We decided that instead of historical theories we would use a one page version of the eonic effect.
That’s easy, we have a sequential and parallel outline.
The sequence is a series of epochs
1. the neolithic??? not enough data, probably two such epochs, we suspect…
2. 3000 BCE to 600 BCE
3. 600 BCE to 1900 AD
4. 1900 to plus/plus several millennia (note the last interval is incomp0lete, a good feature)
These periods each start with a transition and we can see that each period will have possible parallel zones: so we can enlarge our sequence with latitude/longitude slices as relevant…Note that the initial dates are really about three centuries up to that date, the transitions. Note the rough 2400 interval…
There is an even simpler version that uses this outline without the transitions, which however we notice as especially creative.
The second period shows a spectacular parallel effect (sometimes called the misnamed ‘Axial Age’: Greece, Israel/Persia, India, China…a clear global integration effect…
iSo, to conclude our transitions pose a defininite sequence through specific stepping stones along with possible parallel effects. The stepping stones are always in a new place but near the last transition.
This effect is one way to integrate over a globe. We can see this is teleological but in a special way. One telos over a globe wouldn’t work: the directional system must integrate in many directions and then unify in one direction, precisely what we see.
The result is empirically confirmed by the way spectacular advances occur inside the intervals, very suddenly…
Capitalism and communism are not thus epochs in any sequence. But they are emergent innovations of the larger history.
We can see that democracy is key, only arose inside these transitions. Without it man was unable to create that innovation. Thus we see no communism was achieved by the modern transition and the attempt occurred just after a transition and failed. So we must consider the nature of a second attempt: the answer is simple: the transitions achieved democracy, so we can remorph democracy in finite steps into communism given the danger posed by runaway capitalism….
That’s it: our outline. Believe it or not that’s all we need to proceed, no theory required or conceivable at this point. We see the reason: we don’t see the whole eonic effect: what causes these transitions and their innovation. No idea….The text of WHEE offers some suggestions. But the situation resembles Kant’s noumenal and phenomenal, something is hidden…Incidentally this data starts to answer Kant’s challenge in his famous essay on history.
The issue of communism is the author’s emphasis, the model is not about politics as such: liberal, democratic, republican etc versions are possible. We can make no claim for the ‘end of history’ versions of what must happen. But we do see that while Fukuyama had a point about democracy he may prove wrong about capitalism. If sane men can realize democratic communism with a postcapitalism folded in then Fukuyama has his answer, perhaps…Note that communism has a global aspect where capitalism globalized but erodes freedom: we see the logic of communism as globalization done right, economics done right. That’s all communism means: economic done right and achieving equality and fairness. It confronts the desperate endgame of capitalism, so its derivation suddenly resurfaces.
Look at the endgame from Transition Athens to middle period Rome. The decline into barbarism (actually Athens had a few problems too) and then medievalism is almost dreadful to behold. Man fritters away millennia in useless confusion. We must wake up to the nature of what our transitions are telling us and not lose consciousness in mechanical history. We are already losing ‘democracy’, look at Trump and much else: we must be vigilant. Actually achieving ‘communism lite’ would have to revive democracy all over again. But we can suspect we are in deep trouble: can we keep our heads above water for several millennia? Or is the sequence finished. We are on our own at this point, and not particularly competent. Virtually everything is a mysterious gift. We must master those gifts. And the issue of god is not relevant here…trace the history of religion through this sequence…God has done nothing here, assuming we can even define the term. God doesn’t enter history to do punctuated equilibria. Monotheism turned out to be a botched innovation: we see its sourcing in the Israelite transition, which produced a monstrosity followed by christian then moslem confusion: the confusion was well analyzed by Kant on metaphysics. ‘God’ was created to deal with polytheism. But the answer isn’t monotheism. This is a classic case of system action turning into bungled free action. And yet monotheism was in a way a classic innovation, done wrong perhaps, but it succeeded in dealing with pagan sprawl…God acting in history is an obsolete fiction: this eonic effect sometimes looks miraculous, but the god hypothesis doesn’t work. ‘God’ might have some cosmic semantics, but existence as ‘god’ is confusion: god if the source of existence is beyond existence, etc…So debating the existence of god was always the road to muddle.
Note that each transition is a small slice but which creates a larger oikoumene on the way to globalization.
Our outline is one page, but in fact, quite naturally, all those latitude/longitude slices will add quite a few pages! But the stepping stone sequence version is fairly short. The stepping stone version seems to be 1. Sumer/Egypt 2. Axial parallels, Greece…3. a subset of European modernity…the latter is rapidly completing its global oikoumene as the ‘Europe’ factor dissolves slowly. So without ignoring the dangers of Eurocentrism we note that the modern transition was a smashing success, but turning rancid with its capitalist overdose and imperialistic etc…So maybe that success is, well….
Our DMNC takes capitalism away but leaves markets in the context of democracy, a