Sorry. I thought this was sent off-list. The problem that Stephen alluded to is
that John is keeps telling us about his book even though only two people have
responded.
Michael Perelman wrote:
> I was going to give him just a bit more rope.
>
> On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 02:40:33PM -1000, Stephen E Philion wrote:
> > Michael,
> > Is this guy another version of Chang spam? Between the utterly unformatted
> > approach to email and the irrelevant nature of the content, can't this guy
> > be given the heave ho like other spammers have in the past?
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > Stephen Philion
> > Lecturer/PhD Candidate
> > Department of Sociology
> > 2424 Maile Way
> > Social Sciences Bldg. # 247
> > Honolulu, HI 96822
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 20 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > In a message dated 5/18/2001 7:50:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > > First, I don't understand why you don't like Darwin. It's true that his
> > > > science wasn't as advanced as commonly believed. For example, Darwin
> > > > believed that if giraffe ancestors had to frequently stretch their necks to
> > > > get to the acacia leaves, their descendants would evolve longer necks to
> > > > meet the need. We now know this proposed mechanism to be false. The
> > > > underlying fact of evolution yet remains.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Let me say I am glad for the uncensored opportunity to have made a statement
> > > about this 'eonic effect'. As to the question of Darwin, everything I said
> > > will be disregarded because I criticize Darwin. I speak from hard experience
> > > here, not to this case. I direct this to a general situation that has
> > > resulted from my experience of instant silence and/or ad hominem that greets
> > > the Darwin critic, rarely serious discussion. The result is that anyone who
> > > wishes to do anything has to keep mum, distort their argument, or plain lie.
> > > That has gone on too long.
> > >
> > > I find this a bit hopeless at this point. It is not true, false, that Darwin
> > > produced a theory of evolution. If a century of rocket scientists maintain
> > > the illusion otherwise, then we have a problem, and the next version upgrade
> > > of postmodernism is going to burn the voltaire wig in effigy. Trust, basic
> > > trust, in scientific veracity is eroding. I find that alarming.
> > >
> > > And it is time for the secular social sciences to figure it out and not
> > > preempt those who see the need to reexamine basic assumptions. I wa reading
> > > old Jacques Barzun's (Barzun!) piece on Darwin in "Darwin, Marx, Wagener".
> > > It is an echo of how many originally took Darwin. This doesn't work, as a
> > > theory, mixing the genuine achievements of the factual basis of evolution. It
> > > is an elegant essay, and might help for a good debrief of the subject.
> > >
> > > It is a prime case of social ideology, and the left missed it, as Darwinism
> > > suddenly looked attractive to the Second Internationale world. It is going to
> > > be still another embarrassing legacy. People will end by complaining, why
> > > didn't you warn us, etc..... Students of ideology! Fiddledeedeed, etc...
> > >
> > > The question has lost the basis of rationality, as Barzun noted. Efforts or
> > > declarations of counterevidence are generally futile. People just go limp,
> > > heretic.
> > > It is always 'hit and run'. The critic ceases to exist. No counterargument
> > > is to be considered, and the facade is maintained.
> > > Anyway, enough. As the third little pig said (or quoth, I can't remember),
> > > "Build ye not houses of theoretical straw". You guys will end up in my little
> > > (theoretical) house of brick, the 'eonic perspective on hstory'. I am
> > > working on an eonic Marxism, and that's no joke. The current state of leftist
> > > theory is well described by the effect of a toaster on a slice of bread.
> > > This eonic methodology contains a very simple and useful thesis, whatever its
> > > apparent (??) 'alternative extravagance' as you put it, not the case.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I don't wish to be dogmatic in reverse, for defending evolution is
> > > fine by my eonic perspective, but the propping up of Darwin's theory via
> > > media control won't help in the end. It's over when it's over. It was always
> > > that way, as the author of Darwinian myths notes. Darwin and his gang were
> > > one of the first cases of publicity manipulation to fix public opinion.
> > > Whatever our opinions here, it is true that noone is under any evidentiary
> > > obligation to take natural selection as established. That's the bottom line.
> > > Anyway thanks. I hope to post some further occasional stuff on the eonic
> > > effect and economic history, perhaps. Using the eonic effect to answer such
> > > questions is not as such my business, for this methodology is not a method to
> > > give glib answers to any and all questions, but a demonstration of a new
> > > foundation for a study of history and evolution.
> > >
> > > Let me know if you would like an e-text, since you have judged me on the
> > > basis of a quick paragraph on capitalism
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot.
> > >
> > > John Landon
> > > author
> > > World History and the Eonic Effect
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > http://eonix.8m.com
> > >
> >
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
