Can The Economy Ever Be 'Good' While So Many Don't Have Walls?

[Bob Butler 54]

(03-15-2020, 12:26 AM)TheNomad Wrote: wtf??

dude this is not some reddit forum of alt realities of the Multiverse of Madness. 

We are in the GENERATIONAL CYCLES / STRAUSS&HOWE PUBLISHINGS / GENERATIONS / THE 4TH TURNING forum.

This forum is not a big tent gathering of the masses who like to wave flags with animals and their favorite 2 colors.

This forum is ... then this THREAD is ... Political Discussion (I wrote it here because there is no other logical place for it here) ... within the realm of Generational Cycles and Archetypes described fully by mentioned authors.

But now, you are coming with your own descriptions and designations, saying this or that generation is this or that, I GUESS based on your own philosophy or belief systems.... why here?  You could fill up your area in reddit or 7chan or some other place without already-established expectations of models and understanding of their designations.

I mean, no one forced you HERE.  Who herded you in HERE to make up your own paradigms?  You can do that anywhere.

MOST BASIC

Hero: fixes the shit destroyed by Prophet, brings stale culture
Artist: I haven't totally figured this one out, they basically cling to adults through the Crisis, grow up super protected, enjoy a world resurrected, and grow old in the most cared-for situations the new society has created (the authors say in plain words it is in this archetype a person can fully realize the benefits of a society reborn)
Prophet: flushes stale culture from Hero and shits on the institutions created to protect them
Nomad: gets shit on through all phases

If you can't agree on these basics, you don't belong in this forum.  I mean, Papists go to the places for them, Democrats to their havens, Chess Players go there, on and on.  There are paradigms for everyone.  What made you come here?

First, some of the confusion is in that I used the word hero (as opposed to villain) context instead of the S&H Hero (as opposed to Artist, Prophet and Nomad).  Clearly, Hero is a magic word in the S&H system, and I could have avoided the confusion by not using it.  That might have cleared things up.

But the larger context, why did I come here?  I started out with S&H being essentially my first non traditional system for examining history.  I was much more a conventional S&H fan back then.  I have since been trying to understand history, and have folded other perspectives than S&H into my system.  I am here, like a good INTP, to refine my own model against reality, not to worship any existing model.  Thus, I perceive S&H as a good start, but only a start.

First, you badly misconstrue S&H.  They present all four generation stereotypes positively, while you understand them as including good guys and bad guys.  Thus, you are presenting and advocating a perversion of the masters.  My own spin on the original S&H generations…

Prophet:  An idealist, creates and proclaimed the new values.
Nomad: Hard edged low level boss that is sick of idealism but gets thing done.
Hero:  Really gets things done.  Practical folk that can work together in large numbers.
Artist:  I haven’t figured them out either, other than shellshocked by growing up in a crisis.

From there I diverged.  A lot.  Parts of my own model which builds on and eventually opposes S&H…

They originally saw their system as apolitical.  They correctly saw the Crisis.  They did not see or emphasize how there was always a conservative force advocating the old ways of doing things against a progressive force moving folks away from the Agricultural Age system to the Industrial Age or Information Age.  Kings.  Slaves.  Division of wealth.  Dictators.  Tribal thinking.  My model includes this.  I noted that adjusting the culture to fit the available and rapidly developing technology resulted in the new values usually coming up on top in any given Crisis.  The Turnings became a way of society transforming to meet the new environment.  Thus, the new values supplanted the old for good reason.

As well as S&H turnings (High, Awakening, Unraveling, Crisis) I dabbled in Ages of Civilization (Hunter Gatherer, Agricultural Age, Industrial Age, Information Age.)  I also dabbled in Civilizations proper (The West, Orthodox, Middle Eastern, Indian, etc…).  There is more to be learned from history than S&H, though Turnings was a new enough idea that it was likely good that they focused on the one perspective.  Good, but not where I wanted to go.  I would rather be more inclusive in my analysis.

Another big difference is that when one uses multiple perspectives (Turnings, Ages, Civilizations), you have to be very wary when saying that when one of the perspectives changes radically, you can keep on using stuff that was apparently learned before the change.  For example, stuff you thought you learned by closely examining the Agricultural Age is suspect when you try to apply that knowledge to the Industrial Age.  S&H found many traits that apply well to history… in the Industrial Age West.  You have to verify it before applying it to other Ages or Civilizations.  You might theorize based on such cross perspective viewpoints, but you have to verify it.

Following that up, I look dubiously at using Industrial Age patterns on the Information Age.  You have to double check everything that happened since the Information Age started, which I put at World War II.  You can predict what should happen.  It is safest to double check if there is real world evidence that it is actually happening.  Thus when someone attempts to say an Industrial Age pattern is going to hold in the Information Age, I am apt to question assumptions.

Etc…

I came here originally as an S&H fan.  I stayed as I eventually found flaws in the theory, but still needed to bounce these flaws against others who looked at history and politics differently.  In the process of fighting to present my ideas, I occasionally develop wrinkles in my own model.  It is in improving my model that I achieve something perhaps.  I do not expect to change the set mind of fanatics.  People get highly rigid in how they perceive things.  The attempt, however, sometimes improves the model.