Eonic model’s resolution of the ‘end of history’ confusion

This links to a useful summary of Hegel and Marx on the ‘end of history’, which I couldn’t cut and paste, so I will summarize some parts and then the eonic model in that light….


Note to start: the term ‘end of history’ is hopelessly, wretchedly confused and should not be used, but we will try to use a different approach to clarify the term, and then leave it behind…The tem should refer to the ‘ends’, i.e. goals (??) or direction of history and not some ‘end’ in time.

1. world history shows stages or epochs?? Hegel is brilliant here but couldn’t have gotten it right given his data, ditto for Marx. Basically epochs show a discrete/continuous phenomenon in action and this where present shows at once (perhaps) a kind of driven process. This could be the clue to a directed, thence teleological process. But immersed in history we can’t see the endpoint, and our free agency,if real, could elect to contradict that end point. However our new model can resolve that.

2. These stages represent a change of focus in the zone of development: again Hegel senses brilliantly what the eonic model shows at once, but which landed Hegel in Eurocentrism: the frontier effect, the movement of the focus to different areas in each epoch, viz. Sumer (and a sidewinder) in Egypt (perhaps India) ca. 3000 BCE, the Axial spectrum, ca. 600 BCE, the the modern ca. 1800 (with an obvious transition from 1500): note that the real data shows both directed and parallel effects, this Hegel and Marx did not get.  A teleological process that is able move toward and end and yet also in parallel seems contradictory until its rational becomes obvious.The focal zone jumps by a frontier effect from its Eurasian parallel band to the North West of Eurasia, a core zone in Europe: this is a frontier effect at the rough demarcation of the Old Roman Empire: (Italy, north??), Germany, Holland, England, France, Spain. The modern transition touches each of these spots up to 1800…Italy is a sort of mixed case, and Northern Italy in a sense is somehow the trigger point for the modern transition but still too close to the older epochs’ centers? But Italy apart this is what we see in the modern transition. How strangely elegant. This is not a European phenomenon, then, but a frontier effect that jumps to a new frontier zone in modern times, and which starts to globalize rapidly after 1800 or so: the epochs always jump to a new set of zones. Hegel sensed this but couldn’t get it right, and his bias toward Protestant Germany is curiously apt, and outrageous/inept, and much derided by critics. But Hegel saw that the macro focus was a moving mystery that didn’t act in the same spot. Germany shows indeed a massive set of contributions to modernity, and then strangely, and sadly, derails into fascism.

3. History shows progress, again Hegel like a trusty bloodhound senses the great heresy for some. We can evade judgment calls and simply note that our epochs (dangerous term) in the eonic sequence show progression, and depending on standards of judgement obvious progress, which is a postmodern foul heresy, but we are not postmodernists. I think that the case for progress between the Neolithic and Sumer to the present is obvious, to the point of knocking you on the head (!!!?).

4. This is not just material but spiritual, etc, Again spiritual progress is a dangerous idea, but the point can be reified by seeing how the eonic sequence generates religions, even as it proceeds in a late if not last step to a secular era. Look at the way the eonic sequence correlates with the emergence of monotheism and Buddhism, etc…
World history has its fingers in the pie of religion, art, politics, philosophy, etc.. Hegel sensed this but couldn’t get it right…

Human freedom, again Hegel sees it rightly, is a core aspect of the eonic sequence: note that democracy appears twice in direct correlation with the eonic sequence…in general evolution shows the ‘rising degrees of freedom’ in the evolution of animals…Hegel had no concept of evolution (but Darwinists get it wrong also). Again Marx takes this up form Hegel, but can’t get it right in his model of stages of production which simply doesn’t work as a set of epochs.
In the eonic model you can’t give any names to the epochs: they are like cycles in a locomotive, a generalized dynamic, a sort of creative energy to use a shaky metaphor. The locomotive carries the passengers but isn’t at all a passenger.

Man is becoming free, but he wasn’t free to develop his path through world history which is a macro aspect of the eonic sequence, a gift of greater nature, or a Gaian planetary entity. we must be wary of speculation here: neither Hegel’s Geist nor Marx’s epochs of production get it right. The eonic model distinguishes system action and free action and the obvious conclusion is that man must exit the eonic sequence in a higher state of freedom, but  then free to fail. That would be the freedom to generate his own evolution, but man is clearly unable to do that, yet. Modern man is a strange kind of hopeless mess who has just fucked up a whole planet, so much so far for his ‘freedom’ in a true sense. The point needs debate…  The situation if quite hopeless, almost…

5. …6. … 7. … Hegel’s idea of a culmination or dynamic endpoint is not so easy to prove and is speculative, but once again we have to wonder: the modern period the last epoch in the eonic sequence? It just might be the case because the eonic sequence can only happen as man is unaware of its action. As we become aware of the eonic effect its action would be blocked in the future by our awareness of action in the past. So this might be the last epoch we call modernity, which emerges from the modern transition into the modern period, which are not the same thing as such. The modern period could be taken as a dynamic something as in Hegel, but his point is not clear.
Note that Hegel and Marx both appear around the divide point in the eonic process and it is uncanny thus: as if the progression of history needed some immediate action/observers as the modern period comes into existence in an epochal transition, clearly visible in the early modern. Marx’s challenge to Hegel is spot on, despite the fact that his analysis crashes into reductionist scientism where Hegel is stuck in a crypto-theistic or metaphysical ‘design’ phantom. Still, how apt that two primitive evaluations appear just at the modern divide in a kind of dialectical embrace/collision. We should learn then from these two but move on. Geist is not a viable notion, and stages of production simply don’t appear in the way Marx indicated
This analysis resolves the key issues in Hegel (and Marx) but doesn’t adopt either the spiritual or material interpretations of Hegle/Marx, doomed metaphysical speculations). The eonic model is neutral, neither materialist nor idealist. Geist, I must say, is tempting: look at the eonic effect, a strange case of directed evolution, that shows a clear design argument, . Something invisible is acting in the focal points of directed sequence, and it has to be somehow very smart to do that. Let’s learn from the Tao te Ching: give it a name and you get it wrong!

Clearly we stumble into a teleological process, but we can’t prove it if we can’t see the end point. But Hegel senses that the endpoint is real yet dynamic, the modern period after the modern transition, again brilliant (if I understand him): We can progress within modernity to ever new heights yet remain in an epochal constraint. And yet it may be the case: the modern period is dynamic, but it may be the last macro driven new epoch: we are on our own, and so far making a good fuck up of everything. The teleological process can perhaps be intuited as per Hegel, but we can never be quite sure. Note that there is no guarantee we can fulfill the endpoint if we take that as ‘modern period’ as such and thus solving the endpoint mystery. The eonic model shows how system action turns into free action, the latter our current state of affairs. We are free in principle to even contradict the ‘endpoint’ but we would not likely reject the whole of modernity.
Note however that antiquity was in a similar state ca. 600+ BCE and then look at what happened to the Occident as it foundered in the Roman Empire, a wasted age, … But clearly in the mess created by slavery the world situation was not yet ready.

But the modern period does seem to correct the basic mistakes, e.g. abolition appears right on schedule just at the divide/eighteenth century, truly amazing. Note that man on his own could not achieve democracy or abolition: it is a macro effect, a kind of intervention.

The eonic model is thus a superior resolution of the brilliant insight of Hegel but it is doomed by its speculative idea of Geist, a clear Kantian violation as metaphysics. Marx was right to challenge that but his alternate explanation is almost worse.

In any case, please do NOT bring either Hegelian Geist, God, or Marxist epochs into the eonic model which works much better without those metaphysical speculations.  As to God, the eonic model gives a beautiful explanation of the source of later monotheism in the strange transition of the Israelites (and Zoroastrians) in the centuries prior to the Exile (the question of Zoroastrianism is not so simple but is basically an Indo-European version of the Semitic version which is actually a blend of the two, one sadly factored out in the final version. Monotheism was supposed to be an Indo-european/Semitic blend, or so its seems. The sudden exile of the Israelites to Persia in the Exile is truly uncanny. The Israelites did not use the term ‘god’ and put, at the earliest point of their insight’, a strong warning about the ‘names’ of ‘god’ which should never be uttered, IHVH. Note that the whole later history of monotheism forgets this key point and inflicts the occident with centuries of god gibberish. The true meaning of the Israelite version is lost to us, as far as I know.

Hegel was fortunate in a way, he did not have to deal with Darwin, who completely confused Marx who proceeded to wreck his contribution with a bad theory of evolution.

The eonic model shows most probably the overall generalized format/dynamic of evolution: as a discrete/continuous sequence in greater planetary time that operates with shaping transitions in a still unknown design factor that can produce speciation in fairly short bursts of macro action ????

The powers that be (political, academic, current scientific) will do what they can to ‘cancel’ suppress this resolution of Hegel/Marx so get the free copies of the material and make sure it doesn’t get eliminated from history.

There is no final solution to the ‘end of history’ debate: both sides were right. But Marx although in error saw the point that capitalism had to move into something else. But it will do so only with active efforts to bring about something new. The eonic sequence is done with man for the nonce, and perhaps for good. It is a dangerous near term future and man could simply degenerate again as in occidental antiquity. And bringing about postcapitalism was seemingly one thing ca. 1848, but not so easy now in the massive hold of capitalism. But climate change may settle the question: capitalism has to be tamed, and/or transcended or else we simply burn up the planet. But capitalism in its modern form (just at the divide!) is a modern innovation with its riddle of markets, and Marx’s attempt to eliminate markets failed, but now we can see that socialist markets under a Commons are possible and/or that markets can be replaced with computational economic software ????
Looking at the current culture of psychopathic politicians and/or the hopeless failure of Bolshevism it is hard to be optimistic. The curse of the Roman Empire 2.0 lurks like a phantom fake end of history. But a new start on the left can do better this time and set the Hegel/Marx confusions to rest. But the capitalist, academic, and Marxist establishments have a monopoly of reigning confusions. No publisher would dare to publish WHEE, but now new technology allows people to bypass the whole shebang of reigning idiots…. WHEE appeared in 1999, the exact point of the emergence of new POD technology.

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