… or why we can (not) step over the shadow of established (thought) patterns
In short, our “epistèmic perspective” holds that “because ideas in general, and so by natural extension our own too, [opinions,thought patterns, feelings, biases, conflicts, behaviour, etc.] by their very nature, (as conserving measure) self-propagate and self-affirm, […] it is not easy to establish new patterns or policies or to engage necessary changes”.
Samples here of we find in the continual frenzied talk of (pending) economic meltdown; in the dynamic of writers-block -that has its own momentum once we’re in such-; in corporate culture, biases and expressions of nationalism of various kinds and of course traditions each of us are born into. To this tenacious pattern formation in thought, Gaston Bachelard referred in the 1950’s as the epistemological block. As a historian of science (Sorbonne 1940-55) he observed that difficulty nor capacity obstructed inventive scientific leaps, bút rather the way professionals thought about their subject.
In philosophy epistemology is preoccupied with the ground, nature, size and validity of what/how we know. In Greek episteme (epistēmē) exists of epi- and -histanai: ‘standing [near] by the cause’. Our epistemic perspective utilized in our work here leads (not an ego but) experience(s) back to its core (to the first principles – the inception – the first inkling/idea) from where alternative ways of thinking, not considered prior, originate. Once we apply this method, it works lighthandedly and effective with immediate results for each habit or endeavor requiring initiative and imagination.
For those interested in more info. see: Gaston Bachelard and his ‘epistèmic rupture’ as basis why we humans can(not) leap over the shadow of our thought patterns. So too, click on to: ‘Mneme’ – or read Hillman and Jung about archetypes, Foucault’s Epistèmè – Thomas Kuhn ‘ Paradigma’ because all of these, one way or another, are bits of related thoughts …. ☺
Amsterdam ~ Leeuwarden ~ Boston