Not without interest this article nonetheless fails to get to the real significance of the so-called Renaissance. In fact the issue is not the Renaissance but what we call the modern transition taken as the interval from 1600 AD to 1800 followed by what we call the modern period as such, in the analysis of the eonic model. In fact this essay is a typical observation of the eonic effect. This transition is complicated by its Eurocentric focus
We cannot understand this phenomenon in isolation and must begin to see the larger pattern of such transitions and their geographical placement starting with Egypt/Sumer ca. 3000 BCE and then the secondary period (sometimes called the Axial Age) ca. 900 to 600 BCE.
In fact we see signs of the phenomenon already in the Neolithic and become suspicious that a hidden macroevolutionary driver is at work in the emergence of civilization. A so-called ‘frontier effect’ is at work and each phase shows a restart in an adjacent region: thus the center of gravity of the rise of civilization is in the Afro-Eurasian core, while the modern transition jumps to the frontier of the heretofore untouched sphere of Europe, and there only a small subset of Europe.
This macro effect cannot be explained as the ‘expansion of the power of the bourgeoisie’, a dose of marxist jargon that will try too shoe horn a ‘materialist/economic’ interpretation that won’t work. In fact the ‘renaissance’ as such is different from the eonic effect as the modern transition and comes before the modern transition: it fact the later part of that so-called period shows the modern transition in action. But the fine art of the ‘renaissance’ are really seeded in the medieval period. The Borgias don’t cut it compared with the first of the modern revolutions: the Reformation. The point is obscure at first and we can see that the distinction can be set aside for later study…
It is probably not true therefore to call this a unique period unequaled in history. Almost invisible to us now the era of the Sumerian take off in the transition leading up to ca. 3000 BCE is probably the most fertile period standing at the dawn of higher civilization. But then again we suspect the true sources in the Neolithic.
The eonic model is a very strange and at first incomprehensible attempt to explain a super complex phenomenon missed by every school of thought and it should not be subjected to the jargon analysis of marxist historical materialism: the latter school of thought needs a complete rewrite to forestall its reductionist confusions. A similar caution should be laid against religious historicism of the judeo-christian type. The place of Israel/Persia in the Axial period of our second period shows the connection of the eonic effect to religion, but that connection is equally visible in emergent buddhism, and much else. The issue of ‘god’ in history is both embraced and falsified by the eonic model. The pattern is nonetheless a spectacular display of effects, not the least the sudden rise of the modern as noted by the article from marxist.com.
The modern transition is far more than an aesthetic phenomenon and shows the emergent character of hundreds of innovations and advances. The process peaks just at the boundary or ‘divide’ around 1800 and then begins to achieve a stable modernity. Note that this is something beyond economic and technological explanations. The division between idealist and materialist explanation is not going to work here given the even balance of such symmetric ideas/processes. Marxists got in the bad habit of dismissing most of the rise of the modern in the name of historical materialism, a disastrous confusion.
We should note that democracy is itself correlated with this eonic effect, next to an equal injection of the still unrealized communism. Note the timing here, a subject requiring an elusive and careful analysis.
The eonic effect falsifies the materialist/marxist theory of history but gives a lift to a praxis of democracy realized as a form of communism. Marxists tend to confuse the rise of the modern as the era of capitalism but the two are not the same. If it were, socialism would be impossible!
Capitalism is an economic phenomenon which as we have suggested such are not the real drivers of history.
Meet the probable real driver of history: the eonic effect, a glimpse of a mysterious ‘macroevolutionary’ process that shows its hand elusively across world history…
The eonic effect tends to bewilderment but one can only recommend taking the model and its data on provision long enough (a long study) to see its significance…
The sixteenth century saw the culmination of the expansion of the power of the bourgeoisie in one of the most remarkable periods in human history. Known in Germany as the Reformation, in Italy as the Rinascimento and in France as the Renaissance, it gave rise to an extraordinary flowering of culture, art and science. Never before or since has the world witnessed such a gallery of heroes and geniuses. To this day the artistic productions of this unique period in history remain unequaled. It set a standard by which the artistic achievements of all subsequent history are measured.