I am sorry to be so harsh on Unger: I will try to comment on his views here in a more systematic way. But the literature on the Axial Age is almost uniformly bad to wretchedly bad. World History and the Eonic Effect offers a clear path to making sense of the data. But where it is easy for an outsider to think independently academic are bound on a wrack and must generate carefully tailored bullshit routines.
This is why my approach deserves greater recognition.
The Axial Age shows that the core anti-religious perspective of ‘secularists’ cannot resolve the historical dynamics involved. The work of Armstrong to Bellah is completely off the mark.
But apart from this it is both unkind and unstrategic to try and asphyxiate an outsider trying to bring sense to the confusion of academics.
I am tired of this domination game by stupid academics.
In any case, the Axial Age is a supremely tricky phenomenon and even if you disagree with my model you have to admit that it at least makes some progress toward a solution.