« Welcome to The Axial Age blog | Main | A blogbook: Enigma Of The Axial Age »
The Axial Age, an older essay
By nemo | August 28, 2008
We may as well jump in the subject of the Axial Age: here is an old essay, once very popular on the web. It is from the website for the eonic effect, and will be archived here.
World history shows unmistakable evidence of a massive parallel effect in the period ca -900 to -600+ across the field of Eurasia, Rome, Greece, the Near East, India, and China. This began to be noticed in the last century and led to the ambiguous idea of the Axial Age, but its character is hard to understand until we see the greater pattern of the so-called eonic effect. This extraordinary evidence of the Axial Age by itself shows a non-random pattern in world history. The evidence is hard to explain because of the independent parallel emergence of greater advances in separated geographical regions.
The concept of the Axial Age is relatively unknown, although it has a considerable sideline scholarly literature. It is an embarrassment to secular thinkers, and Darwinians. Right in our back yard the most stupefying contradiction to random evolution. As noted, the term ‘Axial Age’ refers to Jaspers’ study of the period ca. -800 to -200 and focuses on the perception of parallel evolution that began to be noticed in the nineteenth century in the generation after Hegel’s Grand History burst on the scene, followed by the rise of positivistic and evolutionary historiography. In the words of Jaspers,
-
The most extraordinary events are concentrated in this period. Confucius and Lao-tse were living in China, all the schools of Chinese philosophy came into being, including those of Mo-ti, Chuang-tse, Lieh-tsu and a host of others; India produced the Upanishads and Buddha and, like China, ran the whole gamut of philosophical possibilities down to skepticism, to materialism , sophism and nihilism; in Iran Zarathustra taught a challenging view of the world as a struggle between good and evil; in Palestine the prophets made their appearance, from Elijah, by way of Isaiah and Jeremiah to Deutero-Isaiah; Greece witnessed the appearance of Homer, of the Philosophers—Parmenides, Heraclitus and Plato—of the tragedians, Thucydides and Archimedes. Everything implied by these names developed during these few centuries almost simultaneously in China, India, and the West, without any one of these regions knowing of the others.
World History and the Eonic Effect contains a complete solution to the Axial question on the level of periodization. However, such a statement will not be clear at first. A solution is not an explanation, and the work of Jaspers is very significant, even as we slightly modify his formulation. The issue is one of resolving power, applied to the immense structure of world history. What are we seeing. We can’t take the histories of Israel at face value, but even with the contribution of Biblical Criticism, the data remains extraordinary. Jaspers is on the right track, but is still ambivalent about the questions of religious evolution.
One can only recommend a careful study of world history in light of the eonic effect to get the issues straight. The problem perhaps is that this introduces our ‘frequency hypothesis’, which takes the question to another level, which is controversial. One way or another, learning and unlearning the ‘axial’ approach can be useful. The result of our ’solution’ is another question, and the equivocation of a complex naturalism that is too mechanical to be spiritual and too close to ’smart evolution’ to be mechanical. The problem arises with questions of the type, ‘what causes the Axial Age’? Our tactic is phenomenological periodization, and the detection of a kind of phasing mechanism operating in discrete stages. This is the reason for the Kantian material, which can help to see the tricky nature of such a question. The eonic model clarifies ‘what is happening’ and has its own ‘how does it work’ logic, but it remains almost more baffling than it was before: the question resembles the noumenon/phenomenon distinction of Kant. One problem with Jaspers’ approach, as Toynbee pointed out, is that the ‘axial age’ doesn’t include all the ‘axial’ effects, e.g. the birth of Christianity and Islam, or, or the other end, the early forms of monotheism in proto-Zoroastrianism, etc… This pattern is strong evidence for a frequency system, for the change comes on schedule independently of the content, which has its own history. Consider a sun-lamp and a garden. The content, plants, of the garden and the overall system are distinct things. The sunlamp does not invent plants! In the same way the ‘Axial Age’ does not invent religions, as such, which were there outstanding. Further, the concept tends to be used on religious phenomena, but that misses the entire point that its synchrony includes many phenomena not conventionally religious, such as the birth of science and philosophy. We must master the concepts of relative beginnings, as ‘transitions’, then the content will be seen to be under transformation, but not necessarily at its absolute starting point. History is homogenous, which means it can produce ‘axial’ effects at all times. If we find them clustered, then we must find some different, special explanation, using a term different than ‘axial’. Clearly, to an electronics mind, this is a phase problem, and these problems Jaspers had leave us with a smile, he was right, but fumbled the ball just as he got it right. We will no doubt do the same, so don’t laugh.
-
Note also that Jaspers’ title, the Origin and Goal of History bespeaks his Christian perception with an idea of teleology lurking. The correct treatment of historical causality and teleology is not possible with this data taken in isolation. A careful consideration of Kantian thinking here can be useful and will serve as a reminder that teleology is not part of scientific methodology, and must be handled, if at all, in a special way. yet Kant did allow such thinking, and the so-called teleomechanists of the generation before Darwin, influenced biology very considerably in a way now can back to the fore. So Jaspers fine treatment veers away from historical sociology normally considered. Our stance is to consider a form of empirical directionality cut off at the beginning and end, since we don’t know, and take that by itself, first as data. This is not a rejection of teleological thinking, only a warning that confusion will arise, and that the idea cannot be brought into scientific explanation at the drop of the hat. Directionality as intermittent action is one realization of a possible unknown teleology, the how. That is, we seem to see a system changing direction, possible evidence for a long range process we do not see. And this must distinguish the actions of individuals and the action of the system, a very treacherous ground. The teleological myths of the Israelites are the output of the system modified by men and seen filtered in their perspectives, as they observed in their own way the history of their times. So be careful of how you analyze this phenomenon. We have no consistent methodology to analyze such a system.
Our dates seem different from those of Jaspers, with his Axial Age from -800 to -200, but the end date is far too late, and includes already a part of the fall-off period in the spectacular ‘fast advance’ that we clock somewhat differently, but it amounts to the same thing. The issue, for us, is the generative periods, versus their initial takeoff, and then latter outcome. Thus the Classical Age after -600 resounds with spectacular effects, but the quieter, almost invisible, period just before, as in Archaic Greece, shows the seminal point. Note this is the period of the birth of the first democracy, from the many earlier thriving republics of Archaic Greek period. Setting up some form of republic (in the real sense) is an important step on the way to democracy, and is rare in ancient history. Indeed the Old Testament makes this question of generative periods clear with its unwitting periodization of the history of Israel, the tell tale ‘prophetic’ phenomenon appearing to surge after -800. This does not include the period from Abraham to Solomon. Only the phase band. It is confusing at first, but the Old Testament is unwittingly describing an ‘eonic’ or discrete era inside a continuous one. This era was not yet monotheistic! That consolidates after the period or interval. This is the core period, and does not include the tales of Moses before around -900. The Exodus myth now is considered to arise near the time of the Exile. Note again that the Old Testament is roughly coming into existence from before, yet really crystallizes around -600+. Be careful here, for you must have the facts, and until the facts are clear, saying what is an Axial effect will prove tricky. In any case, by -400 the results of the explosive period of change is well over, and matters begin to consolidate as new traditions. Note the extraordinary timing of this phenomenon. Almost to a generation, around -400, the character of emergence changes, as for example in Greek tragedy, as it flowers rapidly then wanes as a creative art form. Over and over this clustering of effects leaves us confounded by an analytical problem that has no simple explanations, beware of speculation. This is not a simple problem. For example, it is essential to consider cross diffusion between each of our target zones, before speaking of synchronous emergence. But once we do that we see that the most extraordinary thing has occurred, parallel emergence in five, at least, separate areas, and within a short interval of centuries a massive new era of civilization is underway.
This is a huge subject, made difficult by the lack of real facts, e.g. the exact facts of the Old Testament era before the Exile. The clearest case, and the best place to start, is the Greek, since it is rich in opposites, and clearly has no relation with the frequent religious interpretation give the ‘axial’ concept. The indications here are very brief. World History shows a mysterious evolutionary parallelism in which there is a sudden take-off across the Eurasian continent, at the source of our classical traditions. This is not the same as the Axial age concept, which is a near miss.
Summary: No, there wasn’t an Axial age, but… World History shows us one of the most remarkable evolutionary patterns, in fragmentary form, dead center in the sequence of civilization. The ‘derandomizing’ pattern of multiple civilizations rapidly consolidating in parallel began to be noticed in the last century, and was dubbed the Axial Age by Karl Jaspers. His treatment doesn’t work, there was no ‘Axial’ age, but we can easily recover serendipitously the real phenomenon by studying where Jaspers went wrong.
Summary 2 Yes, there emphatically was an ‘Axial’ age (in quotation marks), but… It can confuse the issue to try and make a correction in the ‘axial’ periodization, when the point being indicated is in many ways transparent. The problem is the name, ‘axial’. One thinks of Laotse, by the way, an ‘Axial’ figure. The minute you name something intangible, there is a problem. But here, the problem is the difference of scale between big and little history, and the difficulty of characterizing large-scale historical events. What are we referring to? Evolution, god, celestial cycles, revelation? You see, we can only look at historical data, but we never see the mechanism. But we do see clear evidence of an unseen historical dynamic at work in the interval we would call an ‘axial age’. But the label can get us in trouble. That’s why we speak of the ‘eonic transition’, ET5, a term of global coordinate geometry, as one of a series of geo-focal transformation regions in particular time slices. Then the significance of what occurs there, in clusters, can be assessed without labels getting in the way. We would have the same problem with the term ‘evolution’ unless we restrict its use to an empirical map.
-
The importance of the ‘Axial Age’ concept We can confuse the issue with over-analysis. The point is to get a grip on, ’see’, the massive almost ‘Gaian’ global evolution of parallel streams in a sudden burst of advance like a tidal wave that breaks around -600. The Axial Age data is direct smoking gun evidence of something extraordinary that current historical sociology would rather not see. Even as Darwin was writing this data was becoming clear, and got deep-sixed early on. And yet, once we see this ‘axial phase’ for what it is our views on the descent of man must change forever. This shows ‘real evolution in action’. To use the term ‘evolution’, which we will, is almost as much begging the question as the use of transcendental conceptualizing. The issues are ‘transcendental’ in a Kantian sense, and we will, in the eonic effect, use this approach to obviate the metaphysical problems that arise instantly in the approach to this data. The problem is, what does it mean to say there was an Axial Age? Before giving a few cautions about the ‘axial’ concept, it is important to not let what it points to be lost to view. Current historical theory, by and large, is (brain dead and) attempting to either ignore, or explain away, this data. This is not a phenomenon of economic evolution, please! The basic data indicates a very extraordinary phenomenon embedded in world history, one that should drive us to reconsider our views on both history and evolution. As Jaspers’ suspected, this is a demonstration of a true universal history. We can take this to be a glimpse of evolution, with the understanding that the data almost outstrips the word ‘evolution’. Any such analysis must make clear the usage of the terms ’spiritual’ and ‘material’, but that is just the problem. Neither religious, nor scientific Darwinian, thinking can properly mark out the enigmatic higher naturalism impinging on the ‘transcendental’, a dangerous term, so obvious in the Axial, really, the ‘eonic’ effect. Furthermore, questions of ‘teleology’, as in Jaspers’ title, will wreak havoc on the analysis. This evidence shows both historical directionality, and evolutionary parallelism. That latter is anti-directional in the sense of exploring parallel potentials instead of uni-directional linear teleology. The stages of the process can balance both aspects. Thus while directionality is evidence of concealed teleology, it is not proof, nor does it say what the telos is, since quite obviously the Axial period in its parallelism is exploring separate paths into the future at one and the same time.
-
Caution: the term ‘axial’ is often associated with religion. But a close look at the ‘axial effect’ shows that this period is also producing philosophy, science, democracy, many forms of art, and the last beautiful flowering of Greek polytheism! What, please, is the common denominator here?
-
Caution 2: We have criticized historical sociology, but the major religions are confronted in this synchronous effect, with a paradox. Either the age of revelation applies across the board, thus to religions theistic or atheistic, or the age of revelation was something else. It seems like monotheism is associated with the axial period. But, as is obvious, this produces the so-called ‘atheistic’ Buddhism. Further proto-Jainism predates the ‘axial’ period, as does proto-monotheism. So that doesn’t work. We are talking about a highly abstract transformation working at a deeper level than even religion. It could not be otherwise, for religions, as we can clearly see, are historically conditioned, and rapidly decay into mechanical instruments, as indeed many prophets have warned. So the essence of this phase, ET5, is neither an axial age, nor religion.
-
Jaspers uses phrases such as ‘breakthrough to transcendence’ in his analysis, and this requires a definition of ‘transcendence’, which will undo the analysis with a term that may only token the ’self-consciousness’ of man in transformation, which can be taken as naturalistic, a view incidentally very much present in early Indian religions such as Jainism, influencing Buddhism. These traditions at their best consider all lesser spiritual experiences to be phenomena of nature. The ‘transcendent’ is not named, and is the only candidate for the truly spiritual, being beyond ‘experience’. So a transcendent experience is a non-starter as terminology. What’s that. The ‘transcendent’ would not be unique for this period, for it would a universal potential of man. This confusion of unique versus the potential realized in creative advance tends to vitiate Jaspers’ analysis. Is the ‘breakthrough to democracy’ a form of transcendence, or the Axial birth of Greek science?
-
The best comment on all of this must have been Lao tse’s, ‘everybody shut up’. Lao tse certainly was an axial figure, if he existed. Did he exist? Whether he did or not, everyone said he lived in the core axial period, which is highly significant, and to the point. The memory of the creative period endures.
-
Confusion of the Axial Concept A new vein of ‘postmodern’ religious thinking is now warming to the expectation of a new axial age of religion to follow the modern era. This ‘revolt against the modern’, usually the Enlightenment, or secularism, is misconceived, is related to a kind of Toynbean view of civilizations, and confuses the character of the original Axial Age, which produced the Greek Enlightenment, in parallel with everything else. The rise of the great religions came much later, outside the ‘axial era’. So what is happening? A look at the whole resolves the question. The real next ‘axial age’ is the modern age itself, the period ca. 1500 to 1800, by our reckoning. We just leaving it, sorry! This makes the attempted comeback strategy of religious traditionalists probably futile, if not ludicrous. We may move into a postmodern religious age, but it will be new religions, and it must do justice to the advance of modernism. It was a point seen by a man like Hegel, now discredited or incomprehensible, but who fussed over Christianity and modernism at great length, and saw there was no going back, and the need for rethinking man’s place in a secular age from scratch, whatever we make of his strange system. The now too positivistic, but fundamentally sound rubric, of evolution is the real candidate for new foundations. But this idea cannot yet do sufficient justice to actual history or the lore of self-consciousness visible in the peaks of religious antiquity. The issue is not the fetish of the ’sacred’, but this issue man’s ’self-consciousness’ in relation to history, or something to that effect. The modern remains of the religions of antiquity (in the west) are simply cut flowers living on their last tank of gas generated in the Reformation. The future must do better than try to perpetuate Constantine’s spiritual politics with a phoney Axial Age.
The works of Karen Armstrong (following hints of Jaspers perhaps) seem, perhaps, to suggest a kind of postmodern new ‘axial’ age. That is not very likely. Part of the problem lies in the term ‘axial’. We think that could be a series of axial ages, not likely. There is a series of what we can transitions, but their character is different in each case. One reason for this postmodern reaction is the limitation on the Enlightenment conceptions of spiritual psychology. This will automatically drive these new age conceptions forward, but the results will not reproduce the Axial Age of antiquity. The only candidate for a new Axial Age is the rise of the modern itself. As many New Agers well understand, the renewal of the decayed religions of antiquity will require the utmost of man’s reason! The decayed results that some think will be restored in a new postmodern ‘axial’ age–this is a futile hope. You never step twice in the same river. The problem is one of man’s self-consciousness and the limitations of modern thought here, perhaps. But the solution is not retrograde motion against modernity, as such.
This is not a prediction! Only a caution that a new axial age to produce the restoration of old religions in a postmodern traditionalism is a complete misunderstanding of what happened in antiquity. The sheer depth of the effect in Israel, Greece, India and China could simply never recur. That is not a statement that a deeper perspective on religion and renewal is not possible. But over and over this attempts to recycle derivative material that isn’t even at the level of someone like Gautama, let alone creative. But current views of scientism and much Darwinism have produced such an amnesia about man’s real psychology that a reaction is bound to set in. Whatever the case, it won’t be a ’second axial age’. That is a misnomer that might confuse the issue. These questions require very careful study. I recommend a complete study of the eonic effect.
This period will tie your head in knots, relax and consider it, aware of the limitations of human knowledge. Kantian issues of causality, history, metaphysics, evolution, and the limits of reason all converge on one of the most interesting data sets of human history.
Topics: The Axial Age, The Eonic Effect | No Comments »
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.