Re: World Systems Theory & the Eonic Effect - A Matter of Scope

In a message dated 9/18/2002 12:08:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, larondin@yahoo.com writes:


> Actually I wasn’t as much concerned with the mystical interpretations of Steinerians and others in connection to the Eonic Effect as much as I was in posing a question about cosmological and macrohistorical scope.  Note, I do recognize it’s not within the ability of the model to deal with matters of mystical occurrence in the world and human events.  I understand that.  I was just wondering whether if in fact it is within the purview of the model to deal with larger scale periodic transformations occurring on the level of human ecology and upward to more cosmological matters of “historic” changes taking place in the realm of astrophysics and other sciences of the universe, be they sciences of the very large or sciences of the very small.  Can the Eonic effect and its principles as a model encompass the higher levels of “Big History” or is it feasible only in the realm of human events & humankind’s immediate environmental surroundings on the earth?  Also, supposing there is some common ground with “aeonic” mystical interpretations of mankind’s place in the world in relation to the Eonic effect, can the Eonic Effect therefore offer a natural teleological alternative explanation to such [mystical/spiritual] interpretations of where humanity stands in the universe (starting first from his more immediate earthly, historical surroundings & working up towards the bigger picture of where we as humans stand in relation to the larger universe and its structures/processes)?  In other words, can the Eonic Effect and its major dynamics be applied in such a way as to offer a non-mystical explanation of so-called “mystical” phenomena in human events?  And, once that question’s considered, why is it that we tend to as humans interpret such events as being “mystical?” [Part of the answer I think has to do with the extrinsic reality of our world; part of it has to do with own psychologies; what I’m asking here is: why this interesting fit between our psyches and the outside reality of our world, such that we tend to pinpoint such phenomena as being “mystical” or “spiritual?”  How does this “sense”, as it were, get us ahead, insure our survival, and – even one better – help insure our physical and socio-cultural/economic success in the world and in history?]


The model of the Eonic Effect is finally empirical in its foundations. The question of 'aeons' never arises, really, since I don't know what an aeon is. The relation to Big History, however, is direct, but this impinges on Evolution, at least as to the descent of man. 
The problem with Darwin's account is its probable incompleteness. Many have looked for complex systems to extend explanation. Gould with his punctuated equilibrium is stepping into this realm, albeit haltingly. In my view, Gould's account is trying to keep the lid on Pandora's box, with its emphasis on pure contingency. I can understand the problem with directional evolution, but the Eonic Effect shows that directionality is clearly visible in historical evolution. 

The Eonic Effect must leave us skeptical of the Darwinian account.  The reason is that, while early organismic change and recent history seem distinct, there must be an overlap. 
The Eonic Effect shows us how we can bring evolution to the emergence of religion, for example. But this provokes a reality question. For the scale and mode is so different from the forms of genetic explanation that we are left to wonder. If history is like this, and the descent of man contains similar phenomena at an earlier phase of evolution, then we must consider a connection. 
In fact, the constant appearance of claims about a Big Explosion ca. 40000 years ago foots the bill pretty closely. But the data here is insufficient, we can't speculate. And behind this sudden explosions there is also a slow evolution, two components together. How can I speculate? I can't. But we realize Darwin's account is speculative, and almost certainly off the mark. They are looking for a genetic explanation for the emergence of ethical behavior, that is, in terms of natural selection. But this is not verified in practice. And a good look at the Eonic Effect shows Nature doesn't do things that way in history. Proceed incrementally. If history is like this, and if the Neolithic shows a resemblance at a more primitive phase, and the late Paleolithic blends into the Neolithic, etc, then slowly but surely we are at a primitive stage of very early Man with some suspicion something like 'eonic effects' were going on there also, especially at the point where language, song, early religious phenomena, tribal structures suddenly spring out of nowhere. 
That's not enough to prove our case, which applies only to history, but it is enough to walk away from Darwin's account. Darwin is saying that natural selection alone, pure and simple, produces everything. That is a wild claim, by the way, and amazing it has become dogma. So this cautionary exception of the Eonic Effect gives us overwhelming grounds for reserve on Darwin (without anything definite to put in its place). 
Questions of consciousness are the real issue, not 'mystic history'. And Darwin's account is simply primitive positvism, scientism run amok. It doesn't address any of the problems of the evolution of consciousness. 

Look at the Eonic Effect. Zoom in. Look at the timing. Look at the correlations of period and emergence. It reveals something unsuspected. 
For example, I referred to Homer. Whether or not this man existed, the fact is that by indirect detection and periodization we can see a poetic flowering (Homer triggers a whole new Greek era of poetry, starting with Archilochus) occur, and it occurs in tempo, and in the eonic sequence field. 
Check the data slowly but surely, and we see that normal accounts are missing such simple yet amazing facts. Whatever we conclude. Zoom out again. We see that this is part of a more general phenomenon. But it's all like that. Homer's work suddenly crystallizes, as the Greek Archaic takes off. 
As we zoom out we see these eras of the real 'punctuated equilibrium' effects in an overall pattern. 
So we find that on cue, in a tempo of evolution, whole cultures suddenly morph rapidly, do so in a complex field stretching globally, and do so without any visible 'force' or input. It just happens in a correlated dynamic. Nor is this wild speculation. We can close on the effects pretty precisely. 
So we have to conclude that these 'explosions' are able to evolve whole cultural phases in the time frame of centuries, and that we are not even outside of it yet. It is odorless, tasteless, invisible, but detectable by indirect demonstration. 

If evolution in history is like this, can the Paleolithic be much different. Darwin is way off. And I mean WAY OFF. 

Let it sink in. 
John Landon
Website on the eonic effect
http://eonix.8m.com
nemonemini@eonix.8m.com