archive: The eonic effect: an absolutely minimalist approach…a warning
June 25th, 2017 •
The study of history can be greatly clarified by the study of the so-called ‘eonic effect’ but the treatment tends to be too complex for many, to start. More than that this approach violates the canons of historiographical dogma that enforces a very peculiar perception of history. Here the reign of Darwinism has completely corrupted all attempts to correct limited perceptions. And the charge of ‘speculative’ history also enforces a kind of dusty flat history that cannot allow any consideration of historical dynamism. And the marxist canon is very dogmatic on the issues of historical materialism.
The question of the eonic effect is beyond the pale and is suppressed from any consideration or discussion. It is also a highly complex perspective that given its sins against Darwinism seems to be a speculative piece. So, we might suggest a different approach: the simple and minimalist use of systems analysis to find a model that might fit better than the usual ‘flat history’ muddle.
How do we do that? Simple: does world history show evidence of a non-random pattern? This can be decisive. If you see a rustling in the bushes in the distance, that is non-random, it could be wind, or some active entity. But it draws our attention as derandomizing. The prime assumption of the era of Darwin is the randomness of history, the lack of any structure, meaning, dynamic, or long-range directionality.
Such a perspective is almost absolute in its dogmatic force. But at the core of the enlightenment we
should note the great philosopher Kant asked a question, or a set of questions about these issues, and essentially asked if history shows a non-random pattern. Causal processes can generate non-random processes, to be sure (e.g. waves on the ocean) so we must evaluate different forms of this. But, basically, a non-random pattern in our sense is any evidence of a dynamic, direction, meaningful macro effects on any level. Kant is useful because he derives issues of ‘freedom’ in the context of his era of Newtonian science.
Once we ask this question, with Kant as a discipline in the background, the answer arrives fairly quickly. To answer we can use simple inspection or we can apply a simple systems analysis, e.g. is there any kind of ‘frequency pattern’, or more simply any kind of ‘non-random’ pattern? As to inspection we see that modern historiography has stumbled on a stunning pattern of synchronous action in the evidence of the Axial Age. It is interesting that Kant said that his question was premature and that the answer to it
would have to come in the future. Sure enough the nineteenth century with its explosion of research began to show the effect called the Axial Age, one of the smoking guns indeed. As to the frequency approach the evidence of the Axial Age itself suggests it is a phase in something larger. But the systems analysis approach starts with frequency intervals: one, two, …ten, twenty, fifty…centuries, etc…The ancients did this for us and were obsessed with historical cycles and ended up in a muddle over cycles of the Great Year, which doesn’t work but its wavelength of ca. 22 centuries is suggestive but it misses the real pattern. To be fair the ancients could apply at most two points on a line and were confined thus to a one cycle system, hopeless, with the cosmological speculation in fact irrelevant, but they suspected remarkably a cyclical system on the order of two millennia. We have more data now, and can produce at least three points on a line, with two intervals and the onset of a third, not hopeless, if still limited… But if we lay out a grid and test variants of this from about 18 to 26 centuries we discover at once, and given our greater modern data, that 24 centuries stumbles at once on a limited but remarkable frequency pattern and, more, this immediately includes the extra side evidence of the Axial Age: so our answer is tentatively answered: history shows a very suggestive non-random pattern, and this induces collapse in the stock of those claiming such things don’t exist. Thus, there is an unmistakable non-random pattern
stretching from ca. 3000 to 600 BCE, to around 1800 AD, with leadup periods just before these dates. Three beats is not much, enough to be confident something non-random is at play, but not enough to fully close on some kind of theory. We can do better than this, but the minimalist approach can be helpful in dealing with skeptics, not really skeptical and dogmatic about random history/evolution.
This is unnerving: almost all views of history are wrong, and ditto for the claims that ‘evolution’ is purely random: non-random patterns aren’t supposed to exist. That’s a darwinian dogma and in fact since we have discovered a non-random pattern, so the assumption is probably false.
We can leave it there, as a warning: conventional historiography probably gets history wrong, as do darwinian assumptions, the enforcers of randomness.
This minimalist approach can leave it at that: we have a first intimation of the solution to Kant’ question and a warning that conventional analysis has gotten the whole question wrong. We can’t be sure but we must frankly suspect that the assumptions of random historical emergence are wrong.
We can perform also a kind maximal approach attempting to create a definite model but for the moment we can simply warn skeptics in the field of history and evolution that history shows non- random pattering, and that flat history approaches are probably wrong.