TL: replied very nicely:Re: New Age, New Socialism…From: walkaway To: Nemonemini Date: Tue, Apr 11, 2023 6:16 am Yeah okay … no prob. I don’t have much time invested in the projec…
Source: TL replies nicely – New Man, New Age, New Socialism
I have many books on the subject of the eonic effect: go to the post Online Texts below and there is a library of free books, some on the eonic effect…World History and the Eonic Effect, Decoding World History…
But a short take: The view of world history was always confused in antiquity but with the rise of archaeology in the nineteenth century our knowledge has expanded and suddenly we see a non-random pattern that resolves or starts to resolve its mystery: the intervals from 3000 BCE to the present show clear evidence of an interval sequence while at the same time (e.g. the Axial Age) we see evidence of parallel action. This pattern then is nicknamed the ‘eonic effect’ and is probably the gateway to the eonly solution to a ‘science of history’, though not in the sense of Newtonian science, i.e causal laws. The issue of causality is controversial given the discussions of freedom/free will but we don’t have to get sidetracked there: a true science would have to show the ‘causality of freedom’ in some sense, a highly vexed notion with Kantian implications but not as such a rejection of freedom or causality (but best of luck making a science there, despite its in principle possibility).
In any case, a ‘non-random pattern’ is like Friday’s footprint: Crusoe sees it and its non-randomness suggests a human on the island. The case for world history is more complex: a non-random pattern is evidence of an historical dynamic and design, but not of course of a human.
Note the discussion of yesterday on theistic historicism: a non-random pattern suggests design, and the result in religions is some kind of active theistic process. Doesn’t follow. Crusoe can recognize a human from his footprint because he is human, has seen footprints before and sees an example of another human.
With history the problem is tricky because historical processes are not created by humans and their scale in tremendous. But the confusion was made by Israelites who sensed a non-random pattern in history and not surprisingly for primitve tribalists who thought it must be a ‘huge something’ that was really a somewho but very vast but like a human and so their invented ‘god names’ for that…The false analogy to Crusoe and Friday is clear although it remains true that an historical non-random process just might suggest a designer. But unlike Crusoe and Friday we have no prior specification of ‘god’ and a name is entirely misleading. We have forgotten the originally apt insight of the primitive Israelites: the something/somewho is humungous but we should be wary of what we call it, viz. use a glyph like IHVH instead of terms like ‘god’. Unfortunately the ‘god’ confusion took over we got pop theism and its theo-gibberish ad infinitum. The problem is a close cousin to the Taoist insight, the Tao that can be named in not the real Tao…
In fact, we can solve the problem by seeing the Israelite history shows an eonic effect and in the eonic model the term ‘god’ is simpy out the window (which is neither atheism nor theism, but a systems model, sort of ).
1848+: The End(s) of History 