I'm going to quote from an early John Landon submission:
"It is not uncalled for to be somewhat overly direct here, since the
danger is a kind of incoherence that is self-sustaining over time. "
And now I will take your advice:
You have produced enough self-sustaining incoherence for a thousand
epistemology seminars. You have responded to every request for brevity
and clarity with pages of pointless, mind numbing, incomprehensible
logorrhea. You obviously don't have a job.
I don't flatter myself that you are going to shut up. This kind of
attention is what you crave, and only ignoring you will drive you away.
I routinely and almost instantaneously delete communications from
mortgage reducers, red-hot teenage nymphets, penis enlargers, and people
peddling equipment that would allow me to spam everyone. From now on I
will not even read the titles to your posts, including your response to
this one. I encourage everyone else to do the same.
All the best
John Landon wrote:
> In a message dated 5/29/2002 5:28:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>> to John Landon:
>> I have tried to understand your position, as apparently have
>> others on
>> this list. I suggest that you put as much effort and humility into
>> communicating with us as we have in trying to make sense of your
>> One memory most of us have of Stephen J's writings, which
>> transcends our
>> views on his theories, is what a clear and concise writer and
>> explainer he
>> was. As sure as he was of his own positions he never insulted his
>> I suggest that you have much to learn from the quality of his
>> writings in
>> spite of your discrediting of his theories.
>> Respectfully yours
>> Herb Fox
> Fair enough. Keep in mind that as a Darwin critic one is so constantly
> insulted from so many quarters, and for so long (three years with no
> letup and never a kind word), that normal communication seems to
> become distorted. It is designed to make people give up and surrender
> in silence to the master paradigm.
> Being clear is a challenge in this case. Granted. The eonic effect is
> dead simple, yet elusive, and it contradicts so much conventional
> wisdom that one holes up in a stance of obscurity like a tortoise
> ducking into its shell. How do you explain to people a system as
> complex as human evolution if they think Darwin's theory explains
> everything? The eonic effect shows a system timing to within half a
> century, meddles in art, generates philosophy, has its finger in
> multiple aspects of the highest level of culture, yet induces that in
> man's freedom, how do you explain such as thing? I don't even
> understand it myself.
> Keep in mind noone has ever observed evolution at close range. I can
> see it in history, and so can you, in a special case, And that puts an
> ace up my sleeve. I don't need to demur with the experts.
> Part of the problem is that what I have offered was fortunate in being
> done totally alone, without feedback, editors, peer review, in
> innocence of the consequences, political or academic, or otherwise,
> with a sure-fire and cheap method of printing-publishing that was
> legal but otherwise brought into existence without interference. The
> results are state of the art. Noone knows what they are missing in
> their own history, after all the politicos are finished controlling
> the airwaves. And it is hard for someone to work alone, but it is
> harder to use the conventional channels.
Check this out:
> In the past year, due to me, they have shut down the old Kant-l,
> Hegel-L, the dissent forum, Popper's Critical Cafe, and i have been
> unsubbed four times from [log in to unmask] and twice from
> evo-psych, under various pseudonyms. Phil-lit members all have
> blocking software, and Anthro-l assigned an attack dog to drive me
> away. All for the simple thesis that there is a 'punk eek' process in
> history. I call that scared. I have to wonder if it is hopeless. All
> those people must hope so.
That's real power!
> I know that all sounds odd, but anyone who writes on evolution learns
> the 'hand tremor' ideology game and the facts of life about what the
> fate of the effort will be, with at first subtle then more dramatic
> changes in tone, viewpoint, and purple passages inserted near the
> intro praising the brilliance of Darwin and the rest of the blah blah.
> So there are a lot of Darwin critics with manuscripts in their
> We always think in terms of straight propaganda, but this is something
> more complex, and just as effective in the realm of evolutionary
> So the info on historical evolution in relation to Darwin criticism
> and my eonic effect (which was misnamed and causes jitters in secular
> materialists) is a perspective that couldn't come into public
> existence through normal channels. The rest is up to you. It's
> apparently obscure, but it is relatively straightforward finally. The
> problem arises from the extreme change in perspective.
> The result I thought clear, but apparently not. Such a gesture was and
> is needed in any case to put a new perspective in a style encased in
> granite so that noone left right or upside down can turn it into an
> instrument of mass murder, the fate of Marx, Nietzsche, Hegel, and,
> indeed, Darwin. For the result has to do theory in the midst of
> ideology, and most ideologies are fixed here. So you alienate both
> So even as I wince when people cry 'ugh' at my labors I still also
> feel relief, they don't understand it.( I am just kidding) It could be
> esoteric, I could raise my prices, but actually it is clear. The
> manner of discourse simply demands a minimal commitment to study, and
> an effort to recast the argument in your own understanding in a
> reasonably short course of study.
> Take it as a simple issue or question. We think, sometimes, in terms
> of 'linear history'. What if that fails? What does the next type of
> model of history tell us if we try? What does world history look like
> at the next candidate if linear history fails?
> My answer is to try a 'discrete-continuous' model. That's a
> generalization of 'punctuated equilibrium' (as pair of words, not the
> Darwin version), or 'cyclical theories', or, in brute terms, a set of
> on-off switches. What do find with such an idiot simple experiment?
> The results are so dramatic we know we are onto something. We have
> completely missed an entire dimension of history. It's right there
> with tell tale clues of the simplest type. So without getting into
> historicism, or grand narratives, or rhetorical fancies, that is my
> finding. There is a missing component to historical explanation. What
> it means is not clear, but one thing is sure, Darwinists were
> overconfident and allowed a series of unverified speculations about
> times and places they never observed to be explained in absentia.
> There have been lots of warnings, but they simply don't budge. So we
> see that this type of thing, quite different in his case, is coming on
> Gould's radar, but he misinterprets that, probably.
> So that's it. Snap out of it, and consider a new perspective.
> I hope that helps.
> But I don't have an advertising budget so I have to go online, and
> become obnoxious to get through to dazed people.
> All that sounds implausible, but I think you will get used to it.
> Website on the eonic effect
> [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]