Non-genetic Evolution

World History 
And The Eonic Effect
Civilization, Darwinism, and Theories of Evolution
2nd. Edition
The Book
By  John Landon

Home

 2. Mysterious Drumbeat 
      2.1 The Eonic Effect
              2.1.1 The Axial Age 
              2.1.2 An Unexpected Challenge to Darwinism   
              2.1.3 Purposive Evolution 
              2.1.4 The Evolution of Morality—At Close Range 
       2.2 The Great Explosion 
              2.2.1 A Photo Finish Test   
              2.2.2 Debriefing Darwinism: The Hurricane Argument   
              2.2.3 Beyond Natural Selection 
       2.3 History and Evolution: The Great Transition 
              2.3.1 Freedom, Necessity, and Self-consciousness 
              2.3.2 Darwin, Wallace and the Shiva Seal  
              2.3.3 Non-genetic Evolution 
       2.4 Man Makes Himself 
              2.4.1 ‘Eonic determination’ and ‘free action’  
              2.4.2 Evolution, Freedom, and Volition 

Endnotes  
       2.5 Huxley and Social Darwinism   
              2.5.1 Ideology and Theory: The Oedipus Effect   
              2.5.2 Theories and ‘Action Scripts’  
              2.5.3 Art, Evolution and The Tragic Genre 

 There is nothing abstruse in our developing terminology, for we can see historical examples at once armed with the right distinctions. Darwin’s achievement is clear, and it is easy to be unfair to him. But he is more or less on record as assuming that natural selection is at work in the destruction of primitive races and that the achievements of the Greek  classical period are the result of differential natural selection, a most doubtful viewpoint. And there is a vacuous vanity of the science type thinking the best and brightest with high IQ’s are the vanguard of evolution. History shows something more complex. This is absolutely tricky, without careful period analysis. Why was there a Greek flowering of culture? Because, by natural selection, the Greeks were smarter or some superior race? What about the Hittites? These were essentially the same tribal and linguistic stock. Yet they shew very little creative culture. What about the Romans? They are almost a variant tribe, yet already look backwards to an established tradition. One is just before, the other just after. In parallel we find the post-Vedic mimic in concert the Greeks in music of different key. This has to be a problem of periodization. The foundations of the Greek classical achievement appeared at almost record speed from -900 to -600 for reasons, we can strongly suggest, that were conditioned by zone and period, in a master sequence. It is a question of eonic determination. This remarkable interval, echoed in the raw structure of the Old Testament, has no other account than as a ‘fast interrupt’. Even if we thought they had special talents or intelligence as a culture, this other explanation would hold good. For we will move to see the full counter-experiments in all combinations, the comparable Hittites, and (Greek) Mycenaeans before, the Romans just after. In general, evolutionary theory assumes that selection for intelligence is a foregone conclusion in the evolution of the brain. Even the small snapshot we have of human history shows the ‘survivors’ too often to be a very restricted range of men. Uphill selection requires unique conditions for success.

 We must especially note the falloff of the effect in this parallel case of the Romans, for they almost seem to be there to rescue something from the onset of post-transitional chaos. In general, selection can decrease potential. Our transitional periods seem to increase it. And all the great advances of civilization  show eonic period conditioning at their source, temporally and geographically. Selectionism could hardly be the mechanism of this evolution  for we see the same population streams switched on and off, although it would be of great interest to know the genetic preliminaries and consequences of these waves of advancing civilization. The danger is that realization from high potential will select away from its innovations, the abortive classical birth of science being an example. For it is possible to consider that outstanding abilities or cultural assets enable particular groups to respond to the eonic effect more readily.

Civilization  simply does not arise through the survival of the fittest, and frequently shows signs of logjam as the ‘fittest’ induce stasis in the persistence of sterile themes of domination, power, and militarism. One can only wonder at the ‘genetic cost’ of civilization itself, and the effect of centuries of warfare, political submission, and hangman judges. Nor is the runaway suggestion of the nature of social competition in public thinking a helpful contribution to an already stressed environment of colliding parties whose first need is mutual cooperation. The game of the survival of the fittest makes no sense in a context where we see religions emerge in periodic rhythm, along with science and philosophy.

One of the most remarkable aspects of antiquity is the uphill selection  against inertia, indeed, the focal selection of advancing areas. Against the restriction of potential in selection  we see separate worlds mapped out in parallel. The entire spectrum of human consciousness is explored during a particular show of emergent culture. The system anticipates its own transitional outcome, as whole literatures appear to service a coming oikoumene. The system seems to focus on the operational instruments of its evolutes in their highest potential, as heights of thought are reached with almost instantaneous bursts of advance, the example of emergent Greek tragedy being one of the most remarkable examples. We see a clear instance of the factor of eonic determination.