World history, the eonic effect, and ‘religion’

The famous and eloquent passage on religion by Marx tends to disguise its misanalysis of religion. The latter is not a simple entity to ‘analyze’ and while secular humanism rightly attempts liberation from false religion it does notion general find its true understanding.
Here the eonic model can help to see that in the classical era religions emerged in the context of the ‘evolution of civilization, often deviating from their starting points to social ideologies with political aspects of domination. But that does not really justify the reductionist assumptions said to liberated thought from ‘religion’. The result was imply inadequate as an analysis of religion as such, here meant perhaps the case of the very weak and distorted Christianity of the era after Constantine. The evolution of man has always generated vehicles to deal with his unique, and uniquely confusing psychology with its ambiguities of ‘consciousness’.

Karl Marx, in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1843), famously said: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.”

Source: Marx, Spinoza, and the Political Implications of Contemporary Psychiatry –

art/music and the eonic effect…//‘The War on Music’ Review: Songs Without Listeners – WSJ

The question is complex and we have addressed it here many times: one part of the answer relates to the dynamic of the eonic effect and the way that ‘modern’/so-called ‘classical’ music (from ?Monteverdi to twentieth-century at the outside) is directly correlated with the latter half of the modern transition, peaks near the ‘divide’ ca. 1800 plus/minus with e.g. Mozart and Beethoven and then starts to damp out but with major great work with Verdi to Puccini, then that’s it. It resembles a car running out of gas. The correlation is so striking to a student of the eonic model that we see this is not coincidence and suggests that this music is jumpstarted by the larger ‘macro’ process and starts to damp out after the transition. It joins the flood of innovations correlated with the modern transition. This is incomprehensible without careful study of the ‘eonic effect’ as a whole. This creates a dilemma: to what degree is human creativity spontaneous and due to human autonomy? We should perhaps conclude that without the eonic macro effect modern music would never have happened, but that at one and the same time human talent and genius is essential and prior to a larger process that triggers its realization. Flowers are flowers but with fertilizer they thrive at a higher level. This case is invaluable because we can see what is possible for man outside the eonic sequence: viz. medieval to early Renaissance music, and dozens of global cases. There is a gap here which our model might be too crude to account for directly and the gestation of modern music as we call it has some earlier phase in the sixteenth century. That’s another fifty books added to the ten thousand indicated by the whole eonic effect, so this is a field of open study.
Thus we have one clue to the sudden waning of modern/classical music. But we should note that what follows is of value in its own right, by definition because it falls into the category of free agency next to the macro induction in the main phase. But it is also true that many simply dislike what follows in the realm of post-melodic atonal or whatever music.
We have lost the ancient Greek sense of the arts and their muses and while that is inevitable with a mythical polytheism of muses the Greeks did grasp that there is some larger process in the creativity of man. The point is directly evident at the start of the Iliad as Homer invokes his muse. That thinking won’t help here save to note that creativity is individual yet bound up in greater nature and more exactly with macro historical evolution.
Looking backward we see ominously how rapidly cultural tone can decay and enter a kind of equilibrium without creative energy. But if we have been there before ours might the first age that can reckon with its macro-dynamics and while I share a classic music fan’s feeling askance with recent work the actual state of affairs might conceal some prophecy of a future music at full human autonomy.
It is not clear why the genre of classical music should suddenly stop even with our larger explanation. It seems like the vein of music possibilities from which the Mozart’s draw should be infinite and yet we see the whole field suddenly abandoned for atonal, etc, experimental forms.

This won’t make much sense at first. This is a complex advanced example and it might help to study the overall eonic effect as outlined in World History and the Eonic Effect, or Decoding World History. World history has a mysterious design, and much of its great art, and much else, shows creative induction of some kind.

Every concertgoer knows it: Most classical music written since 1945 ranges from boring to unendurable. What went wrong?

Source: ‘The War on Music’ Review: Songs Without Listeners – WSJ

the eonic effect: a glimpse of evolution?!…//On Darwinism and the Abdication of Reason | Evolution News

This is an excellent piece of critical/secular Darwiniana, and in the context today of beating Marxists over the head, a useful reminder that a secular humanist can see through Darwinism and survive cancel culture, although I fear that being published in the ID site shows still dark clouds overhead. I have often berated Marxists for their inability to shake off Darwinism, with its atrocious social Darwinist crypto-ideology. Continue reading “the eonic effect: a glimpse of evolution?!…//On Darwinism and the Abdication of Reason | Evolution News”

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


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 –

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