By Gerrit Van Wyk
Blogs are a more recent social artifact, and as such, take on many shapes and forms. They are mostly short, and focused on a single topic, which in my case, creates significant problems for both reader and writer. They are popular because they are short, which satisfies the social need for topics fitting into an elevator pitch, leaving more time to do other things, whatever they may be.
My topic is complexity, which means when I carve out small components of a larger entity, readers may easily lose sight of connections to, and emergent properties of that entity, unless they look at all the blogs as a single contribution.
In this blog, I’m doing something unblog-like, by attaching a document containing my argument, or theory if you want, as a whole, about complexity. I take this approach to provide color, richness, and meaning to the background of the blogs I wrote before.
Traditional Cartesian/mechanistic analytic thinking peels layers from an onion, one by one, until you reach the core, which is supposed to contain the truth we seek. Doing so destroys interactions and interrelationships from which complex properties emerge, and thereby the very nature of complexity. I start with a single assumption, and add layers to the onion. Each layer adds more interconnections and interrelationships, and therefore complexity, as well as emergent properties. Think of it as like Ravel’s Bolero, in which more and more instruments are added to the theme, until the whole orchestra is in play. Synthesis creates the properties and nature of complexity I write about.
The text came about from my own journey, both personal and academically, and, like all complex phenomena, much was unplanned and unexpected. As such, it was and is the outcome of a learning experience along multiple dimensions. There are always multiple perspectives of complex phenomena, and so is mine. Whether the outcome is right or wrong, good, or bad, depends on one’s perspective of it.
No perspective of complex phenomena can ever be complete. I make no claim this one is either. Also, complex phenomena constantly change. So do my thoughts on my argument and theory. Flip flopping is a virtue within complexity. As I come across new information, my thinking changes incrementally and sometimes significantly.
One consequence of our Cartesian/mechanistic worldview is we put everything into categories, which creates silos of expertise, which in turn limits what we can know about complexity and complex phenomena, and makes us reject what is outside our silo of comfort. Knowing about complexity requires an openness to multidisciplinary knowledge and thinking, for which we don’t educate people today, which means many don’t take that route, or are comfortable with it.
What I’m doing here is different, and outside the norm. I present a multidisciplinary interconnected, interrelated argument about complexity, and human social complexity. Boisot and McKelvey said that to adapt effectively, the internal complexity of a system must match the external complexity it confronts. In the same way, talking about complexity requires an approach matching the complexity it wants to talk about, hence what follows is complex, with dense interconnections increasing that complexity. What superficially may appear simple, is not an easy read.
In North America we are action orientated, with an inherent impatience to working our way through complex interrelated arguments. We are also strongly biased against flip flopping, or changing our minds, but as Maynard Keynes said, if things change, we must be prepared to change our minds, and complex phenomena per definition change all the time. Understanding complexity and complex phenomena requires less action, and less impatience, and more changing our minds.
My philosophical roots are in pragmatism; hence the question is, does this argument, or theory, work in practice. I’m confident it is a pragmatically useful framework for understanding human biological, cognitive, and social complexity in a different way than traditional models. In my experience, the foundational argument remains sound and stood the test of time in real life practice.
I took a road less traveled, with hesitation, which doesn’t make it a better one, just different, and I have no regrets doing so. It changed my understanding of the world I live in, myself, and specifically our social world, for the better.
I leave it to readers of this blog to decide whether to dig into, invest time and effort, and take from the document what may be interesting or useful, or not.