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 fatal dangers of non-violent pseudo-leftist strategies…

Chris Hedges fancies himself some kind of saintly Christian following non-violence but the formula doesn’t add up. I hold no brief for the Weathermen who are not representative of much of anything and confused terrorism with revolutionary strategies. The onset of non-violent tactics was a significant moment, and with MLK was an effective tactic in the civil rights movement. But the fact must be faced that the left has become barren of results and has accomplished almost nothing since 1969 or before. In that time the planet has proceeded toward climate destruction without any real response from the left whose non-violent tactics will end by doing nothing as millions are killed. It is not possible to stop the capitalist insanity with Gandhian tactics. Gandhi is a much misunderstood figure and played the guru without understanding Indian spiritual history. Non-violence is finally a spiritual meditation visible in Jain yogis whose gesture is based on fasting to death lest they violently murder insects. It was a path to enlightenment via a path to death. It had no political implications and was a path by those who had renounced the world. The Gita so revered by Gandhi explicitly endorses the duty of violence to Arjuna as a caste warrior (Gandhi was ambivalent or confused by his own holy texts). The Gita has to be the worse book to cite for a proponent of non-violence.
It is essential to consider history here: using methods of non-violence, american democracy would never have arisen, and slavery would still exist. All the basic achievements of modern freedom were far from being non-violent. That does not mean that free lance violence as terrorism is some kind of leftist tactic. Methods of revolutionary action require discipline and the American Revolution was a war with generals and sane leaders.
The current is a dangerous field of nincompoops who mainly write article for Commons Dreams and little else. Billions of people are about to perish as the idiot left diddles over Gandhian sanctity.

Chris Hedges and Mark Rudd talk about political violence and the Weather Underground in a new episode of “On Contact.”

Source: Chris Hedges and Mark Rudd Discuss Self Destructive Forces on the Left – scheerpost.com

 Gandhi, non-violence, and the real message to Arjuna: sometimes you have to fight…

The case of gandhi as a saint of non-violence is botched study: gandhi needs some close study to see his limitations and confusions and, most of all, his muddled attachment to the ‘bhagavad gita’ in his promotion of non-violence: the text explicitly counsels arjuna to fight, violently. Continue reading ” Gandhi, non-violence, and the real message to Arjuna: sometimes you have to fight…”