World Systems versus Eonic Model

Reply re economic histories and eonic model 

I have no problem with economics! My point was only that the eonic model creates a subprocess out of the world economic system, econosequence. It is more general. more high level. 
I admire Marx very much. He was a brilliant man. But he didn't get it right. He had the pieces, but couldn't assemble them right. His theory of revolution is overlaid on his theory of 'economic determination' or 'historical materialism. Or, you could say his Viconian sequence of stages is a discrete-continuous model, but that the stages are not economic stages. So we need to get stages of anything, revolutions, eras of history,  evolutions of freedom, and economic sequences unscrambled. We can do that empirically with the eonic model. 


Economies are fields of free activity. They spread out and encompass large areas, and are more or less random fields in that regard. 
The 'eonic sequence' is something different, localized, macro, focal, and highly 'smart', elusively so. 
It is unexpected to discover this. We need the right data, and the proper distance. It wasn't til the discovery of early Sumer-Egypt that this became clear. 

 Take the eonic model in a different sense. Ask the question, does world history show evidence of general sequence? What does the question mean? The random flow of events shows sequence, by default. What we really seem to mean is, is there a subsequence that is a master sequence of some kind? 
The only candidate is an intermittent one, a discrete series embedded in a continuous universal history of everywhere. Presto, we discover one at once. We see the track of a master sequence sifting out from a continuous default sequence which isn't going anywhere over the long range. 

The eonic effect. We don't know how it works, but it is too closely organized to be due to chance. It is like hopscotch.  That's too much for current thought. They refuse to see it. But economic interpretations don't work on it. 
Look at soccer versus american style football. The first is continuous random free action on a field. The second creates a discrete-continous overlay model. A discrete series of plays on that original continuous field--the analogy is not perfect, but shows the meaning of the term 'discrete-continuous'. 

World Systems theory tends to confuse the rise of the modern with its economic porcesses, as did Marx. AGF tries to generalize that to world history, rightly seeing the first transition I deal with, five thousand years. 
But these long cycles of economic activity are measures of economies, that's all.
But, characteristically, these economic interpretations miss the middle beat, they are scared off by the 'Axial' age stuff. It couldn't be economic. 

The confusing thing is the way there is an overlay in the rise of the modern. As it happens capitalism takes off in the third transition, the rise of the modern. It is spectacular that the Industrial Revolution occurs at my 'divide point', ca. 1800. But so does philosophy flower here.  Along with a host of other things that aren't economic.  These correlations are unmistakable. We have Kant, Hume, Bentham, to the decade. 
This correlated pattern is devastating, and quite rigorous, within limits. But so far noone will even look at it. They fly into a rage. 
Puzzling. 
So....
How explain how, over five thousand years, processes of art, philosophy, etc,  show such exact timing? 
You see I am in trouble. To say all this goes against the grain of the current style of thinking. 
In any case, World Systems thinking promptly snafus on the 'causal question' applied to the rise of the modern. That's where I come in. I don't solve that, but dissolve it, by showing its macro relevance. It seems to genuinely frighten people, from Darwinists onwards. 
What can I do?