3. Idea For A Universal History
|
The Discrete Freedom
|
||
|
|
||
|
3.
Idea For A Universal History |
||||
| 3.2.1 The Discrete Freedom Sequence | ||||
|
Looking at the eonic effect we see that the scale of evolution is so vast that no simple theory of the usual type is possible, the reason for our retreat to a ‘tracker-approximator’. No single generalization will suffice, and ‘evolution’ can change its meaning at each interval. A classic example is the ‘state emergentism’ of TP1 and the ‘anti-state emergentism’ in later transitions, a system reacting against itself. Further, we are embedded observers, which will lead us to the concept of an ‘eonic observer’. Finally, the last straw, we notice, and we simply describe, what we will call the discrete freedom sequence, in the process discovering the relationship of our data to a classic Kantian antinomy. These are empirical observations, not proofs, but we are left suspicious. We are left, we suspect, in ‘theory deadlock’, as we do a double take on a theory of causal generation and a theory of freedom emergence. There goes ‘theory’. However, none of this prevents our model from tracking the data, and the result is still highly useful, and informative, and hopefully on its way to ‘some new kind of science’. If this seems complex, relax. We have reached the limits of theory, and can proceed, in the next chapter, to creating our ‘eonic map’. Thus, our eonic sequence is now a ‘causal surrogate’ for some kind of Big History. But inside that sequence we find ‘freedom clusters’ as eonic emergents in the frequency schedule. The result is four things, eonic determination, free action, eonic determination of Freedom, and free action as potential Freedom, along with ‘freedom from sequential dependency’. That’s more than we need, as artificial concepts in our model, but with a little experience, the distinctions here are interesting, and clearly relevant to our model. If you ever wondered why the American, French, and later revolutions tended toward snafu problems, the reason is somewhere in there. The study of these together shows why an evolutionary or historical theory always suffers difficulty: it’s just mis-applied Newtonian thinking. But at the same time this pattern inside a pattern is solid enough to be part of our photo finish demonstration. We see large-scale macroevolution, empirically tracked, of ‘freedom phenomena’. Although ‘free action’ can generally manage near republics, real democracy only gets a jumpstart in the eonic mainline, a clear smoking gun for some kind of ‘eonic determination’. Thus, to define terms, one of the most interesting things we can observe about this pattern is the double appearance of democracy in two successive turning points, in both cases near a divide. If only we had a longer sequence, more data, but this is unnerving. This is the piece de resistance of the eonic effect. We will call this the discrete freedom sequence, a subset of our eonic pattern. Discrete freedom sequence: a second hypothesis Looking at the eerie and exact timing of our eonic sequence we suspect that the double emergentism of democracy is, however we might conceivably explain it, not chance. A look at the general backup in the deep modern emergent core shows this to be a more than reasonable guess, since the ‘evolution of the idea of freedom’ is itself a crucial component of the modern transition. The resemblance to questions raised by Kant is quite extraordinary, emboldening us to proceed. But our demonstration of a non-random pattern doesn’t require closing on some oversimplification as theory. A Kantian Antinomy Confronted with our black box we have few clues to its action behind the scenes. Its depth is locked and sealed. But in the discrete freedom sequence we get an inkling. On the one hand the eonic sequence generates a ‘causal nexus’, on the other hand the discrete freedom sequence is generated in the mainline in an opposing, yet embedded, trend. This, most remarkably, resembles the Third Antinomy of Kant. Our system is ‘evolving freedom’ over millennia, in some formal sense. But can we define ‘freedom’? This sequence is the crux of the whole question of theory. But all we are going to do is try to fit it in our general scheme of periodization, as a clue to what is going on. We will see later that we have in all innocence rediscovered the basis of ‘noumenal freedom’ concepts, for which Kant’s system is so notable. We will make no firm claims there, but leave that as a side study in the endnotes to this Chapter. Let us simply note that no matter how hard we zoom in on our data, we will never find the ‘causation’ of freedom. By definition, in our type of model, reflecting the data, we see that it just appears, inside the eonic matrix. Think in terms of a simple question, where does Freedom come from? Since this is circumstantial evidence in a complex history stretching over millennia, caution is required, and we need to return to the data, which shows that Greek democracy seems to appear out of nowhere. We suspect that no standard sociological causation theory is going to explain it, although the point is open to debate. But its placement in our derandomized pattern is too suspicious for comfort. That’s obvious at a high level, but counterintuitive as we zoom in. It is good to make a zoom target of the emergence of Greek democracy for a dose of realism, to ensure that we don’t get carried away in some metaphysics. A big part of the answer, for most theorists, in the Greek case was the invention of cheap iron weapons, and the resulting equalization. But we can, and must, produce the Axial Age correlation, both here and in the Old Testament instance, without flinching at the paradoxes created by the gesture of Big History. We can’t sweep this under the rug in the name of some scientific account. Quite apart from anything else the philosophy of history is itself part of the discrete freedom sequence, as is the emergence of abolitionism, and the general question of slavery. But let’s get carried away for a moment, not with metaphysics, but periodization. We have a modern divide. Backtracking 2400 years, we should have another, ca. -600. Right on schedule we see the rough comparison (as our later discussion of the Old Testament will make clear). So what do we find in the Greek case? Zoom target: Solon The emergence of democracy in ancient Greece is a complex subject, and the slow progression from monarchies to city-states should, by any standard of sociological analysis, be confined to local social causative explanations. Yet if we zoom out and adopt eonic periodization we see that the appearance and timing of Solon is non-random, occurs near a transitional divide, and becomes otherwise inexplicable by standard canons. To finish the question off, we jump 2400 hundred years to the next divide, and what do we find, another democratic take-off. Chance? Not likely, dumbfounded or not.[i] We must be careful and distinguish two levels of evidence, the non-random pattern of the eonic effect, and the subpattern of the discrete freedom sequence, which might give us an inkling of what’s going on in our black box, for here we discover some familiar issues of the philosophy of history dropping some historical hints. The issue of theory, teleology, and ideology will prove desperate in this case. The question of the emergence of freedom is taken here as an exercise in demonstrating a non-random pattern. Pointing to something is not as such an explanation. This is one of the most complicated problems in the whole of human knowledge. So we won’t pretend to solve it via the fantastic. But this example will show us the real complexity of historical theory, where reductionist scientism simply strikes out ad infinitum. We should note that Hegel attempted to exploit this situation for a theological approach. And Marx, moving to the opposite extreme, produced his historical materialism. We need to start over in ultra-cautious fashion and simply describe the full puzzle, which has a kind of Kantian simplicity and sublimity in its stark mystery. Metanarratives We can also bring in the postmodern critique of ‘metanarratives of freedom’. But this critique fails to consider that we can demonstrate such a ‘metanarrative’ in all its empirical grandeur. We plead guilty, and have stumbled on a nice one. So that’s that. Such things exist. Incredulity toward metanarratives? We seem to be navigating uncomfortably close to something current postmodern critiques of Big History as ‘metanarratives’ find to be a problem. Instead of yielding to this, let us embrace it, but in a new way. The question is simply: simple notice the discrete freedom sequence inside our eonic sequence. We see exactly that, a metanarrative of freedom. Our two level will approach will allow us to see why the critique arises. Incredulity toward infranarratives! The whole obsession with ‘flat history’ is a reductionist obsession, and we can see that its imposition on theory results in the usual round of Darwinian and/or conflict theories that are the only candidates left to ‘do the evolution’. These ‘infranarratives’ are useless, riddled with Oedipus effects, and explain nothing. Note that Karl Marx cleverly packaged a metanarrative as an infranarrative (historical materialism), the reason his ‘action script’ proved so effective as a belief system. The ‘leap into freedom’ is a concealed factor he never explains, but which is so mesmerizing noone except the Poppers were the wiser. The problem is the obvious one of action script ideology, and the terms of discussion using the idea of freedom double as slogans in the periods in question. Since we have set up our discussion in terms of ‘action scripts’, yet seem to be on the way to an ‘evolutionary theory’, a sort of ideological short-circuit is inevitable. We are selecting output from the system to do theory about that system, along with everyone else. The whole thing turns into plots against the government. Small wonder the issues of freedom emergence bifurcated in dialectical chaotification. But we can neatly organize a reasonable descriptive model that disciplines theory and action by truncating the effect of the eonic mainline in our present, using our type of model. We can still use periodization to point to the ‘eonic determination of freedom’ in some sense. Nothing in our account prevents an interpretation demanding a critique or revised definition of ‘democracy’, or some leftist critique of the bourgeois character of the modern movements of freedom. However, the attempts by the far left in the nineteenth century to improve on what actually did emerge are open to equal criticisms, to say the least. And the appearance of democracy near our divide leaves us almost spooked by the clear non-coincidence. In any case the phrases ‘eonic determination of democracy’ and ‘democratic realization as free action’ (see note below) automatically allow critiques of the realization, and leave the argument open to broadsides from a leftist viewpoint. Since the French Revolution didn’t even succeed in producing democracy but ended in dictatorship our two-level analysis can rescue something from the hopeless confusion of theory and ideology. If worst comes to worst we can fall back on our idea of simply studying the evolution of the idea of freedom, inside our pattern. That, by itself, is non-random. So our first priority will be a thorough study of this dataset, empirically, and it is such a huge dataset that we are going to simply note first its periodization, and the basic contours of its data, Solon to Tom Paine, both almost exactly 2400 years apart, perfectly timed at two successive ‘divides’. The idea of mechanism breaks down here, reborn at a higher level. The point is the sheer size of this question, so easily marked of from a high-level view. One must be wary of simply selecting a small strain of the total effect. However, the very idea of freedom is a clue to the ‘mechanics’. The opposite of anything clings to its antithesis. The idea of freedom is the clue to the paradox of facts and values since the ‘freedom to act’ is the expression of some value. And the idea of freedom seems suspiciously part of the whole game of this mechanization of evolution, since the very idea of a transition is to ‘break free’ from a causal sequence. Somewhere in the Hilbert spaces from which Quantum Mechanics comes there must be a version of this. We don’t know. But the resemblance to discontinuities in electronic systems is too close to be chance. A macroevolution of freedom We must proceed with caution, but at least we do see that, contrary to the wiseacres and troglodytes of arch-reaction, emergent democracy and freedom have evolutionary status. Many attacks against modernity and freedom are underway, and this fact should give some status to the idea of freedom, and the conspiracies (often invisible) against it. Please remember the brief fate of Greek democracy, and then the relative timing of our modern instances from the period of the modern divide. We must assume that a crisis for the survival of democracy is once again brewing in the cesspool of reactionaries everywhere. Like the Battle of the Ancients and Moderns, we might concede we are using theory for legitimation, but, subject to critique, we probably mean business here. TP3 wasn’t just some decline as the Spenglers and Toynbees seem to think. But we need to see that we enter the discourse using the ‘output of the system’ under examination, i.e. we are moving in the stream of the discrete freedom sequence, and its action sequences. Then again, we may be too fair. By replacing a belief system with a frequency hypothesis, we are left with the demand for proof from some reactionary. Here our terrain map will have to do, and once we put world history in perspective we will know how to proceed. |
||||