• From Adam Fulford on TPR73 Certificate

    We can defer gratification when we must, but we naturally gravitate to hassle-free pleasure. Climate change is one aspect of a problematique whose various manifestations may end up deferring forever at least some of the many forms of gratification to which we have become accustomed or addicted. What lies beyond the urban episteme is a new awakening of mind and body in the umwelt. We must retrace our steps and engage with the traditional community from which we convenience seekers fled. The citizens of future cities must embrace a new understanding of the value and values that once sustained villages for generations. It will not be easy but that’s the point. We must backtrack to resilience in order to cultivate an outlook in tune with reality. The Faculty of Problematique will convene in the village.

    Go to comment
    2022/04/14 at 12:19 am
  • From Alexander Romiszowski on TPR45 The Duchenne smile paradigm.

    This is a test to see if the blog is still active

    Go to comment
    2021/01/05 at 10:53 pm
  • From JohnTiffin on TPR72 What can we do that a computer cannot?

    Mind, soul and consciousness are everyday paradigms that we use in general discourse and assume other people share the same meaning or refer to a common state of mind and perhaps they do, but exactly what that is in the case of the soul, the mind, love etc who knows. You touch on a need to classify paradigms, perhaps for a taxonomy of paradigms

    Go to comment
    2016/12/27 at 4:14 pm
  • From JohnTiffin on TPR72 What can we do that a computer cannot?

    I take the paradigm of the brain to be description of it as a physical object that neurologists agree on and the soul as a religious paradigm. The mind as a paradigm would seem to be somewhere in between.

    Go to comment
    2016/12/07 at 3:04 pm
  • From Robbie Koller on TPR72 What can we do that a computer cannot?

    Could I say John that what you describe as the intelligence of inspiration and intuition is not part of the paradigm of the brain but maybe the syntagms of the paradigm of the soul? Or mind? Or heart?

    Go to comment
    2016/11/27 at 1:04 pm
  • From Robbie Koller on TPR71 How real is epistemic rupture?

    Just look at Kaikoura! The epistemic rupture does not need to involve war. An earthquake will do!

    Go to comment
    2016/11/27 at 12:58 pm
    • From JohnTiffin on TPR71 How real is epistemic rupture?

      Nice example. Question is will Kaikora regenerate its existing episteme or ‘will it never be the same again’? What feels like a tripping event for an epistemic rupture on a global scale is the election of Trump

      Go to comment
      2016/12/07 at 12:57 pm
  • From Robbie Koller on TPR45 The Duchenne smile paradigm.

    John, on page 380 I think you use the word ‘cast’ but it should be ‘caste’. A group of people in your sense is a caste. Of course in a film it could be a ‘cast’. Robbie

    Go to comment
    2016/11/27 at 12:47 pm
  • From JohnTiffin on TPR73 Certificate

    The Olympic Games as it exists as an ideal is a metaparadigm. Actual games when they are decided on are its syntagms. To the countries involved and their athletes the different games that make up the Olympic Games such as those now being held in Rio now are the paradigm and the syntagms are those games they elect to compete in. Each game is a paradigm to the athletes and the syntagms are their actual participation. Before each game begins it presents a paradigm of possibilities at that time and place to the athletes. The moment the action begins it becomes a syntagm to one athlete that becomes a problem to an opponent and the paradigm changes. Paradigms are nested in paradigms, nested in paradigms, nested in paradigms. Wasn’t that opening ceremony something? A syntagm of what paradigm(s)?

    Go to comment
    2016/08/07 at 3:10 pm
  • From Veronica Hd on TPR73 Certificate

    As I read your ebook six I started with the strangest of questions: what is the answer you are looking for? A paradigm of everything cannot exist because there is no such thing as universal knowledge. There are universal themes that are common to the human condition but there can never be a universal knowledge. If there could be a universal knowledge or universal truth it would be our master and not our servant. It would be the biggest, baddest machine of them all. The Big Daddy competing with that other Big Daddy, the paradigm of religion, for our mortal souls and I have no doubt who would win and it wouldn’t be the big daddy of the heavens. And it was funny to go on reading your e-book because, almost like synchronicity, you started to write of the paradigm of religion and described a story told by your grandmother about an angry, vengeful god. And isn’t it the case that not only do we tell stories but, in an essential way, we become our stories too.

    I was recently reading Augusten Burroughs “A wolf at the table” and near the end of the book he writes about when he leaves home and finds an apartment to live in. But he’s had to spend everything he has on paying for the apartment so has no money left for food. He rings his father to ask him whether he can buy him some food for five days until his next pay check. And then he writes, “But could we have a normal conversation? Could I call him and ask him for food and would he bring it? Could anything be that simple?” Of course objectively there would many of us who would think that, yes, surely it should be that simple. And just as predictably of course it turns out not to be that simple at all. Another example, I am driving down the road and someone who should be going 50 kilometres an hour through a township is only going 30 kilometres an hour and can’t seem to decide whether they are going to pull in and park or keep driving. As the driver behind this person I was starting to get very annoyed and thought why doesn’t the driver pull over or keep driving instead of this in-between stuff. It seemed very simple to me what the answer to the problem was. But I know I have behaved in similar ways as the driver in front of me especially if I think I may have taken a wrong turning or I am in an unfamiliar town and think I have driven past the place I needed to park near to. So, can reality be anything other than subjective?

    But surely a theory about everything would not be able to be anything but objective, however, I think if an objective paradigm about everything could be invented I would be very afraid and rather suspect the death of humankind would be the result. For complete objectivity has no compassion, it has no empathy and it has no feelings. It would be like a bureaucratic god of the sky. A vengeful god would be a walk in the park compared with a paradigm of everything so give me that vengeful god any day for I feel less terror with that than I would if a paradigm of everything was created.

    Go to comment
    2016/06/27 at 11:21 am
  • From JohnTiffin on TPR71 How real is epistemic rupture?

    Warfare is a paradigm in which the sides involved see the other side as the problem and battles as syntagms. The infrastructure for war changes but the basic paradigm has changed surprisingly little. Compare the Spanish conquests in South America to what is happening in Syria and Iraq today. Conquest by war is a way of imposing epistemological rupture.

    Go to comment
    2016/05/09 at 2:51 am
1 2 3 5
Buy Now

View another part
Paradigm 1Paradigm 2Paradigm 3Paradigm 4Paradigm 5Paradigm 6