03-22-2020, 03:28 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-22-2020, 03:29 PM by Bob Butler 54.)
(03-22-2020, 02:17 PM)TheNomad Wrote: I have put here no "other" theory.
No.
(03-22-2020, 02:17 PM)TheNomad Wrote: Short of putting page numbers here, I dare say my remembrance of the themes are quite good.
No.
(03-22-2020, 02:17 PM)TheNomad Wrote: 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.
After busy times such as the Awakening and Crisis, it is human nature to have a quiet time like a High or Unravelling. That is the whole population, not just the leader.
Can you give an example of a leader who has prolonged a war or started another one as the Crisis has come to an end, in order to cling to power? Patton did propose that we go after the Russians as we had the army over in Europe already, but most everyone else was exhausted by the Crisis and ready to go home and cash in their reward. But Patton was only a corp leader. Washington fought no more battles save the Whisky Rebellion, and dismissed the militia relatively quickly after the confrontation. Lincoln and his successors sent the VI corp to the Mexican border, but did not cross the border, just used the ability to do so to force France out. He only needed only one corp to make the point. The poor VI corp missed the Washington DC victory parade. Neither the S&H books or reality seem to propose power hunger prolongs Crises as your theory above proposes.
When the quarantine ends, I expect folk will pick up their jobs and be materialist again. No need for another adventure.
Now, starting a Crisis war, that is another story. In the Industrial Era, some greedy SOB was always eager to start things. Even in the Information Age, one looks suspiciously at Bush 43 and his military and oil cabinet.
The behavior of ceasing a conflict is essentially the whole archetype, not the leader. The mood lasts much longer than the leader. You theory above has it backwards.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.