Re: History and Evolution

[Nemonemini@xxxxxxx]

Thanks for your reply. I am astonished to get replied to at all.  Your
responses are interesting, and important. Mostly it's behind the scenes
'titters' going through the 'he's mad' phase of this.

Let me say that I conceded to the 'eonic effect for ten year olds' because it
seemed amusing at the time, but what I am saying requires both the text and a
certain wish to explore world history.  I will set you up for a pdf download.
But there really isn't a ten year old version. I won't press the point, I
think you agree. This issue is simple in a way, but the question of history
is elusive.

And the question of induction hardly arises here, since we are well within
the Humean 'laugh zone'. Hume threatens to challenge inductive complacency as
to sunrise on the morrow, here were are talking about a two beat sequence,
one that looks like a three beat sequence. These facts are left as a
question, as the interior content looks more interesting.
But the facts are distressing. Look at the Greek transition in Classical
times. Then come back five centuries, then ten centuries later. They lost
everything. Why? And why, in a suspicious, not inductively clear, sequence,
did it all come roaring back?

I think the economic analogy still stands, for we don't necessarily make
inductive assumptions about future economic facts. But better ask Michael
here, or read his book, The Natural Instability of Markets. Greenspan may get
his act together, but Michael is right this time, another bum slump.

Anyway, this kind of phenomenon that I am talking about (and the economic
analogy is only that) is not repetitive mechanics, that is, each beat shows
genuine novelty, since it is proceeding independently. Consider a symphony,
the beat or tempo is clear, but the content is something quite different. But
the tempo is not the source of the music. A symphony could never make it in
the realm of the differential equation, unless we had a formula to compute
Mozart!. The latter kind of Newtonian equation cannot be used really for a
cultural subject, for the differential equation processes only 'orbit and
initial conditions'. Works well with giant rocks in the asteroid belt, but
not life or culture. (However they have discovered chaos in one of the
asteroids, subject of a good book, I search the title).
My opinion is that we are seeing a form of 'self-organization'. This is a
graduate from Newton's world (cf. Prignone), that remarkably shows tempo, and
organized increase of coherence and 'organization' in a post-Newtonian mode.
But to apply that to civilizations is mostly talk at this point.
So, think tempo, count on your fingers, there's the methodology.

My method here is 'Tolstoy's Locomotive", a hybrid of mechanical thinking and
the, shall we say, 'passenger thinking'. cf. http://eonix.8m.com/hist_evo.htm
The passenger and the machine are distinct and the passenger can show
relative motion in the vehicle. Same with these drumbeats of 'civilization'.
Some invariant beyond the relative choices of the 'passengers' is visible.

I do not assume this phenomenon will continue in the future. Definitely not.
But it may do so.
The problem is that while this looks like a problem in mechanics, its
properties are much different than the usual. It is an unstable sequence, for
we are learning, perhaps we can overtake history. We can in principle 'change
the future' of the sequence. The sequence allows no generalizations, indeed,
suppose it is a jump start sequence. When you jumpstart something, the
sequence of attempts stops if you succeed in starting up!  That means that
'free action' becomes 'free' and the mechanical system shuts off. Maybe.
 The question of method is quite tricky. But in essence it is simple. We look
backwards and we see historical structure. In some ways it is implicit to our
thinking. Why do we use the term 'middle ages'. It is a fact that we do. That
kind of data is all I need. Nothing fancy.
 And this gives us an empirical argument about historical directionality, as
we extend our range. That is dangerous terrain, for issues of teleology
arise, verboten. I stay away from that, except that in principle, Kant is
good here with his 'antinomy of mechanism and teleology'.  We see Marx's
system going through a firestorm of flack here. First it is economics,
mechanical, then it is stages past, stages to come, directional-maybe
teleological.
Teleological questions have never been clarified. And I use only 'backward
looking' directionality, Kant's reflective judgement. Since, to repeat, we
are in the aftermath of the 'directional discrete continuous' system, the
'system action' switches off, and we are the actors, for a while.  ???? Does
this make sense?  One has to start from scratch in a long preparation. All
this fancy jargon, better to start with the Time Life series on World
History.
But the basic issues are easy,  for we can lay out the events of world
history and see that  a combination of 'drumbeat frequency' and 'flagship'
focalization' will explicate what is going on, to some degree. But only in
the past.

The statement about Kuhnian paradigms is about right. The Darwinian regime of
natural selection is faltering, I think, unless you only read Science
magazines. Whatever the case, we are really unclear about how man evolved.
I think my eonic effect will induce sobriety here. Once we realize the scale
and complexity of human evolution we will discared the facile certainties of
selectionism--I did not say evolution.

More....
By the way, on your suggestion, and those of others, I will consider putting
the whole text on line. That will settle the 'spam' charge.

 Ask Michael what he thinks. He's probably terrified, this guy's a nut, and I
don't want to say anything. I doubt it, but you never know....




In a message dated 5/25/2001 9:10:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:


> John Landon wrote:
> >[...] I have made no inductive
> >leap, because I have read old Popper and don't use historical law theory,
> or
> >predictions of the future. Therefore the status of these intervals is
> >analogous to, say, the economic cycle. We look backward, measure economic
> >facts, and see a periodicity in them. [....]
>
> Every time you assume that a periodic occurrence observed in past
> events will continue in the future, you've made an inductive leap. In
> fact, maybe it's not a "leap." Maybe it's just a step. I prefer to say
> leap, however.
>
> >[...]  Take a long close look at Classical antiquity
> >ca. -600 plus and minus, by my method. It will surprise you. Really
> surprise
> >you. Darwin-style thinking is so far off it isn't funny.  [...]
>
> What _is_ your method? I'm begging you. Please explain it. I don't
> understand it. What is "Darwin-style thinking?" I honestly don't know
> what you mean.
>
> >[...] the current Darwin regime is nosediving.
>
> What is the Darwin regime? Is that the same as Darwin-style thinking?
> By nosediving, are you suggesting that the theory of evolution is
> dropping in popular acceptance? Or that the theory of evolution is in a
> Kuhnian crisis?




John Landon
nemonemini@xxxxxxx
Website on eonic effect
http://eonix.8m.com
http://www.eonica.net