The near impossibility of communicating the eonic effect is a depressing state of affairs. But in an academic milieu that has failed after almost a century to see the elementary problem with Darwinism one can hardly expect any attention to the reality of the eonic data. Scholars and Marxists are totally blinded by Darwinism and cannot even begin to look at world history or any discussion of its real dynamic. What a pity. This material should have been a college course by now, but sadly I will be dead soon with not chance to develop a study discipline. But maybe something can be managed.
I have tried to extend the discussion of the eonic model and the left by dealing with the case of proximate antiquity in the spectacular correlation with the divide of Jainism, Buddhism and Israelitism (not the same as Judaism, and originally something different from degenerated monotheism).
The reason is to get some inkling before considering the modern case where we see the parallel clustering ca. 1800 of modern capitalism, the Industrial Revolution, the late enlightenment, the Romantic movement, abolition, feminism, etc,… and socialism, with Marx/Engels appearing just after the divide period. The modern transition shows effects in art, philosophy, religions, economics, music, literature to a degree that is almost beyond belief in its richness. To reduce all to economic categories was a sad mistake.
Marxists (and others) would do well to consider the non-random character of their history and its backdrop. Let me note the difference of early and later Marx and the appearance of ponderous theory that cannot do justice to the situation as it emerged in first the modern transition, and then the nineteenth century. Marx’s basic gesture however is highly significant and gives an amplification to the seminal socialist/communist birth of ideas from the early modern through the French Revolution. A prophet indeed, but one who fizzled after 1848 (what else could he do). But historical materialism was never really needed for this and has confused the issue of socialism completely. World history is far more structured and abstract in a dynamic of creative evolution of some kind and cannot be reduced to economic categories. Scientism can’t allow history the distinction of facts and values, a disastrous self-inflicted wound.
I fear however that Marxists are frozen forever in the format given by Marx and Engels. Best to start over and consider a quite different dynamic here.
Cf. Decoding World History, WHEE, and Last and First Men, prior to the Last Revolution. These are very simple models based on empirical data, not theory, although the descriptive evaluation of the visible dynamic seems like theory, but it is far from that.
From The Last Revolution Modernity, the Modern Transition, the Divide We might reiterate our opening statement about system collapse by putting it in the context of the ‘eonic effect’: Although we will leave the model of the eonic effect in the background, the basic periodization of that dynamic is easy and suggests a perspective to deal with system collapse: we should distinguish the ‘eonic sequence of transitions’, the modern transition, its divide, and the modern period as such that follows. The modern transition is densely packed with eonic innovations which are only barely realized and too often damped out by the high tide of capitalism. The system thus has immense reserve potential beyond the superficial realizations of the ‘modern period’. this gobbledegook terminology is obscure at first, but always ‘mere periodization’ followed by careful empirical study until we suddenly see what the larger system is doing and get a feel for the historical tides in action. The modern period suggests dozens of recovery vehicles, and this kind of issue emerged early in the wake of the first socialists who sensed immediately that a new modernity was possible. The later confusions and sophistries of postmodernism can nonetheless remind us that while ‘modernity’ has no ‘post’ as an interval of 2400 years, it can be critiqued as to its realizations in place and the system dynamic of the eonic effect allows revolutionary/reformist restarts. We have critiqued Marx, but his instincts were right: he sensed a ‘discrete/continuous’ dynamic, the reason for his system of discrete epochs in the continuous stream of history. But the process transcends the economic and blends facts and values in a dynamic of reason, ethics, and aesthetics. Note the spectacular moment of the modern divide ca. 1800 and the clustering of massive innovations.