History and Evolution
An Introduction to 
The Eonic Effect

Home | Booknotes | Selections | Essay Archive | Darwiniana

 Although the methods used in the study of the eonic effect are relatively straightforward they break the mold of the usual thinking on history and evolution, and it can be helpful to focus on the basic ideas and the way in which the eonic model is developed. Once we see the eonic effect we discover the need for a new approach to theories of evolution, one that restricts itself to periodization, and makes the study of its own pattern open-ended. Real evolution is complicated and bursts asunder standard assumptions. The observer is embedded in what he is trying to explain. We can create an 'empirical map' of evolution, rather than a theory.

The model is based on the interplay of dynamics and individual action, and requires the knack of distinguishing a system from the action of individuals inside that system. Think of an ocean liner and the passengers. A system, and the people in that system, have distinct, yet conjoined histories. Once we take into account this kind of double aspect, many of the problems of theory fall away, and become manageable. In fact, theory is one of the hobbies of people inside the system, and may have nothing to do with it. 

This tutorial will expand over time and provide a basic framework for historical study, and some insight into the way theories of history/evolution are constructed. 

 The first issue is to keep clear the difference between the fact and the theory of evolution. We start by accepting the reality of evolution, but look at the limits of natural selection, and ask ourselves the meaning of evolution, allowing the term to overflow into the present. Really our subject is the relationship or transition between evolution and history, constructing an 'evolution of freedom', as a formal category. 

 The second is the confusion over biological and cultural evolution. The two are distinct, and yet braided. We can't easily separate world history from the primordial descent of man. To see that ask yourself when evolution stops, and history begins. The paradox there will help to see how our use of the term 'evolution' is very sloppy.  

After outlining the data of the eonic effect, we construct a model which essentially mirrors the data, and produces a coherent snapshot of world history. This kind of model operates on two levels, and matches the data in a remarkable way. And it will allow us to deal with questions of ideology, the place of the observer in evolution, evolutionary progress, directionality and teleology, with the philosophy of history as an adjunct study to our systems theory. 

This tutorial is minimal to start and follows the text of the second edition of World History and the Eonic Effect, and a copy of that work is necessary, although at the same time this tutorial can to some degree stand on its own. If we can get the knack for a new kind of historical model, we will see that the eonic effect has an elegant structure that uncovers something deep in world history itself. We can't stop the speculative and unchecked claims of Darwinists and their obsessive promotion of inadequate science, but we can set up a firewall against misapplying biological reduction to history. 

Before starting we should consider the legacy of theories and ideologies and the dangerous history of such. We start with a warning about teleology. You will find very little mention of teleology here, only directionality. Our approach allows us to actually deal with teleology in a safe and reasonably objective way. But the discipline of the eonic model preempts any easy conclusions here, and that is as it should be. An eonic model makes mincemeat of most teleological claims. 

Teleological alert The curse of theories is, scientists tell us, a hidden teleology. But the same can be said for theories that aren't teleological! The concealed teleology in Darwin's theory lies in the assumption that natural selection drives a system toward its future. The effect on that action on our thinking can be misleading, and plain false. 

Our study of directionality and the intermittent character of the eonic pattern can allow us to reopen the  question of teleology with an intelligent critique of scientific methodology here. We must be on the alert near  the efforts of propaganda machines to claim the future with a teleological myth, implicit or explicit, and arm ourselves with the tools to dismantle most standard claims. The reason we restrict ourselves to directionality is that this can be empirical, and limited, without extravagant claims on the future. 

For these and other reasons, Darwinism joins the ranks of teleological ideologies, with its 'laissez-faire' twist, so prone to disguised economic legitimation. In general, the Darwin debate has a large hype factor on both sides. You can free yourself from this here in short order using the eonic model, which is a reasonably straightforward construct you can use to look at the issues in a new way. The result, however, barges into all the controversies of the philosophy of history, and you can be skeptical of that also. Actually, our approach to that is so minimal as to be a sound critique of that also. The point is that we are embarking on the study of Big History, no holds barred. You can simply take that on provision. So many of the problems of standard theories disappear in this approach that we know are on the right approach. The advantage is that we can critique the idea of a 'science of history' and yet proceed in a real way along those lines.  

 From now on beware of anyone who claims to have a theory of evolution (and the same goes for religious or design arguments). Our use of the term 'evolution' applies to an empirical map of world history. A theory for this is seen at once to be a tough assignment. The eonic effect shows evidence of a complex system so hypercomplex even its basic description, what to say of theory, would require thousands of pages. To say you have a theory for that is a dubious claim. The point has always been obvious to historians. So why are biologists suddenly exempt from proper scientific standards?  Ideologies are always built into such theories. Our method sets up a very simple plain vanilla periodization matrix, and will simply look at world history, The method to make sure we look at it. The result is a time and motion study of historical tempo. We can at least 'see' evolution of some kind in action. Our basic claim is left 'raw', i.e. to demonstrate a non-random pattern. The result can be genuinely called a 'glimpse of evolution'. 

The phenomenon of real evolution is too complex for simple theories and needs to adopt a metaphysically austere approach. The work of Kant is invaluable for that, although his thought seems difficult. It is not as hard as it looks. We will take one simple paragraph from his work and develop all we need from that. Theories of evolution and philosophies of history share a Janus-faced relation.

It seems at first we are mixing modes, biological and cultural evolution. You will soon discover how this question will fool you. We make no absolute claims about any earlier form of 'evolution', but we can produce a stalemate with Darwin's claims on the descent of man, using a photo finish. It may be impossible to ever know just how early man evolved. So let's be honest and not inflict dangerous theories prone to Social Darwinism on the public. But Darwin's theory is almost certainly wrong about man, at least. We can't fully prove that, but we aren't required to take anything on faith, once our suspicious are aroused by the eonic effect. The current emphasis on genetics and natural selection misposes the issues. We have to recast our thinking completely. Actually it is useful to let evolution overflow into history, then into the present. Are you 'evolving' right now? The question is apt, or silly. We need two level models that distinguish 'action' and 'system'. This invokes the classic issues of 'historicism', in the sense of Popper.  

The agent/observer's place is crucial in any theory, although ignored in Darwinism. Bringing the theory into the present is useful because it shows a contradiction at the heart of most evolutionary thinking. Darwin's theory is a very clumsy instrument. As we see in our approach closing on the present lets the cat out of the bag, and shows the real character of evolution, at least for man. The observer is embedded in the phenomenon he is describing. The result here is like a framework that can be filled in with detail, but is left minimal. Don't expect a lot of fancy rhetoric, despite the truly stupendous vista of what is pointed to.  

Google and a crash course in world history:

The study of the eonic effect presupposes the study of world history. Get started on that right off. In the age of the Internet we can proceed at a much faster pace to learn world history. A minimal world history takes one day, then start over day 2 and expand on that. Be ready for a quiz in twenty four hours.  First question, what are the major blocks in the emergence of civilization? Don't be sitting around for the college course. Get going with Google, and zoom in on the various areas referred to. Using the eonic model makes the study or world easier much easier, because it induces a sense of a coherent whole. Here's our short history of the world, to start, answer to the first question. 

? Neolithic
Rise of Civilization
Axial Age
Rise of the Modern

We're done. That was easy. Now recursively zoom in on more and more. Don't stop! This list is both a Table of Contents, and a short summary of the eonic pattern. Our history includes everything and--almost nothing. We see the totality and an eonic mainline. As the data falls into place and reaches critical mass the significance of the overall simplicity of the eonic effect will stand out.