Exactly, in my schema Diffusions are essentially the second half of what S & H describe as Awakenings. However, if you add my Awakenings and Diffusions together, they tend to be somewhat longer than S&H Awakenings.
You write
"I like the idea of there being dominant versions of what were formerly considered recessive generations. But why not have that for each of the original S&H generations? That takes you to 8 different archetypes. The has better symmetry IMO. 6 is an awkward number for a cycle."
I don't agree with what you say about 8 being a more symetrical number. Think about it this way the generations half a cycle apart are opposite. When Idealists are in leadership Pragmatists are in youth and vice versa. When Reactives are in leadership Adaptives are in youth and vice versa. When Civics and in leadership Cynics are in youth and vice versa.
Also, if you consider the parent child relationship the 6 generational/turnings cycle makes sense. Consider the dominant archetypes. The Idealists under-protect their Reactive children who in turn overprotect their Civic children who in turn Indulge their Idealist children. Now consider the recessive archetypes. Cynics and Pragmatists are somewhat protective of their Pragmatist and Adaptive Children. Adaptives are somewhat indulgent toward their Cynic children.
You write
"I like the idea of there being dominant versions of what were formerly considered recessive generations. But why not have that for each of the original S&H generations? That takes you to 8 different archetypes. The has better symmetry IMO. 6 is an awkward number for a cycle."
I don't agree with what you say about 8 being a more symetrical number. Think about it this way the generations half a cycle apart are opposite. When Idealists are in leadership Pragmatists are in youth and vice versa. When Reactives are in leadership Adaptives are in youth and vice versa. When Civics and in leadership Cynics are in youth and vice versa.
Also, if you consider the parent child relationship the 6 generational/turnings cycle makes sense. Consider the dominant archetypes. The Idealists under-protect their Reactive children who in turn overprotect their Civic children who in turn Indulge their Idealist children. Now consider the recessive archetypes. Cynics and Pragmatists are somewhat protective of their Pragmatist and Adaptive Children. Adaptives are somewhat indulgent toward their Cynic children.
