World History and the Eonic Effect confuses people because it seems oddball or crackpot but its strategy is almost foolproof, compared with the crackpot darwinian theory: instead of being wrong all the time with a theory that won’t work, we notice an odd cyclical system in world history and simply follow the contours with a model of ‘epoch’ or intervals. We do that already: we think of the ‘epoch’ of the onset of the Old Testament and classical Greece as the start of an epoch and this we consider ends with modernity which seems to be contrary somehow: just that transition to a new era. So our ‘epoch’ approach is a no-brainer, and we are naturally starting to include the prior era to the Axial case, i.e. the world, clearly pointed to in the Old Testament, i.e. Dynastic Egypt, and Sumer/Akkad. With a little experience we can see something only our model can exploit: when two parallel civilizations (streams in our lingo) at different stages of development suddenly show a rapid advance or new relative beginning at the same time, we are given a clue that the effect is not a stage of development but a ‘macro’ superimposed process that accelerates both to a majority new (relative) starting point.
So we have the era from early dynastic Egypt/Sumer ca. 3000 as a whole new epoch in our history: it is still again not the absolute beginning of civilization. Archaeology is rapidly moving backwards through the Neolithic. But these eras are still too fuzzy for our approach, although we can see anyway how the model works there…
So we have two and a half epochs:
Sumer/Egypt from 3000 or so to 600 or so and 600 or so to 1800 or so. We know instantly where to look next: ca. 5400 BCE, and ca. 7800/8000 BCE. The material actually fits this but it is still too thin to make any claims.
The result is that we are still near the beginning of a new era, and we sense that and call it ‘modernity’. The term ‘secular’ should be applied and originally was in the sixteenth century when people sensed the onset of a new ‘epoch’ or ‘saeculum’. The term is used to refer to ‘postreligion’ and even ‘atheism’ now, but that was not the original sense. But the trend beyond religion is real enough. In any case, we can see that our division into three epochs is very natural and something we use almost instinctively, but which understanding why. The classic case is the term ‘middle ages’, and we have to interject, middle of what, and our model stands out right away.
But there are a lot of pitfalls in analyzing civilizations: they aren’t machines but very complicated aggregates that ‘evolve’ in their own way. And we get the point: what we mean by ‘evolution’ is something that darwinism has confused. Things don’t evolve at random, and world history in its own way demonstrates that.