08.14.11

The illusions of age periods, and the eonic effect

Posted in General at 1:30 pm by nemo

The eonic effect is not a theory of anything, but a set of observations about world history.
Confusion can arise because the evidence shows a clear three term sequence of ‘transitions’ about 2400 years apart. That is fact: we see
a kind of transition before -3000 as Dynastic Sumer/Egypt come into existence (not their absolute beginnings!)
then a middle era, ‘medieval’ towards the end.
another transition period in the centuries before -600, the so-called Axial Age… (again, not the absolute beginnings of the civilizations involved)
then a middle era, ‘medieval’, with a Dark Age, towards the end, or second half
a modern transition, in the centuries before 1800,
and a middle period just getting underway, evidently.

This pattern is unmistakably non-random, but it doesn’t follow that we can generalize about its past and future, or explain why it exists. Attempts to interpret it appear in World History and the Eonic Effect, but in the final analysis this pattern, which should be seen as ‘evolutionary’ (by definition), is an empirical given of world history. You can check the facts of the case to see that this is so.
You can see why the ancients were so confused here: they suspected this pattern, but mistook it for something else. The men in the middle (ca. the Greek Axial period) had no real data on the beginnings of Sumerr and Egypt, and fooled themselves with notions of the Great Year. The attempts to predict modernity, however, while cockeyed, and degenerating into a muddle, were in principle correct, but with the wrong time period taken as a measure.
Note this remarkable fact: ancient men predicted the coming of a ‘new age’, now called modernity, but not understood by ancient men. But their prediction was, of course, confirmed, despite the total misunderstanding of what it would mean.
This prediction was also confused, by some, with ‘end times’ speculations, which introduced another misunderstanding.
As one example of such a prediction, unlike the others, and in the East, we have the predictions of a new ‘Maitreya”, who never appeared. But the ‘new age’ (for which he was posited) did in fact occur.

This example shows why the ‘new age’ myths tend to attack the very new age predicted: we don’t see a ‘new spiritual age’ (there wasn’t a first one) which leads ‘New Age’ thinkers to hope a ‘new new age’ will arise to undermine modernity. They have totally missed the point.

Permalink