The Eonic Effect and the Ontology of Free Agency – A Problem in the Metaphysical Structure of Reality Regarding “Freedom”
Luke link, and systems versus free agents
John Landon writes:
<I don’t know why this set of distinctions creates so much trouble.>
Just a quick guess why … Because, even more than the problem with Darwinism, this material is forcing us to take a look back at the rest of natural history and cosmology as well! It shouldn’t perhaps have anything to do with it, but in positing “freedom” and “free will” for man in “history,” it’s also positing it for man in “evolution.”
But, if it’s for man in “evolution”, then it must also be a principle of the larger dynamic of evolution and cosmogonic change.
Care to have that principle posited for other living things and nonliving things? Because, if it’s done, it forces us to re-think the way the world works, and not in very comfortable ways either. Vitalism, the Anthropic Principle: Rewriting the
Laws of Physics, Nature, and Classical Ontology? …
It forces you into a double-take of History/Nature and then you’re head starts spinning! Free agency is fine for human beings, but what happens when that consideration starts being applied to the structure of matter and energy itself, as it almost must be by logical deduction from such premises? That’s the possible trouble with this stuff if these concepts aren’t properly framed.
… The problem though with such a line of reasoning, not to mention the starting points we’re proceeding from;; the world doesn’t work this way and we know from the basic Laws of Physics, not to mention traditionally-inspired, logos-centered philosophy, that it doesn’t. …
No! Something else has to be going on here. We’re not dealing with Plato’s FORMS but something a little more subtle and complex than what seems to be taking place here from our first glance into big history. It’s not “consciousness” humanly-speaking or ‘“self”-organization’, but a strange property perhaps of “quantum chaos” that we’re not used to with regard to natural systems, one that almost mirrors what we think we know about ourselves and about “consciousness” so-called.
That, more than these other possibilities, is more likely the reason why the physical world seems to be working along these lines, rather than matter being ‘living’ and ‘intelligent’ in a human way.
But it all comes upon us re:- the understanding of “freedom” and “free will” as drawn out into the dynamic of larger-scale evolution. So, as was asked in a comment vis-a-vis the Eonic Model, maybe the original terms here (as much as I appreciate them) do need revisiting. Or to put it this way, how do “free action scripts” map back onto the domain of the natural world in order to preserve the integrity of “evolution”, without pulling the proverbial rabbit [of “sapience”] out of the hat of inanimate material systems and form? … That’s what needs to be answered here.
Now maybe this isn’t a problem …; maybe having “conscious”, ‘living” matter is a road down which people want to go? … I doubt it’s the real intention here. But from my angle it isn’t all that good a road to go down on! It just plays too well into the hands of the gurus who are looking for any excuse to rope people into their new age ideologies. I’d hate to have something as worthwhile as the Eonic Effect/Eonic Model getting roped into this stuff, by virtue of a misconstruing of its terms vis-a-vis “Freedom”, “Free Action”, System-based action, and so on. It’s too good a model, too good a conceptual system to let that happen.
That’s my view.