Once we see the eonic effect the need arises for a new kind of model. In fact, the data itself suggests the right approach and all we need to do is to hold up a kind of mirror to that data, and the model almost writes itself.

The eonic model is thus quite ordinary, yet also quite exotic. There are a number of reasons for this:

• Theories of evolution in general and historical theories in particular are not branches of physics and do not properly respond to causal systems analysis. Questions of ethics, the evolution of ethics, simply do not get the right treatment in reductionist theories.

• We have already seen the problem of the Oedipus Effect, where the agent begins interacting with his own theory in the present. We need to devise a special type of theory that 'switches off' its dynamical claims in the present.

• Related to this is the issue of historicism, in the sense of Popper. We must beware of making causal predictions in a situation where free activity must in the nature of things be protected from the theory in the present.

• A theory is usually the construct of an external observer creating generalizations (laws) about data he has observed externally. But with the evolution of man this objectivity becomes problematical, and as we close on the present (history) the effect overwhelms all attempts at theory.

• Theories of evolution/history are inherently ideological. The point is crystal clear in a figure like Herbert Spencer, but just as much a problem in Darwin's theory, although concealed. The resemblance to classical liberalism in the work of both men has often been noted.

So, as we close on the present a difficulty arises. We become agents of the evolution we are attempting to describe. That's nonsense. But you can see the problem already in Darwin and especially Spencer. One way to deal with this seems to keep evolution in the past, and isolate ourselves from its implications in the present. But this won't work. The reason is the Oedipus Effect. If we think natural selection is the mechanism of evolution its implications will arise in our historical action to influence that.

The answer is to create a conjoined theory/model of 'evolution and history', which we will call the Great Transition. This will create two levels to the model, one pertaining to evolution, the other to history.

 Eonic Terminology

Our unexpectedly simple non-random pattern of world history as three turning points and/or a cyclical series with three beats, has suggested a very useful lightweight model that we can summarize here and one that like salt with food will bring out its properties in short order by exploiting the clear perception of discontinuity in the center of its emerging sequence. Visualizing the flows of culture on the surface of a planet can be confusing, but once we attempt to keep track of what’s going on with even a minimal construct we get a surprising result. If we take the surface of a planet and take hopscotch sequences of relative transforms or transitions, we discover the evolution of the whole through the part.

We began with the perception of three turning points in history, which we call the eonic effect. Alternatively, we looked at the synchronous data of the Axial Age. This looked like a fragment of a larger sequence, and this led to our sequence once again. But the moment we impinge on a frequency interpretation, we impinge on the boundary of metaphysics. Without it, the Axial interval looks like some unique ‘age of revelation’, which makes no sense. But then why did anyone think so. The frequency interpretation helps us to connect with earlier eras, and evolution(s), and to move on, not forever stuck in Axial memories. All our histories of this are myths, and the new transition, in the Enlightenment, gives us the system feedback, a grim verdict. We could consume useless centuries trying to revive the Axial Age. History has moved on.

Looking at this sequence we can see that it could only be called ‘evolution’, which we qualified as the ‘eonic, or stepping, evolution of civilization’. We can see that there are high-speed transitions visible in history, making us suspicious of earlier periods of the descent of man. We are led to propose a formal category of transition, or transitions, from ‘evolution’ to ‘history’, as an ‘evolution of freedom’ via self-consciousness. This led us to distinguish ‘eonic determination’ and ‘free action’ as categories describing the different aspects of volition in history. The question, Does Man Make Himself? served as a restatement of this, and we see a definite driving evolution operating behind the scenes in the emergence of civilization.

Our turning points are ambiguous subsets of world history taken as a whole, and we proposed two levels of universal history. The latter idea gave us an alternate version of our method in Kant’s Challenge. Given the basic eonic pattern, a qualitative model arises spontaneously. We propose a frequency hypothesis about a sequence, model the data as an eonic sequence of transitions, in the intersection of the cultural stream and the large scale sequence (or, t-stream and e-sequence). This sequence creates an effect of eonic determination in relation to basic free action. This ‘stream and sequence’ effect shows us that the fundamental unit of historical analysis is really the transitional periods in this ‘sequence’ and not the individual civilizations. These transitions tend to create a factor of ‘sequential dependency’ in the intermediate eras, which tend to drift into medievalism, or lose their transitional depth.

 We need not apologize for a qualitative model. No model using numerical parameters is going to work here. The ‘mechanics’ of ‘esthetic action’ (?) is fully in evidence. Lest this be thought unscientific, we should note Quantum Mechanics has a similar problem, ends with two levels, one using complex numbers. We are restricted to periodization and can consider tempo in a vast system with a mysterious biological clock. It is hard to grapple with such a large subject but we can suddenly see what our system is doing even if we can’t explain it. A highly coherent system is at work ‘doing’ some very smart evolution. That’s the first problem. We can’t hypostatize an active agent.

It is as if we can see an ingenious ‘strategy’ at work, an elegant way to integrate a planet, in an evolutionary trend toward development, integration, and globalization. How, with a minimum of energy, could a system induce directed evolution into a continuous random stream of temporal culture(s). This is a system of ‘free agents’, however free, and it would be pointless to program a fixed result. The system is required to not overdetermine the action, which must be freely constructed as much as possible. Left alone it will however drift ad infinitum and never upgrade to any rich result. We see this result clearly in world history where everything seems to fall apart and drift. We can see that especially in the ‘Axial’ period. The system is hopelessly sluggish, second rate, and needs a shot in the arm. Within centuries a New Age is underway. Then everything undergoes a downshift and within a millennium, in the Occident, the results are falling apart. Then just at the fringes of the Eurasian system, right on schedule, the system takes off again.

In general, then, one could way to do this would be a long range alternating sequence. Thus instead of random evolution, we will see development proceeding from a source to a global result in leapfrogging steps. Where start? We know the answer, and could have guessed it. The only candidate is the Near East, the best near far location for good diffusion. Somewhere, we think, this sequence starts, probably at the beginning of the Neolithic, perhaps with the birth of civilization. We may be missing two earlier alternating steps.

But will this sequence put all its eggs in one basket? Probably not. It is good to explore parallel possibilities, and since our system only returns on itself at intervals that we create a seemingly bizarre pattern of synchronous bursting phases. This explains why Egypt suddenly takes off in tandem with the threshold passage of Sumer.

Since the only possibility of development is to build on what you have already the return of the system must be to the original starting area. Otherwise the whole thing is pointless, and you would have to start from scratch. But this creates a problem of more and more going into an isolated area, and stuck with the logjam of its decay from the previous steps, probably a dumb empire by the time the system returns.

The answer would be to ‘start over’, but in an area somewhere near the frontier of the start area, with a good chance to have received the basics by diffusion, but still green enough to be ‘morphably open to basic new beginnings’. We see that especially in our Axial phase with Greece and Canaanite ‘Israel/Judah’ (and it goes without saying, India, China and Rome). These areas are just far away enough to escape domination, and are like acorns sprouting from the old, yet moving to create the new, and they do so at what was, at the time, a frontier. Notice the case of Greece. It is clearly fed by multiple sources of good diffusion, yet seems to recapitulate and surpass the outstanding system in a rapid period of time, the Greek Archaic. We should note that the Judaic case doesn’t even escape domination and yet manages to effect a result nonetheless. Part of the secret is the discovery of networking culture. The result operates independently of the geographical region, and in the process gives rise to a series of ‘stateless religions’.

We have already derived our model in essence, but must keep in mind the dangers of thinking in terms of active agents or ‘as if’ principles. We are limited to a rubric of periodization, and circumstantial evidence based on that. But while the system is clearly teleological, we can’t infer anything more than directionality. Note that teleology would override the present. Our type of model neatly handles this problem, and we see this confirmed in spectacular fashion after the modern divide.

Our choice of models is what we will call a ‘discrete-continuous’ one, on again off again. The result is a series of three eras initiated with short transitions. We turn these into three century transitions using eonic grid terminology: Transition 1 to mideonic period 1, transition 2 to period 2, transition 3 to period 3, the present. In our eonic grid terminology of the next section this becomes:

Transition 1 : -3300 to -3000

Transition 2 : -900 to -600

Transition 3 : 1500 to 1800

Thus our perception of world history can be analyzed therefore with the series of concepts we have developed:

1. A consideration of the so-called ‘fundamental unit  of historical analysis’. This is usually thought of as the civilization. But we see that the real dynamic centers around a series of phases. We formalize this as a frequency hypothesis, using a series of discrete transitions, three in fact. We can make that new unit the actual sequence of phasing periods that constitute the core eras of macroevolution. We will look at this in another section.

2. We have the same problem as the economist and must distinguish between a ‘system’ (e.g. ‘economy’) and the ‘free action’ of the individuals inside that system. This is in turn must be distinguished from technological evolution and economic evolution. Please note that our strange approach is actually a variant of the thinking in evidence among economists.

3. We must distinguish between the stream and sequence, seen in the way that, for example, ancient Greece contributes to a greater sequence, which is different from the stream of ‘Greek Civilization’.

4. An examination of the parallel synchronism of the transitions, along with their exteriorizing character.

5. What about everything else in the middles? We see our model is like a negative, and undergoes reversal as we pass from the periods of phase to the periods outside. This will result in a close look at the complexities of diffusion. There is a kind of sequential dependency of the middle eras on those of transition.

6. The most remarkable fact is that our system, connected to all the phenomena above, never reuses the same hotspot area twice. This acorn or frontier property exploits a kind of ‘near-far’ strategy to induce the expansion and renewal of the overall growing field.

 We can summarize the basic concepts. There are other accessory concepts spread through the text, e.g. Oedipus Effects, action scripts, the ‘evolution of freedom’, relative transforms, self-consciousness, but we stick here to the basic set, from the original version of the model, prior to elaborations. Think of the surface of a planet divided into a rectangular grid sectors, and the way to develop the whole in the short on-off of particular regions.

1. A frequency hypothesis: eonic sequence The raw data of the eonic effect is a cyclical pattern of ‘eonic emergents’, and the relative motion of free activity in relation to these cycles. To this we can bring a frequency hypothesis. Or we can simply take it as an empirical map, like a history of economic cycles. It is essential to see that the model closes in the recent past, leaving the element of free action in the present, the stance of the economist. This cyclical theory lurks in the background and is an extension to the basic model, which works as a map, or terrain guide, in which our ‘free action’ is basic, and the model must end with free action, after the last incident of the greater system. The eonic model does indeed have that property. Thus this is not a predictive model. Our status therefore is like that of relative free action in the present, like an economist looking backward at economic cycles. System action in the past is replaced by free action in the present. Thus we are looking at eonic emergents in a cyclical system of some kind. What kind we can’t say, and our theory is itself an eonic emergent in that system, evolving as we go along.

2. A fundamental unit of analysis Given the pattern of historical facts, the best, probably the only, way to posit a cyclical theory of civilization or civilizations is to separate the ‘cycle’ from the ‘civilization’, and make its appearance arrive on schedule, that is periodic in the strict sense. The issue must be empirical and be shown in nature, and prove itself as a useful means of classifying the categories of civilization. This empirical basis is achieved readily by simply tagging it to the sequence of given turning points, that we will find: the birth of civilization, the classical era, and the onset of the modern period, still incomplete. Cultures enter this field created by the ‘cycle’  and enter development. Those at the onset, or initial impetus phase, become seminal generating sources for the rest. That’s it for the cyclical evolution of civilization, with a giant question, cycles of what? We don’t know.

3. Eonic determination and free action We must carefully distinguish the action of our system and the action of the individuals that make it up. We take this difference as one of ‘self-consciousness’ or creative action, noting that this special factor must be potentially possible at all times, even if amplified during transitional periods.

4. Transition and sequential dependency (or diffusion)  A distinct relationship of generalized sequencing, instead of causality, becomes the natural relationship of cyclical  determination and its executive free action. Its currency is diffusion, but diffusion from a zone and period, a tradition, e.g. Greece to Rome. Rome is sequentially dependent on the Greek phenomenon. We need not indulge in a fine analysis of separate civilizations. That is a narrative task in the chronicle of unique incidents of history. The generalized wave of eonic determination does business with oikoumenes generated from those areas that cross the boundary of expansion, in the on-schedule period. The example of Israel  is the classic imprint of this process. Israel shows eonic determination, Christianity  defaults to mideonic ‘free action’ as sequential dependency . The frontier area intersects with the cyclical period and a template emerges. It looks like historical causality because the shockwave of diffusion creates a potential well for relative free action , e.g. a tradition. This deprives the middle eras of ‘historical forces’, and this is indeed what the data suggests.

Phase and ecumenization This simply restates the first rubric, in terms of the second, and fits our second cycle better, with the appearance of explicit ecumenizers, left to empire mode in the first.

t-stream and e-sequence. This restates the ‘stream and sequence’ idea still one more time, and was the terminology in the first edition.

5. Independent parallel interactive emergence As we look at our parallel transitions, we must confront the possibility of ‘sideways’ diffusion and yet maintain the independent emergence of the sources of phase. The key, as always, is Israel, next to Greece. That both were influenced by the Phoenicians, i.e. general ‘Canaan’, does not explain the relative short term sourcing and long term persistence of these different streams. Another example is India. The Persian s reached India in time to influence many things. But nothing can explain the long-term character of India better than the phenomenon of Buddhism , which in turn shows clear sources, but distinct association with phase. This is the trickiest part of the eonic effect, for we must assess the relative transformation  of complex entities such as ‘monotheism’, hard to do.

6. The acorn, or frontier property Why is it that, after two millennia of consolidated advance, the next period of civilization seems to source in remote Greece, more remote India, and China, and, most remarkably, in the small-scale Israel , like an acorn in the field of Egypt and Mesopotamia? We see that our system always restarts in a fringe zone. One answer to this question is to look at what happens to those areas closest to Sumer, the Assyrian, Chaldean, and Persian sequences. We know without knowing what is afoot. These get caught up in the momentum of Universal Empire, while the tiny Israel, and lightweight Hellenic network of city-states rapidly catch up and pass into different modes of culture. This was ‘eonic jump diffusion’ in the first edition.

7. Econosequence and technosequence Since we have distinguished the action of a system from ‘free action’, we must be sure to grant this ‘free action’ its just due. It certainly does not follow that all innovations are in the mainline of the eonic sequence. This may have been true once in some invisible past, but by the time we catch up with our system we see considerable technical advance occurring independently.