Verbilization/Geometrization and the Eonic Effect

John Landon writes
 
<I think the question of metaphors is answered by these terms, and the result accounts for the overall dynamism of world history, which is not the same as explanation. This model has all sorts of possibilities for mathematical treatment, but I can't think just how to do that!  Not so easy.   Acceleration as a metaphor is a problem, but does it matter, since it has been demoted from the list of terms to describe the model. Acceleration is a stand in for the 'force' question in any dynamic, and that 'force' is abstracted into the relationship of the transitions to the whole, etc...  What is it that makes the eonic model succeed, in my view? It shows what a world system has to amount to. Take the surface of a sphere. Suppose that development is sluggish, or will meander, a point clearly visible. How induce directional development with limited resource and a minimum of interaction? The eonic model follows at once, and is based on the evidence.  But it is strange to see it this way!  But the intuitive sense to it is clear.> 

Overall I think you’re right.  The terms can and do help on the matter of metaphors.  These concepts have to some degree captured the essence of world historic dynamism and made a leap over the matter of “explanation.”

The dilemma I see, however, through this model is one of a vicious circle.  The very layout of the Eonic Model is in terms of a “verbilization.”  That’s to say, its very illustration of systems concepts is linguistic (or looks to be from my vantage point)(I may be mistaken).

Linguistic models are problematic.  Take Aristotelian philosophy for example or its Thomistic counterpart.  Great epistemologies, and quite apt for not only getting at universals but getting at the complex animus and depth of deep-structured details.  Or take the literary thought of a GK Chesterton.  Again, a great mastery of words and a genius for expressing real world things in the most clear, commonsense, articulate way.  But verbal expression can only carry the day so far; linguistic structures can only do so much before they quit on us.  The Science/Scientia of Aristotelian thought dwindled into legalism; literary thought can no longer image the very literature and poetry it seeks to mirror.  The very linguistic structures we’ve used as scholars have lost their edge.  They no longer can carry the ‘soul’ or the concrete sharpness they once did because we’ve sharpened them so much, made them so specified, or (on the other end of the spectrum) made them entail so much – beyond their natural capacity - that their status as instruments of communication and communicative meaning is lost.  In a pile of ink and ink strokes, they’ve become almost meaningless in their abundance. 

 But what can we do?  “Words” are the tools we have, & as it is now, they are what serve to roughly sketch your model’s pattern in as best as possible a scientific, empiric, and historically-based a fashion.  … There is the toolbag of precise mathematic expression & discrete measures [of discernible material quantities @ surface-level of phenomena] in the physical/social sciences [=positivism]; but the distinct quantities of numeric systems don’t encapsulate the system’s units, processes, and flux all too well.  There’s also another route – drive exclusively for a literary/ philosophic mode of symbolism in the manner of poets, mystic thinkers – but therein the science and empiric thrust of the model is lost in a wind of a shadowy “expressiveness” that doesn’t pick up on the other systematic dimensions of the EE.

It might be necessary to (at some point), hence, to augment your discussion of the model with some intuitive geometries and formulas fr/ the area of set theory, symbolic logic, and flowcharting.  Not to replace the discussions you give in the text, but to complement them and/or to supplement them as needed.  [I’m frankly concerned about that Steinerian reviewer you mentioned painting your model in an aeonic-mystic light as well as the problem of the “acceleration” metaphor. Your discussion in the book may in fact have the wherewithal to handle this (and more besides); but I’m also afraid there’s more to come on problematic fronts such as these two.  Somewhere along the line, you may need to address the linguistic base of the book’s format in laying out terms and/or put into play a geometrization for the Eonic Effect.  Otherwise, your model may end up dying the death of misinterpretation.  It has too much that’s good in it to let that happen; and I would hate to see it die off esp. when it gets at the driving dynamics of world history so well.]

Such are my thoughts on the matter.  What do you think about this verbilization/ geometrization dichotomy I’ve raised?  Looking forward to your insights. 

---

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