We have already raised the issue of the Hegelian 'end of history', replacing that with a different analysis of our own. What Hegel was talking about is not always clear. In our version, the issues are crystal clear, without presuming to predict anything about a long range future we cannot control. 

In our version we are left with a spectacle, looking backward, of an immense evolutionary process, the eonic sequence, whose character is both mysterious and yet transparent in its effects. 

Here's the paradox: as we come to an awareness of this process we must suspect that its action will subside, not just in the near future, but for good. We have no final grounds for such a prediction, but we can see that the implications of our model are those of an 'evolution of freedom' and that its macro aspect must at some point subside and leave the field to the self-evolution as the self-realization of freedom of those men who have passed through its action. This puts a premium on the final autonomy and free action in the formal analysis so elegantly provided by the eonic pattern, and our model. That leaves a rather open-ended discussion, as it should, and also tokens the ominous possibility that the gains of freedom can be lost in the recurrence of history's curse, the domination of narrow elites. We see an eonic logic to the emergence of freedom and this historical data shows us the best of arguments against those who will stage the reactionary gestures so obvious from history of those whose ambitions are inadequate to the future potential of man. 

Top