The Personal Versus Logical Exigence of Truth and Paradigms

Two Time Award Winning!

Written for a course titled Rhetorical Traditions in 2022, this essay was recognized through the Knights Write Showcase at the University of Central Florida, garnering awards for both People and Judge’s choice. Initially written as a response to multiple theorists, this essay answers the questions of why do trends/cultural institutions arise, and how can we understand them better? 

I believe that an aspect of rhetoric is the process of taking the deepest hidden rhythms of our life and bringing them to the forefront. It is the process of determining fact from opinion, creating new paradigms from existing circumstances, and crafting solutions that derive from pain. In this past module in Rhetorical Traditions, we read and discussed how to find Truth, discover Truth, and what truth is and has been to people. In that process, we discussed Vedic rhetoric and how our ideas come about in the first place. I believe that the process of creating new paradigms, attempting to find Truth, and hosting dialectic is something that can seamlessly intersect with the ideas of Vedic rhetoric and scientific revolution. They are all merely a process of coming to a conclusion that is spurred on by thought, and followed by action. I say the word conclusion and not Truth, because at the end of the day we cannot assure that we will come to Truth through individual thought and paradigm. The content of this essay seems highly philosophical and very abstract, but the goal of this essay is not to explore a certain paradigm and how it has shifted me, but how I go about assessing all the paradigms in life, and theory on scientific revolution; not just how it works but why. I start this essay with one theory that I will not attempt to argue, but I hope to discover the answer to this theory for myself. The following paragraphs will reason with this idea: do we resolve to shift paradigms, or find Truth, due to voids in scientific evidence and lack or reason, or do we pursue to find Truth through paradigm because of a transcendental source of discomfort that may arise as we interact with the ideas, and actions that seem truthful to us at that time? In other words, is reason and logic the driver for the pursuit of Truth, or is it our human want for, as Gugizi emphasizes, “yin and yang”, balance and peace? (41) Using the principles of Vedic rhetoric and the works of Melfi and Kuhn, I will analyze where our ideas and want for paradigm shifts come from. Why, though, is this important? In order to create paradigms that truly solve our want for a solution, we must know if we are solving an issue of logic or an issue of human dysfunction. 

Before theory regarding these ideas is discussed, let’s define the key terms that I will be discussing. The first of those terms is the word Truth – with a capital “T.” Capital “T” Truth is a matter of indisputable fact. It is the reality of the way things are and will be. Truth is inarguable, inerrant, and consistent. Counter to that is the word “truth” with a lowercase “t.” The non-capital implies that it is not constant, not proper, and not official. The word “truth” is still a way of being, but it is a subjective way of being. For example, my truth is that I wake up every day with blonde hair. That truth may not be the same for you. Thus, when I discuss that humans have a want for “Truth”, I am explaining the idea that we as humankind want to know what the way of being is and what it should be. We want rules to follow and a narrative to carry, and we can only find that from capital-T Truth. The next word that is important to the understanding of this theory is the word “paradigm.” A paradigm is a way of being that is natural, that happens without question. It is a vastly understood assumption that everyone follows without having to try. More paradigms are in existence than we choose to understand – we live by them. The thing about paradigms is that they are not changed without conscious effort and a willing fight. Because these processes take place on a subconscious level, it takes a majority to break into “consciousness” in order to change that way of being. Paradigms are a microcosm of truth; and just as it takes a process to change a paradigm, it takes a process to change subjective truth. This is especially true for Sir Francis Bacon, the originator of the scientific process and believer in the idea that science is used to discover new truths. The concepts outlined in Bacon’s texts, such as the idea written in the sentence prior, are important to keep in mind as we explore this inquiry. He believed that science is the answer to discovering Truth, that process and exploration is what brings us new paradigms to live by. Keep in mind, though, that the primary focus of this inquiry is not how Truth is discovered, but why we seek to discover it in the first place – and taking the idea of the scientific process into consideration is very important in the discussion of logic vs. emotional and transcendental need. 

The first work that I will analyze is “The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolution'' by Kuhn. In this work, he is explaining what paradigms are, how they originate, and the cycle upon which new paradigms are instituted. He describes the process, and what that looks like both socially and experimentally. Here is what this process looks like outside of theory: Paradigm shifts occur very frequently. I’d like to say that the recent uptick in awareness of sexual assault cases and mental heath awareness is a paradigm shift in culture. If we connect paradigm shifts to things in culture that really matter, we start to understand the concepts more clearly, and seek to understand them within contexts that we can apply. So, while I discuss this theory, I want you to find a recent shift in ideology that you can imagine this theory applying to, it’ll make the discussion not only bearable, but applicable to personal life. The original Kuhn text is far from applicable at first glance, but this is what discussion and analysis is for. Within the text, he states; “If existing theory binds the scientist only with respect to existing applications, then there can be no surprises, anomalies, or crises. But these are just the signposts that point the way to extraordinary science.” (316) It is interesting, the fact that as you become more knowledgeable in science you become increasingly aware of just how temporary and faulty scientific reasoning is. We all grew up learning the basics of science: gravity, liquids vs. solids, and chemical reactions. Let’s say that you grow up loving to learn about the properties of light, and decide to pursue further knowledge of that subject matter in college, you will soon find that you are not discussing fact like you may have in elementary, but you are now in the realm of theory, discussing names of men who have crafted ideas about what they think light does and why, how it functions and when. I say all of this to pose this statement; the more that we attempt to discover the Truth of an issue, the more we venture into existing paradigms and out of simple facts. To tell a child that all they are learning is a mere assumption would set them in an odd learning environment, they would be less prone to retain that information or relay it as fact. Even children know that impermanence in information means it is less valuable. Yet, this inconsistent information is what we base our lives and assumptions of Truth on. Why, then, do we accept some things as truth? In order for paradigms to shift, there must be certain things that are accepted as Truth within that paradigm, and using those truths we debate the extent to which they affect our lives and how they can be adjusted. For example, in order for the heliocentric model to be adjusted we had to accept the Truth that we live on a planet, there is a sun, and that the large masses around us are consistently circulating in a pattern. We attempt to claim facts about various anomalies so that we can solve the new situations that occur when we venture deeper into the subject matter. In the prior portion of the text by Kuhn, he is explaining the different types of paradigms and how they come about. He says; “The first consists of phenomena already well explained by existing paradigms, and these seldom provide either motive or point of departure for theory construction.” (Kuhn 313) This means that some aspect of a previous paradigm is accepted as truth in order for another one to occur. We do not just cycle through truths radically, there will always be a remnant of the last paradigm that builds the framework for a new one. The last two points made could be summarized as such: Science is a consistently inconsistent study, and we must claim some of the discoveries of it as Truth in order to explain the anomalies and crises that occur. Furthermore, the new paradigms that we see arising have a great possibility that they are also based off of those truths, making them a variant of a pre-existing notion. Using these ideas, let’s see how that adds to the thesis. If we are trying to figure out whether our efforts to shift cultural paradigms comes from a gap in logic or emotional discomfort, I believe Kuhn would side with the idea that paradigm shifts are scientifically driven, experimentally oriented, and socially instituted. Here is my evidence for such analysis. Kuhn says; “In particular, our most recent examples show that paradigms provide scientists not only with a map but also with some of the directions essential for map-making.” (322) And also states; “In learning a paradigm the scientist acquires theory, methods, and standards together, usually in an inextricable mixture. Therefore, when paradigms change, there are usually significant shifts in the criteria determining the legitimacy both of problems and of proposed solutions.” (Kuhn 322) From this, we see that he believes the purpose of a paradigm is to create a map for those who cannot understand the vast nature of research, and give them tangible guidelines and solutions to theory and solidarity to issues. Because we know the purpose of a paradigm, we can resolve that Kuhn believes the exigence of it is to give solutions and answers to issues in the scientific realm, as well as give people a map for which they can make assumptions about the natural world. 

While Kuhn believes that through paradigm we get closer to truth, there is another method that is speculated that counteracts this previous theory. This is called Vedic rhetoric, another process that we naturally already reside in that is responsible for the connection between transcendental thought and speech. This is the second method that is presented on how to find truth, and it represents the side of the argument that debates the idea that a want for new paradigms forms from an interpersonal, emotional need. Before we continue, allow me to explain what Vedic rhetoric is. The Vedic rhetorical process works in levels of understandable ideals. The first is Vaikhari and it is speech that is spoken, written, heard, or seen. This is the most common form of speech that can be most easily shared. The second is Madhyama, which is speech-in-thought, or the inner voice in one’s head. The third is Pasyanti, which can be described as gestalt, awareness but not recognition, a mere sensation of something to be soon passed to the other two levels. The fourth and final level of vedic rhetoric is Para, which is the transcendental silent source of ideas, a realm that is just a possibility of existence. This process is one that in Vedic rhetoric is believed to be the way that we translate the Truth of the transcendental to the physical being, and this ideology hinges on the idea of analogy and figurative language. Yikes! Sounds confusing. Just like we did with Kuhn, let’s see how this theory can translate off the page. Vedic rhetoric, because of its broad ideology, is merely putting names to already existing phenomena. This is putting organization to already existing ways of being, but for the sake of this discussion, we will accept this theory as our current organization of thought. For instance, we can translate the theoretical idea of “transcendental thought and possibility” to “para” or “emotional and mental possibility of change.” Why Vedic rhetoric is used here, though, is so that we have levels of organization that we can use to compare and contrast from Kuhn’s theory. From now on, you can understand Vedic rhetoric as the names placed to our ideological processes. Explaining the ideas and application of Vedic rhetoric is the extent of the text from Melfi. The text states; “In that rhetorical tradition, elusive truth is approached analogically. At every turn figurative language illustrates the reality which lies beyond the mundane senses and speech and can only be fully apprehended in the state of yoga. That is the goal of speech, freedom from illusion, mokṣa.” (Melfi 139) The state of “yoga” is the idea that we can clear our predilections and focus on the source of speech rather than the speech itself. Yoga is the goal state for rhetors, and it helps us see past analogy and into fact. Tangibly, yoga is the idea of clearing our heads from predilections and seeing ideas for what they truly are. Through this theory, we see that this can happen through the levels of Vedic rhetoric. These levels inadvertently point to the notion that the pursuit of Truth originates from a higher level possibility of thought and can then be translated and understood through speech. Speech happens to be the most complicated part of finding Truth, and in this instance analogy is the “covering blanket” of what correct truth is to follow. For instance, let’s say I give the analogy “He is a diamond in the rough”, I would still be giving the Truth of the situation, but I am covering the correct terms of that truth with something similar. It just so happens that another word for a “current correct truth to follow” is a paradigm. So, now that we understand the function of vedic culture and how it connects to the ideas of Kuhn, how does it play into the argument at hand? Does this mean that the want for new paradigms comes from a personal sensation? Perhaps we can deduce this, given that we are answering a question that is not explicitly stated in the text. It is my assumption that Vedic rhetoric believes truth is discovered personally through the transcendental, and the exigence of even wanting to find truth is due to discomfort or inertia in the last two levels of Vedic rhetoric, the inner self and strings of possibilities. 

Although Kuhn is using comparative language to associate science with paradigms, his messaging leads me to believe that paradigms are not experimental or truth-based. He states that paradigms are a means of map-making and filling in gaps of inquiry so that we may solve issues and have some basis of Truth. Here lies the paradox: If every paradigm contains the remnant of another, as Kuhn states in his text, doesn’t that make the process of adopting new paradigms just like the process of entropy- more and more separated from what could really be? In other words, is the process of believing an assumption-based paradigm giving a false sense of truth to those without detailed evidence because it is based on our want for solution and not a resolved sense of actuality? While the current belief is that each paradigm brings us closer to Truth, I believe that as long as we are operating from a sense of truth, or subjectivity, we will remain in the same place of instituting scientific and political paradigms that lead us no closer to a Truth or a solution. This is because we will consistently have varying perceptions of ideas and solutions to be needed for our issues. Furthermore, as long as we are relying on paradigms to solve those issues, we cannot individually pursue thought and embrace the principles of Vedic rhetoric that encourage us to take the things we see and turn them inwards, or vice versa. This leads me to one conclusion; the origination of new paradigms originates in a transcendental want for change, but then manifests itself through logic and experimentation. The ideas of Kuhn only take place within the later half of the Vedic process, which gives way to assume that most paradigms originate in an internal discomfort, as most ideas do. Humankind seems to have nothing wrong with things going wrong if they are numb to it. To have a lack of Truth is to be residing in the wrong. It takes an intersection of Vedic rhetorical process and Kuhn’s exploration of researching and instituting new paradigms to bring to the forefront the issues that we may or may not feel discomfort in, and bring them a sense of Truth. The want for Truth, or a new paradigm shift, begins in the individual human senses, it is then translated through analogy, researched through logic, and accepted through the vast majority that use paradigms as a road map. Paradigms may never be Truth, but they temporarily solve the unspoken discomfort we feel regarding the constant questions and wrongings around us- which keeps us addicted to cycling through them. 

Walking away from discussion with only dense knowledge of theory is borderline useless. Walking away from discussion with understanding on how to apply theory is rhetoric. So, let’s exercise our rhetorical muscles and figure out how the prior text can be applied to our daily lives. We discussed the process of paradigms, and how a modern-day paradigm shift could be the perspective change that we’ve seen towards mental health awareness within the past couple years. Visualize a paradigm shift right now. What is a change in a way of being, thinking, or doing that you have seen in your lifetime? Think of how it started, what mediums it was communicated through, and who was communicating it. What were the triggers for that conversation starting? Was it a certain issue that got out of hand? Was it a cultural awakening? The answers to those questions depend on the paradigm you chose, so this portion of my discussion is up to you. Now, think of the levels of Vedic rhetoric and the ways they can be applied. I’m going to say that my paradigm shift was the use of the app TikTok. If the conclusion earlier is true, then we will suppose that the use of this app originated in an overwhelming want for deeper connection among Gen Z, and then that want was answered through the technological and scientific inventions of the app TikTok. The app, through the scientific nature of paradigms, spoke to the needs of what we were transcendentally wanting. Here is where we can apply this analysis; if we are in the midst of a paradigm shift, and understand that the changes made around us originate in transcendental want and manifest in experimentation, we can then look past the concrete choices being made around us and look to what the need is that we are really trying to fulfill. From there, we can choose to respond to that need in a way that can impact people. If rhetoric is finding something worth saying, then this is the key to efficient rhetoric, because it ensures we are meeting a need. We do this by looking past what paradigms are being instituted, and asking why they are. We do this by understanding the difference between logic and emotion and how they play a role in cultural development. If we, as communicators, can see the true need that needs to be filled by the paradigms being instituted, we can have a valuable say in how we meet that need. We can’t respond well to situations if we do not know the situations well. This method of thought could also assist one in the workplace or in relationship dynamics, it encourages critical thought within communication and spurs us to discover how we can begin to meet the needs of others. We only institute the paradigms that we think will best fill our needs. So, what do you think the world needs? How will you choose to respond? 

Works Cited

Guigizi, “China’s First Treatise on Rhetoric” Guiguzi, Southern Illinois University Press, 2016. 

Melfi, Anne. “Foundations in Vedic Rhetorical Culture: Approaching Mokṣa Analogically.” The Routledge Handbook of Comparative World Rhetorics: Studies in the History, Application, and Teaching of Rhetoric Beyond Traditional Greco-Roman Contexts, edited by Keith Lloyd, Routledge, 2021, pp. 134-43.

Kuhn, Thomas. “The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions” From Modernism to Postmodernism: An Anthology, edited by Lawrence Cahoone, 1996, pp. 309-324.