New Archetype Names!

[Tim Randal Walker]

It is too early to assign specific years for the events of the next 2T. Because we don't the exact time when this 4T will be concluded.

[Eric the Green]

(03-02-2021, 06:32 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: It is too early to assign specific years for the events of the next 2T.  Because we don't the exact time when this 4T will be concluded.

That seems to be true, but the planetary cycles give us a pretty good idea about this. It was Uranus aligning with Pluto that sped up the arrival of the 2T a couple of years, being in effect from 1962 to 1970 and at its peak in 1966. 1964 became the gateway year. 
A little preview of the PBS doc: 




In our times, we will see the first case in which a conjunction of Uranus and Pluto brought on a 2T, and then an opposition, the fulfillment or full moon of the same cycle between these planets, brings on the next 2T. That also puts a limit on how long the 4T can last; not beyond 2029, and the opposition from 2046 to 2048 will sound the alarm bell of the next Awakening, and speed things up again on the uptake of the saeculum cycle. Humanity cannot evade these moments when Uranus aligns with Pluto.

[jleagans]

(03-01-2021, 04:05 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-01-2021, 02:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-01-2021, 02:01 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-01-2021, 01:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't think the Generation X/Lost archetype should be defined only by how they reacted to the prophet Boomers and Missionaries, etc. They have their own identity, not just one based on reaction to another archetype. I think S&H meant the term "Reactive" to signify an experimental attitude, an ability to respond and act in bold and adventurous ways; very situational and realistic, pragmatic, often cynical or gruff, and going off in their own direction; independent, self-reliant and inner-directed, although not introspective or philosophical like prophets are supposed to be and often are. But "reactive" is a poor word for this. Nomad is a bit better, at least.

Yet it was those prior generations that set the tone that moved the next gens to oppose them.

So then all generations are "reactives." And not just to the immediately prior ones. Boomers "reacted" mostly to the GIs, and were inspired by the Silent "Artists" as well as going in a new direction from those Silents who submitted to the way things were. Gen X does not just oppose Boomers. They are supposed, at least, to be the managers that carry out the boomers' plans. See for example 1964 Xers Kamala Harris and Susan Rice. In our Crisis era I would suggest these blue Xers are becoming just what S&H said they would be now, and we are seeing more blue Xers come to the fore, instead of the Reaganoid ones that predominated in the 3T and early 4T-- they being the ones that reacted so poorly as they often should not have done to the boomers and silents. Like our Classic Xer.

There is some truth to that.  The dominant gens are more likely to create blowback that the recessive ones, but even the Adaptives create some opposition.  Look at the change in the music scene between the bland '50s and the Rock explosion that followed. 

And your point about Gen-X is well taken.  They are the managers we Boomers never were.  Without that, there can never be a 1T.

What about “Rebels” instead of Reactives?

[Eric the Green]

(03-02-2021, 11:51 PM)jleagans Wrote:

(03-01-2021, 04:05 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-01-2021, 02:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-01-2021, 02:01 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-01-2021, 01:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't think the Generation X/Lost archetype should be defined only by how they reacted to the prophet Boomers and Missionaries, etc. They have their own identity, not just one based on reaction to another archetype. I think S&H meant the term "Reactive" to signify an experimental attitude, an ability to respond and act in bold and adventurous ways; very situational and realistic, pragmatic, often cynical or gruff, and going off in their own direction; independent, self-reliant and inner-directed, although not introspective or philosophical like prophets are supposed to be and often are. But "reactive" is a poor word for this. Nomad is a bit better, at least.

Yet it was those prior generations that set the tone that moved the next gens to oppose them.

So then all generations are "reactives." And not just to the immediately prior ones. Boomers "reacted" mostly to the GIs, and were inspired by the Silent "Artists" as well as going in a new direction from those Silents who submitted to the way things were. Gen X does not just oppose Boomers. They are supposed, at least, to be the managers that carry out the boomers' plans. See for example 1964 Xers Kamala Harris and Susan Rice. In our Crisis era I would suggest these blue Xers are becoming just what S&H said they would be now, and we are seeing more blue Xers come to the fore, instead of the Reaganoid ones that predominated in the 3T and early 4T-- they being the ones that reacted so poorly as they often should not have done to the boomers and silents. Like our Classic Xer.

There is some truth to that.  The dominant gens are more likely to create blowback that the recessive ones, but even the Adaptives create some opposition.  Look at the change in the music scene between the bland '50s and the Rock explosion that followed. 

And your point about Gen-X is well taken.  They are the managers we Boomers never were.  Without that, there can never be a 1T.

What about “Rebels” instead of Reactives?

Nomad/Reactive generations are not really rebels. They tend toward conservative politically, or at least Gen X and Lost did, so I wouldn't recommend that name. Nomads don't start revolutions; prophets or civics do that. Nomads just step in as needed to manage things and make things work in the midst of chaos. That's my take. So reactives is actually a better name, as defined by S&H. Situational, in other words. The Reactive approach is very pragmatic, which is not about rebelling at all. S&H described the arrival of Gen X as the moment when their students stopped asking deep questions and said let's just get on with the business of learning how to succeed in the world and make money.

[Captain Genet]

(03-02-2021, 11:23 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-02-2021, 09:50 AM)Captain Genet Wrote: For me "idealist" means a person who is driven by a desire for nobler life, not driven by either carnal pleasure, acquisitive impulses, or glorification of one's tribe. Is Trump an idealist? No, he only cares for money, power and sex. Were hippies idealists? Some people might suppose they were, but a life of sex, drugs and rock'n'roll deserves to be called hedonism, not idealism.

"Ideal" is in the eye of the beholder.  Your ideal and mine are certainly different, and we're not even at the extremes.  Einzige and newvoter probably agree that air is breathable and water is necessary for life.  Beyond that, their paths diverge dramatically.  Neither could be happy, or even tolerate, living inside the others ideal.

There is a growing moral consensus. In a civilized society, practices like human sacrifice, torture and forced marriage are banned. Neither Einzige nor Classic Xer are likely to support them.

[Captain Genet]

(03-02-2021, 02:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: True, but the hippies were idealists, as well as hedonists. They had a vision of a society based on love and sharing. I guess it was described in part by John Lennon's well-known song "Imagine" or the Youngbloods' "Get Together". For me though, idealism goes well beyond a personal conception of a noble life, but a vision of what our lives together can be. That often means political, or economic relations, what our cities should look like, or going back to the land and preserving Nature, etc.

Non-violence is a beautiful vision, but it can work only if literally everyone agrees with it. So the sort of idealism which calls for defunding the police and ending all military interventions right now is simply not viable. The idealism of a knight who dreams of defeating the hordes is a necessity.

Quote:Sex is a power within that is creative, motivating and vitalizing.

I have the impression you misrepresent me as a person who is opposed to sex, which is simply false. Sex between people who love each other is creative, motivating and vitalizing. People who abstain from all sex, like Catholic priests, have usually quite warped personalities. Casual sex is another issue. It's normal for young people to give in to their new desires, but mature married people who cheat on their spouses because they no longer get the thrills in bed, usually end up breaking the family, which harms their children. Even young people, if casual sex becomes too easy, may be discouraged from pursuing a serious relationship, like many Millennials did. That's why I'm sceptical of the sexual revolution.

Quote:Drugs included means of expanding consciousness, and used correctly, with proper set and setting, they can connect you with the highest visions and imagination. But they are not for everyone, including me.

I won't risk using drugs, and addicts are a scourge for society. But maybe in my lifetime there will be virtual reality equipment allowing to experience fantasy realms as if they were real. That would have the benefits of a psychedelic vision without its perils.

Quote:Rock'n'roll is an art form that can be extremely crass and gross, but also can rise to the highest levels of sensitivity, revelation, elaborate sound and harmonies, blissful joy and physical energy and rhythm. It's a matter of which music you choose. 

100% agreement here. I find 2T music boring, but I love 3T music, and it wouldn't exist without the cultural context of the Millennial saeculum.

Quote:Nomad/Reactive generations are not really rebels. They tend toward conservative politically, or at least Gen X and Lost did, so I wouldn't recommend that name. Nomads don't start revolutions; prophets or civics do that. Nomads just step in as needed to manage things and make things work in the midst of chaos. That's my take. So reactives is actually a better name, as defined by S&H. Situational, in other words. The Reactive approach is very pragmatic, which is not about rebelling at all. S&H described the arrival of Gen X as the moment when their students stopped asking deep questions and said let's just get on with the business of learning how to succeed in the world and make money.

Nomads tend to be cultural rebels, Lost had flappers and Xers had punks and metalheads. But they not likely to be very political, unlike both Prophets and Civics.

[David Horn]

(03-12-2021, 06:37 AM)Captain Genet Wrote:

(03-02-2021, 11:23 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-02-2021, 09:50 AM)Captain Genet Wrote: For me "idealist" means a person who is driven by a desire for nobler life, not driven by either carnal pleasure, acquisitive impulses, or glorification of one's tribe. Is Trump an idealist? No, he only cares for money, power and sex. Were hippies idealists? Some people might suppose they were, but a life of sex, drugs and rock'n'roll deserves to be called hedonism, not idealism.

"Ideal" is in the eye of the beholder.  Your ideal and mine are certainly different, and we're not even at the extremes.  Einzige and newvoter probably agree that air is breathable and water is necessary for life.  Beyond that, their paths diverge dramatically.  Neither could be happy, or even tolerate, living inside the others ideal.

There is a growing moral consensus. In a civilized society, practices like human sacrifice, torture and forced marriage are banned. Neither Einzige nor Classic Xer are likely to support them.

I was being facetious, but it's informative that you had to reach that far from normality to find other suitable examples.

[Eric the Green]

(03-14-2021, 06:08 AM)Captain Genet Wrote: Non-violence is a beautiful vision, but it can work only if literally everyone agrees with it. So the sort of idealism which calls for defunding the police and ending all military interventions right now is simply not viable. The idealism of a knight who dreams of defeating the hordes is a necessity.

Thanks for your reply.

About non-violence, I think Bob Butler had a good approach in saying that non-violence works in countries where the powers that be have some conscience. So yes, it can work in those societies, and does. But against dedicated tyrants like the Nazis or Assad or the Myanmar regime, it usually does not. It always works best if the military defects and joins the people.

"Defund the police" is an unfortunate slogan adopted by black lives matter. As usually misunderstood, it has nothing to do necessarily with idealism or John Lennon. What the slogan points to is that under Reaganomics (the 40-year trend still in effect), funding for social work and mental health has been cut, and those functions have been left to the police. Re-allocation is a more accurate term for what is being proposed, which is reasonable and necessary, and that is to shift funding from those police who have assumed the function of social and health workers to fund social and health workers.

Quote:I have the impression you misrepresent me as a person who is opposed to sex, which is simply false. Sex between people who love each other is creative, motivating and vitalizing. People who abstain from all sex, like Catholic priests, have usually quite warped personalities. Casual sex is another issue. It's normal for young people to give in to their new desires, but mature married people who cheat on their spouses because they no longer get the thrills in bed, usually end up breaking the family, which harms their children. Even young people, if casual sex becomes too easy, may be discouraged from pursuing a serious relationship, like many Millennials did. That's why I'm skeptical of the sexual revolution.

Proper ethical and moral concern and consideration like the golden rule applies here. For some "cheating" is simply a more inclusive way of relating, but for others it is too emotionally difficult. People just need to know what their own interests and feelings are, and those of their family and relationships. I also think those who are not interested in a family have their priorities as well, which are just as valid. Myself I have been open to the idea, but I have tended to shy away from it, as for me family (the "nuclear family") was an oppressive, limiting and boring way of life, and it had nothing like real love within it except between the two parents, which itself was rarely demonstrated.

Quote:I won't risk using drugs, and addicts are a scourge for society. But maybe in my lifetime there will be virtual reality equipment allowing to experience fantasy realms as if they were real. That would have the benefits of a psychedelic vision without its perils.

People need to know their limits. I don't use psychedelics either. For some, it is a gateway to a greater reality, as well as opening the imagination. Difference in worldviews there.

Quote:100% agreement here. I find 2T music boring, but I love 3T music, and it wouldn't exist without the cultural context of the Millennial saeculum.

Well, not quite 100%. I guess I would move that up a turning, but otherwise I agree.

Quote:Nomads tend to be cultural rebels, Lost had flappers and Xers had punks and metalheads. But they not likely to be very political, unlike both Prophets and Civics.

I would call nomads "experimenters with forms," which is how S&H describe them. Every young generation these days tends to have its own cultural rebels and experimenters in their own style. The nomad counter-culture was different from that of the prophets and silents, and no more rebellious than the others. Maybe the civics are least prone to this cultural counter-trend, but they kick up their heels too. The young GIs were big jazz buffs and their dancing was spectacular, for example. The Millennials seem open to everything that has gone before, depending on the millennial individual. Many of them, however, seem content with a superficial and bland popular culture, and by the 1950s, at least, the same was true of many GIs and Silents.

[Captain Genet]

(03-14-2021, 12:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: About non-violence, I think Bob Butler had a good approach in saying that non-violence works in countries where the powers that be have some conscience. So yes, it can work in those societies, and does. But against dedicated tyrants like the Nazis or Assad or the Myanmar regime, it usually does not. It always works best if the military defects and joins the people.

This is a very good summary. Lukashenko was able to survive the protests last summer because the police and military stayed loyal to him. Yanukovich, Gaddafi and Mubarak were abandoned by theirs.

[Eric the Green]

(03-14-2021, 03:34 PM)Captain Genet Wrote:

(03-14-2021, 12:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: About non-violence, I think Bob Butler had a good approach in saying that non-violence works in countries where the powers that be have some conscience. So yes, it can work in those societies, and does. But against dedicated tyrants like the Nazis or Assad or the Myanmar regime, it usually does not. It always works best if the military defects and joins the people.

This is a very good summary. Lukashenko was able to survive the protests last summer because the police and military stayed loyal to him. Yanukovich, Gaddafi and Mubarak were abandoned by theirs.

Yes. Lukashenko is president of Belarus, still undeposed. Yanukovich was president of Ukraine, later charged with treason.

[Captain Genet]

(03-14-2021, 12:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I would call nomads "experimenters with forms," which is how S&H describe them. Every young generation these days tends to have its own cultural rebels and experimenters in their own style. The nomad counter-culture was different from that of the prophets and silents, and no more rebellious than the others. Maybe the civics are least prone to this cultural counter-trend, but they kick up their heels too. The young GIs were big jazz buffs and their dancing was spectacular, for example. The Millennials seem open to everything that has gone before, depending on the millennial individual. Many of them, however, seem content with a superficial and bland popular culture, and by the 1950s, at least, the same was true of many GIs and Silents.

Prophets experiment with new moralities and spiritualities.
Nomads with new styles of music, dress and entertainment.
Civics with new form of social organization.

The only archetype that doesn't experiment is the Artist?

[David Horn]

(03-19-2021, 05:39 AM)Captain Genet Wrote:

(03-14-2021, 12:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I would call nomads "experimenters with forms," which is how S&H describe them. Every young generation these days tends to have its own cultural rebels and experimenters in their own style. The nomad counter-culture was different from that of the prophets and silents, and no more rebellious than the others. Maybe the civics are least prone to this cultural counter-trend, but they kick up their heels too. The young GIs were big jazz buffs and their dancing was spectacular, for example. The Millennials seem open to everything that has gone before, depending on the millennial individual. Many of them, however, seem content with a superficial and bland popular culture, and by the 1950s, at least, the same was true of many GIs and Silents.

Prophets experiment with new moralities and spiritualities.
Nomads with new styles of music, dress and entertainment.
Civics with new form of social organization.

The only archetype that doesn't experiment is the Artist?

H-m-m. You have applied to the Nomads what is inherent to the Artists, though certainly not all of them.  The last cycle, the Beat movement came directly from the Silent Generation, and the Hippies derived directly from the Beats.  Dig up a copy of Tom Wolf's The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test as an interesting narrative on the subject.

[Eric the Green]

(03-19-2021, 11:20 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-19-2021, 05:39 AM)Captain Genet Wrote:

(03-14-2021, 12:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I would call nomads "experimenters with forms," which is how S&H describe them. Every young generation these days tends to have its own cultural rebels and experimenters in their own style. The nomad counter-culture was different from that of the prophets and silents, and no more rebellious than the others. Maybe the civics are least prone to this cultural counter-trend, but they kick up their heels too. The young GIs were big jazz buffs and their dancing was spectacular, for example. The Millennials seem open to everything that has gone before, depending on the millennial individual. Many of them, however, seem content with a superficial and bland popular culture, and by the 1950s, at least, the same was true of many GIs and Silents.

Prophets experiment with new moralities and spiritualities.
Nomads with new styles of music, dress and entertainment.
Civics with new form of social organization.

The only archetype that doesn't experiment is the Artist?

H-m-m. You have applied to the Nomads what is inherent to the Artists, though certainly not all of them.  The last cycle, the Beat movement came directly from the Silent Generation, and the Hippies derived directly from the Beats.  Dig up a copy of Tom Wolf's The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test as an interesting narrative on the subject.

Certainly. When the Artists are at their best, their experiments with styles of music are so far superior and more innovative than the raucous and reckless experiments which the nomads do, there's no comparison. As much as I admire the courage and energy which the Xers and other nomads have to do their risky and X-treme adventures. And I hasten to add, the innovators in jazz were civics and artists and perhaps some late wave Lost nomads.

It was the late-wave artists and artist-prophet cuspers who made the musical experiments in rock and pop that stand as the best. As in this most-notable example by Lennon and McCartney. And note the comments of those who appreciate this.





10 facts about this track: https://youtu.be/rsNNU_9-Ez4
The tropical connection made by these two videos to this song is something I would not normally think of, but interesting.

This is my note I decided to post on this "10 Facts" video linked above, referring to another musical innovator of the same age as The Beatles:
David Parsons took up from what John Lennon wanted to do on Tomorrow Never Knows, re. monks singing and chanting. Parsons' music is influenced by The Beatles, and he became one of the greatest artists in the new age/ambient realm. On this, perhaps his greatest track, Parsons traveled to the town where the Beatles met the Maharishi, and captured the whole atmosphere and depth of the traditional and the modern spirit of the place and its spirituality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR8E9N2D8cY

Another video about the most innovative track ever produced:

[David Horn]

(03-19-2021, 01:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Certainly. When the Artists are at their best, their experiments with styles of music are so far superior and more innovative than the raucous and reckless experiments which the nomads do, there's no comparison. As much as I admire the courage and energy which the Xers and other nomads have to do their risky and X-treme adventures. 

It was the late-wave artists and artist-prophet cuspers who made the musical experiments in rock and pop that stand as the best. As in this most-notable example by Lennon and McCartney. And note the comments of those who appreciate this.

I recently read about just how dramatic the structure of pop music is changing -- not for the better, in my opinion. So credit where it's due, artists like Billie Eilish are moving music in new directions, whether any of us old folks approve or not.

NOTE: the link discusses music theory as well as the people who're changing things. It's worth a listen and a read.

[Eric the Green]

Both Bach and Beethoven, arguably the best composers of all time, and two of the most innovative, were also arguably Artist Generation natives. Beethoven's birth in 1770 would put him just inside the civic generation on the cusp, unless we think that the European turnings were a few years behind the American colonies. Astrologically, the Uranus in Taurus position in the astrological correlate to the turnings cycle links both Bach and Beethoven to The Beatles and also to whomever is being born today as Gen Z. I think of Bach and Beethoven as being able to glide right in to the civic-established institutions of their time, but soon they transformed them, just like Silents did to theirs.

The reason I bring this up is that fact #5 in the 10 Facts video mentions the Indian drone sound that underlies Tomorrow Never Knows, and which David Parsons adopted also for his Rishikesh track linked above. The Bach drone organ sound underneath the two canons and the climax of Toccata in F has always moved me greatly as well. I wore out the leathering on the F pipes at my Unitarian church's organ where I practiced this piece, by holding down the F note to practice the canon, and had to sponsor and perform at a benefit concert to pay for the repairs. The organ was later damaged in a fire anyway and was replaced by an electric one. The drone in Toccata in F has a similar "mind-expanding" effect that the tambura drone sounds in The Beatles' and Parsons' pieces do.

[Captain Genet]

Yes! Both Nomads and Artists experiment with new aesthetics and entertainment forms, but these are of very different kinds. Artist aesthetics starts whimsical and then becomes super sophisticated. Nomad aesthetics starts naughty and then becomes practical and conservative.

Peter Pan is a fairy tale told by an Artist to Nomad children. It's telling the group of young adventurers is called the Lost Boys even before the Lost Generation earned its name.

[David Horn]

(03-20-2021, 06:08 AM)Captain Genet Wrote: Yes! Both Nomads and Artists experiment with new aesthetics and entertainment forms, but these are of very different kinds. Artist aesthetics starts whimsical and then becomes super sophisticated. Nomad aesthetics starts naughty and then becomes practical and conservative.

Peter Pan is a fairy tale told by an Artist to Nomad children. It's telling the group of young adventurers is called the Lost Boys even before the Lost Generation earned its name.

One issue that my previous post illustrated is the new hyper-brevity.  If we are so attention deprived that the new long-form of anything is defined in terms of a few minutes, and the "normal" form is only seconds, artistry will have to excel to achieve, or cease to exist.