The eonic model and its data opens a new future for historical analysis…//Peter Singer charts the path from Hegelian philosophy to Marxist revolution | Aeon Videos

Despite the great interest in this delicious-looking video on Hegel and Marx which I hope to watch at some point soon, the subject of history needs to move on, starting with getting disentangled from Darwinism and then considering the implications of the ‘eonic effect’ and its model. The dynamic of history is not what we think and especially in the case of Marx (Hegel seems to endure in spite of himself) we need to move on from his incorrect theories of history which have crippled the path to socialism and turned Marxists into a dogmatic cult. In fact, freed of those theories Marx’s basic thinking on class and class struggle spring back with enduring relevance. But the dynamic of history is far different from the crypto-teleological depiction of stages of production. Both of these thinkers are already far into the past, Hegel in the early, Marx in the second half of the nineteenth century. Hegel was fortunate to have pre-escaped the Darwinian fixation. Neither of them (as far as I know) had heard of Sumer or confronted what is now a flood tide of new archaeological research. A strange thing has happened: sometime during the (late) nineteenth century a threshold was passed: a documented interval around five thousand years, since the data provided by the invention of writing, a bare minimum suddenly shows historical directionality in a tantalizing fragment that while incomplete forecloses on most other theories of history and demands something like a new form of science, the now dated and always failed idea of a science of history ending the legacy of false starts. Hegel, in a way, endures here in a way that Marx cannot (speaking only of a science of history). Hegel’s sense of teleology seems confirmed (a dangerous statement, it must be rethought and recast) and his idea of ‘Geist’ (mind, spirit, what…) won’t go away at time when the religious right is reviving the design argument, which in its own way is central to Hegel’s ‘update’ to theology.
If there is one thing the eonic model needs it is a gaseous vertebrate that can be a planetary all seeing eye that can scan the planetary surface???!…The eonic model is very austere in my take, and can’t allow itself metaphysical luxuries. For some reason the Hegel/Marx fracas can never find the starting point in Kant (and his essay on history), and his thinking on transcendental idealism just might be more relevant that Hegel’s reduction of Kant’s idealism. Marx’s obsession with idealism is misplaced now, and while materialism works fine as a core top-level meme (on top meaning on top of the atomic), it is also dated now leaving us in the realm of quantum field theory, too soon now string theory. But with historical materialism Marx painted himself into a corner and created a monstrosity of theory that can’t allow values in the realm of (economic) fact. A ‘theory’ of history must be an evolutionary something that can process values, consciousness, ‘design’ (which is not a theistic proof)…
To the extent I understand him, I would challenge the idea of the ‘dialectic’ as some kind of driver of history, and whatever the case (in some form it might be relevant in a different way) the eonic model needs to start with a prolonged empirical study of multiple histories in a multicultural encyclopedia that moves in a host of directions from Taoism to Zoroastrianism to the legacies of the Indic yogas. We are talking about finding some form of synthesis in a field (fields) of millions of books. Enough for the moment: Magee has a very helpful book on Schopenhauer who never enters these discussions. Marx was infuriated by Hegel’s conservatism in his later years and it seems to have thrown his starting point out of whack. I need to go back and restudy Hegel who I forbade myself in the research of the eonic model…
Update: the statement that the dialectic can’t be a driver of history can’t really be affirmed or denied: there are many versions of ‘dialectic’ often called something else: e.g. the ‘law of three’ in the New Age realm of a figure like Bennett, cited here many times. The two are not the same but are different species that are related. So who the heck knows, but generally dialectic has been too abused to be of much use in historical analysis. Cf. our Samkhya: Ancient and Modern. or Bennett’s The Dramatic Universe. The eonic model shows something else driving ‘historical evolution’: we see a series of transitions, etc…

How Hegel’s ‘notoriously obscure’ philosophy of history revolutionised the world via Marx, as explained by Peter Singer

Source: Peter Singer charts the path from Hegelian philosophy to Marxist revolution | Aeon Videos

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