Models of history

Falling between two stools: religious and secular confusion over history
February 11th, 2018
Marxists often don’t get it: you can’t propose an incorrect theory of history and expect people to listen. The confusion over ‘theory’ endangers their profound framework of insights, taken empirically, as a critique of the capitalist era.
Using the eonic model we can show just how hard it is to grapple with a real theory of history. From there we can stand back and distance ourselves from the syndrome of false certainties and we can also reconcile, or at least defang,the collision of secular and religious historicisms…
archive: R48G: the eonic effect: as a tool to ‘debrief’ historical theories…

August 11th, 2017 •
The eonic model comes off as wild speculation but the reality is that it is, or should be, an objective tool to expose standard historical mythologies, including those of science and most conventionl historians. It can be taken on its own terms or used as a set of questions that will challenge other forms of theory:
first, it challenges deconstructs the mythology of flat history
next, it shows how values must be taken into account, rendering a causal dynamic antinomial
from there it proceeds to expose ‘unflat’ histories, e.g. biblical old testament stories of Israel
it implicitly exposes theistic historicism, e.g. judeo-christian/islmaic ‘god in history’ myths (that depends definitions of ‘god’, to be sure)…
it exposes histories that disallow free agency and keeps open the ‘free will’ debate (free agency allows the introduction of complex hybrids, e.g self-consciousness to mediate freedom, causality)
it transcends the useless ‘materialism/idealism’ debate and the model can be taken both ways, i.e. is independent of the distinction, and it can provide a vehicle for the model of ‘transcendental idealism’, i.e. as noumenal/phenomenal perspective…
it exposes (to a considerable likelihood) the myth of darwinism (natural selection) as random evolution by showing an example of non-random process
it returns the term ‘evolution’ to its correct meaning, as ‘development’
it isolated the ‘antinomy of teleological judgment’ by showing how both teleological and non-teleological interpretations can fail (with a new definition of teleology as a discrete-continuous model)
it shows how the ‘evolution of freedom’ needs to be a practical historical/evolutionary concept
it show how ‘evolution’ is likely to be a global process
it offers a warning that a great deal of innovation in history is macro induced
that’s a reasonable, but short, list: the point here is that we can retreat from hard claims and use these propositions as a set of questions…conventional historiography can’t survive such a difficult challenge, but as with darwinism it will simply try to control opinion behind academic mind control.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s