History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

The eonic effect and fine-tuning?

June 11th, 2018 · No Comments

The model of the eonic effect has no direct connection to the issue of fine-tuning: the point is simply that we are left with a void of explanation when it comes to the issue of evolution, human emergence and the ‘evolution’ of man/civilization.
The reason is that if assumptions of random evolution are false we confront the mystery of complex non-random constructions whose almost spooky effect drive some to theistic explanations. In a great irony the eonic effect/model explicitly transcends both theistic/atheistic argument, and more directly exposed monotheism’s constructive historical character leaving us in the dark about what it is that might be beyond the duality of god/no-god.

Not all religionists are theistic obsessives. Many have long since distanced themselves from theistic myths/constructs with the (no doubt speculative) idea of involution which is in a way a precursor of fine-tuning arguments.

R48G: What drives history? the question of the eonic effect
October 7th, 2017 ·

September 8th, 2017 ·

Our discussion of the Counterpunch article raised the issue of what is driving history (class struggle), that stolid cliche, with the article’s hint at historical materialism, class struggle, etc, as candidates.

But a study of the eonic effect shows a much broader view is needed because there is clear evidence of an historical driver in a distinct macro effect.

Nothing in WHEE actually states a theoretical finding that the eonic effect is driving history, as such. It is clearly driving an ‘evolutionary’ or developmental process on a global scale. But the eonic model distinguishes ‘stream and sequence’ aspects and it could even be claimed that the eonic sequence is superimposed on a set of streams that have great if not greater momentum. If we look at the outcome of the Axial Age in the Occident we might well claim that medievalism overcame the whole effect of the Axial driver. But that’s the whole point: the next transition in the macro sequence restores much that had been lost! But even so the basic influences did remain in some form. The analysis must distinguish the Axial Age and christianity/Islam two subdrivers as it were. The eonic model also points to the ‘econostream’ and the ‘technostream’, as economic and technological histories. So the question of what drives history is complicated.
It would useful to try and consider the question of class struggle in this context. But much of class struggle is implicit until it is made explicit in the ideology of marxism (well, almost…) We need to reask the question: what is the place of class struggle in history in the context of the eonic effect? Much of the marxist data just might fit into the model. A look at the English Civil War makes clear that democracy/communism (along with quakerism, religion) were part of the ‘Blob’ of issues moving in and out of conjunction. It’s the effect of the Glorious Revolution that made liberal democracy an upper class non-democracy, the bourgeois revolution….)

Let us note that the ‘discrete freedom sequence’ in the eonic model (the suspected recursive appearance of democracy in the macro effect) suggests an implicit version of class struggle in the question of the definition of democracy: the point was lost that communism with an axiom of equality deriving a Commons is really an aspect of that sequence and that overall the eonic model has a core meme of the ‘evolution of freedom’. It is clear that the net equivalents of class analysis and class struggle fit easily into the eonic analysis…

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment