3.7.1 Cycle, Counter-cycle: Floating Fourth Turning points

Having produced a cyclical interpretation, it is important to see that we are not expounding fatalist destiny. And there is a joker in the deck, it is clear from our analysis that macro-action  and micro-action can diverge. Especially in the ‘mideonic’ periods is this so. In fact, there is a secondary history generated in relation to the eonic sequence, and this is generally related to or confounded by teleological ideologies. This reminds us that our turning points are finite intervals, and lose control over their local future, in the modern case the system shutting down in our recent past. What happens after TPX defaults to ‘micro free action’ again? Into that void spring the whole host of counter-cyclical actions not disallowed by our indifferent system which has gone into shutdown. Our system generates freedom, but freedom also requires action, in some fashion, against the system, since this dynamic would constrain freedom.

Courter-evolution from the system As we explore the strange implications of the eonic model we discover the paradoxes of freedom and causality, and in the process we can see that our system must finally leave its agents to themselves to create their own history. That can create an ambiguity as the determinations of the system lead to reactions against the system action (consider the ambiguities of postmodern reactions to the Enlightenment!).

General TP4 exceptions We can call our ‘floating fourth turning points’ ‘general TP4 exceptions’. All this means is that the mideonic periods are not necessarily constrained by the eonic sequence.

 Thus, our eonic sequence expresses a cyclical directionality, but nothing forbids the formation of mideonic teleological ideologies attempting to break out of historical momentum with a trans-historical intent. This factor goes a long way toward explaning the emergence of the great religions as they arise in the eonic sequence, and then tend to generate counter-cyclical ‘fourth turning points’, so to speak. Some classic cases are Christianity, Islam, Mahayana Buddhism, Roman imperial ideology, Communist anti-modernism, postmodern and New Age movements. These are all quite different things, however. Fascism and the Holocaust are the most drastic examples, more like computer crashes. The Holocaust is simply an apparition from nowhere, and nothing in the modern transition gives us a genaeology for this psychotic episode. We must not let ourselves enforce some ‘eonic or modernist ideology’, our observations merely noting the way our system generates teleological contradictions.

It is useful therefore as an exercise to consider a sort of floating ‘fourth turning point’ anywhere in our pattern, whether in between or in the present (the idea is an exercise and doesn’t make complete sense). The joker in the deck is that, strictly speaking, everything is a TP4 exception, since noone can validly explicate the concealed ‘telos’ behind the eonic sequence. In the case of modernity, a postmodern critique of the realization of modernity is in principle completely possible. Nothing after the system shutdown point can claim eonic determination. It might show it anyway by fulfilling the eonic sequence, but the system defaults to free action in the wake of the transitions. Note that system direction doesn’t stop mideonic free action, and we see many drifting sequences. Sometimes an ideology of historical transcendence arises, Christianity, Islam. A close look shows all sorts of efforts to move in different directions in relation to our turning points. Thus, we can try to challenge this sequence with various exceptions, a sort of TP4. Efforts to transcend the eonic effect are not ruled out in our analysis! This is not physics then. It is still theoretically possible to refute this pattern by changes in the present. Note the catch, however. to negate TP3 requires undoing the Industrial Revolution, modern freedoms, the rise of science. It is like a ratchet, and we are sequentially dependent on these, and might wish it to stay that way. But each turning point might generate a form of miscast realization, or domination. Nothing is absolutely fixed. There is room for improvement. Two classic TP4 cases are Christianity and Islam, armed with master teleologies claiming the far future, in a Zoroastrian myth. The arising of such ambiguous cases requires careful study, because they seem to move against the basic pattern, as if searching for a post-evolutionary history. Almost immediately with TP3 we see this effect with the rise of the modern far left. All of this requires getting back to historical data to study the details. Since our pattern is intermittent, we can’t say in advance what should happen in the middle periods. That’s the point of such a system.

Islam and Bolshevism Two classic examples of the TP4 exception routines are the great Islamic sequence and the truly catastrophic idiocy of the Bolshevik fiasco (which had little to do with Marxism, another issue). Despite the similarity, Islam is in a class by itself, and deserves meticulous examination (with an obvious comparison to Christianity on these points). With Islam we must be careful not to pass judgment on its content, in this regard, but simply look at the long-term fate of a mideonic formation armed with a teleological script attempting to proceed eschatologically beyond history. The result, right on schedule, collides with modernity and is soon overtaken: Islam was a mighty experiment (there is no prejudice in our statements) but it obviously lacks eonic determination. Beware of these statements, which are about TP4 exceptions, not religion, for Islam requires careful study having produced a summation of the Axial theocratic initiatives trying to create a ‘realized kingdom of God’, sharia, so to speak (similar statements for Catholicism). Their adherents are baffled by the swift overtaking by modernity of their entire basis.

We can almost always tell the difference between our eonic sequence and ‘fourth turning points’ by considering the way the latter arise from a trigger point, where some individual, small group, or book, triggers a kind of butterfly effect whose momentum grows. The most notable examples are the onset of Christianity and Islam. These can’t compete over the long run with the truly awesome parallel emergentism seen in the eonic effect. Our major turning points are too massive for these others to compete. A close look shows the emergence of modernity produces a comprehensive spectrum from science, to art, philosophy, politics, economics, stretched over four or five generation zones and with failsafe alternates. Hundreds of genius’ come to the fore right on schedule. The mighty Muhammed, armed with a book of poetry produced a prodigious effect, but the result can’t compete with the eonic effect.

Thus, we can see obvious efforts to override this pattern, from the middles. But they never succeed in advancing the system, because they assume its existence. If they don’t assume it, they tend to induce decline. A classic example is the onset of the Roman Empire. The Roman Republic is born in the Axial Age, and is slowly but surely frittered away. Democracy disappears, then reappears in TP3. The Roman Empire is a sort of TP4 slump phenomenon, if we compare performance levels. The theatre of Dionysus in Athens produced dramas, great dramas, the first tragedies, while the Roman games were the main fare in Rome. The monopoly of this pattern on (relative and macro) historical evolution is something we should become smart about. Nothing requires it to be that way. The intermediate category of ‘free action’ is getting better all the time. We need to wrest our own development from this driver. It is not a question of passivity or determinism. But we don’t control the high-octane fuel that seems to feed these sudden advancing eras.

Thus the possibility is built in that we can transcend our pattern by generating a TP4 exception in the future. That’s the nature of this type of pattern. Its eonic determination is intermittent. When it is done, ‘free action’ takes over. You are on your own. But it would be ill-advised to (try to) undo TP3. Still, a host of rival parties seem intent on this, invoking some ‘postmodern’ scheme to travel backwards. We have no predictive model of the future, and can’t say what will happen next. But our three turning points as past events are a fait accompli. Communist Marxism was the first such attempt, but we see its limits already, although it has a lesson we might learn. Our model can’t resolve all these issues, from the stance of periodization. We should keep our eye on the Marxist legacy: it will flow toward the fringes of the globalization pattern to generate a general TP4 exception.

We are done, and have produced an initial eonic world history, a small subset that ‘evolves’ the whole, and stages implosion. In fact, we must expand again and again. But we have the pieces of a puzzle, or rather, the pieces of a puzzle inside a larger puzzle. We have enough pieces to put them together in one limited sector of what we suspect is a larger pattern, going into the Neolithic, and beyond. We can ‘solve’ that zone of the puzzle, up to a point. This portrait of world history seems too selective, to say nothing of the clear ideological affirmation of modernism. Everything except a few time slices has been left out. The beauty of this scheme is that it moves to include everything by shrinking to include almost nothing. The problem is that the mideonic periods degenerate into empire based on imperfect renditions of the mainline sequence, which by any measure is benign.

This beguiling and beautiful structure has a host of amazing properties. By introducing discontinuity we find a pattern of highly correlated events. What we are detecting are zones of clustered creativity, and higher self-consciousness in a pointillistic spread. We have already noted the issue of ‘relative’ beginnings. We can start anywhere, and this fact is built into an intermittent sequence. One of the most interesting things we can observe about this pattern is the discrete freedom sequence, the double appearance of democracy in two successive turning points. We will try to use that as a clue to its deeper structure.