History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Stages of history versus relative transformations and transitions…getting a handle on the eonic effect…so, where’s you bibliography of Archaic Greece?

October 24th, 2017 · No Comments

The question of the eonic effect comes off as speculative but a close look shows that in principle the subject can be presented in a rigorous historical depiction of a or ‘the’ non-random pattern in history. Such data requires an explanation which can indeed be the object of speculation. But there again the eonic model, a step beyond empirical observation into interpretation is basically a reasonable attempt to make sense of what we can’t ignore but which historians and scientists seem incapable of appreciating. In fact, given the statistics of readers here knowledge of the book must be widespread but the study falls between two stools and has two sets or more of opposing antagonists: monotheists trying to defend Old Testament historicism, and secularists who don’t want to find/see anything ‘spiritual’ in history. In fact the eonic effect isn’t a spiritual subject at all and can be seen in terms of a combination of material and related concepts from a Kantian perspective. In fact it gives an insight into what really is going on in the Old Testament ‘epic’ which, like the Iliad, probably refers to real people but in an account so mythologized it is hard to disentangle the subject from fiction.
We have proposed an interpretive framework of ideological issues, something that can’t be avoided for the simple reason that if the emergence of the state is a developmental topic then the emergence of freedom in the state is probably no accident. The correlation with modern revolution strongly suggests just that. Ideologies are output of the system. Mysterious, at first. But no more mysterious than the question of evolving freedom, in apes to man…Was there such a thing evolving? We are a long way from Darwinism…
We have attempted parallel liberal and leftist perspectives which both work given the way the factor of free agency interacts with a macro effect.

Small wonder readers struggle with the material! In general there about ten obstacles in the way of simple reading, too bad. Keep trying, and most of all take the indicated periods of transition and study what you must study to master the periods in question. A good exercise to start is a bibliography of archaic to classical Greece. This is a vast area yet only a small part of the larger pattern. Get the reading done as best as you can and the eonic effect will start to make sense.

Meanwhile we have in our spectrum of possible interpretations as noted tried to resurrect the rationale of communism beyond marxism. Even if this is unsuccessful we can at least point out that calling capitalism the end of history is a totally bogus argument. In the spectrum/spectacle of realizations we have many options for political outcomes: a hybrid of liberalism and communism makes the best sense in this one’s view….The eonic effect provides a much better approach to the issue of epochs in history than conventional marxism…

archive: stages of history versus relative transformations and transitions
December 11th, 2015 ·

The classic stages of history in marxism are
primitive communism
slave society

But will this analysis really work? slave society is to follow primitive communism, but slavery is not clearly a very early stage of society. It is more like a pathology of civilizations and a primitve form of a later stage, capitalism, and the extreme form of system with a pathological labor theory of value.

feudalism is hard to define but its ‘medieval’ source as a term was more a stage of the decline from the state in the dark ages. It was a stage after the world of organized Rome…
capitalism isn’t really a stage because it is present from the dawn of the neolithic or before (the paleolithic trade in obsidian), shows up in essence in all forms of commercial interaction, and is clearly present in periods that are well-documented, e.g. ancient greece, where the forms of finance are already coming to the fore. And this is merely a better documented case: the forms seen in early Greece must have seen many permutations throughout antiquity.
Trade relations over large distances with bullock carts, for example….

The perspective of the ‘macro effect’ in WHEE works better because it is more fluid and refers to transitions, not to stages. These transitions refer to something more like shoveling coal into a furnace (cycles of a locomotive) appear to be an aspect of a dynamic of cyclical action. The cycles of the locomotive have no correlation with the outer terrain through which it travels. Whatever the case, it is actually more useful to clock stages in terms of transitions rather than social definitions.
The core of civilization begins in the Neolithic: family, tribe/aggregates, villages, town, cities, states…But this is another stages list: transitions act on whatever they find in place and produce relative transformations of what it finds to a greater complexification, e.g.with appearance of agriculture we see villages, then towns, then cities states. These depictions are not intrinsic but descriptive and contain the real advance factors: innovations in the realm of ideas, from technical inventions to religions in the crucible developing culture…
The macro effect can only find three phases of transitions, but suspect six or seven starting in the Neolithic.

We start in the phase of the first states: Egypt, Sumer, around 3000BCE, then the Axial phase, around 600BCE, then the modern period around 1800 AD. These dates cap a period of transition of several centuries, and show a remarkable correlation of seminal innovations. The nice thing about relative transformations is that we can begin anywhere, and can proceed even if we don’t have a complete early history.
So instead of phases we have a purely abstract definitionless set of transitions which show definite advances in civilization but not in the sequence of stages as above.
One problem with feudalism is that its medieval form shows decline from a higher phase or ‘stage’ in the period of the great flowering of the Axial Age. It can thus hardly be a stage. Feudalism precedes modern capitalism only via the empirical facts of the case of European history.

The modern transition seems to be the stage of capitalism coming to pass, but a closer look shows that its development, although severely characteristic of the early modern, was peripheral to the much more complicated broader innovations of general culture in science, philosophy, religion, art, literature, and much else. We can’t ascribe these to economic determination or to a stage of history. They are relative transformations of genres that existed all along.
We do seem to see ‘a’ birth of capitalism at the end of the modern transition around the time of the industrial revolution, and this may be part of that transition, but it is not a new stage of history to be called capitalist. Capitalism immediately in synchronous initiation spawns its counterpoint socialism/communism as projects for a new future. Thus modernity is not the stage of capitalism, and socialism/communism as ideas appear at the same time as capitalism. Socialism/communism can’t really be stages because they begin to influence capitalism immediately and we see socialist tendencies and a russian revolution in tandem with capitalism.
Still, the issue of communism makes its point: a terminal endstate of communism in an era of postcapitalism would constitute a pretty good version of some sort of stage, after never seeing any up to that time, only transitions of relative transformations.But the achievement of communism might itself be a start subject to new transformations…

We see that the outcome of modernity is a transformation of the early modern transition and capitalism comes to the fore very late at the end of the modern transition. The sudden appearance of socialism/communism thus are entirely appropriate terms for new ‘relative transformations to be applied to modernity in context of (or kidnapped by) capitalism.
democracy, socialism, communism and ‘revolution’ itself are thus clear typical innovations of the early modern. The may have existed before, and would thus be relative transformations.

(Roots of a tree show absolute beginnings: tree rings show (annual) relative beginnings or transformations.)

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment