The four evolving metaparadigms of Modernism have been shown in the four phases that recur in a spiral development from metaparadigm to metaparadigm, beginning about 1648 and continuing into the present. The rationale of the four phases of each metaparadigm is a common-sense finding by anyone who considers the stages of problem-solving in any endeavor. Since the evolutionary findings of Charles Darwin, in particular, the issue of how a species poses a problem, develops methods to address it, and how pragmatic attempts of instituting those methods, have been clear in any discipline. The normalization of methods that are successful are usually not marked by a discard of past discoveries, rather quite often either augment them, enable a more discerning comprehension of their possibilities within the present, or provide a significant corollary path of inquiry. The idea of individuation—the self-actualization of a person as they mature within an inherent set of ideas and capabilities, a scholastic discovery of the thirteen century by St. Thomas Aquinas, has been expanded in its dynamics in the thought of Leibniz, who added grammatical verbal evidence. Then, the thought of Friedrich Schleiermacher, a century later that formalized verbal grammatical evidence for individuation into the field of stylistics. Then, Wilhelm Dilthey and Edmund Husserl, at the beginning of the twentieth century, added the complex logic of an individual's manner of thought to the earlier stylistic expression. This taking of the problematic century after century is what I have referred to throughout this text as a “spiral” development of the same conceptual problem seen more finely, and its solution more finely developed.

Problem solving is the root of why distinct temporal periods are required in an individual's inquiry, and well as a collective group who share a discipline. As you the reader may reflect upon your own interests and their gradual development of breadth and depth, so it is how decades are often required simply to fashion the clarity of the problem through definition, and begin to articulate the ideation that may address what is viewed in a way that might solve it. You begin with certain principles, defining with clarity, often seeing how these principles have justified past approaches, but are capable of being applied in new ways. Then, developing a systematic approach with these principles, one can see system-building even in English and American pragmatism.