03-22-2020, 02:17 PM
(03-22-2020, 09:20 AM)David Horn Wrote:(03-21-2020, 07:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I personally think we ought to stick with S&H language and theory and not go with Nomad’s alternate.
I agree. There are plenty of details that can be argued without trying to write another theory entirely. For example, Mike Alexander casts a wide net, looking at cyclic theories very broadly, and tries to reconcile them -- or not, as the case may be. He still colors inside the lines. If we can't agree on something approaching a common set of assumptions, then why bother?
We all agree that S&H proposed an incomplete theory. That doesn't make it wrong. Most of us try to add a little or take away some here and there. For those who find the theory wrong at its core, moving on is an option. Marc Lamb took that route. It's still open to others.
I have put here no "other" theory. I am in this forum thanks to being enlightened by those books.
Short of putting page numbers here, I dare say my remembrance of the themes are quite good. I am ALWAYS ready to learn.
There is no mistake of confusion for me what the authors said
1) Prophet battles values
2) that battle leads to stagnation
3) no one can agree and nothing happens due to that
4) ^^ leads to Crisis (this is what some do not want to accept)
5) The Prophet (THE LEADER PROPHET, NOT THE WHOLE FRAKKIN ARCHETYPE) steps down finally
6) the conglomerate of other archetypes step in to solve
7) new Prophet arrives, same thing builds up again over time
No one can or should be disputing this. Just get used to it already.