You mentioned in one of your blog posts that this article (https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/01/22/war-is-not-innate-to-humanity-a-more-peaceful-future-is-possible/) was an interesting challenge to the eonic model. What did you mean by that? Do you touch on this in the new book?
You ask a good question. The article in question tries to extricate the subject from its endless confusions, but that can’t be successful without challenging Darwinism. The challenge is to understand the war arises despite the benevolence of the macro generator. War arises indirectly from the situational context.
I will point to some short answers and put my response up on my blog, and then write something longer. The first issue here is the confusion over Darwinism.
All these scholars applying Darwinian have been stuck in confusion for several generations. And the material of people like Audrey is junk science. These biologists are stuck
in genetic determinism and can’t out of it. The question of human violence is thus not solely a genetic question.
Science has no real psychology and just goes around in articles trying
to use genetics to explain everything. But man is complicated, as your study of Bennett might warn, man has a will, a complex consciousness,
and a meta-genetic (but material) soul factor. Science current is simply oblivious to the whole question.
The amount of wasted research here is colossal.
The eonic model suggests that the macro process doesn’t generate war, but the issue is complex:
you can generate conflict from doing the ‘good’ in a complicated twist.
A good example is the Reformation: religious revolt lead to the wars of the Reformation.
Religion itself can generate violence.
But violence has gotten out of hand and the first world war shows how
hopeless confusion can generate a martial calamity.
The eonic macro however transcends any violence
indirectly generated… more later…