5. The Pattern
Of Universal History
|
From Cyclical Theories
|
||
|
|
||
| 5.9.2 From Cyclical Theories to Eonic Sequence | ||||
|
As a resolution of cyclical theories we have created a model of an eonic sequence. And in one stroke we reduce the complexity of theory to simplicity by using the ‘turning point’ itself as the new fundamental unit of analysis. The onset of our cycles shows a highly compressed initialization, so to speak. We call these periods ‘eonic transitions’, in relation to a frequency hypothesis. Our reflections on a pattern of turning point s, wrested from the confusions of cyclical theories, suddenly springs forth as the fundamental clue to the structure of world history, and the existence of an aspect of cultural evolution . The three should work together. The stream of Greek ‘civilization’ intersects with the ‘cycle’ and becomes a turning point, better, an ‘eonic transition’. This core area then spawns a large-scale oikoumene. Not only cyclical theories, but also the more scientific, and very important, but flawed or inchoate, theories of the cultural evolution, from the Paleolithic to civilization, or other attempts to extend evolutionary thinking in relation to culture or the causes of the birth of so-called pristine states, suffer the same basic confusion over the ambiguous entity that is taken as fundamental, culture as an entity in itself or as civilization. If we look at the full Eurasian context in the period of high civilization from Sumer to the Mongolian invasions, we see that civilization is a series of expanding centers and frontiers, frequently under assault from the invasions of nomadic tribes entering a field of development, and often assuming the mantle of civilization. Ordinary theories of cultural evolution do not do justice to this phenomenon, of the interaction at a place and time of the temporal streaming or noodle aspect of cultural flows, between placelessness, and ‘someplace near civilization’, the slowly expanding ‘someplace called civilization’. The test case is, for example, the distinct Mycenaean and Classical Greek ‘civilizations’. One t-stream shows two civilizations, one a sequentially dependent mideonic case, the other in the mainline of the eonic sequence. How do we account for this difference? Certainly not by saying one evolved into the other. And yet the culture is clearly a common denominator. Only the idea of an intermittent eonic sequence resolves the data. But there is a strange difference in the separate instances of this phenomenon. We can see it if we compare the Phoenicians and the Israelites, the Mycenaeans and later Greeks, indeed the first Sumerians and later Akkadians, Babylonians, and Assyrians. Here, unexpectedly, is our clue to the existence of a ‘cycle’, for it is in a strange rhythm that we find accelerated bursts of cultural evolution, not in general cultures, but in specifically located ones. Not only do we see this, we also see the mysterious evidence of this in the form of synchronous parallel multitasking, the telltale clue to a real existence, not imagined, of a ‘half-dressed fireman effect’. Civilization shows relative evolution against the backdrop of the Paleolithic. It does not create all its forms so much as transform them. The long frequency of ‘cycles’ creates a field to receive the entry tribal entities, what we call the intersection of the t-stream and eonic sequence. And the effect depends only, as far as we can tell, on the ‘period’ in relation to the start of civilization as such, and its position with respect to its spread. We had been expecting to find the ‘equation’ of evolutionary dynamism, for a ‘culture’, instead we see an expanding progression of cultural evolution in bursts creating a field of diffusion, of cultures ‘evolving’, briefly, and simultaneously during the period, and only in selected instances, that then become sources of the advance to their environment. It is as if the challenge as it were is to find a process of ‘macroevolution’ that is independent of geographical or micro-cultural particulars that can proceed in synchronous fashion across unsynchronized domains of cultural proliferation. More efficient! In historical times, tribalisms are integrating into civilizations, often with a temporary emphasis on one tribe, whose matrix then generalizes into a template for an oikoumene. All of these disparate elements wandering about seem to lack the coherence needed for a process of integrated development. But what we do see, is the dynamic ‘evolution’ of what we call civilization or civilizations, surrounded by this outstanding world of cultural or tribal man generally in a condition of stasis, yet on the move or receptive to the processes of diffusion, as they enter the general vicinity of civilization in its frontier areas. Now, after this difficult discussion, we can see what our ‘turning points’ are up to. This is actually a better starting point for both a cyclical theory, and one of cultural, or more properly civilizational, evolution, if, instead of ‘civilization’, we take ‘cycle’, ‘generative area’, and ‘fringe diffusion’ as the basic ideas. This is simply our stream and sequence data, which shows us a temporal stream of culture going through a transition and then spawning an oikoumene. This kind of analysis can be confusing because it points to the relative transformation of temporal streams. But this property, if we can handle it, is precisely the most desirable aspect of the ‘theory’. Relative to all of Greek History, the Archaic Period stands out. It is in the classical period that this viewpoint is revealed as the only solution to the characteristic ‘cut across boundaries’ that we see in the band of parallel emergence. In Greece, in Israel, especially here, in India and China, we see the temporal stream of cultural becoming intersect the periodicity of the greater ‘system’ of civil-izing, civilization. As these streams cross a period of phase, we see an accelerated era of rapid cultural generation. As the phase passes, new structures emerge in an ecumenizing spread from these template sources. Suddenly we realize that this is just what we are seeing in the period of Egypt and Sumer, ca. –3000 and before. The modern world will join this list, although the analysis must be slightly different, based on the proximity and immersion that we have still in the period of immersion. |
||||