Is the stupidity of the professoriat beyond repair?

I am often critical of the realm of professors, given the evidence of academic confusion over Darwinism, but beyond that I am simply baffled at what appears to be an ingrained and closed mindset.
Among others of Kant scholars. My thinking on what I call Kant’s Challenge in World History and the Eonic Effect, and then in a separate book as above, remains de facto censored (canceled) by academic circles. These books point to a clear answer, I would say more, ‘solution’ to the challenge he raised in his classic essay on history.
In the twenty-one years since this book was self-published via POD, not a single historian or Kant scholar has commented on this clearly outlined solution. Zero. That’s remarkable. It says something about Kant scholarship and historians in general, but finally on academic structures. It shows the way peer-reviewed publication as an academic monopoly backfires and keeps thinking enclosed in rigidly closed mindset. Apparently that’s even true of Kant scholars in Germany who seem to consider independent scholars as vermin apparently and wouldn’t descend to mention my work in any way, let alone comment. The result here is that professors closed in their system can’t think anymore, and that results in slow but steady distortion of general opinion. Here the grave dignity of the professors is mere Tom Sawyer to the yankee Huck Finn, making faces, and about to tend to his dead possum.
And it leaves the field in some ways to outsiders. Strangely, in many cases, professionals can’t compete with amateurs and can’t above all acknowledge that.

Let me say at once that I am not as such a Kantian, and have never taken a college course in Kant: I am self-taught in Kant’s thinking and find his Critique of Pure Reason needs a slow reading course in a university. The sections on the transcendental deduction are difficult, although a simple glimpse is possible: it is a distant relative of Advaita thinking. With that Kant is all the more remarkable. Let me note that a figure like Schopenhauer tries to simplify. But this is not our topic. None of this difficulty is needed for our discussion. But I have a rough outline understanding of his work find his work on the antinomies essential. And in any case not much Kant is required to read, and explicate his essay on history. The solution to what he is saying is to see he is asking a question. Unfortunately, Kant subtly blunders by suggesting his own answer, apparently, in the concept of ‘asocial sociability’. But the question Kant is asking requires a far broader range of thinking. And the eonic effect begins to answer that. It should be said that without a larger data set including the Neolithic, no solution can be considered final. But the eonic effect is a good start, and you will find slowly but surely that there is probably no other solution, granting that in such a vast subject that it is hard to even reference the whole data set, let alone explain it. But the solution to Kant’s question is actually rather simple, because it seems to succeed by default.
Here, by all means, disagree. But in this environment, since you can’t even mention certain people you can’t reference their work, and probably won’t ever hear about it, and cannot deign to comment in any way. A fatal trap in this case.
But there are reasons for all this, as I can only guess. The reign of professorial authority via peer review etc is not able to contradict reigning paradigms. For starters, no professor as far as I can see (as a Kant scholar) can disagree with Kant’s own view, which is almost incidental in any case, and wrong. He in fact is asking a question. Kant is pre-Darwin, and any comment is likely to challenge Darwin, not least for its teleological query. Kant of course had his own problems: he is harsh on Machiavelli and dislikes lying in politicians and ended in a debate over that, with Benjamin Constant. That’s a tough one and requires careful assessment of his classic ethics, but in the age of Trump, one has to wonder at Kant’s insistence or prescience here. But none of this pertains to his question which requires no Kant at all (although I have wondered in the eonic model if some macro  mechanized evolutionary process doesn’t do something resembling the categorical imperative at the level of evolutionary directionality????) But one can cite this to acknowledge that challenging Kant is entirely possible, but mostly forgotten in the tide of Marx, Hegel, Darwin, Nietsche, Heidegger, etc…
Leave that aside and we see that the eonic effect shows a directional system, an evolutionary creativity, a clear outline of the transitional driver of civilizations in sequence and parallel, etc…
As an empirical demonstration, the result is on solid footing even if incomplete. An incomplete table puzzle often shows its overall pattern even if partially completed. The solution is too simple and too obvious to reject completely.

At this point, one needs to give up on professors if only to laugh instead of hate, and only contempt for academic structures remains. This is unkind but such people would kill critics if they could. This kind of confusion in the end is dangerous to society.

I think that as the Darwin paradigm starts to collapse the world will have to ask, how could so many experts be so idiotic? The social construct could collapse. Perhaps then the issue of Kant’s challenge might come to the surface. But it need not wait and takes a half hour of your time. In the classic saith-he of Patton, nuts! Oh well, try again, another email to the journal Kant-Studien.

The eonic effect versus marxist economic historicism

The last series of posts of today show the difficulty of studying world history, evolution, and much else. The results are immensely complex and prone to disintegration with the wrong kind of applied theory. The Marxist project in this context is unrealistic and too reductionist. We see that world history is too complex for economic explanations. The left needs to beware then, as the example of Bolshevism makes obvious, applying too narrow analyses to cultural totalities. This is said as a kind of warning of what is already the case: Marxists are wasting their breath because the general culture will not buy into a Marxist cultural system.
But this is not a rejection of socialism or communism. These are more than adapted already to world historical evolution and emerge in the contextg of the modern transition and the appearanceof capitalism. Marxist confused everyone by th eway Marx took control of the ideas of the early socialists and drove them out of business with his own flawed formulation. There is much of value in Marx, but a viable socialism (neo-communism) needs a new framework. We have provide an example very easily. Marxists are closed in a cult and will doubtfully listen here. The spell of Marx is too great. But his overall corpus of theory is mediocre and leads to wrong results, if not Stalinism.

 From system generation to free agency…

This is a Press It post of a repost, the previous post.

We should comment that radical new insights into history are very difficult to promote into general culture, here in the US, which is a closed set of mindsets constricted by overspecialization, Darwinian propaganda, crypto-ideological conditioning on capitalism, the myths of democracy turning into oligarchy, academic fixations of the professorial caste, plus the still outstanding religious ideologies, i.e. religions, fading rapidly. Believe it or not an amateur and speed reader can do better than all these experts subjected to constraints that limit free thinking. It is very hard to extricate from this nexus.

The US is in trouble.
A moment of reckoning is coming: look at the American system: behind a veneer of democracy capitalism, oligarchy, imperialism, and several longer lists of the evils, is almost defunct. It can barely function at this point…It is a record so dire behind the excuse of social darwinism.

People hyping theories can be tiresome but I would nevertheless venture that the ‘eonic effect’ is the only glimpse of evolution that we have, albeit the evolution of civilization, not …

Update/addendum: this is valid because the discussion is of factual patterns in a reasonable context of analysis that doesn’t presume to ‘theory’ (as distinguished in our terminology from ‘model’ or empirical chronology). If you stick to these limits you get a surprise: you see the dynamic that would be the candidate for a historical science, but too complicated and requiring an immense amount of reading, and of high quality scholarly books, and not just that, but reading distributed over the whole of history in multiple regions. With this balance, a strange pattern of world history suddenly stands out, in a fragment. It was almost discovered in the nineteenth century and Karl Jaspers was another case of ‘almost’ as he sailed right past the eonic effect.
But analysis suddenly enters the realm of ‘serious heresies’, like teleology in biology and history, and there is no safe methodology for that. But the fact needs to be faced that human civilization shows a strange something directing it. The Israelites had a sense of it but fell into a rabbit hole of theistic historicism that confused the issue.
And the Israelite view was still very limited. Strangely the Buddhists couldn’t detect it although Gautama had a sense of ‘cycles of dharma’ in different age periods, another almost an almost. This ‘eonic effect’ (the term was a poor choice, most people can’t pronounce it), is basically a total world history now annexing the first higher civilizations in Sumer and Egypt, plus the Neolithic, plus the Paleolithic, plus guesswork about the early evolution of ‘species man’. Suddenly (five thousand years is a minimum) we see a system of progressive cyclicity, with two full cycles and the start of a third, our present.

I invite you to critique this perspective with its rock solid foundation in evidence. But cancel culture allows no critiques of outside views. The can’t be allowed to be said to exist.
Here we get a shock: we fail to realize just how much our cultural history is generated in a larger system in a series of transitions. Once those transitions stop man is suddenly on his own, in the past with disastrous results. We exited the modern transition ca. 1800 (called the divide point) and in antiquity after two centuries past 600 BCE (an earlier divide point) everything seemed to fell apart. This macro effect has an inner dilemma: if you overcontrol the system would be mechanical, if you undercontrol it would become chaos. In fact we see that in antiquity.
So what does the future hold for us now? Ominous signs of chaos are already apparent. We will discuss this again later. Suddenly a state of relative insanity had Trump, who came close to sabotaging the whole system. .There is much more there like that.
At the current rate of disintegration the US will soon no longer be a democracy, if it ever was one.
Anyway these discussions assume a lot of study, in the dilemma of historical blindness.

Sadly there is no way the professional cadre will ever gain this insight although it is not too distant from the ‘end of history’ debate (a hopeless muddle) but done right, without the Marx or Hegel, or Adam Smith, or….
The fate of Rome was a grim verdict on human self-evolution. We are now at the testing point moving into a self-generated future, without the hidden director. Man must test himself as a free agent. Previous eras have all failed. So what now? Homo sapiens is a pretty creepy hominid. Best of luck. A second massive failure probably spells the doom of this species. Hope I scared you. You can’t invoke religion a this point as way out. The christian legacy is very misleading and archaic at this  point.

Source:  Intractable evolutionary complexity, and a glimpse via the eonic effect – 1848+: The End(s) of History

Direct correlation with eonic sequence?!///Human Progress –

Decoding World History ED1_dwh1x

It is worth considering this fascinating depiction in terms of the ‘eonic effect’ so-called to see that with one exception all these advances correlate with the modern transition and its direct succession! The exception is Gandhi’s non-violence which is perhaps slightly out of place in the overall pattern. The challenge of non-violence should nonetheless be considered but in the larger picture where key advances provoked a need to fight for the future. Notably the Civil War is a reminder that non-violence was not able to overcome slavery. The overall question of progress is thus ambiguous to some degree. But in any case a look at the eonic sequence shows that almost all the key advances in civilization emerge in the context of the eonic effect. And that as the construct of civilization pulls away from a ‘transition’ period, the risk of things falling apart seems to increase. The period of Archaic to classical Greece like the modern case was cluster of advances, but still inside a ambiguous level of ‘civilization’ and that after two centuries beyond the ‘divide’ point 600 BCE or now 1800 AD the system effect wanes and the overall result can regress. The history of occidental civilization after 400 BCE is downhill for centuries as the era of Rome, empire and high barbarism took hold. In fact, Archaic Greece was still in a mixed state and the Greek Enlightenment so to speak was still somewhat feeble.

We should consider the eonic model because with uncanny recurrence two centuries after 1800 see democracy in trouble again, and we need to consider that the fate of ancient regression need not be ours. Suddenly a battle against democracy has arisen from the right. Right on shcedule.
It is a confusing model of history, no doubt, and not as such a science but a way to assess the meaningful dynamic of historical progression..

Mot of what we have so far is a gift. From now on we are one our own.

The question of non-violence is ambiguous: the facts are clear: the elements of modern progress are not keyed in any clear way with non-violence.

Americans are not longer trustworthy agents of progress. The classic American democracy is already corrupt, and we have to wonder if a system now so spoiled has any future cogency? Look at the record. The US has for decades done everything it can to undermine democracy in Latin America, for example. That bodes ill for the future.

Enormous human betterment has occurred since The Enlightenment, chiefly because crusading liberals overcame conservative resistance, time after time. Modern democracy arose because America’s radical founders renounced the divine right of kings and took up arms against England and George III. They created government of the people, with no aristocracy. Slavery ended because radical abolitionists hammered More

Source: Human Progress –

World history beyond theory via periodization

The world desperately needs a new formulation or framework for the left: a modified Marxist plus reformist package, would be useful, but one suspects that the reputation of Marxist ideology has been crippled by its legacy. And also by its confusions of theory.
The historical periodization of epochs in Marx is useless now, and seems like an ideological fix.
Feudalism is not a stage of history nor is capitalism.

We suggest below a much simpler periodization, one that could lead to a whole new set of studies of actual economies in world history, starting in the Paleolithic/Neolithic.

The point here is that socialism/communism need to be constructed. They can’t be prophesied by a theory without specifics.

Although theories of world history usually fail, our periodization as below suggests there is a hidden dynamic but it is not a set of economic epochs.

The ‘end of history’ argument is fallacious: socialism (communism) and democracy emerge in parallel in the modern period and ask for a hybrid blend of the two.
Marx beyond his theories saw the dilemma of liberalism, but the attempt to pitch democracy against communism failed disastrously.
We need to create a new kind of political system and we can’t screw it up as did the Bolsheviks….

————archive post…
A system of epochs done right….
August 30th, 2018 ·

The eonic effect shows the very simple (and still mysterious) solution to the question of historical epochs: Continue reading “World history beyond theory via periodization”

The eonic effect versus ‘alien contact’///Watch Close Encounters of the Fifth Kind: Contact Has Begun | Prime Video

Anyone studying the issue of extraterrestrials ought to take a look at the eonic effect. I have often had a reserve hypothesis the two were connected, but in fact, I don’t think so. But the issues connect at the margins because the emergence of life up through homo sapiens and then the emergence of civilization are in the end cosmological subjects, or so I suspect. The eonic effect is a planetary outcome in the cradle of earth life. It is therefore the default null contact: with the cosmological sources of evolution, and here Darwinism is of no use. Man interacts with a planetary system that evolves man/wo/man. The data on advanced civilizations we must suspect is already here but we have to realize or manifest at our own pace, given however powerful periods of transition such as we see in the eonic series. It would be pointless to bestow man with solutions to his problems or super-advanced technology. Or some escape from chronic tragic/modern human failure. My guess that something like fine-tuning operates at a planetary level and cradles the coming of life. Exactly how does it do that? Something like the eonic sequence suggests at once the answer.
Alien beings can’t traverse the universe and do the homework of student hominids.
The problem with alien contact is, what is an advanced civilization from stars going to do with homo sapiens. Consider, say, the aliens had arrived at the period of the early Roman empire. What are they going to do? establish contact with the Roman emperors and teach advanced technology. The absolute best to do is to leave homo sapiens alone.
But is our present any different? What alien being would wish travel to earth to make contact with…the CIA? Earth politicians?

Man in terms of the eonic effect has entered a critical period, like a period of ‘final examination’, in the terms of the model system action yields to free action and man has to realize the inputs of ‘evolution’ without the macro helper. A dangerous moment. The past gives an ominous warning. The progression from say Athens to Rome is a degeneration of great severity and tragedy. Man never recovered until the next phase of the eonic series. Will the same happen to the outcome of the most recent transition?
Whatever the case the one thing you can’t do is enter an examination room and kibbitz answers. The suspense here is considerable. We can see that one of the questions for this exam is to produce democracy. We can see that man was prompted twice to construct demoncracy. Man was unable to produce democracy without the eonic sequence jumpstarting that trial. The modern case finally seemed to be happening. But already we can see the chaotification setting in.
The dilemmas of human evolution are thus elusive but would seem to not have any advantage in alien contact.
The above may be false, as to interpretation, but the outcome of the eonic process is fairly clear and just doesn’t need alien intervention, even if man goes extinct.

This is by no means a decisive conclusion. Sufis have sometimes claimed that alien contact has already happened with the planet Sirius and that there is a hidden connection. I think that is unlikely, but sufis have no faq here.
The point is that the question may be still more complex than what we have said, but if so it is not clear just why.
But let us reiterate the issue of planetary evolution: a mysterious local process is the de facto status of cosmic contact in the slow/fast evolution of man over the millennia of his existence.

The eonic effect, world history, racism, slavery and the modern transition.

The eonic effect is too much to take in all at once and needs a study plan and reading.
The opinion here of academics et al who preside over the regime of Darwinism is not relevant.
Break away from all that.
But a new way to study history is needed, perhaps with some help from computers.
This is a response to an email from a reader of WHEE4thed after asking
for any attempts to critique the eonic model.
Here is a part of that email with its question, a good one, but
it is important to get the eonic model down cold: Decoding World History, is a start.
The question is about the ‘frontier effect’ and the way the ‘eonic sequence’ never steps in the same spot twice.

Here is the good question, a good one, and a softball pitch for the eonic model. The question does not follow the definition Continue reading “The eonic effect, world history, racism, slavery and the modern transition.”

The eonic effect, world history, racism, slavery and the modern transition.

The eonic effect is too much to take in all at once and needs a study plan and reading.
The opinion here of academics et al who preside over the regime of Darwinism is not relevant.
Break away from all that.
But a new way to study history is needed, perhaps with some help from computers.
This is a response to an email from a reader of WHEE4thed after asking
for any attempts to critique the eonic model.
Here is a part of that email with its question, a good one, but
it is important to get the eonic model down cold: Decoding World History, is a start.
The question is about the ‘frontier effect’ and the way the ‘eonic sequence’ never steps in the same spot twice.

Here is the good question, a good one, and a softball pitch for the eonic model. The question does not follow the definition
given in the book and the question of ‘chosen people’ and Western cultures is not relevant.
The Frontier effect shows how development balances over ten thousand years to include the whole globe.
The European issue is not relevant overall. The eonic effect is not about Europe or European civilization.
But these are the obsessions of the right and have no place in this model. The eonic effect is indeed only partially balanced, at first.
Europe is a zone of barbarism until it enters the Roman Empire. All the fundamentals of civilization
are already in existence while Europe is a latecomer that enters world history in the spread of the neolithic, and then
indirectly as it enters the Roman diffusion field. We cannot pass judgement of an exam until the end. If we
are in the middle some parts will seem advanced and others not so.
From the email:

Now, I wonder about your model and the so-called “frontier effect” I think you called it: that the transitions starts from a localized place and then spreads out to other cultures.
Isn’t there a risk that this could also be misused by right-wingers and white supremacists to suggest that since the transitions often start in the Western culture that the hidden theological factor driving history also favors the Western culture, almost like a “chosen people” kind of thing? Do you have any particular thoughts on the unevenness of cultural development vis-à-vis nature’s “plan”?

The statement of the frontier effect is not quite correct here: its basis is tricky.
I doubt if the Right would ever touch this material. It contradicts their view
in every way. But the scale of the eonic effect is that of millennia, not even centuries.
By that standard, in the year 2800 BCE the culture of Sumer
might have seemed dominant and Sumero-centrism a problem.
A millennium later no one can even remember its existence
even as the immensity of its contributions had spread throughout
the ancient world. The same fate awaits ‘Eurocentrism’ which
isn’t even a correct depiction of anything beyond rightist idiocy.
Eurocentrism is totally irrelevant to the model. Each stepping stone
may have a brief reign but is soon over. The endstate
of antiquity as the Roman Empire was not an eonic effect!
It was a barbaric mess in the fading of the Greek advance.

The frontier effect is simply the observation that the ‘eonic sequence’
never acts twice in a given area and moves often to an adjacent zone:
the classic case is Israel that is on the frontier of Egypt.
Egypt was very advanced then, Israel primitive, but the next phase
briefly favors the almost evanescent (Israel/Juday) ‘Israel’.
Note that Archaic Greece is a frontier effect because like Israel
it has never seen the eonic sequence

The modern transition (not Europe) shows the way the eonic sequence
jumps to a localized subset of the European zone in the modern transition.
The transitions don’t act on ‘Europe’ but on the frontier
of the Old Roman Empire. European civilization is a misnomer.
The modern transition only occurs once in a cluster of zones,
Germany, Holland, England, France, Spain.
That does not include the US (or Russia). The modern
transition is balanced in its own way.
It does require a long view, millennia, not centuries.
Already European dominance is past.

The US is not a transition zone but does act as
a part of the English transition just at the end with
the democratic experiment. Russia has no transition, but
then just at the end of the nineteenth century seems to
show some of its aspects. Russia is beset with having
missed most of the modern transition, then attempted Bolshevism
on an inadequate basis.
The US was an immense field into which modern aspects
flowed but it has been, along with Russia in many ways a hopeless failure
as we can see now. Butin its own way, a globals success. What is the right judgment?
But it became an adjunct to the
English transition and staged the saga of abolition, a huge achievement. The US is
a huge experiment in the diffusion zone of the modern transition. It became a field
of capitalist expansion, but the economic aspect is secondary.
And capitalism can destroy a whole field of culture.
Russia ditto became an experiment in socialist transformation.

To be fair, the factor of slavery was an outstanding disease
of world culture. The US resembles Rome, not Greece: it is
adjunct of the English transition. (and for a while competing with
a French version). The US rose to the challenge of abolition, a world historical
So the US is in the diffusion field of England more or less (plus the others)
and was a staging ground for an immense experiment, and, for a while,
was to set the example of democracy. But the last seventy years have seen the
whole thing turn into an imperialist capitalism and criminal state.
What the future holds is not clear. The issue leaves a question mark.
The probability is the kind of endstate barbarism like Rome.
I doubt that could happen again, but the US already shows the dread
signs of a failed experiment. The problem seems to be its capitalist religion.
Thus all this has nothing to do with Europe as such and the diffusion field
springs into existence so fast that by the end of the nineteenth century
the modern transition has spread its effects almost to the whole globe.
Look carefully: Japan modernizes almost faster than the US
and is an industrial powerhouse within decades, an amazing achievement.
The modern transition is hardly a Eurocentric feat of the West.
Please note that the larger diffusion field complains of imperialism but the real action
that is the set of modern innovations, not empires or capitalist success stories. Imperialism is a mistake of all too human states.

The global sphere has adopted modern eonic effects with alacrity. The operation is very balanced: it starts in the Levant around 10K years ago
moves to Egypt/Sumer, then five parallel areas: Greece, Israel (Zonoastrian Persia), India, China. The frontier effect thus has nothing
to do with Europe as such. Good to consult the book. Europe is a late comer to all of this.
But the scale of centuries and millennia, and shows over the long term
the dominance of any area is illusory.

The whole thing is very much balanced, but incomplete. That is a way to maximize the area covered in a balanced way.
White Supremacists could never use this model. Look at Africa: until England and Europe entered
the Roman (greek) diffusion field and began to catch up and take off.
The Neolithic African sphere was at the same level as Neolithic England until the first millennium BCE
African Neolithic culture which seems to source in Western Africa spread by diffusion to the
whole continent, a mighty achievement given its geographical challenge. Most later explorers
were dead in a week in the topical problematic. Note that the stage of the Neolithic is a
stage of civilization, and the most basic fundamental.
We tend to judge history from our present, but that’s like entering
an exam room and judging before the operation is finished.
We must await judgment til the end of the eonic transformation in the
future. The white supremacist judgment here is complete idiocy.

The modern (not Western) transition is a global effect via a local transition.
The ‘frontier effect’ is a strange notion, but it is the only explanation
that works to explain the complicated facts of world history.
You would think ancient Egypt was so advanced that it would go to the next stage
very easily. Instead the eonic sequence moves to the middle of nowhere,
Canaan with cultures still prone to child sacrifice (cf. the Old Testament
vestigial example in the sacrifice of Isaac). Then within three centuries
‘Israel’ with a lot of prior contact with Egypt accelerates from 900 BCE
to 600 BCE to an advanced stage culture with a whole new literature which
becomes a new instrument for diffusions field, once that for its time
was a huge success.It was an attempt to spread culture via religion instead
of conquest, but as we can see by the time of the conquistadors
that aspect had vanished.
So as we can see the pattern of the eonic effect is indeed balanced
across Eurasia. and Arica, leaving the question of the New World up in the air and which becomes a
diffusion field, consult the book here for issues like Mayan civilization.
White supremacists are hopeless idiots left behind by history moving rapidly
in new directions. The idea of the chosen people is Israelite in origin
and starts out right: the eonic sequence selects an advance zone, and that’s all
The idea should be retired frankly. The issue of racism, again, is a deviation,
and the current attempts to correct this in the Americas are crucial to the future
of America lest it fall behind into the usual historical oblivion.
It takes time to grasp the eonic effect: it comprises so many different aspects
it has to be taken in stages of study.
Note then that Europe is not a subject of the eonic effect.
The modern transition, soon a global oikoumene, points to a set of frontier areas
and stages a remarkable global transformation in a matter of a few centuries.

Decoding World History ED 1_6dcdx