Paradogma

Hier is een bijdrage over paradigma en paradox

The new paradigm is inconsistency in practice; I call it paradox. I’ve been working with Will’s approach (“Creating Paths of Change”) for over 15 years now and for me it still is the best approach: his “model” (i prefer the word “map”) is complete at the expense of inconsistency. His “model” doesn’t produce answers, it generates questions and very good questions at that.

The four reality perceptions are both excluding and connecting: they complement each other. They question each other. What seems “real” in one reality perception, may become “unreal” in another, must be “not real” in a third and can be “not unreal” in the fourth. The basis premises is that your way of perceiving and judging makes it so (Thomas Theorema). Theory is, at the most, a useful habit and should not to be confused with an attribute of reality. Theory is fiction, made up (as is, by the way, “fact”, facts are also made up).

Here is, in my view, the new paradigm: being inconsistent. All theories aim at consistency and fall into the trap set up by the Russell Paradigm: “can a theory both contain and explain itself?”. Yes and no. The trap is a truly existential one: it is there because I am. Or, to put in other words: “I am, therefore I think”. I am my own theory, or even better, I own my theory, I made it – as you do and did and will do.

Will showed me (I think he didn’t quite see it this way himself) that there is no location outside the map (my map, my reality) I’m in. My process of mapping produces my map, which contains my process of mapping, which contains …infinite regress and a true paradox. This high level “map” I perceive as my reality and I use my reality as a map. (In Dutch we have this wonderful word “werkelijkheid”, as in German: “Wirklichkeit”. “Wirklichkeit ist aber was wirkt” What works is “werkelijkheid”, reality”.) I assume that you do the same. These maps seem largely to be the same, because they are grounded in the same real reality (I know there is a world outside me, that’s why i needed the map in the first place), only, I am only on my map and you are only on yours. Where you stand depends on where you sit. Moving is an interesting option, but reality moves with you.

There seems to be “a whole hole” in the map, a kind of blind spot, parts I cannot perceive. It is me, myself and I. And, like the blind spot in our eye, it is covered up – by our brain – and the cover up is also covered up (it is called science). At the same time, we provide each other with complements of our maps – theories. These theories work, nothing as practical as a good theory. Up to a point, the point they cannot make. And the theories are also used to stuff the holes, to cover up the holes. They are used to say: “listen, my map is better than your map, so i must be a better person”. Or something like it. (I’m not very impressed, my map says.)

System Thinking, I’ve said it many times is not wrong, it is just incomplete. When we make it complete, for instance, I may add “synchronicity” (this, I have discovered, is another way of adding yourself to the map, without people noticing. synchronicity only works when there is somebody to perceive the perception), we introduce inconsistencies. If you do not want those, get out of my light, because that is making the shadow..

So, to quote Einstein: “in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is”. In paradigm, there is no difference between paradigm and paradox; in paradox there is.

Over Jan Lelie

Loves to facilitate groups in complex situations
Dit bericht is geplaatst in Brein, Kaart van Werkelijkheidsopvattingen, paradox met de tags , , , . Bookmark de permalink.

Geef een reactie

Deze website gebruikt Akismet om spam te verminderen. Bekijk hoe je reactie-gegevens worden verwerkt.