A few comments on the recent dialogue on definitions.
All paradigm shifts involve changes to the language
new meanings for old words
entirely new words
Old words carry the baggage of the old paradigm in their etymology. They
therefore make it very difficult to escpape the old paradigm and fully
understand the implications of the new.
Example of new meanings for old words:
Ecology - originally meant the study of the interactions between elements
in living systems; in common parlance it has come to mean "the balance of
nature". This reflects the cultures having discarded first the Romantic
view of Nature; then a scientific one based on competition; and is now
adopting a scientific one based on comlementarity. This is reflected in
the fact that the people who used to shape popular culture on this subject
were poets (Wordsworth) and art critics (Ruskin) in the first era; then, in
the second, social critics (Spencer) and "competitive" bilogists (Darwin);
now it is "complementary" biologists (Suzuki, Sheldrake).
Example of new words
Automobile, radio
Note that there were intermediate words for these things in the transition
from the old to the new paradigm - "horseless carriage" "wire-less".
Thinking of an automobile as a horseless carriage makes it legitimate to
think in terms of keeping it within the old (biological) bounds - requiring
a man to walk in front of it with a red flag, for example. Thinking of it
as an automobile - something self mobile/powered - opens the possibility of
something unbound by biological limits. "Horseless carriage" bounds the
imagination to the organically contrained city (constrained by the speed
and carrying capacity of horses and people). "Automobile" releases the
imagination to consider a mechanically constrained city designed around
freeways. The horseless carriage gives us the city as it has been for
thousands of years from Ur to early modern cities. The automobile gives us
Los Angeles.
I am therefore sympathetic to what Richard Mochelle has proposed. We need
new words for new concepts or we will not break free of the old ideas.
It seems to me that what Michael Spencer has in mind is a (mental)
hyphenation of the word work, similar to the notions of "horseless-carriage
and "wire-less", and thus can be interpreted as a step in the direction of
Richard's proposal.
Richard's and Michael's proposals are thus complementary, not competitive.
I suggest we begin with the hyphenation exercise, to gain a clearer idea of
the direction in which we ought to be heading, and conclude with coining
some new words.
Regards,
Mike H
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Facing the Future Inc.
15003 56 Avenue,
Edmonton AB T6H 5B2
(403) 438-7342
