Why the fact of evolution stands out while the ‘theories’ always fail

One can only recommend the eonic model of the eonic effect to get a right perspective on evolution. The text of Decoding WH is free. Read it and exit from the endless futility of the Darwin debate. This is not ‘still another theory’ but is does venture to claim a glimpse of evolution based on the almost infinitesimal fragment in world history called the eonic effect: a clear smoking gun for something ‘non-random’ in world history, an indirect sign of some kind of dynamic.
But that much takes reading a thousand books on world history and its locales.
The question of evolution in deep time suddenly comes into intelligible view as being so utterly vast in scale that no form of science so far known can produce a theory. As a guess, we suspect that cosmology and fine-tuning arguments have some relevance, but then who knows.
What are we talking about? ‘Evolution’ in deep time is a ‘machine’ operating over billions of years, on the surface of a planet, able to either synthesize or stage the generation of, species formats themselves collating species/organismic formats, track the course of these outcomes and, remembering its previous, action, reenter the given field to remorph as relative transformation its prior output. Evolution’s scale is that of a kind of factory or laboratory floating in air in a kind of ‘field’ of some kind, and whose action is mysterious: it seems not at all a kind of ‘creationist’ process that produces a preplanned result but an experimental interaction with earth environments according to higher teleologies perhaps vague as their exact outcomes, viz. ‘Life’ versus ‘Life forms’.
All the heretical notions come back in for consideration, as the stupendous operation seems to be teleological and to envision future outcomes, e.g. the creature with mind, for example.
(we considered the idea of hyparxis, a sort of new-age spooky physics version of entanglement where the analog to wring a novel and its hyparchic drafts might reflect the two-level operation, teleology and the specifics of environmental interaction),
What we have pointed to here is very far indeed from any theory. So why not abjure theories for the time being and consider the empirical immensity of the ‘archaeology’ of deep time. We have always being doing that all along, distracted by the fantasy of theories.

Update: Decoding World History ED 1_6dcdx The ID group complains of censorship. But they are hoist on their own petard. After twenty years they still haven’t discussed the issue of design in …

Source: The ID Deception and the ‘atheist’ advantage in design arguments//Decoding World History and the correct approach to design in history – 1848+: The End(s) of History

 R48G: historical dynamics and eonic effects:  teleology of starting points?

We have criticized Marx’s theory of history as a progression of epochs in a causal system, and concluded that we can’t predict the future using its theory. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t historical forces of some kind. Marx, to anyone who studies the eonic effect, was trying to discover it, but his perspective as economic wasn’t the right way to do it.
If we look at the eonic effect we see not a capitalist epoch but the outcome of the ‘modern transition’ in the eonic sequence. And there among the massive innovations of this transition (the early modern) we see that socialism and democracy emerge in parallel, or almost. So as students with this different model we suspect without claiming proof that there is a dynamic behind their emergence? Here go again, but his time our perspective is more realistic. People are always looking for things they can prove about the future, teleology. But the latter concept puts most theories to the sword and the better approach suggested by the eonic is to look at a teleology of starting points. That’s the only way to do it in a system that must allow free agents ‘freedom of action’ (free will or not): historical directionality applied to a kind of starter yeast and initiated formats that free agents must complete. That what we see in the modern case (and the other cases in the eonic sequence): democracy and socialism emerge with a push that will finalize and then stop leaving the outcome to free agents, and the period of failure.
That’s just what we see: the attempts to realize formats projected in the early modern. Let us note that this precedes the Marxist appropriation of concepts. We can try again with a new approach, confident some macro process has initialized a starting point. Marx senses this and it confused him. But we suspect we can with confidence that a slowly waning force process backs our democratic and/or socialist futures. These have jackknifed against each other but the early socialists knew well that the real process was ‘True Democracy’ in a blend with socialism. The same is true of capitalism save that capitalism under socialism isn’t going to be what we thought: the DMNC model shows how the three things can blend, as socialist democracy in an industrial context./

Source:  R48G: from ‘critical (post-)marxism to a new kind of (r)evolutionary left   – 1848+: The End(s) of History

 Surviving the ‘end of history’ meme

We won’t comment on the multiple issues in this essay and instead will simply reiterate our views on the ‘end of history’ meme. The title of our blog is the ‘end(s) of history’ and we have tried to place the whole discussion in terms of real history and the consideration of teleology.

https://redfortyeight.com/?s=end+of+history Continue reading ” Surviving the ‘end of history’ meme”

Kant, origins of ‘end of history’ meme, and the place of free agency

The strangest part of the ‘end of history’ confusion is that it points to something real but in a form that has suffered hopeless confusion of terms. From garbled hegel to leftist then rightist meme juggling the crypto-teleological term that came into being has courted pseudo-science, ideological tug of war, and neo-liberal apotheosis. Continue reading “Kant, origins of ‘end of history’ meme, and the place of free agency”

History and teleology

archive: marxism can’t handle teleology: why not the macro model of WHEE?

July 12th, 2017 ·

http://history-and-evolution.com/whee4th/chap6_5_1.htm

The marxist canon is in many ways confused, but the ‘end of history’ memes are also in a hopeless state.

A careful study of WHEE can help to see where the confusion arises, and to provide a model of a teleological system. Conventional scholarship can’t deal with this, so the confusion continues. Conventional scholarship can’t interpret Hegel properly, and so it goes.

I think that marxism is one of the earliest casualties of the Iron Cage and needs to be recast. Why not the macro model of WHEE?

  The issue of teleology…

The issue of teleology is orphaned from science but its place in world history is fundamental, yet elusive. Marxists reject teleology and yet Marx’s theories adopt it in disguise, while religionists take a biblical view of it which distorts their thinking.
The eonic effect shows the way it emerges in world history in a complicated and tricky way: the real thing, so to speak, is at first confusing because it is not quite what we expect…

The issue of teleology is confounding to darwinists, but it is likely to prove confounding to its own proponents, for example, the ID group and the Discovery Institute.

Source:  The eonic model as a tool to study teleological thinking – Darwiniana

  Historical teleology: the ‘evolution of freedom’…??

Since the marxist left both condemns teleology and yet tacitly adopts a teleological historicism it might be helpful to consider the advice offered in this post at Darwiniana, and approach the issue of historical teleology with the method, and caution, of the study of the eonic model.
The question of the ‘evolution of freedom’, a slippery subject, enters directly into socialist historical thinking.

Source:  The eonic model as a tool to study teleological thinking – Darwiniana

Scientism in the era of the anti-hegelian movement…

Marx’s reductionist scientism has crippled the left. You would think that after Kant and Hegel the left could have produced a more intelligent framework than historical materialism. But that’s just the point: the obsession with Hegel in the era of the 1840’s was so extreme that an equally dubious positivism took root and has probably done more to undermine the path to socialism than any other ideological idee fixe.
Continue reading “Scientism in the era of the anti-hegelian movement…”