< < <
Date Index > > > |
Re: The Eonic Effect and the problem of evidence by Nemonemini 21 September 2002 01:43 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
Although issues remain critical for any consideration of world history, the eonic effect doesn't really have much of problem with evidence. I distinguish the eonic effect from a frequency hypothesis, and there more evidence is needed. But the core effect has really tons of evidence. It is like picking up seashells on a beach. The issue is to understand what we are seeing in world history. Specialists confuse themselves, I fear, for they assume that a universal history is a function of more and more detail. Not really. World history is a riddle, but the pieces are all there in plain view. The question of the frequency hypothesis is about the same status within visible range, but it suggests as a question the meaning of the eonic effect, which is another question, and also makes clear that we are seeing a fragment, and should try to extend this backward to see if we can find its source. But there the problem of evidence does become critical in the fourth millennium. Even there, as I suggest, the rough outlines are there, but we can't quite make out what's happening at the level of centuries. But one thing it does is remind us of that fact. Evidence at the level of centuries is very strong evidence! That is, by comparison with Darwin's theory, where we don't even have evidence continuously at the level of tens of millennia. Yet the eonic effect, however distant the cousinship of history and evolution as such, reminds us that things evolve fast when they evolve at all. Look at the phase from -900 to -400. We see directed evolution in fast bursts in five parallel areas, _relative transforms_, and at such a high level! Darwin's theory suffers severe doubt. So that in part is the point. Some evidence at the level of centuries is a lost of evidence. Note this in terms of the Old Testament. Quite apart from interpretation, it shows us something happening rapidly at the level of three centuries. Now backtrack to the typical first signs of a religion (temple religion in the context of civilization), appearing ca. -5000 in the Tigris and Euphrates valley. We have no such book! We may never know how it happened. The Holy book isn't recorded. What we see is analogous to a man of the future seeing a medieval Cathedral. He would have a hard time figuring out the relationship to a core source in israel a millennium before!!!! But with the rise of civilization, and the onset of records, and the accumulation of time, we get, a few, examples of how things 'do their evolution', and how fast that happens. This still requires some interpretation of the Old Testament. Another time. But if you can image someone around -400 writing an extension of the Iliad that went all the way to Socrates in hexameter as the sacred history of the Greeks with Athena talking to Plato-- you see the beautiful Old Testament confuses us. It's a lot simpler in one way than we suspect. It's about a period of rapid change, and the Israelites look back and find it hard to explain in the same way we look back and scratch our heads, how did the rise of the modern happen? So the question of evidence is elusive. But for the eonic effect, no problem, tons of evidence, but it begins to thin rapidly before -3000. So what is it we are seeing in history. Darwinism has made us so stupid we can't see straight. It is phantom belief about things we have never seen making us blind to what we do see. What's worse even the smartest physicists and scientists fall for this, and call it science. About what happened with religion. John Landon Website on the eonic effect http://eonix.8m.com nemonemini@eonix.8m.com
< < <
Date Index > > > |
World Systems Network List Archives at CSF | Subscribe to World Systems Network |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |