1848+: Last and First Men

The context of this ‘blog idea’ is not really politics at all, but the question of the eonic effect and the way it impinges on ideology. And it does so in a ‘macro’ fashion, from the politics of the Pharaohs to the politics of the Zoroastrian endtimes, a fairly mind-bogglind ‘dialectic’.

The revolution of 1848, and that really should invoke the issues of the French and American Revolutions, has a kind of ironic status in terms of what is called the ‘eonic sequence’ in the model of the eonic effect. It is this generation that is the first to be on the outside of this sequence. And that gives it a kind of ominous significance: it is the point, in the language of the eonic model, when micro-action replaces macro-action.

We can elaborate on that further, but perhaps it is amusingly apt to think of Marx/Engels in the period of the ‘last aftershock’ of the French Revolution, save only the Commune perhaps, described in a blog of the red year, or years.

It would take a lot of research to backdate a blog thus, and the idea is enough, with one post.

Beyond that the politics of evolution takes an ironically deeper significance in terms of the eonic effect, and we are simultaneously standing back from the total spectrum of ideologies and at the same time putting definite focus on a selective strain of such, from the Reformation, and the German Social Revolution, to the emergence of liberalism at the Great Divide.

In that sense the ambiguity of Marx/Engels generates the strange suspense of modern liberal politics in, at once, its prodigious success, and inherent limitation.