Re: Evolution Discussion - Addendum to my Recent Points

The basic division at the birth of civilization is already built into the eonic model, so your 'objection' is, in a way, already answered. Strictly speaking I simply don't address issues for which I don't have evidence. 
The point then of the 'evolution to history' transition is simply to give a rough patch up to what isn't discussed at all. That said, we _can_ infer, despite our ignorance of the details, that something like the transition (evolution to history) must be present. That's one of the few things we can infer indirectly, almost by definition of the terms. The reason I do it that way is simply because there is a point where a free agent appears, in some sense, and evolution acts on that, not on genetics. The point is merely obvious in history and inferred for earlier periods. But we weren't there, so who knows. 
The point of the distinction then is simply to make Darwinists shut up. They claim to know everything with no evidence, and my 'evolution to history' transition as an idea is a challenge to that, equally good, though not fully verified. 
But in history as of the birth of civilization we see that with a vengeance. 
Man is only partially free, and we see large scale macro burst directing that, but only over brief intervals. 
The point can be confusing, because in that approach history and evolution so defined are like chinese boxes, one inside the other. it is like coming out of a cocoon, for a while you are in both conditions. From one perspective, evolution is over because history has started. From another evolution isn't over because history never started!

So there is no need to fuss over the terms. It is a useful way to consider the overall pattern of the eonic effect which is hard for people to visualize I fear, otherwise they would be stunned in amazement. 
Just look at the 'Axial' phase. Truly stunning. This has been known for fifty years, and every time you point to it, people yawn. Such is the damage Darwinism has done to our historical perceptions. 

 

In a message dated 5/12/2003 8:47:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, larondin@yahoo.com writes:

> Addendum  - To Recent “Evolution” discussion … One other point I wanted to mention.  I have my concerns about the transition from “evolution” to “history” idea.  It begs the question, what was the state of true (non-Darwinian) evolution before the coming of human culture, civilization, and social life in history (either at 200,000 yrs ago, 10,000 BCE, or 4000-3000 BCE)? … How are we going to answer that question?  What really do we have to work with here? …
>
>  It also begs a question regarding “history.”  We have the pattern of the Eonic Effect to work from.  Fair enough.  However, the problem I see here is that - hypothesizing that we have a “transition” from ‘what we don’t know about’ (i.e., evolution) to ‘what we have an idea about’ (i.e., history) – we’re left in a lurch.  We have a “B” term {“History”} and an “A” term {“Evolution”} and a transitional operation in between {--->}(so that we have as our formula “E” -> “H”).  Now all we seem to have to go on for how our “A” term works is our “B” term.  But if they aren’t of the same systematic or operative ‘substance’, then we can’t infer “A” as well from “B.”  Postulating, a ‘substantial change’ as distinguished from “accidental/incidental change” from “evolution” to “history” ((which seems to be what your recent comments require)) removes any possibility of using “Eonic” History to draw a line of inference back to what evolution “may have been like.”
>
>  What I would recommend for an alternative to such a notion would be this.  Instead of saying we have a transition from “Evolution” to “History”, say rather that we have two different phases we’re working from in (Evolution/History) from Pre-Mesopotamia events to post-Mesopotamia events in human experience.
>
>  Yet, I would have to agree, my idea here does throw your model into somewhat of a tailspin.  Substance of the model would be the same before and after the Neolithic/ Mesopotamian window in human affairs; your eonic terminology and their related real world dynamisms would still be [pretty much] the same.  But what does this do for “stream”/ ”sequence”, “eonic transitions”, “fast action periods”, and “free action scripts?”  
>
> My point:  positing two “phases” of Eonic Evolution/History might not be as problematic as we think.  Yes, there would be a difference between ‘rational’ human free action and the kinds of free activity (randomness)(alternatives for ‘selecting’/following a course of action) we witness in the biological and purely physical domains; but we already know that the world of living organisms and physical phenomena is already prone to the non-predictability of chaos theory/complexity.  So already, through this, we can see the outlines of a rough “free action scripting” in the natural world before the advent of human culture and society/civilization.  So all we have to do, in completion of our epistemology, is argue for a new degree of free activity with human society and new ‘substantial’ form for that free action in the potential for human rationality and the level of ‘choices’ available for people to decide upon and follow.  
>
> Otherwise, the Eonic Model could be of the same substance throughout its temporal schema (whether we’re talking about Pre-History or History.  In any event, that’s my idea on that particular point you mentioned.  I don’t know whether it’d hold water or not as an idea.  Still it might be useful to you as a way of further clarifying the model of the Eonic Effect, and trying to better pinpoint the meanings of “free action”, “randomness”, and/or “determination.”  It’s strange how, even after we’ve put forward our ideas and spelled out our points, how basic terms and fundamental concepts - like these I’ve talked about here, others you’ve raised, and still others dealt with by Prugovecki, Paul Ziolo, etc. – still manage to be elusive for us as thinkers.  Somehow we never get past or transcend basic issues and fundamental terms.
>
>  The nuance of nature always manages to - if even just in part - give us the slip.  Your thoughts?  (Luke



John Landon
Website for
World History and the Eonic Effect
http://eonix.8m.com
Blogzone
http://www.xanga.com/nemonemini