3.2 History: The Answer To Huxley
Last modified 07/04/2008
|
One of the ironies of our explorations of evolution in deep time is that
the resolution of its riddle might lie elsewhere, in fact, in history itself,
since that it is the only record we have that seems to fulfill the requirements
for our macro factor. Once we begin to suspect this, we also begin to suspect
that one of the consequences of scientific and Darwinian thinking is the
prejudice against any examination of history as universal history, or the
examination of the properties, if any, that it might exhibit in the large. But
as we reexamine the case with world history we can begin to ask how we could
detect a macro factor at work. The simplest and most conclusive way to do that
is empirical, and we will soon discover what we need, by close inspection. But
before doing that we might note a number of ways to deduce in advance what we
might be on the look out for. We need some pattern of derandomization, something
that stands out against the stream of random events. We need something that is
discontinuous, hence short-acting, at what scale we are not sure. We need
something that will answer to the obvious problem with the mechanization of
consciousness to which Darwinism is condemned. Hence we are on the lookout for
something to do with the 'evolution of religion', perhaps, whatever that means.
Something short acting will of course pose a problem. If something is too short
it might be unable to deflect the momentum of continuous streams. Thus a series
of short acting inputs might combine continuity and discontinuity into a hybrid
process. Further, discontinuity in time must be matched with discontinuity in
place, that is, a nearly global, or else transpatial process would seem
necessary to insure that the local derandomized interval does not get swamped by
the greater random stream. Finally, the question of ethics is related to the
question of freedom. That is, we must see the transition from a condition where
an organism is a purely passive casual sequence of reactions to a (potentially)
different organism able to self-direct his mechanics into new directions,
unless, as with the Darwinist, we conclude in the negative that ethics and
consciousness are simply illusions, a conclusion that does not likely do justice
to the data to be explained, a theoretical 'cop out'.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||