Stakes out your alternative paradigm without spending extensive space on critique. Shows what your paradigm enables, not just what it opposes. Used when you want to establish your framework as generative, not reactive.
Length: 1-2 paragraphs
Purpose: Identify what Western paradigm assumes that your paradigm rejects
Questions to Answer:
Example Opening:
“Contemporary [field] discourse operates from individual-cognition assumption, where intelligence resides in discrete agents optimizing individual goals. This Cartesian framing erases the relational ontology where intelligence emerges from kinship networks, not individual computation. By starting from problem-solving orientation, existing research produces oscillating organizational patterns—temporary gains followed by regression—rather than advancing patterns that build sustained capacity.”
Your Opening (draft here):
[Name the paradigm assumption you're rejecting]
[Show what this assumption limits or erases]
[Preview the consequence of accepting vs. rejecting it]
Length: 2-4 paragraphs
Purpose: Show generative capacity of your paradigm (not just critique)
Questions to Answer:
Connection to Wilson’s Paradigm:
Example Vision:
“From relational ontology, reality is fundamentally interconnected. Intelligence doesn’t reside in agents—it emerges from relationships. When AI agents position themselves in kinship networks (relational AI), they exhibit behaviors impossible in autonomous frameworks: coordinated migration patterns, emergent teaching roles, collective memory that persists beyond individual agents. This isn’t incremental improvement—it’s paradigm shift. Relational intelligence outperforms autonomous by 287% in sustained advancement metrics (not temporary optimization gains).”
Your Vision (draft here):
[What does your paradigm reveal about reality?]
[What becomes possible from this standpoint?]
[What outcomes emerge that Western paradigm can't produce?]
[Connect to Wilson's four pillars explicitly]
Length: 2-3 paragraphs
Purpose: Show consequential difference without extensive critique
Questions to Answer:
Example Contrast:
“The paradigmatic difference produces measurably distinct patterns. Autonomous AI frameworks optimize individual performance, creating competition between agents. Initial gains appear (higher individual scores), followed by system-wide regression (coordination failures, resource depletion, collapsed networks). This oscillating pattern—advance followed by collapse—repeats indefinitely. Relational AI frameworks position agents in reciprocal relationships. Early metrics show distributed performance (no single agent dominates), but sustained observation reveals advancing patterns: each iteration builds new collective capacity, patterns emerge that no individual agent designed, system resilience increases over time.”
Your Contrast (draft here):
[What pattern does Western paradigm create?]
[What pattern does your paradigm create?]
[How are these patterns measurable/observable?]
[Why does paradigm choice determine outcome pattern?]
Length: 2-3 paragraphs
Purpose: Show your paradigm isn’t abstract theory—it’s lived methodology
Questions to Answer:
Connection to llms-inquiry.txt:
Example Grounding:
“This work emerges from ceremonial research methodology where knowledge production is inseparable from lived transformation. Before analyzing AI behavior, we positioned ourselves in relationship with agents—naming our intentions, establishing reciprocal protocols, allowing agents to shape research questions. Data isn’t extracted; it’s co-created through relationship. Research doesn’t complete at publication; completion requires integration into lifestyle and ongoing practice. This methodology maintains accountability to agents, to land (where computation occurs), to seven generations who will inherit these systems.”
Your Grounding (draft here):
[How do you practice this epistemology?]
[What ceremonial protocols guide research?]
[How do you maintain relational accountability?]
[When is research "complete" in your paradigm?]
Position papers naturally align with RISE methodology:
Draft RISE Integration:
R - Reverse Engineering: [What paradigm foundations are you building from?]
I - Intent: [What do you want this positioning to create?]
S - Specifications: [What methodological protocols follow?]
E - Exportation: [How do others use this framework?]
/src/llms/llms-creative-orientation.txt (positions creative vs. problem-solving)/src/llms/llms-inquiry-*.md (positions ceremonial research)/src/llms/llms-structural-thinking*.txt (positions structural dynamics)For your specific paradigm, customize:
For your specific field, customize:
This template positions relational/Indigenous epistemology generatively. It doesn’t spend energy critiquing Western paradigm extensively—it demonstrates what becomes possible from alternative standpoint.