The atonement thing appears in The Green Collar Economy. The author mentions that leftists find it hard to forgive the U.S.A. for an imperfect past. (And that one method they have for improving the country-vilification-has not worked at all).

Like the author of the Neglected Voter, Van Jones wants to see a broad coalition form in a new version of the New Deal. Jones used the term "Green New Deal."

Given both authors' descriptions of Boomer leftists (fragmented factions), this seems very unlikely.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

JDW, Maybe it's just the Nomad Xer in me, but I have a difficult time with these Terms Guilt/Shame i/r/t the APT. I'm still studying the differences, but I was wondering if you might be willing to expound on the Terms as you see them within your APT if you get a chance.

Somewhere in one of the books, I think it was stated that during an Awakening people would feel guilt over what they did to avoid shame, while during a Crisis people would feel shame over what they did to avoid guilt. I had trouble grasping the concept as well, but I think some of the others have explained it well. As it relates to APT, there is guilt over not atoning, versus shame over not advancing.

Also, I would be interested in knowing your thoughts concerning Guilt/Shame i/r/t the Individual vs the Collective. There seems to be some debate as to which Term applies to which Entity.

I think S&H saw a relationship, guilt being individual and shame being collective. APT sees each starting off as individual and ending up collective.

I also am interested in what you think concerning the Concept of "Helping/Hurting". Personally, I believe the two are a Pair of Opposites IOW, not objective in and of themselves. It really depends on whether or not One "wants" to be helped. I suspect that most would deem this as somewhat of a given, but understand that Some have a streak of Self-Reliance and may not necessarily "want" to be helped; Instead opting to overcome the percieved Adversity on One's own.

Not sure I understand the question.

Originally Posted by JDW

Somewhere in one of the books, I think it was stated that during an Awakening people would feel guilt over what they did to avoid shame, while during a Crisis people would feel shame over what they did to avoid guilt. I had trouble grasping the concept as well, but I think some of the others have explained it well. As it relates to APT, there is guilt over not atoning, versus shame over not advancing.

I think S&H saw a relationship, guilt being individual and shame being collective. APT sees each starting off as individual and ending up collective.

Not sure I understand the question.

That's because it wasn't a question! I wanted to know 2 things basically: 1)I/r/t The APT, are you linking Guilt=Individual/Societal Subset/A Minority; Shame=Collective/Society/A Majority and 2)What your general thoughts/feelings were on the Concept. My questions we're rhetorical to try and give my statement some context.

I/r/t 1): You answered it for me. I/r/t 2): It was more of a free-associative thing.

You see, I'm Right-Brain Dominant in the way that I process and express myself(as if you hadn't already have noticed)!(lol) Trying to distill/express Ideas can become very problematic and PAINFULLY Time-consuming for me. For now, you've answered my questions. It's up to me to find ways to express myself that will be understood by Others.

PS: When I am able to more successfully convey my Thoughts/Feelings in an understandable and logical(rational) way, I will attempt to do so. I have much to say and comment on the APT(boy, if that's not an understatement!), but unfortunately am stifled by my lack of experience in conveying said Thoughts/Feelings over this Internet-thingy. Once I become better able to express myself in a more Left-Brained manner, I will do so directly.

I suspect that you will continue to be understanding and patient with me as and until that unfolds. No response needed, JDW.

Sincerely, PoC67

PS: Where's Chas when I need him?! He is my "Ambassdaor of Kwan"! "And I DIG that about him"! FWIW, that's a concept in the movie "Jerry MaGuire", but I hate feeling I have to state that.
Opps, there goes my Right-Brain again.

Let’s rethink the four turnings:

During a High, society is focused on a single paradigm, while the other is repressed.

During an Awakening, the repressed paradigm is re-introduced with a vengeance.

During an Unraveling, the awakened paradigm continues polarizing society, while the older established paradigm becomes the basis for somewhat more dispassionate discussion.

During a Crisis, the older paradigm is resolved, so that the awakened paradigm can become the new established paradigm.

Consider the following 4T examples:

The Spanish Armada crisis crushed atonement hopes of restoring Catholicism to England, so that Protestantism could be established.

Even with the American Revolution won, the crisis was not completely resolved until the issue of slavery (atonement) was put to rest through the Constitution.

The Civil War crisis was resolved when Southern advancement was crushed and atonement was enforced. Advancement toward a more perfect (workable) union was stifled by an atonement reluctance to call war hero politicians out on the carpet. [Speculation: Had the South won (thus fulfilling advancement) would the door have been open for some kind of rethinking on slavery? Based on the theory, I lean toward yes.]

WWII had one of the most dramatic resolutions, as the rescue of Jews from Nazi concentration camps fulfilled all need for atonement, freeing the victors to pursue atomic age advancement.

Bringing it down to our current crisis, advancement will be fulfilled, crushed or otherwise dismissed, and atonement will rule the day. It's just a question of on whose terms.

Originally Posted by JDW

Generations shape turnings, and turnings shape generations, but the alternating paradigms drive both. Let's review the archetypes:

The Hero is established in the existing paradigm and has a part in perfecting the paradigm. As a result, he becomes the paradigm.

The Artist is established in the existing paradigm but has no part in the perfecting of it. As a result, he is more of a sympathetic observer.

The Prophet is allowed to rediscover the forgotten paradigm, which he fully embraces. As a result, he is at odds with the existing paradigm.

The Nomad is not established and has no paradigm, but tries (unsuccessfully) to establish himself in the old (existing) paradigm. His rejection of the new paradigm (especially during a 2T) foreshadows his prophet grandchildren during the next awakening, who will succeed in turning it back.

Based off what your wrote...

In the last 1T: Do you think the single paradigm was based off the new deal?

What was the new paradigm during the last 2T? Libertarianism?

In the last 3T Was Reagan and Bush Sr. and Jr. an example of the new or old Paradigm?

During this 4T: Does this give suggest that the 2010 election foreshadows the future and explains why Obama is having a hard time being the FDR of our day?

All of my questions above is just for clarification.

Originally Posted by millennialX

In the last 1T: Do you think the single paradigm was based off the new deal?

Not exactly. Rather, the New Deal was one of many forms of socialism, which in the West was sold as “advancement,” but in the East as “atonement.” In the US, in other words, it had the freshness of a bold, new idea that would help America become a utopia where no one would starve. Again, we’re not talking about atonement (special consideration of some group left out of the American dream), but advancement (because the depression could affect anybody).

Since you asked about the 1T, specifically, it was based on the idea that Americans were good people who deserved international respect and the best possible standard of living. (Or what is best for America is best for the world, in general.)

What was the new paradigm during the last 2T? Libertarianism?

This one requires special discussion. Let me come back to it.

In the last 3T Was Reagan and Bush Sr. and Jr. an example of the new or old Paradigm?

Reagan and GWHB were definitely an encore of the old (advancement) paradigm. Perhaps they were to Xers what Silent musicians were to the Boomers. GWB, on the other hand, was definitely atonement-focused, tears and all.

During this 4T: Does this give suggest that the 2010 election foreshadows the future and explains why Obama is having a hard time being the FDR of our day?

To be candid, I have no more expectation of the 2010 election foreshadowing the future, than I did that the post-9/11 national coziness would turn into another Great Awakening. It’s not about the temporary public mood. Ultimately it’s all about the Millennials.

I don’t think Obama has either the perceived freshness of ideas or the father-like (Reagan-like) demeanor of FDR.

Originally Posted by JDW

I've gone back again and skimmed Generations. It has really been fascinating to see how the Nomads have foreshadowed the next Prophets:

The Cavaliers introduced the religious toleration that the Awakeners and Republicans ultimately established.

It was the Liberty that had the passion for (well) liberty, before the Transcendentals took it to a new level. (Notice the focus on entertainment, and accusations of cowardice.)

The Gilded Nomads introduced the Yankee ingenuity that the Missionary and GIs eventually showcased. (Notice the focus on adventure, and the displays of bravado.)

The Lost, again, had an entertainment anti-Missionary focus that foreshadowed the Boomer anti-GI focus.

Note also that the a nomad generation is generally the grandparents of a profit generation. For instance, the boomer generations parents tend to be split between GI's (mostly second wave) and Silents (mostly first wave) while their Grandparents tend to be largely from the Lost generation (largely the parents of the first wave silents and second wave GI's). Ones parents tend to be an average of 1.5 generations older than oneself while ones grandparents are an average of 3 generations older. I suspect their is a sort of 3's tripping over 2's effect here where a generation is exposed to 1 grandparent generation and 2 parent generations.

As for the next awakening, I suspect Ron Paul style (paleo)libertarianism may become quite prevalent. Paleo in the sense that it will be largely agnostic as to whether society supports individuals or institutions (unlike left-wing individualist libertarians) and thus won't be as protective of minority groups and points of view.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Your statement concerning Jewish Holocaust survivors and the A-Bomb confused me. The Great Power saeculum was one of Advancement, correct?

Maybe I went too fast on this one. Let’s try it this way:

Odd turnings (Highs and Unravelings) are “static,” while even turnings (Awakenings and Crises) are “dynamic.” When society settles on a High, there is a lot of inertia to remain in that single paradigm state. When society settles on an Unraveling, there is a lot of inertia to remain in that dual paradigm state. During an Awakening or Crisis, in contrast, the goal is completion.

In some respects, I question the use of the terms Unraveling, Crisis and High, while I regard Awakening as spot on. I’ll have to think about names for the odd turnings, but a 4T might just as well be called a “quenching.” It need not be a serious crisis (though this one certainly will be). The main thing is that maintaining both atonement and advancement is no longer tenable (as it was in the 3T). Therefore one of them needs to be removed from the equation. During the Great Power crisis, atonement was quenched while advancement was established. Interestingly, Victory in Europe equaled atonement, while Victory in Japan equaled advancement. Which one did we build on? Advancement, of course.

Sure we had the Nuremburg trials to punish the guilty, but had we actually built on atonement we might have placed both Germany and Japan under some sort of penalizing “Reconstruction.” Instead we helped establish the UN, so that countries could talk out their differences and clear up those misunderstandings that caused people to be bad in the first place. Best of all, rescuing the Jews ensured that we were the good guys and made American advancement a perfect ending to a dramatic chapter in history.

Here's what I have, so far:

4T = Quenching

1T = Consensus

2T = Awakening

3T = ???? (I’m looking for a word that captures the opportunities, conflicts, compromises and third parties that characterize an “Unraveling.” I’d like for it to be a word with a positive meaning, to reflect the fact that it is an enjoyable period for the most part. Top choices are "examination," "debate," "stalemate," "turbulence,” and “co-existence.” None of these quite cut it.)

Dichotomy?

Originally Posted by JDW

Here's what I have, so far:

4T = Quenching

1T = Consensus

2T = Awakening

3T = ???? (I’m looking for a word that captures the opportunities, conflicts, compromises and third parties that characterize an “Unraveling.” I’d like for it to be a word with a positive meaning, to reflect the fact that it is an enjoyable period for the most part. Top choices are "examination," "debate," "stalemate," "turbulence,” and “co-existence.” None of these quite cut it.)

Uproarious.

James50

Originally Posted by JDW

Here's what I have, so far:

4T = Quenching

1T = Consensus

2T = Awakening

3T = ???? (I’m looking for a word that captures the opportunities, conflicts, compromises and third parties that characterize an “Unraveling.” I’d like for it to be a word with a positive meaning, to reflect the fact that it is an enjoyable period for the most part. Top choices are "examination," "debate," "stalemate," "turbulence,” and “co-existence.” None of these quite cut it.)

Originally Posted by Xer H

Dichotomy?

Originally Posted by James50

Uproarious.

James50

S&H describe a 3T as a time when the new Value Regime implants, so how 'bout "Infiltration"?

Originally Posted by Odin

S&H describe a 3T as a time when the new Value Regime implants, so how 'bout "Infiltration"?

Percolation

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Percolation

You Win!!!

What do you think of "hiatus"?

Originally Posted by JDW

What do you think of "hiatus"?

Since 1T/3T are static, I would think a Noun would be in order. Since 2T/4T are dynamic, I would think a Verb would be in order.

PoC67

I’m open to change, but for discussion, let’s list it as follows:
1T – Consensus
2T – Awakening
3T – Hiatus
4T – Quenching

These terms coincide with the S&H theory being from a Prophet perspective. So let’s look at it from a Boomer life cycle:
1T- Advancement Consensus – The Boomers inherited this, but never took ownership.
2T- Atonement Awakening – Part One of Boomer revolution: challenge Advancement monopoly.
3T- Stalemate between the two paradigms (and multiple versions of each paradigm).
4T- Advancement Quenching – Part Two of Boomer revolution: establish Atonement monopoly.
1T- Atonement Consensus

What I especially want to get away from is the idea that a 1T has to be a “High.” Sure it’s a high if the 4T ends on a high note. Reconstruction was not a high for the South, it was very much a low. It was however a forced atonement/consensus.

Likewise, crises need not occur during a 4T. The English Civil War, the French Revolution, the War of 1812 and the Russian Revolution were all examples of non-4T crises. Each was solved by some means other than paradigm simplification. From what I understand, the American Revolution and Crimean War were not real crises for England; however, I would assume that they both involved paradigm reduction, making them both 4T’s. (Somebody please check me on this.)

Originally Posted by JDW

I’m open to change, but for discussion, let’s list it as follows:
1T – Consensus
2T – Awakening
3T – Hiatus
4T – Quenching

These terms coincide with the S&H theory being from a Prophet perspective. So let’s look at it from a Boomer life cycle:
1T- Advancement Consensus – The Boomers inherited this, but never took ownership.
2T- Atonement Awakening – Part One of Boomer revolution: challenge Advancement monopoly.
3T- Stalemate between the two paradigms (and multiple versions of each paradigm).
4T- Advancement Quenching – Part Two of Boomer revolution: establish Atonement monopoly.
1T- Atonement Consensus

What I especially want to get away from is the idea that a 1T has to be a “High.” Sure it’s a high if the 4T ends on a high note. Reconstruction was not a high for the South, it was very much a low. It was however a forced atonement/consensus.

Likewise, crises need not occur during a 4T. The English Civil War, the French Revolution, the War of 1812 and the Russian Revolution were all examples of non-4T crises. Each was solved by some means other than paradigm simplification. From what I understand, the American Revolution and Crimean War were not real crises for England; however, I would assume that they both involved paradigm reduction, making them both 4T’s. (Somebody please check me on this.)

The Napoleonic Wars were more of England's 4Ting. During the Am Rev, England was 3Ting.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

The Napoleonic Wars were more of England's 4Ting. During the Am Rev, England was 3Ting.

~Chas'88

Where is the best explanation for this?

Originally Posted by JDW

Where is the best explanation for this?

I'm too tired right now, but Pat could give it. I do know that by the late 1790s England had begun to enter its Unraveling/Crisis cusp. Culturally the coming of age Civic generation already had its gothic romance girls going gaga for gothic romance (Millennial Saeculum: Twilight Saga; Revolutionary Saeculum: Ann Radcliffe; Great Power: Gone With the Wind) you saw the appearance in the coming of age generation had its share of Dandys (equivalent to our Metrosexuals), and a new social order was "evolving" out of the upper class and newly emerging middle class intermarrying. The Navy of course being the best place to rise in social standing as Jane Austen displays in Persuasion, and C.S. Forester also chronicles this in his Horatio Hornblower series--which spans the entire time period from the 1780s to the 1820s or thereabouts.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by JDW

Likewise, crises need not occur during a 4T. The English Civil War, the French Revolution, the War of 1812 and the Russian Revolution were all examples of non-4T crises. Each was solved by some means other than paradigm simplification. From what I understand, the American Revolution and Crimean War were not real crises for England; however, I would assume that they both involved paradigm reduction, making them both 4T’s. (Somebody please check me on this.)

Good points; however I agreed with S&H that the French Revolution was a Crisis, and contemporary with ours at that. If the Revolution was not a crisis for France, the word has no meaning. For most of the French it was a life or death decision for each citizen. I'm not sure what you mean by paradigm simplication, but things were pretty simple: we're all citizens of the new Republic now. Choose sides, and die if you're caught by the other side.

I would also put the Crimean War (began 1854) near the start of the 4T in Europe that coincides with the American one, which I also think started somewhere about then.

I’d like to introduce a concept that occurred to me a few years ago that applies both to Myers-Briggs and to generations. I call it the “personality compass.” Here’s how it works:

People are generally motivated primarily by one of four things:

Comfort (or security)
Freedom (or pleasure)
Structure (or responsibility)
Challenge (or mastery)

Note that Comfort and Challenge are opposites, as are Structure and Freedom. Therefore, each individual (or generation) tends to prefer only two of them. Applying Myers-Briggs traits we get the following:

Comfort – FJ
Freedom – FP
Structure – TJ
Challenge – TP

I had some of my pick one of the four, and their choices matched their T/F and J/P preferences, for the most part. The next task was to pick two. Here’s how it generally turned out:

Comfort and Freedom – NF
Structure and Challenge – NT
Comfort and Structure – SJ
Freedom and Challenge – SP

On the subliminal side, the following is also generally true:

The NF’s need for Structure is satisfied by Comfort (Security), and his/her need for Challenge is satisfied by Freedom (Pleasure).
The NT’s need for Comfort is satisfied by Structure (Responsibility), and his/her need for Freedom is satisfied by Challenge (Mastery).
The SJ’s need for Freedom is satisfied by Comfort (Security), and his/her need for Challenge is satisfied by Structure (Responsibility).
The SP’s need for Comfort is satisfied by Freedom (Pleasure), and his/her need for Structure is satisfied by Challenge (Mastery).

Here’s how it relates to generations:

Missionary – Challenge (Mastery) seeking
Lost – Pleasure seeking, in youth; Comfort seeking in later years
GI – Structure seeking
Silent – Structure (Responsibility) seeking in youth; Freedom seeking in later years
Boomer – Freedom (Pleasure) seeking
Xer – Challenge seeking, in youth; Structure seeking in later years
Millennial – Comfort (Security) seeking
Homelander (think Progressive) – Security seeking, in youth; Challenge seeking in later years

Neat idea. I don't know how it fits everyone else, but for a Gen X INTJ, it suits me.

On the generations, though, you should edit the second Lost to be Gen X.

Originally Posted by Xer H

On the generations, though, you should edit the second Lost to be Gen X.

Thanks for the proof read.

Hopefully some light has been shed on the following:

Why the Lost were entertainment gluttons, while Xers delight in how much pain they can inflict upon themselves (such as being willing sufferers of reality TV humiliation).
How Prophets manage to be completely in the blind spot of elder Heroes, but very much on the wavelength of older ones.
Why Progressives were “Rough Riders,” and Silents were, well, Artists.

Amen to that. It's very compelling.

How does it work as a predictor?