Revival means using old models for new things. At the same time it can generally mean physiological revival of human vitality and the environment. Historical development of the civilization goes in a spiral and it returns to old models, not to old places. This return is carried out by revival, a principle, allowing comeback and the effort for comeback. Return in the sense of revival cannot be reaching the original historical position: Technical tools developed meanwhile are not destroyed, scientific findings are not forgotten and especially the poverty of the past, so often pointed out by the opponents, will not come back because at that time it was caused by overpopulation and insufficiency of resources. The helix of evolution decides the conflict of whether everything already “was here” (Bin Akih) or “everything is new, nothing was here” (Popper) (see 38). We can say that both of them are right and at the same time wrong – something was here and something is new. Conservatism in revival becomes an action force, it does not mean defending the current state of affairs but rather return of old good things.
The helix of evolution is a probabilistic natural principle, which has been experimentally verified and proven by historic returns of various paradigms (that however are changed). Despite this the helix is only an approximate shape, the upward increase of development is disputable in terms of the source idea of what exactly is progress, therefore the vertical axis is the axis of the new (see 38) – the increase of things that have not been here yet. Those of a character of ideal being are beneficial for the cosmos, they accompany other ideal beings and become explicate order (65), which can be “wrapped” and handed in to the cosmos. The things that are a part of the revival and that bring the helix back are of course not new, therefore they do not contribute to the explicate order.
Of course there does not have to be a revival, the development does not necessarily have to go in circles, however communities that do not return only go towards nothingness and as the Communist regime proved, they rely on imperfect human inventions. On the other hand the Czech nation returned to its peculiar history on a different level because of its revival movements. If it did not return, it would vanish as a different cultural model. Margaret Thatcher returned to the liberalism of her ancestors and even the Communists did the same in Russia after the 70s and imitated the model of the Russian republic as it was between the fall of the Tsar and the October revolution. The Greek nation was maintained due to the sense of revival of its population, it returned to an older model several times but never to the oldest one. This way especially language is preserved. Such revived objects are viable, unlike “straightened” evolution lines of various ideologies with exit from the helix of evolution and therefore from the history as their approximations. There have been more dramatic cases, we can say that old Rome also exited the history; Christianity did not save it, even though it relied on it. Evidently there was something else missing, most probably the revival of the vitality of the Romans themselves, not relying on their barbarian allies. Despite this, the images of the old Rome returned again and again and influenced the whole period of the Middle Ages including the Renaissance.
According to Sheldrake’s theory, the old images of various situations are known not only from the history but they are also inscribed into the morphogenetic memory of the universe (see 65, p 326). In the genetic information of people there are shapes, situations, images, environment, surroundings, landscapes. Images from the lives of ancestors, situations and the whole environment of home are at hand even to more distant offspring and somehow they offer themselves, even though they never experienced them and never even heard of them. Archer (see 71) explains what Sheldrake verified in animals, that the cultural system does not depend on what people here and now believe in, but on the whole past of their ancestors. Morphogenetic memory is lost when the distance from the place of the past image and time increases. Totalitarian Communism exited the history, however this does not mean that it did not leave anything from its paradigm in the morphogenetic memory. The nations of European East and West are still very different; we can see this best in the case of Germany – its two parts. Czech people would resemble the Austrians today, if they had not experience Communism. Slovenians are starting to resemble their Western neighbours because they did not have such a severe iron curtain at their borders. The images will appear to their offspring for long time to come and promote those features of their thinking, that correspond to best to these images. However ideas are not inherited, these “inherited” images (e.g. security of job during the Communist regime) can be used in a different theory. Usually we see the image connected to a similarly experienced situation.
This theory can be explained by the evolution going in a helix, the return to older models is easier that to start something completely new, a partial revival according to an older model is therefore more practical and supported by the influence of the morphogenetic memory. Return (revival) can never be perfect but it is not determined to bring back very old things that already vanished from the space of the cosmic memory. Mutations within the natural selection include also this phenomenon: images and experience of our ancestors. The models of behaviour of our ancestors still exist and they do not allow any “big leaps, “cultural evolutions” and other foolishness – especially when such phantasmagoria fail, the images from the lives of our ancestors emerge and bring the evolution back.
The nations of the West thanks to this “remember” spontaneous disjunction campaign in the sixties, which was not carried out in the East – on the contrary, there was mostly conservatism. To return to older models than to use disjunction campaigns is easier for the nations of the East, while the Western nations will still remember the images of their “cultural revolution of the 1960s”, when they “embraced” all the nations of the world, tolerated all differences and thought that pacifism will solve everything. These naiveties keep coming back, they are imposed upon the East by economic and politic power, and the universities are also still held captive by these images. The East has no other option but to maintain a certain cultural independence and create its own model. The fear from the return of the Communist regime prevents this and therefore a new ideal is needed.