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