The eonic effect and generated religion…

The eonic effect shows the way religions (and secularism, and philosophies, and science…) emerge in the context of ‘eonic transitions’, three times, at least: emergent ‘Israelitism’, emergent early Buddhism, and the modern ‘protestant’ reformation. (the case in Sumer and Dynastic Egypt are also probable cases). This is remarkable but it is a caution against monotheistic ideas of revelation. The idea that ‘god’ intervenes in history is a classic monotheistic meme but it is almost certainly to us now a delusive concept. But wait: what on earth were the Israelites up to? Their perception was that only a ‘god’ could move them around like a chess piece and they were right in a sense. But to a closer look, we see that it is an illusion. The eonic model distinguishes ‘system action’ and free action, and early Israelitism by definition shows ‘system action’ mediating ‘free action, followed by ‘free action’ only after the ‘divide’, i.e. ca 600. The facts strangely match this model and Israelite history changes course or consolidates around just that period of the Exile, after which the tradition solidifies and stabilizes. So what the ‘blazes’ is system action, and what was it up to? In one case it generates an atheist religion, and in another a theism. And then in the modern case both a reformation and a following ‘secular’ enlightenment. We can stand back and ‘sort of’ see the obvious logic of all this, except for the case of the Israelites. The answer lies perhaps in an unknown ‘gnostic or semi-Buddhist abstraction or element that operates as an attractor in the teleological dynamics of the eonic effect. As system action passes into free action confusion arises and the outcome is filtered through polytheistic mindsets into a variant ‘god’ concept from just that polytheism. Whatever the case there is some abstraction deeper than vulgar ‘god’ concepts in the case of the attractor, if I may purloin the idea from systems dynamics theories. Teleology is elusive and stands behind two opposite outcomes. Small wonder monotheism navigated into a rock. But even if we end in secular humanism the case of the Israelites before 600 BCE looks miraculous: case in point: just at the right time, independent conquering ‘states’ like the Assyrians/Persians conquered and then displaced the ‘remnant’ into exile where (!) Zoroastrian and Israelite monotheism could be blended after which the Israelites returned home with a new monotheism blending Semitic and Indo-European elements on the way to a universal ideology that could in principle (in practice it didn’t quite) lead to a universal culture of the future. It is almost impossible not to conceive of a divinity at work before the rise of modern science. The experience of the ancient Israelites was totally nonrandom, small wonder it seemed miraculous. But we can begin to move on and see a strange dynamical system at work, one operating on a stupendous scale.
It is in fact a small world, and none other than the ‘evolutionary’ dynamic behind the emergence of homo sapiens (or homo idioticus) full of many such rabbits out of the hat.
The Bible Unearthed by Silberman and Finkelstein is the book to read here: we still barely know what actually did happen in the period between the mythical Solomon (?) and the Exile period. Note again, some mysterious process of the eonic evolutionary dynamic independently of human awareness blended two monotheism by moving a chess piece of Israelites to a blender zone, and then ….the tale turns into the history of human agents now armed with a strange new eonic production, and this in turn in a late set of effects (not system action) produced the first universal religion clearly foreseen in the Old Testament (sort of) and in the outcome produced two religions instead of one, a botched but still viable result. Not that early Israelitism shows system action but later early Christianity does not. All that means is that people can botch the whole outcome. Whatever the case, this is not god in history. So what is it? The eonic effect and model merely points to a dynamic, not its full explanation, but it can help to think of an abstraction, ‘creative energy’ as a common denominator to multiple parallel outcomes. Man makes himself, but not in any arbitrary way, in the vein of an evolutionary potential that creates new futures.
A bit fuzzy, but at least some indication, maybe.

Samkya_ancient_modern2ax(1) One of the ironies of the history of religious monotheism is that it ‘could have been’ an atheist religion, or, rather, ‘atheist’, in quotation m…

Source: An ‘atheist’ christianity…? – 1848+: The End(s) of History

An ‘atheist’ christianity…?


One of the ironies of the history of religious monotheism is that it ‘could have been’ an atheist religion, or, rather, ‘atheist’, in quotation marks, and thus have truly helped the ‘spiritual evolution’ (another dangerous term, replace at once?) of man. The only problem with monotheism is its gibberish concepts of god. The problem starts with the Israelites, whose conceptions of Yahweh were too primitive to sustain a genuine monotheism. The prophets sensed the problem,  and we have direct but now muddled evidence in the injunction to use the glyph ‘IHVH’ instead of the pop theistic Jehovah, but the crystallized culture of the jews ended up self-enclosed in a cult, a ‘cargo cult’ as la the view in Decoding World History.
Consider our cited text: Samkhya, Ancient and Modern: the history of early Christianity is very obscure and the doctrine of the Trinity, one of the most confusing pieces of religious theological idiocy ever, but smoking-gun evidence in fact that early Christianity was directly influenced by the Indic (atheist) Samkhya which shows the real meaning of ‘trinitarian’ spiritual concepts. We don’t have the evidence anymore, but the suspicion is that someone early on saw the mess of god concepts and tried via the trinity doctrines to create a sensible kind of ‘yogic’ wrapper for vulgar monotheism but that this, in turn, degenerated into the pop theism that is the curse of monotheism.
Note that, without endorsing Islam, that it also saw the problems with monotheism and specifically the hopeless degeneration of prayer: its remedy via a dignified formal type of prayer beyond the childish idiocy of the christian version is another hint that early Christianity slipped into the degraded superstition ‘god, gimme this, god, gimme that’ blasphemous prayer so visible in later eras. We see in sufism some sort of effort to in turn repair the confusion, in vain, one would think: a gnostic brand, with a better view, but then overlaid on the exoteric cult gibberish.
There is only one ‘solution’ to the theological entropy: ‘atheism’ in quotation marks (atheism as such is another confusion of theism!). Christianity could function far better if it simply ditched its pop theism which is a menace to psychological well being.

The abortion wars will end by eroding the hold of Christianity…

The theology of Christianity is flawed and unable to assess properly the abortion question: the result is leading to the end of the religion’s hold, except on the right-wing where imperialism and genocide are matched with concern for the unborn…

Source: The truth about Christianity and abortion is much messier than the religious right wants you to think –

  It is not true, false that a ‘god’ intervened in history to generate judeo-xtianity, so what explains them?

As we noted in the previous post, the terminal case of the Roman Empire was taken over by a strange religion, Christianity, that moved to try and repair the endstate of occidental civilization. In long run it did do that to do that to some degree.
Some might think that could happen again in modern times. But we can feel more or less confident that that won’t happen. Christianity belongs to another era and is really in its twilight. The emergence of Christianity is mysterious but we must suspect that some hidden teleology latent in the Judaic field suddenly spawned a continuation. Such speculations are risky and could impair our eonic model which so directly explicates at a vague high level the way the Israelite transition generated a monotheistic core and literature which then began to expand into a universal religion just at the dawn of the Roman empire. In the eonic model we can see that the Israelite core period from ca. 900 to 600 BCE is a typical ‘eonic transition’ and then after the Exile it crystallizes into a very strange tribal/national religion based on birth identity which then collides with the emergent Roman empire and here we see the mysterious birth of Christianity. We have passed beyond theistic explanations, so what is going on? We may never know: those at the start covered their tracks too well. But we can see overall that while Israelitism is a part of the eonic effect, Christianity is something else. The first in our terminology is ‘system action’ while Christianity is free action. Let us interject that ‘free action’ can be all sorts of things. But the core emerges out of Isrealitism and we suspect what jews always refused to accept that a larger religion of universal membership was latent, almost predicted, by Old Testament thinking. A series of tragic confusions appears from this strange state of affairs and we have to wonder if despite its massive success Chistianity and Israelitism soon Judaism foundered in their own complexity and produced the long history of antisemitism. But the restricted nature of the Israelite perspective had to make a radical turn to the universal and there the ‘devil’ entered the details (so to speak).
This history is about a god religion but nothing to do with god entering history. So we are left with a mystery.The Israelite case is clear as an eonic transition, but we suspect something else in the case of Christianity, beside its clear roots in Israelitism. But history leaves us with one spectacular clue: the parallel emergence of Mahayana. Axial interval yields two religions in spectacular parallel, (first stage) Buddhism ca. after 600 BCE, and Israelite monotheism. One theistic, the other atheistic)
We can see that the timing of this is a strange new mystery not a part of the eonic effect proper: the gestation of two universal religions, again in parallel: Christianity and Mahayana. There is something mysterious and the whatever that was it covered its tracks.

To return to our starting comment we can feel sure that the action of Christianity can never repeat itself and that to a high probability Judaism and Christianity will dissipate into secularism.
It is interesting to note that the slot taken up religion in antiquity has passed into leftist gestations, e.g. socialism/capitalism and there we can suspect the action of the future. But the marxist brand with its historical materialism has gone too far in the opposite direction and is a poor candidate for cultural regeneration. But we are under no obligation to take socialism in the Marxist sense, however apt some parts of that are. But historical materialism was strangely effective just at its moment: it made the socialist beginning a secular moment.
This ‘slot’ is not for a religion, but something that is once again the seeming chase plane effect. The eonic sequence generates a beginning and then sometimes sends a chase plane after. Christianity for the Roman Empire, and perhaps socialism for capitalism….
In any case the real history of Christianity has never been told andif anything the ‘god’ beliefs are a distraction. The religion category is worn out and we move to new categories. Chase pland isn’t entirely satisfactory, but is a start.

This book on China is compelling and invites comparison with the US. I should refrain instead, it is VERY hard to get it right, but some speculative warnings. There is something tragic about both C…

Source:  US, China: US, beacon of democracy or continental rape by a bunch of hooligans…? – 1848+: The End(s) of History

Israel, history, Zionism, and the eonic sequence
We have discussed several times the issues of antisemitism. There appears to be a resurgence of antisemitism in the US and elsewhere. Jewish spokesmen rightly condemn this but sadly the discussion has been warped by the issues of Israel which have compromised discussion: Jews denounce antisemitism even as they are silent on the question of Palestine, and wish to extend the definition of antisemitism to provide cover from the dreadful outcome of a monstrous new development: Israeli apartheid.

It might help to take the long view. I recommend Jews and Christians study the historical phenomenon of the eonic effect:

Decoding World History ED 1_6dcdx

The emergence of Israel is one the most remarkable in the classical phase of the eonic sequence. It emerges in parallel with Buddhism as the world system created two religions in parallel. But the final outcome is the emergence of Christianity. And it is the latter that moves to a larger world.
Here we should note that in the successive eras of history, religions seeded in one era pass away in the next.
And that is what we are seeing in modern times. Jews and Christians made a huge contribution to the evolution of civilization and now they are being absorbed into their own outcome as modern society.
The emergence of the Bible seems like a spiritual operation but in terms of the eonic effect is was a corpus of literature that becomes an instrument of cultural integration of manifold peoples in the context of Christianity. This operation was a huge success but history has moved on and the attempt to defy the process at hand results in more and more frantic confusion in the attempt to fight the future.
Jews and Christians moved into modernity and thrived. But then the phenomenon of Zionism in parallel with the Holocaust completely undermined sanity on all sides.
The Holocaust is a mystery in itself. It is an historical deviation of the absolute worst variety. The eonic sequence has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The eonic sequence looks after its own and moved its earlier phases into a new future of secular society where they thrived. The eonic effect shows a clear distinction of system action and free agency, moves with its timed input as system action then at the divide around 1800 the character of the system can change as free agency takes the stage. The point here is that this later aspect passes beyond control and can derail. The Holocaust has to be one of the most tragic cases of this. It is incomprehensible. It has bewildered Jews and Christians alike and made a confusing situation worse.
But the answer is not to look backward. Then history will foreclose on you, perhaps. The jews of the nineteenth century had the right idea. And the emergence of figures like Einstein shows the real outcome of our strange macro process whose evolutionary action is to move the world’s peoples to a new stage. In the process, the eonic sequence produced a  rapid upgrade to one of the most intelligent people in the world. To suddenly lose six million here to the Holocaust was an evolutionary calamity.

It is unfortunate that the Zionist experiment so quickly became so malevolent. Why that happened is not clear but surely the effect of the Holocaust was key. OK, but the
question of a modern Israel is problematical. It is a fait accompli now but its action has stultified Jews (who first protested the zionist action) and givens license to the most idiotic and retrograde jews who wish to effect an historical impossibility, a recursion of Old Testament land grab that goes on and is in the process of destroying
the intelligence of a once remarkable culture. The Israeli thugs in trying to annex Palestine are a far worse threat to Jewish history than antisemites.

There is a lot more to say here, but the nature of a classic tragedy is more or less clear.
The core confusion here is the myth that god acts in history. This confusion arose in relation to the attempt to create a pure monotheism and corrupted the idea with a fallacy about its own self-referential emergence and that has compromised both religions. The ancient Israelites were really discovering the eonic effect and were the first to see the Axial Age in action, albeit from a limited perspective. In a way, the Zionists at least saw the reality of the secular age. But now a phantasm of ancient Israel in the modern middle east has put the question of Jewish culture into retrograde motions in the erosion of the great gifts of the eonic sequence.

Archive: Protestant Reformed Secular Humanism:…’atheist’ christianity…the rogue term ‘god’… 

The real point here is not ‘atheism’ which is often itself incoherent, but the imaginary claims for salvation, faith, etc, etc…The whole fraudulent core of its theology.
Christians simply reincarnate like most others….

Protestant reformed secular humanism…’atheist’ xtianity…the rogue term ‘god’… June 13th, 2018 • As monotheism dissipates it might be helpful to recast secular humanism in a broader perspective. A t…

Source: Protestant Reformed Secular Humanism:…’atheist’ xtianity…the rogue term ‘god’… – Darwiniana

 Operational atheism : were the original Christians ‘atheists’?

Update: it is bit too provocative to call early Christians ‘atheists’, obviously, but the Doctrine of the Trinity, in its preposterous grandeur shows that some former pagans had trouble grasping the one god idea, but the legacy of Judaism rushed into the void. Sometimes pagans actually considered Christians to be ‘atheos’, etc… The quotes around atheists is important.

The issue of theism and atheism is hide-bound in the Christian/Islamic brands. And even there the history is distorted. Operational atheism is a term that can be used by those who are neither theist or atheist but none the less reject the historical ‘theism’ of monotheism, These belief systems are so fragile beyond ‘faith’ dogma that they fall apart and discredit theism. But there is no reason one can’t develop or recast the ideas in some new form. But all such efforts tend to be thrown into the same bucket.

We can adopt another approach and our essay on Samkhya/ancient/modern is an example, sort of…
We know little about the beliefs of early Christians outside of the Judaic monotheism.
Strangely the doctrine of the Trinity shows some early Christians either as ‘atheists’ in some sense as they consider the Indic Samkhya and its triadic cosmology.
Completely lost to us now, but the Chruch Fathers and their milieu must have been confronted over and over with many different brands. Samkhya as a atheist path suddenly
appears in a Christian form, and this confounds our sense of the history of early Christianity.
The demand for faith was completely destructive of any chance of really understanding anything.

My comment: The issue isn’t really atheism, one way or the other. It is the theory of natural selection. Beyond any theological issue, that theory is false and Darwinism collapses. Some think…

Source: Evolution and atheism: discussion at – 1848+: The End(s) of History