From system generation to free agency…

This is a Press It post of a repost, the previous post.

We should comment that radical new insights into history are very difficult to promote into general culture, here in the US, which is a closed set of mindsets constricted by overspecialization, Darwinian propaganda, crypto-ideological conditioning on capitalism, the myths of democracy turning into oligarchy, academic fixations of the professorial caste, plus the still outstanding religious ideologies, i.e. religions, fading rapidly. Believe it or not an amateur and speed reader can do better than all these experts subjected to constraints that limit free thinking. It is very hard to extricate from this nexus.

The US is in trouble.
A moment of reckoning is coming: look at the American system: behind a veneer of democracy capitalism, oligarchy, imperialism, and several longer lists of the evils, is almost defunct. It can barely function at this point…It is a record so dire behind the excuse of social darwinism.

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 …

Update/addendum: this is valid because the discussion is of factual patterns in a reasonable context of analysis that doesn’t presume to ‘theory’ (as distinguished in our terminology from ‘model’ or empirical chronology). If you stick to these limits you get a surprise: you see the dynamic that would be the candidate for a historical science, but too complicated and requiring an immense amount of reading, and of high quality scholarly books, and not just that, but reading distributed over the whole of history in multiple regions. With this balance, a strange pattern of world history suddenly stands out, in a fragment. It was almost discovered in the nineteenth century and Karl Jaspers was another case of ‘almost’ as he sailed right past the eonic effect.
But analysis suddenly enters the realm of ‘serious heresies’, like teleology in biology and history, and there is no safe methodology for that. But the fact needs to be faced that human civilization shows a strange something directing it. The Israelites had a sense of it but fell into a rabbit hole of theistic historicism that confused the issue.
And the Israelite view was still very limited. Strangely the Buddhists couldn’t detect it although Gautama had a sense of ‘cycles of dharma’ in different age periods, another almost an almost. This ‘eonic effect’ (the term was a poor choice, most people can’t pronounce it), is basically a total world history now annexing the first higher civilizations in Sumer and Egypt, plus the Neolithic, plus the Paleolithic, plus guesswork about the early evolution of ‘species man’. Suddenly (five thousand years is a minimum) we see a system of progressive cyclicity, with two full cycles and the start of a third, our present.

I invite you to critique this perspective with its rock solid foundation in evidence. But cancel culture allows no critiques of outside views. The can’t be allowed to be said to exist.
Here we get a shock: we fail to realize just how much our cultural history is generated in a larger system in a series of transitions. Once those transitions stop man is suddenly on his own, in the past with disastrous results. We exited the modern transition ca. 1800 (called the divide point) and in antiquity after two centuries past 600 BCE (an earlier divide point) everything seemed to fell apart. This macro effect has an inner dilemma: if you overcontrol the system would be mechanical, if you undercontrol it would become chaos. In fact we see that in antiquity.
So what does the future hold for us now? Ominous signs of chaos are already apparent. We will discuss this again later. Suddenly a state of relative insanity had Trump, who came close to sabotaging the whole system. .There is much more there like that.
At the current rate of disintegration the US will soon no longer be a democracy, if it ever was one.
Anyway these discussions assume a lot of study, in the dilemma of historical blindness.

Sadly there is no way the professional cadre will ever gain this insight although it is not too distant from the ‘end of history’ debate (a hopeless muddle) but done right, without the Marx or Hegel, or Adam Smith, or….
The fate of Rome was a grim verdict on human self-evolution. We are now at the testing point moving into a self-generated future, without the hidden director. Man must test himself as a free agent. Previous eras have all failed. So what now? Homo sapiens is a pretty creepy hominid. Best of luck. A second massive failure probably spells the doom of this species. Hope I scared you. You can’t invoke religion a this point as way out. The christian legacy is very misleading and archaic at this  point.

Source:  Intractable evolutionary complexity, and a glimpse via the eonic effect – 1848+: The End(s) of History

The disaster of Darwinism in a culture of science idiots

It seems like every civilization get fixated in a delusion and can’t escape from that. We speak of progress but that doesn’t include Darwinism which is a pseudo-science of now disastrous force that has turned science into a cult of random evolution. The entire biology profession id confused here. The eonic model doesn’t look like much but it can help to restructure thinking toward the ultra-complex nature of evolution, both in deep time and in history. Unfortunately the confusion is so entrenched that it looks like an endgame for modernity. Especially alarming is the obvious nature of the basic statistical confusion. Not even statisticians can seem to blow the whistle. Take a guess: your civilization is in big trouble.

Decoding World History ED1_dwh1x It is worth considering this fascinating depiction in terms of the ‘eonic effect’ so-called to see that with one exception all these advances correlate …

Source: Direct correlation with eonic sequence?!///Human Progress – – 1848+: The End(s) of History

Sciam goes off its rocker…Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy – Scientific American

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/07/is-denying-evolution-a-form-of-white-supremacy/

Source: Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy – Scientific American

This is an almost incredibly inappropriate article from SciAm which should be held accountable for this gross distortion. Biologists get so frustrated by their own stupidity on evolution they finally attempt to bludgeon the public into submission. But this tactic here fails completely, sorry.
It is incredibly irresponsible to call ‘denial of evolution’ a form of white supremacy. First, as usual a deliberate ambiguity forever gets exploited here: evolution as fact and evolution as theory. Here evidently ‘evolution’ is taken to assume that evolution means evolution by natural selection, a gross distortion of the whole issue. Evolution is set of facts in deep time about which we can be reasonably certain, but the process of natural selection is entirely speculative and almost certainly false. The term evolution often hops between categories: these days we read about mutating viruses. In many contexts evolution is for more complex entities, and then finally for the whole of life. These cases are entirely different and a mutant virus can tell us almost nothing about evolutionary processes at the level of complex species. We have no evidence of the ‘evolution’ of a whole species by natural selection. None. Reread that. Yes, but you say, we should trust the science, etc…You should not trust idiots even if they are official experts because biologists peddling Darwinism have done an incredibly stupid thing and turned the whole field into pseudo-science. How species evolve is simply unknown as yet and we have no direct evidence of such a process driven by natural selection. Not surprising: the idea is nonsense. Over and over and over critics have pointed to the simple statistical error behind claims for natural selection. But the bastion of scientific stupidity is impenetrable, it seems. Here professional caste and ideology reign. The question must be decided by outsiders who need to tread warily here. But in this case the confusion is so simple and obvious that an amateur can do better. Those who examine the professional cadre can see how the conditioning arises. If you examine the work of someone like Dawkins you can see the wrath of cancel culture at work in Darwinian biology. Clearly, biologists must remain confused or learn to lie and otherwise they won’t have a job. The salaries are serious money. For myself. I am an unemployed student of Greek who has to correct the errors of these idiots, or liars, free of charge. But it is almost impossible. Biology has seeded the whole planet with a delusive mythology of evolution.

The issues of racism and white supremacy are grossly mishandled by SciAm here. ‘Denial of evolution is a form of white supremacy’ is a gross distortion. First, there are millions of blacks ( and whites) who don’t believe in evolution and they can hardly be white supremacists. Religious fundamentalists of the south, Catholic creationists in, say, South America, the millions of Islamic faithful. Blacks in Africa.  Last but not least, Joe Biden, our Prez. To smear so many groups in this way is beyond belief. But it is not so likely that even whites would fall into such nonsense.  The issue revolves around ‘creationism’, but that comes in many forms. The problem is the almost retarded versions of creationist belief in the sense of fundamentalist views of the Bible. But there are many versions here, some of almost Kantian sophistication in the sense of the antinomial character of ‘beginnings in time’: the classic antinomy is, there is a beginning in time, there is no beginning it time. Here elusive forms of creationism lurk in many guises because, etc…

I am not a theist (or atheist) and reject creationist views because they have been taken over by the completely muddled believers of fundamentalism. But the antinomies of the Big Bang or no Big Bang and the cosmology of life so far have no settled answer.

In any case the question of how evolution, as speciation, occurs, remains an unanswered question. It must be something far more complex than we seem to realize. In the meantime accusing this immense diversity of people and views with charges of white supremacy is almost beyond belief. And the abuse of terms is seemingly deliberate: say ‘evolution’ and you mean darwinism, but the reality is not so simple. In fact the natural selection ideology is the least likely or sensible perspective.

Let’s learn the lesson. Scientists can be stupid. And they learn to deceive. It’s the economy, stupid…

History, eonic evolution and democracy/socialism

The eonic effect is a descriptive time and motion study where Marx’s historical materialsism as ‘stages of production’ theory seems like science. But that is misleading. Marx tried to produce a ‘science’ of history based on economic epochs, a severe, possibly disastrous oversimplification.

The eonic model shows clearly that world history is too complex for a theory as science. Note that history/evolution is a janus pair, that a theory has to reconcile itself with a theory of evolution (but not be the same necessarily) and explain issues of society, politics, art, (history of) science, history as literature, religion poetry and rhetoric, etc….A short list. There is no way we can produce a total theory of all of that. And ‘evolution occurs over millions of years as ‘freedom evolving ( high level generic category)’ in the transition from animal to primate to hominids, etc.. We barely have enough evidence to even describe what a theory would have to explain. Note that art among other categories appears in nonrandom fashion with eonic timing. Therefore we have a machine that can induce ‘artistic’ periods, usually followed by a rapid fall-offs. Look at the Greek Archaic Age: we see a macro effect that can process early Hellenic epic (oral) poetry into a definite literature (directing) the so-called Homers to do so. The eonic effect is behind almost all the major innovations of world history in similar fashion and timing. We can tell all this because we see a nonrandom pattern, but our knowledge is not able to produce a scientific explanation of this set of effects which operate at least over ten thousand years or before from the Neolithic onward in a definite timed sequence that can obviously recall each of its discrete steps and focalize on given global regions on the surface of the planet we live on. This is only the beginning of a description. A theory is so far beyond us that we had best refrain. We have to study Greece, Israel, the Zoroastrians, India and its religions and China, because the eonic effect has not only a sequence but a parallel action. Note that economic issues are secondary and don’t generate the overall patterns. But let us note that both democracy and ‘utopian’ city models both appear in the Greek Archaic and that democracy shows a macro effect. It shows a system effect and then disappears slowly after the fifth century. In modern times democracy and socialism appear in a related macrosequence suggesting that the two are in a complimentary position, rather than as opposites. The point was obvious to the early socialists: democracy, ‘real democracy’ (their term), should be socialist as to equality and liberty, etc… Marx and Engels well understood the point but somehow they later got entangled in abstraction. They suffered the misfortune of trying to climb out of Hegelian quicksand. The more you try the deeper you sink, apparently. And then they reacted and fell into early ‘scientism’ or Newton imitation.
There is no science here in the usual sense: the dynamic can process facts and values, verboten in reductionist causal science.
I think Marxists have to become born-again neo-socialists and consider again the category of ‘real democracy’ as used by the early socialists. The distinction of utopian and scientific is less useful. We need explicit models, not theories. Note that physicists have a theory but in practice they deal with systems too complex such as the three body problem. So they track things with incremental approximations.

Our ‘democratic market neo-communism’ is such an effort to produce ‘real socialism’ and is balanced with related categories (socialism, democracy, markets, planning) brought into conjunction rather than as opposites…

Decoding World History ED1_dwh1x This is the most tricky kind of argument using the eonic effect but its indication is important, but only after careful study of the eonic model. The point is the d…

Source:  Modernity, the eonic effect and revolution – 1848+: The End(s) of History

History, eonic evolution and democracy/socialism

The eonic effect is a descriptive time and motion study where Marx’s historical materialsism as ‘stages of production’ theory seems like science. But that is misleading. Marx tried to produce a ‘science’ of history based on economic epochs, a severe, possibly disastrous oversimplification.

The eonic model shows clearly that world history is too complex for a theory as science. Note that history/evolution is a janus pair, that a theory has to reconcile itself with a theory of evolution (but not be the same necessarily) and explain issues of society, politics, art, (history of) science, history as literature, religion poetry and rhetoric, etc….A short list. There is no way we can produce a total theory of all of that. And ‘evolution occurs over millions of years as ‘freedom evolving ( high level generic category)’ in the transition from animal to primate to hominids, etc.. We barely have enough evidence to even describe what a theory would have to explain. Note that art among other categories appears in nonrandom fashion with eonic timing. Therefore we have a machine that can induce ‘artistic’ periods, usually followed by a rapid fall-offs. Look at the Greek Archaic Age: we see a macro effect that can process early Hellenic epic (oral) poetry into a definite literature (directing) the so-called Homers to do so. The eonic effect is behind almost all the major innovations of world history in similar fashion and timing. We can tell all this because we see a nonrandom pattern, but our knowledge is not able to produce a scientific explanation of this set of effects which operate at least over ten thousand years or before from the Neolithic onward in a definite timed sequence that can obviously recall each of its discrete steps and focalize on given global regions on the surface of the planet we live on. This is only the beginning of a description. A theory is so far beyond us that we had best refrain. We have to study Greece, Israel, the Zoroastrians, India and its religions and China, because the eonic effect has not only a sequence but a parallel action. Note that economic issues are secondary and don’t generate the overall patterns. But let us note that both democracy and ‘utopian’ city models both appear in the Greek Archaic and that democracy shows a macro effect. It shows a system effect and then disappears slowly after the fifth century. In modern times democracy and socialism appear in a related macrosequence suggesting that the two are in a complimentary position, rather than as opposites. The point was obvious to the early socialists: democracy, ‘real democracy’ (their term), should be socialist as to equality and liberty, etc… Marx and Engels well understood the point but somehow they later got entangled in abstraction. They suffered the misfortune of trying to climb out of Hegelian quicksand. The more you try the deeper you sink, apparently. And then they reacted and fell into early ‘scientism’ or Newton imitation.
There is no science here in the usual sense: the dynamic can process facts and values, verboten in reductionist causal science.
I think Marxists have to become born-again neo-socialists and consider again the category of ‘real democracy’ as used by the early socialists. The distinction of utopian and scientific is less useful. We need explicit models, not theories. Note that physicists have a theory but in practice they deal with systems too complex such as the three body problem. So they track things with incremental approximations.

Our ‘democratic market neo-communism’ is such an effort to produce ‘real socialism’ and is balanced with related categories (socialism, democracy, markets, planning) brought into conjunction rather than as opposites…

Decoding World History ED1_dwh1x This is the most tricky kind of argument using the eonic effect but its indication is important, but only after careful study of the eonic model. The point is the d…

Source:  Modernity, the eonic effect and revolution – 1848+: The End(s) of History

The irrationality of darwinism

Discussing evolution with Darwinists is a strange process. The superstitious belief that natural selection produces the evolution of a species is like religious faith. But in reality, the fact remains that science doesn’t have a shred of evidence of species evolution by natural selection. Let me repeat that, NONE. Note that such evidence would have to stretch over millions of years. You would need an awfully large library for the documentation, which could take a lot of time to read. Stand your ground here and don’t get intimidated by the putdowns in place of argument. For academics, I have to shake my head, what to do. If you dissent you can lose your job. Scientists can’t deal with the issue. It needs outsiders.

https://www.academia.edu/s/75e1d7bd69#comment_868931

There is no evidence that natural selection produced a new species in deep time. None. We can’t observe such a process which can occur over long periods. The term is ‘natural selection’ so I will use that. Let me repeat: biologists have NEVER observed the data required to prove Darwin’s theory. These discussions are caught in what is ether the stupidity or the deception of biologists. The question of statistics haunts the false claims of Darwinists. Random mutations are statistically unlikely in the extreme to generate evolution. Produce the evidence for an actual case. There is none.

Archive: Does socialism really need a science of history? the trap of theory

Rewrite/repost from 2018

The left needs its marxist groups but they all need to reorient their thinking beyond the stale and counterproductive limits of older paradigms. If anything, the older left is the best safeguard against revolutionary change.
To start, marxism has a bad theory of history. This theory is demonstrably limited, indeed fallacious. No praxis can be based on a flawed theory, therefore any praxis that does isn’t going to work for a new social transformation. The bolsheviks used this theory and failed, they were so harebrained that they hardly count. Current marxists persist in all the details of this theory, and are not likely therefore to have a real opportunity. Why? Because marxism has a bad theory of history, and no praxis can be based on a flawed theory. If they get another chance they will end in the same hare-brained mess as before. Why? Because you can’t base a praxis on a false theory. Continue reading “Archive: Does socialism really need a science of history? the trap of theory”

A Coronavirus Epidemic Hit 20,000 Years Ago, New Study Finds 

Researchers have found evidence that a coronavirus epidemic swept East Asia some 20,000 years ago and was devastating enough to leave an evolutionary imprint on the DNA of people alive today.The new study suggests that an ancient coronavirus plagued the region for many years, researchers say. The finding could have dire implications for the Covid-19 pandemic if it’s not brought under control soon through vaccination.

Source: A Coronavirus Epidemic Hit 20,000 Years Ago, New Study Finds | Portside