RL: Rwer is too orthodox in that it frames its discussions mainly in nomethetic terms, to criticize them usually, but not to set them aside. Spender’s point is that in the theory of the firm, the marketplace is not the operative point, but his point is not taken up in discussions. Mine in the recent rwer is that we don’t have to go through nomothetic science to get to the real world, to skip the science and go directly to the firm-centric real world. Leave the scientists out as a reference point and then you’ll have a paradigmatic change.
Me: @ Robert Locke
Yes, I’ve noticed that RWER Blog is too orthodox as well. They’re undoubtedly well intentioned, I’m not disputing that, but they lack the the characteristics necessary for true paradigmatic thinking which are not only iconoclasm, but also integration of opposing truths and finally the ability to step COMPLETELY outside of the current paradigm and visualize the new one.
I’m surprised no one here has done a study of paradigm changes and their signatures some of which I have posted about here recently. You would think that would be a great topic for discussion here because paradigm changes are so deep, broad, permanent, historically progressive and agreed upon changes.
I readily admit I stand on the shoulders of giants, but I have always enjoyed integrating and innovating ideas and patterns, and my adult intellectual studies just happen to be wisdom traditions, human consciousness itself and their pragmatic expression, and that is exactly what paradigm changes are, the integration of new ideas and patterns, new realizations regarding them and their expression in the temporal universe.