Re: Environmental Determinism, etc.

In a message dated 10/1/2002 10:55:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, larondin@yahoo.com writes:


> For John Landon in particular; if we do distinguish between “stream” and “sequence(s)”, might such a difference (and the other dynamics that arise from it) help also to explain what’s going on w/ a difference between physical forces at work in nature and the natural dynamic at play in human history th/ you’ve termed the “Eonic Effect?” ... If it does, then perhaps natural systems operating [both] in a developmental temporal context and in a structural-spatial context have a synergetic organizational principle built in them; it would act both like an antenna & receiver [for larger scale forces and & bigger physical systems in the universe] and as a central processor/regulator clock for smaller-scale systems and entities on our planet [i.e., for us, our technology, social orders; for other organisms on the earth; & in terms of non-living physical things th/ exist here on our planet]  This is just speculation; but somehow, it seems to me, there has to be way to explain: (1) Eonics in terms of a longer, broader space-time scale which accounts f/ physical factors in the universe as well as the historic/evolutionary clock that we see at play in world hist. (2) How the Eonic Effect specifically acts on living and non-living entities within world history & by what instrumentalities  (3) Particularly, how organismic adaptations may themselves be tied into a larger-scale evolutionary force acting in history from the rise of the first life on earth, to the rise of our first apelike ancestors, to our sociocultural rise in world history [whenever that may have been – either in the Paleolithic, the Neolithic, or with the rise of writing/Civilization in Mesopotamia


The context of the eonic effect is somehow mysterious and our first priority is not to fill the deficit of ignorance with mythology and pseudo-theory. That is the reason for the Kantian twist to the argument. It is worth considering the issues of history and its theory in light of the rise of science. The nineteenth century saw a lot of thinking there, but we seem to have lost our grip. The effect of scientism and evolutionary theory. 
 Beyond that, we should consider the plain fact that our historical data is increasing. We knew nothing about Sumer at the beginning of the twentieth century. And the eonic model simply attempts to consider much of that new data. 
 So we can be optimistic, and yet the problem of metaphysics, as raised by Kant, remains to be dealt with. The problem is that Darwinism is crypto-metaphysical even as it claims to be fully objective. 
But the fact is, that we need new concepts to deal with complicated dynamics not known to physics. But it is difficult to bypass the question of values. This puts a limit on our chances of exact theories. 
I think the stream and sequence concept constitutes a genuine discovery of how evolution operates. The problem is that the high end of the effect remains invisible to us. But even a small clarification of our knowledge should be an advance. But the fact is that historical theories tend to flounder, and that is part of the mood of Darwinism, to settle it all and all at once, but that hasn't happened. 

First, is the stream and sequence concept clear? I fear it doesn't register on anyone, and it is actually kind of mindboggling. 

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