But historical materialism has distorted the study of history…//No, Karl Marx Was Not Eurocentric

Although the charge against Marx that he was Eurocentric is not really correct, he did not fully grasp why the issue of Eurocentrism arises at all. Further, his view of world history is very limited and suffers the reductionist limits of historical materialism. Marx was ‘just one more sucker’ for Darwinism, and could not properly assess the fact/value question in the clear ‘idealist’ factors of the history of philosophy, art, and religion. Because of the confusions of the generation of Hegel, Marx perpetrated the monumental blunder of pitting materialism against idealism, where the two remain forever Janus-faced in the study of man, nature and his anthropology. Continue reading “But historical materialism has distorted the study of history…//No, Karl Marx Was Not Eurocentric”

The simple chronological dynamic of world history in one paragraph

Our eonic model can itself become somewhat elusive, but the basic idea is very simple and without theory: here is a world history model in a nutshell. Throw out Toynbee, Spengler, Marx, et al, and their idiotic theories and consider the simple chronology below. It is all you need and the result doesn’t require the ‘eonic model’ which can be considered later. You can speak thus (empirically) of the ‘evolution’ of civilization, as a category, but there is no simple theory for this. But who cares, you can with study ‘see’ what is going on, both micro and macro, sort of.

Our discussion of ‘decoding world history’ makes a distinction of ‘theory’ in the sense of physics and a ‘model’ which, for us, is not a theory, but an empirical construct like a chronological outline or descriptive set of chapters in a book. Marx struggled for years to produce a theory of history but he always failed and drove himself to distraction. A close look shows and incomplete project he could never finish, and the example of Capital makes clear. The problem was his theory of stages of production in a scheme of epochs, …feudalism, capitalism, communism…The wrong approach is a puzzle in itself, but then Marx had never heard of Sumer and lived just at the dawn of modern archaeological revolutions. Let’s cut to the chase and pull a rabbit from a hat with a genuine progression of historical epochs:
We see civilization emerging from the Paleolithic into the Neolithic and then a jump to what is called ‘higher civilization’, ’higher’ justified or not. A set of two and a half epochs of some kind thence take up the whole of world history into our time with:

higher civilization in Sumer, Egypt, ca. 3000 BCE
classical antiquity with parallel exemplars ca. 600 BCE
the modern era in a rapid emergence around 18oo

That’s it. We will start over and try to expand on this, but the point is we have a useful periodization of world history, of the Neolithic then two long eras, then the start of a third, and that is our own present. Note we suspect this kind of chronology should include the Neolithic, but so far our data is a bit weak.

The eonic model, the ‘divide’ and the spectacular correlations of Israelitism, Jainism, Buddhism – The Gurdjieff Con

Source: The eonic model, the ‘divide’ and the spectacular correlations of Israelitism, Jainism, Buddhism – The Gurdjieff Con

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.

Source: The eonic model, the ‘divide’ and the spectacular correlations of Israelitism, Jainism, Buddhism – The Gurdjieff Con

The eonic effect as a non-random pattern versus the speculative junk of Von Daniken.

decoding-world-history-ed-1_6dcdx

I have had some amusing discussions of Decoding World History: one critic dismissed (perhaps because  it critiques Darwin), then admitted he had never read the book, and a Marxist critic, nervous about the critique of Marxism (in a related book, The Last Revolution), dismissed it as something like Chariots of the Gods, then also admitting he had never read the book.

The comparison with Van Daniken has to be the height of unfairness: Decoding World History is so far from the wild claims of Von Daniken as to be in a different universe. In fact the strategy used is almost impossible to refute because it says very little, makes no extravagant claims and shows in great detail (cf. also World History and the Eonic Effect).The retreat from theory to non-random patterns completely changes the game and the result is a sudden new insight and relief from the sterility of attempts to reduce history to causal theory and/or the social Darwinist ideology of Darwinism.
A NON_RANDOM pattern. So the book simply points to a mysterious historical phenomenon that is thoroughly documented. That approach defies hostile critics on the spot. It compares the situation to Crusoe finding Friday’s footprint. People have been noticing this non-random pattern for over a century and a half, in part with reference to the Axial Age, first codified from multiple scholars by Karl Jaspers, who, however only saw part of the pattern. So like Friday’s footprint the question arises, what caused that? In the same way the Non-Random Pattern (nicknamed the eonic effect) induces the question, what caused that? Whatever the case, it is not sensational speculation to sell books (my work is free of charge, so far), but meticulous documentation of data observed by multiple independent observers, but often with insufficient data. That data is rapidly expanding, and we can see an clear ‘non-random’ pattern stretching over five thousand years since the era of early Sumer/Egypt and a secondary part of that pattern in the Axial Age. Although this data/pattern is still incomplete it is clear at the highest level what it represents: the development of civilizations, or Civilization in a series of innovative regions. We cannot explain how, here, but we can see an elephant for what it is, a huge animal. In the same way we can see the keynote of this pattern, we suspect, is an evolutionary one in the most general terms. Many, equally as naive in reverse as Von Daniken, have sought a science of history, an effort as misguided as anything in the Chariots of the Gods model. And that includes Marx’s theory of history with its speculative, undocumented, and scientifically baseless ‘stages of production’ theory. The model derived from the eonic effect is left incomplete, makes no claims for a science of history, but restricts itself to the rock-solid claim for a non-random pattern. The implication however can still be clear: a definite developmental sequence, just the kind of thing we would expect for the mystery of world history. We cannot say as yet what this driving action is in reality, but we can see that it does.

We should note that Darwin and Darwinism, as a theory of natural selection, is as crackpot as anything in the realm of the Von Danikens and has done far more harm. Not a single case in deep time has been observed, so how could any know natural selection was empirically valid?

So in any case, not a single person has ever in any way falsified the basic observational data of the ‘eonic effect’. Period…

US, Russia, symmetric semi-opposites? the eonic model…//?

The beserker Putin could destroy Russia forever??? It is hard to see anything but a third rate has been nation as Russia beyond Putin…

Years ago in college I recall a book by Michael Polanyi (brother of Karl?…)called Personal Knowledge…It is a reminder that in dealing with the eonic effect as objective knowledge of the data of world history one is consigned by book logistics to a version of personal knowledge: you must study world history in a balanced way over five thousand years plus and the result will be the slow crystalization of an ‘image’ so to speak of world history, like a photo emerging in fixer…However, the ‘non-random pattern’ called the eonic effect with a threshold minimum of data actually does emerge as objective knowledge. Whatever the case it is interesting to consider the US and Russia in this context. It is better to speak as an aside and/or be wary of confusing a personal take on the eonic effect with its objective status as a ‘planetary object/subject’. Still, looking at Russia and the data of the modern transition we can see that it completely missed that transition, and has almost no real status in the eonic series, except of course as a diffusion zone of that transformation. The US is similar but lucky: it also missed the eonic effect, but was so siamesed with England (et al) that it becomes a prime diffusion field, and until just at the end it becomes a field for an experiment, democracy. Russians should take note and try and study the clear retardation of their history while the Americans should note the same in a different way: the latent danger of barbarism that spoiled their experiment with genocide, etc, etc…. We should note in passing that India and China are clear successors to the ancient eonic effects, and are in a different condition.
Russia embraced communism almost as an unconscious effort to repair the deficit of history. But Marxism was not a substitute for that and is really a shallow cultural project focused on economics only.
But aren’t the cultures in the eonic sequence almost as bad? The modern transition is not a nationalistic outcome, but a field of innovations able to diffuse. There is no implication of cultural superiority as such. A tricky question…Is my ‘personal knowledge’ of the eonic effect flawed?
Are such judgments valid? We are on shaky terrain. Actually, it would seem that an immense evolutionary creative energy of the modern transition rapidly diffused via globalization, leaving the source areas in a strange condition???? Hard to analyze, but it is clear immediately what some of the problems are. Russia needs a new revolution, that is a new kind of revolution: a self-created modern transition. Our DMNC model suggests a way to do that because it is based on a comprehensive and balanced cultural project…And here a balanced reformism could thrive as a futuristic movement….But it needs a focussed platform, and that could be hard to initiate or define. The Christian Orthodox Church is a horrendous legacy, no Reformation there….!
As for the US, it is preening its feathers now as it challenges Russia, with some justification, but the US is pretty far gone behind it impressive exterior, its history, its sudden swing into great evils, destruction by covert agencies and imperialism, …capitalism. We should stop the analysis here, having made a basic point. Our model may be inadequate to this kind of judgmentalism, so we can tear up our notes and start again later, but in a murky sort of way we can see the problems and strange reverse symmetry of the two fringe zones, US and Russia.

Source: How to read Dostoevsky and Tolstoy during Russia’s war against Ukraine: scholar – Alternet.org

Source: How to read Dostoevsky and Tolstoy during Russia’s war against Ukraine: scholar  – 1848+: The End(s) of History