03.03.10
The ‘evolution formalism’ and the eonic effect
Comment from Arnhart on Lamarck post
The eonic effect gives us an extremely useful and intuitive example of the basic framework of evolution as suggested by Lamarck, and distantly echoed in the ‘punctuated equilibrium’ terminology. That terminology is not a theory, but a language that is descriptive for situations in speciation where a sudden transition is followed by an equilibrium. The terminology would have been more useful to describe a general evolution formalism.
Whatever the case, the eonic effect gives us a glimpse of the way that evolution in the macro sense punctutates a stream of evolution in a micro sense.
The Axial Age gives us the most telling evidence: to use our formalism, we can say that the sudden macro punctuation we see in the brief interval of the Axial period is the macroevolutionary component of the ‘evolver’, while the micro aspect is (not natural selection!!) the historical realization of the macro component, the actual history generated. To get the point, look at the way that the tragic genre appears in the Axial Age. The macro aspect is the emergence of an art form. The micro aspect is the history of the actual examples of the suddenly appearing new genre. In general the macro is an implicit template of some kind, while the micro is its realization.
This example is specialized for history, and would need slight revision in other situations. Note how this applies to cultural entities, e.g. art, and religions. But a genetic component is probably detectable here also, we don’t know. It is my suspicion that if we followed the genetic traces of the Axial period we would see that genetic/cultural evolution is braided together. But that is not proven.
We see clearly that this distinction is necessary because of the obvious and inexplicable discontinuity of the Axial Age, a discontinuity in the historical sequence, and in the parallel emergentism of separate ‘Axial’ zones.
For one brief moment we catch the sasquatch of ‘evolution’ (i.e. here, ‘eonic’ evolution) in action.
The result is an elegant instance of a basic ‘evolution formalism’: we make a distinction of System Action (evolution) and Free Action (the historical realization of the individuals involved), calling these the macro component, and the micro component. The macro component is like a kind of punctuation of the micro in equilibrium, to bring in the Gould terminology (but it is not the same usage as his). Thus we see ‘evolution’ in a sequence of historical transitions, and historical realization in the way these transitions are expressed, and in the way that they are continued during the periods in between the transitions.
Check out history-and-evolution.com for the massively detailed example.
It seems as if ‘evolution’ can’t be a part of ‘history’. But that is not true, and the example of the eonic effect is probably easily generalized to different situations.
The formalism amounts to saying that there is a process or force that acts as evolution, in this case, intermittently.
Sit down and study the eonic effect over a period of time, several months, and fit the pieces together until they suddenly click, and you will never again be conned by lesser attempts to define evolution.
This evolution formalism is NOT a theory of evolution, but a conceptual framework to describe an instance of evolution given empirically, in this case the evidence in world history.
The evolution formalism resembles the punctuated equilbrium terminology which, however, was used in a different way.
But to apply our formalism to the type of example Gould pointed to, we would say that the ‘evolver’ or macro in this case is the process of ‘sudden speciation’, whatever that was, the punctuator, while the micro process is the equilibrium adjustment period in between, the stable period after speciation has occurred (quite rapidly, says Gould, in many cases).
We can see the evolver at close range in the eonic effect, but as we realize from this example the source is beyond observation. We can detect it from the Axial Age, for example, but we can’t quite determine what caused the Axial Age.
Again, it is a stumbling block for some to apply ‘evolution’ to history. But our ‘evolution formalism’ is completely general and applies with especial force to the historical example given.
Learn to stay away from the vicious Darwin garbage invented it seems by and for idiots who like ‘contact sports’, violence, and ethics-free ‘science’ laws.