The eonic effect: correlation and probability

Although the idea and material on the ‘eonic effect’ seems at first somewhat strange or speculative, the reality is that the method used is/can be self-limiting and is basically empirical. The problems lie with history itself and the difficulty of interpreting the actual content of particular historical moments. It is remarkable, amazing, that the method of correlation exposes the significance of specific eras, e.g. the Greek Archaic and its immediate aftermath. An immense series of innovations is clustered in this interval and its close succession (followed by a rapid waning of the effect) but it is often hard to really evaluate particular effects. A good example is the sudden flowering of Greek Tragedy as a genre. We are beset with something like an apparition, but that doesn’t actually explain to us the full significance of the phenomenon: to this day the definition of the phenomenon of the tragic genre remains a mystery despite the superficial definitions of it. Actually many of the attempts at definition are too arcane, and perhaps try hard: the phenomenon itself follows no simple definition. There are an immense number of phenomena like this that defy easy analysis. Does the emergence of democracy correlate here? It does, which raises very elusive questions on the nature of freedom as free agency. Twice in a row, just before the ‘divide’ at the end of a transition we see the birth of democracy against probability. What does that tell us? Is ‘freedom’ free if it is induced by system action, and then frittered away in free agency?

These correlations add up and challenge an understandable skepticism with a constellation of facts that defy probability against randomness.

At least the method isolates some of the key developments of world history, and this to the point that we wonder what in fact we have done for ourselves. It is a troubling question because it would seem terribly easy for man to self-annihilate and fritter away all the gifts of nature.

It reminds one of the ‘pushers’ attacked to freight trains going over mountains: an extra unit is hooked up to help with the load. In history this sudden driver effect is remarkable and quite mysterious.

With the rise of the modern we have to wonder if this effect has come to an end. It only seems to work when you are still unaware of it.

It is an ominous moment: suddenly, with a lot of historical innovation the result of this hidden driver (but always expressed in terms of the free agency behind its actual realization), the moment comes when man is, or will be, on his own, and that given the visible history of human limits forces us to wonder if we can manage, or if we will simply chaotify and revert to barbarism, as did the world of antiquity, especially in the occident. The contribution of free agency is a key learning aspect, but is it enough. Ready or not…

The example of Roman history in the wake of the Axial Age, e.g. Archaic/Classical Greece, and much else, is a grim reminder of how easily the whole potential slide away into oblivion.

Have we in the modern period acquired anything solid that can withstand barbarism…

At the least we need to become crackshots at the eonic effect! Not so simple, what is it? But the model in question is also able to throttle back to an ultra simple version: a simple correlation of epochs and outcomes, a process that, taken without speculation, is a question of almost overwhelming probability, whatever the case with ‘interpretation’…

And the left needs to consider the boost given by this effect–after all the very idea of revolution is a modern innovation–but at the same time be mindful of the extreme difficulty of creating a new form of society. Is leftist theory really up to the task, and is it able to see through the limits of something like historical materialism: the latter gives a rather limited view of historical evolution! And the example of bolshevism suggests a complete wipe out. The left had better hope its gets another chance…with something better than marxist historicism…

Two centuries after 600 BCE we see that the Greek flowering rapidly waned. Are we seeing the beginning of a similar effect two centuries after 1800? We begin to ‘get wise’ to this situation, at least.

A student of the eonic model might taste fear at this point.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s