Coming of the Gaian Commies
September 8th, 2018 ·
We need a new science/philosophy that can deal with a new reality: an extended ‘Gaian’
matrix for human history and civilization, with an evolutionary context behind that.
The current Gaian thesis is charming but too limited and attempts a science it can’t so far really achieve.
But we can see that the issue of Gaia can be taken in a way that is empirical and wary of
‘grand theories’ except as conjectures on the way to science. The point is that we hardly have a choice. Standard historical theory is almost completely lame and misleading. The evidence almost demands a Gaian perspective, without giving us a full handle on the meaning of the idea.
As we examine world history we can see that the evidence of the eonic effect demonstrates a field of global action that transcends typical/standard sociological causation theories and instead demonstrates a complex system that is able to act on focal regions, i.e. able to generate starting points as if it were coming into focus on a particular region which is not in the causal succession of a mainline,
(our discussion yesterday of the ‘frontier effect’ being an example). Once we see the clear evidence for this we are liable to jump to conclusions and speculate where instead we can take the evidence we have and form a slightly agnostic new ‘world perspective’ that is at least able to save us from ‘flat history’ as a dull mechanics in the wasteland of failed theories of history.
This is daring and dangerous in a world of mythological propagandists but there is a way to proceed that can avoid this in a kind of neutral cosmological mystery that sees planets and biospheres as a new field of a future science. Here we must proceed with great
caution lest we conclude that cosmic entities are ‘conscious’ beings of some sort. Perhaps they are! But we don’t yet have the proof or the kind of theory that can handle this. We don’t have to speculate: using the eonic model we can simply consider the global context of civilization and the existence of a mysterious design factor behind the emergence/evolution of civilizations.
This would make a great ‘seed ideology’ for a global community, indeed a futuro- communist world civilization that is able to integrate the local into the global in a manner that must be defined beyond Darwinist/capitalist genocidal pseudo-science with a realization that ‘evolution’, social or organismic, has a mysterious teleological component, a global locally focal injection process, and a comprehensive set of historical exemplars of what is going on, despite the ongoing mystery of that, and the problems
with bringing about a science of the subject. But as noted we have empirical grounds to proceed and can, and must, consider global hypotheses for a new sociological foundational way of thought.
We should note that figures like j g Bennett discussed here have done a lot of the work here although these efforts are still inadequate, but they do contain a series of pointers about the ways we can produce intelligent definitions of the factors of consciousness and will, so liable to misinterpretation.
The distinctions of hyponomic, autonomic, hypernomic, for example, might remind us that a cosmological body can be a theatre of life but not itself ‘alive’, that the issue of the
‘will’ in nature is a direct relation to the idea of scientific laws, and this can free us of false attributions of ‘consciousness’ in contexts where that is inappropriate, etc…
Clearly the whole subject could nosedive in mystical confusion, but our current knowledge could hardly be called anything but confusion.
The evidence of the eonic effect is unavoidable: there is a global component to the emergence of civilization and this should be taken into account by those whose revolutionary/socially constructive ambitions assumed that ‘man makes himself’ entirely alone without assistance from some deeper process.
The left can profit from this without entangling the subject in false theological obsessions since we are not talking about ‘god’, but, well, some Gaian hyper process…the ‘cosmic mom’ no doubt…
March 5th, 2018 ·
R48G: the eonic effect and the mystery of the ‘Gaian’ evolution
October 22nd, 2017 ·
The eonic model ironically resolves the issue of historical theories by applying a kind of sequential/parallel grid matrix and this suggests that after so much futile effort to find a theory of history the reason for the failure lies in the implications of this grid matrix. By
‘grid matrix’ we refer to the way that discontinuity applies both sequentially and laterally producing a long range sequence and a set of synchronous effects, a sort of mini- multiverse effect (metaphor only).
In this context it is counterproductive to propose simplistic attempts at theories of history: there is a real dynamic but it is something we could never have suspected and the full empirical resolution there is still premature: we don’t have the full range of evidence needed to come to a full conclusion. That point should be obvious for the earlier
evolution of man: we don’t know how it happened, period…. some older posts…
R48G: the difficulty of resolving historical theories… June 27th, 2017 ·
World history contains a hidden surprise but it cannot easily penetrate the hold of current social/historical ideology because the factual basis for such a complex entity eludes any simple resolution.
It requires an exercise in visualization of obscure moments of that history, and that requires reading books…that makes the public vulnerable to ideological manipulation, to say the least…
R48G: detecting historical dynamics…the eonic effect as a test of the data of world history…
June 23rd, 2017 ·
We have often discussed the ‘eonic effect’ as an alternate historical framework. Actually it not a completed theory or even a definite framework: rather, it works as a ‘test of the data’. We make a series of assumptions about history but fail to see how beyond religious historicism the field of modern scientism does no better. One might consider the way that a kind of orthodoxy is enforced by the new field of Big History which completely misses the point.
The eonic effect can be taken as a series of warnings: as we try to apply various models to world history we discover the unexpected, contrast of discrete and continuous processes. This is an empirical given, whatever we make of it. We can use the ‘model’ as a warning to be wary of dogmatic theories and simply operate with chronicles and empirical histories. It is also a warning that causal systematics just won’t work on history and that we must deal with free agents who are in a kind of hybrid state in a larger mix, partly causal but probably teleological. We cannot reduce this complexity to simplistic analyses of the type of historical materialism (or neo-classical economic models). One
value of the eonic model is that the condition of historical determination operating on free agents is intermittent and subject to a end phase where the ‘eonic effects’ cease and free agents are bound to try and take over their own history. That’s a huge and dangerous task, and a new left must be able to operate via all categories, not just the economic. The eonic effect is a warning that virtually all parties have gotten history wrong. We must operate
on the defensive and try to operate with a non-dogmatic constructivist practice. The eonic model is probably too exotic for brain-dead Marxist but it can at least suggest wariness about overly complex analyses that are soon millstones around one’s neck.