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 language
or even your attempts at communication
quite the same since I ran across their big dilemma.

Interestingly,
it shares some dynamics with The Prisoner’s Dilemma,
in WinWin NonZero Game Theory,
but that is a mirror mapping story
for mutual neurosystemic acclimation
on some other, even more heady, day.

Put simply,
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
context
systemic communication network.

For example,
is what ‘YHWH’ meant to Abraham
an equivalent theological function
to what Jesus of Nazareth meant by ‘Abba’?

And,
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 flowing
extending
growing
so, let’s see

Darwin’s use of ‘evolution’
to designate some regenerative function within a bio/ecosystem,
may or may not carry the same meaning
as Gordon’s regenerative function
of evolution within eco-politically creolizing systems.

Terms may historically evolve culturally incommensurable functions,
within interdependent contextual paradigms,
especially between PreRevolutionary
and newer PostRevolutionary
paradigmatic frames of interdependent reference

Multiculturally reforming,
cooperatively reweaving,
looking for more inclusively explanatory paradigms
extending co-empowering
bilateral WinNew/WinOld commensurable
neurosystemic communication functions.

And so, my darling,
why is this your moment of epiphany?
Why are both virtually bloodless and bloody violent cultural revolutions
necessary precursors to an incommensurable meaning problem
rather than a revolutionary point of potential integrity
in-between a before v after

A before plus after
interdependent reincarnating process,
a bilateral Both-And
Win/Win integral frame extension?

Well, because then our empirically exegetical orthodox truth statements
may look more like an ever-changing great chain of co-arising feelings
becoming a dynamic trust v distrust neurosystemic framework,
more like a revolving-recycling, perhaps even spiraling,
potentially regenerative string
of interdependently meaningful v not meaningful 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 democratizing creolization,
extending up and down from MotherEarth’s interactive equator,
rather than God the Heavenly UnChanging Father
beaming His divine light from the WhiteHouse Sacred UpperCaste Hill
to spread freedom and healthy sunshine of true blue

I mean…true red-meat theocracy
across this monoculturing USA,
submerging the inscription on Liberty’s Statue of Original Constitutional Intent
to the Cerebrally Pacific Centering Ocean,
surf sounds,
like breathing in-caste and out-caste,
in and out…

Well, honey,
if it’s all the same to you,
I’ll try to not get my panties in a not not knot
over this Commensurable Meaning Problem,
or evolutionary linguistic Acclimation Theory
against co-arising WinTrust-New v LoseTrust-Old
incommensurable dissonance issue.

Why don’t we just assume our trusting best,
and figure Kuhn’s win v lose Incommensurability
is also Gordon’s win+win creolization of polyculturing eco-politics.
You know,
just growing the historical evolutionary paradigms
out toward wider memetic trans-generational families
of trust virtues v distrusted viciousness?

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 feelings.

She’s getting there.
Just hang on.

“…creolization can help us to engage in [multiculturing] thought
or that which facilitates seeking of [truth] concepts and [trust] aspirations…”

Meaning dynamic, maybe even healthy organic, cognitions
and their co-relationally felt virtues.

If you say so, dear.
…meaningful 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,
dipolar co-arising continuously nuanced frame,
if we assume both before and after empowerment v disempowerment
of mutual democratizing win/win regard
rather than all that territorial and theoretical “Either This or That”
and “Don’t you dare Both-And me on this one”
that puts our win v lose graduate students to sleep
unwoke,
especially right after lunch.

Yes, continuous win/win democratizing progress
does seem regeneratively implied,
and possibly in the Bohmian explicate-now/implicate-then sense,
as swelling well.

She continues,
if you could please refrain from editing…

Of course, dear.
Whatever will get us on to Tillich’s Problem of Supersessionism
the superfastest.

Ok, we continue,
“Moving beyond dialogue of respectful difference,
which none of us should denigrate,
we instead explore [re]creating ways
in which otherwise [discontinuous cognitive] fragmented accounts
of shared political,
physical,
and geopolitical [communication] spaces
could and do combine.”

Yes, exactly, it’s Kuhn’s Problem of pre- and post-revolutionary incommensurability
of language truth-meanings and felt trust-functions
all over again.

Why Kayko Hesslein didn’t use ‘commensurability’
instead of ‘supersessionism’ or, even better,
win/win ‘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
springing up and falling down lilies
and well-composted
bilateral before and after
wheat fields,
or paradigmatic frames,
or systemic contexts

Or the Win/Win
Gaia Hypothesis

Yeah, sure,
commensurable functions
of new wine and old water,
or whatever.