11.28.08
Popper was wrong: history has meaning
As noted in the previous post from today, the eonic effect suggests a further level beyond either the physical or the biological.
Whatever the case we see a dynamic at work that is completely beyond the level of genetics.
The study of universal history has been falsely criticized by Karl Popper, in his critique of historicism, and his assertion that history has no meaning is simply disproved by the evidence of the eonic effect.
Popper Was Wrong, History Has Meaning
The eonic effect is, or was to begin with, first a discovery about history, and only after that a discourse about evolution. Attempts to discover a science of history, or, at the opposite pole, to devise ‘philosophies of universal history’ have a checkered history and have generally suffered from metaphysical overreach, leading to their discredit, and their supposed demise at the hands of science, or biology, or economics. Karl Popper, in his classic attack on Marxism, thought he had skewered the genre of the philosophy of history, dismissed as historicism, to use his somewhat distorted term. But Popper, we should note, was as well a critic of the claims for a science of history. But Popper missed something in the process of an acute insight, and ended up declaring that history had no meaning. Popper was wrong, history has meaning.