The eonic effect itself is simply the realization that there is a non-random pattern embedded in it, that this pattern is one of discrete alternation, in a sequence of transitional periods operating in a definite mainline. The whole and part are connected via an 'eonic sequence' whose action gives the indication of a dynamic driving a series of major turning points in a series, the birth of civilization, the Axial Age, and the rise of modernity. 

Described at great length in World History And The Eonic Effect, these transitions map out an organized evolutionary grid whose action is visible in the sudden breaking fronts of cultural renewal that fret virtually the whole of the large-scale emergence of world civilization. And this dynamic shows evidence of definite regularity, that is, a kind of cyclical interpretation is called for. Strange as this is, the evidence speaks for itself, and, especially, in the second or Axial phase of this sequence, we see the clear indications of a 'universal history' coherent in its outline and explicit in its directional impetus applied to the stream of world history.

The connection to the idea of freedom appears on several levels, but at the most basic level, we can note that the question of 'causality' is by definition bound up with the question of the free activity that generates historical fact. That is, our large-scale driving motion is a 'causal' factor in the emergence of civilizations. Another way of putting it lies in the seemingly paradoxical question, what 'causes the Axial Age?', or any of the other stages of the eonic sequence. This question arises spontaneously as we posit by definition some explanation for any kind of regular movement. But in this case, and as we examine the phenomenon more closely, we see that at each stage human agents spontaneously act out the drama of innovation. But they do so in a larger pattern of dynamic regularity. Their actions seem, on the one hand, timed according to a rule, yet distinctly personalized according to time and place. These are 'free' innovations. And yet they seem caused. 

If we reread the paragraph from Kant's essay, we see that the apparent contradiction is directly stated. We wish to find 'laws' to describe the motions of history. And yet we wish at the same time to find a regular movement in the play of freedom. The phrasing corresponds to our situation. And what is remarkable is that we have found an empirical analog, and one on a stupendous scale. 

But there is more to this. As we map out our eonic sequence we find more to the 'play of freedom', we find what we can call the 'discrete freedom sequence', a more explicit example of the 'dynamic of freedom'. 

First we need to see the rise of modernity in this larger context. 

Top