How can the left reach a new historical vision?

How can the left reach a new historical vision?
February 28th, 2018
In many ways the dated ‘ideology’ of marxism is itself an obstacle on the way to a newly receptive public, poised at the threshold of a new era of socialism, maybe. Our Last and First Men tries to braid various heroic strains of the Marx saga as historical epic
without embracing the theory, as such, trying to come into existence in Capital. In fact, the latter book should be retired and join the saga as historical imagery. For all other purposes the marxist realm needs to self-dissolve into a new version of the communist initiative that stalks the capitalist period, mistakenly taken as some kind of ‘epoch’. In reality the reign of capitalism shows if anything the failure of the modern epoch (in a more accurate delineation of epochs since the era of Egypt/Sumer) to realize its democratic project as the domination of capital distorts the whole unfolding of a technological era of production. The latter is taken as the determining factor in historical analysis but in fact it is, or should be, secondary and brought into harmony with the parallel democratic emergentism that is so characteristic of the modern period.
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 conventional 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/islamic ‘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.
Design in history…histomat versus the eonic perspective…

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