Re: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: World History and the Eonic Effect
From: Nemonemini
To: x@hotmail.se
Date: Mon, Sep 28, 2020 6:55 am
Attachments Decoding_World_Histo…pdf (840 KB)
Diffusion does seem to happen regardless of the macro effect though, as in the spread of Christinaity and Islam during regular history, and certain movements like gay marriage rights and Black Lives Matter today. I’m also curious about your thoughts on megalithic structures in general. It seems to me there was a ‘trend’ of pyramid-like structures happening in both South America, East Asihttps and North Africa (Egypt). Could these have appear around the same period and been related to an eonic inflience?
As you can see I am not too familiar with ‘Megalithic’ history and tend to concentrate on the ‘eonic effect’ since Egypt/Sumer ca. 3000 BCE. But your questions are useful nonetheles and suggest some new studies.
The Neolithic is actually the key to world history yet we have little information. I really have to wonder that Indian yogic legacies ultimately emerge from the Neolthic. That’s one example…
Your questions are useful and I am putting up our eschanges at the Gurdjieff Con and should make a pdf of them…
I just finished a new version of Decoding WH and see that still another draft sequence is called for.
I note
I note there is a portal for megaliths:
https://www.megalithic.co.uk/
and south america’s megalithic age:
https://www.megalithic.co.uk/
And then of course the question of the Egyptian pyramids.The pyramds of Egypt are significant because we can
clock their source history to the transition era and the “first’ Pharaohs.
The period before is ca. 5500 (do the math with 2400 years all the way back) is the suspicious point.
Using the Frontier Effect we can backtrack to a zone adjacent to Sumer/3000BCE: I suspect
that northern Iraq has an early transition.
There is also a set of suspicions about t he Harappan era, but this is likely to be much later:
in the third millennium BCE and later.
But some work now clocks the source back to before 3000 BCE, so that puts the Harappan
into a question mark possible reevaluation: the proto-Harapan may be one of the parallels
at the dawn of Sumer.
I can’t connect the Harappan with the history of the yogas. Are we talking about a common history?
We come to a tricky zone: Sumer is the most creative of hotspots, like Archaic Greece, so what was its influence
on India? Gurdjieff had a thing about Sumer, and thought some elements showed the signature of consciousness
in his sense. Men in that state of consciousness could easily seed a form of yoga
But if the Indian tradition really goes back to the Neolithic it should show some interaction with something
in our previous note: northern Iraq, which was apparently a set of temple/agriculture culture.
I have to wonder also about the history of the Jains: it they really precede the buddhists,
that might put their source in just this period ca. 3000 BCE
And here there might be a connection of Stonehenge stuff with a mystery field
of the Egyptian realm. I forget the books, but such claims are the subject
of its own literature.
more later
JL
—–Original Message—–
From: Nemonemini
To: x@hotmail.se
Sent: Sun, Sep 27, 2020 10:41 am
Subject: Re: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: World History and the Eonic Effect
You are quite right: diffusion occurs all the time, but in ancient times the difffusion were vital to the spread of development.
Look at the Roman oikoumene (empire): it is far from any transition but created an immense diffusion field.Early Rome I suspect
was a spinoff of the Greek city states in southern Italy. It is basically a part of the Greek transition. But is is somehow unique
so we suspect if tis both in the Greek transition but soon becomes its own line.
The distinctive diffusion field of the Greek transition decayed and soon was
overlaid with the diffusioin field of Alexandrian world: a sort of mixture then.
The spread of Christianity and Islam is in t h ‘mideoic’ period and were
both diffusion fields. IN fact the Roman and Christian diffusion fields were overlayed
and made an especially rich mixture of elements as with the rapid development of Europe’s
cultures: the German (later Dutch), Englsih, French Spanish frontier areas of
the Roman empire.
The question of megalithic constructs is complex, but I suspect their sourcein the middle Neolithic
ca. 4500 BCE. It is possible some Neolithic source not in my ‘map’ is related to this.
I am not sure here because the Neolithic is thin on data. But the megalithic constructs
point I suspect to a Neolithic stage two (after 5500 BCE) set of influences.
The question of the Neolithic gets complicated because we can’t always trace its effects
which were often overalid with the influences of the next transition in Egypt and Sumer.
I could be that Sonehenge was influenced by Egypt. South America si tricky/
The basic question is, was there Old World influence of diffusion. I suspect there
was. I note that the Olmecs seemed to have had some megalithic constructs.
I personally think Old World diffusion reached the Americas. In fact the metalithic
sculpture sof the Olmecs look African. There are theories of African, Egyptian, and other
cultures reaching south america, but conventional scholars are opposed there, but
probably worng.
—–Original Message—–
From: A. C.
To: Nemonemini
Sent: Sun, Sep 27, 2020 8:35 am
Subject: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: World History and the Eonic Effect
Diffusion does seem to happen regardless of the macro effect though, as in the spread of Christinaity and Islam during regular history, and certain movements like gay marriage rights and Black Lives Matter today. I’m also curious about your thoughts on megalithic structures in general. It seems to me there was a ‘trend’ of pyramid-like structures happening in both South America, East Asihttps://redfortyeight.com/2020/09/28/telling-the-truth-about-slavery-is-not-indoctrination/a and North Africa (Egypt). Could these have appear around the same period and been related to an eonic inflience?
________________________________________
Från: Nemonemini
Skickat: den 26 september 2020 14:04
Till: x@hotmail.se
Ämne: Re: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: World History and the Eonic Effect
As noted the Natufian seems like a starting point, but we have little evidence in the Paleolithic. As man disperses globally the macro process would have to stop
since it can’t operate over such a large totality: to effect a whole it must do what we see in history: proceed in an eonic sequence and it took ten millennia for it to globalize,
so I am skeptical of any earlier anything in the Paleolithic, the Natufian being a exception that proves the rule. It makes eminent sense that man spend a cycle in the Levant
moving very slowly into agriculture, first as a seed gatherer, viz. emmer wheat.
It is here the idea of diffusion fields enters: the transitions we see each create a field of influence. Look at the influence of Greece in classical times, and the way
it spread a new set of ideas and culture. Diffusion means the spread of ideas and innovations, or cultural forms. Look at the spread of English culture via its diffusion field,
and the way English became a global koine.
The idea of a connected sequence is simply that a given transition, say, the Egptian spreads its influence into a neighboring area, and then in that field of diffusion, a new start
might happen: indeed it did: the Israelite shows the obvious influence of Egypt, and Mesopotamia. That is the frontier effect. The new is connected to the previous.
the term Axial Age is tricky: it springs from Jaspers but I change its meaning slightly in terms of its dates: from ca. 900 to 400 BC. The term should only be used for the parallel
transitions in that era: Greece, Israel/Persia, India, China: each had transitions. The usage of Jaspers may be unhelpful. In WHEE a new and exact terminology is created and the term
Axial Age disappears. The usage with Greece of the term is simply convenience: the Greek example is the easiest to talk about. But the ‘Axial Age’ in my extended sense refers to the transitions
in Greece, Israel/Persia, India, China. And only in the designated dates. I gave a modern example: Martin Luther noted the onset of a new era. The philosophes sensed the same. Many noticed the rise of the modern. With the Israelites the process is the same, but stronger in their case. The noticed that their history seemed to be undergoing a strange transformation in the birth of a new religion. By the time of the Exile and after they could look backward and see how much they have suddenly transformed. The Israelites adopted writing about the time of the Greeks,and began to record their history. Note that the incidents in Egypt are before the transition, the time of Moses being way before 900 BCE. The Israelites began to record that in the centuries just before the Exile.
Their history in Egypt was the object of legend and remains so.
I am wary of Graham Hancock: I can try to read his books if I can a hold of them. The eonic sequence of transitions doesn’t preclude other histories but the evidence is rarely good for all these
sensationalist books. i can’t say off hand and would have to study up on Hancock.
Absolutely right about Moses: he is not a part of the transition and his history is hard to separate from legend. Study the stream and sequence idea: Moses is part of a the larger stream of history. He is like Achilles in the Iliad: a real man, a myth? And just as you say the writings are much later, i.e. aftr 900 BCE, in the transition. In fact the early writings are themselves revised later, e.g after the Exile, so we are often uncertain. But you a right about Moses: he is a mythical figure with some historical facts, like the heroes in the Iliad and Odyssey. So Spinoza is ‘right on’.
The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman is a good history by secularists.
And some book on Greece in the Archaic and classical period, India and China: a huge study.
The text of WHEE has a lot of references.
Thantks for your good questions: I will answer them still further as possible.
You help me to see how people react or interpret my ideas. Many people simply freeze and say they can’t understand a word of the book.
A lot more could be said here, but enough for the moment.
Note that this is an empirical study: I often can’t answer because I don’t know the facts. I mentioned the Natufian in WHEE but now it is even clearer to me.
However the whole study is strange: until 3000/3300 BCE there is not writing and we can’t say too much about the Neolithic. But knowledge is increasing slowly.
JL
+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.
—–Original Message—–
From: Nemonemini
To: x@hotmail.se
Sent: Fri, Sep 25, 2020 11:29 am
Subject: Re: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: World History and the Eonic Effect
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.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=natufian
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
was global…
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.!!!
I will continue soon….
—–Original Message—–
From: A. C.
To: Nemonemini
Sent: Fri, Sep 25, 2020 9:25 am
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.
________________________________________
Från: Nemonemini
Skickat: den 24 september 2020 17:06
Till: x@hotmail.se
Ämne: Re: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: Sv: World History and the Eonic Effect
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
New Man, New Age, New Socialism 