History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

The eonic effect as a falsification of most historical/evolutionary theories…

January 14th, 2018 · No Comments

Last and First Men

We have frequently used the data for the so-called eonic effect as a way to debrief dogmatic historical theories, hopefully without creating a new dogma. in fact the so-called ‘eonic effect’ is itself quite tricky but can be taken in a very simple way as a periodization that works as a simple empirical chronicle. We confront an analysis of a developmental construct of such elusive complexity that we will repent of the usual brands of sociological theory. Two stark realities confront the theorist, forcing the theorist to strike out:

the evidence of global action in parallel tracks
the evidence for a directionality operating over a cycle series. However, quite naturally, this sequentiality most probably stretches backward beyond our empirical archaeolgical database, which means we can’t fully complete the analysis.

These two factors are strike one and two for theories of the standard type.
Strike three is the resemblance of this to something like Kant’s distinction of noumenal and phenomenal: we do not ever fully observe the very dynamic we immediately infer from the first two points.
We can propose no comprehensive theory in this situation. However, what we can do is create a chronicle using periodization that reflects a provisional statement about an historical dynamic. From there we can recount the history of civilization as a developmental sequence and we can call this ‘evolution’ in a special sense.
From there we can free ourselves from the darwinian fallacy, reconstruct economic analysis as a set of economies given historically.
We can also most usefully infer that the revolutionary upsurge of modernity reflects this dynamic. In fact we can see a correlation of this with democracy/socialism/communism as emergent constucts of an new era, requiring resolution and completion by human interaction, a very useful and potentially practical way of sweeping aside theory without fully doing without it.

We can conclude a few things here: this and any other approach is data intensive. We need to read dozens of books on a series and a parallelism of sampled zones. That is hundreds to thousands of books. A progressive approximation to this (as born again speed readers) can at least remind us that premature theory formation won’t work.

This situation works fine however as a chronicle or tale, one that is animated by free agents, whatever our views of free will. We are left in any case therefore with the need to complete the initial impetus of a larger system. Democracy/socialism emerge naturally in this system with a top-level boost. We must complete these indications as free agents. We require no theory to do that, rather, a set of practical blueprints to realize what we suspect is a larger trend. Economic systems are simply subsets/subsystems of this larger mystery, and can be taken piecemeal as social functionalities open to piecemeal action. Modes of production are simply additional empirical studies and there is no real correlation of base and superstructure…

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment