of my extended statements. With this apparatus the answer is trivial, though
still mysterious. The question of 'capitalism' requires being settled, to
some degree, by definition. Do we mean the Neolithic trade in obsidian,
Sumerian bullock cart trade in early Mesopotamia using blocks of precious
metals, early investment scenarios of the Phoenicians, the Greek oil boom,
the Sung China economy, etc....
Actually, we are back to square one, all are correct, but we mean something
distinctly new and different as of the end of the eighteenth century. This
is a slow-fast, 'relative beginnings' problem. The early 'econosequence'
suddenly (i.e rough three centuries) picks up steam and suddenly crosses a
threshold after 1800. So we restate the obvious. The purpose of any good
model is to 'keep it simple stupid' and explain the obvious.
But note the difference! This is a function of world historical 'eonic
sequence' in which the economic factor is a dependent factor, and it
'emergent reformulation' as a function of world historical time. The
Industrial revolution occurs with exact timing (to within a generation)
remorphing prior elements from deep history, and climaxing a rough three
centuries buildup, well described by many writers. It joins a whole flock of
such 'emergentist' accelerations. Some of these elements were present in the
middle ages. Some of the elements are occurring all over the place before
during and after. But the main event shows Euro-localization, is triggered in
England, and starts to diffuse rapidly from there. The question of Europe is
not relevant. Why does it work this way? We must move toward a full answer to
the whole pattern first! Not so simply. But this is discontinuous evolution,
which evolves through the parts to reach the whole.
This is a peculiar analysis (and still very incomplete), but it has a
desirable feature that Marx was struggling for, but couldn't quite get to
work. It is there in the distinction of 'economic determination' and the
'leap into freedom', or whatever. Two separate processes (note the
resemblance to Kantian antinomy). The econostream we discover is a dependent
process. How fortunate! If capitalism really were a determinate phase of
world history, how could it switch on or off. The statement is actually
incoherent, but the point is that we would need a macro system that, however
long range and sluggish, transcends mere economic momentum. And that is what
we have. Note this resembles Karl Polanyi's analysis.
how can we use the eonic effect to improve our daily lives? One use is as a
garbage disposal for harebrained theories. I have spent my whole life being a
deviationist relative to theories that on examination made no sense.
There is no predetermination. This is not a predictive model. The last action
of the world system went into shutdown in the early nineteenth century (this
model says). And we see the left scrambling to fix the course of the clearly
flawed output system. Frightening. Genuinely terrifying.
I have defined a 'capitalism' in terms of this eonic system (needs more work,
of course), but I have to wonder. Looking at the evidence, I might also say,
mutter, "didn't make it". The new form of production never quite connected to
a social system that matched it. Charles Chaplin.
The question of agency is critical. You will find in an extended statement a
distinction required to bypass the 'freedom-necessity' contradiction. We see
that while the whole shows determination, every step is humanly constructed.
We don't ever see the deeper operating system.
That is worth keeping in mind. Time for a disarmament of those claiming
theories (violent) of evolution. They are criminal bandits. Like Darwin. A
world historical mess case.
You ask if the eonic effect is history philosophy etc... Actually it is a
glimpse, looking backwrds, of 'evolution in action'.
In a message dated 5/18/2001 7:50:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Capitalism has no easily dated origin. We can surely say that capitalism
began sometime around the era of 1500 to 1800, as you stated. I just don't
understand why we need the eonic theory to figure that out.
You seem willing to uphold the importance of human agency, or free will, to
historical change, mediated of course by circumstances, but it's not clear
how this concern is maintained in your eonic conclusions.
How can we use the eonic effect to improve our daily lives? If it's another
predetermination theory, then I guess we should stop trying to do anything
purposive and just become hedonists.
My main criticism, however, is that after carefully constructing a great
long diving plank from deductivist reasoning (using everything from Kant to
algebra), you would run out onto the plank and take a headfirst inductivist
leap into the promised land of historical omniscience. It seems unlikely.
Finally, how would you categorize the eonic effect? Is it history?
Philosophy? Economics? "Psychohistory?" Science? Maybe science, but you
give up on explanation. I feel strongly that we need to retain explanation,
and not merely understanding, as a major goal of social science.
John Landon
author
World History and the Eonic Effect
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://eonix.8m.com
