Originally Posted by pizal81

They basically predicted Al Gore's whole environmental spiel about reducing our carbon footprint and his own home has a very high carbon footprint. To give an example.

Al Gore reduced his footprint. Old news already.

Originally Posted by Ed S

Eric's analysis shows why its nearly impossible to prove or disprove this theory. Interpretations of history can be modified to fit many theories that historians propose. When the facts stop fitting the theory, its easy to slightly modify the theory without destroying its essence to make it fit the facts. We see this in the economics profession all the time because controlled experiments are hard to do in social science fields. In one interpretation, the abolition of slavery could be interpreted as implementing a new system. On the other hand, it can be interpreted as tearing down an institution rather than building a new one. If it is interpretated as of advancing to a new system, then one can argue that there is just one type of cycle and no dual atonement/advancement cycles exist. However, if abolishing slavery is thought of as tearing down an institution, then in a sense both the Confederacy and Union were attempting to tear down an institution. The Confederacy was trying to tear down the Union and the Union the institution of slavery. But from another perspective, the Confederacy could say that they were just like the Revolutionaries back in 1776.

I would suggest that your proposal was a change from the original theory. There's something to it, probably (I was the original proponent of a double-rhythm theory), but your version of it is questionable to me. But maybe true!
It seemed you were claiming that there was an alternating cycle between one that changes things and another that preserves the status quo. It seems clear that to get rid of slavery was a big challenge to the status quo.

I would argue that indeed for the Confederacy the issue was about slavery and State's Rights was just pretext to preserve slavery. However, for the union, the issue was about preserving the Union. Had Lincoln made slavery the issue, he would have gotten little support in the North for the war; that is why Lincoln waited so long to free the slaves.

The movement against slavery by northerns precipitated southern fears and increasing militancy and arms buildup by 1859. We all know today how much resistance to one side's proposals can be exaggerated; witness the Tea Party today in it's fears of "socialism" over the health care plan. Meanwhile, Lincoln got some resistance when he made the war an anti-slavery battle in Sept.1862, but he got enough support to carry it through successfully.

The Civil War series is on PBS now; it's always good viewing.

Originally Posted by scotths

It seems (perhaps especially in a "spirtual" saeculum) that a strong reactionary movement exists in opposition to a strong progressive movement. A leader must pull together a coalition of progressive and moderate forces and chart a more moderate path until it becomes obvious that such a path will not work. This will lead to angry reactionaries attempting to portray the leader as more progressive then he is (and perhaps for a time may gain some traction) at the same time as progressive portray him as more moderate or conservative than he is. This leads to a period of strong dissatisfaction by most everyone which ultimately ends in an assertion of a reasonable agenda of progressive and moderate ideas that is able to become the new status quo.

Let's hope you're right. But I wonder if in previous saecula the reactionaries were attempting to roll back progress to how things were even before the previous saeculum's changes. That is what we have now; that may indeed be a first, and if so, a sign of the nation's decline.

I guess you could say that the Southern aristocrats were trying to keep a society that existed even before the Revolution.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Al Gore reduced his footprint. Old news already.

Well, yeah after he was exposed. I don't think he is wrong that is just a characteristic of an idealist generation. They have a hard time living out even their own ideals. (It's the same for everyone, but more pronounced in a prophet gen.)

Originally Posted by pizal81

Well, yeah after he was exposed. I don't think he is wrong that is just a characteristic of an idealist generation. They have a hard time living out even their own ideals. (It's the same for everyone, but more pronounce in a prophet gen.)

Need an example? Everyone should just look at their own parents. Especially if they are boomers.

"Do as I say and not as I do."

Originally Posted by millennialX

Need an example? Everyone should just look at their own parents. Especially if they are boomers.

"Do as I say and not as I do."

Seriously, that could be the boomer motto.

Originally Posted by millennialX

Need an example? Everyone should just look at their own parents. Especially if they are boomers.

"Do as I say and not as I do."

Quick to criticize others-- millennial/Xers

Originally Posted by pizal81

Seriously, that could be the boomer motto.

"Do as I say not as I do"

And criticized big-time by Boomers of THEIR parents. Like parents, like parents I guess. And 81 cohorts will get the same thing from THEIR children.

Well, yeah after he was exposed. I don't think he is wrong that is just a characteristic of an idealist generation. They have a hard time living out even their own ideals. (It's the same for everyone, but more pronounced in a prophet gen.)

Even before he was exposed, I think.

Al Gore deserves a lot of credit for what he has done, and is doing. The hypocrites are those who foolishly resist and ignore his message so they can continued their "convenient" ways. And who foolishly vote for fools who continue to foist them upon us.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Quick to criticize others-- millennial/Xers

Quick to feel victimized and advertise it publicly-- Boomers.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Quick to feel victimized and advertise it publicly-- Boomers.

Quick to point out flaws in others. -- Every Generation

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Quick to point out flaws in others. -- Every Generation

~Chas'88

For the win!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

"Do as I say not as I do"

And criticized big-time by Boomers of THEIR parents. Like parents, like parents I guess. And 81 cohorts will get the same thing from THEIR children.
.

Isn't the prophet generation's inconsistence part of generational theory. As idealists they have problems living up to their own standards and others rarely can either. That's kinda what idealist means.
I read 4T after a lot of stuff had already happened and when I read about environmentalists who did not live environmentally friendly lives I immediately thought of Gore. I don't mean that his contributions to making the public aware of environmental issues is worthless.

Originally Posted by pizal81

Isn't the prophet generation's inconsistence part of generational theory. As idealists they have problems living up to their own standards and others rarely can either. That's kinda what idealist means.
I read 4T after a lot of stuff had already happened and when I read about environmentalists who did not live environmentally friendly lives I immediately thought of Gore. I don't mean that his contributions to making the public aware of environmental issues is worthless.

Yes, but speaking as the idealist of the myers briggs personality type, you can't say such things to an idealist. Get me?

Originally Posted by millennialX

Yes, but speaking as the idealist of the myers briggs personality type, you can't say such things to an idealist. Get me?

I think as society we need people who are idealists and people who are pragmatic, artistic, etc... , but there are still problems with idealist just like there are problems with those who are too pragmatic. I'll admit I can be idealistic (I've lost a lot of that since I've gotten older), but I do see the problem if it goes unchecked.

Originally Posted by pizal81

I think as society we need people who are idealists and people who are pragmatic, artistic, etc... , but there are still problems with idealist just like there are problems with those who are too pragmatic. I'll admit I can be idealistic (I've lost a lot of that since I've gotten older), but I do see the problem if it goes unchecked.

I absolutely agree. I believe that's why H&S argue why there is cycling in the first place. Each type of generation has its strengths and weaknesses. The reason why the newest generation is of the same type of the oldest generation, is because as the oldest generation dies out, their type become rarer but also more valuable. This is simply the law of demand and supply. My biggest gripe of H&S is that they seem to have the attitude that my type of generation (the profits) along with the heroic generation are superior to the "reactionary" generations. That is very demeaning terminology.

Originally Posted by Ed S

I absolutely agree. I believe that's why H&S argue why there is cycling in the first place. Each type of generation has its strengths and weaknesses. The reason why the newest generation is of the same type of the oldest generation, is because as the oldest generation dies out, their type become rarer but also more valuable. This is simply the law of demand and supply. My biggest gripe of H&S is that they seem to have the attitude that my type of generation (the profits) along with the heroic generation are superior to the "reactionary" generations. That is very demeaning terminology.

Yes, this is why I'm getting a kick out of the comments from those speaking against Xers on the other thread. I am more realistically optimistic and agree that Xers can be dive too far into "Its the end of the world as we know it" mentality....but so what? Let them do their thing and stop thinking your generation has the one and only way. If that was the case then we...well...I move on....

Anyway, we need the Xers to get angry, riled up and do something. Sadly, my own realist side says that that anger is from the minority of Xers who go on boards like this and are loud voices in politics. Most Xers are more concerned with their day to day and own households. And hey....I'm not complaining against that because we also know what happens when parents (in a certain generation) go off trying to be champions and idealistic savors of the world, while their own kids suffer and house hold falls apart.

Originally Posted by Ed S

I absolutely agree. I believe that's why H&S argue why there is cycling in the first place. Each type of generation has its strengths and weaknesses. The reason why the newest generation is of the same type of the oldest generation, is because as the oldest generation dies out, their type become rarer but also more valuable. This is simply the law of demand and supply. My biggest gripe of H&S is that they seem to have the attitude that my type of generation (the profits) along with the heroic generation are superior to the "reactionary" generations. That is very demeaning terminology.

I think a couple of generations like to tout their accomplishments and a couple are satisfied with what they do/did for it's own sake.

Originally Posted by pizal81

Isn't the prophet generation's inconsistence part of generational theory. As idealists they have problems living up to their own standards and others rarely can either. That's kinda what idealist means.
I read 4T after a lot of stuff had already happened and when I read about environmentalists who did not live environmentally friendly lives I immediately thought of Gore. I don't mean that his contributions to making the public aware of environmental issues is worthless.

I understand your point. I wonder then why other generations have exactly the same problem when they get older. GIs were the ones considered hypocrites and the slogan mentioned above was applied to them by boomers. GIs (or adults generally at that time) were written about as "game players" in a huge bestseller in the sixties. Outer-directed GIs had the problem of not being in touch with themselves and just spouting social norms. So hypocrisy seems to apply to older folks generally, not just to idealists in Generations theory.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I understand your point. I wonder then why other generations have exactly the same problem when they get older. GIs were the ones considered hypocrites and the slogan mentioned above was applied to them by boomers. GIs (or adults generally at that time) were written about as "game players" in a huge bestseller in the sixties. Outer-directed GIs had the problem of not being in touch with themselves and just spouting social norms. So hypocrisy seems to apply to older folks generally, not just to idealists in Generations theory.

That's why I singled out parents with my post above. Of course I did add in the "especially boomer part" but hey that's relevant to my personal situation and less of a jab since my own parents are boomers

Also, there is a thing with getting older and I catch my self pointing my finger at the young folks with my little sister.

So Boomers now, Xers, later and back to the outer driven civics.

Why is it that we always forget how it was to be young?

Originally Posted by millennialX

Anyway, we need the Xers to get angry, riled up and do something. Sadly, my own realist side says that that anger is from the minority of Xers who go on boards like this and are loud voices in politics. Most Xers are more concerned with their day to day and own households. And hey....I'm not complaining against that because we also know what happens when parents (in a certain generation) go off trying to be champions and idealistic savors of the world, while their own kids suffer and house hold falls apart.

I single this out because it's an important point. But the importance is not in the observation but rather in the "why" behind it. So I have to ask, why do you think this is happening?

Originally Posted by Ed S

What I noticed is that every other crisis produces one of two different type of questions. In one type of crisis, the issue is whether to build a new system or maintain the status quo. But in the alternating cycle the issue is whether to maintain the status quo or go back to an earlier era.


More likely, we are in a period more like the Civil War, where the question is whether to keep the status quo or repeal the New Deal and return to a free capitalist system.

Thus, there may not be a heroic generation in this cycle. We may end up with significant reforms such as universal health care, but it won't be as earth shattering as forming a new nation or reorganizing our whole economic system. It will be more like the Glorious Revolution where either there will be modest reforms, or the major reforms will involve reducing government's role in the economy and dismantling the social safety net.

In conclusion, the next big revolution will be in about 70 years from now. Roughly around 2080 we will once again think about creating something new.

I noted that the Confederate constitution was remarkably similar to the older U. S. constitution. Like Boomers and Puritans, the Transcendentals had Dyonysus (God-centered/Spiritual/Atonement) type 2Ts, while Awakeners and Missionaries had Apollo (man-centered/Intellectual/Doctrinaire/Advancement) type 2Ts. The double rhythm definitely exists in terms of Awakenings; a side effect is that the Apollo/Advancement Prophets are good at formulating worldly change, the Dyonysus/Atonement Prophets not so much. The proposed reforms that have come out of the Boom Awakening are basically patches for the old institutional order.

Lacking a blueprint for a grand new order, I won't be surprised if this 4T plays out as a house cleaning Crisis. It may be remembered as a stretch of hard times - just as the Great Depression is remembered - but not necessarily as a Great Gate of History.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

I single this out because it's an important point. But the importance is not in the observation but rather in the "why" behind it. So I have to ask, why do you think this is happening?

Shoot, I have a lot of rants and need to go back in time and see the context of the comment. Stand bye...

Originally Posted by Ed S

Thus, there may not be a heroic generation in this cycle. We may end up with significant reforms such as universal health care, but it won't be as earth shattering as forming a new nation or reorganizing our whole economic system. It will be more like the Glorious Revolution where either there will be modest reforms, or the major reforms will involve reducing government's role in the economy and dismantling the social safety net.

Concievably the Millenials may have a lifecycle similar to the young generation that rebuilt Japan after WWII. This 4T may possibly play out as a slow crisis, perhaps being predominantly an economic crisis. The Japanese experience suggests that Millenials may be confirmed in the Heroic role, but would likely be less hubristic than, say, the Republicans or the G.I.s.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Concievably the Millenials may have a lifecycle similar to the young generation that rebuilt Japan after WWII. This 4T may possibly play out as a slow crisis, (perhaps) being predominantly an economic crisis. The Japanese experience suggests that Millenials may be confirmed in the Heroic role, but would likely be less hubristic than, say, the Republicans or the G.I.s.

I like your thoughts. What is your take oh Adaptives and Nomads?

Originally Posted by millennialX

I like your thoughts. What is your take oh Adaptives and Nomads?

Presumably, the lingering influence of the Silents will be directed at mitigating the severity of the 4T.

What role Xers assume remains to be seen.