5. The Pattern
Of Universal History
|
Need For A Global Model:
|
||
|
|
||
| 5.2.3 Need For a Global Model: The Unit of Analysis | ||||
|
The idea of a turning point needs a new formulation, as a sequence of transitions, already suggested in our idea of eonic evolution. Another problem is that we cease to deal with civilizations, and instead use ‘time-slices’ of civilizations. Our turning points again, soon transitions. These are the unit of analysis. We use this idea instinctively, for we speak of ‘modernity’, which can happen anywhere. Our unit of analysis is this time-slice of the onset of modernity. One aspect of the data gives us a clue, the resemblance of one part of TP2, and TP3. The Greek Archaic One of the strangest facts of world history is resemblance of the Greek Archaic, leading to the Classical period, to the rise of the modern. This ‘turning point’ is one of the most remarkable history records. We find a Greek ‘reformation’, ‘enlightenment’, birth of science, birth of democracy, a tragic genre, and more. This echo effects makes us suspicious of a non-linear discrete recursion of some induction process operating at a deeper level. This clue turns us into virtual bloodhounds on our way backward in search of the clearly non-coincidental signature of our ‘universal history’. The resemblance, as if by remorphing, of the Greek to the Indian period here leads us very close to the common denominator. Isomorphic transitions The rise of the modern, and its sudden postmodern effect, makes us ask if this period is unique, and what its dynamics are. As we move backwards we can suddenly see that modernity is connected to a greater whole, and that a very simple system is at work, yet one with extraordinary implications, of global proportions. Our modern system is ‘new aging’, as if in a series of ‘eons’. A so-called discrete-continuous model will match this system. Behind the model lies our idea of ‘eonic emergents’ and our first study must be of these, in their rich detail that will keep the abstractions of a model honest. This type of model is like moving from analog to digital thinking, very crude, but effective. In fact we will soon see that the Greek, Hebraic, and modern transitions are isomorphic structural entities. These two eras resemble each other, and yet they are different civilizations. The unit of analysis needs to be something else. We need a new unit of study, broader than the particular culture. A unit of analysis We have already seen the dilemma of causal theories of the rise of the modern, and found the idea of discontinuity appropriate. Looking at the ‘evolution’ of culture or civilization doesn’t work. We have already developed the idea of ‘two universal histories’, and the high level history is independent of the ‘civilization’. Our unit of analysis will be the high level transition itself, in this case, the rise of the modern. Thus we see discontinuity of place, in addition to that of time. The rise of the modern expresses perfectly the idea that a change in time has occurred, not just some ‘rise of the West’ or other Eurocentric phrase. The dynamics is a series of local changes in a global context. Our new unit will simply be the turning points. Our turning points are clusters of eonic emergents and give us a clue to our ‘unit of analysis’, and they seem to be transitions in a larger eonic sequence, which is larger than our economic history, or econosequence. They seem to time-slice the streams of local culture and generate a high level sequence. We are on our way to discover the full set of concepts. We have the resolution to the enigma of the rise of the modern. |
||||