History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

The crisis of bad historical theory

July 12th, 2018 · No Comments

The question of marx is not resolved via attempts at stepping backwards to hegel a la zizek, as interesting as that might be (one should carefully consider the larger sphere of kant and schopenhauer).

The issue in the end is how to interpret history and here it seems all parties have failed. Although at first sight a very obscure subject the reality is that the issue/study of the ‘eonic effect’ is simply a bibliography enforcing a balanced study of the whole course of emergent civilization. In the process one begins to notice something, whatever it means. That reading uncovers the hidden dynamic behind the development of world history. You can argue with that point but the bibliography covers at the very least a kind of ‘non-random pattern’ that must in the end replace futile attempts at each a science of history, or the philosophy of history. Neither historical materialism or the idealism of the hegelian type can really resolve that enigma, empirical as it is.
We can easily reconstruct a leftist project of liberalism turning into socialism on the basis of this ‘model’ of empirical givens in world history without a speculative theory or a conversion to either materialism or idealism.
R48G: the eonic model as a set of questions…!

The eonic model is useful because it cogently isolates a non-random pattern in world history but leaves it as is, open to interpretation and practical use as an outline based empirically. The more elaborate model can be left as set of questions and a warning that noone gets history straight…these questions can themselves take the place of the complicated model:

what is the non-random pattern in world history?
what is a non-random pattern?
does it show evidence of a dynamic?
what is the significance of the ‘transitions’ that create the pattern?
does the pattern suggest a series of epochs or world eras?
are these intervals equal in length, what is the frequency?
if the pattern is only visible since the invention of writing what hypothesis can we make about earlier periods?
Do the transitions in the pattern suggest ‘discontinuity’?
what is the resemblance of this pattern to ‘punctuated equilibrium’?
what was the ‘axial age’ and what is its place in the non-random pattern?
what does the term ‘evolution’ mean and does it apply to this pattern?
is the term ‘evolution’ a synonym for ‘development’?
what does the pattern suggest about non-random patterns in deep time?
does the pattern show meta-genetic ‘evolution’?
what is the relation of history and evolution?
can we deduce the pattern from the logic of history emerging from evolution?
is the pattern deterministic or does free agency enter as a variable?
how does free agency or ‘free action’ interact with system action?
does free agency alternate with system action?
can we deduce the pattern from a root idea of the ‘evolution of freedom’?
can the idea of ‘self-consciousness’ be used to describe the changing character of free agency under system action?
how does the pattern relate to the histories of economy and technology?
are economy and technology continuously creative where the pattern is creatively discontinuous?
If the pattern shows discontinuities what happens at their endpoints?
does the nature of free agency change at the end of the discontinuities?
what does the pattern suggest about ‘medieval periods’?
if the pattern acts when unobserved what will happen as the pattern is discovered and observed?

that’s enough: as is evident the questions themselves can take the place of a speculative theory: but we should formalize any number of interpretations and weigh the evidence
most of all these questions force us to study world history and the bibliography here is quite considerable!

you can stand back from eonic model, but it enforces examination of the whole of world history //3.5 A New Model of History: Eonic Evolution

You can stand back from eonic model, but it enforces examination of the whole of world history //3.5 A New Model of History: Eonic Evolution

We have tried to create a super simple version of the ‘eonic effect’ and its model, but it is worth considering the larger model: the three sections 3.5, 3.51, 3.52, from WHEE give an overall sense of that model and its mysterious complexity, yet transparent outer effect.
This model explains why so many have thought history has a spiritual aspect lost in ‘materialist’ explanations. It is true, although we have long since moved beyond such terms as ‘spiritual’ in a universal materialism closer to Kant than Marx (with echoes of J.G. Bennett), but able to recast the core them of marxism in a new form.
This model is able to easily deal with issues of religion and equally their critique in a way that makes secular humanists look clubfooted…
You can even critique this model but you are left with a device that forces you to examine the whole of world history in detail, mission accomplished.

Source: 3.5 A New Model of History: Eonic Evolution

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment