Re: Evolution Discussion - Addendum to my Recent Points

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

> 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.  


I have already noted a few answers to this problem. Basically what we know is what we know, and the rest is our ignorance. 
But we can still make the history/evolution distinction for the simple reason that we can assume the fact of evolution, whatever the mechanism. 

There is another beautiful answer to the question if you are really clear on what's happening with the eonic effect. 

Since there is a transition from evolution to history, this transition is must be visible, just barely, in the eonic effect itself. Compare transition two and three, e.g. the classical period and the modern. 
Note that 'emergent democracy' is an eonic correlate. We can see the macro factor in the emergence of this form. 
Backtrack to Sumer, we can see the barest hints of the first stage! So we see a transition between two phases of history, with, in this case, something like a shaping effect. 
Note that after the induction of a form via the eonic sequence, the factor of eonic determination passes into free action, i.e. the induction takes, and the form proceeds into human culture as a given. 
There are dozens of examples like this in history.

Although we can't be sure, the many accounts of the Great Explosion in early man are likely to be something like this. Slow shaping eonic or other evolutionary macro sequences etc...

We simply dont' have good enough data on the Great Explosion, ca. 40000 years ago in some accounts. 
But we do see the sudden appearance in man of sophisticated cultural behavior. Biologists are embarrassed to admit the genetics seemed to be there all along. 

So, in some accounts, in about ten thousand years, a rapid emergence of modern man occurs, culturally.
Let's not be dogmatic about speculation, but this is awfully suspicious looking at the eonic effect. 

Look how art, religion, philosophy, the rest, morph in the eonic sequence. 
We are left to wonder. 

But one thing we can do is to stop being bamboozled by Darwin dogmatism. 
Our eonic suspicions are at least as good as Darwin's.


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