Rajaram Sir, Thank you very much for raising the standard of my writeup with your great learning.My own learning is very little,but you invariably take my writeu to peak High Brow.How xI wish that I deserve the elevation. YM
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 1:20 PM Rajaram Krishnamurthy <[email protected]> wrote: > Pranam > > 1 The terms paradigm and theory are often used interchangeably in > social science, although social scientists do not always agree whether > these are identical or distinct concepts *paradigm* as a way of viewing > the world (or “analytic lens” akin to a set of glasses) and a framework > from which to understand the human experience-as defined. It can be > difficult to fully grasp the idea of paradigmatic assumptions because we > are very ingrained in our own, personal everyday way of thinking. For > example, let’s look at people’s views on abortion. To some, abortion is a > medical procedure that should be undertaken at the discretion of each > individual woman. To others, abortion is murder and members of society > should collectively have the right to decide when, if at all, abortion > should be undertaken. Chances are, if you have an opinion about this topic, > you are pretty certain about the veracity of your perspective. Then again, > the person who sits next to you in class may have a very different opinion > and yet be equally confident about the truth of their perspective. Who is > correct? > > 2 You are each operating under a set of assumptions about the way the > world works, or the way you believe the world should work. Perhaps your > assumptions come from your political perspective, which helps shape your > view on a variety of social issues, or perhaps your assumptions are based > on what you learned from your parents or in religion around. In any case, > there is a paradigm that shapes your stance on the issue. Those paradigms > are a set of assumptions. These beliefs and assumptions influence how we > think about any aspect of the issue*. Paradigms are a way of framing > what we know, what we can know, and how we can know it*. Positivism is > the first paradigm we will consider, as it is likely the first that comes > to mind when thinking about science. *Positivism* is guided by the > principles of objectivity, “knowability,” and deductive logic. Deductive > logic is discussed in more detail in next section of this chapter. The > positivist framework operates from the assumption that society can and > should be studied empirically and scientifically. Positivism also calls for > a value-free science, one in which researchers aim to abandon their biases > and values in a quest for objective, empirical, and knowable truth. > > 3 Another predominant paradigm in social work is *social > constructionism*. While positivists seek “the truth,” the social > constructionist framework posits that “truth” varies. Truth is different > based on who you ask, and people change their definitions of truth { as > in this group a few did and others watched over ineffectively} all the > time based on their interactions with other people. *According to this > paradigm, we create reality through our interactions and the > interpretations that we have of our interactions, as opposed to the > existence of an objective reality. * So, what is the “truth” of the > middle finger or thumbs up? It depends on the gesture’s intended meaning, > the gesture’s interpretation, and the social context in which it occurs. ( > for esy understanding of a paradigm) . In other words, the meanings that we > construct have power beyond the individual people who create them. > > 4 A third paradigm is the *critical* paradigm. At its core, the > critical paradigm is focused on power, inequality, and social change. > Unlike the positivist paradigm, the critical paradigm posits that social > science can never be truly objective or value-free. Further, this > paradigm operates from the perspective that scientific investigation should > be conducted with the express goal of social change in mind. The critical > paradigm not only studies power imbalances but also seeks to change them. > > 5 Finally, *postmodernism* is a paradigm that challenges almost every > way of knowing that many social scientists take for granted . While > positivists claim that there is an objective, knowable truth, > postmodernists would say that there is not. While social constructionists > may argue that truth is in the eye of the beholder(s), postmodernists may > claim that we can never know such truth. This is because postmodernists > believe that researchers stamp their own truth on the investigation when > studying and reporting on others’ truths. Finally, while the critical > paradigm may argue that power, inequality, and change shape reality and > truth, a postmodernist may ask whose power, inequality, change, reality, > and truth are in question. Much like paradigms, theories provide a way to > look at the world and understand human interaction. Paradigms are grounded > in over-arching, general assumptions about the world, whereas theories > describe more specific phenomena. They help us answer the “why” and “how” > questions we often have about the patterns we observe in social life. While > paradigms may point us in a particular direction with respect to our “why” > questions, theories more specifically map out the explanation, or the > “how,” behind the “why.” > 6 Sanskrit has many words for paradigm, but the best is Vivaraṇa ( > विवरण).—1) Displaying, expressing, unfolding, opening.; 2) Exposing, > laying bare or open.; 3) Exposition, explanation, gloss, comment, > interpretation.; 4) Describing, description. Thye word describes as > facts variables as law states that each case is different. Hence Paradigm > is not the truth. It is a derivation from certain known facts. KR IRS > 28722 > > On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 at 07:14, Markendeya Yeddanapudi < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> -- >> *Mar**The Emergence and Shift of Paradigmatic Bases* >> >> >> >> Paradigm is the connecting conceptual base of understanding. Unless one >> connects to a concept or paradigm developed in one’s mind one cannot >> understand. Understanding actually was the growth of concepts or basic >> paradigms, the scope continuously increasing and developing new branches >> and connections and extensions. >> >> But once understanding was not entangled and bound to concepts and >> paradigms. Every organism, perceived as part and participant of nature, and >> understanding consisted of breathing, smelling, perceiving, acting, >> interacting and in harmonizing as reflex action filled life. In fact one’s >> mind did not find opportunity to suspend the breathe based perception to do >> analysis and then dialysis. One participated in nature as nature, and one >> could not separate from nature to carry on the divorced observation and >> private perception. Nature as God was everywhere, and God created >> Revelations as continuous flashes of enlightenment. One lived as an organic >> part and participant of nature. >> >> With the emergence of the Neo Cortex, the Human organism gradually >> deviated from being a part of the macro perception of the Biosphere as a >> whole. Understanding changed from feeling to detached observation for >> noting and feeling became the sin called bias. >> >> Observation for perception needed the connecting conceptual base, called >> paradigm. The very smell messages from nature were ignored and the human >> struggled to just connect phenomena to the established paradigm in the >> mind. The basic apparatus of perception, through breathing, smelling, >> sensing and perceiving in and as nature has been removed to pave way for >> the scientific or Cartesian mathematical reduction. >> >> Nature no longer was a part and participant in perception. In fact the >> indifferent and insensitive destruction of nature has become the unbiased >> and detached scientific noting by the mind without feeling. The very thrill >> of revelation from nature has been killed by technology. The innate art in >> one’s life as a part and participant in and as nature vanished. >> >> Today the scientific detachment has taken us to the very abandonment of >> perception. We no longer perceive, but only note what the computers tell. >> We do not even need concepts and the paradigmatic bases. This is the era of >> death of paradigms and rule by computers. >> >> We have a machine perform the work of every organ, and we are making our >> organs redundant. In this frenzy to make our Biology redundant, the mind >> too is becoming dysfunctional. >> >> Once when one walked in free, thick and lush nature one perceived along >> with every organism of the Biosphere breathing the smell messages and >> exhaling smell responses. In that ‘Kavi Sammelan Every organism was a >> participant. >> >> This is the era of technology or the techno logic or the logic of the >> machine.AI is taking over.AI does not need paradigms. It needs only the >> synchronization of engineering. >> >> YM >> > -- *Mar* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHC%2Bp9s_Givr2TSy4zx%2Bpn2-u9gmmERXncgA6tffcZpcnBg%40mail.gmail.com.
