Talk:Paradigm
From Academic Kids
The last paragraph of the current article criticizes in POV fashion the use and/or abuse of this term. The criticism is silly in the respect that words, obviously, do not have immutable meanings: words are tools to express whatever an individual or community want them to communicate. On the other hand, using a word in a sense that is unknown to an intended audience, indeterminate, meaningless or misrepresentative is not helpful. If wiki is to have any diatribe on use/abuse of a word, then the first word on the list should be metaphysical. IMO, that word has been the greatest source of error, misunderstanding and nonsense in the history of the world. Besides all that, there is at least a third use of the word that is common (perhaps the most common) and meaningful which is used in the sense of Weltanschauung. My article edit that follows reflects what I've stated here. --B 16:48, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Isn't there also a second use in linguistics, a "paradigm sentence", meaning an example to be used by analogy in correctly forming sentences? -- Jmabel 22:59, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Paradigm? To me, that's 20 cents. --User:Juuitchan
| Contents |
"The Human Paradigm"
(Lengthy and not apparently relevant Christian tract that was anonymously pasted here moved to Talk:Paradigm/Tract. -- Jmabel 17:32, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
deigma
What's a deigma? lysdexia 18:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I assume you mean in Greek? I don't think all on its own "deigma" means anything, but I could be mistaken. You might ask one of the people listed at Wikipedia:Translators_available#Greek-to-English. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:33, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Gebser's new consciousness
I think it would be relevant to insert a paragraph or so about Jean Gebser's theories on change in consciousness. — FJ | hello 08:16, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Cybernetics
Is there any citation for the claimed use of this term in cybernetics? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:12, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Paradigm as "Weltanschauung"
I would like to suggest another perspective to the concept of what a paradigm is: The Gestalt that forms my "Weltanschauung"
In my recent dissertation I also discussed the use of paradigm in the understanding of Kuhn and others, but found it to be unclear and similar to other concepts like a model.
Kuhn defines a paradigm as: “an entire constellation of beliefs, values and techniques, and so on, shared by the members of a given community” [Kuhn, T S; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd Ed., Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago & London, 1970, p.175]. This definition by Kuhn appears in the 1969 postscript to his original book, because originally the use of the term paradigm was not clearly defined). Besides this definition Kuhn mentioned another sense of use he had: Paradigm also “denotes one sort of element in that constellation, the concrete puzzle-solutions which, employed as models or examples, can replace explicit rules as a basis for the solution of the remaining puzzles of normal science” [Ibid]. The term remains imprecise due to the different uses it is given.
I would suggest a definition describing paradigms from a structural perspective as levels; the macro, messo and micro levels of a paradigm. It is an attempt to be more fundamentally concerned with its structure than the chronological- historical categorisation or the etymological use by most disciplines. The levels of paradigms are always present and not limited to categories. They assists in an understanding of the functioning of a paradigm.
In the macro level, a cognisance of the basic assumption to the question: ‘what can be understood’ is required. Can it in reality be assumed that the essences of ideal things could be known at all as in Plato's and Aristotle's use of the theory of ideas? Is it not possible that the things themselves are allowed to reveal themselves as they are as the in Heidegger's fundamental ontology. The question is: "to which perception does a comprehensive awareness come to, when the preconceptions in the first philosophical assumption is known and accepted?"
In the messo level, the question is how the macro level influences and forms the resulting theory of knowledge. “Is only deductive-delimited knowledge of human perception available to man, or is man open to an inductive-comprehensive understanding of the world?”
In the micro level, the consequence of these two questions of what is in and how the world is understood, is used in a practical way of doing. Is the praxis built on multiple ‘laws of conduct’ (ethic), or is it a fundamental and constant encounter with the open world as a different way of perception (which I like to call affective awareness). Previous and current understanding of perception is limited to essentialistic categories of limitation. Affective Awareness is by nature open and unlimited.
So a Paradigm is a view of reality that is a 'Gestalt' resulting from:
(1) my metaphysical assumption of what could be known (refer to the pre-Socratics Parmenides and Heraclitus). It forms the basis for:
(2) my conception of epistemological knowledge acquisition (refer to the Platonic - Aristotelean to Popperian line vs. the 'Unscharf relation' of Heisenberg's quantum theories to Heidegger's 'Fundamental Ontology' line). This in turn is the basis for the:
(3) praxis in an ethic for living. It is obvious that the three branches of philosophy describe the structure of a paradigm. None of the branches of Metaphysics, Epistemology and Ethics can be left out for understanding paradigms. Together they describe a 'Gestalt', akin to a spiral (not a mere circular) movement forming a Hermeneutical understanding.
Hermeneutics is not merely an interpretation of something; it is a developmental cycle that involves:
(a) "Wahrnemung" as an 'affective awareness', which is more than mere sense perception. The method to affective awareness is through 'ontological understanding'. It forms the principles behind a paradigm, conceived as either the Heraclitean 'flux' or the Parmenidean 'one'. This principle is perceived as the relation of the limited to the unlimited. Ethical principles like the golden ethical rule of “Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you” are formed here.
(b) "Verstehen" as the analysis of 'being' as self understanding. Here the building of or coming to a theory of knowledge is achieved, determined by the assumptions in my metaphysical 'belief' of the nature of reality in (a). These assumptions necessarily tend to a predominantly inductive or mainly deductive theory of knowledge acquisition reflected in an epistemology. Ethical norms like the sanctity of human life and freedom are formulated at this level.
(c) "Ethos" is the attempt to form the world we live in by growing an 'attitude' or participation in a mutually structured reality. All those who choose to participate in this reality, do it by 'taking responsibility for personal actions' in a social environment. More concrete ethical code like monogamy and what we consider to be 'true and correct behaviour' is systematised as 'dogma' at this level.
(d) "Praxis" is doing the 'right' thing. It is the behaviour resulting from systematising (a), (b) and (c) as a Gestalt, where the whole is more than the sum of the parts. This behavioural level is again the basis for "Wahrnemung", repeating the cycle on an new level. Most important is to understand that this cycle does not now start from the previous position of departure; there is a 'new awareness' of the praxis due to the previous stages in the cycle, elevating the next cycle of "Wahrnemung" from the previous with a new understanding. This is the basis for the correct understanding of development. It is far more than a mere 'mechanistic' process. Another important point is that there is no start or end point in the cycle, every stage is on an elevated level to its previous position. A circle has a start and an end, which has actually no development; it is only a reaffirmation of what was before in a stagnant fundamentalism.
Thus, a Paradigm can only be seen in the context of a Hermeneutical cycle in the Structure of the Paradigms. It supersedes mere interpretation or just bringing understanding. It implies that Paradigms are developmental by nature, moving in a hermeneutical cycle instead of a process of recurring mechanistic circles. Describing a paradigm as an era, epic, model, weltanschauung, or any other term is hardly more than merely renaming the concept of a paradigm to some other known concept.
I hope it opens another perspective. Comments are welcome!
Lando L Lehmann
Primary source: '"Paradigm Development in Systematic Theology", Dissertation at the University of South Africa (UNISA) by Lando L Lehmann, Nov 2004.
- Edit: Contact me at LandSr>at<GMail.com
- On the whole I agree with this, although I think the wording is unnecessarily abstruse and, in places, obscure ("and/or/nor"?). Is your dissertation, or some variant on it, headed for peer reviewed publication? If not, this may be a bit perilously close to the kind of original research usually disparaged in Wikipedia, although I think it probably should be within the pale. Do you think you could reword what you wrote here in a style more appropriate to the general reader? If so, it's probably worth incorporating into the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
- I tried to clarify the text. Please suggest where there are still some unclear parts. The primary source is available as a PDF, pending written consent from the University to distribute it. Untill then, requests can be made to ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT) (http://www.proquest.com) -- LandoSr (LandSr>at<GMail.com)
