|
|
|
The perception of the rise of the modern is the mirror image of
our intuitive perception of the Middle Ages. This medieval period is a
phenomenon that we take for granted, and which stands in ironic relation to our
ideas of progress (which remarkably go into postmodern decline promptly after
the modern transition). Sometimes it is the ‘Dark Ages’, though not everywhere
so dark.
Note that as we move backwards the concept of the unilinear
‘evolution of a civilization’ loses its meaning. We enter a far larger sphere,
the one Eurasian ‘civilization’ of which the European modernist offshoot is but
a branch. The concoction, ‘Western Civilization’, blinds us to this unity. We
speak of the Dark Ages, but it was quite a seminal period of gestation, as the
influences of the Roman oikoumene began to ferment. The student was beginning to
graduate. As we move backwards, our earlier hotspot steps are in different
places, and yet development occurs nonetheless. And we also see the absence of a
Dark Age in other areas, as the ‘medieval’ seems better-named the ‘mideonic’.
Islam, and Sung China, are evidence of the many ‘mideonic’ peaks in our emerging
large-scale ‘eonic world system’. What we mistakenly see as one ‘Western’
civilization is an illusion created by the fact that Archaic Greece and the rise of the modern
(which we see as intermittent phases in our eonic sequence) both share common
linguistic and cultural elements, but braided with Judaic, concealed Indic, and
finally Islamic influences. The spread of the great religions is creating a
foundation for a global culture, even as its effects crystallize as new sluggish
civilizations. The attempt to make one ‘European civilization’ out of the
successive transitions in Greece
and Europe has hopelessly confused the issue.
So ‘Western Civilization’ is a sophisticated paste up of basically tribal
thinking.
We are immersed in the cascade of modern things, yet clock
this from an arbitrary starting point, the end of a middle period. This is a
good example of the way we already sense an ‘eonic effect’, in isolation,
without realizing its significance. This chronicling begins in the sixteenth
century. We should be confronted with the question, What is this ‘medieval’
period in the middle of? Our sense of a discontinuity, now with a suggestion
that it is not a date but an interval of several centuries after about 1500,
draws us backwards to grapple with clear reality of the long period of stasis
that almost dwarfs the period of modernism that is now a world in itself, a new
age of history well underway. We have forbidden ourselves the term ‘punctuated
equilibrium’ but we can take the phrase apart and notice that our ‘Western
Tradition’ is really two punctuations (at least) connected by a long static
equilibrium. In fact, the term is misleading, since our sluggish middle is by no
means in equilibrium, save relative to the unique periods of truly foundational
advance. Technology proceeds apace, economic networks are growing apace. Prior
sources of advance are diffusing. Cultures that long ago entered the Neolithic
and then remained on that plateau are starting to reckon with the later
achievements of the Sumerians onwards.
|
|