Originally Posted by Chas'88

What is one to expect when one has War Babies for parents?

You and ASB'65 both think that. And lately I've been seeing myself personally as an outlier when interacting with Millies of the middle and upper classes--though my age peers of the working and lower-middle class are more like myself, at least from my observations.

~Chas'88

Well that's the sticking-point, isn't it? Individual Environment vs Generational Environment. What are the main areas of Influence that One is exposed? Family, Peers, Events, and I say Music/Literature, Etc. So no matter what our Individual Environmental Experiences are, we still will be exposed to the other Influences, Generationally.

That's why I look for "Big" Events and "Popular" Songs/Books/Movies. They have more of an effect, Generationally-Speaking, b/c of more Exposure.

PoC67

PS: Chas, despite the similarity in our having War-Baby Parents, you'll never be a true-X I'm sad to say b/c you had the Milly-Generational-Environment-Experience, but you are DEFINITELY an Outlier. ....and that ain't Bad!(Nicholson from "Mars Attacks!)"

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Well that's the sticking-point, isn't it? Individual Environment vs Generational Environment. What are the main areas of Influence that One is exposed? Family, Peers, Events, and I say Music/Literature, Etc. So no matter what our Individual Environmental Experiences are, we still will be exposed to the other Influences, Generationally.

That's why I look for "Big" Events and "Popular" Songs/Books/Movies. They have more of an effect, Generationally-Speaking, b/c of more Exposure.

PoC67

PS: Chas, despite the similarity in our having War-Baby Parents, you'll never be a true-X I'm sad to say b/c you had the Milly-Generational-Environment-Experience, but you are DEFINITELY an Outlier. ....and that ain't Bad!(Nicholson from "Mars Attacks!)"

I never claimed to want to be a "true Xer" nor do I want to start the claiming--no offense, but there's only so much room for the Damians, Adrians, and Regans of this world.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I never claimed to want to be a "true Xer" nor do I want to start the claiming--no offense, but there's only so much room for the Damians, Adrians, and Regans of this world.

~Chas'88

Ouch! Touche, Mon Ami! I supect that it's Outliers like yourself that give us the rare Perspectives that allow us to see beyond our Generational "group-think".

PoC67

Conversely, your "imp-ish"(that's a positive IMO) comment is "true-Xer". I should know being "Prince-Imp" on the MB! Maybe "Impish One-in-Chief". You would probably be "Prime Minister of Imp"; The Prime Minister most often(if not always) is more perceptive than the Monarchs!

I haven't figured-out who "King-Imp" is just yet. Possibly "Publius".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imp

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Ouch! Touche, Mon Ami! I supect that it's Outliers like yourself that give us the rare Perspectives that allow us to see beyond our Generational "group-think".

PoC67

Conversely, you're "imp-ish"(that's a positive IMO) comment is "true-Xer". I should know being "Prince-Imp" on the MB! Maybe "Impish One-in-Chief". You would probably be "Prime Minister of Imp"; The Prime Minister most often(if not always) is more perceptive than the Monarchs!

I haven't figured-out who "King-Imp" is just yet. Possibly "Publius".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imp

And is Glick the Imp's Jester? or the Imp's Imp? One would think that would be the greatest honorific title.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

As for GalaxyQuest, it is a movie I have yet to acquaint myself with.

~Chas'88

It's a good movie. It's also a lot funnier if you've seen Star Trek.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I just meant you personally being of Silent-Artist characteristics. You're an honourary Nomad in my book. Since age-wise you would be a Civic, all you need to do is embrace an aspect of the Prophets and you're done, I guess.

PoC67

PS: KD is probably correct IMO. I think of Millys like this:
http://www.youtube.com/v/k_CAs3q7G48?fs=1&hl=en_US
That might be only during a Doctrinal Turn, though.
Here's Civic-Millies during a Moral Turn IMO:
http://www.youtube.com/v/lS9odVqyC2g?fs=1&hl=en_US

Guy Fleegman knew it; So do I.

wow....really....?!?

Originally Posted by Chas'88

And is Glick the Imp's Jester? or the Imp's Imp? One would think that would be the greatest honorific title.

~Chas'88

Could be The Generational "Imp-Factor" is just another of the Forces that counter-balance The Majority thus creating the Natural Oscillating Nature of Things.

What is so interesting to me that JDW(et al) figured-out is that:
A 3T is a temporary regression before the 4T manifests itself. The reasons for that occurance is what I'm kinda looking at currently. I haven't found a way to visualize it w/a graph.....yet.

If we are just starting the Crisis-awakening in MT Terms, we would have about 5 years before the regression: Crisis-unraveling. 5 years after that the Crisis-crisis presents itself(based off of the Initial Cause of the Overal Crisis), sides are chosen and "Winner Take All", I suppose. Probably "Winner Destroy All", (including themselves), but at least Atonement will be achieved!(he says sarcastically).

yeah moral atonement

PoC67

The "Imp's Imp"! I'm "literally" LOL! Funny Stuff!

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Could be The Generational "Imp-Factor" is just another of the Forces that counter-balance The Majority thus creating the Natural Oscillating Nature of Things.

What is so interesting to me that JDW(et al) figured-out is that:
A 3T is a temporary regression/"asleepering", before the 4T manifests itself. The reasons for that occurance is what I'm kinda looking at currently. I haven't found a way to visualize it w/a graph.....yet.

If we are just starting the Crisis-awakening in MT Terms, we would have about 5 years before the regression: Crisis-unraveling. 5 years after that the Crisis-crisis presents itself(based off of the Initial Cause of the Overal Crisis), sides are chosen and "Winner Take All", I suppose. Probably "Winner Destroy All", (including themselves), but at least Atonement will be achieved!(he says sarcastically).

yeah moral atonement

PoC67

The "Imp's Imp"! I'm "literally" LOL! Funny Stuff!

I like to think of the evolution of a saeculum in terms of the evolution of a story. It's what Aristotle laid out all those years ago (and I'll admit that I'm bringing in modern terms where the non-greek words are):

Introduction - a modern term where characters are introduced, a naieve place
Incentive Moment - an action which begins of a chain of a cause-and-effect chain
Desis - tying up/complication
Peripeteia - reversal of intention
Anagnorisis - recognition
Catastrophe/Eucatastrophe - change of fortune for either the worse or better (I borrowed Tolkien's eucatastrophe term since Aristotle analyzed only tragedy; eucatastrophe therefore meaning a change in fortune for the better)
Lusis - unravelling
Denouement - resolution

Catastrophe/Eucatastrophe
..............................^
............................./..\
............Anagnorisis /....\
.........................../..... \ Lusis
............Peripeteia /....... \
........................./......... \
......................../ Desis... \_____Denouement
......................./
Introduction____/ Incentive Moment


High - Introduction
Awakening - Incentive Moment/Desis
Unraveling - Peripeteia
Crisis - Anagnorisis/Cathastrophe/Eucatastrophe
High - Lusis/Denouement

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Rose1992

It's a good movie. It's also a lot funnier if you've seen Star Trek.

Since my parents had all of the original ST on VHS when I was growing up I'm going to have to agree that I'll probably find it hilarious. They also never missed an episode of STNG, STDS9, STV... the only time they waned in their liking was for Enterprise.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I just meant you personally being of Silent-Artist characteristics. You're an honourary Nomad in my book. Since age-wise you would be a Civic, all you need to do is embrace an aspect of the Prophets and you're done, I guess.

PoC67

PS: KD is probably correct IMO. I think of Millys like this:
http://www.youtube.com/v/k_CAs3q7G48?fs=1&hl=en_US
That might be only during a Doctrinal Turn, though.
Here's Civic-Millies during a Moral Turn IMO:
http://www.youtube.com/v/lS9odVqyC2g?fs=1&hl=en_US

Guy Fleegman knew it; So do I.

Listen both at the same time while watching the GQ clip, start the Lollipop guild after the galaxy quest intro. Enjoy.

Thanks JDW. Since I claim to be one of the first to propose this double-rhythm saeculum idea, it is appropo of me to say that I think you have done a good job of laying it out.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Thanks JDW. Since I claim to be one of the first to propose this double-rhythm saeculum idea, it is appropo of me to say that I think you have done a good job of laying it out.

I appreciate that, Eric. I knew I was building on an idea that had already been suggested, but I wasn’t sure who came up with it. I’m interested in how it evolved (i.e, what first brought it to your attention)?

Originally Posted by JDW

I appreciate that, Eric. I knew I was building on an idea that had already been suggested, but I wasn’t sure who came up with it. I’m interested in how it evolved (i.e, what first brought it to your attention)?

You had to ask, so...

Astrology, of course! The double rhythm of Uranus (84-year revolution) and Neptune (165-year) and what happens when they return to their positions on July 4, 1776 (and 1607, 1692); the relationship to the USA horoscope, etc..

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You had to ask, so...

Astrology, of course! The double rhythm of Uranus (84-year revolution) and Neptune (165-year) and what happens when they return to their positions on July 4, 1776 (and 1607, 1692); the relationship to the USA horoscope, etc..

Um... So, if I understand correctly... Uranus' orbit let's us know that there is a saeculum. And Neptune's orbit lets us know that there is a double rhythm.

Eric, I'm afraid I'm thinking a little too analytically on this. I'm not sure that I understand what the orbits have to do with this. Actually, I thought it might be enjoyable to know when you first noticed the double rhythm, and what your original thoughts were.

Originally Posted by JDW

Um... So, if I understand correctly... Uranus' orbit let's us know that there is a saeculum. And Neptune's orbit lets us know that there is a double rhythm.

That's it.

Eric, I'm afraid I'm thinking a little too analytically on this. I'm not sure that I understand what the orbits have to do with this. Actually, I thought it might be enjoyable to know when you first noticed the double rhythm, and what your original thoughts were.

Yes, it would be too technical to discuss the astrological details. But astrology is a study of cycles, as is the generations theory. They have that in common, though not a lot else. I noticed the correlation to Uranus immediately, since the cycle of the greatest USA crises corresponding to its orbital cycle was already well known to me.

But where it led me (because I saw the correlation to the shifting positions of Neptune in comparison to the USA horoscope) was to understand that the rhythm might shift between dealing either more with foreign or with domestic problems during a 4T. When we focus more inward politically, we also do it personally, in the sense that the domestic-focused saecula are also more intensely spiritual or moral during awakenings. I think you are looking at it in a similar way. But I think it was soon after I read about generations and turning cycles that I applied the thought about Neptune's position in the USA horoscope to saecula, and to call it a "double rhythm."

While I doubt it will surprise you that I am not one much for astrology (as I have made it known that I look to the Bible for my inspiration), the book of Job and the narative of the Magi both make it clear that the stars and planets have meanings. (Those that found those meanings generally did not have Scriptures available to them.) Therefore I do not doubt that there may be something to the orbits of Uranus and Neptune.

I really hadn’t intended to go there, thank you.

There's a number of topics concerning the APT that I wish to address, but I don't want to combine them all in one single post. I hope you'll forgive me if I appear to dominate this Thread temporarily in the near future, but I have questions/comments that I feel the need to express. It is my hope that this will take the form of a mere "strafing-run" and not a "carpet-bombing"!

OT:

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

PS: KD is probably correct IMO. I think of Millys like this:
http://www.youtube.com/v/k_CAs3q7G48?fs=1&hl=en_US
That might be only during a Doctrinal Turn, though.
Here's Civic-Millies during a Moral Turn IMO:
http://www.youtube.com/v/lS9odVqyC2g?fs=1&hl=en_US

Guy Fleegman knew it; So do I.

Originally Posted by Yorick's Skull

Listen both at the same time while watching the GQ clip, start the Lollipop guild after the galaxy quest intro. Enjoy.

Oh man, that's good! Lollipop as a Trojan-Horse! Yikes!

Like Guy Fleegman in GQ, I WILL remain Vigilant/Skeptical and WILL continue to look all "gift-horses in the mouth". Could the Idiom actually be saying: The teeth of a horse(that you have no experience with ie:gift/given) is not a correct way to judge the Value of said horse; Judging by different Metrics(It's coat, hooves, constitution, etc.) might be more productive?

Let me start by thanking Eric The Green(ETG) for the introduction of the 80ish/160ish-year double-rhythm-saecula.

When I saw that JDW had questioned ETG on the initial inspiration behind the concept, I must admit I felt as if an Ideological "Pandora's Box" was being opened. My initial feelings were that you two may not be able to embrace one-another's "Prime Mover" but, having reviewed some posts, feel that you both are more than able to objectively discuss Ideas. At least that is my hope since you are both central to the idea and where it has progressed.

In fact, I believe that your differences may be a beneficial protection for the APT against "group think".

Personally, I am aware of the inherent subjectivity of my own POV. I try not to fall into a State of Hubris regarding Thought or Feeling. I also percieve in myself no desire in one-upping anyone in either Thought or Feeling and more importantly, the APT(or Chas' Micro-Turning-Thesis MTT for that matter).

That said, from my POV, I don't see any incompatibility between your two approaches. I don't currently have the specific Terminology to fully describe this Compatibility, but it involves my study/understanding of Systems; Conceptually, they are all The Same. That's part of why I include Intro Quantum Ideas in the discussions of the APT.

I look for representations of the "In-Flux", Temporal Nature of Components, the POVs of said Components in relation to One-Another and The-Whole, how these Components communicate, Etc. Like I said, it's a little too vast to be comprehensive.

Bottom Line: I'm OPEN to either of your responses to any comments/questions I may have so feel free to use any Proprietary Thought/Terminology in regards to Astrological/Biblical Concepts. What I'm interested in is the Nature of the Relationships of Things, but one needs to understand what "The Things" are.

So with that, I'll start posting my comments/questions when I get the time.

Thanks. Sincerely, PoC67

PS: I hope I'm not being too abstruse. I'm also open to any responses directed to me personally through a Private Message(as opposed to the APT Thread) if you feel your explanation/response is too .........!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's it.


Yes, it would be too technical to discuss the astrological details. But astrology is a study of cycles, as is the generations theory. They have that in common, though not a lot else. I noticed the correlation to Uranus immediately, since the cycle of the greatest USA crises corresponding to its orbital cycle was already well known to me.

But where it led me (because I saw the correlation to the shifting positions of Neptune in comparison to the USA horoscope) was to understand that the rhythm might shift between dealing either more with foreign or with domestic problems during a 4T. When we focus more inward politically, we also do it personally, in the sense that the domestic-focused saecula are also more intensely spiritual or moral during awakenings. I think you are looking at it in a similar way. But I think it was soon after I read about generations and turning cycles that I applied the thought about Neptune's position in the USA horoscope to saecula, and to call it a "double rhythm."

I've been around the Internet-"thingy" and have looked-over some of the discussion concerning Uranus(U) and Neptune(N). There doesn't seem to be concensus.

From your experienced POV, 1)what is a decent website to get a good grasp on how YOU see the dynamics/definitions of U and N and, 2)How does the movement of Pluto(P)(in respect to both U and/or N) manifest itself?

It's MY responsibility to do the homework and try to catch-up; A good website that you trust will do for now if you don't mind. Once I become more knowledgable, maybe you'll be open to some more specific/directed questions....I hope.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But astrology is a study of cycles, as is the generations theory. They have that in common, though not a lot else.

Not alot in common other than the study of cycles? My "spidey-sense" is telling me something different. I don't have enough expertise to correctly "frame" the System, currently. I need help.

PoC67

PS: I'm interested in how Astrology fits into the APT/Double Rhythm, but for my current purposes, feel that a seperate Thread would only get jumbled-up with tangential comments, ultimately leading to a Rhetorical Left vs Right Cluster-F!(Not that there's anything wrong with a good CF now and then)! It does keep The Rhetorical Ones...."Ocupado"!


UPDATE: I believe my questions will be better placed in ETG's Cycle of Civilizations Thread. Disregard this post, but I'll keep it here in case someone in the future is following a popcorn trail. Sorry for any inconvenience.

PoC67

And let me point out something that occurred to me over the weekend:

We've been kicking around terms like "Apollonian/Dionysian" and "Atonement/Advancement" and heavens knows what else that actually have to be explained. But it seems to me that Thinking/Feeling cover the ground very nicely. [Or, if the terms didn't carry so much baggage, Rational/Idealist.]

The Missionary Awakening and subsequent saeculum was a Thinking-flavored one and the Transcendental and Boomers ones were Feeling-flavored ones. That the Republican Saeculum was Thinking-flavored we all realize. I mean, the 18th Century and all.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

And let me point out something that occurred to me over the weekend:

We've been kicking around terms like "Apollonian/Dionysian" and "Atonement/Advancement" and heavens knows what else that actually have to be explained. But it seems to me that Thinking/Feeling cover the ground very nicely. [Or, if the terms didn't carry so much baggage, Rational/Idealist.]

The Missionary Awakening and subsequent saeculum was a Thinking-flavored one and the Transcendental and Boomers ones were Feeling-flavored ones. That the Republican Saeculum was Thinking-flavored we all realize. I mean, the 18th Century and all.

Which is what we've always meant when we say those words. I've just been using Apollonian/Dionysian since I like the symbolism and as a homage to Nietzsche whose use of the labels described the pendulum movement of history I had been noticing due to contact with Hermeticism.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

And let me point out something that occurred to me over the weekend:

We've been kicking around terms like "Apollonian/Dionysian" and "Atonement/Advancement" and heavens knows what else that actually have to be explained. But it seems to me that Thinking/Feeling cover the ground very nicely. [Or, if the terms didn't carry so much baggage, Rational/Idealist.]

The Missionary Awakening and subsequent saeculum was a Thinking-flavored one and the Transcendental and Boomers ones were Feeling-flavored ones. That the Republican Saeculum was Thinking-flavored we all realize. I mean, the 18th Century and all.

I like thinking/feeling and atonement/advancement because the inverse is required to add balance if one is taken too far. The whole generational theory itself is based on the idea of generations over correcting for what the older generations failed to provide in society. In an atonement cycle and advancement is difficult because people will walk all over others, but the opposite also holds in an advancement cycle atonement is not something people want to worry about.
I think the reason a two stroke cycle makes sense to me is the necessity of a balance between the two opposites so if one is to prevalent the other is automatically lacking. I would prefer a four stroke cycle, but don't see the harmony between four. I'm guessing the main reason the 4T cycle is 4 strokes is because the length of a human life. Each generation corrects not just for the one before it but for the society they are brought up in. Now with a two stroke awakening to awakening cycle they could only correct for the preceding one because the cycles before are not in living memory.

Originally Posted by pizal81

I like thinking/feeling and atonement/advancement because the inverse is required to add balance if one is taken too far. The whole generational theory itself is based on the idea of generations over correcting for what the older generations failed to provide in society. In an atonement cycle and advancement is difficult because people will walk all over others, but the opposite also holds in an advancement cycle atonement is not something people want to worry about.
I think the reason a two stroke cycle makes sense to me is the necessity of a balance between the two opposites so if one is to prevalent the other is automatically lacking. I would prefer a four stroke cycle, but don't see the harmony between four. I'm guessing the main reason the 4T cycle is 4 strokes is because the length of a human life. Each generation corrects not just for the one before it but for the society they are brought up in. Now with a two stroke awakening to awakening cycle they could only correct for the preceding one because the cycles before are not in living memory.

Huh, I just read this after posting on another thread "The Case Against 2008" about approximately 200 year cycles and Mega saeculums. In that post I pondered whether we might have been in a mega awakening from the time that earliest English settlers began arriving lasting to the time of the Revolutionary war. Then we went into mega-unraveling for the next 200 years as we began building this country and trying to determine who we were. This would also fit into a two stroke cycle of thinking/feeling and atonement/advancement.

I do believe though, that this could still fit into a four cycle since each mega saeculum would have it's own flavor with a twist on thinking/feeling and atonement/advancement. An awakening and a crisis (thinking/feeling) are both times of great upheaval. They really are a reaction to either a high or unraveling which both would fit into (atonement/advancement) times.



Edit: I thought about this a little more. (I'm not saying I'm right, just thinking out loud.) If we start with the year 1608 when the English settlers first landed at Jamestown and go to the end of the crisis year of 1794 where S&H put the ending of Revolutionary War crisis cycle you have 186 years (not 200). Lets say that's our first thinking/feeling or awakening Mega-cycle. A 186 year cycle is probably about the right time span for 2 generations. It actually makes the generational cycle last approximately 93 years instead of 80. That's still workable, however, since the last remaining few people of the oldest generation are now dying out and a whole new generation of people are being born who would have had little or no contact with the oldest of the dying generation.

Now add 186 years to 1794 and you come to the year 1980. This could be Mega awakening or advancement/atonement cycle. This is time where we expanded our country, fought wars over territories, and built towns and industries. We also determined our social mores with the ending of slavery, the progressive era leading all the way up through the civil rights and the woman's movement.

If that were the case then the mega cycle we are in now, (crisis - feeling/thinking) actually began 1980. This is quite plausible to me. This is actually when the attitude of government is the problem (Reagen era) and the loss of manufacturing and the beginning of our loss of the middle class actually began. When you think about it, it's kind of undoing everything that the earlier settlers were trying to accomplish. A government for the people and a country where the average man can succeed. And I realize I continually harp on the loss of manufacturing as our countries real downfall, but to me this is the problem that will bring this country and the people their knees. As I have said before, we actually have to make something. That's why we were here in the first place. Jamestown was started as a commercial endeavor. We became a great power because we really were a rich country with most everyone getting a slice of the pie. In the past 30 years wages have not kept up with inflation, our jobs have been shipped overseas and the manufacturing in this country has been cut in half. This has also been very much of the start of a new atonement cycle with political correctness and barriers of race and gender truly breaking down. (Those barriers were really still very much in place through the 1970s even though legally the civil rights bill had been pasted. It still took us a while before the people of this country accepted this on a universally conscious level.)

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

PS: I'm studying the Hard History as fast as possible to try and catch-up to the Terminology. I understand Doctrinal/Moral and most of the other areas of delineations now, but I'm turned-off by the Myers-Briggs stuff. Something about that system just. .... Eh, who knows?

The thing that appeals to me about Myers-Briggs is that the same elements are there that are in the saeculum: thinking (advancement) versus feeling (atonement), judging (single paradigm, closed society) versus perceiving (dual paradigm, open society), and intuitive (visionary, dominant) versus sensing (pragmatic, recessive). The suggestion is that the generations behave as personality types, not that there is a correlation between one’s personality type and their generation.

Let’s start with the Missionaries to show how this works:

The Missionaries grew up in an era during which America had achieved, or was satisfied that it had achieved, atonement. (Even in the South, there was a romantic feel to the loss.) One who was born in this period might well conclude that society had always been atonement-oriented. Yet the atonement justified advancement. (That is, a society so moral must see its influence grow.) The Missionaries were intuitive (N), because they had a vision for introducing a paradigm that they had not experienced. They were thinking (T), because they sought advancement, and they were perceptive (P), because they sought to make society more open.

The Lost grew up during a social moment that prevented them from enjoying a nurturing childhood. They, of course, blamed the new paradigm and became anti-advancement. They were sensing (S), because a social moment shaped their formative years. They were feeling (F), because they resisted the advancement paradigm, and they were perceiving (P) because the social moment forced them into an open society. [Later in life, they became SFJ, as they atoned for the excesses of their youth.]

The GIs grew up during a dual paradigm era, in which the visionary Missionaries made a seemingly better case for advancement than the reactionary Lost made for atonement. One born during this period might well blame the atonement mentality for most of society’s problems. GIs were intuitive (N) and thinking (T), because they had a vision for perfecting the advancement paradigm. They were also judging (J), because they sought to eliminate the other paradigm.

The Silent grew up during a social moment during which society’s most urgent problems were solved by moving toward a single paradigm. They were sensing (S), because the social moment shaped their formative years. They were thinking (T) and judging (J), because they bought into the single advancement paradigm. [Later in life, they became SFP as they accepted the re-introduction of the atonement paradigm.]

Boomers grew up in an era during which America had achieved advancement. One who was born in this period might well conclude that society had always been advancement-oriented. Yet the advancement created the need for atonement. (The idea, that America could do no wrong, required reexamination.) The Boomers were intuitive (N), because they had a vision for introducing a paradigm that they had not experienced. They were feeling (F), because they questioned advancement and sought atonement, and they were perceptive (P), because they sought to make society more open.

Xers grew up during a social moment that prevented them from enjoying a nurturing childhood. They, of course, blamed the new paradigm and became anti-atonement. They were sensing (S), because a social moment shaped their formative years. They were thinking (T), because they resisted the atonement paradigm, and they were perceiving (P) because the social moment forced them into an open society. [As the 4T progresses, they become STJ, sacrificing for the betterment of society.]

The Millennials grew up during a dual paradigm era, in which the visionary Boomers made a seemingly better case for atonement than the reactionary Xers made for advancement. One born during this period might well blame the advancement mentality for most of society’s problems. Millennials are intuitive (N) and feeling (F), because they have a vision for perfecting the atonement paradigm. They are also judging (J), because they seek to eliminate the other paradigm.

The Homelanders are growing up during a social moment during which society’s most urgent problems might be resolved by moving toward a single paradigm. They will likely be sensing (S), as the social moment shapes their formative years. They will likely be feeling (F) and judging (J), as they buy into the single atonement paradigm. [Later in life, they should become STP, when they accept the re-introduction of the advancement paradigm.]

Originally Posted by JDW

The thing that appeals to me about Myers-Briggs is that the same elements are there that are in the saeculum: thinking (advancement) versus feeling (atonement), judging (single paradigm, closed society) versus perceiving (dual paradigm, open society), and intuitive (visionary, dominant) versus sensing (pragmatic, recessive). The suggestion is that the generations behave as personality types, not that there is a correlation between one’s personality type and their generation.

My problem w/MBTI is that I seem to be unable to take the test. My brain won't allow me to answer incorrectly and I feel the choices are open-ended, but that doesn't mean I can't understand it.
Given that this is a system that you understand well, I will do my best to use the terms, but it will take a little time. I naturally percieve/analyze in the context of Expansion/Contraction and Collective/Individual. I feel I can make the transition.

Good enough for Jung, good enough for PoC67.

Originally Posted by JDW

The Millennials grew up during a dual paradigm era, in which the visionary Boomers made a seemingly better case for atonement than the reactionary Xers made for advancement. One born during this period might well blame the advancement mentality for most of society’s problems. Millennials are intuitive (N) and feeling (T), because they have a vision for perfecting the atoneement paradigm. They are also judging (J), because they seek to eliminate the other paradigm.

Since this is such a great(and important) post IMO, I believe there may be a couple of errors that I took the liberty to highlight.

Feeling would be(F), not (T) and you've got an extra "e' in "atonement".

I'm not trying to be impish, it's only that it's so good and I would hate for someone to be temporarily mis-guided. If I thought it sucked or didn't hold Value, I wouldn't bother.

PoC67

PS: The fact that I recognize the Value of your(et al) APT Thesis makes you a Genius and me.....Brilliant!

Now, .....Back to the Topic.