Re: The Eonic Effect and the problem of evidence

John Landon wrote: 

 
<Dynamical models only work if you can assume causality in a strict sense. But the problem there is that causal systems can't evolve because they don't increase their information. No 'novelty' is possible. Self-organization models, therefore, are the next candidate. But they still have problems.   Anyway, you intuition is correct, the eonic data is packed with structure, and it is very intriguing to consider the possibilities.    We see how easily we can adapt the core and periphery argument to the eonic model, as long as we don't confuse the two. You see the problem theorists are having. Does the modern system start around 1500? But what about signs of capitalism in the medieval period. Or AGF with his five thousand year system.   The problem disappears in the eonic model, because we distinguish the 'eonic sequence' from the 'econosequence'.   In any case, that distinction of markets and core zones is crucial, and leaves the system of eonic evolution unbalanced. And that's why we are trying to model that imbalance.  So, if you stick to the eonic model, the core periphery issue is easy to rewrite in those terms.  Any form of evolution like the 'eonic evolution' of civilization is going to suffer wild imbalance around its transition periods, and we see that effect at once in the rise of the modern.  So, anyway, models are great but keep in mind that the theorists are also part of the model, evidence.   The modern transition is unique in showing the emergentist appearance of people trying to correct transitional imbalance. So people like Wallerstein and AGF are data in the model. Terrific.>


Very good points!  The only problem I see (and it could very well be due to misconception on my part) is that dynamic models of topology & other complex mathematical/geometrical formats are about the only means we've available that best can handle issues of chaos/complexity in nature and human events.  Standard scientisms and Euclidean models of mathematic expression certainly can’t handle the complexities of modern physics in our natural world let alone the deeper intricacies and complexities of world history, world systems, and psychohistory.  One is almost forced to use models of  “fluid dynamism” and sophisticated geometric methods just to handle the systematic detail and scope of large-scale phenomena; together with the use of set theory, mathematic logics, & flowcharting, such modeling and methods are about the only tools (alongside metaphorical and analogy-based models fr/ the humanities) that can take such real world scenarios from nature and human social existence/history into account & in stride.  I understand your pts. about “causality”/”causal systems can’t evolve”; but even so w/o such geometries in our analytical toolkit to help sift through the chaos and complexity that is involved [human] evolution within world history, what are we left with in order to make sense of: Big History, the Eonic Effect, higher levels of world systemic change occ. over longer pds. of time/greater expanses of geography, and the unique problems of historic change as it relates to social psychology & psychohistory? …

The matter of “organism” and human psychology is where a great problem lies in any understanding of macro-evolutionary change.  A macrohistorical theory of big picture, natural evolution that accounts for sociocultural developments and oddities occurring w/ the physical adaptations in living creatures is essential.  No doubt!  But we run into a stumbling block when the MACRO translates to MICRO.  The mechanism, the means is very impt. here.  Supposing large scale ecologies and the natural forces within them have the ability to direct smaller entities towards greater levels of self-organization, evolutionary complexity and replicative success (in the case of organisms read this as the standard form “maximizing reproductive success.”)  The obvious question must be How?  … How to get from “A” (a macrohistoric evolutionary dynamic) to “B” (organismic adaptations and specific changes in social entities, structures, and institutions).  How is this larger scale “programming” as it were being specified towards a particular object or entity as its end-to-which?  Maybe we don’t know the process involved here; but somehow we have the results of such.  The evidence of physical adaptations in organisms is there.  But how?  All I can guess is that some mid-range process exists in nature, perhaps both living and non-living things are keyed into it somehow, such that when large scale evolution (ala the Eonic Effect) kicks into play for a given event space/locality this mid-range mechanism also is turned on.  From this point, it works to bring about physical organismic transformations &/or specified changes either on the level of material things or sociologic structures.  (Anybody on the list with some biological expertise?  I’d love to be given an idea of what such a mechanism on the organic level might be …)

Human Psychology (Social Psychology & Psychohistory) – Here’s wh/ we run into another problem.  In one sense, the human brain structure has already apparently “evolved.”  The “mind” is another matter, both individually & socio-behaviorally/ culturally.  In this sense, we’re today very different from peoples in prehistory, our mental structure, interior symbols of ourselves and the world, our very sense of “freedom”, are all very different from what was in the past.  In this sense, too, “evolution” is ongoing; but again I must ask HOW do we get from the Macrohistorical “A” to the Microhistorical, specified, “B” in the sense of the human psychological/deep-structured behavioral frame of human psycho-historical adaptations?  What might the mechanism at play be between (nature with “evolution”) and the deep-seated impulses of the human mind, esp, the subconscious/unconscious? …

It was suggested to me on the Psychohistory list at Topica.com a few months ago that “memes” are essentially smoke rings of the deep-seated human mental structure acting in social-intellective contexts and in history.  What I’m wondering now (as per my recent post) if they may not also be focal points as it were for the Eonic effect itself acting in specified social spaces (communicative networks in the World System and sociocultural exchanges).  What does the historical evidence indicate per the Eonic Model?  (Do any world systems theorists on this list want to venture a guess as to what memes would constitute and their function in world-systems?) 

---

Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!