WHEE has proven too elusive and controversial for most readers. In a period of domination by the Darwin paradigm the established views of history are reductionist, witness the Big History discourse, which completely loses the thread of real history. And the assumptions of historical materialism are another obstacle, even though its ‘stages of production’ history is actually a concealed teleological theory.
WHEE comes off as some kind of crackpot theory, but that it is not. Because it is not a theory. It is an historical map with a empirical conjecture about the clear non-random pattern detectable in plain sight. But it needs a simpler introduction. The point is that the evidence of world history is going to avalanche one way or the other, teleological or not. The evidence approached carefully avalanches toward the teleological, not conclusively, but clearly enough to make conventional assumptions suspect. Most in the general paradigm world of darwinism simply can’t make the transition. So I can adopt a simpler approach: a chronology of eras or epochs, and the transitions between them. Here’s the interesting part: you can simply take the tail end of this portrait of epochs, and use the property of the model that expresses the transition from system action to free action to free analysis from any hard assumptions: We emerge from a complex system which we suspect is teleological, but in the sense of a finite transition sequence: Once we are out of the last transition our ‘free agency’ takes over and we don’t have to compute anything about the past, our basic hypothesis is enough. But with a little experience we can go much further because suddenly start to visualize a stupendously complex historical/developmental/evolutionary system applied to civilization. It would be easy to rewrite marxist historicism in this model, in fact we have already done so. How can teleology and free agency be reconciled? In a finite transition model there is an intermediate state where the directionality is replaced by free agency dealing with the ‘most recent’ macro aspect of the larger system. Strictly speaking we are discussing directionality only, since immersion in a teleological system requires being at its end point which we are not, although we might be at the end of the most recent teleological feedback.
The issue isn’t a contradiction: a system evolving freedom will not be overdetermined in the conventional sense of teleology. To oversimplify a system evolving freedom could evolve that freedom and stop! The outcome would not be determined. There is a lot more here, but the point is that we need a new historical systematics on the left, and this is one way to go about it.