<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=KOI8-R" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Harrison Owen wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid001e01c5912f$6fb46170$1f6c2745@holaptop"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name="GENERATOR">
<style></style>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div><font face="Arial">And reading Wilber and Kuhn wouldn't hurt.
Both pretty bright guys. Kuhn doubtless wrote other stuff, but the
seminal work is/was "The Structures of Scientific Revolution" -- I
think it was published by Princeton, or maybe it wasChicago
(University Press). Wilber has damn near buried the world in paper. All
of it is good, but some is better than the rest. A good introduction
might be something like, "A Brief History of Everything." He is a
wonderful writer, great storyteller, totally outrageous, and a massive
intellect. Other thanthat he is pretty run of the mill. And if you are
looking for other good stuff to read, you might check out the section
on <a href="http://www.openspaceworld.com">www.openspaceworld.com</a>
called "Literature."</font></div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Arial"><br>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" [by Thomas S. Kuhn,
University of Chicago Press, 1962, 1970] had a huge impact on me when I
was in school in the early 70s. It is no surprise that Harrison has
done a fine job of capturing key points from it. I agree with Harrison
that, in Kuhn's role as a philosopher of science and historian at a
particular moment in time, he was more concerned with addressing the
barriers to breakthroughs, not what would come next.<br>
<br>
<br>
That said, I would like to elaborate on one aspect of Kuhn's work with
a slightly different em-PHA-sis. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
In doing so I also want to call your attention to Kuhn's earlier work,
"The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of
Western Thought" [Vintage Book/Random House, 1957, 1959]. </font></font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">While there is some real
astronomy in the book, it is fairly easy to read or skip in order to
get to the social implications. </font><font face="Arial"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">He also wrote a book called "The
Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change"
[University of Chicago Press 1977]. This one has less "hard science"
in it and you will recognize the how science was anticipating the
social consequences in our lives today.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The reason I think it is important to add The Copernican Revolution is
that Kuhn suggests that you know you are facing a paradigm shift when
people defending the dominant belief system are prepared to enforce
serious sanctions to maintain the status quo. Both Copernicus and
Galileo(reference in Scientific Revolutions) faced state enforced death
to pursue their new views. They were not "thinking outside of the
box." Their thinking, and that of others Kuhn refers to, were so far
beyond conventional thinking that they were not even acknowledging a
box that one might think outside of. They were laying the conceptual
foundations that were needed for Westerners to reframe what we might
now call consciousness. As much as we criticize the linear mechanical
thinking that spiral dynamics and other models help us escape, their
models seem to me to have been necessary <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
In my view, Joel Barker's superficial analysis of Kuhn has trivialized
what is at stake for people at the time of a real paradigm shift. </font></font><font
face="Arial"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">In both
these cases the dominant culture perceived threats to its belief in the
existence and power of God, to
the power that the church had because of its connection to god and the
power of the rich who filled the churches with riches.</font></font><font
face="Arial"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> The official
punishment for such heresy was death. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I think this is more than just a matter of semantics or an academic
debate. Barker has trivialized the potential depth and force of
resistance change agents (referring to people who see the new reality
and keep the light on it - be they community members or consultants -
AKA, outside agitators) must be alert to in systems at the time of a
real paradigm shift. Not only must change agents anticipate and plan
for the resistance, in my view (which I think is consistent with the
inclusive values of OST), the change agent must understand the fear
resulting from the perception of what is at stake and embrace their
resistance (not their beliefs) help create space to find what will be
required to let go and move on. If you think some people will resist
an "outside of the box" solution to a problem when people have at least
acknowledged there is problem to be solved, wait until you confront
their fundamental view of reality...something that they did not invite
anyone to do! In situations like this I believe OST facilitators need
to be able to create and hold space in a crucible of considerable
strength, and hoping people may think outside the box ain't gonna get
it. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
In the more modern examples provided by Kuhn the proponents did not
face state enforced death, but they faced potential professional death
through marginalization, loss of livelihood and other community
sanctions. As many of you know very well, there are times in civil
society around the world today where people may face death for
challenging the fundamenatal order of society. My experience is that
the people who propose "thinking outside the box" in such situations
are people who have very little insight into what is at stake and are
probably not going to have to hang around during the implimentation of
or living of the change.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
That does not mean I think people should not engage in the risky work
of paradigm shifts. On some level, having discovered the new reality
there is no going back. Just know that if it is really a paradigm
shift then there will be a lot at stake for the people promoting change
and those resisting it. I believe OST can and has helped create a
container for working on such change. It is why I honor the process
and do not take my role in it lightly.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
A much newer book I am recommending to everyone doing our kind of work
is "Navigating the Badlands" by a futurist named Mary O'Hare-Devereux.
While she does not use the term paradigm, she was noticing that, in
recent years, her tools were not getting her the kinds of results she
anticipated. She goes back thousands of years to compare times when
the world seemed to be evolving or developing or stagnating (behaving
in predictable ways) and times of transformation...when the whole world
seemed to get turned upside down (for many decades or more) before it
returned to some degree of predictability. For example, the use of
alphabets changed the world....not one alphabet, or the first
alphabet...the worldwide use of alphabets, all kinds of alphabets,
changed everything.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Anyway, she discovered there was a different set of patterns within the
chaos...order emerges from chaos. She then applies this to what she
believes is a change cycle we have all been in for about a decade and
will continue in for about a decade. She also provides insights into
where to look for both the opportunities and resistance.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Finally, an aside. The term paradigm existed before Kuhn and did
refer to patterns - especially in language. It is interesting to me
that one of the examples of how the term was applied prior to Kuhn was
the reading of Hebrew. When Hebrew is printed, like in the Torah, the
letters that represent what we would call vowels in English are not
included. As a result, there are many patterns of Hebrew consonants
that, without vowels, look identical yet have very different meanings
and pronunciations. However, if you are raised in Jewish culture you
"know" the difference. You don't notice anything missing and probably
would not know what someone outside the culture, trained in text book
or dictionary Hebrew, was confused about. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I believe that much about true paradigms, like most of what we
experience as culture, operates on this sub-conscious level...invisible
to those who are a part of it. It's not in our head or our
heart...it's in our blood and DNA. Thus, some levels of resistance are
not conscious push back as much as they are confusion, dissonance and
fear. Even some of the conscious, intentional resistance may be in
reaction to the conscious awareness of beliefs rooted in unexamined
deeper beliefs learned at pre-verbal stages of life...when we were
forming our senses of reality, not "knowledge" of reality.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I have rambled on far too long...besides, I feel the urge to watch
South Pacific..."you've got to be carefully taught!" <span
class="moz-smiley-s3"><span> ;-) </span></span><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Chris Kloth<br>
</font></font>
</body>
</html>
*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist@listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist