Archived: email re: marxmail, the ‘eonic effect’ defined in one paragraph

Re: Marx beyond theories of history…neo-communism, and the context of evolutionary civilization
From: Nemonemini
To: xyz/j.x
Date: Thu, Sep 30, 2021 11:50 am
Thanks for reply. The issue of Darwinism is clear: as Fred Hoyle noted long ago, natural selection can’t even get one peptide right. The so-called scientific community has been stuck in statistical confusion for going on two centuries. I don’t have to debate this anymore. Do the math, first. Shoulders of giants? Really? I have a lot of material on the issue. Online, free of charge.

Postcapitalist futures: online texts

The real problem is how so many scientists could support Darwinism given the obvious difficulty. Hey, probably the problem is ideology (as Marx suspected at the start before he changed his mind and started lying about it) and is good backup for capitalist market ideology.
If socialists can’t figure this out, they are fired, time for socialism 2.0. Ditto for marxmail subscribers.
I do not talk of eons or the supra-historical. I do use the term ‘eonic’ carefully defined as intervals of 2400 yeas as historical data between 3000 BCE and 1800 AD. This EMPIRICAL data is very provocative and suggests a frequency hypothesis. But no theory of history as science exists yet, for reasons the ‘eonic data or model’ makes clear. Hypothesis. More data is needed. But the probability here is high enough to merit close analysis. The term ‘eonic’ was perhaps a bad choice, but it is useful as a ratcatcher or flypaper for the dozens of bad cyclical theories of history. The data shows why people have been so confused here for so long. The idea is hardly any worse than Marx’s (cyclical) theory of ‘epoch’ and ‘stages of production’, feudalism, capitalism, communism…another bad cyclical theory. The ‘eonic effect’ is not a theory but a data set that looks like an evolutionary frequency (like punctuated equilibrium staggered in a series) of some kind, and may give a glimpse of (organismic, not civilizational) the ‘evolution’ of organisms (the two evidently related).

The ‘eonic effect’ is the most useful but incomplete periodization of world history and most people almost understand it already, i.e. when they use the terms like the ‘middle ages’, or (classical) antiquity, or ‘modernity’. But now the world of Sumer, etc, and the knowledge of the Neolithic, etc, puts that in a new and larger context.

The supra-historical is a term I don’t use. I only speak of history and evolution and use the terms macrohistory and macroevolution, ditto for microhistory and microevolution, carefully defined. The material doesn’t have to relate to socialism, and I am not a socialist really, but a neo-communist in my definition. I do throw around the term ‘socialism’ casually, however. Also a neo-communist liberal and democrat, etc… Macrohistory is the suggestion that the ‘evolution’ of civilization has a visible structure long term, microhistory is ‘free action’ of historical agents inside that structure. Macroevolution usually refers to species evolution, microevolution to the level of adaptation to an environment. Darwinism by not distinguishing the two levels (first pointed to by Lamark) has turned the whole subject into hopeless confusion. Like a car (macro) and a driver (micro).
The work of Spengler is completely confused and I discuss his work in World History and the Eonic Effect. Blavatsky I know only from a distance, even as a ‘new ager’ but I discuss such issues at The Gurdjieff Con blog. I am a ‘new ager’ by default due to curious choices made in the seventies of the last century when the subject exploded globally. The real ‘new age’ is modernity, and much of the so-called . ‘new age’ movement is reactionary anti-modernism, as with Ouspensky/Gurdjieff. But it did acquaint the public with the lore of yoga, Buddhism, etc, for better or for worse, at the least as historical knowledge. So what’s the Marxist take on the Buddha’s enlightenment? I fear ‘historical materialism’ can’t get the right answer, if there is one. Ditto for Christians, I suspect.

Will get back to you, enough for now.

Here is an email sent to a list member on my cc list above (which I will soon discontinue) asking to be taken off

I am sorry for a seeming conflict, think nothing of it. It’s nonsense.
You name is off that list, which I going to discontinue anyway.
But I hope I made a point, to you and to the list: Marxism is in crisis, and no Marxists seem to get the point.
Marxists are trapped in a dated mindset and no one can deal with except from the outside.

Alan Woods, to take an example, is now publishing a new book on philosophy.
It comes to the conclusion that dialectical materialism is the summit somehow of that whole history.
That is almost incredible. Dialectical Materialism is a complete junk philosophy, but woe to any who critique that.
I tried to critique historical materialism on the list, amazing, but unamazingly brief. You are out.

All this is important because Marxists don’t really have place on the left anymore, in the US.
Perhaps I missed what they are doing overall, but it seems that at a time of crisis no one can get anywhere.
I have proposed a critique of Marxism, from the left, left even of Marxism, perhaps.
(Although I consistently try to communicate with reformists and revolutionaries both).

Anyway I was able to put the titles of some books on the list. It would be nice to be able to discuss further.
But the list is so closed that a challenge to the legacy is too much for most. That’s a problem.
The left needs to rethink its whole platform.

—–Original Message—–
To: Nemonemini
Sent: Wed, Sep 29, 2021 1:30 pm
Subject: Re: Marx beyond theories of history…neo-communism, and the context of evolutionary civilization

I will look at your posts more, but I did give them a short scan as I too have much research as an independent scholar without any institutional support. Any talk of eons- or supra-historical strikes me as closer to Blavatsky or Oswald Spengler than anything related to socialism. It’s hard to take seriously that Darwinian evolution is wrong (not Darwin, the man, but the science that has his name attached to it) without any strong background in the field. We stand on the shoulders of giants, who are your giants that are necessary to your thoughts/theories.

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