3. A FREQUENCY
HYPOTHESIS
|
|
||
|
|
||
| 3.1 An Eonic Sequence, And A Frequency Deduction | ||||
|
As we look at the eonic effect in the greater context of world history, we discover its significance as the evolution of civilization in a fresh definition. We have a sudden perception of a system operating in a frequency pattern, which we can formulate as a hypothesis. We can put that hypothesis on the backburner and proceed with the core eonic effect. More than anything else this hypothesis will block speculation and remind us that ‘final theories’ must wait on further research and data. As we do that, we can begin to expand on our model, as a simple timeline. This timeline is built around a set of transitions, or differential periodization. In a complex and ingenious pattern our eonic sequence, operating on the surface of a planet, stages globalization via a set of localized hotspots, shifting into high gear every 2400 years, leapfrogging its prior action in a frontier effect. (Eonic) globalization It is important to distinguish our sense of globalization from the current ‘economic globalization’ that we see in our current modern context. Globalization in our sense is the action of the eonic sequence, as it generates a global set of transitional zones in cultural transformations at the highest level of culture (macro-action). Economic, or other, diffusionist globalization has a different, too often, savage character, and too often degenerates rapidly, becoming counterproductive implosive mayhem (micro-action). We have completed the basic demonstration of the eonic effect, but in this chapter and chapters five and six we are going to go in slow motion through two outlines of world history along the eonic mainline, the first from present to the past, then from the past toward the present. The eonic pattern is so rich in confirming data that we can barely list, let alone fully chronicle, all of it. With one exception, our model is designed to be free of simplistic theories, and leave the data alone, to hover in the background as a periodization timeline. The exception is the issue of freedom and causality, which we will tackle in the next chapter. In fact, the pattern of eonic data shows us unexpectedly how to proceed (up to a point) with the idea of a science of history/evolution, however we reconcile the two. They fit together, and yet generate a contradiction. We are drawn into the classic dilemma obstructing a science of history, now suddenly with a solution shown by nature in the eonic effect. We see the solution, but can we understand it? We will soon discover the close connection between our enquiry and a classic theme of the philosophy of history, and this will give us an ‘idea for a universal history’, in a phrase of the philosopher Kant, whose essay on history suggests a framework to organize our thinking. This essay unwittingly asks a question, which we can call Kant’s Challenge, the answer to which we have stumbled on with our eonic data. We have the answer, but what was the question? We have discovered what Kant called ‘Nature’s Secret Plan’, a provocative phrase we will keep on the sidelines, translated into our systems analysis. Our distinction of macro-action and micro-action gives us a way to deal with the basic antinomy of causality and freedom that bedevils any ‘science of history’ as this wistfully yields to the hope for a ‘science of freedom’. A model: macro-action, micro-action: One side purpose of our model: to table the idea of a science of history, but to adjust to the contradiction in any such project. We have already introduced the distinction of ‘system action’ and ‘free action’, or macro-action and micro-action. But the only real option for our model is to construct an outline using periodization, a kind of animated Table of Contents. The outline is the model. The dynamic is unseen, all we see is the eonic sequence, and the oscillations of degrees of freedom in the rhythm of macro and micro-action. We can describe history around micro-action, evolution around macro-action. The intersection of the two produces the creative self-consciousness we see in the eonic pattern. It is important to consider that macro-action is always made up of micro-action. Hypercomplexity Our model is the essence of simplicity, and yet it points to something tremendously complex. In fact, the system we detect is far too complex for current types of numerical models, thus we fall back on simple periodization, which, however, still shows considerable structure. For example, no parametric measurement for ‘aesthetic judgment’ is possible, that could allow us to assess the ‘dynamics of art evolution’. Since a striking aspect of the eonic sequence is the appearance of great art as eonic emergence and relative transformation (i.e. inside the transitions), we must use such judgments to assess just what is and what is not ‘eonic data’. Aesthetic judgments are not scientific measurements. We are near the limits of our conceptualizations. We can ‘see’ the eonic effect, but the moment we try to construct an explanation, we confront a paradox, one of causality and freedom, which we will explore in the next chapter. This is why we have chosen to develop a simple model based on periodization. We can get our work done without solving metaphysical mysteries. The source of the enigma lies in the unmistakable violation of historical continuity our pattern shows in plain sight. There is no causal antecedent in the immediate pre-history of our transitions. We generate spontaneous questions like ‘What caused the Axial Age?’, or ‘What causes freedom?’, questions fated to limp off to a Kant clinic. And our problem is certainly reminiscent of Hume’s strictures on causal thinking. Like Captain Nemo and the Professor all we can do is put on goggles and stare into the reactor core, the freedom generator. This situation is a remarkable rendition of Kant’s Third Antinomy one the scale world history itself. Thus, before proceeding we need to be clear about historical theories, and as we lay out our eonic sequence we will discover still another beautiful version of our paradox: inside our eonic sequence we will discover what we can call the discrete freedom sequence, the eerie timing of the double appearance of democracy in the macro sequence. We can look at the eonic effect in two ways, from the perspective of history, and of evolution, and then unite the two with our idea of a systems model, but one informed by the philosophy of history, in a formal treatment of the idea of freedom. In the nonce, a basic guideline or hunch about the data is that we have a frequency system in the eonic pattern. Since we don’t have the total data, we will simply turn the idea into an hypothesis. Reverse-engineering the eonic effect Once we see the eonic effect, we can turn around and consider how we could have discovered it, with a question: does world history show evidence of general sequence? Thus we have, A frequency hypothesis
Our perception of the eonic pattern suggests a system operating in a
frequency pattern, strange as that might seem. Since we clearly as seeing only a
fragment of a greater pattern we will simple formulate a hypothesis for future
research. In the nonce, we can examine a sort of ‘core eonic effect’, the basic
sequence since the period of A frequency deduction A system ‘evolving freedom’ cannot cause freedom directly, since the over-determination would be causally closed. But such a system cannot leave action alone, since under-determination would not evolve freedom. Therefore, to evolve freedom such a system might alternate between higher and lower degrees of freedom, in cycles of macro-action, and micro-action left to its own devices. All at once we see that this corresponds to the eonic pattern. Thus, for example, the Axial Age shows a higher degree of freedom, but under eonic determination, while the mideonic intervals show the potential for freedom without the action of the system, ‘real freedom’, or not. The frequency system might terminate at some point to allow the realization of this potential. At the end we will suspect that we are at the end of the eonic sequence since observing the eonic effect probably preempts its future action. This use of the term ‘deduction’ is reminiscent of the Kantian usage, a sort of legal term about the right to use certain concepts, in his transcendental deduction, and is not necessarily a logical theorem or proof-deduction (our procedure is empirical, please note). For us the term ‘hunch’ might work as well as ‘deduction’. The point is, what grounds do we have for makings statements about a ‘frequency’? The answer is that this allows an ‘evolution of freedom’. And what does that indicate about our data? Actually, our data falls like ripe fruit into a classic Kantian analysis of the noumenal and phenomenal, with a slight difference, which we will explore. This ‘deduction’, more a kind of ‘freedom hunch’, is not much, but it suggests a clue to what we are seeing in the completely odd appearance of a cyclical phenomenon, and also a system that shows us an outer appearance but not the ‘thing in itself’ behind it. Behind the hypothesis of frequency lies something cousin to a ‘transcendental deduction’: the very nature of this appearance makes no sense unless we suspect a dynamic beyond the limits of our perceptions. A transcendental hunch would be a feeling about the evidence: our historical representations don’t quite add up unless we consider that our perceptions of historical freedom and its discontinuity hint at something beyond historical appearance. Thus, overall, this is a limiting result, showing us the limits of our representations, and we will see that it is probably impossible to produce a theory of evolution in closed form. We never see the ‘mechanism’ of evolution directly. A sort of red alert switches on: this is the kind of situation studied by Kant, with his distinction of phenomenon and noumenon. But we can ‘see’ evolution in action, to the extent we can reconstruct its action, and our model will help us to track its effects over several millennia. This tracker-approximator, as an evolutionary map, is in some ways better than ‘still another theory’, and gives us all the benefits of historical coherence without the liabilities of metaphysical presumption. Our approach will at least allow us to seize high ground against the pretenders here and has a rock-solid foundation because we take into account what we don’t know. The result, even within the limits of our representations, is a phenomenon of spectacular beauty. |
||||