I suppose you might have missed out on Paul Feyerabend’s,
and especially Thomas Kuhn’s Problem of Incommensurabiity.
Oh, not at all.
I have not looked at science or culture
or even your attempts at communication
quite the same since I ran across their big dilemma.
it shares some dynamics with The Prisoner’s Dilemma,
in WinWin NonZero Game Theory,
but that is a reiterative mapping story for mutual acclimation
on some other, even more abstract, day.
it appears that a term used within some theoretical framework,
at earlier Point A,
take evolution, for example,
may or may not evolve some incommensurable
not entirely equivalent with, to, for, from
the same term as it appears in a subsequent
Point B post-revolutionary framework.
is what YHWH meant to Abraham
an equivalent theological function
to what Jesus of Nazareth meant by Abba?
what Darwin meant by symbiosis
may or may not be the same as what Jane A Gordon
might mean by symbiosis…
Not symbiosis, dear,
her word is ‘creolization.’
Right of course;
relentlessly flowingly so.
Darwin’s use of ‘evolution’
to designate some regenerative function within a bio/ecosystem,
may or may not be the same as Gordon’s function
of evolution within ecopolitically creolizing communication systems.
Terms may have revolutionarily incommensurable functions,
within evolving paradigms,
especially between PreRevolutionary Frames
and newer PostRevolutionary, still eisegetical,
yet multiculturally forming,
more inclusively bilaterally WinWin
extending family framework for co-empowering theories.
And so, my darling,
why is this your moment of epiphany?
Why are both bloodless and bloody violent cultural revolutions
necessarily precursors to an incommensurable multiculturing problem
rather than a revolutionary point of potential resolution
between a before and after,
yet still co-interdependently incarnating,
theoretical bilateral BothAnd frame extension?
Well, because then our empirically fundamentally exegetical orthodox truths
may look more like an ever-changing great chain of co-arising becoming framework,
more like a revolving-recycling, perhaps even spiraling,
regenerative string of interdependent events.
And, this is a nightmare for you because…?
What we have faith in as paradigmatic Truth
and the American Competitive Survival of Fittest Nations Way,
starts to look more like a creolizing archipelago,
extending up and down from the equator,
rather than God the Heavenly UnChanging Father
beaming His divine light from the District of Columbia’s Sacred Hill
to spread freedom and healthy sunshine of true blue,
I mean…true redmeat democracy
across this multiculturing USA,
from the inscription on Liberty’s Statue of Original Constitutional Intent
to the Cerebrally Pacific Centering Ocean,
like breathing in and out,
in and out…
if it’s all the same to you,
I’ll try to not get my panties in a notnot knot
over this Problem,
or Acclimation, of and for co-arising Incommensurability.
Why don’t we just assume our trusting best,
and figure Kuhn’s Incommensurability
is also Gordon’s Creolization of enculturing ecopolitics.
just growing the extended evolutionary paradigms
out from genetics to wider memetic regenerate families.
Yes, here we are, page 163
She says “If unable to fashion genuinely universal theories,
creolization can help us to engage in universalizing thought…”
I think she might have more clearly said universalizing multicultural thought.
She’s getting there.
Just hang on.
“…creolization can help us to engage in [multiculturing] thought
or that which facilitates seeking of concepts and aspirations…”
Meaning dynamic, maybe even organic, concepts
and nutritional-digestive deductive aspirations.
If you say so, dear.
…regenerative concepts and healthy aspirations
“with what Molefi Asante (1998) has termed
greater transcultural validity.”
Well, yes, transcultural,
but especially transcultural between a pre-revolutionary frame
and a post-revolutionary,
more stretching-out inclusive,
bilaterally temporal-continuous frame,
if we assume both before and after politics
of mutual cooperativizing regard
rather than all that territorial and exegetical
“Either This or That”
and “Don’t you dare Both-And me on this one”
that puts our graduate students to sleep at night.
And sometimes right after lunch too.
Yes, bilaterally continuous does seem implied,
and possibly in the Bohmian explicate/implicate sense, as well.
if you could please refrain from editing…
Of course, dear.
Whatever will get us on to Tillich’s Problem of Supersessionism
Ok, we continue,
“Moving beyond dialogue of respectful difference,
which none of us should denigrate,
we instead explore [re]creating ways
in which otherwise [bilateral before-after] fragmented accounts
of shared [eco]political,
and geopolitical [co-operative systemic network] spaces
could and do [regeneratively] combine.”
Yes, exactly, it’s Kuhn’s Problem of pre- and post-revolutionary incommensurability
of language meanings and empowerment functions
all over again.
Why Kayko Hesslein didn’t use ‘incommensurable’
instead of ‘supersessionism’ or, even better,
‘creolization’, I don’t know
It sounds like super-secessionism, I suppose.
Anyway, with that substitution of terms,
Hesslein claim’s Tillich’s creolization theology
of messianic redemption
would, if truly fulfilled in the Christ event,
invalidate Judaism’s capacity
to continuously deliver regenerative redemption
even just among the Chosen People.
What would Jesus say, do you think?
Probably to reconsider the creolizing lilies
in the well-composted bilateral fields.