The surprising answer comes from the discovery and perception of the eonic effect. At first we simply examine this as a non-random pattern in world history, leaving aside its connection, if any, to evolution in general. One of the problems with Darwinian theory lies in the difficulty of observing evolution, hence natural selection, at close range. We are lucky indeed if we can zoom in on continuous records shorter than ten thousand years. What if the crucial issues of the suspected macroevolution occur at high speed inside such short intervals? We would miss them completely. Do we have any data at such close range? Actually, the only such data lies in the record of world history, which provides a rough, almost adequate, ten thousand year interval since the Neolithic, and a better record at five thousand years since the invention of writing. 

If we systematically examine this record, using various experiments in periodization, we discover to our surprise that this immense data set simply doesn't conform to our assumptions about randomness. It shows distinct clustering in the form of advancing zones of action, and this once detected, causes us to suddenly perceive a larger gestalt, whatever it means, in the form of a set of transition-like intervals that show very rapid emergentist phenomena.

Perhaps the clearest example is the data of the so-called Axial Age. Within the space of a few centuries an immense change in cultures occurs synchronously in multiple separate locations across the length of the Eurasian landmass. This symphony of sudden effects shows us there is a 'macro something' that can operate on a whole stream of culture, and not only this, but simultaneously in many difficult locations at once. This mindboggling possibility lies directly in our 'recent' past, and shows us that our standard of ten thousand years even is far too coarse-grained: our 'macro' factor requires centuries level observations! 

The so-called 'eonic effect' is a name we give to this pattern of effects: there are several ways to see it. We can generalize from the example of the Axial Age, since its uniqueness seems unlikely. Or we can (could have) simply examine (examined) world history form deviations from the norm of randomness. Once we suspect what's afoot, we close in rapidly on the result: a distinct from of alternating sequencing ( a better phrase than the contentious 'cyclical' terminology), almost like a feedback device, but timed to switch on at regular intervals. The whole five thousand year period since the invention of writing sudden stands out as a coherent whole, with a directed mainline, a clear non-random pattern, and a whopper at that. 

But what is the connection to 'evolution'? 

Top