We have the striking pattern of data we call the eonic effect,
seen the connection between history and evolution, seen the evolutionary aspect
of the emergence of civilization, and, with the distinction of system action and
free action, we have all the elements for our model, and we can see that it is
really very simple: a periodization time-line whose structure produces an
empirical map of the dynamic driving the eonic sequence. The point is that
we can speak of historical dynamics without speaking about historical
determinism, and the result falls into place as a useful outline where, on one
level, we recount ordinary history as a chronicle of free acts, while on another
the theory, or what’s left of it, structures this chronicle without
interfering with its account. Our eonic 'time and motion' analysis is done, and
the result is 'ordinary history', but with a failsafe. More specifically, we
have all the elements of our eonic model in place, and the first thing we are
going to do with it is to let it diffuse into the background.
historians tend to frown on theoretical history, but we can see that we can’t
avoid it, and we have devised a way to answer this understandable objection
(look at the Marxist fiasco). The
point of this model is to give us the equivalent of an historical dynamic
without speculations about laws and forces. We proceed empirically, but with a
particular periodization, and this is solidly based in a set of facts, the eonic
effect, with its three turning points. This pattern is a set of facts about the
past. The point of this model is to mediate our freedom to act in the future
with the clear recognition of some eonic determination in the past. An
alternating sequence beautifully resolves this contradiction of historical
inevitability. The mechanics part can show a double character, the effect of the
evolutionary driver, and the history of free activity that intersects with. As
we come to the awareness of this dynamic, it has already switched off in our
recent past, leaving free activity in its wake. And once we take this, at first,
strange approach, a host of historical mysteries fall into place. The data
really does reflect this kind of a system. And we must find a way to mediate
ideology in our account. And this often takes the form of teleological claims on
the future. Our model protects us from the dangers of such thinking.
be blunt: either history is teleological or it is not. If you say it is or
isn't, and don't get it straight, you will end up like 'Lenin the day after'.
You won't get it straight. We have offered no gimmick solution to this problem,
throwing out dogma, but have produced a 'reasonable, empirically based'
assessment, looking backward, to mediate this question. And the balance
of the evidence shows that, confused by bad Darwinian theory, among other
things, historians have gotten this question wrong: we have produced a clear
'deconstruction of flat history' resulting in the appearance of clear historical
directionality, contrary to intuition. This is not a new dogmatic, paradigm
shift, or hard science. Just a warning that, on the whole, working history has
proven consistently wrong here. Now you may think that our series TP1, 2, 3
might be wrong, weird, ideological. Go right ahead, but at least be consistent.
Don't claim one thing for evolution and another for history. Don't pay lip
service to science, and then sneak in freedom into narrative history. Our
all-around 'dialectical' approach reconciles this contradiction with a gesture
to a science of history is more than that. We have produced at least one clear
non-random pattern, make of what you will, except to claim that Darwinian random
evolution is the key to history. Note that our broad conclusions emerge
independently of any particular ideology, teleology, or claim on the future. Our
model simply switches off in the present. Thus the status of our model is
advisory. However artificial our method, it gets results, or at least tills the
soil of fallow 'flat history' reasoning. We will even proceed to extend our
model with something mentioned briefly: systematic disagreements with our
reasoning, 'general TP4 exceptions'. But in fact our eonic sequence solves too
many puzzles to be completely off.
practical result here is therefore standard narrative history, but with warning.
Standard narrative history, however much working historians grumble about
theory, will work fine in the short run, and fail as the scale of history
expands. You cannot embark on the high seas without a compass and if you do you
will get lost. We adopt systematic measures, e.g. our eonic periodization,
because, in the end, we must, and this, however strange the rubric, gives a
bench mark. We have devised a practical 'universal history', two in fact, that
can attempt to clean out the last remnants of 'bad theory' these working
historians use unconsciously (hidden theory) and replace that with systematic
accounting of time-periods, this to mediate teleological issues. And also to
create a buffer against misapplied evolutionary theories decreed to explain
history. This approach makes no claim to escape ideology, but since it ends up
doing such things wholesale we will have a reasonable balance.
connected the two ideas of evolution and history, exposed the paradoxes of laws
of history, and proceeded to substitute simple periodization, of a special kind,
which is easily adapted to a timeline history.
Discrete-continuous models We will
call this a discrete-continuous model because we see a discrete series of
turning points overlaid on a continuous pattern of world history. We call the
theorist an eonic observer, and he is usually involved in the 'action scripts'
of the system. We have a model that carefully defines ‘theory’ in the
present, and which blocks the Oedipus effect
by switching off after the close of our pattern, so that
‘theory’ applies only to the past, looking backwards. This also allows
us to consider teleology as directionality, without the metaphysical
presumptions that would otherwise arise. It allows us to separate two levels
interleaved: if there is a high correlation of the data with the model, then we
probably detect a hidden dynamic.
model simply takes our three turning points and turns them into discrete (three
century) transitions in an eonic sequence overlaid on our second universal
Transition 1: birth of civilization
Transition 2: Axial interval
Transition 3: rise of the modern
the alternation of ‘system action’ and ‘free action’. Note that last
transition switches off in our immediate past, and our current action may
or may not express the aggregate directionality shown, which is highly complex
in any case, comprising multiple parallel streams. Thus the teleology, if
any, inferable from the continuation of TP3, may be quite different from that of
the overall sequence.
practice, this model, taken as a timeline using periodization can simply help us
to visualize the eonic effect, and map out its structure.
That’s it. Our model is simply a grid on the surface of
a planet, showing a sequence of transitions between different regions, sometimes
with parallel connections.