Conference hydra::dejavu

    
    Sounds like you're saying 'Try stepping into my shoes for a while' (?)
    
    Mark

     It's early, I'm not quite awake and I'd like to say I'm real
     tired of this new buzz-word, "paradigm".  *Everyone* is using
     it - from new-agers to DEC management.  Yech.  Why do we always
     have to have new and fancy words that no one can pronounce because
     they violate everything we learned about phoenitics and that everyone 
     has to look up in the dictionary the first time they see it only 
     to find it doesn't mean anything new.  When I first heard it, I thought
     the person using it needed 20 cents - "What I feel we need are 
     new pair of dimes."  Really.

     Sorry,
     Terry zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......

    
    Chill out, Terry....:-)
    
    Actually, me and my best friend were using this word alot about 6 or
    7 years ago, so it's not like it was just invented or anything....
    ...it's just like a lot of other words - they may appear to cycle
    in and out of our experience.
    
    Start using words that you prefer - maybe others will join in.
    
    guy

    
    
    Yes Terry....it's been around for awhile, only now a lot more people
    are using it.  It's like all this New Age stuff.  Some people were
    working and involved in these pursuits 10-15 years ago when it wasn't
    very popular.  *Now* look at it! ;-)
    
    Carole
    
    P.S.  Go back to sleep!

re: last two

    I'm awake now and ready to meet the pair-a-dimes of a new day ;-).

    Terry

    re: .5 (Terry)
    
         I'll raise you a nickel..."In this quarter there are those
    who believe in ufos, in this quarter, however,..."
    
    ;-)
    Frederick
    

re: .6 (Freddie-Flameout)

    Huh?????

    Terry

    If you just speak what you consider is your TRUTH...backed with
    the emotion of your heart, and without any fancy way of creating
    another pair-a-dimes of communication survival...and of adjusting
    yourself and you speak naturally....
    
    What more do you need?  Shouldn't that suffice? 100 years from now
    will all be dead anyways...unless your on a low cholesterol, high
    carbo diet, do aerobics 5 times a week, don't live near a nuclear
    plant, don't hold onto any stress, live with a smoker, or don't
    practice Fred's favorite word--> (SEX)...unsafely...
    
    Duh?
    -Arthur ;-) 

    	Thanks for your interest in my topic !  ;-)
    
    	Terry made my point very cleverly.   And I'm very happy
    	to see that I'm not the only grumpy one out there this week :-).
    
    	I accept his criticism of the term 'paradigm', and
    	assuming it wasn't just a joke referring to George Carlin's cable
    	TV routine, I'll be happy to consider options.   Let me
    	'share' my 'scenario' of 'paradigm' with you :-) ...
    
    	I use it because it has to me a precise meaning and because it has a 
    	special emotional connection for me that is related to my hopes and 
    	dreams for the future.  It means to me a model that contains the 
    	explicit belief within it that it is a model, and not reality.   
    
    	The term 'model' is close, but too imprecise for my meaning,
    	since it implies (to me) that there is something specific that
    	is being modelled, rather than just a progression of better
    	models, ad infinitum, for each of which there is the higher
    	realization that it is not literal truth.
    
    	By appreciating this sense of 'paradigm', like the people
    	who use 'hologram' and other metaphorical references, I think
    	a special sense of dynamic reality can be conveyed that gives
    	hope for the future.   As I said, I'm happy to try another
    	approach, if someone has a better term or a better idea,
    	or a suggestion for where I can go stick my goofy theories.  :-)
    
    		warm regards,
    
    		Todd

    re: .8,
    	That was great !  I agree completely.
    	Todd

    Ah one of my pet peaves -- abuse of the word "paradigm".  Jargon can
    serve a useful function, when it allows one to compactly say some
    specialized concept that is difficult otherwise to express briefly. Too
    often, however, jargon serves to dress up a perfectly ordinary concept
    in an expensive suit and pass it off as something special.  And this is
    what the word "paradigm" usually (not always, of course) serves to do.

    First off what is the original meaning of "paradigm".  Look it up -- it
    means "an example".  Usage extends that a little over the raw
    definition -- it is an example which is useful to copy.

    The philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn tried to distinguish
    "revolutionary science" from "normal science".  Scientists in any
    community, according to Kuhn work within a system of standards and
    beliefs. There are standard experiments and standard methods for
    solving problems and explaining phenomena within the community.  This
    effects what questions can be asked and what answers make sense.  Most
    of the time, according to Kuhn, scientists do "normal" science -- they
    push the ideas within their community by using the standard methods of
    that community.  In the process, problems and anomalies accumulate that
    those methods of experimentation and explanation do not handle well or
    at all.

    Eventually, those problems accumulate to such an extent that the old
    methods and viewpoints don't make sense to some group of scientists.
    They create a "revolution" by rejecting the old methods and views
    (which don't really make sense to them anyway) and developing new ones.
    They ask new questions, give different kinds of answers and do their
    experiments/make their observations in new ways.

    Kuhn had some interesting insights which had major affects on later
    thought in philosophy of science, but basically he was so simplistic as
    to be wrong.  It is hard to find examples of Kuhnian normal and
    revolutionary science in anything even vaguely approaching a pure form.
    It might be more accurate (though still not accurate) to say that
    science is continual revolution of varying scales, with an almost
    fractal character to it.  Even Kuhn no longer accepts Kuhninan
    philosophy of science.

    Anyway, one of the things which Kuhn wanted to talk about was the
    tendency of scientists within a community to take a single basic
    experiment and to do a large amount of their experimental work by
    repeating that same experiment with appropriate variations.  He dubbed
    such an experiment a "paradigmatic experiment" for the community.

    Somehow, the word "paradigm" grew from this basic usage so it came to
    mean the entire culture of the community -- their way of approching
    problems, asking questions etc.  Kuhn later appologized for falling
    into the trap of using an inapproriate word -- "scientific culture" would
    have said more, with less implied "magic" about it.

    Anyway, the thing to realize about  a "paradigm" in the Kuhnian sense
    is that it is very inclusive.  You cannot mix paradigms, for example,
    excepin trivial ways -- if they are not incompatable they are not
    Kuhnian paradigms.

    Anyway, about the time that philosophers of science were going beyond
    Kuhn (say about 1973), scientists and science hangers on were
    discovering him.  But of course, no one wanted to admit that they were
    doing/interested in "normal science".  Whatever they were doing was
    a "new paradigm".  The word came withing technical circles to be a
    catchall phrase which allowed someone to not have to think about what
    they were talking about *and* simultaneously promote what they were
    doing as "revolutionary" and "special".  It is used widely when what
    is really meant is "idea", "method", "technique", "style", "metaphor",
    "tool" or "formula".  I have to continually tell people that I am
    *not* an expert in the "Object-Oriented Programming Paradigm", rather
    I am an expert in the "object-oriented style of programming" -- and
    that I am quite able, thank you, to think coherently about conventional
    programming styles and use them effectively where appropriate.

    Now of course, as I notice the word starting to die out in the
    sciences, its seems to have spread into the wider culture -- probably
    through talk of "programming paradigms" in the personal computer
    literature.

    The lure of getting something for nothing is always tempting, and many
    very intelligent, creative and brilliant thinkers get suckered into
    using the word "paradigm".  But 99% of the time, another, more precise
    term would serve just as well (without, of course including the self-
    promotion).  When I hear someone using the word, I always stop and
    say, "stripping off the implied adjectives of 'brilliant and new' what
    is this person really talking about".  "Paradigm" like most jargon is
    a hinderance to clear communication.  When you feel tempted to use it
    stop and consider why you want to dress up what you are trying to talk
    about.

				    Topher

    re: 1396.11
    
>                            -< Sorry Todd, but... >-
    
    	Absolutely no need to apologize, Topher !  I very much enjoyed,
    appreciated, and learned from your explanation.  I need to use words
    at times :-) so I benefit from your experience in using them more
    precisely when that is appropriate to transfer a specific meaning.  
    
    I am not here to defend my silly beliefs and definitions of the moment,
    which I know very well are 'flawed', but to learn from the people here 
    and to have fun expressing myself, and maybe hopefully contribute 
    something of value some day :-).  
    
    Due to its apparent negative associations, I've hereby sworn off the use 
    of 'paradigm,' except when speaking historically about Thomas Kuhn's 
    intellectual development.  :-)
    
    Thank you as well for helping to make my point about communication
    and 'feeling' associations !   DEJAVU is a great forum for expanding
    parad... ooops err I mean ... new ways of communicating :-).
    
    	very sincerely, :-|
    
    	Todd 

    re: .11
    
    I agree this is an excellent note.  Now.  Where would use of
    the word _be_ appropriate?  I noticed the word `fractals'
    which (I believe) is part and parcel of Chaos theory.  Do
    you feel that Chaos represents a new paradigm?
    
    I note that a few D.C. politicians are using `paradigm'
    so let's all be prepared to buckle our seatbelts!
    
    Joel
    

    
    I say we use any darn word we want to use and whenever we want to use
    it. :-)  
    
    Chaos doesn't represent a *new* paradigm.  Chaos has *always* been
    here.... we've only just begun to recognize its role in our existence.
    
    Mary

    Gosh, things 've seemed pretty chaotic to me for some time now,
    but then I'm working to create that.  ;-)
    
>    I say we use any darn word we want to use and whenever we want to use
>    it. :-)  
    
    	Thanks for your paradigm of paradigm, Mary.   I agree with you,
    too.  And I feel the need ... Paradigm Paradigm Paradigm Paradigm 
    Paradigm Paradigm Paradigm.   Worldview, model, map.  Perspective.
    Hypothesis.  Theory.  Asymptotically more structurally similar models
    approaching the shape of the face of God.  
    
    	Do we need to start a separate note on metaphorical communication,
    or have I successfully changed the reality here ?  Don't worry,
    I wont change the title again, unless you want me to.  :-)
    
    Now that I know the word paradigm is associated with nausea,
    I can change YOUR realities, too !  :-)
    
    	flakily,
    
    	Todd

Those with little of importance to say often hide that fact behind large
words I believe the assumption to be "if they can't understand what I'm
saying they wont realize I don't either".

KISS

-j

RE: .13 (Joel)

>    Now.  Where would use of the word _be_ appropriate?

    Part of the problem with Kuhn is that it is rather hard to find real
    examples of what he came to call a paradigm.  Two scientists from two
    paradigms have to have essentially incompatable views of things -- they
    have to consider different questions about the same broad subject as
    "interesting" or even "meaningful".  Although the "new" paradigm will
    in large part grow out of the same basic material (e.g., the stuff you
    might get in an introductory course) it parts company in much of the
    rest, and views even the basic material rather differently.  Even
    technical terms with shared, precise definitions tend to mean rather
    different things because of the way they fit into the whole.

    There is some truth to this -- Kuhn basically taught philosophy of
    science the importance of social forces -- of the community -- to the
    interpretation and the reception of scientific ideas.  But things are
    not as black and white as Kuhn painted them.  Scientists show more
    flexibility in their thinking then he implied and the communities in
    fact tend to blend into each other in an almost continuous manner.

    Paradigm in the Kuhnian sense might be applied to the difference, for
    example, between the ultra-objectivist behaviorist psychologists and
    mechanistic but subjective psychoanalytic psychologists.

    Perhaps, the word paradigm might have evolved into a less extreme term
    with some real use, to express ideas about cultural conflicts within
    science (although there seems nothing wrong with using words like
    "community" or "culture" rather than "paradigm"), but that has not
    happened.  Instead it has become a buzz word to mean "a really *fancy*
    thing-a-ma-bob".  This usage has probably dilluted the original meaning
    that Kuhn attached to it beyond recovery -- there is probably no good
    way to use it in the Kuhnian sense.

    You can still use it, of course, in its original, somewhat obscure
    sense to mean an "apt example".  For example: "Viet Nam has come to
    be a paradigm for how *not* to conduct a war.".

>    I noticed the word `fractals' which (I believe) is part and parcel of
>    Chaos theory.

    Fractals is part of the mathematical theory of analytic geometry (i.e.,
    geometry described by equations).  It has a long history but has only
    recently been recognized as a single coherent mathematical subject.

    Chaos theory is part the physical theory of dynamics (i.e., the study
    of how things move, both through "real space" and by extension, through
    various abstract spaces).  It has a long history but has only recently
    been recognized as a single coherent physical subject.  The
    mathematical theory of fractals has proven useful, even essential --
    along with many other mathematical theories such as topology -- in the
    development of the theory of chaos.

>    Do you feel that Chaos represents a new paradigm?

    It has created new scientific communities, new ideas, new approaches to
    old problems, new interest in questions previously considered
    uninteresting or intractable, and new tools.  So it has some of the
    characterisistics of a Kuhnian paradigm.  But the old "community" has
    to a large extent embraced, accepted, welcomed and even over-hyped
    these changes and so there has been no gross dichotimisation which
    would be characteristic of a Kuhnian paradigm.

				    Topher

RE: .14 (Mary)

>    I say we use any darn word we want to use and whenever we want to use
>    it. :-)

    Of course, Mary, I have no interest in dictating what words other
    people use.  I was simply warning you that in my experience almost
    anytime someone uses the word "paradigm" there is a word or short
    phrase available which will communicate their ideas better or more
    clearly.  If your purpose is to communicate rather than impress with
    the latest buzz word than you will -- assuming that you agree with my
    analysis of course -- *wish* to avoid the word paradigm.

    Also, when you use the word "paradigm" you run the risk that people who
    don't know you will think that you are more concerned with form than
    with substance; more concerned with self-promotion than communication;
    and more concerned with words than with ideas.

>    Chaos doesn't represent a *new* paradigm.  Chaos has *always* been
>    here.... we've only just begun to recognize its role in our existence.

    Paradigms, whether in the original sense, the Kuhnian sense or in the
    popular sense is concerned with ideas rather than reality.  It doesn't
    matter how old or new the thing that the idea of a chaos refers to; or
    even whether it exists or not; what matters is that we have "only just
    begun to recognize its role in our existence" -- that makes the
    *paradigm* (if we are going to use the word) new.

						Topher

    I appreciate the interest shown in this topic, since I was afraid
    it might be viewed as too far from Psychic Phenomena to attract
    attention, or too broad to be worthwhile, since I did not provide
    specific suggestions (yet) for a new communications model.

    	Let me start over in a possibly better way :
    
    Intended relation of this note to the conference theme ...
    
    I currently have a belief that the ability to produce (and possibly to 
    detect) various Psychic Phenomena may be related to the way they are being 
    communicated about, and the language and belief systems of the observers, 
    so I feel that it is one of those cross-conference type of topics that 
    might be interesting here.   I'm referring to, for example, among other 
    things, a hypothetical effect that the cognitive mechanisms of the 
    observers may influence the phenomena itself, and our ability to detect it.

    My use of the word 'paradigm', and the interesting responses to it 
    so far in this note have illustrated my point that the behavioral 
    response that results from communication results more on people's 
    own associations with the word and with the speaker than on their 
    understanding or attempt to understand the mental structures which the
    speaker has, which I believe is one of the important purposes of
    communication.  
    
    My intention is honestly not to criticize anyone for that, 
    I'm equally prone to it of course, I'm just pointing it out.  My
    perception is that no note except for .1 has reflected back to me, except 
    in a very meta-communicative sense, much of the intended meaning I had
    in mind in my base note.   Communication with our current skills
    is *obviously* not as trivial as some of the sideline notes here have been
    stating or implying.   Some people are expressing interesting opinions, 
    but I'm having trouble getting anyone to interact sincerely with my ideas.

    Some of the notes in here so far have been very hard for me to
    interpret.  What is this worm about big words and little words ?
    I get a sense of some fear or anger or other attempt to criticize
    each other for their language skills, or subtly imply something about
    their intelligence or intention or ego from their selection of words.  
    What is the *purpose* of that kind of comment ?   
    This is in my mind part of a mode of communication that causes problems 
    between people without realizing why they are really happening.  If 
    anyone has a valid criticism of the statement of any ideas here, 
    especially if they are mine !, please feel free to state them openely, 
    and to refer to specifics.  I am much 'touchier' about vague attacks
    than specific ones, because I understand the power of metaphorical
    communication.

    I will remain open to all comments and feedback, but please in
    deference to the base note intention try to keep your comments focused
    and specific and I will try to do the same.

    	very sincerely,

    	Todd Stark

    In my hast to grumpily criticize people's criticisms, and generate subtext
    about the subtext :-) I inadvertently glossed/skimmed over 1396.1 and 
    1396.17, which reflected back much more of my intention than I realized 
    before.   Thanks for those notes, Paul and Mark.
    
>All this (the "subtext" as some folks call it) is going on at the same time
>as the equally valid intellectual communication too.  It's great!  Language
>can perform several functions at once and yet it seems almost transparent.
    
    Yes.  And ... I am *fixing blame* specifically
    and strategically on the skills and underlying beliefs from which we 
    communicate, and which I think need to be upgraded significantly
    on a global basis.  I called this a paradigm or model (which is all
    paradigm means, btw, in its formal definition outside of science)
    because of my own associations, which are not shared by all.   Those
    words are not important to my intended purpose.
    
    I am suggesting in part that we adopt a policy of
    protocol-awareness, and observe the results of our communications
    as *feedback loops*, and regulate them instead of just letting them 
    carry us away.  This gives us the ability to change those common
    aspects of our reality, and understand our universe.
    
    	kindly, and with high hopes,
    
    	Todd

    Todd,
    
    I must confess (and I hope I do not offend you by saying this) but
    I often have trouble understanding what you are trying to say and 
    this is one of those times.
    
    Also, I'd like to point out that no single individual can enforce any
    kind of "communication policy" in notes, except in so far as to
    regulate corporate guidelines.  
    
    Mary

    Mary - 
    
    I don't think Todd (or anyone else here) is trying to "regulate"
    communication in this file.  My impression is that he was merely
    pointing out that we may not all have the same internal definitions of
    some of the terms that are bandied about so freely in here.  If
    miscommunication happens, maybe that's due to our own internal
    definition of a term rather than another source's definition.
    
    Personally I've enjoyed reading the input from everyone here.
    
    Nanci

    Mary,
    
>    I often have trouble understanding what you are trying to say ...
    
    Maybe verbally, but your responses feel to me as if understand me 
    perfectly at the emotional level, which is very satisfying to me.
    Thank you for that feedback.
    
    Maybe I'll try another approach.
    
    We think we are separate entities, and we are actually a big interacting 
    collection of processes.  Our beliefs are processes, our sense of 
    identity is a process.   If someone really understands that at a deep 
    level, how can they possibly think they "understand" each other ?
    
    They have only a process of understanding.  That's why I might
    assume that I understand you, and then go off and act on that
    understanding and cause you grief.  Feuds are the result of mutual
    fixed understandings, polarized by the internal notion that
    people are what they seem to be at the moment.  Because I wasn't fully 
    cognizant during my action that my understanding was fixing a mutable 
    belief in time, I assumed at a deep psychological/linguistic level you 
    *are* that belief, and that I must harm you for your belief.   If I 
    understood the reality of understanding, I would have been more flexible in 
    my approach.   
    
    The deep, internal, linguistic, and emotional knowledge of this
    as opposed to the verbal and intellectual knowledge is what I am
    getting at.  Integrating what we know from the processes of 
    science, philosophy, personal insight, and so on, to change the 
    way we represent our world is the key, IMO.  This is a personal process for 
    each of us, but has enough commonality that we can share guidelines
    about it, and yes, paradigms or models, or whatever.
    
    	The result is not attached to *me* but results in a process 
    	of some sort that is not under my control, but the union of
    	everyone communicating with each other.
    
    	hopefully ... 
    
    	Todd

    re: .23, Nanci,
    	Correct-a-mundo about policy and regulation.  Sorry if my
    	passion translates to authoritarianism.  I also try to 
    	"lead by example," but I'm still refining the process,
    	obviously.
    
    	Yet another approach (I'm a multi-media communicator) :-) ...
    
    	Both you and Mary exemplify the most important part of process I'm 
    	aware of at the moment, that of ongoing dialogue instead of
    	fixing our ideas and definitions.  Implementing bridge-processes,
    	to interact openly to seek out and achieve mutual goals.   Love
    	in its truest and most beautiful sense.   Love implemented as an
    	ongoing process represented in our actions instead of just 
    	being written down in a holy book, just being chanted in some holy
    	place, just coming to us in dreams or just between sexual lovers.  
    	No offense intended to dreamers, chanters, or lovers, who may
    	also reflect Love in their daily lives !  :-)
    
    		kindly,
    
    		Todd

    
    Todd,
    
    You don't sound authoritarian (at least not in a negative sense)
    to me. 
    
    But then, maybe I'm just lost in my own little paradigm....;-)
    
    guy
    
    
    P.S.  I've always hated that word.....:-)

RE: .27 (paul)

    Never said that a paradigm refered to a theory of everything.  And I
    never said that Kuhn's thinking was entirely wrong -- just over
    simplified.  

>And yet, as might have been expected by Kuhn, a flood of articles appeared
>in respectable scientific journals seemingly supporting the Stein-Wise model
>in the first few years after it was proposed.

    But that is precisely what Kuhnian philosophy of science would have
    predicted would *not* happen with a new "paradigm",  The referees for
    the "respectable" scientific journals would have been part of the
    traditional community and would thus have subscribed to the old
    paradigm.  Articles supporting the new paradigm would have been seen as
    crankish or nonsense, certainly *not* suitable for a "respectable"
    journal.  The articles would have had to either been either grossly
    "denatured" so their inspiration and support of the new paradigm would
    be barely noticable, or would be published in new journals or journals
    of an entirely different field.

    Kuhn's idea of a paradigm was too all-or-nothing.  You could accept,
    understand and use only one of the competing paradigms -- and
    conversion was rare; only "young turks" learned/developed the new
    paradigms.  And paradigm shift was a fairly rare event -- something
    that occured in any one shift only every few generations.  The idea of
    limited mindset and community in understanding the process of science
    was an important and innovative one -- but Kuhn's revolutions take
    place continuously in any living field at all scales, and in each
    individual scientist.  That is quite opposed to his concept of well
    delimited, *static* paradigms.

					Topher

Note 1396.24
DWOVAX::STARK

    I guess I get lost in the names and theories Todd.  For example, you
    referred to Oppenheimer but didn't mention who he was or exactly what
    theory he contributed.  
    
    I sometimes feel as if I'm in the audience at a convention of behavioral
    scientists presenting their current research paper.  :-)
    
>    We think we are separate entities, and we are actually a big interacting 
>    collection of processes.  Our beliefs are processes, our sense of 
>    identity is a process.   
    
    Help me out with this, ok?  
    
    A process is a series of steps, actions or
    operations used to bring about a desired result or it is a series of 
    natural changes by which something passes from one condition to
    another.  Is that right?  Or do you use the term as part of a specific
    scientific terminology that conveys a different meaning?
    
    Some of us certainly are a big interacting collection of processes as
    are our beliefs and sense of identity.... those of us who change and
    adapt as conditions change and adapt.  And those of us who are like
    that *are* like that in order to bring about a desired result or
    condition... thats true.  But does that apply to *all* of us?
    Perhaps it does ....  Are you saying that it does?
    
    >If someone really understands that at a deep 
    >level, how can they possibly think they "understand" each other ?
    >They have only a process of understanding.  That's why I might
    >assume that I understand you, and then go off and act on that
    >understanding and cause you grief.  
    
    Well... if YOU are a process yourself and not a separate entity and
    your beliefs and sense of identity is also a process then itsn't it
    merely a question of a process relating to a process?
    
    >Feuds are the result of mutual
    >fixed understandings, polarized by the internal notion that
    >people are what they seem to be at the moment.  Because I wasn't fully 
    >cognizant during my action that my understanding was fixing a mutable 
    >belief in time, I assumed at a deep psychological/linguistic level you 
    >*are* that belief, and that I must harm you for your belief.   
    
    I'll never understand humans... :-} ... why must you harm a person even
    if you consider them to *be* a belief?
    
    >If I understood the reality of understanding, I would have been more 
    >flexible in my approach.   
    
    You know Todd... I don't mean to be dense or argumentative but it
    occurs to me that a person that feels they must harm someone for a
    belief lacks more than understanding.
    
    >The deep, internal, linguistic, and emotional knowledge of this
    >as opposed to the verbal and intellectual knowledge is what I am
    >getting at.  Integrating what we know from the processes of 
    >science, philosophy, personal insight, and so on, to change the 
    >way we represent our world is the key, IMO.  
    >This is a personal process for 
    >each of us, but has enough commonality that we can share guidelines
    >about it, and yes, paradigms or models, or whatever.
    
    So you're saying that we think we understand one another but we don't
    and if we change the way we represent the world in our communication,
    we'd act differently?  Is that correct?
    
>    	The result is not attached to *me* but results in a process 
>    	of some sort that is not under my control, but the union of
>    	everyone communicating with each other.
    
    Todd... the vision that comes to mind is the elimination of pronouns
    :-).  Your concept has merit.  Other cultures have steered the course
    of their destiny through use of language.  Some cultures have no word
    for war for example.
    
    I won't pretend that I understand your theory though.... I must be
    particularly thick this month (the cold no doubt).  I don't really 
    understand what you are asking us to do.  But I'll watch the unfolding
    experiment with interest.
    
    Mary

    re: .28,
    	Are you saying that Kuhn's paradigm of paradigm has shifted,
    	but within well-behaved constraints ?
    
    	confused,
    
    	Toddy

    Todd, 
    
    Are you asking that we relate to ideas as concepts without getting 
    personal about them?  I mean without the creator of the idea getting
    defensive in protecting it and without the critic of the idea
    getting personal in attacking it?
    
    Is this it?
    
    Mary

    re: .18  (Topher)
    
    [after being with my sick - but not seriously so - child
    yesterday]
    
    Thanks for your response.  Things are becoming clearer which
    is, of course, what `communication' is about.  If Kuhn stands
    condemned of over-simplification I'm not surprised.  Taxonomists,
    for instance, cannot agree on how many phyla currently exist.
    I've seen estimates ranging from 20 all the way to 32!  So what
    chance does a philosophic taxonomist (if you will) have in
    precision?
    
    re: general
    
    My very simple feeling about communication is that it does not
    take place without some common understanding of terms and
    symbols.  Sure, we can use or not use `paradigm' as we will.
    But unless we have some general agreement on what the word
    means we will have to either have individual lexicons ("When
    person A uses it it means... when person B uses it it means...)
    or abandon any attempt at communication.
    
    It is amazing what simple, clear writing can do to promote
    communication.  Unfortunately, there is great art and skill
    in simplicity.  Would that I could achieve that.  But at
    least we can try to write clear declarative sentences and
    eschew the sort of jargon that stand in the way of being
    understood.
    
    Joel
    

    re: .28, Mary,
    
    	From my perspective, that was very beautiful, Mary, thank you !
    I started with what I realize now was gibberish to most people, some
    because it was too technical, others because it was too simplistic,
    others because they disagree, and others because they distrusted
    my motives.  By persisting in clarifying our intentions over time,
    we cut through a lot of the gibberish, redefined our intentions,
    learned (at least I did) and demonstrated faith in our ability to 
    understand each other.   That's what I mean by the process of 
    understanding vs. the entity of understanding.
    
    	Oppenheimer was the project engineer responsible for the
    Manhattan Project, the first atomic bomb, and one of the most
    powerful magi/reality creators of all time.   In my opinion, of
    course.  I'm using him as a symbol, not blaming him, just to clarify.
    
>    natural changes by which something passes from one condition to
>    another.  Is that right?  Or do you use the term as part of a specific
>    scientific terminology that conveys a different meaning?
    
    	There is a mental representation associated with each word and
    phrase we use.
    When I say "my opinion is ... x" or "the facts are ...y", or
    I am ...z" I am representing that statement as a static, something which 
    does not change over time.  When I say "I currently believe ...x", or
    "the evidence seems to indicate that ...y", or "Right now, I believe
    I am ...z", I am representing to myself that I know my opinions and 
    perceived facts and sense of identity may change over
    time.   
    
    To go one step farther, if I say something like
    "My mind is currently representing ...x," then I make it very clear
    to myself and others around me that I have a specific perspective
    but that I realize my current perspective is my current perspective, and 
    not something that is either static nor necessarily precisely the same
    as someone else's perspective.   
    
    [My mind is currently representing, with a strong emotional component
    of love and compassion for people I communicate with, and a strong desire 
    to be understood] that this type of structure,
    plus the more explicit allowance for feeling and sensory imagery 
    incorporated into language and culture can offset the effects
    of a lot of our daily difficulties, without reducing the precision
    of communication, and in fact would improve it as well as allow
    for the re-introduction of enchantment and magic into our lives
    and the hope for ever better quality of life.
    
    This note, for example, I currently represent to myself as a process for 
    transferring my energy to the few others that are interested and have a 
    similar feeling, but may not have considered the importance of their
    word and phrase selection and communication skills in improving the
    quality of their life.   I try to be a paradigm (eh, sorry :-)) of
    this belief myself, but of course I'm always changing.  I may not
    have represented the purpose like that before, and I may not later.
    It may come to be a symbol of my sense of futility in my personal life.  
    Who knows ?  It will continue changing, as I represent it as a process.
    
    Does that rambling of mine add anything to your life ? :-)
    This process is helpful for me, although I'm currently
    doubting its value to many others based on my feedback so far.
    
    Toddy	

re: .32 (Joel)

    > But at least we can try to write clear declarative sentences 
    > and eschew the sort of jargon ...
          ^^^^^^

      Ka-zundt-heidt...

      Terry  :-)
      

    
    Incorporating qualifiers into one's communication in order to
    acknowledge and represent the mercurial nature of reality can 
    only help us all to understand each other, Todd.

    I will make every attempt to do so myself.

    Thank you for your patience.
    
    Mary

re: .32, Joel, and .31, Mary,
    
>    Are you asking that we relate to ideas as concepts without getting 
>    personal about them?  I mean without the creator of the idea getting
    
     I don't intend this as flattery, but as 'feedback' that
     both of you and several others have expressed very well
     both by example and by explicit reference some of the mechanical 
     skills and self-examination of intention that I associate with our
     common path to improved communication.  Those seem like common or
     trivial skills but they are not, IMO.  
    
    I *also* am suggesting, and this is probably the part that has gotten me 
    deeply in trouble here as far as people's confusion, an apparently 
    obscure theory from modern linguistics that words themselves and the 
    structure of their tenses and transformations and such actually help form 
    our internal representations and limit our ability to transfer aspects of 
    our internal experience to each other.   
    
    Since I might seem to be
    changing my intention as I go along :-)  if interested you might 
    reference the linguist I mention in the base note, Alfred Korzybksi, in 
    his 'Science and Sanity' in the library.  He was one of the most eloquent 
    proponents of this concept, IMO, although his work is a little hard
    to get through.  Other sources are of course NLP (Neuro-linguistic
    Programming) materials which are based largely around this concept,
    but I've found even more negative associations with them than with
    PARADIGM from many people, so I don't like to mention them usually.  
    
    	very kindly,
    
    	Toddy

>    Thank you for your patience.
    	Is it over so soon ? :-)
    
>    acknowledge and represent the mercurial nature of reality can 
    
    	Bingo.
    
    	I love you and the others for your patience and understanding in this 
    	process.   I am representing it to myself as very promising
    	feedback :-)
    
    	(I deleted the version that just said "I love you" because
    	it sounded funny since we've never met :-))
    
    	"Hot" Toddy

    We understand that it's the generic "I love you" and not a commitment 
    to support us for the rest of our lives. :-)
    
    We also appreciate you, Todd.  You've brought insight with you... a 
    precious gift indeed.
    
    Mary

>    insight ... precious gift indeed.
    
    mmmmmmm, and just in time for the holidays !  Thanks, Mary.
    
    	Todd

    Perhaps the Kuhnian paradigm itself (if
    you'll permit me to add another turn to
    the screw) was once a good reflection of
    the way things were done (remember how
    people like Galileo were persecuted). But
    that now things change so fast, the feedback
    of information and research is so strong
    that the theory is hardly valid at all.

    Understanding the theory itself was a good tool to free
    people from certain mental attitudes which caused them
    to give to much credence to the 'status quo'.
    In a sense it would have caused its own downfall -
    even if it had been completely true.
    
John D.

    From the direction this took, I got the impression that it would be more
    appropriate for me to take some of my ideas to PSYCHOLOGY.  I'm slow on 
    the uptake sometimes :-).  I started note 177 there to discuss patterns of 
    communication as a start, and I'd be interested to discuss the technical 
    linguistic stuff there too (Korzybski, Chomsky, Grinder,etc.), if there 
    is any interest in it (?).  I'm not posing as an expert in that area, I'm
    trying to learn more !
    
    	thanks for the sharing my interest in paradigms and communications !
    
    	Todd

    
    I believe, based on my own experience, that if two people or groups 
    of people *really, honestly and truly* want to communicate, then there 
    are no barriers insurmountable enough to keep them from doing so.
    
    The problem lies in the hidden agendas, the denial of one's real
    purpose, and the tendency to talk _at_ or _to_ someone, vs. talking 
    _with_ someone.  To have a communication heart-to-heart, it means
    getting rid of one's ego and emptying oneself in order to be able to
    truly hear the other, regardless of whether the other agrees with the
    first or not.
    
    Emptiness is the crucial step toward creating a true community where
    all are heard and respected.
    
    Cindy

>>    getting rid of one's ego and emptying oneself in order to be able to
>>    truly hear the other, regardless of whether the other agrees with the
>>    first or not.
    


	Oh, my....thank you, Cindy.  Only this morning, I was thinking
about ego and how the lil bugger gets in the way.....in so many ways.

Meredith

    Needless to say (?) I agree with .42 and .43 very deeply.  My dumb words
    are just always getting in the way :-).  The word selection and response 
    I believe is related to our internal representations, and the organizing
    principle is the ego.  Awareness of my ego and its guises is the same
    as awareness of my true internal representations, since how I represent
    myself (identity reprsentation) is really my ego.  Gee, it's weird
    how we managed to connect somehow (?) seemingly in spite of my dopey 
    notes.  
    	Now, now, Todd, I'm sure you do your best, you character. ... :-)
    	
    	Todd_the_amazing_collossal_Christmas_Flake

	Customer			Shop owner
        --------			----------
	Do you have a four Volt
		two Watt bulb?
					A four what?
	No, two.
					Two what?
	Yes.
					No.
	Oh.....

    Arie - 
    
    :-)  :-)
    
    Nanci (who is somwatt dim-witted sometimes)  

    re: .45
    	Watt ??   Please illuminate me with regard to that
    brilliant and incandescent bit of enlightenment.
    Or is this just a filament of my imagination, and
    I'm really still in the dark ?   
    
    Toddy_the_low_wattage_artificial_Christmas_tree_bulb_just_in_time
    	for_the_high_profit_margin_season	

    Aw, switch it off, would you, Toddy?  ;-)  Your punomatic brilliance is
    giving me a headache.  Maybe you could screw in a soft-white instead?
    
    ;-)
    
    Nanci  

RE -1

>    Aw, switch it off, would you, Toddy?  ;-)  Your punomatic brilliance is
>    giving me a headache.  Maybe you could screw in a soft-white instead?

Nanci, I have a reply in mind.......

...... but I think I will leave it there....

:-):-):-)

Arie

    re: .49 (Arie)
    
         You beast, you!!  Do you think this has to do with the time
    of year?
    
    Frederick
    ;-)
    

    Arie - 
    
    I thought I said I had a headache!  ;-)
    
    Freddy - 
    
    Get your mind out of the gutter!  ;-)  I know that's where the rest of
    us are playing today but would you jump off a cliff just because
    everybody else did???  ;-)
    
    Nanci-who's-being-possessed-by-her-mother
    
    

    "The greatest problem in communication 
    	is the illusion that it
    		has taken place."
    
    			R.E. Marotta, from the DEC Dictionary

           Buckaroo   Banzai   says:
    
    Nothing is ever what it seems, but everthing is exactly what it is!

>    Nothing is ever what it seems, but everthing is exactly what it is!
    
    	That seems right to me.  
    
    		B*)

And along the same lines...

  "The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion."

     Arnold H. Glasgow

;-)

Nanci