I can understand your problem here. But as I pointed out there are shortcuts, perhaps.
The issue of free will is metaphysical, in a Kantian sense, which means we end up in equivocation.
I think it is worth studying Kantian ethics to see the way Kant derives issues of freedom and then
proceeds to an ethical system. The hard sciences are against free will but the issue of physics
isn’t what it used to be. The Newtonian world is gone.
The eonic model evades this debate by speaking of free agency, which may or may not be free will.
A free agent has choice. You can negate free will, but you can’t do that with ‘free agency’, which is
essentially choice. Choice is real whether free or not. In the end I think Kant carries the day.
Being trained in reductionist sciences is poor preparation for considering the issue of free will.
there is a basic point that drives scientists to negate free will almost at step one:
the principle of causality. But there is a more complex reality here.
Let me note in passing that Schopenhauer (he is really following Kant)
points to freedom as the thing in itself, or noumenal. Freedom and free will
would then be in a dimension different from the causal plane.
It is a long study,. The physical sciences presume to explain everything and
then a series of useless sciences ape physics and clutter social thought, in psychology, sociology
and finally the most critical case, evolution.
Science has not risen to the higher realm of natural entities so it is not surprising it is considered
The eonic effect has an important distinction of system action and free action:
the future is not controlled by the effect. Only the starting point of a new venue
of civilization, like archaic Greece. Man receives a starting point, and then tries
to realize that.
I can’t be sure about the end of the eonic sequence, but it would be very hard
for the macro system to act if man was aware that it was doing that.
I think that there won’t be another interaction in 2400 years, but how could
I be sure. Man is left with a puzzle, but he may be able to solve it.
But the issue of evolution is just another example of screwup. Fred Hoyle
pointed out decades ago that natural selection could never be correct.
It is a statistical absurdity. But who listened. The entire profession of biologists
has remained confused here for two generations. Over and over and over again
people have tried to correct the error but in vain. And the effects have been disastrous:
no one can hold down a job as a professor unless he toes the line. So it drives people to lie
and students are subject to the same conditioning.
Finally, the religious groups took up the issue and the iD movement, which isn’t quite creationist
produced some good work outlining the problems with Darwinism.
Recently it looked like the darwin paradigm would collapse. A figure like Jerry Fodor
produced a book critical of natural selection. That broke the ice, but I fear that
the academic/scientific realm of biology still hasn’t learned or changed.
That is why my WHEE never gets much of a hearing.
It is mindboggling. People chatter about science, but the core subject of evolutionary biology has been
captured by idiocy for almost three generations, and beyond that all the way back to Darwin.
It is very odd. At the end of the eighteenth-century biology was about to take off but then the
Darwinian paradigm took hold and the subject never recovered (it is complex history).
Although still almost pre-professional and with confusions of his own Lamarck essentially
got evolution right. He is not yet confused by Darwinism. The eonic model resembles that, from a distance:
it has two levels, macro and micro, Lamarck’s idea: evolution is two leveled: a drive toward complexity and an
interaction with the environment.
Even the real discoverer here of Darwin’s theory (Darwin seems to have plagiarized him), Wallace, changed his mind.
Darwinism has left people nettled and unnerved. How could so many professionals suffer such a goof and be unable
to correct it?