History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

A lot of good reasons to scrap historical materialism for a simplified historical model based on the ‘eonic effect’

February 18th, 2018 · No Comments

Despite the apparent opacity of the ‘eonic model’ the reality is that it points to a structure easy to verify empirically that confounds our standard approaches to historical study. The model demands that we acknowledge the place of values in the emergence of factual histories and resolves the misleading distinctions of religion, civilization, and culture by showing everything in terms of a set of ‘relative transformations’ that drive a larger whole. For example at the core of the model in the specified time periods we see the synchrony of emergent Israelite monotheism and Greek classical transformations: we are given the suggestion of something far more abstract than anything in theistic or reductionist historicism.

The natural interpretation is that of some kind of macroevolution paired with a related microevolution. These terms are simply labels in a formalism of descriptive ‘evolutionism’ (or developmental progression) but leave the question open: is there any connection to the evolution of organisms and life in deep time? We can leave that secondary question to the text of World History and the Eonic Effect. There is also a connection of the similar distinction in economics: micro and macro.
Presented as a chronicle of epochs in an empirical framework the construct is probably beyond any easy falsification short of a theory even as its interpretations might well vary in their conclusions. But overall the construct is a robust set of insights that can develop an almost stunningly rich content that synthesizes physical, aesthetic, ethical, and religious/secular spheres. The ultimate account is in some ways a descendant of the kind of theistic historicism of the Old Testament but in a completely generalized form that exposes the myths of historical theism and adopts a stance of secular humanism in a new mode.
The question of religion thus finds a richer version of itself in a secular format that is free of the ‘pagan'(sic) mythologies of the monotheistic legacy, the lonely pantheon of the ‘one god’, yet does better justice to their histories and practices…

The beauty of this approach is that, in a streamlined form free of the murkiness of the text of WHEE, the model can form a superb successor to historical materialism and economic historicism of the marxist brand. And it can reconcile ‘end of history’ debates over democracy and historical directionality next to an equal clarification of the emergent communism as a challenge to the capitalist era.
In fact, in a great irony the eonic model points to a potential science of history (making no claims to a finished theory) even as it allows injections of ideological interpretation, albeit in a dialectical spectrum.

Nothing in world history makes sense without an understanding of the macro effect…
September 18th, 2015 ·

The influence of bad science, bad history, and bad education backing them up has made WHEEa book almost impossible to understand, but it is actually a very practical study of the way history follows a basic developmental logic.

Why are scientists unable to deal with this? 1. they can’t handle anything that doesn’t follow reductionist causality…2. they can’t therefore handle the place of free agency in history, which is like studying a zoo with no animals…3. they can’t follow the simple logic of discontinuity given the endless confusion created here by religious thinkers…4.most of all they can’t grasp that there is something wrong with darwinism…

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment