Complexity -- Dancing on edge of abyss? LO24962 [complex]

From: AM de Lange (amdelange@gold.up.ac.za)
Date: 06/23/00


Replying to LO24939 --

Dear Organlearners,

Chris Klopper <syntagm@icon.co.za> writes (under the old topic "Our LO
Dialogue Here LO24939"):

>I have lurked for a long time (ironically in physical proximity
>of At, since we tread the same precinct) but feel myself now
>drawn into the dialogue by a not so strange attractor
>- complexity. It is a bit like dancing on the edge of an abyss.
>Some people like to climb sheer cliffs with their bare hands,
>hanging in only because the alternative is final. Complexity
>is that, but more... the metaphor becomes redundant in the
>face of the complexity of complexity itself.

Greetings Chris,

I am so happy to hear a voice so close by from so far;-)

The metaphor which you have described for us, fits all major paradigm
shifts. I have studied the theory of Thomas Kuhn on paradim shifts closely
as part of my explorations in "deep creativity". Since my original
training was that of a physicist, I also studied as closely as possible
the actual history (papers and letters) of the paradigm shift in physical
science some century ago from Newtonian mechanics to Quantum/Relativity
mechanics.

It was indeed as you have described it. What is worse, those who tried to
cling to Newtonian mechanics, were like hanging against the sheer cliff
with bare hands. Those that did not keep on climbing, became one by one
too tired of merely hanging. Their alternative outcome, as you have put
it, was "final".

>I try to help strategically impaired/challenged companies
>to find their way through a changing landscape. My lasting
>impression is own of managers increasingly being
>overwhelmed by complexity. I sense Eli Goldratt has
>come to the same conclusion.

Yesterday I had a long and deep discussion with a young man (let us call
him OF) planning for a PhD in psychology. He is now practising as a
clinical psychiatrist. OF is trying to guide his patients with what
perhaps can be described as "autopoietic therapy". As OF grows in
experience, the better his successes. One of his big problems now is to
find a local promoter for his intended PhD study who will not shy away
from complexity, but who is actually working in the paradigm of complexity
itself. OF himself has already shifted from simplicity to complexity.

OF mentioned to me how many of his patients were actually persons who
succumbed because of the very stress which they experienced in trying to
resist the shift from simplicity to complexity. They come, curiously
enough, from many walks of life -- employers and managers, artisans and
academics, young and old, men and women, black and white, fat and thin.
Since there seems to be very little published in literature on this
(nothing which OF could get hold of and obviously nothing which the
promoters of whom he already contacted fruitlessly knew of), he feels like
hanging at a cliff himself ;-)

I had to explain to him why so little seems to be published on it whereas
he is aware of its frequent manifestation among his own patients. The
explanation has very much to do with the context of the South African
society as well as what I call the "Law of Requisite Complexity" (LRC).

Here in South Africa as a developing country the "first world" and "third
world" meet. Those people acquainted with the "first world" are becoming
increasingly aware of complexity and how different it is to the simplicity
of a "third world". The awareness to complexity is not the same as
operating from the very paradigm of complexity. It is gradual increase in
complexity within the paradigm of simplicity so as to become aware of this
very complexity. The difference between simplicity and complexity causes a
stress or tension (entropic force) which will lead to changes, sooner or
later.

The "Law of Requisite Complexity" (LRC) means that a certain minimum level
of complexity is required before a jump to the next level of complexity
can happen. Furthermore, once that minimum level of complexity has been
reached, the jump to the next level of complexity is inevitable as soon as
suitable bifurcation (edge of chaos) conditions have developed. What we
now have with respect to the paradigm shift from simplicity to complexity,
is that the awareness of complexity within the paradigm of simplicity is
very close to, if not already coinciding, with the minimum level of the
LRC so as to jump to a higher level of complexity, namely operating within
the paradigm of complexity.

The entropic force between the complexity of the "first world" and the
simplicty of the "third world" is great enough to cause the bifurcation
conditions needed so as to jump (in this case shift) from simplicity to
complexity. In fact, the very shift from simplicity to complexity is the
entropic flux corresonding to this entropic force "W1 vs W3". However, by
resisting the shift "W1 => W3" so that only the entropic force "W1 vs W3"
exist, the bifurcating contitions cannot be reached. Furthermore, without
the flux "W1 => W3" to reduce the force "W1 vs W3" by way of entropy
production, that force just increases and increases.

Since the LRC already applies, the complexity is sufficient
enough for the Onsager reciprocal relationships to manifest
themselves. (A simple system cannot manifest these Onsager
reciprocal relationships.) What now happens is that this
entropic force "W1 vs W3" increases until it induces MANY
secondary entropic force-flux pairs rather than becoming self
the ONE entropic force-flux pair
        "W1 vs W3" x "W1 => W3" > 0
(See the topic "To become or not to become" how this pattern
works.)

These many secondary entropic force-flux pairs drive the system in all
sorts of bifurcating conditions (edges of chaos). However, very few of
them result into constrcutive emergences because one or more of the seven
essentialties are seriously impaired. In fact, the essentiality liveness
("becoming-being") is indeed impaired, the very reason why these Onsager
inductions manifested themselves. Consequently, almost every secondary
bifurcation results in a destructive immergence. Some are so serious that
they require the therapeutic midwifery of young OF.

>TOC is one way forward, certainly not the only way and
>definitely not all the way. Just up to the point of crashing
>into the next constraint, which will be (a little, or a lot)
>more complex than the previous one.

I like your "crashing" very much for what the Onsager reciprocal
relationships of a complex system do when one of more of the seven
essentialities are "contstrained" too. It crashes people right into the
consulting room of psychiatrists. Another close friend of mine is JS who
lives in Potchefstroom (some 200km from Pretoria), who is a clinical
psychiatrist too, who is also operating in the paradigm of complexity, and
who is experiencing the same thing, almost like an avalanche. He is deeply
troubled because of so many patients in such great need for therapy and so
few to help them.

>If we all look at (with At) complexity we will not make it go
>away, we might just find a way to hang in there a little longer
>.....when we do so corporately we may call that a Learning
>Organisation.

Dear Chris, this is the very point which I try to make so many times.
There are too few individuals who can effectively help all the individuals
experiencing "W1 vs W3", suppressing the "W1 => W3" and now suffering the
destructive immergences of the many secondary entropic force-flux pairs.
It is fast becoming like the epidemic AIDS in for example Southern Africa.
The physical health systems in the various countries just cannot cope with
the volume of AIDS patients. Likewise the "spiritual health systems" will
soon not be able to cope with the volume of "W1 vs W3" patients.

Our solution does not lie in individual efforts, but in a organised,
collective effort. And the very collective effort which we need is the
emergence of as many from as many different kinds of organisations (from
families to goverment departments, from small shops to corporate
businesses) into Learning Organisations. I have tried to motivate this
solution as careful as possible in my contribution from Cells to Learning
Organisations some time ago.

The "Law of Requisite Complexity" (LRC) is not something to ignore and
still get away with it. It has exactly the same deadly action as AIDS when
ignored by resisting the essentiality liveness "becoming-being". The
"becoming" of liveness is the very way to become immune to the "W1 vs W3".
The more people learn how to become. the more they will get prepared in
the Pasteurian sense for the "W1 => W3" becoming.

Fellow learners may think

         Aagh, that happens in South Africa because of the
         "W1 vs W3" operating there. Since we do not have
         the "W1 vs W3" here, we need not be troubled.

No, a tension between any vital quality Q shared between "simp"
(simplicity) and "comp" (complexity) may become a "Q simp vs Q comp"
entropic force. Suppressing the corresponding "Q simp => Q comp" entropic
flux will have the same devastating effects. Why? The "Law of Requisite
Complexity" is not something to ignore and get away with it, not even on
our dear LO-dialogue.

With care and best wishes

-- 

At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>


"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.