History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Isn’t the eonic effect evidence of ‘god in history’?…nice try, but…

March 20th, 2017 · No Comments


The question of the ‘eonic effect’ doesn’t quite register with most, at first. It can seem silly even as its elusive depth eludes initial understanding. In part that is because an ominous question lurks in the background: have you read a thousand books on world history, balanced across regions and sectors, time periods, on a global grid? The answer is probably no, and therefore your official status is ‘very confused’, ‘blurred vision’, and ‘jerky motion historical frankenstein’. Actually a thousand isn’t enough so even speedreaders are likely to qualify for this judgment.
This bibliographic demand needs refinement. Break that up into 50 books each on the neolithic, egypt, sumer, axial age greece, israel, persia, india, china, plus 100 on the early modern, plus fifty more each for each period in between these demarcation periods. Once this overall study gets underway a mysterious pattern emerges, an non-random pattern with a question. At that point one begins to try and fathom the obvious dynamic in play.

We have suggested a simple frequency hypothesis and an attempted extension to the neolithic comprising a system in seven/eight cycles. How can that be? It is actually the most obvious way for something to have a dynamic. We don’t have to conclude anything, the evidence speaks for itself, while the system is very complex with a number of riddles, but we can simply use the data we have to construct a metanarrative like a book with chapters, one for each epoch. But as we start to focus on details, all those books, it becomes obvious that something stunning is at work just behind the scenes of ‘eventful history’. It is a very obvious case of something not unlike ‘punctuated equilibrium’. Once we sense this pattern our views of evolution collapse (as darwinism) because something exists which was not supposed to exist, a non-random pattern.
The problem we are left with is, where does this dynamic come from? We don’t have to answer to use it but it shows that historical directionality is probably a version of some kind of teleology nad this is connected with the more general issue of evolution. We get a sense, in the abstract, of how evolution in deep time might well have happened, and this in turn is a strong plus in the claims for some kind of fine tuning. We don’t have to conclude anything about physics save to note that the idea was presented first by physicists.
The question of marxism can easily find refuge here: the problem with ‘stages of production’ theory is that the stages or epochs of production, e.g. feudalism to capitalism to communism doesn’t quite work. Instead we might use our new foundation to consider that communism comes into existence next to capitalism in a dynamic contrast/dialectic attempting to resolve the issue of democratic revolution. Here the question of economics is that of a subprocess in a larger cultural set of transformations. Very simple, and in a scheme that can answer the issue of teleological without a speculative theory. In the end we must as free agents move to transcend the disorderly confusions of capitalism with a new synthesis beyond the processes of market economics, something our data suggests as the future of modernity. We have suggested a hybrid system as a transitional version.
In any case the ‘eonic effect’ which is a strangely ambiguous mystery both ideological and beyond ideology (it spawns ideologies by the dozen) shows us an upgrade of the old testament mystery of ‘god in history’, save that we have long since moved beyond the god confusion to use a strictly neutral systems analysis to try and make sense of an elusive historical design, one that the god idea completely confused with its primitive biblical mythology. But the israelites had a point: something very ‘fishy’ is going on in history and their remarkable intuitions were onto something. Unfortunately the ‘god’ idea just won’t work for historical explanation, despite the overwhelming presence of design: god would not operate in a discrete-continuous model such as we see in the eonic effect: ‘he/she’ would be omnipresent at all times and omnipotent. The eonic effect shows something you might at first think ‘god’ but after a while it goes into reverse gear and becomes a tale of ‘design 101 for atheists, of a kind’ (we can make not generalization about the whole universe): the god idea doesn’t work for this kind of developmental/’evolutionary’ mystery which has an all too obvious resemblance to classic types of dynamical systems raised an octave to choral music in a pattern of peculiar notes.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment