Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

Subject: Re: Thomas Kuhn Author: HDT [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 13:20:56 04/11/01 Wed In reply to: Anthony 's message, "Re: Thomas Kuhn" on 13:19:23 04/11/01 Wed I dunno. I mean yes I am looking for stuff already written on current shifts, but I was wondering if these publications, websites, etc. point out that these are paradigm shifts. Furthermore, I wonder if they recognize that these smaller incidents that you pointed out are part of a greater shift, or an overlooking new paradigm. All the examples you mentioned are good and indeed are indicators, but indicators of what. What is the underlying philosophy? Capra seemed to think that science changed the world. We now have that as a backbone to our culture, and all the smaller shifts you pointed out are being justified, or at least explained by terms and ideals that science helped create. So I guess I am wondering if they are really shifts, or just new incidences in our already dying paradigm. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> Subject: Re: Thomas Kuhn Author: Anthony [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 13:22:23 04/11/01 Wed Okay, we are going on the assumption that our paradigm is dying here, according to your thoughts. I guess that Capra seemed to think so, right? That is why you say that it is dying, right? Has been dying for how long, hundreds of years? What is the paradigm, the overarching paradigm? I guess it is the mechanistic Newtonian worldview, right? A sensate worldview lacking in spiritual concerns? Maybe that is why we have these religious right backlashes as evidenced in the Army of God. And why we have the lack of consideration for human life as evidenced in the school shootings and even the use of abortion as birth control. So in the Western culture, we have been running on the sensate, industrialized, science and rational thought-driven paradigm. And the things we are talking about, all the little shifts, are then signs of this paradigm's decay, right? I suppose these "negative" changes in mentality can be called paradigm shifts as well....a paradigm shift does not alway have to be positive, I suppose... [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Thomas Kuhn Author: HDT [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 13:24:10 04/11/01 Wed I guess I was not clear enough, which is always possible with my writing. What I am trying to say is that these indicators of a changing world are not necessarily paradigm shift indicators. They are just symbols of a dying or soon to be irrelevant paradigm. I see these negative aspects of our culture as problems that the old paradigm just cannot solve. Meaning all of our scientific thoughts and processes do not bring actual relevant answers that can solve these things. I would therefore assume that what we need would be a new paradigm that would allow us to think in a different way, spiritual, mechanical, whatever. One of the main problems I have is that all of the ways we have mentioned do not really strike me as original. Meaning, we are in the midst of a mechanical world and have seen through historical study that there have been spiritual worlds. Say what you will, but we are still a product of the industrial revolution and age. This information age melarchy is just an offshoot of that industrialization, based on, and brought about by our reliance on the scientific method. We have seen both types of worlds, and I do not see humanity going back to either. (Maybe we are in need of a duality in our paradigm?) I want to know if there is anything new out there that anybody has noticed, what would Fritjof say is new and has potential. For I do not think these negative examples of changing society are shifts, they are a resemblance of the crumbling old shift. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Thomas Kuhn Author: Anthony [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 13:25:12 04/11/01 Wed I totally agree. Let's not overcomplicate things, right? By that I mean I stood the chance of overcomplicating things by calling the changes in behavior due to the dying overarching paradigm by the name "smaller paradigms". But I suppose, buy the strict definition of paradigm, we could say that there are personal paradigms that belong to the people inside the larger paradigm, right? But anyway, this is all semantics, I think we are saying the same thing. I totally agree with all that you have said, no matter what terminology you and I are using that may differ. Remember that Capra mentioned the idealistic paradigm, which was a balance of the ideational paradigm type and the sensate paradigm type, if I am not mistaken. I wonder if there is evidence of such a paradigm emerging? [ Post a Reply to This Message ]