A Brief, Introductory Exploration of Complexity

Developed by Jeff Bloom

"Complexity," in the contexts of natural and social sciences, refers to living systems or complex systems. Such systems not only include individual living organisms, but also populations of living organisms, habits, ecosystems, political systems, economic systems, social systems, and most human endeavors. And, the defining nature of these complex systems is that:

• they are autopoietic, which means that they are self-generating, self-maintaining, self-transcending, and so forth;
• they are unpredictable, which is in contrast to the predictability of mechanical, chemical, and other physical systems;
• the whole system is much greater than just its parts — understanding their parts may be very useful, but will not amount to understanding the whole system;
• any one complex system cannot be understood in isolation and must be examined in its interdependencies and interrelations with other intertwined complex systems.

As human beings, we are born as sets of complex systems and born into sets of complex systems. Each cell in our body is a complex system, which is intertwined with the complex systems of other cells. Similar cells form tissue systems and these tissue systems are part of various organs and organ systems. And, all of these create the whole individual. And, then each individual is part of a family system, community systems, and various other social systems. And, maybe most importantly, each individual human being is an integral part of multiple ecosystems and the biosphere. In addition, we, as individuals, are much more than just the sum of our parts. We have emotions, passions, personalities, and so on that affect others. To understand a human being, we have to understand more than just the physical parts. We have to understand people in the contexts in which they live.

Thinking about complex systems may be quite different from any other way we have been taught to think. I suspect that human beings have always tried to place their ideas into nice little categories or cubby holes that are mostly separated from other categories. I also suspect people have tried to dissect everything into its parts. Such approaches to thinking were solidified and popularized by René Descartes and later by Isaac Newton and other scientists and philosophers. Separating out all of the parts and expecting to understand the whole is known as reductionism. And, as reductionism was being introduced it was closely associated to two other types of thinking: mechanism and positivism. As the first mechanical clocks were invented, Descartes and others suggested that everything could be understood as a mechanical systems that were predictable and that could be understood by looking at all of the parts. Both mechanism and reductionism established the basis for positivism, which is a way of thinking that maintains that there is one objective reality and one objective truth, and that there singular correct answers to the questions we have about our world. These three frameworks for thinking, or paradigms, revolutionized the way science was done and the way it was regarded, but they also revolutionized societies around the world. Without these systems of thinking, we would not be living in a world with advanced technologies of transportation, communication, medical treatments, and so forth.

However, the downside is that we now understand that we cannot develop complete and in-depth understandings of living systems in terms of Mechanism, Reductionism, and Positivism. And, we are realizing that the previous ways of thinking have lead us into the critical problems that we now face in terms of global warming, ecosystem collapse, warfare, disease, shrinking food supplies, increased species extinction, energy issues, resource depletion, etc. Even thinking about complexity is problematic. When we think about something, we objectify it. And, objectification is a key problem we encounter with Positivism. So, this introduction is about the way in which scientists have objectified "complexity." We also find that scientists and other scholars mechanize complexity and get stuck in reductionist views of complexity. My recommendation is to tread carefully as we proceed in continued exploration of complexity as it manifests in our lives and worlds.

The big challenge to developing The Nook is to avoid some of these traps from our history. The Nook attempts to exemplify complexity rather than to objectify it.

Explorations of Complexity

As discussed above, our thinking in the sciences and throughout most societies has been influenced by the work of René Descartes during the first half of the 1600's and then by Isaac Newton during the latter part of the 1600's and early 1700's. The frameworks or paradigms that have become embedded in our thinking are called Positivism, Reductionism, and Mechanism.

A Brief Overview

Positivism -- one objective reality; one objective truth; one correct solution to problems; & phenomena are predictable.

Reductionism -- by understanding the parts of anything, we can understand the whole "thing."

Mechanism -- we can understand all living things and living systems like the functioning of machines; & even though there may be cyclical processes, everything is understood in a linear, cause and effect fashion.

Versus

Complexity -- phenomena are not predictable; one solution to issues with living systems is rarely possible; truth claims are human constructs and uncertain; understanding the parts may be helpful, but the whole object, phenomenon, etc. are always much greater than the sum of understanding the parts; living things and living systems do not function like machines in that they function in complex intertwined looping and nonlinear processes, which are not predictable; living systems, unlike mechanical systems, are self-maintaining, self-regulating, etc.; & all living and social systems are intertwined and interdependent.

---

Exploring the Nature of Our Patterns of Thinking

This particular activity can be done during your daily activities. It is both a self-observation or reflective activity and an observational activity. The idea here is to look for occurrences of positivist, reductionist, and mechanistic thinking in your everyday experiences. Look for such occurrences in (a) your own thinking; (b) newspapers, magazines, television, radio, and other media sources; (c) your conversations with other people; and (d) whatever other circumstances might yield evidence of such thinking.

By looking for evidence of such thinking, we can become more acutely aware of its presence in our lives and our societies. At the same time, as with dealing with one's own biases, the only way to stop allowing such thinking to control us is to recognize its presence, then dismissing it as irrelevant or inappropriate to a particular context. And, such dismissing needs to be done over and over again. We also can begin to see the effects of such thinking on others, on society, on our ecological contexts, and on any number of other contexts.

Try to jot down notes on such occurrences so that you can ponder their presence and effects at a later time.

Some Questions to Ponder:

• What occurrences of positivist, reductionist, and/or mechanistic thinking did you find?
• In what context(s) did they occur?
• How do you think this incident of thinking affects society, the environment, individuals, etc?
• Do individual examples of such thinking have positive effects? If so, how?
• Do individual examples of such thinking have negative effects? If so, how?
• What are some alternative ways of thinking that may not have negative effects?

---

Exploring the Complexity Around Us

In this activity, we are going to do a similar exploration to the previous one, but with a focus on complex systems and complex thinking. When looking at complex systems, try to identify the features of complex systems as described above. As you identify these features and try to describe possible examples of how such features work or manifest, such as those features you may not be able to "see," try to look at how other complex systems are interacting, intertwining, and interdependent with the complex system upon which you are focusing.

Some Questions to Ponder:

• What complex systems did you find?
• For any one of those complex systems, what features are characteristic of complex systems?
• How do these features manifest and function?
• What other complex systems interact with this focal complex system?
• How are these complex systems intertwined, interacting, and interdependent?

---

Some Reflective Questions

• What kind of impact, if any, did these activities have on you and your thinking?
• What insights have you gained about the nature and dynamics of complex systems and complex systems thinking?
• Was anything you found out particularly surprising?
• Do you think complex thinking will make a positive difference on you? on others?

---

Please Share
Your Ideas, Results, and Questions in
Our Community Group Forum
or in the Comments Section, Below

---

Additional Readings

Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Anchor/Doubleday.

Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for laws of self-organization and complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.

---

Featured Image: "Forest Complexity and Break" ©2018 Jeffrey W. Bloom

---

RATINGS: