taking the elements of truth and good from our antiquities paradigms and adding them to our own, we transcend the human incarnate working collectively through the human spirit toward the absolute truth and good. In this way too, we reconcile our loyalty to our antiquities. We are not abandoning our antiquities when we throw out their wrongs, rather we are joining them in combining their truths and good into a new paradigm created by a group of humans, a human spirit, not a fallible individual.Now, how do we determine what to keep, what is truth and good, but by expunging that which no longer applies after the subject of a paradigm's design changes, after a new discovery. With each new discovery, our first attempt, at understanding, maps it into an existing paradigm. We call the West Indies, the West Indies, because they fit into the Indies place on the map of the world at the time, and obviously later found not to be. Hence, the quite natural, term paradigm mapping. If a discovery does not actually fit into a paradigm, serious figure doctoring is necessary to keep it there. This is a natural defense reaction brought on again by our loyalty to existing antiquities and paradigms. However, the awkwardness of the "mapped" paradigm should quickly point out a need for revision. Here to revise is to make the paradigm fit the discovery not the discovery fit the paradigm. In this way paradigm mapping becomes almost an exercise in developing new paradigms. We would rather, admit to being partly wrong than look ridiculous. A "mapped" paradigm forces a break from antiquital loyalty enough so that we can see the faults in existing paradigms; All that is left we can, until the next discovery, take to be truth and good.Still, there is another reason for peoples reluctance to change; The existing paradigm may be convenient. Would you want to change the paradigm if it placed you at the top, in power? This why discoveries become dangerous. ...
