What Is History? The eonic model changes our views of history completely

Carr’s old chestnut classic can loan us its title for a quick redirection to the eonic effect, and its own question, what is history? In fact, we can examine the eonic effect and still not fully answer. But contemporary culture is so stuck on Darwinism that it is almost hopeless to break through the tenacity of social brainwashing. Even marxists are frozen and they are supposed to be experts in theory and ideology.
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/edward-hallet-carrs-arguments-in-what-is-history-philosophy-essay.php
I would be happy for a citation and critique as above at the link, but my take on world history is stuck/censored by the current cancel culture of the professoriat, so-called, a gang of idiots non-pareil that has allowed Darwinism to dominate the universities for over a century of muddle. Warning then: professors are assembly line university idiots/zombies programmed to uphold social darwinism. Thanks, guys. (the attempt at postmodern critique is interesting enough, but postmodern periodization is an illusion, even if its critiques might be relevant enough.)

The eonic model suffers some of the criticism laid out for Carr. It simply points to something so vast that we can be swamped in detail that goes on and on, but always interesting. The whole analysis is a ‘script resource’ for action, not a science of history. It has a unique innovation: the distinction of ‘system action’ and free action and an implication that a marco-level of history directs a micro-level and that the interaction mostly takes the form of a psychological effect on agency (creativity is an example). That implies that larger history is driven by a strange creative action that is indirectly detectable but unseen (and we can’t be sure ‘creative energy’ is the right term, a term we rarely use). It is really the issue of consciousness itself which has a creative potential ??
World history is an extension of the evolutionary history of man and keynotes emergent freedom. This macro effect stands behind virtually all the creative efforts we see in history, which doesn’t man is any less creative, only that he advances a larger process in an evolutionary complex of civilizations via a set of visible transitions.
Once we see the eonic effect we realize how dangerous it is to speculate about theories of evolution without direct observation. To reduce that account to natural selection has to be the biggest blunder in the history of science: under the charge of ideology and Darwin’s dangerous misuse of his own thinking for racist and genocidal judgments at the peak of British imperialism. The puzzle of Darwinism is the simplicity of the basic mistake, one that gives amateurs an entry point to kibbitz, while the ‘scientists’ live in a droning  trance, and a vicious conformity circle.  Trust in science for many is dying, perhaps for good.

Still, confusion is not surprising. The point is forif natural selection is to explain the impossible/implausible in a one liner, and then look the other way.

But if you think about, once the simlistic account fails, you confront a complexity so vast it is breathtaking. Consider the body plan of one organism. Since random chance fails, we must proceed to the next range of hypotheses: something operating on the surface of a planet has to mediate that body plan in some fashion, along with millions of others, plus the same at a species level, and all this via some kind of field effect that can operate in thin air over vast regions. Just stating the problem is difficult. This occurs over billions of years in a process that must remember its steps, and returne to intervene at different intervals, by what method we simply don’t know.

The dilemma of subjectivity and objectivity is not solved in the eonic acccount: man emerges from an evolutionary transition that is still recent, as recent as the rise of the modern itself. And his is immersed in what he tries to observe, carrying out its implications.
It would seem that the ‘eonic sequence’ is complete for now and ten thousand years of ‘eonic transitions’ we suspect completes the incomplete fragment we see since the rise of Sumer and Dynastic Egypt, the Neolithic clearly its earlier stages but with data still insufficient to finish the account.
After seeing the eonic effect I would quietly slip away from Darwinian delusions and change my story in a hurry, else the future will look back and laugh at you, if it hasn’t by then forgotten you.

decoding-world-history-ed-1_6dcdx

The_Last_Revolution_Postcapitalist_ Futures_ver_FNL_4xa_12_18_21

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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