that whatever the length of childhood was (i.e., pre-net social autonomy) will be the length of the subsequent phases for that generation.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

But as for your core question of transitioning versus full alignment, this should come as no surprise since it is part and parcel of S&H theory (as I understand it, anyway).

No, it is part of the description of how the generations line up wrt to the turnings.

S&H have full, archetypal generational line-ups (constellations) occurring at the end of turnings. When this alignment specifically occurs depends on one's opinion of phase lengths and generational boundaries, but they nevertheless are always roughly end-of-turning affairs.

No. In Generations, S&H used "eras" instead of turnings. An era was defined by the birth years of a generation. Thus 1961-1981 was an Awakening era, that S&H later associated with an Awakening turning that ran from 1964 to 1984. An aligned constellation occurs in the first birth year of a new generation, by definition. Because S&H lag their turnings a few years wrt to their era, the aligned constellation occurs near the end of a turning, but more precisely it occurs at the end of an era.

The reason why is simple. A new era is defined by the start of a new generation. Remember turnings have no independent existence apart from generations. The true change begins when a new generation starts to appear.

For example, in 1983 the first cohort generational line-up was 58: 40: 22:

Note the focus on the first cohort. As a general rule eras (i.e. birth years for a generation) correspond to phases of life for the first cohort of the three previous generations.

For example, using 20 year phase of life (RA = 20-39, MA = 40-59, EL = 60-79)

Millie Birth 1961 in RA 1943 in MA 1925 in EL
1982-2003 1981-2000 1983-2002 1985-2004

Xer Birth . 1943 in RA 1925 in MA 1901 in EL
1961-1981 1963-1982 1965-1984 1961-1980

Boom Birth 1925 in RA 1901 in MA 1883 in EL
1943-1960 1945-1964 1941-1960 1943-1962

and so on.

I know this is the pattern. The issue this thread deals with is what sort of mechanism can cause things to work out this way?

As for how it works, a turning mood is a combination of the new archetypal expressions entering each phase of life and the new dynamic or equilibrium that results.

Her you postulate that what matters is a small fraction of the population, those who happen to be around 20, around 40 and around 60. Why do the others (the majority) not count?

As I have stated before I see most turnings (but not all) as going through four stages.

Stage 1: Opening Transition

Stage 2: Early Core

Stage 3: Late Core

Stage 4: Senescence

This is a taxonomy. It doesn't really address the issue of causation.

This phase starts at the point where the leading edges of the generations reach and overflow into new phases. This introduction of new archetypal expressions into each phase triggers increasing instability and dysfunction in the saecular dynamic supporting the current mood.

What is the saecular dynamic? How does it create a mood? How do generations arise in the first place?

The central problem here is what S&H call the generations problem. People are born all the time. People come of age all the time. People become leaders all the time. How does this continuous process get discretized into generations?

S&H present a set of mechanistic arguments that I refer to as their constellation model. They are scattered through the book Generations, but I believe I have cobbled them together into a coherent whole.

Let us denote L as the length of a generation. Consider four key roles that people as members of a generation can play throughout their lives. Assume these roles are played at an average age of A1, A2, A3, and A4.

Consider a collection of cohorts (a generation) born in year 1 to L. This collection will dominate role 1 in the years 1 + A1 to L + A1. They will dominate role 2 in the years 1 + A2 to L + A2 and so on.

We now define these roles to be phase of life roles, which means that the different value of A are spaced L years apart where L is the length of a phase of life. Let the first role of life is birth, which defines an era. Birth is accomplished at an average age of zero, so A1 = 0. Since the other rages are spaced L years apart this means A2 = l, A3 = 2L and A4 = 3L.

Thus, the generation will dominate the birth role in the years 1 to L, which is when they were born. They will dominate role 2 in the years L+1 to 2L. They will dominate role 3 in the years 2L+1 to 3L. They will dominate role 4 in the years 3L+1 to 4L.

Now how old with the first cohort (born in year 1) be during these times when its generation is dominating successive life roles?

Role 1 (birth) age 0 to L-1
Role 2: age L to 2L - 1
Role 3: age 2L to 3L -1
Role 4: age 3L to 4L - 1

S&H claim that L = 22. In this case the first cohort will be

Role 1 age 0-21
Role 2 age 22-43
Role 3 age 44-65
Role 4 age 66-87

These we recognize as the phases of life. Role 1 corresponds the youth phase of life. Role 2 corresponds to the rising adult phase of life. Role 3 corresponds to the mature adult phase of life. Role 4 corresponds to the elder phase of life.

A generation dominates a phase-of-life role over the same years as its first cohort occupies the corresponding phase of life.

The period when the generation dominates one of these roles (and its first cohort occupies the corresponding phase of life) defines an era. That is, it will correspond to the time when another generation is being born. Obviously after this generation stops dominating role 1 (being born), another generation starts dominating role 1 (starts being born). This means a new era has started. This era will also see the generation start dominating role 2, and the generation that previously dominated role 2 will now start dominating role 3 and so on. Eras define turnings.

But what causes eras/turnings? It's generations (who have different styles/worldviews) dominating the roles that creates history. When generation A dominates history-creating role 1 and generation B dominates history-creating role 2 you get a different type of history created than when generations C and D dominate these roles. And when do generations dominate history0creating roles (i.e.create history)? When their first cohort occupies the phase of life associated with the history-creating role. This is why the aligned constellation model works.

I have already noted that role 1 is birth. Thus the key generational role in the youth phase of life is birth. Is it when you are born that establishes generational membership.

Role 2 is coming of age. This is a role performed during a fairly narrow band of ages centered on L.

Role 3 is some "mature adult" role performed by people at an average age of 2L

Role 4 is some "elder" role performed by people at an average age of 3L.

For example the, average age of gray champions, who by definition perform this "elder" role, should be equal to 3L. Let's look at some gray champion ages. FDR was age 50-63. Lincoln was 52 to 55. Ben Franklin was 70 to 83. Sam Adams was 51 to 59. The average age at which gray champion roles have been executed is 61, implying L = 20.

What sort of role is the mature adult role that is played at an average age of 2L? S&H suggest leadership, but obviously not always (gray champions (i.e. elders) are often leaders too). If we look at the average age of political leaders we find that before the mid-18th century they averaged about 41 years in age, implying L = 20. Today such leaders are 56, implying L = 28.

Kurt Horner suggests a special role for leaders in their final years (when they occupy the highest positions they ever will). In a pre-industrial society this role might have been played around the average age of leader death, for which I have found a value of 51, implying L = 26. Kurt also suggests that at such times, coming of age really meant coming into your inheritance. Looking at the average age at which English monarchs inherited their throne we see a value of 27 years, implying L = 27.

Thus if we use birth, coming into inheritance and age of leader death (life expectancy at COA) as the ages for the different phase eof life roles were get L = 26-27. With such a large L, there isn't really anyone playing role 4 and we have the three phase model you have called for.

If you look at the elder roles S&H call for you can see that they mostly are staying out of the way (i.e. no role at all). For example the elder role in the High is to be reclusive (i.e. elders don't play a larger societal role). The elder role in the Awakening is to be busy with one's own life. Once again elders are not required to play a characteristic role. The elder role in the Unraveling is to be sensitive. That is, condone whatever the younger gens want to do--don't have an impact on your own.

Only in the Crisis is there an elder role, and that role is visionary leadership, which is the same type of role played by the generation before them. In other words, bump up L and you will see Nomads playing GC roles without a problem. The elder role in crises is duplicative.

So we can dispense with elder roles without harming the constellation mechanism.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Only in the Crisis is there an elder role, and that role is visionary leadership, which is the same type of role played by the generation before them. In other words, bump up L and you will see Nomads playing GC roles without a problem. The elder role in crisies is duplicative.

In both Generations and The Fourth Turning Strauss and Howe play up the twenties as time of "flaming youth." Who were these youths who "gave the roar to the 1920s"? On page 135 of TFT S&H say they were members of the Lost Generation. This was the generation who virtually created the lasting persona of that decade. This, despite the fact that members of the Greatest generation began coming of age in 1920.

Contrast this with the sixties persona and the Boomer generation, who began coming of age in 1964. I mean, the Silent generation was over, man, we Boomers had arrived!

Yet, the GIs had a four year head start on the Boomers and they still failed to define their coming of age decade? One can only shake their head in befuddled confusion (or just ignore it as most do).

So (even without all the RAs, Ls, 2L & 3L & 4L computations) we can dispense with youth roles without harming the constellation mechanism.

Thanks Peter!!

I read most of the Fourth Turning, enough to get a pretty good idea of the saeculum theory, and especially the attributes of the GI, Silent, Boomer, 13er, and Millennial generations. (Unfortunately, I'm never very good at sticking with books page by page, lol!) But I have a strong feeling that there is some sort of crisis looming. I think the fourth turning was pushed into gear by 9/11, and that the crisis will revolve somewhat around the issues with the Middle East. However, I think the ultimate crisis will be about the clash of ideologies, not just religious, but also political. I think that the solution to the crisis will likely be brought about through a new world view that either combines or transcends the dichotemy of conservative versus liberal, and allows for more clarity in the American stance toward the Middle East and the world at large.

I'd like to hear what some of your views are regarding the impending crisis (perhaps even ongoing crisis now). And what do you think are some other factors that create the saeculum?[/quote]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

So (even without all the RAs, Ls, 2L & 3L & 4L computations) we can dispense with youth roles without harming the constellation mechanism.

Quite so. There is the matter of how do generations get created. It's not like babies stop being one generation and start being another in a particular year. Obviously generational identification is created later. A likely candidate for when that happens is coming of age. A set of youths coming of age cannot both be created into a generation and create history of a type particular to that generation at the same time. The saecular factors that make it a particular turning and that create the right kind of generation out of those coming of age must already be present independent of the people coming of age.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

But as for your core question of transitioning versus full alignment, this should come as no surprise since it is part and parcel of S&H theory (as I understand it, anyway).

No, it is part of the description of how the generations line up wrt to the turnings.

S&H have full, archetypal generational line-ups (constellations) occurring at the end of turnings. When this alignment specifically occurs depends on one's opinion of phase lengths and generational boundaries, but they nevertheless are always roughly end-of-turning affairs.

No. In Generations, S&H used "eras" instead of turnings. An era was defined by the birth years of a generation. Thus 1961-1981 was an Awakening era, that S&H later associated with an Awakening turning that ran from 1964 to 1984. An aligned constellation occurs in the first birth year of a new generation, by definition. Because S&H lag their turnings a few years wrt to their era, the aligned constellation occurs near the end of a turning, but more precisely it occurs at the end of an era.

The reason why is simple. A new era is defined by the start of a new generation. Remember turnings have no independent existence apart from generations. The true change begins when a new generation starts to appear.

I disagree with your analysis. First off, our original discussion was about phase-of-life transitions and turnings, not eras. I still stand by the concept of a turning being about a mood generated by the transition of all generations to their next-phase-of-life. At the end of the turning a (net) full constellation is reached and the turning mood senesces.

Secondly, yes, on p. 351 of Generations they showcase generational constellations as defining “constellation eras”, but this type of “era” is secondary. As you will note on p. 298 they clearly show that the Boom Awakening, to use your example, lasted from 1967 to 1980 [and even though they changed those dates in T4T, this still shows that social moment perimeters are not connected (directly) in their minds to exact generational lengths]. And on p. 71, they state a “SOCIAL MOMENT is an era”. It is these eras, and presumably the inner/outer eras in between, that are the direct antecedents to the later “turnings”.

Thirdly, S&H state on pp 70-71 in T4T,

Originally Posted by Strauss & Howe

When you compare dates, you will find that the first birth year of each generation usually lies just a couple of years before the opening or closing year of a Crisis or Awakening . . . likewise, a generation’s leading edge comes of age just before the next mood shift . . .

During a Crisis era, Prophets enter elderhood, Nomads midlife . . . during an Awakening era, Heroes enter elderhood, Artists midlife . . . These constellations push the saeculum forward . . . . [Emphasis Added]

So as you can see, S&H demonstrate in both books that the respective eras/turnings most germane to saecular partition are not directly tied to, but only related to, generational borders. Furthermore it is clear, as I stated before, that a turning is defined not by a full constellation, as per your earlier post . . .

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander on 11/23/05

Aren't Crises associated with elder Prophets, mid-life Nomad leaders, and rising adult Heroes? Isn't this the crisis constellation? Doesn't the term gray champion refer to the elder role played by prophet generations during the Crisis?

If so, how does this jive with your definition of a turning as generations in transition?

. . . but by the transitions each generation is making from one phase-of-life to the next.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

For example, in 1983 the first cohort generational line-up was 58: 40: 22:

Note the focus on the first cohort. As a generation rule eras (i.e. birth years for a generation) correpsond to phases of life for the first cohort of the three previous generations.

For example, using 20 year phase of life (RA = 20-39, MA = 40-59, EL = 60-79)

Millie Birth 1961 in RA 1943 in MA 1925 in EL
1982-2003 1981-2000 1983-2002 1985-2004

Xer Birth . 1943 in RA 1925 in MA 1901 in EL
1961-1981 1963-1982 1965-1984 1961-1980

Boom Birth 1925 in RA 1901 in MA 1883 in EL
1943-1960 1945-1964 1941-1960 1943-1962

and so on.

I know this is the pattern. The issue this thread deals with is what sort of mechanism can cause things to work out this way?

I must admit I have no idea what mathematics you are utilizing above.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

As for how it works, a turning mood is a combination of the new archetypal expressions entering each phase of life and the new dynamic or equilibrium that results.

Here you postulate that what matters is a small fraction of the population, those who happen to be around 20, around 40 and around 60. Why do the others (the majority) not count?

It’s not a matter of who counts. S&H state that the saecular moods that define turnings are result of phase transitioning. After a full constellation is achieved, a new transition is in the offing by definition. Where I part ways with S&H is with my concept of mood “senescence”. As more and more cohorts spill over into the next phase, the mood that was supported by the previous transition is by definition no longer functional/appropriate. Whatever equilibrium was established 15-20 years before to deal with the dynamics involved in the last transition is now destabilized. In short, turning moods are metastable.

Please note that I see your point about how it seems absurd that the minorities “spilling over” somehow affect the majorities that are still in the previous phases. But as a scientist you know there a many examples of seemingly little items having enough leverage to create systemic discontinuities. Why could this not be the case in a social milieu? Each saecular mood is based on two specific archetypes changing hands in each phase. Eliminating one and introducing another in each respective phase changes the foundation upon which the initial mood was based.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

As I have stated before I see most turnings (but not all) as going through four stages.

Stage 1: Opening Transition

Stage 2: Early Core

Stage 3: Late Core

Stage 4: Senescence

This is a taxonomy. It doesn't really address the issue of causation.

Yes, but we were having a subdiscussion on turnings. I went forward and proposed the (usual) morphology of a turning (as I interpret it) to demonstrate the evolution of a saecular mood (i.e., a turning). I will reflect on causation below.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

This phase starts at the point where the leading edges of the generations reach and overflow into new phases. This introduction of new archetypal expressions into each phase triggers increasing instability and dysfunction in the saecular dynamic supporting the current mood.

What is the saecular dynamic? How does it create a mood? How do generations arise in the first place?

The central problem here is what S&H call the generations problem. People are born all the time. People come of age all the time. People become leaders all the time. How does this continuous process get discretized into generations?

S&H present a set of mechanistic arguments that I refer to as their constellation model. They are scattered through the book Generations, but I believe I have cobbled them together into a coherent whole.

Let us denote L as the length of a generation. Consider four key roles that people as members of a generation can play throughout their lives. Assume these roles are played at an average age of A1, A2, A3, and A4.

Consider a collection of cohorts (a generation) born in year 1 to L. This collection will dominate role 1 in the years 1 + A1 to L + A1. They will dominate role 2 in the years 1 + A2 to L + A2 and so one.

We now define these roles to be phase of life roles, which means that the different value of A are spaced L years apart where L is the length of a phase of life. Let the first role of life is birth, which defines an era. Birth is accomplished at an average age of zero, so A1 = 0. Since the othe rages are spaced L years apart this means A2 = l, A3 = 2L and A4 = 3L.

Thus, the generation will dominate the birth role in the years 1 to L, which is when they were born. They will dominate role 2 in the years L+1 to 2L. They will dominate role 3 in the years 2L+1 to 3L. THey will dominate role 4 in the years 3L+1 to 4L.

Now how old with the first cohort (born in year 1) be during these times when its generation is dominating successive life roles?

Role 1 (birth) age 0 to L-1
Role 2: age L to 2L - 1
Role 3: age 2L to 3L -1
Role 4: age 3L to 4L - 1

S&H claim that L = 22. In this case the first cohort will be

Role 1 age 0-21
Role 2 age 22-43
Role 3 age 44-65
Role 4 age 66-87

These we recognize as the phases of life. Role 1 corresponds the youth phase of life. Role 2 corresponds to the rising adult phase of life. Role 3 corresponds to the mature adult phase of life. Role 4 corresponds to the elder phase of life.

I have already noted that role 1 is birth. Thus the key generational role in the youth phase of life is birth. Is it when you are born that establishes generational membership.

Role 2 is coming of age. This is a role performed during a fairly narrow band of ages centered on L.

Role 3 is some "mature" role perfomed by people at an average age of 2L

Role 4 is some "elder" role performed by people at an average age of 3L.

For example the average age of gray champions should be equal to 3L.

Let's look at some. FDR was age 50-63. Lincoln was 52 to 55. Ben Franklin was 70 to 83. Sam Adams was 51 to 59. The average age at which gray champion roles have been executed is 61, implying L = 20.

What sort of role is the mature adult role that is played at an average age of 2L? S&H suggest leadership, but obviously not always (gray champions are often leaders too). If we look at the average age of political leaders we find that before the mid-18th century they averaged about 41 years in age, implying L = 20. Today such leaders are 56, implying L = 28.

Kurt Horner suggests a special role for leaders in their final years (when they occupy the highest positions they ever will). In a pre-industrial society this role might have been played around the average age of leader death, for which I have found a value of 51, implying L = 26. Kurt also suggests that at such times, coming of age realy meant coming into your inheritence. Looking at the average age at which English monarchs inherited theihr throne we see a value of 27 years, implying L = 27.

Thus if we use birth, coming into inheritance and age of leader death (life expectancy at COA) as the ages for the different phase of life roles were get L = 26-27. With such a large L, there isn't really anyone playing role 4 and we have the three phase model you have called for.

If you look at the elder roles S&H call for you can see that they mostly are staying out of the way (i.e. no role at all). For example the elder role in the High is to be reclusive (i.e. elders don't play a larger societal role). The elder role in the Awakening is to be busy with one's own life. Once again elders are not required to play a characteristic role. The elder role in the Unraveling is to be sensitive. That is, condone whatever the younger gens want to do--don't have an impact on your own.

Only in the Crisis is there an elder role, and that role is visionary leadership, which is the same type of role played by the generation before them. In other words, bump up L and you will see Nomads playing GC roles without a problem. The elder role in crises is duplicative.

So we can dispense with elder roles without harming the constellation mechanism.

I will digest your suggestion that the elder role is dispensable. It is very intriguing. My intuition says I don’t agree, but your explanation is unavoidably interesting and requires thought (like most of your work).

As for causation, I see two things necessary to create the saecular mechanism. And I see a third item which intensifies it.

The first prerequisite is an imbalance in the ontological tetrad of twin polarities :arrow: Subjective-Inner vs. Objective-Outer (X-axis) and Agency-Individual vs. Communion-Community (Y-axis). Any significant social tilt toward a pole (or worse, two) creates an ontological need for rebalance. This causes a precessional motion wherein an elusive overall equilibrium is sought after but perhaps never fully achieved. There always seems to be some reason (cultural, environmental) why one or two of these poles are favored for a time. And so we wobble through the quadrants like a drunken sailor.

How do we so wobble? What is the mode or vehicle? Generations! Which leads to the second prerequisite: A period of pre-net-social-autonomy in which its occupants are exposed to an overcompensation without much say in the matter. Upon achieving positions of power in society (Phase 2-Primacy in a Three Phase Saeculum, Phase 3-Midlife in a Four Phase) they in turn overcompensate and perpetuate the cycle.

As you know, I believe L (as you call it) =’d ~27 in most societies prior to modernity and believe it is probably somehow interconnected with the 54 –year famine cycle [your idea, and I love it]. And for the reasons I mentioned in my Multi-Modal Saeculum essay I believe it has dropped to 19/20 today.

The aforementioned third item is a societal emphasis on linear thinking. S&H point out very well how this is important in T4T:

Originally Posted by Strauss & Howe

The great weakness of linear time is that it obliterates time’s recurrence and thus cuts people off from the eternal [emphasis on the outer-objective, the “temporal”] [T4T, p.11]

Originally Posted by Strauss & Howe

Most important, we need to understand that our modern efforts to flatten natural and social cycles often meet with only superficial success . . . we might just ensure that the cycle is less frequent and more devastating . . . readjustments occur in jumps – that is, in more powerful cyclical movements. The saecular cycle is a profound case in point: Relatively weak in traditional settings, it assumes its most potent form in modern societies that subscribe to linear time.

The society that believes in cycles the least, America, has fallen in the grip of the most portentous cycle in the history of mankind. [T4T, pp. 13-14]

The linear thinking introduced so comprehensively by Modernity has arguably intensified the cycle.

I look forward to your comments.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

I still stand by the concept of a turning being about a mood generated by the transition of all generations to their next-phase-of-life. At the end of the turning a (net) full constellation is reached and the turning mood senesces.

This is still a description. How does turning 20, turning 40 and turning 60 create a mood?

Secondly, yes, on p. 351 of Generations they showcase generational constellations as defining “constellation eras”, but this type of “era” is secondary.

The saeculum is a historical cycle. Like some historical cycles ( Wright, Namenwirth) it is based on "generations". Unlike these others S&H explicitly list the generations upon which it is based. Thus, the saeculum can be expressed in two ways: as a list of repeating generations and as a list of repeating historical periods. In Generations, S&H focus on the generations. They refer to the historical periods as "eras". In T4T they start calling the periods "turnings".

And on p. 71, they state a “SOCIAL MOMENT is an era”. It is these eras, and presumably the inner/outer eras in between, that are the direct antecedents to the later “turnings”.

S&H also state that the social moment is about a decade long. It is clearly a subset of the turnings or era.

Originally Posted by Strauss & Howe

When you compare dates, you will find that the first birth year of each generation usually lies just a couple of years before the opening or closing year of a Crisis or Awakening . . . likewise, a generation’s leading edge comes of age just before the next mood shift . . .

As I said before this naturally follows from the construction of turnings.

So as you can see, S&H demonstrate in both books that the respective eras/turnings most germane to saecular partition are not directly tied to, but only related to, generational borders. Furthermore it is clear, as I stated before, that a turning is defined not by a full constellation, as per your earlier post . . .

According to S&H, turnings are caused by the generations. That is about as direct a connection as you can get.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Note the focus on the first cohort. As a generation rule eras (i.e. birth years for a generation) correspond to phases of life for the first cohort of the three previous generations.

For example, using 20 year phase of life (RA = 20-39, MA = 40-59, EL = 60-79)

Millie Birth 1961 in RA 1943 in MA 1925 in EL
1982-2003 1981-2000 1983-2002 1985-2004

Xer Birth . 1943 in RA 1925 in MA 1901 in EL
1961-1981 1963-1982 1965-1984 1961-1980

Boom Birth 1925 in RA 1901 in MA 1883 in EL
1943-1960 1945-1964 1941-1960 1943-1962

and so on.

I know this is the pattern. The issue this thread deals with is what sort of mechanism can cause things to work out this way?

I must admit I have no idea what mathematics you are utilizing above.

Using the phases of life given, if you add them to 1961, 1943, and 1925 you can obtain when the first cohort of Xers was in RA , when the first cohort of the Boomers was in MA, when the first cohort of the Silent was in Elderhood. Each of these defines the same span of years.

1981-2000 Xers in RA
1983-2002 Boom in MA
1985-2004 Silent in Elderhood
1983-2002 --Average

Compare to the birth years for the Millies:

1982-2003

The next Hero gen is born when the older gens "occupy" the three older phases of life. This is the "constellation" idea. A generation "occupies" a phase of life when its first cohort is in that phase of life.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

It’s not a matter of who counts. S&H state that the saecular moods that define turnings are result of phase transitioning. After a full constellation is achieved, a new transition is in the offing by definition.

This is a description. I am talking about causes, a mechanism for the saeculum. Specifically, what causes the saeculum according to S&H and how does it work?

In an Appendix in Generations, S&H do provide a model for their generational cycle. It does not feature transitions from one phase of life to the next as agents. As it turns out S&H do not present a self-consistent explanation for how their cycle works. This is by no means obvious as they do not anywhere present a clear exposition of how generations create history and how generations in turn are created at the same time.

Given a set of generations one can use the concept of the constellation to show how history is created. The advantage of the constellation is it doesn't require any one generation to do the heavy lifting of history creation. You have three generations each exerting a "parallel force" to shape history. The sum (or resultant) of these forces creates the history.

As an example consider a constellation that features indulged youths coming of age, receiving instructions from indecisive leaders holding an "out of touch" philosophy of life espoused by detached elders busy with their own lives. What would you expect to be the outcome of an major national project such as a war during this time?

Now consider a constellation that features protected youths coming of age and receiving instructions from pragmatic leaders holding an "in touch" philosophy of life espoused by visionary elders. What would you expect to be the outcome of an major national project such as a war during this time?

Here the italicized characteristics come directly from generations in phase of life descriptions found in Generations.

Note the characteristics of the different role players are synergistic. They add together to produce a large effect. So even if the tendencies described above were not stark (say the indulged youths are only slightly more indulged than the protected youths, the indecisive leaders are only slightly less decisive than the pragmatic leaders, and the "out of touch" leaders are only somewhat disconnected as compared to the visionary leaders, the effect of the constellation can still be great enough to have a significant impact on history.

Thus, with the constellation generations that are only a little different from one another can still shape history. This feature deals with the criticisms The Dude raised when he points out that many of the specific things S&H say about generations are all that valid. In general people do NOT fit their archetypes very well.

Please note that I see your point about how it seems absurd that the minorities “spilling over” somehow affect the majorities that are still in the previous phases. But as a scientist you know there a many examples of seemingly little items having enough leverage to create systemic discontinuities. Why could this not be the case in a social milieu?

It could, but S&H have to show how.

The first prerequisite is an imbalance in the ontological tetrad of twin polarities :arrow: Subjective-Inner vs. Objective-Outer (X-axis) and Agency-Individual vs. Communion-Community (Y-axis). Any significant social tilt toward a pole (or worse, two) creates an ontological need for rebalance. This causes a precessional motion wherein an elusive overall equilibrium is sought after but perhaps never fully achieved. There always seems to be some reason (cultural, environmental) why one or two of these poles are favored for a time. And so we wobble through the quadrants like a drunken sailor.

Here it seems you have the society as actor. As Kurt points out, ultimately it is people who are acting.

How do we so wobble? What is the mode or vehicle? Generations! Which leads to the second prerequisite: A period of pre-net-social-autonomy in which its occupants are exposed to an overcompensation without much say in the matter. Upon achieving positions of power in society (Phase 2-Primacy in a Three Phase Saeculum, Phase 3-Midlife in a Four Phase) they in turn overcompensate and perpetuate the cycle.

There is a lot of mechanism that is hidden by this description. Would you like me to send you the section of the document I am working on that discusses causation? It presents the S&H constellation model in terms of explicitly causes performed by people playing key roles. It shows what I mean by having a cause.

It goes as follows

Given three key roles R1, R2 and R3 performed by people at an average age of A1, A2 and A3 (a key role is one that is important to creating history)

If A1, A2 and A3 are spaced approximately L years apart, where L is the length of a generation, then at most times R1, R2 and R3 will be performed by people who largely fall into three distinct generations, G1, G2 and G3.

This situation is called a generational constellation and it defines a period called an era by S&H. During a constellational era, a fourth generation is born.

It takes some time (2-5 years) for a new constellation to "learn the ropes" and start having its own impact. Thus, the history actually created by a constellation occurs 2-5 years after the constellation era. This history is called a turning.

If generations are exactly L years long and A1, A2 and A3 are exactly L years apart, then one constellation will shift to another seamlessly and constellation eras will occupy all time. This is the constellation model (a model is an idealized description) that S&H presents in Generations.

I've been working on a model for the saeculum. Here is what I have as of now.

Chapter three has my description of how the generational constellation works:

http://my.net-link.net/~malexan/Saeculum-model-3.htm

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I've been working on a model for the saeculum. Here is what I have as of now.

Chapter three has my description of how the generational constellation works:

http://my.net-link.net/~malexan/Saeculum-model-3.htm

Mike,

As I understand your saecular model, it can be seen as a mechanical system driven by ontological "force fields," each one comprising an adult generation, of which there are three: rising adults (gen B), midlifers (gen C), and elders (gen D). The combined, temporal effect of these three “force fields” manifests in three ways: 1) it “shapes” the profile of a saecular season, 2) it “shapes” the profile of a turning, and 2) it shapes the profile of gen A — the youth generation. This is not unlike the S&H model.

Frankly, I don’t know how to stretch a physical metaphor like “force” into a context of social history using your specified parameters. So the mechanical aspects that you see in your model may not seem as mechanical to me, mainly because I am not sure how to measure these parameters (to my satisfaction). In order for me to appreciate your model (and S&H’s) in a physical context, I must agree that a “peer personality” somehow constitutes a social force, or a force field, that has directional action (or rotation), linear duration, and ontological development. I have to ask, then, Is such a “force” measurable as:

F = ma,

where m is the mass (of a generation?) and a is its acceleration (the velocity squared of a generation?). Or am I stretching the metaphor? I notice that you include a formula for estimating the population size of a generation, which might serve as a measure of gen mass m. I might suppose, then, that acceleration a is measure of the system’s angular rotation (we’re pretty sure of that a saeculum “rotates”). Furthermore, I might assume that a generation bears a charge (+ or -) that reveals something about its differentiation from neutrality (say, dominant = +, and recessive = -). In addition, one might be able to measure the “temperature” of a saeculum, and maybe even its “entropy.”

If I can assume all of this correctly, then I should be able to build a dynamic model that resembles a quantum-gravitational system. Let me go this far with it:

Consider what Stephen Hawking has said about black holes (which are conveniently discrete gravitational systems): “We have come to recognize that … spacetime has a temperature, as I have discovered for black holes. Not only does a black hole have a temperature, it also behaves as if it has a quantity called entropy. The entropy is a measure of the number of internal states (ways it could be configured on the inside) that the black hole could have without looking any different to an outside observer, who can only observe its mass, rotation, and charge.” [from The Universe in a Nutshell, 2001, p. 63].

Maybe this is also true of a saeculum. Maybe we cannot account for what is going inside a saeculum (think black hole), apart from its temperature and entropy, all we can observe is only its mass, rotation, and charge.

Now, try to visualize a thick rope made of four strands twisting around each other. Let’s say this rope is joined at each end to form a ring that resembles a torus. And let’s say each stand makes a complete rotation about the center of the rope from one end to the other, so that its cycle is parametric with the rotation of the torus. If you can go this far with such dimensional reasoning you might be able to argue for a conditional “event horizon,” which would be a cross-sectional view of the torus at any point it time. Furthermore, you could see each fiber of this saecular rope as a cohort individual, all of which overlap each other linearly in spacetime to strengthen its infrastructure and maintain its operational boundaries.

What I like most about this four-strand-rope metaphor (the recursively twisting torus) is that each strand can be considered a “phase space,” through which every generation must pass. Each passage amounts to quantum leap from one phase space to the next. Now, visualize the four quantum states of a simplified electromagnetic/thermodynamic system limited to, say, hydrogen and oxygen: 1) plasma state (pre-molecular, think gen A), 2) gaseous state (think gen B), 3) liquid state (think gen C), and 4) solid state (think gen D). Notice how temperature and entropy would play their roles in this envisioned quantum-mechanical system.

You have a parameter called “population size,” which could possibly serve as m, and maybe even a measure of entropy of your saecular system. At any point, therefore, you should know its mass, rotation, and charge. Now, according to Heisenberg, you can observe either its position or its momentum, but never both at the same time. That’s a serious boundary condition, limiting what you can know temporally about any quantum-gravitational system.

What I am left with that troubles me most, Mike, is how to justify the use of these physical metaphors in a socio-historical model (although it certainly is fun to try!). As soon as “force” is invoked I’m inclined to ask: Hmmm. Does that mean this force: F = ma? (When biologists speak of the “force” of natural selection I always ask the very same question.) I’m left wondering if your additively linear model could use more principled reasoning to flesh out the physical metaphors and explain why they can be used to describe evolving social behavior. In my mind, this can be done best by carefully stating your assumptions.

Thus I would suggest adding an introductory narrative that follows the “Whereas-Therefore” format. Maybe something like this (just being experimental here):

WHEREAS a saeculum can be viewed as a spacetime entity that exhibits properties resembling those of physical systems, especially those of quantum-gravitational systems; and WHEREAS a saeculum can be viewed as a geometric object in spacetime, resembling a co-oscillating torus; and WHEREAS a saeculum comprises four phase spaces through which cohort members must pass as quantum leapers in a generational succession; THEREFORE it is reasonable to assume that physical metaphors are appropriate and useful for describing the behavior of a saeculum.

--Croakmore

Originally Posted by Croakmore

As I understand your saecular model, it can be seen as a mechanical system driven by ontological "force fields," each one comprising an adult generation, of which there are three: rising adults (gen B), midlifers (gen C), and elders (gen D). The combined, temporal effect of these three “force fields” manifests in three ways: 1) it “shapes” the profile of a saecular season, 2) it “shapes” the profile of a turning, and 2) it shapes the profile of gen A — the youth generation. This is not unlike the S&H model.

The model you are describing is the S&H model. The model I am proposing in Chapter 4 is different.

Frankly, I don’t know how to stretch a physical metaphor like “force” into a context of social history using your specified parameters.

History is created by actors. The force analogy simply refers to historical actors creating (acting on) history. The assumption is if generations are different in some relevant fashion, then the way members of those generations act (when in a position to act) will be different and so the history they create will be different.

In order for me to appreciate your model (and S&H’s) in a physical context, I must agree that a “peer personality” somehow constitutes a social force, or a force field, that has directional action (or rotation), linear duration, and ontological development. I have to ask, then, Is such a “force” measurable as:

F = ma,

where m is the mass (of a generation?) and a is its acceleration (the velocity squared of a generation?). Or am I stretching the metaphor?

You are stretching the metaphor.

All I am doing in chapter 3 is presenting a more concrete version of the S&H model, one that can be applied. S&H say nothing about a torus or Steven Hawking or anything you wrote about. None of that is relevant as far as I can tell.

But, Mike, I have to ask: What is mechanical about your model? You call "force" an anology, but it's still a metaphor without any mechanical formulation. What you are claiming as "force," under your rules of clarification, could just as easily be a subjective admixture of circumstances. When reading Chapter 4, I tried to locate equation 19 for "social distress," but I could not find it. Maybe I might see a "force" term in it, as I am supposing that "distress" is the effect of a "forceful" cause.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander

History is created by actors. The force analogy simply refers to historical actors creating (acting on) history.

Social scientists are probably not so interested in any principles, implied either implicitly or explicitly, that are needed to support "mechanical" or "dynamic" models of human history. I can understand part of that. I'll go on wondering about the rest. (I'm willing to call it "my personal problem.")

Originally Posted by Croakmore

But, Mike, I have to ask: What is mechanical about your model? You call "force" an anology, but it's still a metaphor without any mechanical formulation. What you are claiming as "force," under your rules of clarification, seem as though it could just as easily be a subjective admixture of circumstances.

I am using mechanism in the following sense. I define history as the record of past human behaviors. History is caused by people doing behaviors. The verb "to do" has a connotation of activity, motion, doing work (the application of force over distance).

Here is where the force metaphor is used. People (through what they do--their behavior) "shape" history, as a sculptor shapes (exerts force on) clay.

If behaviors are random, then the shape they give to history is amorphous--history has no pattern. The "forces" that shape history then all cancel out.

S&H assert that history has a pattern, a shape. Thus, the "forces" (people's behaviors) that "shape" history then have some direction to them, they are not random, and they do not all cancel out.

S&H propose that the reason why behavior is different is that the people doing the behavior are different. Different people produce different behaviors, create different history. They shape history differently. They exert a different resultant force on history.

And that is all there is to the force metphor.

Strauss and Howe use the "shape" concept in their discussion of the saeculum so I would think the concept is familiar to people at this site.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

When reading Chapter 4, I tried to locate equation 19 for "social distress," but I could not find it.

Where did you find a reference to equation 19 in chapter 4? I pasted Chapter 4 into Word and searched for "19" and "nineteen". I did not find a reference to equation 19, which is good there isn't supposed to be a reference to equation 19 in chapter 4 (but there was in an earlier version). The equation for price-based social distress is equation 17:

Price distress = Price / Trend - (Price / Trend )MIN

There is no force term. it simply provides a definition for "high prices". The idea is high prices can serve as an indicator for shortages (dearth or famine) or a reduction in living standards. Both developments might be expected to make people less happy or more irritable. That is cause "distress".

If people in distress "act out" (rather than just bitch about it) then distress can induce certain kinds of behavior. The evidence shows a correlaiton between distress as defined by equation 17 and social moment turnings and the prevalence of certain kinds of behaviors that I call unrest behaviors. The frequency of unrest behaviors were previously (in chapter 2) shown to correlate with the saeculum.

By mechanism for the saeculum I mean a chain of causation:

high prices ---> social distress --> turnings --> generations

periodic high prices/shortages cause periodic distress which helps cause periodic turnings, which cause a repeating cycle of generations. Periodic turnings associated with repeating generations is what S&H claim to have found. I am tryng to come up with an explanation for what S&H have identified.

periodic high prices are caused by the law of supply and demand--periodic population pressure (high food demand) on food supply. Periodic population pressure is caused by a lagged negative feedback effect of population on fertility (see math model).

This is only part of the mechanism. The other part is a constellation model (chapter 3) using Horner phase of life definitions. It is a mechanism desiged to produce the "trilogical" saeculum presented by Sean Love.

I call my model the constellation-distress model. S&H use a pure constellation model. I don't favor a pure constellation model because of comments made by The Dude a few months back in which he pointed out that a lot the generalizations about generations S&H make do not hold.

The constellation model requires that generations be strongly different because generational membership is the sole cause of the periodically changing behavor that is the saeculum. Students rioted in the late 1960's because being a rising adult Prophet means you are a narcissist and so will throw a temper trantrum when required to do something you don't want to. The Dude said "this is bullshit", and I agreed with him.

Now maybe there was some narcissism, but there were other factors too. It's not all the Boomers doing (or the GIs or the Silent etc.).

The distress model creates alternating social moments and nonsocial moments in a two stroke cycle. The constellation model modifies the social moments into either Awakenings or Crises and the nonsocial moments into either High or Unraveling turnings. The nature of the constellation model forces a specific order on the turnings and generations.

After sleeping on my gripe about using "force" as a metaphor/analogy in a socio-historical context, I am ambiguous about my position. If "force" is argued to be a "mechanical" or a "dynamic" function then I am curious about its mechanical or dynamic formulation. But "force" means more than just mass times acceleration in other contexts. You could say with good reason that a horse was "forced" to withdraw from a race on legal grounds, or you could also say a horse was "forced" into the starting gate on physical grounds. Either useage should be quite OK. And then you can go over to the "Astrologic cycles and turnings" thread and find out that the "force" of Leo in those "constellations" is like a lion, whatever that means (Grrr!). To me that is not a very convincing, but to others it might explain a whole lot about who is "King of the Jungle" in a personal context.

I happen to like what Alexander Rosenbleuth and Norbert Weiner said about the operational cost of metaphors: "The price of metaphor is eternal vigilance." But I really don't see how any science could operate with them.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Croakmore

When reading Chapter 4, I tried to locate equation 19 for "social distress," but I could not find it.

Where did you find a reference to equation 19 in chapter 4? I pasted Chapter 4 into Word and searched for "19" and "nineteen". I did not find a reference to equation 19, which is good there isn't supposed to be a reference to equation 19 in chapter 4 (but there was in an earlier version).

You refer to "eq. 19" in Fig. 12.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The equation for price-based social distress is equation 17:

Price distress = Price / Trend - (Price / Trend )MIN

There is no force term. it simply provides a definition for "high prices". The idea is high prices can serve as an indicator for shortages (dearth or famine) or a reduction in living standards. Both developments might be expected to make people less happy or more irritable. That is cause "distress".

OK.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

By mechanism for the saeculum I mean a chain of causation:

high prices ---> social distress --> turnings --> generations

periodic high prices/shortages cause periodic distress which helps cause periodic turnings, which cause a repeating cycle of generations. Periodic turnings associated with repeating generations is what S&H claim to have found. I am tryng to come up with an explanation for what S&H have identified.

But in Chapter 3 you say there are three generations exerting "parallel forces" on the saeculum to shape its history. How do they relate to your "chain of causation"? If the "force" comes from a generation, should I assume it is powered by your "chain of causation"?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

This is only part of the mechanism. The other part is a constellation model (chapter 3) using Horner phase of life definitions. It is a mechanism desiged to produce the "trilogical" saeculum presented by Sean Love.

The first model creates alternating social moments and nonsocial moments in a two stroke cycle. The second model modifies the social moments into either Awakenings or Crises and the nonsocial moments into either High or Unraveling turnings. The nature of the constellation model forces a specific order on the turnings and generations.

I probably should lighten up a little to see your POV. But what drives my curiosity is how gravity is at the heart of this matter (i.e., a sun-moon-Earth system). We are all cercadian beings at heart — Nature even counts the heartbeats — and we all age through "seasons of life" that define our generational attributes. Well, that's fundamentally gravitational, isn't it? So why not a gravitational model for the saeculum?

[btw: Sean should like my POV; it's got ORP written all over it!]

--Croakmore

Originally Posted by Croakmore

But in Chapter 3 you say there are three generations exerting "parallel forces" on the saeculum to shape its history. How do they relate to your "chain of causation"? If the "force" comes from a generation, should I assume it is powered by your "chain of causation"?

Chapter 3 discusses the constellation model. Chapter 4 discusses the addition of distress to the constellation model to give a new distress-constellation model.

S&H use a constellation model with L=22. It doesn't fit the fact that generatons before 1820 were not consistent with L = 22. Using L = 26 fits the observed generations well, but it no longer permits the use of the S&H phases of life. Horner and Love propose a three phase system with L = 26-27. I use a version of the constellation model with L = 26.

This constellation has only two adult generations instead of three as the S&H model has. Furthermore, when I go into how generations are created I find the method S&H proposed doesn't work at all. So now I have to come up with a different way for that to happen. Generations are created by coming of age. A generation being created by a turning cannot also be creating the turning that create it. Thus, I have to assume that only ONE adult generation in the constellation does the turning creation. That's a lot of heavy lifting for one generation to do. I don't favor a pure constellation model for turning creation, for reasons similar to those The Dude expounded.

So why not a gravitational model for the saeculum?

I don't see a clear connection between gravity and history. I can't imagine how such a model would work.

Questions that continue to bug me:

1. Does a generation or a saeculum have a temperature?

2. Does a generation or a saeculum have entropy and information?

3. Does a saeculum have dimensional states or phase spaces in which generations occupy?

4. Do generations move (or “leap,” in a quantum-mechanical context) from one state or phase space to the next in ontological order?

5. Does a saeculum or a generation have mass? Rotation? Charge?

I might answer yes to all these questions if I could find ways of measuring those parameters: temperature, entropy/information, phase space, quantum leaps, mass, rotation, charge. I can visualize them operating in a saeculum, but I’m not sure how to observe them. Most of the other models care nothing about these parameters, so I'm never sure about the principles they stand on.

I've revised my model document to improve clarity.

http://my.net-link.net/~malexan/Saec...odel-index.htm

I should be getting the Appendices up soon.

Odin, you might be interested in this.