James said,
April 27, 2008 at 11:01 am
When is the third edition coming out?
Soon, I hope, perhaps in June, if there are no problems.
In the meantime here’s the Third Edition site: still a work in progress: http://eonic-effect.net
Mini-Blog: Hucklebird defends his review of WHEE at Amazon. I have stayed out of the debate, but should comment soon.
The eonic effect shows us a whole new dimension to what we mean, or should mean, by evolution. It springs from the striking data set visible in world history, which is analyzed from two perspectives, or on two levels, braiding the idea of ‘evolution’ with ‘history’. It is an at first confusing but ultimately elegant way to recalibrate our sense of the meaning of evolution.
Thanks Hucklebird.
‘Persecution’ of the religious gets curiouser and curiouser
Okay, what with the Internet and print on demand publishing etc., why don’t all these scientists now silenced for their rejection of Darwinism just publish and be damned? It seems they are fearful of speaking out about the censoring of their evidence because they will all lose their government grants.
Already done: check out World History And The Eonic Effect, one of the first POD to be published, with a critique of Darwinism, one not entangled in religious or design arguments.
The basic problems with Darwinism and its distortions on human evolution and history are layed out clearly and decisively.
In preparation for the Third Edition of World History And The Eonic Effect, I have created a new website: The Eonic Effect.
Check it out.
The main site is still History & Evolution.com
I am putting up new materials for the Third Edition of World History And The Eonic Effect, here: The Evolution Controversy
Announcing the third revised edition of World History And The Eonic Effect, the self-published/Internet book and underground theoretical self-defense kit in relation to the Darwinian paradigm. The basic text has been extensively rewritten, even as the basic argument has remained the same. There is much new material and it has been reorganized to show a more integrated structure, with a few changes in the terminology of the eonic model. The basic model has remained stable over three editions, and that leaves the author with increased confidence in the method and demonstration.
I have been observing Google’s (then Yahoo’s and MSN’s) attempts to downlist history-and-evolution.com for some time. A recent check shows that the site, if you type ‘eonic effect’ into google, appears on page five (it’s the source of the term and should be listed first, as it once was), with a link to a minor page in the archives. Nothing else is referenced (although everything is indexed in memory, as far as I know. It once was. ) Yahoo and MSN have recently imitated this behavior.
It is not possible for a search engine to be that brain-dead without human intervention.
Remember, censoring the site you dislike will result finally in the censor of the site you do like, the loss of your free speech.
Meanwhile, visitors still come, six hundred page views today for World History & The Eonic Effect, not bad for such a hard book.
The Darwin and other establishments et al. must be afraid indeed of the data of the eonic effect (and the Axial Age).
Why shouldn’t they be: a falsification of Darwinian theory is sitting there, mocking them behind their propaganda game.
They are betting the public is too stupid or confused to figure out their lie.
Meanwhile the geeks at Google have transmogrified into a corporate dead zone.
What’s next after Google?
Note the point: these experts are lying to you.
Progress, what porgress?
It is a legacy of Darwinian theory that the idea of progress has fallen into confusion. The confusions of social progress, evolutionary progress, and cosmology have left secularists unable to make use of one of the defining concepts of modernity. In the final piece of confusion, Richard Dawkins sensing the dangerous contradiction in the random evolution proposed by Darwinists with natural selection has defined natural selection as non-random.
The idea of progress (cf. the classic text of Bury, The Idea Of Progress) arises in the early modern (cf. the battle of the Ancients and Moderns) in the perception that modernity was suddenly outstripping the achievements of the ancients. From there the idea proceeded to its secular apotheosis until the onset of scientism and Darwinism confused the issue, and put the idea into its current postmodern limbo. In part the problem arises from the abuse of ideology that overtook the idea in its later biography. The critique of ideology is all well and good, but to completely reject the idea is the great mistake precipitated by the onset of Darwinism
Maybe Darwinism is wrong!? Is it possible to have a true theory of evolution without the idea of progress? It would seem not. The early proponents of evolution, despite the crudity of their initial efforts, took it for granted that evolutionary progress was the key to its understanding. But a more refined or properly delimited idea of progress is needed.
That is provided, by the way, by the model of the eonic effect, where two levels of action are braided together, in a rendition of progression in steps. Lamarck, his theory of adaptation apart (which has discredited him) naturally proposed the outline of a true theory of evolution, however crude, with its two levels of action, one able to take up the burdern of progress. Darwinism, by collapsing the different levels (macro and micro) is unable to sort out the resulting confusion.
Gould was highly critical of the idea of progress, but surely he was simply wrong in his endless diatribes against progress in evolution. Part of the critique sprang from his leftist rejection of the social exploitation of the idea of progress on the part of various elites. And this is the confusion of economic progress, so-called, with overall progress.
But those are different issues.
We fail to see progress in evolution because it is hard to find, and requires something better than naive teleological thinking.
If we examine ‘eonic progression’ we see the problem solved in priniciple (but only for historical analysis) in the double action of two ‘evolutionary’ processes or levels, analogous to the micro and putative macro suspected or denied by biologists.
In general the failure to see social progress is due to the oversimplications of its proponents, and the inability to consider the long-range scale of world history. But if we periodize world history properly the reality of progress becomes obvious. The eonic effect resolves the confusion that arises from the perception of retrograde motion, due to its consideration of a discrete-continuous model, where the driver of progress and the micro field in its intermediate phases are different in their character. We fail to see the greater system of progression at work.
To have hopelessly confused the central idea of progress is not the least of the devastations of Darwinian oversimplification. Read the rest of this entry »
The eonic effect, gaia, and hypercomplex systems.
This note concludes a series of posts/email essays on gaia and the eonic effect at chaosmos@yahoogroups.com and here on this blog.
…Thank you for your interest. After considering the question of models of history and the eonic effect, it should be said also that the ‘default interpretation’ of the eonic pattern is a simple schematic of periodization that can be used to simply study world history in a way that shows its coherence. Then the sense and significance of that to which the ‘eonic effect’ refers can become clear on its own terms. The first priority is simple observation and that is greatly facilitated by the discovery of this meaningful coherence.
The odd ’secret’ of evolution is that everyone is trying to avoid seeing it because it seems so long ago and conflicts with current agendas.
In the nonce we discover the gaian mystery behind world history, and there we also find ‘evolution’, ‘evolution of some kind’, with a suggestion about how the original moments of human evolution occurred.
The Politics of God
By MARK LILLA
Article in Times on religion, secularism, and the liberal context of religion.
It might be worth commenting on this several times this week, but to simply indicate the broad outlines of a response is simply done in the context of Darwiniana blog by pointing to the need for a post-Darwinian liberalism, a new historically based renewal of core liberalism and its significance in relation to religion.
Read the rest of this entry »
Continuing the discussion on Gaia and the eonic effect, here, I am asked a set of questions, Re: [chaosmos] Gaia Hypothesis - Is the Earth smarter than us?, and a response:
Gaia, the eonic effect, and leapfrog evolution,
and the response concluded:
Continuation of previous post on the eonic effect, punctuated equilibrium, and gaia, posted to chaosmos@yahoogroups.com
Read the rest of this entry »
Question from chaosmos@yahoogroups.com
Re: [chaosmos] Gaia Hypothesis - Is the Earth smarter than us?
The eonic effect seems to be an interesting example of how world historical patterns or even evolutionary patterns may have the form of an intermittent dynamics. My main question about it is the following: in what way can we distinguish those intermittent patterns from the punctuated equilibrium induced by self-organised criticality (SOC) in complex adaptive ecosystems?
Yesterday’s criticism of:
A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World (Princeton Economic History of the Western World) (Hardcover)
by Gregory Clark
requires a decisive critique, since such Darwinizations of historical thinking are likely to sow the tares of social Darwinist ideology in a way that a gullible public can find plausible. Read the rest of this entry »
Dogberry said,
August 5, 2007 at 6:05 am · Edit
Lessing reported that even the sufi modernizer Idries Shah said he did not feel spiritually at home in the modern world, but belonged in a previous age. Glad to learn your book is online. I’ve had difficulty with the print version, as the Index is too selective. What do you make of previous metahistorical efforts by, for example, Ibn Khaldun, Vico, Croce, Voegelin (and even JG Bennett!), on top of your signposted Spengler-Toynbee discussion. Some are in the Bibliography, but none is indexed. Does your online version reproduce the notes and index? And is it searchable?
Shah’s problem is one shared by quite a few people in New Age circles. An immense miscalculation haunts the whole movement in the sense of any hope of a postmodern New Age beyond modernity. I think the eonic effect shows why that is the caseproblematic And that’s not the same as rejecting the content of the various ancient traditions. Read the rest of this entry »
Much of this discussion of modernity and spiritual leaders and movements is dealt with in World History and The Eonic Effect, Chapter 4, in the Endnotes: New Ages, and other essays in that section.
One of the side insights given by the eonic pattern is the independent emergentism of modernity in the world sequence, a disconcerting reality that these reactionary conservatives have failed totally to grasp as they mistakenly attempt a postmodern reaction to modernity as a ‘New Age’. It won’t work, for reasons the study of the eonic effect makes clear.
I got an email from a reader remarking on this post: History and Evolution.
Many readers of WH&EE are stumped at first by the connection shown between history and evolution. But the relationship is elegant and simple and can greatly clarify the confusion that Darwinists have condemned us to.
Hucklebird comment on Chopra post.
I don’t wish to get into sermonizing about making money with books, but the real issue is the motivation of the author. Did he consciously or unconsciously meld his message to match a large audience?
Beyond that is a certain bitterness in the way the New Age movement changed its character. At the end of all that effort, the result for most is nothing, sad. Chopra makes off with his bundle. Maybe there is no harm in it.
A lot of New Age types chose poverty (not directly) in the sense of not trying to indulge hype.
Beyond that, speaking for myself, World History and The Eonic Effect succeeds because it didn’t cater to any market, the result contains a genuinely new insight into the question of human evolution, however long it takes for that to become public knowledge. I could never have done that for a mainstream publishing initiative where the focus on market niche dominates the marketing decisions of publishers.
And I have to make sure the message will survive those who might realize what I am saying and try to sensationalize or distort it. I have to be especially wary of the Chopra types.
I have already suffered that fate with Karen Armstrong. Her trashy junk on the Axial Age after she obviously had read my first edition almost destroyed the whole discourse of the Axial Age.
She is a writer by profession, and has to put away a nest egg, and that obviously lurks in the background. She has to target an audience, and she incredibly manages to be so deceptively indirect as to sausage up the question for theists and atheists simultaneously. She is on record as an atheist (apparently) and yet she is giving lectures in Moslem countries as a religion expert. That’s what I call clever insincerity!
Chopra is no Armstrong, so maybe it’s me, allergic to money.
Still, I make no final judgment on Chopra, that’s the trend of information, a sort of involution, toward a larger and larger audience, in a watered down result.
Part of the problem is that I just don’t do things his way, e.g. the treatment of quantum mechanics, etc… So there is a parting of ways.
Meanwhile I wouldn’t trade my WH&EE for anything like Chopra’s success. Who cares about the money?
In a way that’s the value of Kant. He scares people away, and a format that echoes a few points of his thinking protects the discovery of historical structure from metaphysical exploitation.
Comment about race, and my reply.
It is true that WH&EE makes no reference to the concept of race, and I welcome Joe Wheeler’s challenge on this issue to my ‘relapse’ use of the term ‘race’.
Actually usage tends to be slippery, and the issue confuses everyone.
The main point is that the ‘eonic model’ is strictly a ’species level’ discussion, and it even has a problem with separate ‘civilizations’, instead seeing the differentiation from global unity there also.
From Teilhard, chaosmos,….@yahoogroups.com discussion
For the record…
[snip]To say that history shows a non-random pattern is no big deal? It is a very radical thing to do, and the exercise uses a unique method. Who on earth thinks history is random? Every Darwinist, scientist, physicist, and academic who wants a job. To say that history shows a non-random pattern is grounds, actually, for getting kicked out of academia. Read the rest of this entry »
I just noticed that World History And The Eonic Effect has a slew of discounted hardcovers for $8.99 at Amazon.com: good chance to get a beautiful book (which be a rare book someday!). Note I make no profit from any of this.
World History And The Eonic Effect-discounted
And I will be moving on the third edition sometime soon.
Sent to hegelnet, teilhard, kant, KenWilber, chaosmos@yahoogroups.com
Hucklebird, a frequent commenter here, has a new book out, Trinity, (link at this blog, use search button).
Read the rest of this entry »
Ken Miller Twists William Dembski’s Methods for Inferring Intelligent Design.
A question for the ID folks: The Old Testament period (its core as described in World History and The Eonic Effect) is in the significant sector of the ‘eonic’ non-random pattern. Does it therefore show design?
Another confused discussion of modernity from a conservative perspective, The Fall of Modernity.
Read the rest of this entry »
This page now at:
http://history-and-evolution.com/self_publish.htm