Many of the points in this essay are well taken but I would recommend that all parties move beyond using the term ‘western civilization’: in the eonic model the term has no real status and what we look at is the relationship of regions to one whole. There we see the relatively late advance in the ‘west’ of eurasia in relation to a frontier effect. Many in the ‘west’ fail to see that the weest so-called is simply a frontier zone with an eonic transition whose effect is to generate a global oikoumene….
The strangest part of the ‘end of history’ confusion is that it points to something real but in a form that has suffered hopeless confusion of terms. From garbled hegel to leftist then rightist meme juggling the crypto-teleological term that came into being has courted pseudo-science, ideological tug of war, and neo-liberal apotheosis. Continue reading “Kant, origins of ‘end of history’ meme, and the place of free agency”
I would be wary indeed of using aesthetics in evaluating theories, the issue remains significant. Even as an incomplete ‘not yet a theory’ the eonic model shows a kind of elegance in the way nature ‘evolves’ civilizations and the path to reconciling the contradictions of freedom and and determination. And the evolutionary (in the sense of the eonic model) injection of creativity as potential in the stupendous display of art in civilizational emergence remains almost unnerving when compared with the stolid idiocy of most historical sociology…
Not without interest this article nonetheless fails to get to the real significance of the so-called Renaissance. In fact the issue is not the Renaissance but what we call the modern transition taken as the interval from 1600 AD to 1800 followed by what we call the modern period as such, in the analysis of the eonic model. In fact this essay is a typical observation of the eonic effect. This transition is complicated by its Eurocentric focus
We cannot understand this phenomenon in isolation and must begin to see the larger pattern of such transitions and their geographical placement starting with Egypt/Sumer ca. 3000 BCE and then the secondary period (sometimes called the Axial Age) ca. 900 to 600 BCE.
In fact we see signs of the phenomenon already in the Neolithic and become suspicious that a hidden macroevolutionary driver is at work in the emergence of civilization. A so-called ‘frontier effect’ is at work and each phase shows a restart in an adjacent region: thus the center of gravity of the rise of civilization is in the Afro-Eurasian core, while the modern transition jumps to the frontier of the heretofore untouched sphere of Europe, and there only a small subset of Europe.
This macro effect cannot be explained as the ‘expansion of the power of the bourgeoisie’, a dose of marxist jargon that will try too shoe horn a ‘materialist/economic’ interpretation that won’t work. In fact the ‘renaissance’ as such is different from the eonic effect as the modern transition and comes before the modern transition: it fact the later part of that so-called period shows the modern transition in action. But the fine art of the ‘renaissance’ are really seeded in the medieval period. The Borgias don’t cut it compared with the first of the modern revolutions: the Reformation. The point is obscure at first and we can see that the distinction can be set aside for later study…
It is probably not true therefore to call this a unique period unequaled in history. Almost invisible to us now the era of the Sumerian take off in the transition leading up to ca. 3000 BCE is probably the most fertile period standing at the dawn of higher civilization. But then again we suspect the true sources in the Neolithic. Continue reading “why marxists can’t get history straight…//Leonardo Da Vinci: artist, thinker and revolutionary”
Here are the three sections on the ‘eonic model’ from Chapter 4 of World History and the Eonic Effect
The first reference to the distinction is here, scroll down or use the search box
The ‘Eonic Evolution’ of Civilization We can call the evidence of our three turning points the ‘eonic’ or intermittent evolution of civilization, as some form of ‘macroevolution’ turning into history. Then we can keep rough track of the two levels of history we detect in the eonic effect. This will create a puzzle of two distinct forms of action, one inside the eonic pattern, one outside. We will say that system action shows ‘eonic determination’, or macro-action, while behavior outside of it is simply ‘free action’, or ‘micro-action’.
3.5 A New Model of History: Eonic Evolution
The historical emerges from the unknown, the primeval scenes of evolution, and the emergence of the hominid creature with a runaway brain from the Paleolithic, the ‘primordial minus infinity’ from which man arrives to commence the arts of agriculture, and the creation of civilization. This tale must be one of relative beginnings and pass on from the still clouded threshold moment when modern man passed, or by-passed, the Neanderthal in an explosion of cultural and artistic creativity. But as we look back at the lost world of man’s cultural existence in the later Paleolithic, we must wonder if the historical, then still so far in the future, was not prefigured in that passage. We have seen the wisp of evidence for a Great Explosion. Does the explosion of creativity that suddenly appears with the beginning of earliest man show any relation to what we see later? Is the historical the evolutionary? That is, how is the historical related to its greater source, the descent of Man? This is one of the most difficult questions, for it evokes at once the search for historical causality, the mechanisms of evolution, both genetic and cultural, in the context of physical laws and in the headwind of all ‘arguments by design’, teleological philosophies, and the nature of purpose in relation to both organism and its environment. Continue reading “The material on the eonic model from World History and the Eonic Effect: distinction of system action and free action appears throughout”
It is possible to consider the model of the eonic effect is too complicated, but in fact it is not. It is a simple methodology with a simple question: using a grid analysis, i.e. a sequential and parallel matrix analysis, does world history show any suspicious patterns? If does indeed! The first question: world history shows a suspicious frequency pattern, and next to that a most curious spatial pattern in parallel. That’s it, the eonic effect…That’s the ‘rustling in the bushes’ that suggests something going on where we see only the surface. Continue reading “The eonic effect, the ‘ompah’ factor: why marxism gets history wrong…and how to upgrade”
R48G: the eonic model and Judeo-Christianity, historical materialism, end of history discourse, and communism/democracy June 29th, 2017 • Source: R48G: the eonic model and Judeo-Christianity, histo…