Habermas versus the eonic model

This fascinating essay points to a huge field of discourse that one has barely explored, yet which points at many places to our work on history. It is a pity Habermas wasn’t aware of the eonic effect (which in part grounds the history of philosophy, religion, science, and much else in a larger historical context. It is hard to match the erudition of Habermas’ massive construct of philosophical discourse. But in other ways the insight of the eonic effect despite its amateur corners outstrips conventional philosophical grounding and moves to include evolutionary thinking, early man, the Neolithic, the whole constellation of civilizations from the time of Sumer, the Axial Age(which Habermas takes into account, cf. the essay’s reference), the emergence of religion, christian/buddhist/indic/confucian, etc, world histories, evolutionary theories, scientific methodologies from quantum mechanics to sociology, and most of all discussions of art and its emergence in civilization, and so on. Our basis in Kant’s essay on history echoes the place that work has in Habermas, along with the kantian effort to ground the ethical in reason. Although little more than a rascal/urchinhood in motion as a backbender with huck finn apparatus before this monumental tower of german erudition we nonetheless create in the eonic history and its model a field that future Habermas’ of the future will move to reintegrate in terms of the ‘larger spectrum of enlightenments’, modern and ancient, and in general the full spectrum of cultural factors, ancient and modern…The philosophy of history is the only resort for those who see the limits and failure to produce a science of history. But how could there be a science of history if there isn’t a science of quantum mechanics in mid schizophrenia of confused and confusing interpretations ad infinitum, including self help books in Kindle and rediscoveries of ‘god’.
The reviewer senses some weakness in the radicalist direction and the issue of slavery and/or the ‘dialectic of the enlightenment’, but these issues the eonic model takes in stride. The example given by Habermas points to the way a new world history taking up histories of philosophy via Kant, etc, to a different kind of synthesis which ought to have studied Habermas’ remarkable but somehow mysterious works.
This is the first I have heard of this so fact non-book unlisted on google or amazon. We shall see.
Kant proposes a challenge to the historian, and our eonic model makes fair claim to resolving that.

Source: The Unfinished Project of Enlightenment | Boston Review