03.02.10

What is evolution? and how can the eonic effect help explain it?

Posted in Evolution, The Eonic Effect at 4:26 pm by nemo

There are twelve pages with twelve categories of ‘evolutionary theory’ at Enlightennext: The REAL Evolution Debate: Page 1

This series is not without interest, but almost all of the categories are wrong, or inadequate.
It is useful, until counterproductive, to reify these different brands. But then you can see they are better left together in one stew pot, there to simmer together, as speculative confusions. Thus to put Robert Wright in some kind of ‘directionality’ category isn’t very helpful: he is a Darwinist pure and simple, who has tried to finesse some garbage theory based on game theory to introduce this directional process. Bullshit.
I am suspicious, are all these categories bullshit?? Whatever the case, this list is useful as a temporary study guide.

The differentiations of ‘evolution’ are confusing the issue.
We don’t need so many brands. There is only one brand of evolution, a very fuzzy one, but clear enough. Sort of. It is (and correct me here at once if this is a bit too simplistic):
Biological evolution is a chronicle in time that we observe from the fossil record in deep time, a sequential record of organismic successors. That simple. Stated without a theory. I use the term ‘chronicle’ to mean the ‘history’ of this process, like ordinary books of history, which simply chronicle what happened. We don’t quite know how event A was caused by earlier events in history (in a putative ‘science’ of history), but the chronicle is clear, at least. So with the chronicle of evolution.

Note the amiguity of evolution and history. A passive process isn’t quite a chronicle, which is ‘people’ acting. But even in ‘evolution’ we see that it is about individuals coming into being to act out a chronicle. The relationship of evolution to chronicle suggests a reciprocity of ‘evolution and history’, and the eonic effect will demonstrate that simple unity of two issues: the evolution of freedom, the emergence of a chronicle in the depiction of passive forms becoming active (animals…).

[First correction: we use the term 'evolution' for all sorts of things, from the evolution of the cosmos to that of the modern tooth brush.
So the restriction of the term to biological evolution is, of course, not correct, unless qualified. Etc...]
Darwinists have completely confused the issue by trying to take over this simple defintion based on the fact of evolution and blending it with the ‘theory’ of natural selection, beyond the ‘fact(s)’ of the evolution chronicle. We don’t exactly know how the sequence of biological forms emerged and the Darwinian overwsimplification has produced chaos.

So, when confused, return to the simple ‘chronicle’ definition of a sequence of organismic forms, qualified with the term ‘biological’.

Another problem here, as the eonic effect shows clearly, is that purely biological evolution seems to suggest that organisms are ‘evolving’ independent of culture and group conditions.
The eonic effect suggests that species evolution in a macro sense occurs in a stupendous process operating on large groups of individual organisms. That greatly complicates the issue, and our first definition, but the result clarifies that purely biological chronicle definition. The species evolution of man is highly obscure, but the idea frees us of the Darwinian Social Darwinist fallacy of individuals struggling to overcome the weak and producing advances in evolution through ‘personal struggle and conquest’. Didn’t happen that way.

So, stick with our original defnition for starters, til all the other garbage is flushed out of your mind. This ultra simple common sense definition is how we actually take evolution. We see fossils, and deduce ‘evolution’.
So we don’t know how the chronicle of evolution is really explained in a ‘causal’ sense.
Furthermore, human evolution (and this is already latent in animal evolution) has to be about the ‘evolution of freedom’ in some sense, about more than biological/organismic functions, but the function of freedom, thence moral action. This is true from the moment ‘animals’ evolve locomotion: the function of freedom becomes latent in that beginning development of the organism.
That one is beyond us, and the attempts to reduce this to causality and natural selection are lurid.

Here again the eonic effect gives us a clue.

What is the eonic effect? We need to consider a new form of ‘evolution’, related perhaps to the biological, which deals with the evolution of civilization. We call it the ‘eonic or drumbeat evolution’ of civilization. It is described in the account of the eonic effect. Go to history-and-evolution.com.

Once we discover the ‘eonic effect’ we suspect that this ‘evolution’ or ‘eonic evolution’ is actually the real mccoy, the way in which earlier human evolution happened. We can’t be sure, but we will at least be clear that Darwinism is too grossly oversimplified.
The eonic effect suggests, beyond our basic definition, that ‘evolution’ (in man, at least) occurs as a stupendous globalized gaian macro process we can’t directly see, but which operates on cultural totalities and individuals together in one shebang process. A long story, go follow the link at history and evolution.com.
The approach created for the eonic effect analyzes the idea of evolution and the idea of history together and finds them related, thus explaining how we could find ‘evolution’ in history.
We see the relationship by asking when evolution stopped for man and history began. That question provokes a paradox: the transition couldn’t be instantaneous, but would occur in a Transition, which, in turn, might be a series of transitions. Once put that way we actually see those ‘transitions’ in history.
We call those ‘transitions’ incidents of (eonic) evolution in the shifting relationship of evolution and history. Thus evolution is a macro process and history, the chronicle of individuals, is a micro process, as evolution and history are braided together.
We suddenly realize that this is a general framework for evolution in general.
We won’t explain it all here, except to note that world history most remarkably gives us a clue to how evolution, in relation to history, really happens. This is, of course, beyond our basic chronicle defintion, so take it in slow doses. It is not simple, as my experience of trying to explain it suggests, and takes about the same amount of time to learn, in my version, as calculus. So don’t be confused by the fact you are confused. You have to learn what evolution is in a course stretching over time.
But as with our starting point, we can see that the basic chronicle definition of evolution as a fact before a theory is intuitive and simple, and in the same way, maybe, the ‘eonic effect’ could be so simplified, with a course in world history, as a relatively simple tale of the progression of civilizations in relation to a series of transitions, taken as a set of facts, without a theory.
The structure of world history is utterly clever in its blend of evolution and history. We must detect ‘evolution’, but once we do, the whole suddenly becomes clear and simple. A slightly more complicated case of our ‘chronicle definition’.

You can see a glimpse of the eonic effect in the Axial Age data, where a whole series of macro transformations occur in historical time. What are these? As we generalize to the study of history in the large we see this as an instance of eonic evolution. etc….!!!

But to start consider the basic definition of ‘chronicle evolution’ that we started with: a sequence of forms in time seen in the fossil record. That’s our basic perception of evolution. The mechanism or mechanisms behind this are not fully known to us, probably for a reason related to the Kantian distinction of the phenomenon and the noumenon.

Permalink