|
|
|
One of the clearest indications, and liabilities of, eonic
evolution in our sense is the danger of jackknifing realizations in the mideonic
period as the system action wanes just at the point where its productions meet a
greater totality. The nature of our model allows us no use of the mechanics of
transitions to explain the mideonic outcomes. And history reflects this, keeping
in mind that our account of ‘ET5, Israel’ is not theistic. We can see the
difficulties and dangers of making teleological statements about the eonic
mainline, and yet we tend to see the projection of the core transitions onto the
greater field of culture as somehow the intended outcome of the whole process.
The problem with this, and there are others, is that the middle period and the
long term are different, and the result turns into a teleological ideology on
the part of those realizing its action. The Jews and the Christians quite
obviously diverged in their interpretations. This example should cure anyone of
teleological thinking. We can see the quiet desperation of someone like
Mohammed, ‘start over from scratch’. The entire egregious and wrong result of
Christianity with its Anti-Semitic strain
is one of horrors of world history. We should note that we see similar effects
in India in the divergence of Buddhism and Hinduism and the long conflicts
between the two.
In any case, the confusion of Christians and Jews is
especially tragic. It is logical, in retrospect, to see the transformation of
the Judaic emergentism into a world religion as part of distributed evolution,
but the actual details shows an arbitrary character, and a very dubious series
of attempts to justify the result in theological terms. The modern period shows
the whole danger all over again in the rise of the far left in the throes of
globalization, and we need to try and find some resolution of the inexorable
deviations of teleological claims on the future, owned by noone. |
|