History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

R48G: the eonic effect, a generalized historical paradigm…

July 11th, 2017 · No Comments

We have tried to point to the limits of historical materialism due to its ‘materialism’, crypto-teleology, economic fundamentalism, and more directly the fact that it is a century and half old, too dogmatic with no ability to upgrade and most of all its association with a failed legacy that is controversial, repelling a new generation.

We have suggested the model of the eonic effect in simple and complex versions, and also recast the ‘eonic model’ as a series of questions. We can reformulate the ‘eonic model/effect’ as an umbrella paradigm that can mediate issues of historical dynamics, teleology, economic determination, idealism/materialism, religious histories and the evolution of religion, secularism, science, scientism and philosophy, causal historicism and free agency and/or free will, revolutionary theories, evolutionary theories, darwinism, and evolutionary ideas applied to civilization next to social darwinist fallacies…And this can be done with an explicit ‘full model’ and/or a simple timeline about which we pose a series of questions: any of the above turned into a question, e.g. is world history a teleological system?
The flexibility of this system is highly useful and like the Russians confronting Napoleons of historical theory it simply retreats before the onslaughts of causal theory…
The model is based on a distinction of ‘system action’ and ‘free action’ (or free agency, which may or may not be free will) and the system it portrays is ingeniously pegged in a variable mode with degrees of determination and free agency: it alternates degrees of freedom as the macro system operates then relaxes to free agency.
The most ironically useful aspect of this model is that in our present, we have defaulted back to free agency and strictly speaking don’t need to worry about the model at all: its effects are in our past. We can speculate about a future action of this macro effect but once we discover it its action is likely to subside and we suspect that the ‘eonic effect’ has completed its action and that man, looking backwards, detects a ‘helper’ action (the term refers to extra locomotives added to trains for uphill action) that has disengaged leaving man to complete his own history. The ‘eonic effect’ passes into mystery since its full action is not visible to man but it leaves the suggestion of a remarkable hybrid of teleology and free agency.

Is there a danger of this turning into a myth? Perhaps, but it wouldn’t matter since there is a strong empirical basis and speculative theories about its dynamics require grounding in factual histories and can’t survive long the challenge of historical facts: the whole scheme defaults to a chronology or historical outline.

This kind of model can serve as an emergency replacement for the wasteland of failed historical theories and creates an umbrella effect that can serve as a vehicle for mixed antithetical viewpoints from religious to economic to materialist thinking.
The left (and that includes charitably the liberal ‘left’) needs to be wary of still promoting nineteenth century vintage theories at a time when a higher degree of sophistication about theories has displaced the ‘faith’ of the generation of the second international in the fundamentalist scientism of the onset of positivism in which marxism became entangled. The public is so alienated from the marxism that ‘seems’ to have generated bolshevism that the whole game seems ‘unmentionable’. That is life: innovation requires a re-analysis, an upgrade and the breaking of old habits by the restatement in new language of core insights. Note the point: at a minimum a rewrite of elder marxism in a new terminology and language would help to break the prison of habit and conceptual rigor mortis.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment