A shift in paradigm can lead, via the theory-dependence of observation, to a difference in one's experiences of things and thus to a change in one's phenomenal world.ON Thomas Kuhn
So what do you do?
Do you succumb to the frustration that what is moving as a sub-culture working from the inside/out, is the idea that you can build a better consensus from what is moving the fabric of society to know that we can change the outcome as to what Canada shall become as well?
They( a conspirator thought) as a force that is undermining the public perception while society did not grasp the full understanding of what has been done to them. Society having been cast to fighting at the "local level to advance a larger agenda?"
Does it not seem that once you occupy the mind in such close quarter conflagrations that mind has been circumvented from the larger picture?
Pain, and emotional turmoil does this.
Historically once the fire has been started, like some phoenix, a new cultural idealism manifests as to what the individual actually wants when they are in full recognition that "as a force" moved forward in a democratic compunction as a government in waiting to advance the principals by which it can stand as the public mind.
However, the incommensurability thesis is not Kuhn's only positive philosophical thesis. Kuhn himself tells us that “The paradigm as shared example is the central element of what I now take to be the most novel and least understood aspect of [The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]” (1970a, 187). Nonetheless, Kuhn failed to develop the paradigm concept in his later work beyond an early application of its semantic aspects to the explanation of incommensurability. The explanation of scientific development in terms of paradigms was not only novel but radical too, insofar as it gives a naturalistic explanation of belief-change. Naturalism was not in the early 1960s the familiar part of philosophical landscape that it has subsequently become. Kuhn's explanation contrasted with explanations in terms of rules of method (or confirmation, falsification etc.) that most philosophers of science took to be constitutive of rationality. Furthermore, the relevant disciplines (psychology, cognitive science, artificial intelligence) were either insufficiently progressed to support Kuhn's contentions concerning paradigms, or were antithetical to them (in the case of classical AI). Now that naturalism has become an accepted component of philosophy, there has recently been interest in reassessing Kuhn's work in the light of developments in the relevant sciences, many of which provide corroboration for Kuhn's claim that science is driven by relations of perceived similarity and analogy to existing problems and their solutions (Nickles 2003b, Nersessian 2003). It may yet be that a characteristically Kuhnian thesis will play a prominent part in our understanding of science.
What paradigmatic solution has been advanced that such a thing can turn over the present equatorial function assigned to the pubic mind, that we will be in better control of our destinies as Canadians?
Precursor to such changes are revolutions in the thought patterns established as functionary pundits of money orientated societies. They have become "fixed to a particular agenda." Rote systems assumed and brought up in, extolled as to the highest moral obligation is to live well, and on the way, fix ourselves to debt written obligations that shall soon over come the sensibility of what it shall take to live?
Force upon them is the understanding that we had become a slave to our reason and a slave to a master disguised as what is healthy and knows no boundaries? A capitalistic dream.