|
As we proceed to examine the eonic effect we begin to get a reality check
about what we mean by 'evolution'. The eonic effect represents 'evolution of
some kind' by default, and almost by definition: any process of 'rolling out in
time' that shows systematic properties is 'evolution'. We don't need to use this
term to describe our findings, which also have an equally good description as a
'universal history' or some kind of long-sought, but suddenly discovered, factor
of Big History, or 'macrohistory'. It is useful to study the phenomenon as is,
on its own terms.
But finally the implications begin to dawn on us: we are being given a
glimpse of 'evolution' in action, albeit one that seems at first focused on
purely cultural factors. The problem is that the effects are so vast and
comprehensive that we begin to suspect that whatever the case with purely
genetic evolution, here we have something that operates beyond the reductionist
level. And we can't avoid this conclusion save by playing ostrich to the results
obtained by nothing more than systematic periodization.
This reality check induces a sense that we might have discovered something
that ought to apply to earlier stages of human evolution at least. We can't be
making statements about a strange new discovery of 'macrohistory' and then
simply go back to our previous Darwinian assumptions about earlier man. If this
is the way civilizations 'evolve', then... We suspect that the descent is likely
to all of a piece, and that evolving civilizations, and evolving proto-cultures,
will share a common evolutionary matrix.
We have, unexpectedly, stumbled on the 'how' of some kind of 'macrohistory'
now a candidate for 'macroevolution'.
We have had a glimpse of evolution, in fact.
|
|