The model of the eonic effect is perhaps exotically named which may throw people off but it is helpful whatever you call it because it is a clear warning that simplistic theories won’t work and that therefore ‘laws’ of history are unrealistic, if not fallacious. Consider an equation of physics, like the orbit for a planet: a differential equation gives a simple match of coordinate and empirical value related to a given force (gravitation). But the same situation doesn’t arise in history which is an immense number of ‘histories’ on the surface of a planet. It is as if each coordinate, or perhaps a differential patch, say a square mile, still pretty coarse-grained (!), has an immense database connected to each point or zone, of which there are a huge huge number: no differential equation is going to work for that, end of story for ‘laws of history’. But note that it is a latitude longitude problem, a matrix. World history has an unknown matrix ‘mechanics’ like the quantum brand. This is important because we not only sequential but synchronous parallel effects, some sort of ‘matrix’ weirdness, a spherical matrix that converges at its poles. Best of luck with the science.
Note that the same problem happens even at the simplified level of physics: many differential equations are too complex for exact solution and end up using approximations, even a simple problem like the three body problem, the interaction of three planets can’t be solved in closer form. Instead a technique of approximation is used to compute approximate values at a series of discrete points along a curve in question.
Lo and behold the eonic effect but in a much more general way shows the exact same match as a series of discrete intervals. It is as if nature computed history in rough high level approximations in a discrete series.
But we are a long way from physics. The discrete series of the eonic effect operates over an immense scale via a set of discrete transitions. And it is something we don’t understand: it injects creative futures in a roughly mechanical system. It is not a mechanical system: it stops at a fixed point as system action and lets free action take over.
We don’t have to use the full eonic model to proceed: we must simply be wary of attempts at a science of history and proceed empirically, but with a sense there is a dynamic structure we only see partially in terms of a discrete series of some kind, one we can’t fully analyze or control. That is important to remember because once we are on our own we are nonetheless unaware of how to proceed.
Marxists especially are vulnerable to the charge of oversimplification and productive force determinism is simply not capable of a viable historical account that can demand allegiance from a general public. But the generalized ideas of socialism/democracy remains a genre of note to guide possible futures. We have used the idea of the genre of the novel. You can write a bad novel, but the genre remains in the background. Socialism (or communism, unlike Marx we tend to equate the two, Marx’s distinction might still be useful) is like that. Toss out bolshevism, but the genre of socialism remains. A key plus for socialism is that it is closer to satisfying a ‘categorical imperative’ (cf. Kant), which capitalism does not.
We can proceed in practice with simple chronological histories but with a warning that a hidden factor is present: we note that seems clustered in discrete intervals (maybe, we only have limited data) and we must be wary of thinking we can control the future with any confidence given something that operates over millennia where we are lucky to operate over decades.
The problem is that this system shuts off after a brief burst of innovation Xmas gifts, and therefore we must. The dangers of catastrophe are considerable indeed. It is clear that the experiment of bolshevism shows the problem. The left needs to repent and find an intelligent solution to the problem of say socialism that respects the complexity of history and culture. There is a way to do it, but the format of historical materialism won’t do it. Nasa style organization with futuristic techno-shamanism?
But at this point the same must be said of abandoning history to markets and capitalist let go. No society in prior history ever conceived of such a crackpot lunacy. The market and the state were always connected, often with bad results, to be sure. The idea was that state manipulation froze economies. Maybe, the revers is also false, taken to extremes. Capitalism seems in the short term to work far better than ‘stupid socialism’ but in tortoise and hare fashion already after two centuries from the industrial revolution produced a new form of capitalism (the genre as such existing throughout history) we can see that capitalism is not sustainable and will end in planetary collapse. Clearly socialism points in principle to some of the missing factors. But the theme of socialism is itself still too limited, or else too abstract. It needs a complete overhaul to match the real needs of a new social system, something men have never constructed on their own. But they can’t count on the eonic factor in the future: at some point you are on you own. So the future is ominous because a bunch of mostly idiots is confronted with the immense complexity of social history and its interiors, in all aspects from art to philosophy to religion to science to politics to …
Note the relative success of the american revolution as social creation: it seems like a great achievement, but it has lasted barely two centuries, if we judge it now a failure, and it became a vehicle of extreme capitalism, and many other dangerous elements from the genocide of the Indians to the factors of imperialism and economic depradation. The American system further has become dysfunctional with a host of interior corruptions, like the covert agencies in a claimed ‘deep state’. We don’t even know how the system works anymore, or who beyond a set of psychopaths is running the show…The american system is becoming unsustainable.
So neither bolshevik marxism nor (american) democratic/capitalist formats have proven to be the answer. We have essentially nothing to take us into the future, as yet. Small wonder this is so. And science isn’t even in the ballpark given the status of ‘sociological theory, on a par with Marx’s thinking’, idiocy. Look at the DMNC model: it increases the complexity of simple ‘one word’ solutions, capitalism, democracy, socialism by a factor of three or four: democratic market neo-communism, a rapidly rising degree of complexity but essential to a viable solution. I fear the DMNC is still too simple, but the point is clear.
We have an empirical history to demonstrate the dangers: the so-called ‘axial age’ (the eonic effect in proximate antiquity) produced a huge number of innovations, and this effect waned early on and the whole occident fell into barbarism of the type we see in the Roman era. The decline was inexorable. And the system never recovered until the rise of the modern millennia later. The chances that man can deal with this seems remote, but he has no choice because that nice little eonic effect won’t return for millennia if ever and the free gift of modernity (consider the innovations of the early modern as gifts of nature) in the modern transition is a one shot deal. It’s up to man alone to either realize its potential or end up in another round of medieval barbarism with the Emperor Trump(s).
So if you subtract the eonic effect you end up losing almost all the innovations of civilization, back in the Paleolithic: man makes himself, yet, but also he as done almost nothing to create civilization. Between those extremes we proceed. Face reality: take away all the innovations of Axial Age Greece, and what do you have left? No Iliad, no greek tragedy, no democracy, no republics, no Democritus no science, no Plato: no philosophy, etc…
However, I suspect then that man is on his own at this point, as our speculations about the eonic sequence suggests, perhaps the reason so few planetary theaters survive. Or so it seems. The moment you notice the eonic effect, it begins to dissolve, perhaps.
Let us note a few things: we don’t have to denigrate capitalism to see that it can’t be the solution to creating a viable social system. It is an economically limited format, nothing more, with a riddle of markets. But we notice that socialism/communism and democracy are innovations of the early modern (as is capitalism, but only as economics) and are ‘eonic’ potentials and innovations of the early modern transition, and these are actually able in principle to be social constructs, bur requiring an economic component, in principle. So we must wrest these ideas from their probable early failures to their real significance…So greater nature in the eonic effect has injected potential solutions (these ideas were first injected in Ancient Greece) but we must find a way to realize them: system action and free action. Commies of the world, Repent…and get to work on something sensible, so far you get a D-, if that.
We should note that many will throw themselves at the mercy of god to save them. Sorry, god thinking is part of the problem. The eonic effect shows why many thought incorrectly that ‘god’ acts in history: it was the eonic effect, in fact, and that is not god in action. So if the bolsheviks and the capitalists don’t kill us, the godists may be the coup de grace…That is not the last word on religion, but ideas of god/no god are metaphysically limited abstractions. The eonic effect makes no sense unless in principle naturalistic.