context > paradigm

content/en/learn/module-7/no-paradigm.mdx

@@ -79,22 +79,22 @@ Scientific Revolutions* by Thomas S. Kuhn, along with the claims he makes about
 
 > "In short: its greatest dynamic power is held by a paradigm while it is not called *paradigm*, 
 but called facts, data, truth, nature, ethics, proper procedures, etc. As soon as a paradigm is 
-called a paradigm (usually then referred to as a *mere paradigm*), its power collapses.""
+called a paradigm (usually then referred to as a *mere paradigm*), its power collapses."
 
 Assumed knowledge, like geocentrism or the existence of a particular God, creates the 
 framework for investigation. However, it has throughout most of human history been a taboo to question the existing framework itself:
 
 > "It was a sin and crime, punished by law, church, and community vigilance, to ask and probe whether 
 the known was true, whether philosophical thought and scientific research and problem-solving 
-were based on all one could know.""
+were based on all one could know."
 
 We cannot sneer at this history, knowing that the people of bygone times acted in accordance 
 with what they knew, and **could not** have suspected that much of their knowledge was based 
 on flawed interpretations or faulty observations. Of course, this also implies that:
 
 > "We today can not tell, by definition, within which paradigm we are dwelling, thinking and 
 acting, unless and until we are able to observe us and it from the outside, just as we 
-recognize it and us from outside the times of Galileo.""
+recognize it and us from outside the times of Galileo."
 
 Kuhn was the first to use the term ‘paradigm’ in this sense, and in so doing, he trapped himself in exactly the kind of paradigmatic thinking he was trying to escape. Brün points out the self-contradiction in Kuhn’s attempt to carefully explain his leap in ways that would appear reasonable to those still trapped within an old paradigm. In order to bypass this problem, Brün simply defines her stance:
 
@@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ This brings us to the crux of the dilemma faced by authors like Kuhn - and us al
 from becoming an ideologist as long as I am unable or unwilling to create the suitable language 
 which speaks as I think and not louder than my thoughts.
 
-Overcoming this issue *begins* by facing squarely the human misery and suffering in this world, seeing 
+Overcoming this issue *begins* with facing squarely the human misery and suffering in this world, seeing 
 how it is largely created as a result of our culture, ethics, morals, beliefs and values and 
 then attempting to join "the problem-solvers" so that we might stand ready for the day when the underlying paradigm can finally be seen clearly as a mere paradigm:
 
@@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ and so that* individual and social problems can and will be identified and solve
 Brün quotes Karl Marx and shows how his analysis of labour may be applied to language to make 
 a very subtle point about how insidious paradigms truly are. Though we can use Marxist analysis 
 to reveal the contradictions of capitalism, showing that there are contradictions is not 
-revolutionary. It is the contradictions themselves which are revolutionary because they 
+revolutionary. It is [the contradictions themselves which are revolutionary](https://theyrule.net/so_what) because they 
 generate the antagonisms which the system cannot resolve without disintegrating. Therefore, Marxist analysis is a great starting point, but due to the inertia of its language, it inadvertently misleads its followers into focusing on the ideology rather than the insufferable contradictions. What it lacks - and what Brün dreams of - is an [economy of signs](https://sign.kerenel.community) largely free from the accumulated inertia of past paradigms.
 
 <Flash>