Models of history
Falling between two stools: religious and secular confusion over history
February 11th, 2018
Marxists often don’t get it: you can’t propose an incorrect theory of history and expect people to listen. The confusion over ‘theory’ endangers their profound framework of insights, taken empirically, as a critique of the capitalist era.
Using the eonic model we can show just how hard it is to grapple with a real theory of history. From there we can stand back and distance ourselves from the syndrome of false certainties and we can also reconcile, or at least defang, the collision of secular and religious historicisms…
archive: R48G: the eonic effect: as a tool to ‘debrief’ historical theories…
August 11th, 2017 •
The eonic model comes off as wild speculation but the reality is that it is, or should be, an objective tool to expose standard historical mythologies, including those of science and most conventional historians. It can be taken on its own terms or used as a set of
questions that will challenge other forms of theory:
first, it challenges deconstructs the mythology of flat history
next, it shows how values must be taken into account, rendering a causal dynamic antinomial
from there it proceeds to expose ‘unflat’ histories, e.g. biblical old testament stories of
it implicitly exposes theistic historicism, e.g. judeo-christian/islmaic ‘god in history’
myths (that depends definitions of ‘god’, to be sure)…
it exposes histories that disallow free agency and keeps open the ‘free will’ debate (free agency allows the introduction of complex hybrids, e.g self-consciousness to mediate freedom, causality)
it transcends the useless ‘materialism/idealism’ debate and the model can be taken both ways, i.e. is independent of the distinction, and it can provide a vehicle for the model of
‘transcendental idealism’, i.e. as noumenal/phenomenal perspective…
it exposes (to a considerable likelihood) the myth of darwinism (natural selection) as random evolution by showing an example of non-random process
it returns the term ‘evolution’ to its correct meaning, as ‘development’
it isolated the ‘antinomy of teleological judgment’ by showing how both teleological and non-teleological interpretations can fail (with a new definition of teleology as a discrete- continuous model)
it shows how the ‘evolution of freedom’ needs to be a practical historical/evolutionary concept
it show how ‘evolution’ is likely to be a global process
it offers a warning that a great deal of innovation in history is macro induced
that’s a reasonable, but short, list: the point here is that we can retreat from hard claims and use these propositions as a set of questions…conventional historiography can’t survive such a difficult challenge, but as with darwinism it will simply try to control opinion behind academic mind control.
Confronting the riddle of world history
January 13th, 2018 •
After all the debate and discussion from the left the stark reality remains that marxist views of history suffer from a flawed foundation in economic fundamentalism. A far broader view is needed that can handle the places of values, the question of free will (or free agency), questions of art, religion, and philosophy. The original perspectives were too narrow and too reductionist after the style of emerging scientism/positivism. We don’t really need a ‘science’ of history, an invitation to fallacy, so much as a simple map
or chronicle done empirically as a backdrop for a value-based account of a futurist project
The eonic effect is somehow very tricky but exposes the false attachment to Darwinism that pervades Marxism with fallacious axioms, but in the end it points to a set of historical subtleties that make mincemeat of most attempts to subject history to social control as ideological fixation on Machiavellian politics, economics, and technology.
The complicated enigma disguising a hidden teleology demands a far more complex view of the historical than can be provided by current assumptions, mostly based on premature dogmas of how to do science. The fact remains that both evolution and history elude a scientific foundation and part of the reason is the issue facts and values confounds all attempts at a solution to the riddle.
There is a reasonably simple way out, which is to follow the contours of the so-called
‘eonic effect’ as an outline which itself solves the problem historical dynamics.
In any case the future of socialism requires moving beyond the failed strategies of
Marxism and the confusion it created over stages of history.