People hyping theories can be tiresome but I would nevertheless venture that the ‘eonic effect’ is the only glimpse of evolution that we have, albeit the evolution of civilization, not organisms. But I have a suspicion the two are connected. Consider this passage from Decoding World History:
The eerie and sudden appearance of this phenomenon in fine-grain at the centuries given at the end of a preface of the evolutionary record at the level of millions of year is almost unnerving: we may have missed entirely the mechanism of evolution. Our definition of evolution, in one way, is so trivial as to be not worth debating: a container for data of developmental change, a brown paper bag for that data. To be sure, the earlier evolution of organisms and that of civilization are two different things. But we will see that the two must be connected.
The connection can be seen as follows: history emerges out of evolution in overlap as animal forms show increasing agency, consciousness, and finally ‘will’: clearly the two processes are Janus-faced. Agents create a record of action, or history, and the primordial proto-history is with first animals and the way their biographies ‘make history’. The is a Great Transition from evolution to history. We will develop this further to see that there is no instant passage from evolution to here but that it must test itself in multiple replicas of the above as mini-transitions inside the Great Transition.
Everything seems to evolve slowly. Suddenly at the very end we see the action of a mysterious evolutionary driver. A sinking feeling arises, what are we missing? Evolutionary change may happe
The eonic effect is at best a fragment but it gives a probable glimpse of the unwieldy complexity of evolving structures. The eonic shows the clear evolution of higher civilization in a partial interval, but probably shows something about earlier evolution. Note that the eonic effect is intractable, five thousand years of history, plus the Neolaithic before, plus…We can not ‘see’ intervals in history at the centuries let alone millennial level. Nature has the same problem and uses what we suspect is the simplest type of process discrete/continuous transitiopns in a longer sequence. Evolution must do amazing things: focus on regions on a planet, seed structures, process facts and values, remember its tracks over millions of years, test formal abstractions against the environment (the reality of microevolution as natural selection might enter here). The macro process is barely visible, we must construct their histories with huge bibliographies. Small wonder everyone is confused by evolution.
Consider one of the evolutionary hot spots In world history: Archaic Greece: go to the library and get ten books on Archaic Greece, plus full scale-histories, plus, etc…You see the problem. Even speed readers have a problem here. What size is the literature of Archaic Greece?
I nonetheless claim that the eonic model give a brought sense of how civilizations evolve, with the probable connection to earlier evolution as above. It is not a wild claim: in six hundred pages we can give a bare outline of the strange ‘discret/continuous’ transition sequence in sequence and in parallel for world history.
It gets tiresome to find book after book on world history founder in the futile effort to apply Darwinism to history. It doesn’t work, confuses the issue at the start and leads to scrambled t…