Some good questions: this is the way to go, to figure a uniquely complex and tricky phenomenon..
You are helping me a lot with this.
Let me answer just the first question for now: we have very little data before the neolithic, and even that is thin.
But the first era relevant here is the Natufian, a stage of the proto-Neolithic when man observed things like
emmer wheat and harvested that wild.
This was in the Levant:
Here is google:
The Natufian culture is the name given to the sedentary Late Epi-Paleolithic hunter-gatherers living in the Levant region of the near east between about 12,500 and 10,200 years ago. The Natufians foraged for food such as emmer wheat, barley, and almonds, and hunted gazelle, deer, cattle, horse, and wild boar.
Now here’s googlel on the Neolithic:
The Neolithic Revolution started around 10,000 B.C. in the Fertile Crescent, a boomerang-shaped region of the Middle East where humans first took up farming. Shortly after, Stone Age humans in other parts of the world also began to practice agriculture.
The Natufian leads into the Neolithic, so I am left with
a situation where there are two possibilities: the eonic sequence starts with the Natufian
or else it is present throughout the Paleolithic and back into the evolution of man.
The eonic model deals with ‘relative beginnings’, which may or may not be absolute beginnings.
The period of man after the African diaspora does not suggest the eonic effect that early: man
A true global re-start of the eonic sequence (after the early evolution of Man) thus
seems to start over in the Natufian in the middle east/Levant: the ‘neolithic’ minus one era.
Note the 2.0 to 2.5 centuries time period, falls into place.!!!
Subject: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: World History and the Eonic Effect
What is the unique starting point of the eonic sequence? I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “diffusion fields.” When you say “connected sequence” are you referring to it spreading from culture to culture in an era or across time from one Axial Age to another (I assumed the “Axial Age” referred to transition periods but I’ve also noticed that you often use the term Axial age to refer to the evolution in Ancient Greece era specifically).
You speak of the Israelites noticing the eonic effect but I am kind of lost there. How exactly did they notice the eonic effect? And was there no precursor to the subject of history since the Israelites would have needed some kind of source for the Old Testament history pre-Egyptian slavery? If there was a disaster (there is currently a lot of debate about the discovery of the traces of a large meteor hitting the ice sheets in North America and creating a disaster, I don’t know if you are familiar with Graham Hancock who seems to be more and more vindicated in his archeological journalism with the discovery of megalithic sites at Gobleki tepe that push the dates of the emergence of such structures further back in time when people were supposedly only hunter gatherers) and this disaster could’ve initiated a “preservation mentality” 10,000 years ago to prepare in case something similar happened again, with recordings carved in stone at places were disasters were less likely to strike (such as at Giza, Egypt).
Also, the Old Testament itself was not written until much later was it not? Spinoza got a lot of heat in his day for pointing out that Moses was not the source of the Old Testament but he was later vindicated. I don’t know the full story though.
Theories of earlier civilization have never produced the necessary evidence. Human evolution is a long period,
who knows what could have happened we don’t see. The ‘flood’ disaster lore is speculation, as far as I know.
There is the evidence of the Cretan disaster that spawned myths of a flood.
Your question about primitive tribes etc, is reasonable but the eonic sequence is very clear:
It operates in a fixed sequence with possible parallel action, and a frontier effect. Each transition
creates a diffusion field that spreads to surrounding ares.
So the eonic effect has one source, later transitions that connect to the previous, and a limited reach
But the tribes you speak of have in fact been touched by the diffusion fields of the EE in our own tme.
The sequence of transitions often connect to later ones: the Greek transition and its Greek Enlightenment was really a first rehearsal
of the modern. The Greeks were subject to a lot of external influences, viz. from Egypt. Pythagoras was a classic mystic/philosopher
but the overall transition in Archaic Classicl Greece produced dozens of innavators and innovations; science, philosophy, history,
democracy, architecture, Homeric epic, Greek Trageddy, the list is long. A figure like Pythagoras was marginal yet significaant because ‘
he shows some mystical traditioin passed through Greece from greater antiquity. But we know little about it.
The echoes of the Greek Enlgighenment in modern times are large in number.
The issues of mysticism are often esoteric and unreported so we don’t see them.The modern
transition seems to produce Rosicrucianism, but it became corrupted and we have now
the curse of psycopathic occultism. The original Rosicrucian movement I suspect was
benign, connected to the Reformation and was a path to the true self.
(Cf. Bennett on the True self at level 24, and the individuality at level 12)
i rhink the eonic effect is a minimaxer: it tries to maiximize develpment with a minimum of interacton.
Setting up fields of diffusioin is one way to do that, along with its brief parallel action in the Axial…
That might suggest why at first sight so many places seem left out.
But the diffusion fields, especially the modern, have rapidly expanded to a global field,
and this is within our own generation.
Again the eonic sequence has a unique starting point and a connected sequence throughout.
ven that the more time that passes the more history and ideas are accumulated? How do we define “progress” and what is the eonic effect “progressing” towards? To guess this we need to have some idea of what each “eonic effect age” brings with it, or what it speeds up and what it leaves behind. But it seems to me that certain things are bound to happen even without an eonic effect once you have more and more human beings on the planet, more explorations, more societal systems generating even more systems and so forth. What would you say to these arguments?
Skickat: den 22 september 2020 15:27
Ämne: Re: Sv: Sv: Sv: World History and the Eonic Effect
I hope I wasn’t too hard on your thinking but the material on the eonic effect by me is very austere.
Below is a short piece on Kant’s Challenge shortened for Decoding WH.
The analysis moves to detect a regular movement in the play of free will
That’s very abstract….
If you want to analyze the epochs given you can simply say
The Neolithic, probably two.three eras
The rise of higher civilization
The era following the Axial Age (proximate antiquity)
The modern era.
In WHEE in the appendix I replace such names with a purely
abstract terminology (check it out briefly): ETX: The first period is
ET1 in the pre-Neolithicv
then ET4, the rise of higher civ
then the modern ET6
That’s a bit much perhaps, but makes a point, read it once perhaps, skimming
the cycles are driven by something external and are abstract
It makes me think of the nameless Tao.
I am reluctant to even use the term ‘modern’, it has a trap.
But in the model the modern is contradictory
The modern is the whole period from 1800 to 1800 + 2400
The modern transition is 1500 to 1800
with the divide at 1800
or perhaps the modern could be every thing from 1800 to our present,
always extended as we go along.
In this context the ‘postmodern’ has no real meaning.
It could mean the period after 1800 +2400 ??!
In fact the postmodern was mostly confusion of thought
and an attack on modernity so-called. I would then call it ‘critical modernism’
Bui ‘modernity’ is pointer to a vast amount of stuff
to negate the term is confusing (for me)
I suspect that Wilber uses the postmodern concept,
Use it as a way to critque the modern transition, no problem with tyhat
but keep in mind that’s all you get. Trying to replace ‘modernity’
would likely fail.
but it has no meaning in my model:
A critique of modernity as such is OK, but that doesn’
jusfify the post modern. Still, who can say: you can define the term postmdoern as you wish.
But the postmodern school was too often confused.
It could be possinble to exit the eonic sequence, and that would be ‘meta-modern’…
I consider that I have answered Kant’s Challenge, and that’s terific.
There is a simple and elegant way to frame our subject: there is a classic essay of Kant on history where he is wise enough to ask questions, instead of providing answers. His essay essentially asks for a dynamic of history, and any implication of teleology, if any. We call that Kant’s challenge. The eonic effect provides a first true answer to that query, despite a hat tip to Hegel, and his nemesis, Marx. The historian H.A.L. Fisher perfectly expressed the negative here:
…the historian H. A. L. Fisher, in one of the most quoted statements of modern historiography insists that there is no meaningful structure to be found in the randomness of historical process:
Men wiser and more learned than I have discerned in history a plot, a rhythm, a predetermined pattern. These harmonies are concealed from me. I can see only one emergency following upon another as wave follows upon wave, only one great fact with respect to which, since it is unique, there can be no generalizations; only one safe rule for the historian: that he should recognize in the development of human destinies the play of the contingent and the unforeseen.
The philosophy of history is born, reborn, at the dawn of modernity as a fellow traveler, becoming visible as early as the sixteenth century and finds its classic realization in the writings of the philosopher Immanuel Kant, in his essay Idea For A Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View:
Whatever concept one may hold, from a metaphysical point of view, concerning the freedom of the will, certainly its appearances, which are human actions, like every other natural event, are determined by universal laws. However obscure their causes, history, which is concerned with narrating these appearances, permits us to hope that if we attend to the play of freedom of the human will in the large, we may be able to discern a regular movement in it, and that what seems complex and chaotic in the single individual may be seen from the standpoint of the human race as a whole to be a steady and progressive though slow evolution of its original endowment.
This hope is confirmed by the pattern we can exhibit, and we can easily claim the eonic effect a resolution of Kant’s Challenge. We could derive the eonic effect from this paragraph. Reductionists seek the causality of behavior, but we do better to find the causality of freedom, an antinomy, a regular movement in the play of freedom of the human will.
There are increase effects: knowledge increases, for example.
There is overall progress. But to a modern atheist monotheism
might or might not be an advance over polytheism.
There is no label for each stage. The eonic sequence
modifies each entity in its path in an individual way.
Note that monotheism and atheist buddhism appear in
parallel. But Greece and China do something else and don’t
Study each phase as itself, without high-level labels.
You surprise me, you have a good question.
The final answer has to be, I don’t know, but
the issue of the eonic effect acting when man is aware of it
is not to be dismissed out of hand.
In fact, we have examples in the data: most notably the Israelites
began to notice something strange happening in their culture, for example,
the sudden appearance of spiritual types, later called prophets. They did that ca. mid sevnth century
BC, right in the middle of the ‘transition’, so there is an example. Their visions
accumulated and suddenly the Israetlites noticed something was acting on them over time.
it is hard to describe the real facts here, but let me note that they misinterpreted what happened
as a divinity…That’s the danger: people won’t know what is happening to them and may deduce the wrong thing.
I hope you are secular here and I haven’t insulted your beliefs.
Another case, perhaps (read the section ‘From Reformation to Revolution’ in chapter seven):
it starts with Luther’s famous exclamation, ‘we are at the dawn of a new era’. What made him say that?
He was right, and just at the start. In the sixteenth century a number of people could see that something had
terminated the middle ages and things were on the move. Also, in the Enlightenment the philosophes
remarked on the change in social thought: the secular was dispelling medieval religion.
Those are not however observations of the eonic effect, but of its details. Many noted the modern transition
but thought it something else. Even the great Karl Marx confused the rise of the modern with the rise of capitalism,
not quite right to me. But he had an idea of the ‘modern’ transition. But people did indeed note the eonic effect’s effects, but weren’t sure or even aware overall.
The process is dangerous, the Israelites hallucinated ‘god’ in history, …
Buddha spoke of the new turn in the great wheel, but that referred to his movement.
Also the more extravagant brands of christian eschatological theology armed with the Old Testament
‘history’ of an age of revelation began to think of a ‘next case’, a second coming, a new age of some kind etc…
Their views were completely wild speculation, but they sensed that a new age was inherent in the whole mix???
So, you are right, people have noticed the eonic effect in its particulars without realizing what it was overall.
Let me think a bit about your statements: I can’t as yet fully answer your question.
The Israelites created a cargo cult out of the eonic effect, somewhere between ‘charming’ and ‘total disaster’.
Maybe the process let that happen to create monotheism.
Your last question, I don’t know the answer but I jumped to the conclusion that we are at the end of the eonic effect.
I can’t be sure. I deduce for many reasons that the ‘modern transition’ is over as of ca. 1800.
but that says nothing about the future. I don’t even know what the ‘eonic effect’ is, so it is hard to answer.
Also it makes sense for the eonic sequence to stop: man is on his own in the end, and has to digest
and try to figure out what has happened to him.
I suspect that the dawn of man was similar to this, and then the process seems to have stopped and man
then tried to digest his novel form of existence.
i suspect that Africa was a great place for isolated groups to undergo the thousand years bursts times X of an
eonic effect shaping a new species. When man left Africa it clearly was no longer possible for the focussed
action of the macro process. I am guessing, but looking at ten thousand years of human history I can begin to sense
how early man could have evolved.
JL…enough for one email…
here’s another issue; Knudgeknudge at the Gurdjieff Con suggested the
idea of Sheldrake’s morphogenetic fields for the eonic effect. I am very wary of such ideas, but come to think of it
I actually suggested in the text, at the end, almost seriously, the idea of a biofield , or better a computational biofield: the eonic effect
often suggests a field effect, but that would require stupendous data processing. A field in physics is described by three/four coordinates
plus two coordinates for a field. But a field for the body, or a planet would involve stupefying amounts of data: Each point in space corresponding
to a civilization (!!?) at a given point and time might require a whole database of information. It is beyond our conceptions to think about such a computer,
but the idea is not inherently contradictory. And the ‘eonic effect’ doesn’t require a total description of a civilization. It can modify small parts, still huge, but…
If the macro system acts through man, is there really much of a separation between individual human “free action” and “macro system action”? Also, isn’t there a third factor to consider here such as collective “human system action”?
Is there some way for people to confirm whether the eonic sequence is over, say, a 100 or 500 years from now? What would they have to be looking for to confirm it?
I can understand your problem here. But as I pointed out there are shortcuts, perhaps.
The issue of free will is metaphysical, in a Kantian sense, which means we end up in equivocation.
I think it is worth studying Kantian ethics to see the way Kant derives issues of freedom and then
proceeds to an ethical system. The hard sciences are against free will but the issue of physics
isn’t what it used to be. The Newtonian world is gone.
The eonic model evades this debate by speaking of free agency, which may or may not be free will.
A free agent has choice. You can negate free will, but you can’t do that with ‘free agency’, which is
essentially choice. Choice is real whether free or not. In the end I think Kant carries the day.
Being trained in reductionist sciences is poor preparation for considering the issue of free will.
there is a basic point that drives scientists to negate free will almost at step one:
the principle of causality. But there is a more complex reality here.
Let me note in passing that Schopenhauer (he is really following Kant)
points to freedom as the thing in itself, or noumenal. Freedom and free will
would then be in dimension different from the causal plane.
It is a long study,. The physical sciences presume to explain everything and
then a series of useless sciences ape physics and clutter social thought, in psychology, sociology
and finally the most critical case, evolution.
Science has not risen to the higher realm of natural entities so it is not surprising it is considered
The eonic effect has an important distinction of system action and free action:
the future is not controlled by the effect. Only the starting point of a new venue
of civilization, like archaic Greece. Man receives a starting point, and then tries
to realize that.
I can’t be sure about the end of the eonic sequence, but it would be very hard
for the macro system to act if man was aware that it was doing that.
I think that there won’t be another interaction in 2400 years, but how could
I be sure. Man is left with a puzzle, but he may be able to solve it.
But the issue of evolution is just another example of screwup. Fred Hoyle
pointed out decades ago that natural selection could never be correct.
It is a statistical absurdity. But who listened. The entire profession of biologists
has remained confused here for two generations. Over and over and over again
people have tried to correct the error, but in vain. And the effects have been disastrous:
noone can hold down a job as a professor unless he toes the line. So it drives people to lie
and students are subject to the same conditioning.
Finally the religious groups took up the issue and the iD movement, which isn’t quite creationist
produced some good work outlining the problems with darwinism.
Recently it looked like the darwin paradigm would collapse. A figure like Jerry Fodor
produced a book critical of natural selection. That broke the ice, but I fear that
the academic/scientific realm of biology still hasn’t learned or changed.
That is why my WHEE never gets much of a hearing.
It is mindboggling. People chatter about science, but the core subject of evolutioinary biology has been
captured by idiocy for almost three generations, and beyond that all the way back to Darwin.
It is very odd. At the end of the eighteenth century biology was about to take off but then the
darwinian paradigm took hold and the subject never recovered (it is complex history).
Although still almost pre-professional and with confusions of his own Lamarch essentially
got evolution right. He is not yet confused by darwinism.
Even the real discoverer here of Darwin’s theory (Darwin seems to have plagiarized him), Wallace, changed his mind.
Darwinism has left people nettled and unnerved. How could so many professionals suffer such a goof and be unable
to correct it?
I will say some more here later.
What do you mean when you say that in your opinion/suspicion the “eonic sequence is complete”? Do you mean forever or just for another 2400 years? I assume it is the latter. Might it even be then, that the unfortunate human tendency will be to degenerate as far as the system allows before it brings us up to another level again? Would you say that human evolution is at a stand-still while civilization evolves or is human evolution at the biological level going on at the same time? The impression I have is that a longer time-span than 2400 years takes place for biological evolution.
WHEE is tough, not finishing it is not surprising.
You are a unique reader of long books,
so I am glad you learned of WHEE,
After Bennett’s DU at 1500 pages you need a rest.
Maybe try Proust some time.
I can convey the idea of WHEE in one email.
And Decoding WH makes it a cinch.
The real issue is the core idea of pattern in world history:
What do you answer to the question, what is the eonic effect?
get enough to be able to answer, perhaps.
The question behind the question is,
what drives the evolution of civilization?
It is VERY important to take the eonic effect into account,
for those who can face reality: most of human achievement is system
generated. Once the eonic macro stops man can degenerate:
look at occidental civilization after the transition in Greece:
everything declined for centuries.
The Roman empire was the gross end result.
There was no recovery until the next transition
the rise of the modern.
The eonic effetc is a non-random pattern in world history
which resolves the issue of an historical dynamic
and falls into the category of ‘evolution’,
the evolution of civilizations.
It falsifies darwinian idiocy about natural selection.
the real problem is getting past the darwin establishment
and idiot professors.
It probably gives a hint about evolution in deep time:
a deep ‘form factor’ generates forms that test against the environment
In history we see a pattern of transitions: a form factor is realized
by man as he creates civilizations, but with a hidden form factor.
An example of a form factor is the genre of a novel, an abstraction.
Creating a novel is free agency, and a novel becomes real in time.
The model given is unique and a first: it distinguishes ‘system action’
and ‘free agency’: man creates history, but under an evolutionary form factor
which is transient: he can really fuck up after the transitions.
Not other model has that advanced factor. But the idea is known to us
For example, a computer mouse: using a mouse is free agency, but
the response of the mechanical mouse is system action, etc…
Same for driving a car: the motor is system action,
but the driver puts in free agency.
So all the ideas in the eonic model are intuitive ideas.
In my opinion/suspicion the eonic sequence is complete.
That means man is on his own from now on.
The record of history is not good here.
But perhaps man can pull himself together
But the record of history is against success.
Look at slavery: invented by man early on
and a curse for millennia. System intervention
finally put a stop to it, not man. So man had a broken system
for almost all of history until the system intervened.
We must somehow bootstrap out of our tragedies.
Look at the race protests. Blacks knew long ago
the american system was messed up, and badly.
Repairing that is not so simple.
It is hard: look at the art associated with the eonic transitions.
Can man learn to generate creativity on his own?
Not yet, although some arts he can, finally, eg.painting,
an easy case. But man is not able to create an evolution
machine that can function over ten thousand years, i.e. the eonic effect
He can create poetry, but he can’t induce the evolution of
poetry in a whole culture over several centuries.
The issue is more than technology.
Anyway, the basic eonic effect/model is not so hard.
It is just the vastness of the data set, and the absorption
One should be optimistic here: we have a good chance.
I suspect most universal cosmic life gets stuck here.
Ain’t easy once the macro system shuts down.
Look at the American system, generated in the modern
Already we have fucked it up. Is it beyond repair?
You can get WHEE in snatches, no need to plod
through the whole thing. Or else Decoding WH:
an easy summary. as is this email.
The point is to get a handle on the eonic effect
and not worry about reading WHEE through
will be in touch…
cc to various people