2.3 Transition and Divide
Last modified 05/26/2008
|
We have already noted the way in which the rise of secularism as we sense it is
really the expression of the modern transition, and of the eonic effect itself.
The strange, but suddenly obvious fit of the eonic model, as a
'discrete-continuous' phenomenon, unlocks the riddle of the so-called 'divide'
point at the end of this transition, the period of the Enlightenment itself, and
its immediate wake, so pregnant with new potential, and a prodigious number of
cultural innovations, including the onset of a new form of economic capitalism.
The point here is that the modern transition is indeed truly secular, and shows
a decided tendency to move beyond the religions of antiquity toward a new stage
of history, and of religion. A great deal of retrograde thinking wishes to
indulge in a kind of postmodern reaction to this process in a false aspiration
to move backwards. But the net effect of the transition is to generate a
momentum that cannot be matched by ideological movements to erase the phase of
secular society. A closer look, as we have already seen, suggests that there is
no inherent opposition between the religious and the secular, save that the
mechanized remnants of medievalism are going to be reevaluated as to their real
status. We have already seen how the essence of religion is regenerated almost
at once by the prodigious dialectical action of the new secular age, expressing
the modern transition. A good example here is the rise of Biblical Criticism, a
characteristic emergent strain of secularism. It is all very well to uphold
religious traditionalism, but the 'action of reason' is a ferment that has
already sown the seeds of renewal, willy-nilly. The very nature of the Old
Testament we have already seen is that of an Axial history, and we must for the
future reevaluate its significance on that basis. The point here, in any case,
is that the point of the divide leaves a true division point, the onset of a new
epoch, just as surely as the analogous period ca. -600 in antiquity tokened an
irreversible transition to a new future. There is nothing utopian or fixed
in such an outcome, but we do get a sense that the future, whatever it holds,
will reflect the modern transition. This realization can forestall the immense
waste of energy that can be applied to the negation of the modern transition.
The results, if religious, can never succeed, since, as we have seen, the
Protestant Reformation is itself already the first born of that
transition.
Thus, the current reaction to the Enlightenment suggests an element of futility. In fact, the issue is not the fact of the Enlightenment, but the limits of our interpretations of that period, and the downshifting of those interpretations into narrowing perspectives. If we examine the period of the divide (e.g. from ca. 1750 to 1850) we discover a cornucopia of potential that has already before the case, so to speak, done the job, and completed that. |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||