History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

hegel down the drain pipe versus the eonic model (and kant’s challenge)…//The World That Hitler Made

June 8th, 2018 · No Comments

Source: The World That Hitler Made

The piece on hegel is of great interest with almost mouthwatering insights which, however, amount to ‘not much’ in the way that hegelian profundity ends up a flash in the pan.
It can be hard to see this without a deeper method, and the eonic model provides that: it shelves ‘god’/’geist’/spirit but then shows what these terms really mean in the sense of history.
The starting point is kant who issued his famous challenge which hegel surely had in the back of his mind. But hegel was still in a period when world history was almost archaically short of the immense detail about to emerge from new research/archaeology. Kant foresaw that and saw that answers would be a matter of the future. Hegel barely knew of sumer…
I think it is neither presumptuous nor disrespectful to supercelebrities like hegel to say that the eonic model simply leaves hegel behind even as that philosopher throws out a key or hint in its nexus neo-mythological geist/mind/spirit: history has meaning, directionality, and is mmusic in the ‘key of freedom’. The eonic model disallows such injections however but as we examine the immense evidence of the ‘eonic effect’ we see phenomena as injected innovations at such a high level that it would be spurious to posit mechanical causation. We sense we understand hegel at a glance. Some gaian level ‘factor x’ equivalent to hypermind enters the field as candidates of explanation for the cascade of high level advances seen in the empirical model. But that model disallows all such concepts because its noumenal/phenomenal distinctions forbid the entry of statements about the noumenal.
Let us note in passing that hegel comes before the age of darwin: so who got it right? Or will we see preposterous grafting of darwin on hegel, completely missing the point. Hegel is nothing if not a design argument.
The eonic model is very careful to clear the ground of the evolutionism of scientism, and constructs a new model of ‘evolution’. This evolution can’t be driven by a geist, but it remains mysteriously in the background. Let us note that the eonic model finds something quasi-mechanical: a system in a frequency pattern. Would a ‘geist/frankengeist’ act that way…Perhaps ‘geist’ swallowed captain kidd’s clock. Plain vanilla systems analysis/science will finally inherit the eonic model (with its curious hint of some fine-tuning argument).
But the note the ironic similarity to the israelite transition: a spurious ‘god’ emerges…in the endgame of the modern reformation a sublimation of divinity occurs, as it were, but we should remember the lost wisdom of the israelite IHVH: you dare not name the One…
I fear that the israelites seem primitive now, hegel’s brand is oulala…
But as we study the eonic sequence we can see directly what hegel was driving at but unable to complete or quite get straight. The eonic model could be a carrier of hegel’s mysterious charm, however savagely attacked by his dialectical twin schopenhauer. We cannot graft divinities onto the eonic model and are bound to an austere silence about what is not directly factual. In fact hegel is a part of the evidence and it is no accident that kant, schopenhauer and hegel appear in spectacular fashion at what the eonic model calls the ‘divide’ line of the modern transition, this, a hegel sensed a concluding phase of the reformation, so to speak.
However the eonic model only points to a set of transitions and doesn’t quite compute what happens in their wake. The world wars of the twentieth century remain unexplained and require additional research save only to note that the eonic model’s distinction of system action and free action suggests the obvious way the profundity of the higher level dynamic is frittered away in the upsurge of the post-transition, to be unkind, idiots take over….Hitler is one of those idiots, a fatal dose. But we have suggested an almost occult fascist explanation for hitler, at the Gurdjieff Con blog. In the final analysis we see the gestation of reactionary antimodernism in the wake of the modern transition, and all sorts of curious figures trying to ‘seize modernity’ and/or destroy it…another discussion we have barely touched.
It is almost futile to critique hegel, even though marxists have tried, because of his sancrosanct mysterious effect, which we have put in context. But in the final analysis hegel is a museum piece, if one that carries the key to the eonic effect itself, save only that the ‘names of god’ are always false: the unnamed mystery of the noumenon…
It would be nice to crystallize an eonic version of hegel, because the point of hegel is lost on the world of science and attempts at scientific history. Hegel dared to claim he transcended the noumenon/phenomenon distinctions of kant. well, your move, dear reader, and your philosophic neck.

Note: we have not discussed hegel’s most elusive discussion of the dialectic with its roots in antiquity (and figures like boehme)…He may be one up here although our austere eonic model eschews triadic concepts…for another discussion.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment