system action, free action…//3.5 A New Model of History: Eonic Evolution
August 7th, 2018 •
The eonic model always sets a clear distinction of ‘system action’ and ‘free action’ and the result is different from a deterministic system because it points to a field of realization,
and the results may differ from anything predictable. It is like a computer with or without a mouse: the latter shows the factor of ‘free action’ setting a system into a different outcome: we cannot predict, and are forced to write histories of what happened after the fact.
The eonic effect shows in fact several different possibilities: the era of transition shows a relatively high degree of determination, while the other era after the transitions show a relatively high degree of free action, but in the context of that determination. One level sets direction, while another realizes the outcome of that directionality, and may well fail or change direction. In this system a higher macro effect performs system return in relatively far future to reset direction. Current history is blind to these distinctions, and economic theories ignore such effects. Our free action is not the same as economic action, nor completely distinct. But the larger picture shows something like the difference between a realizable idea, and its realization. But economies are prime candidates for a distinction of system action and free action (the distinctions of macro and microeconomics come close or are a version of that), but, again, this is not the same as the eonic systematics which crosses all boundaries of culture: economics, technology, art, politics, religion, etc… But the eonic effect shows a larger directionality beyond the temporal stream while (as far as we know, economies do not, although marx considered there was such a directionality???).
An example, completely exotic, of the distinction of system action and free action lies in the history of the tragic genre: the genre seems to show temporal determination in the greek axial transition, but its realizations are ‘free action’: something seems to invent a genre, while someone, a tragedian, produces examples. We can see just how fast the genre dies out in the wake of the transition, strong evidence for this interpretation.
In general if we examine the era of the axial period we see a high degree of system action, while later the result is free action: compare the classic era of greece/rome and the later decline of the whole occidental system…
We might argue that capitalism in its modern form shows such macro determination. The problem is that the same can be said of communism, which is born at the dawn of the modern transition in the sixteenth century. There is no contradiction in a double determination: the challenge is a kind of dialectic, i.e. a system with socialist but other economic effects, semi-capitalist or otherwise.
Clearly the challenge is simply a viable economic system in the context of socialism. The idea of a permanent phase of ‘capitalism at the end of history’ is gross propaganda.
As we must suspect, the macro futurism of the eonic effect can’t be expected to find realization via markets, quite the contrary, the outcome thus is proving highly destructive….
Source: 3.5 A New Model of History: Eonic Evolution