the mysterious ‘eonic’ history of Israel/Persia: two monotheisms: Israelitism, Zoroastrianism

Good points: In fact Abraham points to a grey area between history and myth: his story of coming from
‘Mesopotamia’, Sumer, is apt and points the way the Israelites had not one but two ‘frontier’ effects:
Egypt and the lagacy world of Sumer. Mesopotamia and Egypt were like developed coutnries and
still undeveloped semi-wild zones, so common in our own times.

The correct interpretation of the eonic effect is fairly delicate with the Israelites. If we withdraw theistic interpretations,
just how do we explain their history in the transition period? howls of protest from irate jews/christians/ Secular humanists (I consider myself at least a fellow traveler)
are in danger of a nervous breakdwon here as the seemingly miraculous history of the jews confronts them with the equally
useless historical sociology. That is especially telling with ‘miraculous’ aspects they couldn’t understand: e.g. the strange way that the Exile
confronted Semites with Aryans and each with a brand of ‘monotheism’.
There is something sad about it: two opposing strainds were being blened into a unity of some kind
but in the end the tribal character of the Jews took over the Zorastrains elements and
then homogenized that as a semitic core theme. Am I right: it wasn’t supposed to be that way.
It is a classic example of ‘system action’ versus ‘free agency’.

In any case the sudden blending of two monotheisms wrought by the blind empires
doing the detaials without knowledge of what they were doing. The whole tale is full
of such seeming miracles, which, however, are also naturalistic. But the Israelites
were stuck with a puzzle and were more than superstitious.
I suspect a great opportunity was lost: instead of a universal monotheism
that could have reconclled many to a new unity we ended up with antisemetism
and the whole wretched mess. Howver the Crhistians show some part of the original project
and they did in fact adapt monotheism to multiple cultures. The Aryan/Semitic blending machine
somehow muddled through.
Murphy’s Law in action.
I mention this for another resason: the eonic effect looks miraculous and something only
a divinity could bring about, but as in this case it implies ‘god’ blundered with the creation of
a flawed monothesim. We contront ‘flawed miracles’, thus no part of god’s doing. The sense of the
a miraculous I must rush to note is misleading and the whole thing is ‘within nature’. But it does point to something
we can’t explalin. The answer is simple: we don’t know, but the eonic effect produces both theistic hallucination
and a new and more intelligent naturalism.
Please note the ‘clever tactics’ overall in the way the Axial interval produces a theistic and an atheistic religion, Buddhism

emerging with uncanny synchronicity. I just can’t see a divinity creating an atheistic religion.
We are still disciples of nature and have yet to resolve its mysteries and the way it can inject
creative energy into evolving ‘civilization(s)’
I may have missed something: the same thing happens with Islam:
a clear history of later Zorastrian creates a new realm outside of
christiantiy, and then suddenly Islam emerges in the old field of
Zoroastrianism.but in a Semitic dress, again, and centered in the
Arabian sphere.
One has to proceed with caution with these complicated histories.

It’s a lost cause to explain, but in a way the Israelites were ‘right’, what do you call
a something that can scan your culture, seed prophets, stage the emergence of
a religion complete with Bible in less than three centuries.
Please note their answer wasn’t god, but IHVH, a pointer to something
they knew they souldn’t name.
But soom the mythopoeic mind took over and the cargo cult was on its way.
as the unnamed became Jehovah

Did you get the picture of the coin: the confusion over semitic ‘divinities’ made
its way onto Phoenician coinage!

Ask me one question on each part of the EE in DCDint WH and I can make
a booklet of it….

I didn’t quite answer your question. The same effect is true in modern trimes. Why do we use the term ‘modern’?
The term varies in its usage, but the point is that in the nineteenth century it was clear a new era had started.
The industrial revolution powerfully suggested that, but there is much more to the ‘modern’.
The sense of a new era was obvious even if people didn’t see why
The same happened to the Israelites and they were rapidly creating a new religious cutlure.
They did not properly distinguish the stream/sequence: but even Solomon is mythical.
The Mosaic record is hopeless as hitory
and he could not have created the materials associated with him
but the emergence of monotheists in primitive form predates the history of Israel.
The transition amplifies that and creates the Bible.
The appearance of the prophets was also a kind of indication.
The analysis is very treaherous because too many texts have been revised in the post-Exle
period. And the earlier saga as noted was very mythological. It makes sense to think Moses
had some historical basis but the overall result is not reliable history.
It is important also to see the influence of the Zoroastrians during the Exile.
Some think that the real monotheism springs from the Persian source.
I need to review myself the data here: The Bible Unearthed is very useful
(Amazon has used copies for a buck or so)

The point is no so much that the Israelites noted the transition
but that the Greeks didn’t. But their culture was transformed in the
transition centuries, especially by the mid eighth century, with
the same timing in Israel.

Skickat: den 28 september 2020 12:55
Till: x@hotmail.se
Ämne: Re: 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?

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

You are three to four hours ahead of me, (I am in Montauk, NY).

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.

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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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