Decoding World History: The Eonic Effect

Decoding World History ED 1_6dcdx

Decoding World History  (decodingworldhistory.com)is a presentation of the data for the so-called ‘eonic effect’ and the hidden process of historical ‘evolution’. It can dispel the ideological muddle of current evolutionary pseudo-science and its reductionist scientism. This book demonstrates an accelerated way to study this mysterious teleological structure and its implication of the ultra-complex system of evolutionary history, for so long confused by Darwinism and its oversimplifications. The study of world history in light of the ‘eonic effect’ unlocks the secret of the emergence of homo sapiens as he enters history as a free agent and points to the hidden structure of his emergence in a mysterious Gaian planetary control system.  As man emerges from this matrix of guided evolution he needs to confront the eerie challenge of sudden self-evolution. The fate of civilizations of the future beckons as he exits the larger system at work. The nature of evolution in deep time remains an unsolved riddle, but the data of the eonic effect gives us a hint and can help to dispel the endless confusion created by the current biological paradigm as disguised Social Darwinist propaganda.

Decoding World History: The Eonic Effect: The Eonic Evolution of Civilization

https://nemonemini.files.wordpress.com/2021/03/decoding-world-history-ed-1_6dcdx.pdf
From the Preface to Decoding World History:

World history is an undiscovered country. Contemporary understandings show great confusion and make obvious the lack of a scientific perspective. Compared to the facility of physics, at least in the context of its mysterious mathematical methods that seem to develop in a just-in-time synchrony with the needs of new theories, the field of history shows no real reductionist resolution. The reason should be obvious: the issues of psychology and consciousness, values over facts, social existence, and religious versus secular discourses. History must grapple with the idea of freedom, physics must not. But all at once we confront a surprise in the reformulation of the question; the eonic effect, stumbling into an awesome mystery tour through ages in transition. One thinks of the classic phrase, voices of silence. We catch a glimpse of history’s law of motion. But that perception is of a crude outer mechanics that evolves a much more elusive complexity that has a character not seen in physics, such as ethical and aesthetic aspects, the realm of values beyond facts.
This book will attempt to demonstrate this hidden factor and approach the issue of a science of history indirectly via a new discovery we have called the eonic effect as the first real step to such a science. As we enter the unknown, we find a phenomenon of nature that still eludes us with a complexity of a new order of magnitude. We often confront machines we cannot understand, but we can see what they do. The eonic effect in history gives us a glimpse of (historical) evolution: a field of form effects operating over a species region. It is mysterious yet we can see what it is doing.

the american idiot syndrome: sitcoms…?//New CNN Original Series “History of the Sitcom” and …

I am suddenly confronted by the legacy of the Sitcom on CNN. I caught a few snatches. But apart from a few episodes of ‘Lucy’ when I was not yet ten years old and snatches while channel surfing I have never watched a sitcom, apart from unintended snatches. Never once, as far as I can remember.
This is what the US celebrates about itself. I find them stupid and boring. I have to wonder what the future will judge of this.

History of the Sitcom, from the Producers of The Story of Late Night, Premieres with Back-to-Back Episodes on Sunday, July 11  Jerusalem: City of Faith and Fury, Narrated by Golden Globe-Winning Actor Ewan McGregor, Premieres Sunday, July 18         .

Source: New CNN Original Series “History of the Sitcom” and “Jerusalem: City of Faith and Fury” Premiere This July

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

Archived: A Gaian riddle

A Gaian riddle?
October 31, 2018
A Gaian riddle? May 12th, 2018 from Darwiniana
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… Continue reading “Archived: A Gaian riddle”

 Scientists and paradigm control and domination

This links to Nicolas Wade’s remarkable essay on the Covid virus and he brings up an issue that we suspect is behind the rigidity of issues navigating through academic and professional circles. Clearly, we have said this before, and we aren’t the first by any means, the paradigm of Darwinism is controlled by this kind of fear in a controlled context. However the case of Darwinism is a far more orwellian instance of the group think that enforces a given paradigm. It is a puzzle even beyond this because the issue of Darwin’s natural selection is so weak that even a controlled opinion space would move openly or by stealth to undermine the absurdity of such a theory. But that has never happened in the field of evolutionary biology. The field of evolution is further complicated by its religious opponents, and has a socio-political aspect in the confusion over social Darwinism. In a further twist, a theory that should have been critiqued by leftist students of ideology was given a pass and became tragically an instrument of genocide in a Stalinist context.

Our study of the eonic effect would be rejected as speculative by historians (without reading the text of Decoding) but the book provides a surprise for such critics: the model (in our usage something not as such a theory) is purely empirical and shows a ‘non-random pattern in world history’. You can dismiss a theory, but a non-random pattern is not a falsifiable theory. Its data might be faulty or incomplete, but in fact, it is a challenge to observation and facile assumptions about random history.
The extension to evolution can indeed be called speculative, but it is important to note that Darwin’s theory is entirely speculative. No one has ever observed a species in the large evolve by natural selection. the whole game is speculative from the start and outrageously so. Often the issue of natural selection arises at the level of viruses and related micro situations, but that tells us nothing about the complexity of speciation. The behavior of Darwinists here has been outrageous. In fact the data confirming evolution of a species would be so vast as to be unmanageable.
It is a sad question because the point is coming where people will never be able to trust science. There is a simple way out here: it is easy to point to the fact of evolution, even if it is so far almost impossible to find a theory. Such a theory must be on the scale of cosmology and consider the fine-tuning controversies.

Let us note that the extension of the eonic model is very conservative: it merely shows the logical nightmare of a real theory: evolution operates over the surface of a planet, somehow directs speciation (which does indeed interact with an environment), can produce the equivalent of a flying factory or laboratory operating over a species region….The real nature of a true theory of evolution is entirely beyond our ken at this point. It is perhaps not surprising that biologists played ostrich with Darwnin’s theory but that is no excuse. People have warned over and over of the danger to science of this situation, to no avail. Finally one has to stand back and watch the Science Titanic founder and sink.

Decoding World History ED 1_6dcdx

Science is supposedly a self-correcting community of experts who constantly check each other’s work. So why didn’t other virologists point out that the Andersen group’s argument was full of absurdly large holes? Perhaps because in today’s universities speech can be very costly. Careers can be destroyed for stepping out of line. Any virologist who challenges the community’s declared view risks having his next grant application turned down by the panel of fellow virologists that advises the government grant distribution agency.

Source: The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan? – Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

The Fight to Whitewash US History: ‘A Drop of Poison is All You Need’ | Portside

On 25 May 2020, a man died after a “medical incident during police interaction” in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The man was suspected of forgery and “believed to be in his 40s”. He “physically resisted officers” and, after being handcuffed, “appeared to be suffering medical distress”. He was taken to the hospital “where he died a short time later”.

Source: The Fight to Whitewash US History: ‘A Drop of Poison is All You Need’ | Portside