Paradigm, Past, Present and Future
I was a sophomore in college (Pennsylvania) when I decided to change my major from Physical Education to Biology and Chemistry. In the Science Department an ornithology course was offered that was to take place in Florida and I wanted to go! At that time I was working in a factory and so I went to the office and told them about the course and that I needed the time off. My boss looked at me like I had two heads. “If you go on this trip don’t come back”. I needed the job to pay my bills, but it was the early 1970’s and back then you could be a little irresponsible and get away with it. So before I knew It, I was headed to Florida in a Ford Econoline van. This trip dramatically changed my life. We camped, watched birds, and socialized and in between I was introduced to the “limits to growth”. Discussions happened around campfires at night, on a boat in the middle of Tampa Bay while looking for eagles, or in a field waiting for Scissor Tail Kites to fly by. Like I said, responsibility was not my top priority and it was in the lower Keys that I realized I had 7 dollars in my pocket. Earl, the driver of the van looked at me and said, “I hate to tell you this but I’m not going back”. I was in shock, “you’re not going back”? Talk about responsibility! “You mean you’re not going back to school”? “Nope, I’m going to live down here on a boat.” “What? You don’t even have a boat.” Man, I thought this course changed my life! I talked to others on the trip and some of them were staying forever while everyone was staying an extra week. With the little money I had in my pocket there was only one thing to do. I walked out to the road and stuck out my thumb.
Anyone who’s hitchhiked can relate to my adventure. There was the ride from an elderly woman who lived near the main road and took me to her house and fed me, there was the huge car in which the muffler fell down and I ended up underneath the car wiring it up, and then the ride that would take me through Washington, D.C. all the way to Baltimore (unfortunately it was with a family whose son had recently pawned a family heirloom and everyone yelled at each other the whole way). I had many solitary hours along the way to digest the whole trip to Florida, and also to think about what I was going to do when I got back. Finally, I was almost home. I was getting out of a VW bug about 50 miles from my destination when I heard my name being called. Across the intersection I saw a friend of mine in his VW bus. I walked over as Ray shouted out the window, “We’re going the see the Dead, wanna go?” “I don’t have a ticket and I’m out of money.” He replied, “We don’t have tickets either and what do you need money for?” Boy, the 1970’s were such a time. I climbed into the bus.
It was through this Professor who took us to Florida that I would learn about an alternative view on what was going on in the world. Our present paradigm has been laid out by men, mostly of the past. As with many great philosophers they made great contributions to the evolution of the consciousness of humankind. Since many of these men’s ideas have become our culture’s paradigm it is imperative to take a close look at them to see if these ideas still fit the needs of our society and if not should the idea be thrown out or modified. Another consideration is whether their original ideas are misinterpreted.
Adam Smith offered his views on economics and provided the structure of our capitalistic economy in his book The Wealth of Nations (1776) as well as other of his works. He provided the morality needed for our society to function and thrive. “No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which by far the greater part of the numbers are poor and miserable.” (Adam Smith) “Though our brother is upon the rack, as long as we ourselves are at ease, our senses will never inform us of what he suffers. They never did and never can carry us beyond our own persons, and it is by the imagination only that we form any conception of what are his sensations...His agonies, when they are thus brought home to ourselves, when we have this adopted and made them our own, begin at last to affect us, and we then tremble and shudder at the thought of what he feels.” (Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments) In both of these quotes it is clear that Smith had great empathy for the poor and disenfranchised and it was important that cultural decisions made also include empathy.
Smith is well known for his idea of “The Invisible Hand” which guides the economy and society itself. “The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.” (Adam Smith)
Smith lived in very different times than we do, a time of what seemed to be unlimited resources and the world seemed so large that it was thought that humans could not affect its health. Looking closely at his quote is it time to expand his intent. The “Invisible Hand” could consider the Earth. As climate change, terrorism, social unrest, etc. increase we must act in the same direction to promote harmony instead of misery and disorder.
Smith considered throughput (refer to throughput articles) in his philosophy as to the true benefits or usefulness to society of the frivolous use of resources. “How many people ruin themselves by laying out money on trinkets of frivolous utility? What pleases these lovers of toys is not so much the utility, as the aptness of the machines which are fitted to promote it. All their pockets are stuffed with little conveniences. They contrive new pockets, unknown in the clothes of other people, in order to carry a greater number. They walk about loaded with a multitude of baubles, in weight and sometimes in value not inferior to an ordinary Jew's-box, some of which may sometimes be of some little use, but all of which might at all times be very well spared, and of which the whole utility is certainly not worth the fatigue of bearing the burden.” (Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments)
Although Smith contributed so much one quote is maybe his best known. “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages” (Adam Smith – An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations) If we are to move ahead in a more mutualistic path this quote may have to be revisited. If we could learn to act out of helping others, would it not benefit us all? This of course is not a light switch to be turned on, however, if the discussions begin along with a plan of building trust, our imaginations could manifest.
John Locke also added his views on societal affairs, filling out the global cultural changes. True to form, not everyone welcomed Locke’s ideas and he was well aware of the pushback from the paradigm of the day. “New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not common.” (John Locke) To Locke free thinking was extremely important. One should digest information and not just repeat it. “This is that which I think great readers are apt to be mistaken in. Those who have read of everything are thought to understand everything too; but it is not always so. Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking makes what we read ours. We are of the ruminating kind, and it is not enough to cram ourselves with a great load of collections; unless we chew them over again, they will not give us strength and nourishment.” (John Locke, Conduct of the Understanding).
Freedom, was not easily won, it had to be acquired through flexibility of thought and hard work. Locke had a great influence on our “founding fathers” as they penned a constitution that would be debated and interpreted for over 200 years. “We are all short sighted, and very often see but one side of a matter; our views are not extended to all that has a connection with it. From this defect I think no man is free. We see but in part, and we know but in part, and therefore it is no wonder we conclude not right from our partial views. This might instruct the proudest esteemer of his own parts, how useful it is to talk and consult with others, even such as come short of him in capacity, quickness and penetration: for since no one sees all, and we generally have different prospects of the same thing, according to our different, as I may say, positions to it, it is not incongruous to think nor beneath any man to try, whether another may not have notions of things which have escaped him, and which his reason would make use of if they came into his mind.” (John Locke, Conduct of the Understanding)
Once again a philosopher had brought forth ideas that were ready for the times. When paradigms change some of the old ideas remain and carry over into the new paradigm while some need either a revision or a removal. Locke was a proponent of the idea that humankind was in a position of redirecting nature to favor the needs of people. “Land that is left wholly to nature…is called, as indeed it is, waste”. (John Locke, Second Treatise) “God gave the World to Men in Common; But since he gave it them for their benefit, and the greatest Conveniences of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the industrious and Rational, (and Labour was to be his Title to it ;) not to the fancy or covetousness of the quarrelsome and contentious.” (John Locke, Second Treatise of Government)
The times are changing once again and can we afford to dominate nature or should we move in the direction of understanding how we can be a part of the natural world? I have had an interest in the lives of scientists, specifically ones engaged in a new way of thinking, the ones responsible for some sort of paradigm change. Most of these scientists doubled in the realm of philosophy which seemed to drive them to carry on their research in spite of great pushback. Often, supporters use their quotes to bolster the scientific ideas while the opposition uses their quotes to illustrate their failings. These great people are never all right or all wrong, but usually shine light on a direction of new thinking. Another such man is Charles Darwin.
One such man is Charles Darwin. Darwin was not a religious man, in fact he often pointed out that truth could not be found by belief alone but needed observation, a flexible mind and logical thinking. Although Darwin was not religious, I believe he must have been spiritual in nature. “One hand has surely worked throughout the universe.” (Charles Darwin, Voyage of the Beagle) “[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” (Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin) As sure as he was of Natural Selection he also had doubts. “Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.” (Charles Darwin) “Such simple instincts as bees making a beehive could be sufficient to overthrow my whole theory.” (Charles Darwin)
These three men, along with Newton’s (Newton was born in 1642, the same year Galileo died under house arrest for heresy against the present cultural views, hence the paradigm) scientific understanding provided the knowledge needed for the Industrial Revolution which has shaped our global economic system. It is this area of ideas that society must review.
The questions to be answered: What does Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” include? Do the rights of Humankind, according to Locke, include using the Earth’s resources for our own gains and consider not using these resources a waste? Is it still serving humankind to pit each other and follow Darwin’s “Survival of the Fittest”? As we enter the era of the unknown whose words do we incorporate into the next paradigm?
Anyone who’s hitchhiked can relate to my adventure. There was the ride from an elderly woman who lived near the main road and took me to her house and fed me, there was the huge car in which the muffler fell down and I ended up underneath the car wiring it up, and then the ride that would take me through Washington, D.C. all the way to Baltimore (unfortunately it was with a family whose son had recently pawned a family heirloom and everyone yelled at each other the whole way). I had many solitary hours along the way to digest the whole trip to Florida, and also to think about what I was going to do when I got back. Finally, I was almost home. I was getting out of a VW bug about 50 miles from my destination when I heard my name being called. Across the intersection I saw a friend of mine in his VW bus. I walked over as Ray shouted out the window, “We’re going the see the Dead, wanna go?” “I don’t have a ticket and I’m out of money.” He replied, “We don’t have tickets either and what do you need money for?” Boy, the 1970’s were such a time. I climbed into the bus.
It was through this Professor who took us to Florida that I would learn about an alternative view on what was going on in the world. Our present paradigm has been laid out by men, mostly of the past. As with many great philosophers they made great contributions to the evolution of the consciousness of humankind. Since many of these men’s ideas have become our culture’s paradigm it is imperative to take a close look at them to see if these ideas still fit the needs of our society and if not should the idea be thrown out or modified. Another consideration is whether their original ideas are misinterpreted.
Adam Smith offered his views on economics and provided the structure of our capitalistic economy in his book The Wealth of Nations (1776) as well as other of his works. He provided the morality needed for our society to function and thrive. “No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which by far the greater part of the numbers are poor and miserable.” (Adam Smith) “Though our brother is upon the rack, as long as we ourselves are at ease, our senses will never inform us of what he suffers. They never did and never can carry us beyond our own persons, and it is by the imagination only that we form any conception of what are his sensations...His agonies, when they are thus brought home to ourselves, when we have this adopted and made them our own, begin at last to affect us, and we then tremble and shudder at the thought of what he feels.” (Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments) In both of these quotes it is clear that Smith had great empathy for the poor and disenfranchised and it was important that cultural decisions made also include empathy.
Smith is well known for his idea of “The Invisible Hand” which guides the economy and society itself. “The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.” (Adam Smith)
Smith lived in very different times than we do, a time of what seemed to be unlimited resources and the world seemed so large that it was thought that humans could not affect its health. Looking closely at his quote is it time to expand his intent. The “Invisible Hand” could consider the Earth. As climate change, terrorism, social unrest, etc. increase we must act in the same direction to promote harmony instead of misery and disorder.
Smith considered throughput (refer to throughput articles) in his philosophy as to the true benefits or usefulness to society of the frivolous use of resources. “How many people ruin themselves by laying out money on trinkets of frivolous utility? What pleases these lovers of toys is not so much the utility, as the aptness of the machines which are fitted to promote it. All their pockets are stuffed with little conveniences. They contrive new pockets, unknown in the clothes of other people, in order to carry a greater number. They walk about loaded with a multitude of baubles, in weight and sometimes in value not inferior to an ordinary Jew's-box, some of which may sometimes be of some little use, but all of which might at all times be very well spared, and of which the whole utility is certainly not worth the fatigue of bearing the burden.” (Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments)
Although Smith contributed so much one quote is maybe his best known. “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages” (Adam Smith – An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations) If we are to move ahead in a more mutualistic path this quote may have to be revisited. If we could learn to act out of helping others, would it not benefit us all? This of course is not a light switch to be turned on, however, if the discussions begin along with a plan of building trust, our imaginations could manifest.
John Locke also added his views on societal affairs, filling out the global cultural changes. True to form, not everyone welcomed Locke’s ideas and he was well aware of the pushback from the paradigm of the day. “New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not common.” (John Locke) To Locke free thinking was extremely important. One should digest information and not just repeat it. “This is that which I think great readers are apt to be mistaken in. Those who have read of everything are thought to understand everything too; but it is not always so. Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking makes what we read ours. We are of the ruminating kind, and it is not enough to cram ourselves with a great load of collections; unless we chew them over again, they will not give us strength and nourishment.” (John Locke, Conduct of the Understanding).
Freedom, was not easily won, it had to be acquired through flexibility of thought and hard work. Locke had a great influence on our “founding fathers” as they penned a constitution that would be debated and interpreted for over 200 years. “We are all short sighted, and very often see but one side of a matter; our views are not extended to all that has a connection with it. From this defect I think no man is free. We see but in part, and we know but in part, and therefore it is no wonder we conclude not right from our partial views. This might instruct the proudest esteemer of his own parts, how useful it is to talk and consult with others, even such as come short of him in capacity, quickness and penetration: for since no one sees all, and we generally have different prospects of the same thing, according to our different, as I may say, positions to it, it is not incongruous to think nor beneath any man to try, whether another may not have notions of things which have escaped him, and which his reason would make use of if they came into his mind.” (John Locke, Conduct of the Understanding)
Once again a philosopher had brought forth ideas that were ready for the times. When paradigms change some of the old ideas remain and carry over into the new paradigm while some need either a revision or a removal. Locke was a proponent of the idea that humankind was in a position of redirecting nature to favor the needs of people. “Land that is left wholly to nature…is called, as indeed it is, waste”. (John Locke, Second Treatise) “God gave the World to Men in Common; But since he gave it them for their benefit, and the greatest Conveniences of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the industrious and Rational, (and Labour was to be his Title to it ;) not to the fancy or covetousness of the quarrelsome and contentious.” (John Locke, Second Treatise of Government)
The times are changing once again and can we afford to dominate nature or should we move in the direction of understanding how we can be a part of the natural world? I have had an interest in the lives of scientists, specifically ones engaged in a new way of thinking, the ones responsible for some sort of paradigm change. Most of these scientists doubled in the realm of philosophy which seemed to drive them to carry on their research in spite of great pushback. Often, supporters use their quotes to bolster the scientific ideas while the opposition uses their quotes to illustrate their failings. These great people are never all right or all wrong, but usually shine light on a direction of new thinking. Another such man is Charles Darwin.
One such man is Charles Darwin. Darwin was not a religious man, in fact he often pointed out that truth could not be found by belief alone but needed observation, a flexible mind and logical thinking. Although Darwin was not religious, I believe he must have been spiritual in nature. “One hand has surely worked throughout the universe.” (Charles Darwin, Voyage of the Beagle) “[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” (Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin) As sure as he was of Natural Selection he also had doubts. “Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.” (Charles Darwin) “Such simple instincts as bees making a beehive could be sufficient to overthrow my whole theory.” (Charles Darwin)
These three men, along with Newton’s (Newton was born in 1642, the same year Galileo died under house arrest for heresy against the present cultural views, hence the paradigm) scientific understanding provided the knowledge needed for the Industrial Revolution which has shaped our global economic system. It is this area of ideas that society must review.
The questions to be answered: What does Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” include? Do the rights of Humankind, according to Locke, include using the Earth’s resources for our own gains and consider not using these resources a waste? Is it still serving humankind to pit each other and follow Darwin’s “Survival of the Fittest”? As we enter the era of the unknown whose words do we incorporate into the next paradigm?
