The eonic effect and the failure of a science of history

The eonic effect will be dismissed (or ignored) and might be considered speculation but the reality is that it is basically empirical and shows why a science of history (and evolution) is close to impossible.
Consider a differential equation of Newtonian physics, one that describes the motion of a mass under laws of motion: the solution (as long as the masses aren’t too complicated: a system of three suddenly fails to compute in closed form!) has all the data needed to describe the entity’s motion in an equation: the outcome of the equation’s solution. In the case of the solar system’s planets, the solution(s) take the form of an ellipse. The ellipse’s formula thus contains all the information about the dynamical entity in question.

Now consider history: we are talking about a supercomplex system, one whose beginning we can’t define, nor its ending. To create a science

we would need a formula or equation that describes its motion. A serious joke, mssrs/madames/! For the ellipse, you have the data of the orbit of a planet. But in history you would have to provide an absolutely stupendous amount of data to work on: everything that happens in history plus all the actions of its animate forms, animal to human, this over tens of thousands of years, on the surface of a whole planet. The idea of an equation here is ridiculous. So first, you need to know what happened in history, ha ha. that requires reading books on the whole thing, in all places and times. In fact, that’s not possible, obviously; just for the parts that we know something about the bibliographies needed would be thousands of pages long, just to list them, in practice, we must settle for, say, 1 book for the whole of world history in a sort of a la carte selection of relevant topics. The number of books actually needed escalates to the hundreds for each region or short interval, but to millions for the totality (a university library averages ten million books, on all topics, to be sure, but the historical chronicles surely number way over a million). So, we can’t even list the books needed to describe the basic ‘motion’ of history, even in a selected set of regions. Any equation then can’t be possible in any form, and that’s that.
In fact, here we get lucky: if we have this problem, then Mother Nature has the same problem, Mother Nature or Planetary Gaia. Now the latter is not scientific terminology but mid rout of our search for a science it’s a case of ‘what the heck, proceed’, the terms have some kind of meaning: so how does the planetary system process history? Here the eonic model gives us a strong suggestion.
The whole thing is a subset of ‘evolution’, history emerges out of evolution with the animal (more or less) whose motions are the first history, so to speak. History emerging from evolution shows a series of civilizations and while these do not evolve, the overall historical field shows a mysterious evolutionary sequence, based on a set of transitions. We see how this selection of subsets of the whole drives a larger system as the effects of the transitions diffuses into the larger environment.
So instead of a science of history we have a system that performs (non-random) sampling of places and regions over the whole. The eonic model shows the process in detail as it emerges out of the Neolithic (for which we have insufficient data) into the rise of higher civilization in Sumer and Dynastic Egypt, and then two subsequent periods up to modern times. So instead of having to manipulate an impossible whole, nature processes a series of subsets, completely natural and commonsensical.
But we have no ‘laws of history’ here: we have instead empirical chronicles of differential (to use a term from calculus) intervals that express a larger dynamic taking the form of the creative innovations in the transitions. So nature’s way produces no science for us, but gets the job done in the midst of impossible complexity. Nature makes history as it evolves subsets of a larger whole and lets the results diffuse into the larger environment. Differential intervals are a good scientific idea, that fall short of closed solution, but still we can provide a description of sorts. Physics itself in the case of three or more planets suffers failure to solve the equation in question, and must resort to approximation, using short intervals along the path of the motion in question. So physics already shows the appearance of intractable complexity.

So we see how a different kind of science might be possible in the future, if we can explain how a system that operates over ten millennia (and before that millions of years), c can do what it does to drive civilizations via evolutionary intervals.
This is NOT historical materialism or Darwinian evolution, which means that the thugs who control thought won’t let you know anything important. And, sadly, the Marxists are a part of that gang in their own controlled system to thought born of the idiotic views of Karl Marx, thought to some kind of master thinker. He was effective as a organizer of leftist groups but his theories are embarrassingly third rate.
We can replace marxism with a better take on history: a simple chronology is enough. And we can see that socialism/communism is/are one of the innovations of the modern period, t taken over as a Marx monopoly. But we can free the idea from Marxist domination into a far simpler version of history. Our data is NOT simple, but our summary chronology is a good starting point. The issues of democracy, and socialism, fit very nicely into this account of history, but note that we never got around to even mentioning economics: economic systems arise as subject entities inside civilizations. They do not drive the evolution of civilization a la the historical materialism of Marx. The can however overwhelm cultures and that makes them seem the drivers, but as we can see uncontrolled capitalism will rapidly destroy a whole planet, if you let it.

If the above looks hard, it is not: a simple outline of history is all that is needed. We can zoom in or out, but a basic outline is clear. We are limited in our view of history which takes in millions of books, too many for us to read, as we start to ‘hallucinate’ partially documented regions. Best of luck, and, again, what the heck ?? Beyond bad theories, the Marx project has useful aspects but a new approach is needed to deal with the crisis we now face.

Update: two additional issues are needed here: the place of free agents in an historical system. And a more detail look and the eonic chronology and the way it works in parallel, as in the Axial Age.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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