We have suggested the so-called eonic model as a way to get a bird’s eye view of world history, but the result seems a bit complex, so we have tried a simplified approach. This is material from the old Darwiniana, out of context. We will formally reintroduce the subject very soon…
September 4th, 2018 •
R48G: a new approach to history: the eonic effect as a series of questions…
December 6th, 2017 •
We have discussed many times the problems with historical materialism, and historical theories in general.
A way out is to consider a set of hypotheses in the form of a series of opposites, e.g. is historical teleological, etc…
We can force ourselves to examine the historical record very carefully without necessarily having to commit ourselves on a brittle theory
This can also be a warning that perspectives on history will be someone’s propaganda. Requiring a critique and exist strategy.
The eonic model is useful because it can’t be turned into a theory, forces one to study history, and study it in a balanced examination of all periods and times…
R48G: the eonic model as a set of questions…
October 28th, 2017 •
The eonic model is useful because it cogently isolates a non-random pattern in world history but leaves it as is, open to interpretation and practical use as an outline based empirically. The more elaborate model can be left as set of questions and a warning that noone gets history straight…these questions can themselves take the place of the complicated model:
what is the non-random pattern in world history?
what is a non-random pattern?
does it show evidence of a dynamic?
what is the significance of the ‘transitions’ that create the pattern?
does the pattern suggest a series of epochs or world eras?
are these intervals equal in length, what is the frequency?
if the pattern is only visible since the invention of writing what hypothesis can we make about earlier periods?
Do the transitions in the pattern suggest ‘discontinuity’?
what is the resemblance of this pattern to ‘punctuated equilibrium’?
what was the ‘axial age’ and what is its place in the non-random pattern?
what does the term ‘evolution’ mean and does it apply to this pattern?
is the term ‘evolution’ a synonym for ‘development’?
what does the pattern suggest about non-random patterns in deep time?
does the pattern show meta-genetic ‘evolution’?
what is the relation of history and evolution?
can we deduce the pattern from the logic of history emerging from evolution?
is the pattern deterministic or does free agency enter as a variable?
how does free agency or ‘free action’ interact with system action?
does free agency alternate with system action?
can we deduce the pattern from a root idea of the ‘evolution of freedom’?
can the idea of ‘self-consciousness’ be used to describe the changing character of free agency under system action?
how does the pattern relate to the histories of economy and technology?
are economy and technology continuously creative where the pattern is creatively discontinuous?
If the pattern shows discontinuities what happens at their endpoints?
does the nature of free agency change at the end of the discontinuities?
what does the pattern suggest about ‘medieval periods’?
if the pattern acts when unobserved what will happen as the pattern is discovered and observed?
that’s enough: as is evident the questions themselves can take the place of a speculative theory: but we should formalize any number of interpretations and weigh the evidence
most of all these questions force us to study world history and the bibliography here is quite considerable!
You can stand back from eonic model, but it enforces examination of the whole of world history //3.5 A New Model of History: Eonic Evolution
We have tried to create a super simple version of the ‘eonic effect’ and its model, but it is worth considering the larger model: the three sections 3.5, 3.51, 3.52, from WHEE give an overall sense of that model and its mysterious complexity, yet transparent outer effect.
This model explains why so many have thought history has a spiritual aspect lost in ‘materialist’ explanations. It is true, although we have long since moved beyond such terms as ‘spiritual’ in a universal materialism closer to Kant than Marx (with echoes of J.G. Bennett), but able to recast the core them of marxism in a new form.
This model is able to easily deal with issues of religion and equally their critique in a way that makes secular humanists look clubfooted…
You can even critique this model but you are left with a device that forces you to examine the whole of world history in detail, mission accomplished.
Source: 3.5 A New Model of History: Eonic Evolution