The eonic/frontier effect…

the eonic/frontier effect…//Western Civilization 101
September 7th, 2018 •
Source: Western Civilization 101
This kind of puzzled discussion is grist for our mill in terms of the ‘eonic effect’ or model. Most of the confusions fall away at once when we move beyond the concepts of ‘civilization’, ‘europe’, etc, and think in terms of the ‘eonic sequence’. The model discusses the ‘frontier effect’: the way each phase in the ‘sequence’ moves to a new starting point: the immediate clarification of puzzle of the sudden eruption in europe (not of europe) of a new transitional zone.
Let us note that the modern transition is NOT a european phenomenon, as such, but, most strangely yet very logically, a sudden transformation at the rough frontier of the old roman empire: germany, holland, england, france, spain (with northern italy a special case). This phenomenon makes no sense without the eonic model.
Why for example was a backwater like ‘israel’ in of all places ancient canaan suddenly a source of creative advance? Once again we see the frontier effect, at the exact boundary/boundaries of the old egyptian and mesopotamian arenas in a prior cycle.
This model tends to avoid the term ‘civilization(s)’ and instead looks at a common global oikoumene in formation and we can see that the concept of ‘western civilization’ is a confusion from the start. Strictly speaking instead of the term ‘civilization’ which so confused toynbee and spengler we think in terms of (differential) transitions in an eonic sequence: consider the transition in archaic greece: 900 to 600 BCE (with a flowering of classical greece just after this): this differential transition generates an oikoumene, the hellenistic as a new civilization or better simply ‘oikoumene’. Similar effects are visible in china, india, and the strange persian case which so strangely suddenly hybridizes with the israelite at the precise point of the ‘divide’ point of the ‘common’ transition. These spooky effects are extraordinary…
In the modern case we see already the creation of a global oikoumene both assisted now complicated by the phenomenon of modern capitalism: clearly this oikoumene will start to undergo some kind of challenge to the ‘economic integrator’ factor, but the overall point is clear.
Again let us note the frontier effect: why are the superintelligent scandinavians not the creators of modernity? Because they weren’t at the exact frontier zone where we find germany, holland, england, france and spain. Strange indeed.
Let us note that our transitions can’t fully control their outcomes which have tended to generate transient imperialisms in a confusion over just the kind of biased concept like ‘european civilization’. A close look at, say, indian interaction with england shows the ambiguity of this imperialism: many indians in the nineteenth century testified to the great value of the english phase, a dangerous thought, confronting the army of near barbarians creating the ‘british empire’, etc…In the end the british sphere could pass away in the upsurge of a great indic futurism…
The term ‘western civilization’ is thus almost devoid of meaning and misses completely the far more specific processes at work.
Let us note that the north american and russian spheres were never frontier zones in our sense, and like ancient rome in the wake of greece, usurpers and mostly barbarians making a mess of everything.
This kind of analysis solves all the problems but is so strange to beginning students that generally they just draw a blank. It takes time to understand what is being said…

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