Fascinating thesis, but is it correct? It is worth pursuing this idea, but dialectically, and one can only recommend a look at the eonic effect and its model which doesn’t dictate any answers but which shows how much ‘progress’ is built into the ‘eonic sequence’ and how much man himself tends to vitiate or realize improperly.
A good example, although debatable, is the rise of slavery in civilization: a close look at history in light of the eonic effect suggests that the eonic macro sequence does NOT generate slavery, man doess. Note how the problem emerges in the ‘mideonic’ phases, not in the transitional phases. It is a pathology of civilization created by man? We cannot blame anyone but man even as man’s larger progress moves above man’s savage remnants.
Note how by the time of the ancient greeks slavery is already endemic, and yet in a preposterous contradiction the diea of freedom and then democrach is born: this overlay of processes is highly confusing.
And it was confusing to marx who seems to have felt that given his thinking about stages of production that slavery was some sort of inevitable stage. A fallacy, surely (he never said as much, to be sure).
That theory is wrong.
The eonic model allows thinking in terms of different processes on different levels: civilization is progressing and declining, a lot of things are mixed together.