Re: World Systems Theory & the Eonic Effect - A Matter of Scope

In a message dated 9/18/2002 12:08:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, larondin@yahoo.com writes:


> On the Rousseau bit, I’m perfectly willing at this point to consider and re-examination R. in the light of your Eonic Model.  Coming to think of it, what modern/early modern thinker onward hasn’t been accused at one time or another of being crazy or oddball in terms of his/her intellectual theories?  In point of fact, Aristotle, Confucius, etc. in their times were probably just as potentially “crazy” or viewed to be as crazy by their own generations.  Maybe part of their genius was being able to frame ideas and maps of knowledge in new ways as well as to come up with material that was memorable both for their contemporary audiences as well as future ones.  So consider this paragraph of mine on the matter of Rousseau as an attempt to reconsider my own previous perspective on the issue and see things in a new light. 


I wasn't setting any particular emphasis on Rousseau as such, except to point to his place within the gestation of modernism, and his ironic counterpoint to the Enlightenment. 
The Eonic Effect starts of small flood of 'renewed studies' into many disparate things, from the Pharaohs of Egypt to Gilgamesh, Laotse, Buddha, Heraclitus, the rise of early science, ancient economic systems, modern revolution, theories of the modern, theories of this and that. 
The scope is tremendous and often certain things suddenly stand out. Thusly, Rousseau. 
Rousseau is significant in his influence on Kant, also...
Many of our objections to scientism really begin with Rousseau. And so on.
The point I am making is that the basic emphasis of the eonic model is that of science. But this viewpoint is not a sausage machine to pass easy judgement on all and everything and everyone. We need to look at some strange characters in history and their placement. 
The eonic model finally throws light on the modern transition and in the process isolates a 'great divide', i.e. the period ca. 1800. Is it not strange that this generation from 1750 to about 1800+  is so seminal. More things fly out of the wordwork here that one can keep track of. Why is this? Is it chance? The eonic model shows, or suggests, the reason. Our timing method isolates this period at once. 
And there, along with a host of other people, we find Rousseau. 
John Landon
Website on the eonic effect
http://eonix.8m.com
nemonemini@eonix.8m.com