paradigms, new and used
Locked
 
|
This is mostly directed to Steve G. and might be better taken off-line at some point.
Some questions about the God-Science paradigm conflict. 1) Is there a 'conflict difference', even in degree, between religion and science and Institutionalized Science and Religion? it seems to me that a lot of the conflict arises when the Institutions seek to advance absolute dogma and assert sole possession of Truth. Politicians and political factions seem to exploit this Institutional conflict, especially the "sole possessor of Truth" aspect to demonize others as idiots and fools — all to gain advantage and control but not because of any sort of deeply held conviction about whichever side they are leveraging. 2) Have you 'prototyped' or limned what an alternative paradigm might look like? What features, salient positions, essential premises, etc. would be required to satisfy your quest? 3) Are there any existing paradigms that might serve as a foundation for a desired alternative? I would consider Taoist, Vedic, and Hermetic/Alchemy traditions as potentially useful. What do they lack, from your perspective? (I would also advance the theology — not the Sunday School Institutional dogma — of Mormonism as a possible model, because it makes no distinction between knowledge and truth based on its origin.) 4) Once an alternative paradigm is formulated, how is it promulgated? How might one go about convincing the world at large to accept it? davew - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Scientists have deeply held convictions of the "truth" inherent in mathematics. In order for the "collective intelligence" to imagine an alternative paradigm (even Stephen G's genius can not do this alone), we have to start by gathering the critical mass of system thinkers that I believe exist now. They must put a stake in the heart of certainty and assuming mining the past can help very much. There are no real precedents for what we now face. Then, we must understand the boundaries defining the content of the system; understand the structure, the way the system is organized in its connected, dynamic relationships; recognize the feedback loops that provide emergent behavior in the system as well as the system's adaptation to change; take a look at Meadows' leverage points for intervening on behalf of emergent outcomes. And finally--learn how to facilitate group processes so that new paradigms for a new future can emerge. Diffusion of the innovative paradigm--I truly believe--requires a moral commitment to help facilitate self-organization through peer networks that are heterophilous, that is diverse and non-elite, as opposed to homophilous, networks where high-status individuals only confer with each other. Diffusion research began with E.M Rogers' work in 1962, and it's still the standard today (with a Fifth edition published in 2005). Rogers found that adoption of innovation takes place when information is exchanged through interpersonal relationships. The data are shown as a bell-shaped frequency curve or an S-shape cumulative curve, considered "normal". (See Rogers, "Diffusion of Innovation.") The advent of mass media and social media has evidently not made much difference, although there doesn't seem to be a lot of new research post-Rogers. What's interesting for us today--and especially my own work as I develop a collaborative "Playbook" training manual for facilitators leading local community-based groups into an altered, but adjacent possible future world--is that Rogers' research looked at how shifts in agricultural methods came about. The "regenerative agriculture" movement is diffusing a new paradigm for how everyone might grow food in the future. The new agriculture is being promulgated and adopted through heterophilous methods and early adopters at a grass-roots level, NOT in the academy. On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:26 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote: This is mostly directed to Steve G. and might be better taken off-line at some point. Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |