This is the third installment explaining in plain language the promise and pitfalls of the new modern Enlightenment. In this essay the practical exemplification of the power of paradigm
begins to illustrate the absurdity of counter-productive man. It is
recommended that you read this blog in chronological order.

Once you understand paradigms and what
their existence means you are in possession of a primer to deeper
understanding. You can begin rustling around in your own ideas. Kicking
over the stones of opinion to expose why you think as such. You can use
the knowledge of your associations to solve problems perhaps you didn’t
even know you had. There are always reasons for behaviours, habits,
phobias, prejudices, fears, etc.

Sometimes
they are purely chemical, natural responses such as fight or flight, or
imbalances of hormones that could exemplify the cause(s). More often
these responses are just the result of a self-defeating paradigm but we
mustn’t forget that there are always unknowns. Later we will discuss
some of the unknowns that are now known but these are the influences
that are not paradigms and are therefore, outside our jurisdiction.
Even the most aware of us fall prey to the unconscious placement and/or
demonstration of counterproductive opinion. Contemplation is the way to
catch yourself.

Consider
our earlier example of prostitution. Is prostitution right, wrong,
just, cruel, immoral or natural? Why do you have that opinion and why
do you have any opinion? Does it feel to you that your position is a
fair and/or appropriate way to be thinking? Does it make sense, do you
have specific experiences, or other reasons to feel the way you do? Are
you only having an emotional reaction? What associations are connected
to your thoughts about prostitution? Perhaps you have no opinion on
prostitution. If you look at it as merely a fact, it simply is. If you
have no relationship to it you have no decision to make. Yet person
after person will decide that they do have an opinion without the need
for one. Most often this unnecessary paradigm comes from our rendition
of morality. Some people, lacking in their understanding, vehemently
argue points for which they have absolutely no reason to believe.
Perhaps ignorance isn’t bliss.

When I learned that my
understanding of ancient Egyptian monuments could be, at the least,
partially incorrect, I went through a variety of emotive thoughts.
(Never forget, we are now ultimately open minded, because for us the
facts are still in dispute we remain the resigned undecided.) At first
I was In awe. Wow, I thought, that changes everything! (At the time, in
my naivete, I just believed it.) I didn’t realize it but I had shifted
several paradigms at once. Looking back on it now, it seems to me that
I could physically feel the change in my mind, perhaps a slight
dizziness. The first paradigm shift that I could discern was the
obvious one, "there were civilized people on this planet way before I
previously knew." As I stated, at the time, I just accepted these
theories of ten thousand B.C. to be true. (By the way, it’s likely that
the theories are true. If ever I must decide I will favour agreeing
with them.) Obviously, this idea of "man" being "civilized" earlier
sent a fresh jolt to a lot of my paradigms. Surely it must have touched
my ideas about religion, archeology, pre-history, etc.Then there was
the second shift, "If they were wrong about the ages of these
monuments, what else are they wrong about?" Which of course enters into
my trust paradigms and I begin to wonder about my teachers and other
groups that up until that moment had been authorities. Then a third
shift, "That makes it even less likely for the resources or technology
to exist for the construction of these monuments? Or does it?" This one
is more the conceptualization of Paradigm without knowing what it was
called because it put the onus on me to doubt myself. I had discovered
that "facts" could be accepted as such for years, by basically,
everyone and then be smashed in one hour long t.v. show. I now knew
that I could be duped right along with everyone else. So, how can I say
that anything is a fact, anything is known, anything is possible?

Of
course, it’s easy to say that understanding is empowerment.
Understanding even the simplest subject to it’s fullest extent is not
easily achieved. The enlightenment you seek will hide very well and the
enlightenment you need will present itself whether or not you want it
to. How many of us have said something stupid to someone we love for no
good reason? We hit our thumb with the hammer and it’s our wife’s fault
for wanting the picture hung? The paradigm you need to work on will
rear it’s ugly head and you will react. It’s too late to address it
now, just remember to contemplate it later and say, "I’m sorry" to your
wife.

Tibetan monks, monks of all sorts spend their lives
dedicated to seek out the deep, true, pure understanding that is
appropriate for their efforts. An alcoholic may have to hurt himself or
the ones he loves before he comes to realize it’s the booze that makes
him abusive and/or destructive. It doesn’t matter how understanding is
achieved despite how honorable you consider one methodology over
another. It would be mere speculation for you to assign importance to
someone else’s understanding. A monk may die an old man without being
satisfied by his lifelong achievements. An alcoholic may, in one moment
of clarity, change his entire life, even deciding to attempt to correct
the mistakes in his past, changing the lives of others. So it seems
that it is natural for us to be presented with solutions. We get in the
way of ourselves and others by expressing opinion. The monk who cannot
achieve enlightenment is the monk who doesn’t believe it’s possible for
him to. The alcoholic who cannot control his drinking, doesn’t want to.

Short of a lifetime of meditation or life altering emotional
instances how can we eke out any palpable self control? How can we
recognize the need for change when in the midst of the paradigm that is
lacking? How can we have 20/20 hindsight, in the present? As silly as
that sounds I think it is the attainable goal of the new modern
enlightenment. Hindsight always seems to make so much sense that we
wonder, looking back, how we missed the revelation while we were in the
thick of it.

That leaves us with a present sight, an
Awareness with a capital A. The "Authentic Self" used like a separate
entity, you looking at yourself. Maximum awareness, purposeful
contemplation, flexible paradigms while the calling cards of
existentialism are not limited to that somewhat misunderstood
disposition. Existentialism emphasizes the individual as a free and
responsible agent as existence itself is all that is "known." A
philosophy that I think sounds good on paper, and to a certain degree
do subscribe to but is not without it’s pitfalls. Unfortunately over
the course of the years since the French revolution,
the common opinion of existentialism has gone from "seeing things as
they are rather than as they should be," to pure nihilism. Nihilism
or "nothingism" expounds that existence is meaningless, substance-less,
senseless and useless. This misconception was drawn out of the
interpretation of existentialists as athiests, which many of the first
were. Nevertheless, this Existentialism is not Nihilism, it is just a
murky comfort zone.

Today, it may prove to provide the key to
quelling the "unbearable angst" of the modern, quasi-existentialist
existence. It, having gone from, "God is great" to "God is dead" to
"God never was" to "God may be and I’m okay with not knowing." Also,
and we will discuss this further, the people who desire control over
you don’t want you to be a free and responsible agent. They may even
argue that it’s impossible to be both simultaneously. If you are free,
it is understood that you are accountable, but to whom and by what
standard? You can have faith, as you are a free agent but how, if you
don’t attach yourself to some sort of standard of measurement,
(morality,) will you know if you’re being responsible? If you’re being
held responsible how are you free? It’s easy to see where the paradox
lies but it gets even worse.

Existentialism is too convenient.
You have the beauty of freedom and the safety of responsibility
(provided it’s measure is somehow qualified and quantified.) However,
it’s a sort of a lazy temperament, literally hopeless. You just let
everything slide by, not that you’re incapable of highs or lows, but
that you are accepting of them regardless of merit. I say, keep the
calm, analytical nature of the spirit of existentialism and dismiss the
lack of imagination expressed as being a responsible agent of change.
Inspiration comes from without. There are too many unknowns for classic
existentialism to be useful without due diligence. We still need to
separate existentialism from humanism further. Those unknowns, the
ideas we are unable to yet explain, keep getting in the way. Humanists
claim total responsibility. They say, ‘There is an explanation for
everything. Anything that is beyond our explanation is either
discoverable or it doesn’t exist.’ Our new Existentialism needs to
loosen philosophy to the acceptance of the existence and influence of
the unknowable. It needs to also develop a direction, a goal conducive
to that of our species. Namely, the expected continuation of said
species.

Furthermore, as we begin to understand these
concepts better, we’ll see that true freedom is the default position,
it can’t be given or taken. We are all born free in terms of what we
can think. True responsibility is to accept that freedom and use it to
your utmost, despite the absurd influence of the world.

‘Memory’,
‘experience’, and trust in ‘lessons learned’ are the building blocks of
paradigms but language is the most powerful trap that controls them. We
think in terms for ideas. They don’t have to be words. Symbols and
signs for instance, are equally powerful. They can be used to induce
memory, opinion, even experience but they must be achievable
expressions. We understand complicated concepts but only if we can
express them. If we can’t express them, we can’t understand them.
Language is necessary at this point in our evolution.

Perhaps
someday all communication will transcend language the way emotions like
love and fear can. Until then we must use language to both express and
comprehend. Questions are the vehicle that will drive you to
understanding any definition of terms further.

Sometimes the
questions will impose themselves as banalities, "White or brown bread?"
or as necessities, "How am I going to survive on this deserted island?"
Sometimes you will desire answers and seek them out willfully, "Who am
I going to vote for?" or unexpectedly, "Who the hell is in bed with my
wife?" The point is that if you’re asking the question because you want
to make a decision, form an opinion, set or change a paradigm. It
doesn’t matter if you’re asking the question of yourself or someone
else, be warned that you might get answers you don’t like. The
knowledge you can glean from self-examinations can also be less than
fruitful. It could even be that you are ill-prepared to deal with the
things that you come to learn. This is no reason to fear change. In
fact, as we’ll discuss later, you should seek it. Exercise your ability
to change your mind because it’s healthy. Examine your paradigms
because it’s beneficial to know thyself. Be aware of the mind-set of
others as well, for as assuredly as there are people who seek change
there are those who despise it, fear it and may well destroy its
chances of success. Quentin Tarantino has a great line in the film
"Four Rooms,"6 his character claims his wise, old grand-pappy used to
say it, "The more apt you are to make declarative statements, the more
likely you are to look foolish in retrospect." Or as I sometimes remind
my sons, "If you don’t answer anything you can’t be wrong." Sometimes
you have to choose your moments.

Paradigm resistance is as
rampant as paradigm ignorance. Somewhere between paradigm resistance
and utilization is paradigm tolerance. This is when you know the
paradigm is unhealthy, (unproductive, illogical, destructive, etc.) yet
you do nothing to correct it, either in yourself or others. lazy cow!

When
I learned that my understanding of ancient Egyptian monuments could be,
at the least, partially incorrect I went through a variety of emotive
thoughts. (Never forget, we are now ultimately open minded, because for
us the facts are still in dispute we remain the resigned undecided.) At
first I was In awe. Wow, I thought, that changes everything! (At the
time, in my naivete, I just believed it.) I didn’t realize it but I had
shifted several paradigms at once. Looking back on it now, it seems to
me that I could physically feel the change in my mind, perhaps a slight
dizziness. The first paradigm shift that I could discern was the
obvious one, “there were civilized people on this planet way before I
previously knew.” As I stated, at the time, I just accepted these
theories of ten thousand B.C. to be true. (By the way, it’s likely that
the theories are true. If ever I must decide I will favour agreeing
with them.) Obviously, this idea of “man” being “civilized” earlier
sent a fresh jolt to a lot of my paradigms. Surely it must have touched
my ideas about religion, archeology, pre-history, etc.

Then
there was the second shift, “If they were wrong about the ages of these
monuments, what else are they wrong about?” Which of course enters into
my trust paradigms and I begin to wonder about my teachers and other
groups that up until that moment had been authorities. Then a third
shift, “That makes it even less likely for the resources or technology
to exist for the construction of these monuments? Or does it?” This one
is more the conceptualization of Paradigm without knowing what it was
called because it put the onus on me to doubt myself. I had discovered
that “facts” could be accepted as such for years, by basically,
everyone and then be smashed in one hour long t.v. show. I now knew
that I could be duped right along with everyone else. So, how can I say
that anything is a fact, anything is known, anything is possible?

Then
the final, and most fun shift for a young man, "These guys are just
dorks from four different disciplines that looked at something with
"new eyes," drew some conclusions, went hunting for questions that led
to those conclusions, and found them. They could have been anybody.
They could have been me. It did dawn on me at the time that is was the
alternative perception of these men that made the difference. The
people that would normally be looking at these sort of questions were
finished looking at them a long time ago. Thus, having blinders on is
proof that subjects in question should be answered with
interdisciplinary considerations. I hadn’t yet heard of "thinking
outside the box" but now it had been demonstrated and experienced. It’s
important to both consider and employ alternative perception as it
forces paradigm shift. Human history is full of sufferances due to
ignoring the worth of keeping an open mind. Alternative perceptions
sometimes are scary or embarrassing, depending on how far outside your
paradigms you have to stretch and if you are the one asking someone to
do the stretching, it can be equally trying. But try you must. Or
better yet, as Yoda tells Luke in "the Empire Strikes Back," "Do not
try. Do! Or do not do. There is no try."

I’m not asking you
to convince people that aliens built the pyramids, I’m suggesting that
there are people on this planet that would never listen to a word you
said if you tried to and that’s illogical. Did IBM know there was going
to be a computer revolution and home computers would become as common
as toasters? Yes. They knew there a tiny movement afoot that claimed it
was coming. Did they believe it was a threat or even possible? No.
Apple did, in fact, they set out to make it happen and succeeded. (The
beauty of this example is that nobody needed a home computer, Apple
created the need by making it useful.) Seiko Japan did the same thing
by buying the quartz watch movement that the Swiss didn’t see the value
of. (Look at your watch, does it say "quartz?") Bill Gates bought the
DOS operating software that makes "Windows" possible for the price of a
decent used car from a man who couldn’t envision its utility. The list
goes on and on but those are instances that had a positive outcome for
the people that saw the value of the paradigm shift. The people who
couldn’t see the value in these new ideas, yet had the time to think
about the paradigm, suffer from Contemplative Paradigm Paralysis, and
lost out. (Swiss watch companies have since embraced the quartz
movement, but Japan still dominates the timepiece industry. Bill Gates
is still in the top ten richest men in the world, almost nobody has
heard of the man who invented the DOS operating system.) But what of
the dangers of ignoring "crazy new ideas" in everyday life. Not all of
us are meant to be on the cusp of innovation. Let’s examine some more
mundane degrees of paradigm paralysis.

In Joel Barker’s
"The New Business of Paradigms"8 he relays the following story. One
beautiful sunny afternoon, a young man is out for a leisurely drive in
his beloved sports car. He is enjoying himself as he speeds along a
curvy country road. Suddenly, at the last second in a blind corner, he
sees another car coming at him in his lane. He swerves slightly as does
the woman who is in his lane. They avoid each other without incident
but as the cars pass each other, the woman yells out the window at him,
"Pig!" In that instant the young man becomes angry. This woman was in
his lane, endangering both of their lives yet she has the audacity to
call him a Pig! He has enough time to come up with "Cow!" which he
shouts at her before she is out of earshot. He feels a little better
because he was able to zing her back then runs directly into the pig
that is on the road. He kills the pig, ruins his car and hopefully
learns the lesson of his Autonomic Paradigm Paralysis. (Although
probably not, it is much more likely that he understands that it was a
warning, yet thinks something to the effect of, "How the hell was I
supposed to know it was a warning?") This is the most rampant type of
paradigm paralysis. Whereas the aforementioned "contemplative paradigm
paralysis" does not present itself as readily or as frequently. They
are both equally dangerous, the difference being that you are much more
able and likely to do something about Contemplative Paradigm Paralysis
because you have the time to. If you have the ability to think about a
new paradigm yet still reject it, you have made that decision and have
no one to blame for it but yourself. If, however, you have to make an
instant decision there is no contemplation and you are less in control.
You are reacting from a place that you may or may not have established.

The
young man driving made a conclusion that led to an unfortunate event.
He misunderstood the intent of the woman coming the other way, most
likely out of the common, trance-like paradigm we often experience with
repeated activity. In other words, he was on auto-pilot and was used to
drivers reacting negatively rather than positively. The lack of
assessment and the creation of his anger stem from the same place,
habit. If the young man had time to examine the situation, perhaps he
would have realized that it doesn’t really make sense for the woman to
be in his lane, yet angry at him. It is a much more likely situation
that the scenario that did play out, would. Because the young man has
had plenty of experience with being and observing frustrated, angry
drivers, his reaction emanates from this ‘driving’ paradigm.

All
reactions (that are not ‘fight or flight’ autonomic) stem from
Paradigm. You cannot change your reactions without changing your
paradigms. For example, a different young man, may have seen the woman
coming toward him and respond with curiosity rather than anger, "Why is
she in my lane?" This thought implies there is a reason for the fact,
it might even be something he wants to know. Perhaps this young man
would apply the brakes and even upon hearing the word, "Pig!" consider
it a warning that there is a pig on the road. "That certainly would
explain why she was in my lane." This young man’s car would be fine and
the pig would live another day. I’d also be willing to bet that this
young man would be a lot happier, healthier and more productive in life
than the first young man. I’d further wager that the first, typically
reactionary young man outnumbers the other one hundred to one. Let’s
recap...

Paradigms are sets of rules that you use to think.
Each paradigm is a network of associations on any given topic with
which you have some kind of understanding. Paradigms can be
experientially created or be ‘taught’ by outside sources. They are
built of experience, memory and opinion but can most easily be
manipulated with language. The examination and evaluation of paradigm
is the most powerful tool for understanding and the most commonly used
question to do so is "Why?" A paradigm shift occurs when you change
your way of thinking about any given topic. This occurs most often when
you either don’t have an answer to the "Why?" or when your answer is
deemed more illogical than the new paradigm. The ‘why’s’ must be
followed to the core of their existence. Remember we are not
psychologists or cosmologists! We can no less decide the worth of
someone’s mental state than we can truly appreciate the cause of
creation. We are not here to answer any impossible questions. We can
just accept the unknowns as unknowable at present. We are here to
understand ourselves. To understand the "why" of you, the why of the
young man driving on the country road, etc.

We have learned
that paradigm can be ignored, rejected, absorbed, accepted, tarnished
either with or without knowing it’s happening (Autonomic vs.
Contemplative.) We can keep our paradigms flexible, even undecided or
we can nail them down and stick to it, again with or without awareness.
Assignee’s Prerogative, (hereby referred to as A.P.) is the
understanding and use of paradigm contemplation. We can accept that
there are going to be times when we are reactionary but the number and
severity of these reactions can be reduced with practice. There are
also going to be instances where you can find no answer to the
question, "What is the worth of this paradigm?" It’s an acceptance of
logic as a personal decision of what it might mean, per paradigm. If
that means that we have to make a leap of faith to be comfortable, so
be it. I think we should be allowed that privilege as there are many
deep running unknowns and we’ve been so wrong, so often before. After
all, we have only our perceptions and our paradigms to go on, and there
seems to be little to no actual logic being demonstrated by our
commitment to them.

There are also paradigm that are going to
be harder to shake regardless of our desire to. For eg: To this day I
harbor a distaste for ‘loud’ people. I am aware of the causation, some
of the greatest pains I have felt in my life have been associated with
‘loud’ personalities. Is it logical? Of course not! I’m sure there’s
some really groovy loud people out there. But I’m aware of my bias and
I can make a concentrated effort to be equally open to loud people. I
can realize that these loud people who have hurt me have reasons for
being the way they are. It doesn’t make it right or wrong, but
understanding paradigms means I pretty much have to forgive them.
They’re just like everybody else, they live the life they’ve created.
They may or may not be aware of that fact.

Paradigm Pliancy,
Utilization with a lack of Assignation except when necessary is good,
healthy, valid. Paradigm Paralysis, Ignorance and unquestioning
Assignation is dangerous, illogical, counterproductive. It is a far
better thing to be able to recognize, assimilate and unbiasedly decide
for yourself on any given subject than it is to miss, ignore or decide
from a place of ignorance, possibly someone else’s. Don’t fear
Alternate Perception, examine it. Notice that I didn’t say Paradigm
Rejection or Resistance were either good or bad. That is because it is
often just as useful you reject or resist new paradigms contemplatively
as you accept them. Take the case of zeppelin travel as an example of a
paradigm that proved better to reject, or the medieval idea that
bleeding could expunge illness.

Nevertheless, new paradigms
will always come from the fringe and so to look out to that fringe is
to see the future. It takes only a little imagination to see it clearly
and if you use a lot of imagination it’s possible to create it. Life in
the fringe is a place where you have nothing to lose, where brave meets
crazy and crazy comes true.

It’s the only place to be...