Re: Philosophy underlying LO? LO201

Michael McMaster (
Wed, 22 Feb 1995 19:50:45 GMT

Replying to Robert Levi LO166 re "the history of the new paradigm", I
think both the old and the new were emergent. Its just our limited
historical point of view consistent with the old paradigm that attributes
it to individuals.

> Is it possible that the "linear" spreading of the old mechanistic
> worldview (i.e. from Descartes to Newton to Darwin, etc.) doesn't apply to
> this "new" emerging paradigm (given by your examples)?
> If this is the case, and I'm not sure it is, then there doesn't
> necessarily need to be a "father" of the new paradigm

However there might be some use, particular in the earlier stages
of formulation of a new paradigm, to be aware of its historical
roots in those various conversations from which it is emerging. I
find it useful in sharing the ideas with others as well as in
challenging my own thinking as I approach new areas. This borrows
from the biological model which suggests that almost all viable
change comes from recombination of existing viable solutions and
almost none from random mutation.

In particular, my thinking continues to be developed at least as
much from earlier work - von Mises in economics, The Scottish
Enlightenment in social theory, Heideggar in philosophy and even
more ancient presentations of ideas from both Eastern and Western
culture. In my own case, the three main roots of my thinking are
informed by traditions (some quite young but all much older than me)
in postmodernism, complexity theory and Austrian or libertarian

Mike McMaster <>