History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

We have no simple perspective on modernity…

April 18th, 2018 · No Comments

After the last post on romanticism we need to proceed warily with the realization that noone can get these issues quite right. That’s not surprising
We have a lot of material on pinker’s new book. We need to consider that we have no simple world view as to modernity. For that matter world history, the issue of religion, human evolution, etc…, are equally incomplete. Pinker’s view is a very limited contraction of the whole discourse.

We have recommended the idea of the eonic effect as a pattern study of the structure of world history. The first step is to map out the whole of world history and there we notice a mysterious structure and there also we see that there is something we might call the modern transition: taken empirically it seems to resonate with a set of balanced opposites and complex antitheses. We might consider that we should define modernity (staring with the transitional early modern 1500/1800) in terms of a dialectical balance (the ‘dialectic’ is going to cause a muddle, so we might consider a new term), but we must be careful because we don’t understand the ‘mechanism’ (wrong term again) behind this sudden transformation of history.
However, taken with caution the so-called eonic model resolves so many problems that it is worth trying to use it to clarify issues of historical dynamics, and the context of the major periods of historical transition.
The point here is that, beside a still larger complexity, the enlightenment and the romantic movement are really part of greater whole. So the issue is not to induce a conflict in the two ideas so much as to consider them in terms of a still larger unity or concert. Certainly there are many cases where we can’t define something as part of the romantic movement or the enlightenment.
A problem with the eonic model is the apparent eurocentricism of the discussion of modernity: a close look shows we have answered that but the answer is a bit confusing or unconvincing to many. The point is that while the axial age spreads in parallel the modern epoch is focalized in one area: the reason is obvious: a modern axial parallelism would, unlike the ancient version, create chaos and collision. Instead a frontier effect comes into play: in the structural integration of eurasian and planetary culture the mysterious macro effect follows a frontier effect by never staging transitions in the same place twice: the european sector shows no direct transition regions and becomes a clear sector in the larger ‘eonic sequence’. But note that this is not ‘europe’ but exactly those regions at the frontier of the prior field of eonic expansion, viz. the rough boundaries of the roman empire taking germany, holland, england, france, spain and italy as an in between case.
This is very strange, almost weird, but once seen the probability this is chance seems remote.It takes long study to get the point. But the issue is clear. Why does germany produce so many innovations in the modern transition, while scandinavia with some of the most intelligent people on earth produces relatively little?
Enough said: study the eonic model on the sly and many of the confusions of world history (and evolutionary conceptualization) clarify. The academic world so far can’t help here, so you are on your own.

Please note that the US and Russia are not connected to the generator transition of modernity: they are certainly players in the larger generative field, called the diffusion field.
It is important to ask if these colossal entities bent on world domination aren’t barbarisms in disguise liable to produce distortions and second-rate modernities, not that the transition zones are any less barbaric, so far…

http://history-and-evolution.com/whee4th/chap3_5.htm : A new model of history…

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment