History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

R48G: marxism and the crisis of theory…

October 22nd, 2017 · No Comments

We have tried to address the crisis of theory that haunts the marxist legacy.

We have pointed to the fallacies of ‘stages of production’ theory and noted the need to introduce the idea of free agency into the crypto-deterministic mix. Marx seems to have been fixated by a version of historical materialism that implied a fixed transition to a postcapitalist system, but then he claimed that the full potential of capitalism had to be exhausted before that could happen. That is a dangerous perspective indeed: we need instead to act as free agents in history to create a postcapitalist system based on the principles and axioms needed to create a postcapitalist system, perhaps a hybrid as in our democratic market neo-communism, which moves beyond the fixed stages of capitalism/communism (a fallacy of the original marxist model was to make the distinction somehow absolute).

We have also suggested a new and looser take on world history. We have reproduced our take on a simple way using a series of questions to play ‘twenty questions’ with history to isolate its probable category of dynamism…

We can start with the first three questions:
a non-random pattern is defined in many ways, but any evidence of discontinuity can be taken as such evidence: for example: Archaic Greece from 900 to 600/400BCE (the axial period) shows a sudden and very dramatic set of innovations and social transformations. This is clear non-random effect.
We suspect that almost by definition something is generating this discontinuity although in isolation its evidence remains unclear. we must see if there is a larger pattern in which this is a subset…

R48G: the eonic model as a set of questions…!
June 29th, 2017 ·

The eonic model is useful because it cogently isolates a non-random pattern in world history but leaves it as is, open to interpretation and practical use as an outline based empirically. The more elaborate model can be left as set of questions and a warning that no one gets history straight…these questions can themselves take the place of the complicated model:

what is the non-random pattern in world history?
what is a non-random pattern?
does it show evidence of a dynamic?

what is the significance of the ‘transitions’ that create the pattern?
does the pattern suggest a series of epochs or world eras?
are these intervals equal in length, what is the frequency?
if the pattern is only visible since the invention of writing what hypothesis can we make about earlier periods?
Do the transitions in the pattern suggest ‘discontinuity’?
what is the resemblance of this pattern to ‘punctuated equilibrium’?
what was the ‘axial age’ and what is its place in the non-random pattern?
what does the term ‘evolution’ mean and does it apply to this pattern?
is the term ‘evolution’ a synonym for ‘development’?
what does the pattern suggest about non-random patterns in deep time?
does the pattern show meta-genetic ‘evolution’?
what is the relation of history and evolution?
can we deduce the pattern from the logic of history emerging from evolution?
is the pattern deterministic or does free agency enter as a variable?
how does free agency or ‘free action’ interact with system action?
does free agency alternate with system action?
can we deduce the pattern from a root idea of the ‘evolution of freedom’?
can the idea of ‘self-consciousness’ be used to describe the changing character of free agency under system action?
how does the pattern relate to the histories of economy and technology?
are economy and technology continuously creative where the pattern is creatively discontinuous?
If the pattern shows discontinuities what happens at their endpoints?
does the nature of free agency change at the end of the discontinuities?
what does the pattern suggest about ‘medieval periods’?
if the pattern acts when unobserved what will happen as the pattern is discovered and observed?

that’s enough: as is evident the questions themselves can take the place of a speculative theory: but we should formalize any number of interpretations and weigh the evidence
most of all these questions force us to study world history and the bibliography here is quite considerable!

You can stand back from eonic model, but it enforces examination of the whole of world history //3.5 A New Model of History: Eonic Evolution

We have tried to create a super simple version of the ‘eonic effect’ and its model, but it is worth considering the larger model: the three sections 3.5, 3.51, 3.52, from WHEE give an overall sense of that model and its mysterious complexity, yet transparent outer effect.
This model explains why so many have thought history has a spiritual aspect lost in ‘materialist’ explanations. It is true, although we have long since moved beyond such terms as ‘spiritual’ in a universal materialism closer to Kant than Marx (with echoes of J.G. Bennett), but able to recast the core them of marxism in a new form.
This model is able to easily deal with issues of religion and equally their critique in a way that makes secular humanists look clubfooted…
You can even critique this model but you are left with a device that forces you to examine the whole of world history in detail, mission accomplished.

Source: 3.5 A New Model of History: Eonic Evolution

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment