The eonic effect and generated religion…

The eonic effect shows the way religions (and secularism, and philosophies, and science…) emerge in the context of ‘eonic transitions’, three times, at least: emergent ‘Israelitism’, emergent early Buddhism, and the modern ‘protestant’ reformation. (the case in Sumer and Dynastic Egypt are also probable cases). This is remarkable but it is a caution against monotheistic ideas of revelation. The idea that ‘god’ intervenes in history is a classic monotheistic meme but it is almost certainly to us now a delusive concept. But wait: what on earth were the Israelites up to? Their perception was that only a ‘god’ could move them around like a chess piece and they were right in a sense. But to a closer look, we see that it is an illusion. The eonic model distinguishes ‘system action’ and free action, and early Israelitism by definition shows ‘system action’ mediating ‘free action, followed by ‘free action’ only after the ‘divide’, i.e. ca 600. The facts strangely match this model and Israelite history changes course or consolidates around just that period of the Exile, after which the tradition solidifies and stabilizes. So what the ‘blazes’ is system action, and what was it up to? In one case it generates an atheist religion, and in another a theism. And then in the modern case both a reformation and a following ‘secular’ enlightenment. We can stand back and ‘sort of’ see the obvious logic of all this, except for the case of the Israelites. The answer lies perhaps in an unknown ‘gnostic or semi-Buddhist abstraction or element that operates as an attractor in the teleological dynamics of the eonic effect. As system action passes into free action confusion arises and the outcome is filtered through polytheistic mindsets into a variant ‘god’ concept from just that polytheism. Whatever the case there is some abstraction deeper than vulgar ‘god’ concepts in the case of the attractor, if I may purloin the idea from systems dynamics theories. Teleology is elusive and stands behind two opposite outcomes. Small wonder monotheism navigated into a rock. But even if we end in secular humanism the case of the Israelites before 600 BCE looks miraculous: case in point: just at the right time, independent conquering ‘states’ like the Assyrians/Persians conquered and then displaced the ‘remnant’ into exile where (!) Zoroastrian and Israelite monotheism could be blended after which the Israelites returned home with a new monotheism blending Semitic and Indo-European elements on the way to a universal ideology that could in principle (in practice it didn’t quite) lead to a universal culture of the future. It is almost impossible not to conceive of a divinity at work before the rise of modern science. The experience of the ancient Israelites was totally nonrandom, small wonder it seemed miraculous. But we can begin to move on and see a strange dynamical system at work, one operating on a stupendous scale.
It is in fact a small world, and none other than the ‘evolutionary’ dynamic behind the emergence of homo sapiens (or homo idioticus) full of many such rabbits out of the hat.
The Bible Unearthed by Silberman and Finkelstein is the book to read here: we still barely know what actually did happen in the period between the mythical Solomon (?) and the Exile period. Note again, some mysterious process of the eonic evolutionary dynamic independently of human awareness blended two monotheism by moving a chess piece of Israelites to a blender zone, and then ….the tale turns into the history of human agents now armed with a strange new eonic production, and this in turn in a late set of effects (not system action) produced the first universal religion clearly foreseen in the Old Testament (sort of) and in the outcome produced two religions instead of one, a botched but still viable result. Not that early Israelitism shows system action but later early Christianity does not. All that means is that people can botch the whole outcome. Whatever the case, this is not god in history. So what is it? The eonic effect and model merely points to a dynamic, not its full explanation, but it can help to think of an abstraction, ‘creative energy’ as a common denominator to multiple parallel outcomes. Man makes himself, but not in any arbitrary way, in the vein of an evolutionary potential that creates new futures.
A bit fuzzy, but at least some indication, maybe.

Samkya_ancient_modern2ax(1) One of the ironies of the history of religious monotheism is that it ‘could have been’ an atheist religion, or, rather, ‘atheist’, in quotation m…

Source: An ‘atheist’ christianity…? – 1848+: The End(s) of History

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 )

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