The Paradigm Shift
A New Dream of Life on Earth

Humanity is shifting from one way of being based upon a certain code of shared beliefs and values into another way of being in the world. Intuitive leadership is another way of knowing and being, an alternative pathway to knowledge that is often repressed and therefore, invisible within our problem-solving equations. It is just a path and amongst many viable ways of knowing. A path connected to the feminine and to the right brain in both men and in women.  According to Einstein and many other geniuses our intuition is a forgotten gift.  A gift of wise council available to those that believe in it as another form of knowing and problem solving. 

In the language of leadership humanity is in a time transition and transformation as we release old, antiquated belief systems such as power by force, competition, control, manipulation, corruption, exploitation and growth for greed.

This worldview is based upon belief and values that no longer serve life on earth and these beliefs are embedded in every single discipline that exists. Together, we as a human family are contributing to the destructive course of this fading dream through our silent participation.  As a result, this paradigm shift will require every person, whether parent, farmer or leader to tune into their intuitive intelligence for the inspirational guidance necessary to transform and manifest a new dream of earth. 

The guiding values of the new dream will be based upon holistic thinking, interconnectedness or unity consciousness; a realization of the sacredness of all life; respect for nature, integrity, transparency, equality, cooperation and open communication. 
 
Old Worldview
A New Dream

Competition
Cooperation

Hierarchy
Equality

Dominance
Respect 

Exploitation
Sacredness

Fragmentation
Interconnected & Whole

Secrets & Lies
Transparency & Truth

Fear
Love

Violence & War
Safety & Peace

Exclusive
Inclusive – Embracing Diversity

Conflict
Harmony

Ridicule, Criticism & Oppression
Acceptance, Open Communication, Curiosity

Manipulation
Authenticity & Truth 

Patriarchy: Masculine Worldview
Masculine & Feminine

Mechanical Universe - Non Living & Non Feeling
A Living Universe – Participatory & Vibrantly Alive

 
The greatest innovators and geniuses throughout time have trusted intuitively inspired wisdom to guide them to answers once thought impossible, and this same ability is available to everyone. Intuition can be nurtured in our children, our families and organizations making intuitive intelligence more accessible through open communication and sharing, verses repressing the information. We all have an inner Guru or Genie available if we choose to become present, tune in and listen. How we respond to the guidance is our choice and responsibility.
 
​
Intuitive Leadership
Transforming Values & Beliefs

In the language of leadership humanity is in a time transition and transformation as we release old, antiquated belief systems such as power by force, competition, control, manipulation, corruption, exploitation for profit. 

Our worldview is based upon beliefs and values that no longer serve life on earth and these beliefs are embedded in every single discipline that exists. Together, we as a human family are contributing to the destructive course of this fading dream through our silent participation.  As a result, the transformation will require every person, whether parent, farmer or leader to tune into their intuitive intelligence for the inspirational guidance necessary to manifest the new dream of earth. 

The guiding values of the new dream will be based upon holistic thinking, interconnectedness or unity consciousness; a realization of the sacredness of all life; respect for nature; integrity; transparency; equality and open communication. 
 

 
The greatest innovators and geniuses throughout time have trusted intuitively inspired wisdom to guide them to answers once thought impossible, and this same ability is available to everyone. Intuition can be nurtured in our children, our families and organizations making intuitive intelligence more accessible through open communication and sharing, verses repressing the information. We all have an inner Guru or Genie in our Body available if we become present, tune in and listen. How we respond to the guidance is entirely our choice and solely our responsibility.
 

 
 
Paradigm Shift Notes

Fantastic Video about changing our lens of reality to a more compassionate worldview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlRK1vqcuvg
 
Thomas Kuhn – Father of the concept Paradigm Shift
Similarly, agents of change are driving a new paradigm shift today. The signs are all around us. For example, the introduction of the personal computer and the internet have impacted both personal and business environments and is a catalyst for a Paradigm Shift. We are shifting from a mechanistic, manufacturing, industrial society to an organic, service based, information centered society, and increases in technology will continue to impact globally. Change is inevitable. It's the only true constant. 
In conclusion, for millions of years we have been evolving and will continue to do so. Change is difficult. Human Beings resist change; however, the process has been set in motion long ago and we will continue to co-create our own experience. Kuhn states that "awareness is prerequisite to all acceptable changes of theory" (p. 67). It all begins in the mind of the person. What we perceive, whether normal or metanormal, conscious or unconscious, are subject to the limitations and distortions produced by our inherited and socially conditional nature. However, we are not restricted by this for we can change. We are moving at an accelerated rate of speed and our state of consciousness is transforming and transcending. Many are awakening as our conscious awareness expands. 


Reference: Kuhn, Thomas, S., "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", Second Edition, Enlarged, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1970(1962)


WE ARE NOT HUMAN BEINGS
HAVING A SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE
WE ARE SPIRITUAL BEINGS
HAVING A HUMAN EXPERIENce
 
 
 
Paradigm shift
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Paradigm Shift (disambiguation).
A paradigm shift (or revolutionary science) is, according to Thomas Kuhn, in his influential[who?] book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), a change in the basic assumptions, or paradigms, within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science. According to Kuhn, "A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share" (The Essential Tension, 1977). Unlike a normal scientist, Kuhn held, "a student in the humanitieshas constantly before him a number of competing and incommensurable solutions to these problems, solutions that he must ultimately examine for himself" (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).
Once a paradigm shift is complete, a scientist cannot, for example, reject the germ theory of disease to posit the possibility that miasma causes disease or reject modern physics and optics to posit that ether carries light. In contrast, a critic in the humanities can choose to adopt an array of stances (e.g., Marxist criticism, Freudian criticism, Deconstruction, 19th-century-style literary criticism), which may be more or less fashionable during any given period but all regarded as legitimate. Since the 1960s, the term has also been used in numerous non-scientific contexts to describe a profound change in a fundamental model or perception of events, even though Kuhn himself restricted the use of the term to the hard sciences. Compare as a structured form of Zeitgeist.
 
​
Kuhnian paradigm shifts

Kuhn used the duck-rabbit optical illusion to demonstrate the way in which a paradigm shift could cause one to see the same information in an entirely different way.
An epistemological paradigm shift was called a "scientific revolution" by epistemologist and historian of scienceThomas Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
A scientific revolution occurs, according to Kuhn, when scientists encounter anomalies that cannot be explained by the universally accepted paradigm within which scientific progress has thereto been made. The paradigm, in Kuhn's view, is not simply the current theory, but the entire worldview in which it exists, and all of the implications which come with it. This is based on features of landscape of knowledge that scientists can identify around them.
There are anomalies for all paradigms, Kuhn maintained, that are brushed away as acceptable levels of error, or simply ignored and not dealt with (a principal argument Kuhn uses to reject Karl Popper's model of falsifiability as the key force involved in scientific change). Rather, according to Kuhn, anomalies have various levels of significance to the practitioners of science at the time. To put it in the context of early 20th century physics, some scientists found the problems with calculating Mercury's perihelion more troubling than the Michelson-Morley experiment results, and some the other way around. Kuhn's model of scientific change differs here, and in many places, from that of the logical positivists in that it puts an enhanced emphasis on the individual humans involved as scientists, rather than abstracting science into a purely logical or philosophical venture.
When enough significant anomalies have accrued against a current paradigm, the scientific discipline is thrown into a state of crisis, according to Kuhn. During this crisis, new ideas, perhaps ones previously discarded, are tried. Eventually a new paradigm is formed, which gains its own new followers, and an intellectual "battle" takes place between the followers of the new paradigm and the hold-outs of the old paradigm. Again, for early 20th century physics, the transition between the Maxwellian electromagnetic worldview and the Einsteinian Relativistic worldview was neither instantaneous nor calm, and instead involved a protracted set of "attacks," both with empirical data as well as rhetorical or philosophical arguments, by both sides, with the Einsteinian theory winning out in the long-run. Again, the weighing of evidence and importance of new data was fit through the human sieve: some scientists found the simplicity of Einstein's equations to be most compelling, while some found them more complicated than the notion of Maxwell's aether which they banished. Some found Eddington's photographs of light bending around the sun to be compelling, while some questioned their accuracy and meaning. Sometimes the convincing force is just time itself and the human toll it takes, Kuhn said, using a quote from Max Planck: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."[1]
After a given discipline has changed from one paradigm to another, this is called, in Kuhn's terminology, a scientific revolution or a paradigm shift. It is often this final conclusion, the result of the long process, that is meant when the term paradigm shift is used colloquially: simply the (often radical) change of worldview, without reference to the specificities of Kuhn's historical argument.
 
Science and paradigm shift
A common misinterpretation of paradigms is the belief that the discovery of paradigm shifts and the dynamic nature of science (with its many opportunities for subjective judgments by scientists) are a case for relativism:[2] the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal. Kuhn vehemently denies this interpretation and states that when a scientific paradigm is replaced by a new one, albeit through a complex social process, the new one is always better, not just different.
These claims of relativism are, however, tied to another claim that Kuhn does at least somewhat endorse: that the language and theories of different paradigms cannot be translated into one another or rationally evaluated against one another — that they are incommensurable. This gave rise to much talk of different peoples and cultures having radically different worldviews or conceptual schemes — so different that whether or not one was better, they could not be understood by one another. However, the philosopher Donald Davidson published a highly regarded essay in 1974, "On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme" (Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, Vol. 47, (1973-1974), pp. 5–20) arguing that the notion that any languages or theories could be incommensurable with one another was itself incoherent. If this is correct, Kuhn's claims must be taken in a weaker sense than they often are. Furthermore, the hold of the Kuhnian analysis on social science has long been tenuous with the wide application of multi-paradigmatic approaches in order to understand complex human behaviour (see for example John Hassard, Sociology and Organization Theory: Positivism, Paradigm and Postmodernity. Cambridge University Press, 1993, ISBN 0521350344.)
Paradigm shifts tend to be most dramatic in sciences that appear to be stable and mature, as in physics at the end of the 19th century. At that time, physics seemed to be a discipline filling in the last few details of a largely worked-out system. In 1900, Lord Kelvin famously told an assemblage of physicists at the British Association for the Advancement of Science, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement."[3] Five years later, Albert Einstein published his paper on special relativity, which challenged the very simple set of rules laid down by Newtonian mechanics, which had been used to describe force and motion for over two hundred years.
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn wrote, "Successive transition from one paradigm to another via revolution is the usual developmental pattern of mature science." (p. 12) Kuhn's idea was itself revolutionary in its time, as it caused a major change in the way that academics talk about science. Thus, it could be argued that it caused or was itself part of a "paradigm shift" in the history and sociology of science. However, Kuhn would not recognise such a paradigm shift. In the social sciences, people can still use earlier ideas to discuss the history of science.
Philosophers and historians of science, including Kuhn himself, ultimately accepted a modified version of Kuhn's model, which synthesizes his original view with the gradualist model that preceded it.
 
Examples of paradigm shifts in
Natural sciences
Some of the "classical cases" of Kuhnian paradigm shifts in science are:  
 
In Kuhn's view, the existence of a single reigning paradigm is characteristic of the sciences, while philosophy and much of social science were characterized by a "tradition of claims, counterclaims, and debates over fundamentals."[4] Others have applied Kuhn's concept of paradigm shift to the social sciences.
  • The movement, known as the Cognitive revolution, away from Behaviourist approaches to psychological study and the acceptance of cognition as central to studying human behaviour.
  • The Keynesian Revolution is typically viewed as a major shift in macroeconomics.[5] According to John Kenneth Galbraith, Say's Law dominated economic thought prior to Keynes for over a century, and the shift to Keynesianism was difficult. Economists who contradicted the law, which implied that underemployment and underinvestment (coupled with oversaving) were virtually impossible, risked losing their careers.[6] In his magnum opus, Keynes cited one of his predecessors, John Atkinson Hobson,[7] who was repeatedly denied positions at universities for his heretical theory.
  • Later, the movement for Monetarism over Keynesianism marked a second divisive shift. Monetarists held that fiscal policy was not effective for stabilizing inflation, that it was solely a monetary phenomenon, in contrast to the Keynesian view of the time was that both fiscal and monetary policy were important. Keynesians later adopted much of the Monetarists view of the quantity theory of money and shifting Philips curve, theories they initially rejected.[8]
 
The term "paradigm shift" has found uses in other contexts, representing the notion of a major change in a certain thought-pattern — a radical change in personal beliefs, complex systems or organizations, replacing the former way of thinking or organizing with a radically different way of thinking or organizing:
  • M. L. Handa, a professor of sociology in education at O.I.S.E. University of Toronto, Canada, developed the concept of a paradigm within the context of social sciences. He defines what he means by "paradigm" and introduces the idea of a "social paradigm". In addition, he identifies the basic component of any social paradigm. Like Kuhn, he addresses the issue of changing paradigms, the process popularly known as "paradigm shift." In this respect, he focuses on the social circumstances which precipitate such a shift. Relatedly, he addresses how that shift affects social institutions, including the institution of education.[citation needed]
  • The concept has been developed for technology and economics in the identification of new techno-economic paradigms as changes in technological systems that have a major influence on the behaviour of the entire economy (Carlota Perez; earlier work only on technological paradigms by Giovanni Dosi). This concept is linked to Joseph Schumpeter's idea of creative destruction. Examples include the move to mass production and the introduction of microelectronics.[citation needed]
  • In the arena of political science, the concept has been applied to the ethos of war. Evolutionary biologist Judith Hand, in a paper entitled "To Abolish War," argued that a paradigm shift is possible from a global ethos that operates on the assumption that war is an inevitable aspect of human nature to a global ethos that rejects war under any circumstances.[12]
  • Two photographs of the Earth from space, "Earthrise" (1968) and "The Blue Marble" (1972), are thought to have helped to usher in the environmentalist movement which gained great prominence in the years immediately following distribution of those images.[13][14]
  • Hans Küng applies Thomas Kuhn's theory of paradigm change to the entire history of Christian thought and theology. He identifies six historical "macromodels": 1) the apocalyptic paradigm of primitive Christianity, 2) the Hellenistic paradigm of the patristic period, 3) the medieval Roman Catholic paradigm, 4) the Protestant (Reformation) paradigm, 5) the modern Enlightenment paradigm, and 6) the emerging ecumenical paradigm. He also discusses five analogies between natural science and theology in relation to paradigm shifts. Küng addresses paradigm change in his books, Paradigm Change in Theology[15] and Theology for the Third Millennium: An Ecumenical View.[16]
 
See also[edit source | edit]  
Zeitgeisthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gKX9TWRyfsThe Zeitgeist (spirit of the age or spirit of the time) is the intellectual fashion or dominant school of thought that typifies and influences the culture of a particular period in time. For example, the Zeitgeist of modernism typified and influenced architecture, art, and fashion during much of the 20th century.[1]
The German word Zeitgeist is often attributed to the philosopher Georg Hegel, but he never actually used the word. In his works such as Lectures on the Philosophy of History, he uses the phrase der Geist seiner Zeit (the spirit of his time)—for example, "no man can surpass his own time, for the spirit of his time is also his own spirit."[2]
 

​