< < <
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 
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 
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

< < <
Date Index
> > >
World Systems Network List Archives
at CSF
Subscribe to World Systems Network < < <
Thread Index
> > >