The eonic effect, the ‘ompah’ factor: why Marxism gets history wrong…and how to upgrade
February 20, 2019
It is possible to consider the model of the eonic effect is too complicated, but in fact it is not. It is a simple methodology with a simple question: using a grid analysis, i.e. a sequential and parallel matrix analysis, does world history show any suspicious patterns? If does indeed! The first question: world history shows a suspicious frequency pattern, and next to that a most curious spatial pattern in parallel. That’s it, the eonic effect… That’s the ‘rustling in the bushes’ that suggests something going on where we see only the surface.
How do we interpret this? It is has a remarkable similarity to ‘punctuated equilibrium PE’ but generalized to a more complicated form. PE is like a rhythm: ompah da da da ompah…A beat then no beats then a beat…in principle utterly simple, in practice, …all we see is historical blur…but if we study history in detail in ALL global sectors (divide world history and the planet by ‘longitude’ and ‘latitude’ and then sequential temporal versions of/in these regions) we detect something strange: innovation, advance, development in certain ways is clustered in a non-random pattern…that’s the oomph
followed by da da da..And the whole thing seems to originate in the middle east and spread outward, but with PE’s recurring over millennia in sequence and in parallel. That is strange. It can’t just happen: something is making that happen, and it is not man as such…
So what is interfering in human history? The first idiot guess is ‘god’. Nope, not god. God wouldn’t/doesn’t act like PE. The simple non-answer is, we don’t know, but it is an evolutionary something with a generalized pattern formation process of some kind. Note that PE is an evolutionary concept because it suggests an ‘ompah’ (something driving evolution) where darwinism suggest da da da da, etc…( random only, no driver).
More specifically, the ‘eonic model’ suggests this is a developmental pattern, that it shows ‘civilizations evolving’ and that while the data is not quite complete the evidence of pattern is clear, IF you study enough books on ALL sectors of world history at all stages since….
We will leave it there for the moment, but we will challenge (and try to easily upgrade) marxist theory (we said theory, Marxism has a lot of stuff that isn’t theory, useful stuff) which says that epochs of economic systems provide a sequential solution to the issue of historical dynamics. The evidence doesn’t show it. Economic systems are not fundamental, nor do they show a sequential pattern. So economic forces don’t seem to qualify for the ompah. That’s not surprising. Economic needs are continuous: we must eat every day, and grow food every year. Larger historical dynamism must be something else.
We can rescue Marxism easily: stay away from theories of economic history and/or the causal relationship of economics to historical systems. Ask what is a system that can replace a capitalism that is destroying a planet? It could have its own oompah, but don’t bet on it: we must construct it ourselves, and soon too.
Instead of theory, retreat to ‘praxis’, recipes of what to do, not brittle theories trying to imitate Newton, and a good case can be made that as capitalism has developed it can be an aberrant process and go out of control and that its economic aspect must be part of a larger solution. Some call that socialism, but the point is clear, capitalism is not our
‘ompah’ either. Nor is socialism, but it doesn’t need to be: it is an idea that emerges during an ompah era as a guide to social reconstruction in the context of aberrant capitalism.
We should consider that socialists don’t seem to as yet understand their own idea and have produced their own aberrant systems. But capitalism is about to destroy a planet, so we must upgrade to some sort of new system, some kind of socialism 2.0.
We can debate that but our first point should be clear that the eonic effect isolates a good candidate for the ompah factor, the overall dynamic of historical ‘development’, granting that this is a bit brief: what the rustling in the bushes really means is still unclear.
Marx claimed that history’s economic systems are a sequence of ompahs, but it doesn’t work. Look at modernity (modern) capitalism (which always existed since horse trading, truck and barter) is a product of modernity but not the other way around. Modernity as such is in fact one of our ompah beats, a statement that requires careful study…