A Weightless Invitation…

There are new ideas on some subjects that I present that some people have very fixed existing opinions and beliefs about. I am not presenting this information to contest them, or challenge them, or ‘make them wrong’. Each of us is self-determining as best we can, with the information and experience we have chosen to make important from alllllll the billions of data points we’ve all been exposed to in our lives.

But I have sat for decades, afraid to share, because I was afraid of people attacking me from the erroneous belief that me sharing my experience and insight for those who it could benefit would be perceived as an attack on them, when really, this work is offered to everyone with the belief that anyone can benefit regardless of race, sex, religion, culture or other beliefs.

In line with that, my intention is to offer as weightless an invitation as I can.  By that I mean I have worked to try to make my offerings free of elevation, manipulation, coercion, shame or implied consequence, FOMO and the rest which are the hallmarks of all ‘weighted invitations’ (eg sales pitches). 

I’m seeking only to make my offerings and to let your mind and senses to do the rest.  Either this work will ‘make sense’ to you, and be effective and useful for you, or it will not.  It is not for everyone though, and that’s fine.  Nothing is.

I am simply sharing with you as an invitation and opportunity for greater informed choice and experience in your life. 

With that said, I also do need to make a few bold positioning statements about that invitation, for what exactly are you being invited to?

---

Three New Paradigms,.

I didn’t want to use the term ‘new paradigm’ as I have an aversion to its overuse in ‘new age’ fields.  However, I mean it descriptively and properly in its proper meaning.   It is the correct term to enable your informed decision making, and in how it can be properly considered in relation to what you already know on these subjects.

I will of course explain my position and claim both here and across the site, but let’s find out what a ‘new paradigm’ even is! This is important because true new paradigms are not really compatible, or comparable, with old ones in the classical and proper sense.  The formal term for that in Kuhns work on ‘new paradigms’ (which is who we get the term and concept from) is incommensurability.  

As per Kuhn’s work on the subject, to satisfy the conditions of a genuine new paradigm a few things need to be true.   It is the failing of these tests in modern use cases that make the casual use of the term ‘new paradigm’ saturated and near to useless.

• What is a 'paradigm?'

  Here’s a few dictionary definitions relevant to my use of the word :
  
  From Oxford Dictionary Online :
  
  - A pattern or model, an exemplar; (also) a typical instance of something, an example.
  
  - A conceptual or methodological model underlying the theories and practices of a science or discipline at a particular time; (hence) a generally accepted world view.
  
  Both a bit dry, but dictionary.com gives a slightly more user friendly definition:
  
  - a framework containing the basic assumptions, ways of thinking, and methodology that are commonly accepted by members of a scientific community; such a cognitive framework shared by members of any discipline or group.
  
  - a general mental model or framework for anything.
  
  So a Paradigm is a pattern, model or set of beliefs, theories or assumptions that shape how people look at, think, and apply themselves to a particular field.
  

• So then what is a 'new paradigm?' Tomas Kuhn originated the term, and definition.

  I did read from different sources to get a good summary for you, but Googles AI did a great job from me just entering ‘kuhn new paradigm.’  Here is a summary that explains it very well: 
  
  A "Kuhn new paradigm" refers to a scientific revolution as described by Thomas Kuhn, where a fundamental shift occurs in a scientific discipline, replacing an old, established paradigm with a new and incompatible one. Instead of a linear accumulation of knowledge, Kuhn argued that science progresses through phases of "normal science" (puzzle-solving within the current paradigm) and "revolutionary science" when anomalies build up and lead to a crisis, which is resolved by the adoption of a new, completely different paradigm. 

  Phases of a scientific paradigm shift

  • Normal Science: An established framework—the paradigm—is used for a period of routine research, which includes a shared set of beliefs, techniques, values, and assumptions.

  • Crisis: As scientists work, they uncover anomalies, or puzzles that the current paradigm cannot solve.

  • Revolution: These unsolved anomalies lead to a crisis within the scientific community, eventually resulting in a new paradigm that is incompatible with the old one.

  • New Normal Science: The new paradigm becomes the accepted framework, and the cycle begins again. 

  Key characteristics of a new paradigm

  • Incompatibility: A new paradigm is often fundamentally different from the old one. The two paradigms are considered incommensurable, meaning they have no common standard for comparison.

  • Resistance: The scientific community, especially older scientists, often resists the new paradigm, as they are deeply committed to the old one.

  • Non-linear progress: According to Kuhn, science does not necessarily progress toward a more "true" model of reality, but rather moves away from the old paradigm toward a new one that is better at solving puzzles at that particular time.

  • Shift in worldview: The adoption of a new paradigm involves a fundamental shift in how scientists see the world, as if "the whole world changes along with it". 

 I’m obligated to use it anyway to both reclaim the term for its proper use, and to position my offering properly from outset for your mind to assess.

Why Does It Matter?

Kuhn states that new paradigms emerge usually in fields of study or science already mature, but with unexplained anomalies in the existent model.

To satisfy the claim of a ‘new paradigm’, the new model must be one that presents an expansively new perspective on an existent ‘thing’ (area, field, body of knowledge) that both changes the way it is viewed quite fundamentally while also correcting/explaining the anomalies.   

If the model does not both change the view AND explain/correct the anomalies, then it is not a true ‘new paradigm’, but just a ‘new perspective, but still within the current model, even if it is fringe.’

Further, and obviously, the model must be transmittable, testable, and repeatable, with repeatable results.

This matters for two reasons - to enable comparative conversations for people who are still viewing the topics from within the old perspective to take place in the proper way,

`