The eonic effect, its model and deductions…

archive: The eonic effect, its model and deductions

June 24th, 2017 ·

The idea of an historical dynamic, what to say of a critique of Darwinism, is very controversial with historians, but I think you should defy conventional thinking here and consider the macro model. And there are several forms of ‘deduction’ that can strongly suggest this approach.

The first is the evolution to history deduction: history must emerge from evolution, but it can’t emerge all at once but must show a transition between the two. But the same is true of each such transition and the result is a series of such transitions. Presto world history shows that effect. Another deduction is based on the idea of free agency: a system evolving freedom can’t overdetermine agency since it would block all freedom, but that system can’t underdetermine free agency because it would not evolve freedom. Presto the evidence of history in our model clearly shows an alternation of different degrees

of freedom of ‘free agency’. A third deduction is a kind of ‘Kantian antinomy’ of teleological judgment: world history shows/does not show a teleological effect. The result might/must correspond to the antinomy and show both possibilities: presto, once again our data shows the effect: an intermittent model shows a balance of directionality and free agency….

Standard thinking simply assumes history can show no structure or dynamic. But the question can go either way: even a short survey or world history can show how the dilemma avalanches toward directionality. Our deduction says this will be an intermittent effect. Presto, the evidence is there…

Consider, why do we speak of the ‘middle ages’, or ‘modernity’ or, etc…We already sense the ‘eonic’ or intermittent effect in our general view of history…

The model and its match to the evidence can and should be open to challenge, but the match to many secondary properties (and the three above are only a few) greatly increase the odds that the model and its dynamic are onto something…

The term ‘deduction’ is like the Kantian usage (maybe), not a logical proof but close to that as a justification for a certain line of reasoning… (in Kant the term ‘deduction’ is a legal term or metaphor).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s