We arrive at a beautiful surprise, one that we must get used to in stages: we have most probably discovered the real action of evolution. And it is not even genetic at all. This statement will be taken solely with respect to the descent of man, since we cannot so easily apply our method to the earlier stages of organismic evolution. The scale of the eonic effect is such that it must collide with our usual definitions of 'evolution'. In fact, we can see that the 'eonic sequence' is an evolutionary sequence, if only in the dictionary sense. We normally think of 'history' as the record of the free activity of individuals whose chronicle constitutes a 'story of freedom'. Looking at the eonic effect we can certainly see that at every stage it is individual free activity at work. At the same time, as we observe and reflect on our non-random pattern, which we have called the 'eonic effect', with the term 'eonic' being taken as a kind of synonym for 'intermittent', we can see that the overall eonic sequence also shows some kind of influence on these fields of free activity. The point is that we can’t apply terms of dynamics to histories of free activity without suffering a causality/freedom antinomy. But we see that our pattern resolves the contradiction beautifully. It is like shepherding. The shepherd doesn’t really ‘cause’ some sort of ‘effect’ as much as apply a ‘soft push’ to an aggregate resulting in some direction to the ‘free activity’ of the sheep. The point is clear with sheep that ‘free activity’ is not free will, nor is causality ever really violated. 

Simple periodization makes this approach inevitable. Statistical homogeneity fails. What is the significance of the eonic effect? We draw a blank. It corresponds to nothing in ordinary experience. The Axial interval is clearest case: something is violating what would be the simple statistical homogeneity in the distribution of the effects of this free activity. Something extra suddenly appears, working entirely through this free activity, to change the intensity of free activity. We have detected the presence of a 'Big History' factor, the evidence for which appears unexpectedly in the properly documented history of man since the invention of writing (which appears in the first transition, we should note).  The point is that we are not suffering contradictions of freedom and necessity because our pattern is itself about that contradiction, and the result can only be described as evolution, an ‘evolution of some kind’, an ‘evolution of freedom’, a point we will elaborate in the next chapter. But we have the gist right here.

Thus, almost by default, the eonic pattern falls into the category of ‘evolution’. In one way this isn’t even controversial. We have the pattern of the ‘eonic effect’ We can call it anything we like. The term 'evolution' has a peculiar status in our thinking. On the one hand we think in terms of Darwinian evolution, and this is taken as genetic. And yet on the other we frequently use the term for any number of other categories, a good example being the 'economic evolution' of a particular economic system. Sometimes this is collated with the overall 'evolution' of all economic systems throughout history, the 'net economic development' visible in the whole history of civilization. The two are not quite the same.  In any case the term 'evolution' is in general somewhat loose jargon compared to standard biological definitions, and really means the development over time of some entity, process, or structure. But suddenly we have the data for a pattern of 'evolution' that transcends all of these other considerations. But we must somehow make sense of this in terms of the activity of free individuals. We have already noted the problem with what Popper called 'historicism'. Our pattern itself provides the answer. It operates on two levels. And instead of programming some result, it seeds the field of free activity itself, as a determinate process of evolution on one level becomes an evolution of freedom on another. 

Note that the effects of the successive transitions with their waves of innovation break with the past, show overall coordination over time, and this occurs independently of the action of localized individuals or cultures. We need to try and distinguish two levels at work. We can see that the cultural regions associated with the Axial Age had prior developmental histories, and yet, as if on cue, they all surge ahead in tandem. It is like the growth of a plant under the influence of a sunlamp. Two processes are at work, the absolute growth of the plant from seed, and the sudden relative growth of the plant under the influence of the sunlamp.

 Another thing we notice is the extremely high level at which this process seems to operate. It is a clear case of self-organization, and it operates in a series of steps that raise the threshold of complexity, and yet the effect is visible in the subtlest and most intangible aspects of culture. As we examine the interior of the Greek Archaic, we find a whole series of transient effects, notably a complex flowering of literature, all of this within the punctuated interval of sudden emergence. This forces the issue of evolution in an entirely unsuspected way. The usual view of evolution is that of some Darwinian process producing man as he is, a man free enough to proceed to construct the elements of higher civilization. And yet we can see that this later stage is itself driven by its own evolutionary logic, one operating on a far greater scale than that of individual initiative in the timeframe of one generation.  This must drive us to reopen the question of how early man developed at an earlier stage, deep in the Paleolithic.

We only have the 'example' of Darwinism to guide us, and there, if we reflect, we simply imagine evolution based on a formula of natural selection. We have never actually observed the process in action, except in the visible situations of natural life. That picture is misleading, as we can see. We must construct an 'image' of historical data over many millennia at a minimum to actually see what is happening. Malthusian thinking just doesn't match evidence seen in the eonic effect.

Now we can return to the question already considered, of the evolution of ethics. Although we are not quite ready or able to resolve that question we have something directly related to the issue: the evolution of religion(s). We see two religions emerge in the Axial period. By our definition this is eonic evolution. This eonic evolution of religion makes superfluous the question of natural selection producing religion! The issue is tantamount to explaining, or failing that, describing, our macroevolution, which pulls rabbits out of a hat on this score. Be careful here,  this ‘evolution’ is ‘eonic evolution’, as the relative transformation of an eonic emergent inside the eonic sequence, in a particular frontier area. Strange, but we have a perfect depiction of the puzzling claims made, and history (mis)-described in the Old Testament. Only, now, please note, this is evolution.

Note that two major world religions have suddenly entered the category of evolution, this without referring in any way to questions of metaphysics, or divinity. The same structural process involved in all our transitions is also at work in the case of our Axial religions, and further these religions generate standards of equalization, and distribution of religious information in the wake of the transitional action. That is, Christianity, and Islam, although clearly mideonic non-Axial interval startups, show a clear influence of the source materials generated in the transition. These move to distribute somehow the effects of the eonic sequence, as oikoumene generators. This explicit appearance of mideonic distribution processes is something Darwinists never consider. How could some random innovation ever get proper distribution to a greater whole? It doesn't just happen. 

  An Evolution of Freedom One way to look at our  ‘evolution of some kind’ is to think of it as an ‘evolution of freedom’. Before doing that we need to set up our eonic model in the next chapter. But the point is that there is a component of unspecified executive action to our transitions. They don’t produce ‘art’ they produce the consciousness to do art in people inside those transitions. Our system is to a high degree ‘underdetermined’.

.

As noted already, (and this is to repeat our remarks on directionality) our eonic sequence has raised an important question about its overall character: does it show directionality? Such a question is very controversial, and since we have brought in the question of evolution we are left to wonder what implications this might have for more general theories of evolution, such as Darwinism. Darwinian accounts presuppose by definition that evolution is based on random mutation, and natural selection, and these are the basis for claims of random evolution. But we can see already that, in history at least, an evolutionary process is visible that is not based on genetic questions at all. So far all we see is a series of creative advances correlated in a periodic sequence. What of our question then about directionality?

The answer is that we can easily show that there is an overall direction to the eonic sequence, as long as we are careful about what we mean by such a statement. First and foremost we must be wary of equating directionality and teleology. To claim teleology, even if we were to challenge standard scientific reasoning or methodology on this score, is far more controversial than to claim that our pattern exhibits directionality.

Note that we have introduced an 'eonic observer' into our pattern. This observer appears already in the midst of our pattern, but also at its end. In this case, he is outside the last transition. Or is he? What is his status? Teleology is about the 'end' or 'ends' of things, and we have made no statement about either the beginning or end of our eonic sequence. We have cited Karl Jaspers but we have not confirmed anything about the 'origin and goal' of history. We started in medias res, ending in the wake of a third step in our sequence. The most we could do then is to ask if the data we have shows direction, leaving it open as to whether the process will come to an end, at which point we could determine if it shows any 'telos'.

Note further that our 'eonic observer' is ambiguously noticing the eonic effect, but also, possibly, joining into the execution of its implications. How do we know whether he is faithfully following those implications? How does he even say what they are? He might decide to do something different.

In any case, the question of directionality, as we look backward, is fairly direct. Our question is answered in the affirmative. Just look at the spectacle of driving motion. In each of our transitions we see, for example, an almost recursive reiteration of the development of states and societies, political and cultural integration. One of the most spectacular cases is that of our Greek transition where the forms of the city-state rapidly proceed against monarchy to various forms of republican experimentation, even producing in the spectacular Athenian case the world's first democracy. This happens twice, once again in our third transition, since, in fact, democracy does not survive its first appearance!  Can we claim that our eonic sequence is 'setting a direction' in terms of political formations?

Note that this pattern of intermittent transitions does a similar thing in many cases. Look at the case of science. It is born in the early Greek period, dies out, and then reappears during our third stage. Over and over we get this sense that our system is redirecting the drift in the middle periods, setting back to their basic direction.

However there is something far more complex involved here, one good reason we were wise to look only at directionality. That is the issue of the parallel synchronism of the Axial Age. Our system seems to set five different directions in five different areas! Something much more subtle than teleology is at work It almost seems as if our system is trying to explore different possibilities by going in different directions.

There is one clear trend shared by all phases of the system: convergence toward globalization. And the Axial period, especially, contributes to the process of 'covering the global terrain', but seeding new branches in different, well-spaced regions.

We need to stop here on this difficult issue of directionality and move to prepare a method or model to discipline our insights. Armed with that we can resume our consideration of these points.

But we must offer a caution here: teleological questions, even if they are hinted at by our cautious and minimalist directionality, are the source of many possible confusions and exploitations. The reason is that they are the prime target of ideologies that justify action by claiming the future. We must be clear that in our emerging model, the future is outside of our empirical dataset, therefore it is not part of our demonstration. Second, in the strange dynamics of an intermittent system, the character of that system changes depending on your place in it. If you are outside of it, at the end, then your actions may or may not further the direction set.

Finally, a paradox arises in the way in which teleological thinking is itself the output of the stages of the sequence. That is especially the case with the emergence of monotheism. But this changes its character in the middle interval. Over many centuries, if we can check, we can see drift in the claims that are teleological.  Then, the successive steps in our sequence may not agree with this outcomes in successive steps. We have a severe problem of showing a standard by which to claim validity for teleological assertions, all too obviously forms of ideology.

So we have strong grounds for considering the issues of directionality, assessed looking at the previous performance of our system, but unclear about its future. And that future will produce a conflict of two claimed teleologies concocted from directionality: the short term future as the output of a system, and some unknown long term future as the 'end' of the eonic sequence itself, assuming there is one.

Top