Delving into a comparison of paradigms and episteme we can highlight the difference between concious and unconcious assumptions.
Paradigms are entirely conscious assumptions. They are widely accepted theories, beliefs and concepts, like saying "An object in motions stays in motion unless acted on by an equal and opposite force." Paradigms are conscious assumptions that you make based off of background knowledge and research.
Episteme consists of unconscious assumptions. You make these assumptions based off your background. For example, episteme is what would have INFLUENCED Newton to research and look into the Laws Of Motion.
A question to consider is what aspects of Newton's environment gave him the opportunity to be able to research the Laws of Motion? What aspects of his life allowed him the opportunity to delve into these questions?
Our conscious and unconscious assumptions spark the question "what aspects of your identity are based on assumptions?"
Being free from all distractions, you can undertake your practice wholeheartedly. Non-Attachment enriches the nature of your practice, or what you do. Practice combined with non-attachment helps you to continue your search, until you reach the goal. In other words, if you are not allowing youself to be knocked off of your feet by your attachments, you give youself the space to accomplish goals.
Non-Attachment does not mean indifference or non-loving. Non-attachment is like a fire that can burn the binding power of past samskaras, or deep impressions. Non-attachmnent and love are one and the same. Non-attachment gives freedom, but attachment brings bondage.
Practicing the Philosophy of Non-Attachment will help you feel happy. When we attach ourselves to the ideal of enlightenment, or "the hustle," we end up in a paradox. Constantly pushing for something binds you to an ideal, even if it's a good one. That bind brings discontent with what you currently have.
Accept the happiness in the present moment my friends.
I've been thinking a lot about communication. Humans are flawed. With that, when we try to convey complex topics, we often have miscommunications because words are such an abstract concept. There are so many different interpretations of an abstract concept like "freedom" or "love". Humans have learned so many wonderful ways to communicate that goes beyond verbal communication. Touch, gesturing, and empathy.
Are you familiar with neuralink? I wonder how philosophy and humanity will change if we are able bridge that gap that persists through linguistics. What conclusions could humanity come to?