The issue of the divide in the ‘eonic effect/model’ is in one way unmistakable, as part of the non-random pattern in world history, but the modern case just doesn’t register in the reference to the idea in relation to the issue of radical politics. Below at the bottom is from the Last Revolution.
In fact I tried to be ultra simple in that text and use only a simple chronology but then to at least reference in the background some of the relation to the eonic model. Decoding World History (and WHEE) go into the question in moe detail. The divide phenomenon arises from the fact that a discrete/continuous phenomenon, i.e. a continuous history but with an embedded discrete sequence, will produce an endpoint to the interval in question. Further the character of historical action changes from ‘system action’ to ‘free action or agency’ and the difference is visible in what we see. Students of world history and the history of religion would do well to consider this issue. The realm of proximate antiquity (specifically the Axial band: ca. 900 to 600 BCE, in modern term ca. 1800) shows some spectacular data in relation to the divide, ca. 600 BCE. The emergence of democray first in Greece and then in modern times is correlated with the divide, viz. Solon ca. or just after 600 BCE and in modern times, viz. the American ‘democracy’ just before 1800, but with many intimations from Munzer to the English Civil War, and the later French Revolution, etc…)
The next almost fantastic case if the emergence of Israelitism (not to be confused with Judaism) in the 900 to 600 BCE transition/interval: the history is complex but the core period is the eighth century onward to the ‘divide’ ca. 600 BCE, just before which the almost complete Israelite corpus sees the Israelites suddenly deported, their kingdoms destroyed, in the sudden Exile, wherein the Israelite corpus is blended with Zoroastrianism. Then the return and the two centuries of a sort of consolidation, the transition well over by 600/the Exile, and the crystallization of the Biblical texts and the onset of a ‘religion’…. The correlation with the eonic model is clear, and spectacular, spooky. The Israelites understood that something was directing their history, and they were right (and did not originally reference ‘god’ which wrecked their vision).
Now consider India. Yesterday I was reading a history of Buddhism and it pegged the start at 400’s BCE, a recent re-periodization of its history which has mostly been taken as just after 600 BCE, cf. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Buddha+dates#cobssid=s : “The modern scholarly consensus for the dates of the Buddha, since c. 1906 CE, has been c. 563 – c. 483 BCE based on external evidence such as Jain texts, Ashoka’s reign, and astronomical calculations as well as probable dates for the founding of Buddhist schools of thought.‘ Our argument works with both dates, but the original chronology is especially spectacular, and I think correct.. Note that Gautama appears just after the divide.
Now consider: Mahavir, the last of the Jain teertankers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahavira: dates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahavira: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Mahavir+Janism%2C+dates: Life. Although tradition dictates that Mahavira was born about 599 bce, many scholars believe this date to be as much as 100 years early, in that case Mahavira probably lived at about the same time as the Buddha, whose traditional birth date has also been reassessed. These two are eonic bull’s eyes, but slighly displaced as their source histories now invisible in the period 900 to 600 climaxes with send offs just after the divide. These religions show macro correlation, but show a clear free component also, elegant!! Note the way the somewhat stolid and localized Jainism gets a a remake in Buddhism and this will, instead of a new Buddha in each generation will format as a religion and spread globally, as the inveterate Indic traditions globalize for the first time.
Note that with this periodization Mahavir as the last of the teertankers almost overlaps at its endpoint with the starting point of Buddhism. The exactness of the dates is almost uncanny, although our argument works as well, sort of, if the whole thing is displaced later by a century or two. But the dates above are probably the right ones and they show the spectacular way Mahavir seems to hand the baton to Buddha, in a metaphor, as classical Jainism passes into Buddhism. The correlation of this with the eonic model can hardly be chance. It is stunning victory for simple periodization study. Its meaning is almost obvious: the culture of meditation is preserved (also in Hinduism, of course) over millennian and then begins to enter a global stream.
We are missing something here: a period of vigorous religious development in the wake of the Upanishads but lost to us, mostly, suddenly crystalizes with the end of Jainism (which continues as an outer religion without new teertankers) and the onset of Buddhism. The eonic model gives a beautiful and obvious interpretation to these endings and beginnings and we see the end of one era and the onset of a new. Note that in parallel with the phenomenon of Israelitism and its fixation just before the Exile, its blending with Zoroastrianism, and its consolidation is a time-frame similar to that of Buddhism. We note that an ‘atheist’ and ‘theist’ religion (both works are dangerous to use) emerge in spectacular parallel, so we have no ‘historical god-hypothesis’ of god in history, but something more elusive (and mixed with idea of elohim, a different altogether) here. We must note that the original Israelitism was not theistic in the later sense, but some form of ‘gnostic’ (not quite the best word) vision of a nameless X, referred to as IHVH, then degenerating into ‘Jehovah’ and the pop theism that then came into existence as ‘monotheism’.We have lost the original, but like Taoism (the Tao that can be named is not the real Tao, etc…) it only points and forbids direct reference to ‘that’.
In any case we have two directly correlated emergent religions in proximate antiquity in parallel and direct correlation. This, along with much accessory data, can hardly be chance. Note that the Axial Age shows more than religion and in the case of Archaic to Classical Greece and the Chinese ear of Lao Tse and Confucious a further extension of our data set.
So now in the larger eonic model we can see what is happening in the modern case (the field has shifted in its Frontier Effect to a subset of Europe, and there we see once again generated phenomenon clustering near a divide. We will cite this and continue the discussion at redfortyeight.com).
From The Last Revolution
Modernity, the Modern Transition, the Divide
We might reiterate our opening statement about system collapse by putting it in the context of the ‘eonic effect’: Although we will leave the model of the eonic effect in the background, the basic periodization of that dynamic is easy and suggests a perspective to deal with system collapse: we should distinguish the ‘eonic sequence of transitions’, the modern transition, its divide, and the modern period as such that follows. The modern transition is densely packed with eonic innovations which are only barely realized and too often damped out by the high tide of capitalism. The system thus has immense reserve potential beyond the superficial realizations of the ‘modern period’. this gobbledegook terminology is obscure at first, but always ‘mere periodization’ followed by careful empirical study until we suddenly see what the larger system is doing and get a feel for the historical tides in action. The modern period suggests dozens of recovery vehicles, and this kind of issue emerged early in the wake of the first socialists who sensed immediately that a new modernity was possible. The later confusions and sophistries of postmodernism can nonetheless remind us that while ‘modernity’ has no ‘post’ as an interval of 2400 years, it can be critiqued as to its realizations in place and the system dynamic of the eonic effect allows revolutionary/reformist restarts. We have critiqued Marx, but his instincts were right: he sensed a ‘discrete/continuous’ dynamic, the reason for his system of discrete epochs in the continuous stream of history. But the process transcends the economic and blends facts and values in a dynamic of reason, ethics, and aesthetics. Note the spectacular moment of the modern divide ca. 1800 and the clustering of massive innovations.