(08-11-2019, 08:12 AM)Ghost Wrote:(08-10-2019, 09:07 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Note this analysis assumes that generations are created by history and the generations then create history when they come into leadership at age AL. Furthermore it assumes this mechanism *causes* the historical saeculum cycle S&H noted. If this is the case, then saecula have to conform to the generations in which case they don’t always have the same number of turnings in them.
Alternately we can decide that the saeculum is the fundamental unit. Periodically there was crisis periods which define saecula. These period can be arbitrarily broken into turnings/generations. John Xenakis takes this approach in which a period crisis war is generated by an endogenous process. These crisis wars then generate a saeculum, which is then split into turnings/generations according to archetypes.
For example suppose these is a financial/environment crisis around 2030 that results in a military conflict between the US and China + Russia in which the latter seek to force the US out of the Eastern hemisphere, that is, end the American overseas empire (sphere of influence). This could count as a crisis war and define a ninety-year saeculum from ca. 1940-2030. In this case the saeculum would have five generations: Silent, Boom, GenX, Millennial, GenZ.
It can go a lot of ways.
A saeculum starting in 1940 won't work because that's when WWII was going on.
1940-1945: 4T
1945-1963: 1T
1963-1980: 2T
1980-2008: 3T
2008-2030: 4T again
In that example I am using John Xenakis's crisis war concept in which saecula are based on crisis wars. WW II is a crisis war. I am assuming that another one starts around 2030. Here I am dating the crisis from beginning of one Crisis War to beginning of the next Crisis War. So your scheme is appropriate except for the 2008-2030 turning which would NOT be a Crisis because the crisis war doesn't begin until 2030.