[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> [....] The origination (usually relative
>onset) of most things on a major scale has a macro timing factor, a fatal
>counterevidentiary suspicion of the basic wrongness of all views of
cultural
>evolution based on the unheard and unseen influence of Darwin.
> [flipping] buffalo nickels....
You still haven't addressed my objection that you are making a large,
unjustified inductive leap. You have identified some key moments in human
history, which you argue are roughly 1500 years apart. What makes me
believe that the next big leap will occur in the year 2200, or whenever the
next 1500 year point gets here? The logic behind this conclusion is
inductive. I am skeptical of prediction. Why is your method of prediction
better than, for example, that of economists who try to predict the Fed's
next move?
By the way, thanks for increasing your font size.
Andrew Hagen
We are discussing fragments of explanation here. 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.
So I am looking backward, and I see a regularity. I make no inductive leap
from that. The interval suggested is not 1500 years, but 2400. Again, I
merely note this, and make no use of it, except as an emprical given,
harboring a strange suspicion. And that is, a closer study suggests this
structure has so much interior correlation I must be on to something.
We are used to the universal historian issuing a Full Package Deal, all the
answers, all wrapped up. My approach is different. It is detective work. We
are dealing with circumstantial evidence. We are so used to the idea of
random history that we are shocked to discover we were wrong. A deep
structure is clearly there, after all. It does not follow that we understand
it, for it is a fragment.
You know, if you hear the famous four notes of Beethoven's fifth, you know it
is music, although you can't reconstruct the symphony. We know music when we
hear it, even in snatches. Same here. We detect a system at work, but its
full scope is not visible to us as yet. And what a system, on such a scale.
But apart from that, the real questions of interest, and the more conclusive
proof, lies in the interior. 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. The fine grain of
world history in its narrow cone of emergence is so closely structured as to
be unbelievable.
To say all this, we must still solve old Popper's quibble, really Kant's. How
do we reconcile freedom and necessity? It is such a metaphysical brain
twister we fall down dead in awe. But it is a practical question. Actually
this pattern answers this question. The point is, what is the relation of a
pattern, sort of like but not the same as a 'law', to the free choice of the
individual? Seems impossible, but there are actually a lot of possible
answers. Alternation is one, like a computer and the user with a mouse. They
alternate 'system necessity' and 'user plus mouse freedom', the 'gui' factor.
Aha! That's our answer. We see a slow alternation of high determination, not
determinism, and relative free action, not necessarily free will. That
requires a lot more explanation, later. But the beauty of this resolution,
nature's trick, is that the system, visible only in the past, switches off
and leaves our present in a higher degree of freedom, and perhaps a total
muddle.
There is a funny resemblance here to the fed. Predicting the Fed? best of
luck. How about the Fed itself, old Greenspan? This is an example of what I
mean. We have models of economic systems, but Greenspan is on record,
disregard them. He can look backward at economic data that looks determined,
but today, that is switched off to the degree that he must decide, as
relative free action, how to nudge the near future. In fact this example is
canonical and would apply to leftist thinking also, after being (supposedly)
squelched by Popper (whose idea was latent in your question).
Anyway, this system I refer to is very strange to take in all at once. But it
is worth considering the matter, for the current Darwin regime is nosediving.
John Landon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website on eonic effect
http://eonix.8m.com
http://www.eonica.net
