On Tue, 26 Dec 1995 JOHNWFIELD@aol.com wrote:
> However I like mine better, because it
> connects science to action in ways that minimize the necessity for the
> practitioner to go back to fundamentals, while keeping that open as a
> possible requirement. This means that the science itself can be
> constantly assessed in applications and, when appropriate, amended. The
> paradigm shift concept seems a little too vague to suit me.
I think your formulation begins to overlap with another set of logical
level distinctions used to determine the "precision" of the tools being
used to generate learning on levels 1-4.
I agree that the "paradigm shift" concept is very vague. I would like to
propose another, hopefully controversial, idea. Part of the key to
"Paradigm Shifts" lies in the psychological phenomena of "multiple
personality." Toolsets that can generate "multiple personalities" will be
able to generate learning on level III. I'm not sure how it corresponds to
your model, I'll have to think about it.
> I keep hoping that there is a future for this system of thinking.
A warning: I'd be very careful about implementing any of these ideas. 200
years ago, according to Bateson, people who espoused ideas like these were
burned at the stake.
Fortunately, one of the tools in the metalanguage is a sense of humor, so
if I ever get burned at the stake, I'll probably be able to laugh about
it.
-- Andrew Moreno <amoreno@broken.ranch.org>