Flawed historical models using concept of ‘civilization’ May 29th, 2018
I am often struck by the lack of historical knowledge in the public, a factor often noted.
Although knowledge is not the same as that of intelligence the fact remains that historical study is one way out of very many to expand intelligence. A study of the eonic effect takes this to the ultimate. Let me note that I exempt myself from the judgement since I had many years to cheat: my level of intelligence is above average (ca. 115, I guess, with verbal potentials, I can write a bad sonnet in fifteen minutes, a tad above the limerick), but not einsteinian.
The useful thing here is that everyone flunks the test, to start. So there is no nonsense about being smarter than anyone else: everyone starts off equally. Remarkably professional historians being highly specialized have proven blind to the eonic effect which is an exercise in pattern recognition stretching over the whole field of world history, but especially the last five thousand years, and over all regions equally distributed. Note the latter point, All regions equally distributed
The test, which takes one to four years is to read a thousand books on history and to find a non-random pattern in that data set (which you can extend to include the paleolithic and deep time, as history turns into evolution, so to speak, in fact the two are janus-faced ). You may cheat and use the eonic data in print such as it is and you are free to dissent from that interpretation and/or refute the claims: but you would do well to be wary of claiming that world history shows pure randomness): you can propose your own interpretation, wary that the eonic effect will likely falsify your own claims.
Note: one of those books may be World History and the Eonic Effect, can you cheat and just read that book? By all means, but unless you read the whole spectrum of books you may not know what your are reading…It is possible to complete the test in a few months. But everyone will call you crazy and the book bunk, so unless you read the books you will not win any arguments with the brainwashers trying to claim your mind.
On the way you must resolve a lot of difficulties: the nature of dynamical systems versus historical systems. The question, what is evolution? The key issues of philosophy form Plato to Kant, and their relationship to the overall exercise. The nature of religion in general and religions in particular: the case of christianity, versus buddhism, etc… But you don’t have to solve all those issues: you can up to a point simply describe them.
This impinges on the issue of nature/supernature, and the nature of secularism…the list goes on and on…There a dozens of such riddles on the way: you can put many on ‘hold’ and proceed without fully resolving them. But the issue of christian salvation (if any) and/or buddhist enlightenment, or the true tao enter inexorably. Delusions, myths? These will likely defeat you so you can adopt descriptive summaries. In addition the histories of science and technology enter along with those of the nature of economics. Do you need newtonian physics and/or quantum mechanics here? probably not, but a few sneak peaks at these subjects is in order.
I have made my point: detecting a pattern in world history is not a trivial task. One might claim that knowledge accumulation is not intelligence but the two blend into each other and as you attempt this your de facto intelligence will inexorably start to increase. etc…
Let me say at once that this exercise is not suitable in general and better ways to exercise the mind might be in order. Whatever the case, it is clear that there are dozens of similar projects to develop reasoning and intelligence, even as they impinge on unknowns, and unsolved riddles. This particular case extends beyond standard science, and religious faith, and is helped greatly by Kantian warnings about metaphysics…This is open to any level of intelligence with a guarantee it will be a brain stretcher…The issue of history is useful because it is open to any level as a staring point. The whole question could be done with a thousand history comic books, but with footnotes…
It might be claimed that old people with a whole life of study versus beginners with little knowledge are not comparable. Very true, but this is not a standard IQ test with a score at the end. There is no score, and the criticism that intelligence and knowledge are distinct is true, but not really the point. Since your intelligence will undergo change as your take the test, the idea of a score is meaningless.
It is in fact a process almost guaranteed to avail of neuroplasticity.
Find something similar in your given case, etc…
The point is that homo sapiens has barely scratched the surface of his ultimate potential. Such complex pattern recognition exercises must be abundant and deserve a future. Physics offers many things like this, but history is better because it is open to all levels as a starting point.
The nature of historical knowledge is highly controlled by ideological entities of all kinds, religious, academic, political, etc…They will move at once to denounce the data on the eonic effect. Offer them a simple reponse: have you read those thousand books?
The question of evolution in our eonic model is based on world history which give us direct access to the visible (if any) process of the evolutionary. The question arises, how can history be evolution? The answer is that evolution is really about the evolution of freedom: look at the rise of the animal: degrees of freedom emerge at each level: it is almost by definition true that from initial locomotion to incipient categories of choice we see a freedom effect. Don’t confuse that with free will, necessarily, a far more advanced question. Evolution creates ‘choice’, which is different. Continue reading Evolution to history: freedom evolving
The ‘eonic effect’ is one of the most exciting discoveries in the study of world history and evolutionary science, but unfortunately its study has made little headway in the public domain, for reasons that are not hard to find.
If we even reference the subject we are referring to something that simply does’t register in terms of standard categories. At least to first sight. The basic idea is not that hard in principle but if you had never seen an elephant you might balk at some attempt to describe it. (there is a famous story about that).
The ‘eonic effect’ is a non-random structure in world history…there we go, what does that mean?
Beyond that the subject is almost a private possession of speed readers: to make statements about civilizations requires the communicant also be a speed reader, which is not to be hoped for. Who has time to read hundred of books about different periods/places of world history? Even specialists don’t read enough, at least not in a general field of world history. They specialize! And we can’t really visualize the ‘evolution of a civilization’, it is too vast. But, wait, we do that all the time: we ‘visualize the ‘decline and fall’ of the Roman Empire, so our statement isn’t quite right. But what we must do is far vaster than that. Still we are not so far from ways to deal with the eonic effect.
Next, the fact remains that most people are prisoners of the propagandas promoted by politicians, and the academic myths promoted by academics (witness the strength of the Darwin paradigm). And here the ‘eonic effect’ material gets unlucky, politicians, theologians, darwinists, most academics, and a lot of other dogma upholders are so hostile, yet fearful, they will not even dare refute/challenge what is claimed: they must totally ignore it.
There is more here, but we have made our point. The fact remains that the eonic effect should be the intellectual property of the general public. History is not what conventional thinking leads you to believe. We have already had this fight with Darwinism: evolution, its theory, is not what conventional science has led you to believe. But the critics won the argument, but so far have lost the war. Politicians and academics tend to decree what you are believe, so the fight will result in not much. I am too hard on academics: they are a lot who would love to teach a college course on the eonic effect, but they dare not even mention it in public.
In part the reason is that the rubric ‘speculative’ history is assigned to those who try to generalize about history. Next christian and jewish theologians have to protect their sacred myths, but the eonic effect will demolish all of them.
Darwinists will have to truck with any criticism of darwinism, even though we hardly refer to darwinism at all. We simply consider the critiques of evolutionists themselves.
So we have three bodies of enemies at the start. Not good.
Fortunately the material on the eonic effect doesn’t require a theory and we can state the issues empirically in a way that is beyond falsification because there is not theory to falsify, it is just a way of saying, Look! So it is possible to consider an abbreviated version hypothetically and then begin to study world history to see the data that is there and known.
We keep referencing the eonic effect, so-called, what do we mean by it? we had a huge literature on this in the old Darwiniana, but we will start over here, slowly. Here is a first take…
The question of the ‘eonic effect’ has perhaps been unnecessarily complicated by attempts to explain it. It should be seen as, on one level, a very simple structure in world history, one that should be common knowledge. In one way it already is common knowledge. For example if you reify ‘modernity’ you are aware without being aware of the tail end of this eonic effect, or eonic sequence. Why do you use that term? Again, we use the term ‘middle ages’. ?? Middle of what? In terms of the eonic effect it is the ‘middle’ of the ‘eon’ (a dangerous term) or epoch, or better yet, second interval in world history between classical antiquity and the modern period. We almost have it, all we have to do is add the phase of ulterior antiquity, i.e. the period of the dawn of higher civilization ca. 3000BCE (in sumer and egypt). But wait, wasn’t the ‘real’ beginning much earlier here, for Egypt and Sumer? A good point, but modernity wasn’t true beginning either. The period just before 3000 BCE was not the beginning but did show a tremendous relative set of changes. In fact, we guessed this answer, given a lot of evidence, because we are starting to see what is going on. Continue reading What is the eonic effect and how can we use the term ‘evolution’ for it…?
We linked to this older piece archived at redfortyeight.com today: a popular post, we repost the material here
We have arrived at the moment foretold by the revolutionaries of the year 1848
May 3rd, 2017 •
The future of the world system at the end of globalization remains tremendously uncertain, but the crisis of capitalism at a time of planetary danger summons at once its dialectical companion, the idea of communism. Continue reading Echoes of 1848
Kant, history, and a challenge
September 6th, 2018 • Continue reading Kant, history, and a challenge