Darwiniana

History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

R48G: the eonic effect in a capsule…and a question, is man as yet free enough to free himself?

May 15th, 2017 · No Comments

In conventional marxism it is necessary to ‘make the case’ for some difficult issues from a theory of history to a pronounced materialism (very dated), etc, ..
We have suggested, to reiterate our point, a better and more flexible historical perspective based on the ‘eonic effect’ which is controversial/trivial, very practical,

and able to throttle back and forth between an ultra simple outline of world history and more complex/exotic potential interpretations. The latter point is important: the eonic effect shows a non-random pattern, which demonstrates a dynamic of some kind: we must then proceed to interpret the results of the model’s ‘direct pointing’. We can adopt a neutral non-interpretative perspective that simply targets the clusters of innovation. We are forced to consider that the source of the ‘eonic effect’ is partly inivisible, an important warning about danger of theories that apply only to the visible aspect (this is clear evidence of a noumenal/phenomenal distinction). Since we see only the phenomenonal aspect we are blocked from a full theory, but the first basic hypothesis is of a cyclical system generating epochs of world history. Thus:

the effect shows a sequence of epochs (probably more in the earlier eras), of which modernity is the latest
these epochs are initialized by transitions which show clustered massive intervals of innovation (cf. the early modern, or the Greek Axial/Archaic)
these transitions thus exhibit a discrete/continuous interplay.
We exit the transitions into a new epoch armed with the innovations of the starting phase
We hypothesize an integrated yet counterpoint aspect to these transitions: e.g. the reformation, scientific revolution, enlightenment/romanticism, etc…
We twice see democracy jumpstarted in the transitions, the modern case showing a characteristic counterpoint between democratic alternates (e.g democratic socialism)
the modern period shows a strong emphasis on science but has multiple counterpart realizations
this counterpoint emerges with Kant, for example, who delivers a new set of ideas of freedom in relation to scientism, etc…
the counterpoint of freedom ideas and causal theories is characteristic of the modern transition (which is massively complex, cf. WHEE)
the idea of communism emerges in parallel counterpoint to democratic thinking and suggests a new form of democracy…
The transitions are discontinuous while economies develop continuously, but interact with the transitions
(this point is important because it shows that economic systems are subsystems and don’t control civilization)
capitalism shows a continuous history of development since the neolithic, but is especially amplified in the modern transition, along with its counterpoints…
We should note the different degrees of freedom in this system: under the spell of the transitions men absorb/generate a spectrum of innovations, and then in the wake of the transitions develop these innovations further…These later free agency may lack the creativity of the initial phase and ‘bungle the job’…

The liberal world emerged thus with strong force and momentum related to the transitions…but the socialist/communist challenges who appear precisely in the wake of the transition as the task of free agency to moderate the clearly explosive impact of the latest version of capitalism. This communist theme itself derailed, but it can be reanalyzed and applied to the realization of democracy…

No final theory of this eonic effect is needed: we emerge from the transition armed with many new innovations. Whether or not we can explain how this works is another matter…

In this kind of system innovations (cf. the case of capitalism) can derail, degenerate, etc, and require action from their counterpoints….

There is a lot more to say here, but the basic issue is clear: this kind of system analysis can help to stabilize our theory confusions without making any dogmatic claims (but it does suggests many things, about which our interpretations must remain open to further evaluation)

This system is clearly ultra complex and beyond simple analysis but we observe this effect looking backwards and don’t require a full analysis to proceed….

There is something elegant in this system and as to politics we can see the obvious interplay of the kind of issues studied by socialists/Marx/Engels, wary of their theories: the point is clear that democracy and capitalism can degenerate and require a response from their counterpoints in the creation of ‘real democracy’…

It is important to consider this kind of model because history shows the dreadful reality that ‘democracy’ was twice jumpstarted by the larger system and the first time was lost for centuries…
This suggests that man is not yet able to manifest the ‘freedom to create freedom’, i.e. his ability to generate democracy emerges in a larger system, and he must master this process in the future…

Our analysis of transitions seems to be a theory, but it is not: we hardly know what we are dealing with: we must proceed empirically and we see eight or more such transitions looking backward and this can give us some hints of what we are dealing with…
Read http://history-and-evolution.com/whee4th/chap6_1_1.htm to get a sense of the massive parallel onset of innovations in the early modern…Then around the nineteenth century the transition is over and the system changes its character…(We can see the difference in the manifestations of aesthetic effects which taper off…)

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment