It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Paradigm shifts: Natural or Planned?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Paradigm Shift- a radical change in underlying belief or theory

Summary: As I write this my mind is changing. As you read it, so is yours. Every nano second brings with it new streams of information that the biological machine in our skull somehow processes with untold efficiency.

This thread will attempt to examine the unique circumstances that sometimes cause the minds of humans to question their method of processing information all together, to drop all preconceived notions, to honor the possibility of having been wrong, and to consider accepting a radically different way of thinking.

Who initiates these radical shifts? Is it the natural progression of thought in the context of a freely evolving society? Or is the intellectual lives of common humans on Earth driven by controllers with a greater plan in mind?

How are minds changing in society today, and what will be the next significant paradigm shift?

The intended emphasis is on popular paradigms, as opposed to personal.

Historical shifts - The term "paradigm shift" was coined by Thomas Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," a book published in 1962. Since then it has been applied to ares beyond the physical sciences, including relgious/spiritual, economic, cultural, political, and basically every other field you can think of. Thought is obviously dynamic and ever changing, but here is a brief list of some truly radical shifts:

Geocentric to heliocentric, spontaneous generation to bio genesis, acceptance of Einsteinian relativity, quantum mechanics from classical mechanics, acceptance of plate tectonics, outlawing slavery, voting rights for women followed by feminism, Keynesian economics, monarchy to democracy.

We find that we are always at risk of outdated paradigms creating cognitive bias.

Transmission of Ideas If you could trace all of your thoughts to their original source where would you end up? God? How about before that - parents, school, education, media. How capable are people of sifting through deception in favor of better truth? Hitler convinced a nation of no intellectual lacking to commit genocide. It is important to consider crowd psychology, which includes the theory of convergence which proposes that crowd behavior is initiated by certain individuals.

What is the potential for a single person to create a paradigm? See the crowds devoted to Jesus, Buddha, and to lesser extents Obama and Romney. What gives a person the ability to influence the thought of many?

Also consider paradigms of institution, such as church and government.

Conspiracy Implications- Is there any greater power than the ability to systematically manipulate the thoughts of others? Do we find probability that people are being taken advantage of by others who feel they are of superior class?

Paradigm Battles - With three elections in a row of near 50/50 splits, it is clear that America finds itself in a polarized environment. Local vs. Federal. Freedom vs. public safety. Regulation vs. free markets. God vs the scientific method. If people can not curb their beliefs with open mindedness, we face extreme attitude polarization. Democratic discourse breaks down when a person's ideology is set in stone and seeks only confirmation.

What are some examples of broken paradigms that are commonly accepted?

Who is responsible for these failing ideologies?

What specific shifts are required to create a better functioning society? How to initiate?


Any insight on mass psychology manipulation, current or historical, and the implications as it relates to some radical shift in common belief...




posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by MassOccurs
 


Hi MassOccurs,

I am sort of still waking up (on first coffee)... I scanned over your post, and just started writing my thoughts...please let me know if I am touching on what your goal of the topic is or if I am straying, Thank you.

I will give this a go:
I think we adjust our thoughts based on our perception of the environment around us based on both current events and our own individual previous conclusions from life experiences and things we were taught and excepted as truth/fact.
A hundred people can see the same event and each have a slightly different thought on the matter, would you not agree? With that thought, our brains will access previous information together with the new data and like a puzzle will shape that thought to fit into our previous picture of the world. If that data conflicts with previous data we will become confused and confusion compells us to find the error. Under certain circumstances...Classical conditioning as an example.....If this method was used to condition the brain to respond to confusion with say... a flight response....then what?
I am not saying a flight response as in a physical running away (though I believe some minds can be influenced to respond just that way)...but in a flight response as in a thinking way.... where your brain resets...(that's how I describe it) as if the conditioned responses forces your brain to reject further thought on the idea that created the confusion.. and responds with whatever it was conditioned to do, like become defensive or offended...or even get a sudden desire to eat pistashio ice cream...even though you hate ice cream lol... You follow me?

Just as we are influenced, I see there are ways to invoke a mass response by provoking particular instincts to kick in. This I would have to look up, it has been awhile since of studied social behavior in groups.


When I think of the brain, I visualize and am referring strictly to the energy involved (still acknowledging the energy may have a profound effect physically) complete with a unique frequency and wave pattern.
Imagine 10 people in a room (or a million) and each brain transmitting its own frequency and wave unique to any other in the room.
Emotions and thought also will either dull or intensfy the intesity of these electric signals. Which as you know, will effect every nearby current, plants, animals, etc...both manmade and natural.


We have controls for the population as well... psychiatry is an example. TPTB will use this under the cloak of medicine and caring in order to research and control that which is not understood or desirable in my humble opinion of course
There are many examples as to other ways psychology is utilized to control/study many segments of people and their thoughts too.

I wanted to lay the groundwork as to how I am approaching this subject (thinking this is where you are going?), please reply to build on this or correct me in the way you want to lead this subject. I keep thinking you want to discuss how the masses are influenced ? Is this correct? Thanks in advance.
edit on 15-8-2012 by ScatterBrain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ScatterBrain
 


Yeah thanks, your initial post will go a long way to give this some momentum. Was worried I put it up a little early and it might drop off the map...

also gave me an excuse to respond and double the post count.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ScatterBrain
 


As far as the goal of the topic, it's pretty broad and open ended. Mostly I'd like to hear varying opinions relating to any of the questions posed.





A hundred people can see the same event and each have a slightly different thought on the matter, would you not agree? With that thought, our brains will access previous information together with the new data and like a puzzle will shape that thought to fit into our previous picture of the world. If that data conflicts with previous data we will become confused and confusion compells us to find the error.


Well said. Thomas Kuhn said a scientific paradigm shift was the result of unexplained anomalies, similar to your idea of confusion.




When I think of the brain, I visualize and am referring strictly to the energy involved (still acknowledging the energy may have a profound effect physically) complete with a unique frequency and wave pattern. Imagine 10 people in a room (or a million) and each brain transmitting its own frequency and wave unique to any other in the room. Emotions and thought also will either dull or intensfy the intesity of these electric signals. Which as you know, will effect every nearby current, plants, animals, etc...both manmade and natural.


I like that imagery, and would like to hear your thoughts on an additional aspect that I often visualize which is thoughts/attitudes have a gravitational like behavior. A more powerful or "heavier" thought process will attract the thoughts of others, especially when amplified by voice and language. In this process, it is easy to imagine a scenario where one person in your room of ten can dominate the other nine minds and create a paradigm.

Similar to how our common beliefs/attitudes have roots in historical aristocracies.




We have controls for the population as well... psychiatry is an example. TPTB will use this under the cloak of medicine and caring in order to research and control that which is not understood or desirable in my humble opinion of course There are many examples as to other ways psychology is utilized to control/study many segments of people and their thoughts too.


So when it comes to thought manipulation your first association is the psychology establishment...

Find that interesting and definitely agree, and it sounds like you think the problem lies in faulty assumptions with regard to physics and neuroscience and the way the education system will have you view the mind.

They don't talk much in school about the physical chain reaction that takes place as the brain is thinking. We are led to believe that the mind is fully contained within the limits of the cranium.

I think you hit on a possible major scientific paradigm shift, which is a tangible interaction between mind and environment and the potentials involved including "psychic" stuff, which may just be a perceptive aptitude to this mind/environment interaction.


You mentioned TPTB, how far do you think the manipulation goes? Did they facilitate major shifts, for example, toward Darwinist evolution? That was a major development that greatly increased the influence of the scientific establishment as a whole...



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MassOccurs
 


Have a look at the work of Clare Graves www.clarewgraves.com... and the popularization of it under 'Spiral Dynamics'. It is a fascinating study of the development of paradigms in culture. In brief, it found via research that cultures go up and down a sequence of paradigms, and that at a point the "flavor" of the paradigms repeat but at a higher level of abstraction.

Each paradigm develops in answer to the challenges that the success previous paradigm caused. Development is rarely just linear up the spiral, it sometimes reverts, Individuals can be in different paradigs, and the main zeitgeist of the culture hovers around a specific paradigm.

The sequence in very brief, with the colors as mnemonics as per Spiral Dynamics are:

Beige: Integration as an individual. As humans we can generally assume we get this by default. Eventual challenge: safety and belonging.

Purple: grouping together as 'tribes', this paradigm is all about trust in the community, safety and forming group identity. Challenge: recognizing skill as valuable and necessary sometimes in conflict with relationship.

Red: development of individual specialization, possibly conflict with tribe customs. Sense of "might is right". Challenge: Waste because of conflict.

Blue: Development of agreement, law, objectivity, roles, science, standards, transparency, advanced commerce. Challenge: beurocracy, inefficiency and rules for the sake of rules.

Orange: development of individual ingenuity within the system of rules. Entrepreneurship and industry, optimization and often exploitation (resources and people). Challenge: environmental and/or social collapse.

Green: development of systemic cooperation, focusing on sustainability, harmony, pragmatism. Challenge: existential meaning, appropriate response to differing paradigms (especially red).

Yellow: social integration, (in my understanding a fundamental shift in identity to the network). Yellow is analagous to beige where all the previous paradigms are integrated and expressed appropriately, so this now gives a deeper insight to what exactly happens at beige that we now take for granted. Higher grade challenges lead to a new spiral of paradigms.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by asciikewl
 


I've been working in my scarce spare time on an economic model based on this, ranging from understanding the current political and financial crisises, to asking where do you start designing a new currency model to replace the broken one we have now (Gold is still based on the trust that in the future the culture will still value it, as it is mostly practically useless in the volumes we mine it and then hide it underground again, very strange behavioiur if you ask me, it also gives disproportionate political power to anyone with a gold mine). Apartheid, as brain dead as it was, would never have received the attention it did if it wasn't being executed on vast fields of gold ore.

A very quick intro so some of the ideas is on YouTube:



www.youtube.com...
edit on 2012/8/15 by asciikewl because: Added YouTube link before



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by asciikewl
 


Highly interesting... Graves is/was a professor at Union College, which is right down the road from me.

Any opinion on what the prevailing color of America would be? Possibly mixing toward yellow?

And am I right that you see shifting ideology as more of a natural cycle as opposed to the result of covert manipulation?



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
My 5 biggest paradigm shifts in life so far:

1. 9 years old, find the gifts in the closet, that I thought Santa was supposed to Bring = Santa is my parents!! Santa isn't real. It's made up. The Bible and Church is made up too, maybe!!!! 9 years old I become as close to Atheism I ever have

2. Re-explore Christianity in my early 20's. Get Rebaptized. 3 weeks later I undergo a vast array and years worth of Mystical experiences that Transcend everything I ever thought was possible giving me complete credence in the reality of the existence of not only Jesus and everything he thought, but also God and the afterlife.

3. My Mystical experiences get me kicked out from church. They have no clue. The leaders of these Churches know Dogma and exotericism. They have no clue of the actual realities of the things they teach.

4. I remember pre-existing, prior to having a body, personality, mind, etc. SO now my life here, I simply brush off my shoulders. Passing through as a tourist.

5. Studied Zen, read my first Koan, and wrestled with it for 30 minutes. Eventually I was not only released from the ego/mind, but I also became merged with all of reality, as a drop of water falling into the ocean. This was the source, where we came from and where we return to. Beyond a shadow of a doubt this was more real than anything else I have ever known in this life.

Now I look back at Atheists, Christian fundamentalists, and Zen Buddhsists among everyone else and see that no one is completely right about the entire picture. Everything is its own chamber so to speak.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


To you see any potential for your personal paradigm progression to apply to larger society?

Will religious dogma be replaced by a more universal study synthesizing Eastern and Western ideology?

How did the norms of society contribute to your thought evolution? Would you have experienced these breakthroughs sooner if education was in line with your concepts of oneness, or maybe you would never have been motivated to truly seek were it not for an element of dissatisfaction?



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MassOccurs
 



To you see any potential for your personal paradigm progression to apply to larger society?

Heck Yes!!!!! To get the Ultimate truth and experience it, you have to kind of get rid of everything you know, all bias, likes/dislikes, and distance yourself from mind/ego.

The experience of that Fundamental Source is Universal. It's always there waiting to be discovered and does not discriminate nor choose sides. My whole character has been completely chnaged by it and continues down a more selfless route.


Will religious dogma be replaced by a more universal study synthesizing Eastern and Western ideology?

Yes, its already happening. People want to have the experience of Absolute Truth instead of merely dogmatically discussing it. There is change in the air. I'm seeing 18 year olds hungry for the truth and change, whereas when I was 18, my peers were hungry for video games, drugs, and the munchies.



How did the norms of society contribute to your thought evolution?

The norms of society SUCK!!!!! Everything is dumbed down and the things we should be studying is hidden in the libraries collecting. The Truth is anti-pop.


Would you have experienced these breakthroughs sooner if education was in line with your concepts of oneness, or maybe you would never have been motivated to truly seek were it not for an element of dissatisfaction?

If they grouped students and education by likes, we would have HUGE breakthroughs very quickly in our world. Instead the public education is basic cookie cutter BS. When I think of my K-12 education, I remember very little of what I learned.

When I think of the last 5 books I read in my life, I've retained the gist of what all they say and life life by them and the insights theyve given me. EVerything else was brainwashing BS.

If everyone could instantly access the Oneness, it would be a different world. Yet we come from that, and are all heading back into that eventually. Life here is an experiment in how we all act under the guise of Illusion



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by MassOccurs
reply to post by asciikewl
 


Highly interesting... Graves is/was a professor at Union College, which is right down the road from me.

Any opinion on what the prevailing color of America would be? Possibly mixing toward yellow?

And am I right that you see shifting ideology as more of a natural cycle as opposed to the result of covert manipulation?


My guess is that capitalism is a stuck state with an Orange value engine and a Purple ownership model (used to be blue in some respects, has degenerated and eroded the blue base). If blue goes, you're right back to red I.e. occupy wall Str etc.

Open source is definitely a yellow phenomena. Giving away creates the max value and all other existential needs have mostly been met. The way that the key successes OS has had is by being pushed by companies that dumbed it down for corporates tells me commercially the us is still mainly in orange. A lot of Americans I know are cross over orange/green. A large group of younger ppl operate from green and will integrate into yellow with influence from the Internet if at all supported.

The moving paradigms in a culture definitely has natural cycles that can be influenced within limits, get stuck, be sabotaged by attacking something that used to be taken for granted and accelerated by visionaries and meme plexes.

Our money is definitely stuck in purple and that is the main weight limiting mass switchover to green and yellow. My analysis suggests that 2 types of currency is required, one type for liquidity that can tolerate interest, another type for value store that is rooted in shared community value and should not be linked to interest of value store type.

I should really start a thread about this



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by asciikewl
 


Enlightening take,




The sequence in very brief, with the colors as mnemonics as per Spiral Dynamics are:


I'd appreciate if you could elaborate on the process of associating certain colors with various attitudes. Is the color itself important or just a means of separation? For example, the color red is quite ambiguous in meaning to people. Many associate it with love just as aggression. I'm not familiar with the term mnemonics...




I should really start a thread about this


You certainly seem to have some concepts that aren't well discussed and substantial background sources, but we might as well keep the discussion here so my profile can mostly benefit from it (my Redness is showing) .


btw...wikileaks...that cant be a coincidence right?
edit on 15-8-2012 by MassOccurs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by MassOccurs
reply to post by asciikewl
 


Enlightening take,




The sequence in very brief, with the colors as mnemonics as per Spiral Dynamics are:


I'd appreciate if you could elaborate on the process of associating certain colors with various attitudes. Is the color itself important or just a means of separation? For example, the color red is quite ambiguous in meaning to people. Many associate it with love just as aggression. I'm not familiar with the term mnemonics...


Mnemonic: memory tag. The colors are cleverly picked. Warm colors red and orange are the individualistic drive. Getting better than your group members. Cooler colors Purple, Blue and Green represent group dynamic.



You certainly seem to have some concepts that aren't well discussed and substantial background sources, but we might as well keep the discussion here so my profile can mostly benefit from it (my Redness is showing) .


btw...wikileaks...that cant be a coincidence right?
edit on 15-8-2012 by MassOccurs because: (no reason given)


Lol. Orange optimization. Red would only be happy if they were winning the argument by any means. Read almost any democrat/republican thread for examples. Purple likes secrecy. Blue has to be transparent to function properly. Wiki leaks is a response to the massive purple invasion into blue space in the last few years/decades. If you read Adam Smith, a capitalist market (orange) is dependent on unrestrained entry (blue strives to treat everyone the same) and free flow of price information (blue provided transparency). Take those 2 away and you will eventually kill orange. People know that and know ear worldview is dependent on that (conscious or subconscious).



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by MassOccurs
 


Hi MassOccurs,

Good Morning. Wow, you keep touching on so many interesting areas that it was very difficult what to reply to first, they all are very interesting. I have my own brain issues ha-ha... (aka.ScatterBrain) so, it will help if we tackle one area in this broad discussion at a time, is that cool with you?




So when it comes to thought manipulation your first association is the psychology establishment... Find that interesting and definitely agree, and it sounds like you think the problem lies in faulty assumptions with regard to physics and neuroscience and the way the education system will have you view the mind.


Yes, data manipulation and deception too.



They don't talk much in school about the physical chain reaction that takes place as the brain is thinking. We are led to believe that the mind is fully contained within the limits of the cranium.

You mean flight or fight reactions stuff like that?
I recall some discussion, I think the classes are so rushed that there is very limited discussion... but then again, I have not experienced a real school yet or I might be a bit slow, the jury is still out on this (I know real schools exist though).



I think you hit on a possible major scientific paradigm shift, which is a tangible interaction between mind and environment and the potentials involved including "psychic" stuff, which may just be a perceptive aptitude to this mind/environment interaction.


I have no doubt this has already been established.
Scenario:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This experience as well as others tells me there is some "source" transmitting more than random data. I came to conclude this as energy that somehow was transmitted, that I received. I have no clue who or how this was transmitted, or why. Maybe others received this same dream at the same time or did I alone dream this...I just have no more information than what I experienced. This happened in August of 96, (Angela Fuhri). I was in Alabama, this happened in Chicago.

Based on this experience I am more apt to believe that if our brain is capable of receiving data that’s specific, it is probable that the brain is capable of transmitting specific data.... *cough.. Prayers???, only transmittable with the right frequency perhaps?



You mentioned TPTB, how far do you think the manipulation goes? Did they facilitate major shifts, for example, toward Darwinist evolution? That was a major development that greatly increased the influence of the scientific establishment as a whole...


The manipulation is devastating (in my opinion). It would takes months of study just to absorb and accept just a small part of what is being done to the children... depending how long you stay in shock maybe much longer. I have been following some things for over 25 yrs and I only know part of what has and is being done. You can tell it, gives examples of it, point out the legislation, show results of it...and well....*shrugs...people feel helpless I guess.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ScatterBrain
 





The manipulation is devastating (in my opinion). It would takes months of study just to absorb and accept just a small part of what is being done to the children... depending how long you stay in shock maybe much longer. I have been following some things for over 25 yrs and I only know part of what has and is being done. You can tell it, gives examples of it, point out the legislation, show results of it...and well....*shrugs...people feel helpless I guess.


This brings me to a point that I hoped would come up...

In order for a paradigm shift to happen, people have to realize that the way they are currently viewing things is wrong/flawed. This can be a very difficult realization, and is often met with denial.

This comes from an article on a Harvard blog about the brains response to an unexpected find and having beliefs challenged:




When the subject — in this case, a lab researcher — viewed an unexpected result, the scan showed a dime-sized area of activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. As this Wired profile of Dunbar explains, that's like the brain's "delete" key. Now, as any editor can tell you, a delete key is a wonderful gift: by cutting out the chaff (of prose, of data, of life) we can see the wheat that much more clearly. The brain's process of filtering is what helps us pay attention. But for a scientist — or anyone in the business of discovery — if you habitually mentally delete anomalous data, how can you learn from it?


So scientists find that the brains first reaction to seeing the unexpected is to discard it... but...



And here's the kicker: though we think of being wrong as aberrant or unusual, in truth we're wrong astonishingly often.


It takes a pretty strong experience to shake a person out of their comfort zone and into a better way of thinking...



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by MassOccurs
 


Hi MassOccurs,

Good Morning.


This brings me to a point that I hoped would come up... In order for a paradigm shift to happen, people have to realize that the way they are currently viewing things is wrong/flawed. This can be a very difficult realization, and is often met with denial. This comes from an article on a Harvard blog about the brains response to an unexpected find and having beliefs challenged:


I would argue that in order for a paradigm shift to happen, different ideas and information must be offered or forced first. Then, the people must be led to believe that these ideas or information are better or correct and that their previous held truths are wrong or hold less value.

Bear with me ok... I find it easier to pinpoint better where an error in thinking occurs when I break things down..

Watch this very short snipet video... it's only 1:35 long. The discussion is about a man being shot 8 times in the head by the police. She justifies this action because the man ran from police...not because he harmed anyone or was a thief, it is said because he had an expired visa... so keep in mind the facts. Now pay close attention at about 1:20 of the video.....



The woman says,"I think people should give up their liberty for freedom"

What does this woman mean?


The definition of liberty: The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.

The definition of Freedom: The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

In order to understand how paradigm shifts happen, I think we ought to understand how they occur both naturally and planned. In the case of this woman.... she has justified a horrific act. Without jumping to the arguments...lets look at the words she used. Are we using a different language or dictionary? Somehow, there is a disconnect in our communication. Why is this?

This brought me to the issue of "Doublespeak"

Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs, "servicing the target" for bombing [1]), making the truth less unpleasant, without denying its nature. It may also be deployed as intentional ambiguity, or reversal of meaning (for example, naming a state of war "peace"). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth, producing a communication bypass.[2][3] However, euphemism is not the same as doublespeak. It will not be considered as doublespeak if it is used appropriately and without the intention to deceive. For example, using "passed away" to suggest somebody is dead is an appropriate use of euphemism.[4]


I argue that when we hear the shouts for democracy.... the understanding of the word has been intentionally distorted by the way it is used and taught. The deception is then perpetuated innocently by those who have learned this distorted version. I would argue that doublespeak has been carefully developed and utilized as a tool to help facilitate paradigm shifts in thinking.

A whole host of words have been hijacked and given deceptive meanings in order to deceive the people and create misunderstandings as well as break down previously effective communication between peoples.

I also argue that other words that are valuable to communication are being omitted as well (if you pay attention here....you will notice that this is also the case with online dictionaries..giving less and less information in particular areas).

When you hear that the public education system says it is critical that we teach critical thinking and communication skills, they are indeed being deceptive because the lesson nuggets that are used to facilitate these objectives involve doublespeak and contribute to the opposite of its stated intent, do you follow me?

So, for the purposes of digging further in this discussion, it is important that we understand some of the tools used that facilitate the shifts in thought and understanding.

For how can we reason together if we do not understand each-other right? Isn't this a shift in this world as well? a breakdown in communication?

a moment in history: Say goodbye to old words...

edit on 17-8-2012 by ScatterBrain because: added material



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ScatterBrain
 


"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Albert Einstein

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong. "
Thomas Jefferson

Suggesting maybe the ultimate paradigm is having no paradigm at all but a loose acceptance of all ideas.

"We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive."
C. S. Lewis

"Whenever I go on a ride, I'm always thinking of what's wrong with the thing and how it can be improved."
Walt Disney

"When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative."
Martin Luther King, Jr.


Or maybe there is truth to be had? And a difference between right and wrong?


"I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells. Fantasy is a necessary ingredient in living, it's a way of looking at life through the wrong end of a telescope. Which is what I do, and that enables you to laugh at life's realities."
Dr. Seuss

All above quotes from the first page on brainyquotes.com related to being wrong.



So it's a tough issue. Is there a superior paradigm to strive for? Or is the goal to experience a variety of mentalities and maintain the ability to accept them all? The woman in your video seems to have an anarchist take on things, and in such a world there would still be opportunity for fullfilling experience so I can't argue completely against it. Though, I tend to favor a societal structure where liberty is above freedom.

But I could picture a person in a lawless world feeling a higher sense of excitement...


Doublespeak is a term I wasn't well acquainted with, and it fits this discussion well. Sure, our times have improved communications in a sense with internet, phones, etc but a lot of people are missing essential points and shutting down mentally because of the deception factor. But I'm not sure there's any way to prevent words from having multiple meanings. I often find myself in a memory of a conversation and it dawns on me that there was a lot more to what was being said than I interpreted at the time...

Young minds are so easy to fool that even if giving an honest effort at providing truth, the child may find a way to distort it. I've certainly been the culprit of this and would say theres a near 100% probability that I'm still operating on some faulty assumptions and misinterpretations.

I guess the key is to try and take an active role in progressing personal paradigms instead of remaining in a reactive state to the assertions of others. Then, the hope is that an improved personal attitude/belief will somehow rub off on those around you.

Maybe early education should emphasize philosophy over "facts."



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by MassOccurs
 

Hi MassOccurs,




Doublespeak is a term I wasn't well acquainted with, and it fits this discussion well. Sure, our times have improved communications in a sense with internet, phones, etc but a lot of people are missing essential points and shutting down mentally because of the deception factor. But I'm not sure there's any way to prevent words from having multiple meanings. I often find myself in a memory of a conversation and it dawns on me that there was a lot more to what was being said than I interpreted at the time... Young minds are so easy to fool that even if giving an honest effort at providing truth, the child may find a way to distort it. I've certainly been the culprit of this and would say theres a near 100% probability that I'm still operating on some faulty assumptions and misinterpretations. I guess the key is to try and take an active role in progressing personal paradigms instead of remaining in a reactive state to the assertions of others. Then, the hope is that an improved personal attitude/belief will somehow rub off on those around you. Maybe early education should emphasize philosophy over "facts."


What if a shift has occurred right there in how and what we teach the children?

What if the education system decided to do just that, shifted away from facts and instead taught a particular philosophical view?

Who's view might you think appropriate?

Would it be acceptable for one culture's philosophical view to override another's? Or should we eliminate all views that conflict with another?

How do we handle the parents who might disagree with the philosophies being taught to the children?

I am curious, are you suggesting their are no universal truths? Example: When the heart no longer beats, the body is dead.
edit on 17-8-2012 by ScatterBrain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ScatterBrain
 


Prioritizing philosophy....

As an approach not a particular one. I think the education system doesn't do justice to impact that Socrates, Jesus, Buddha, Confucious had on the world. Give kids the tools to think with before the thoughts. Emphasize the different approaches to life/learning. The seperation of church and state shouldn't cause us to avoid histories most influential figures. Also provide a stronger sense of morality based on history.

Start by teaching how elusive/subjective fact and knowledge really are, follow with the popular approaches while withholding judgement. When we learn science it's not often mentioned that the content will most likely be obsolete in 100 years.

Does the body die when the heart stops? Or does it multiply into billions of new lives in the form of decomposers and bacteria?

It's easier to claim universal truth based on religious intuition than science/logic. You're entire body could be an illusion all together. I reccommend the movie Source Code, came out 2011, real good.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MassOccurs
 


Hi MassOccurs,


Prioritizing philosophy.... As an approach not a particular one. I think the education system doesn't do justice to impact that Socrates, Jesus, Buddha, Confucius had on the world. Give kids the tools to think with before the thoughts. Emphasize the different approaches to life/learning. The seperation of church and state shouldn't cause us to avoid histories most influential figures. Also provide a stronger sense of morality based on history.


I agree. The education system is teaching a global philosophy, they have been doing it for more than 20 years. So you are not happy with it? Kids are not learning the tools they need to expand their own minds. If you do not mind, can we keep religion out of this discussion for now? You have made this topic already very broad and as I said earlier, it is easier for me to tackle one topic at a time by breaking it down. I hope you understand. This global philosophy has been implemented in the education system as I said. Many are finding it to be failing our children.


Start by teaching how elusive/subjective fact and knowledge really are, follow with the popular approaches while withholding judgement. When we learn science it's not often mentioned that the content will most likely be obsolete in 100 years.


No, we teach our children how to read, we don't change the meaning of established words and we teach the meanings in context so our kids understand and can communicate across generations and if they choose, they can pick up a dusty old book and read whatever they want. Teach them to read and write so they can communicate their own thoughts, ideas, and story without being dependent on others to expand their knowledge. This tool will give them the ability to see all opinions and make his own decision as to how he views life and purpose.
Let's use history for your example. History teaches us what happened when government did various things to their people. When some laws did more harm than good, etc. History shows us what mistakes were made and the harm it has caused. It helps us not to make the same mistakes again. It gives us examples of warning signs of things that lead to terrible events so that we can recognize and prepare ourselves not to be tricked by a trick in the past that harmed us.



Does the body die when the heart stops? Or does it multiply into billions of new lives in the form of decomposers and bacteria? It's easier to claim universal truth based on religious intuition than science/logic. You're entire body could be an illusion all together. I reccommend the movie Source Code, came out 2011, real good.


If you are interested in finding understanding and facts in your topic, I am interested in participating. If you think that there is no truth and there is no right or wrong then your topic is mute and there is no point in discussing it further.
Can we stay on topic please. I am not referring to religion and I am not familiar with a lot of TV...I find it pollutes the mind, distorts who we are and the world we live in. I am referring to truth. Can we agree that it is wrong to lie? Can we agree that when someone lies about something, the receiver is cheated from the opportunity of making a proper judgment or decision because of the faulty information? Can we agree that telling something that is not true can do massive harm?

edit on 17-8-2012 by ScatterBrain because: spelling



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join