By a combination of accidents I have not signed off the list as
planned and have just received a couple of hundred messages.
[Host's Note: Mike, I guess this qualifies as an "emergent phenomenon"]
I am going to attempt to respond to and include those relating to
complexity in one or a few rather long postings. I'll include some of
what I'm responding to at the end with a few quotes interspersed -
beginning with:
> > Can anyone explain how
> >evolution works? .... I'm wondering about why the second law of
> >thermodynamics, as Peck expressed it, doesn't seem to operate.
For those who have not previously seen my declared approach, I am
considering complexity (and emergence) to be interpretive approaches.
That is, a la hermeneutics and postmodernism, they are processes of
interpretation and understanding rather than attempts at descibing the
truth about how the world works.
The universe can be seen as a continuing process of increasing complexity
arising from emergence. That is, nothing from the outside is added and
therefore everything is connected to a history which is therefor connected
to the whole. Language is also connected although by convention and not
by "fact" or necessity. Language is also an example of increasing
complexity and emergence and the complexity of the world that we live in
is a function of this expansion in linguistic complexity more than of the
universe doing so.
In the late 1800's a group developed a quite extensive theory of "emergent
evolution" which was designed to counter the various threads from early
Greek philosophy and science and, in particular, to counter Darwin's
theories of evolution as being mutation and gradual change and "survival
of the fittest". This group devloped a coherent way of talking and
thinking for evolution to occur by co-emergent phenomena. Unfortunately,
it didn't take hold any more than the earllier Scottish Enlightenment
"invisible hand" took hold. The theory didn't match the prevailing
science and there was not philosophy nor technology to support its further
development.
Today, the theories may take hold because there is science, philosophy and
technology to support its development.
Increasing order is displayed by living systems as their dominant trend
even though the larger universe may still be heading towards disorder.
(Whether that latter is so or not is not of any immediate concern for our
purposes - the pragmatic affairs of organisation.)
As John Warfield has pointed out, chaos theory and systems dynamics - with
the possible exception of those who are masters of the mathematics and
sciences required - are not dealing with living systems and cannot handle
the kind of complexity that we are concerned with in organisational life
and institutional human affairs. (At least I think that's what John was
saying.)
His approach is to reduce complexity to levels where we can design and
work effectively with our current challenges. I am a fan of his approach
and endorse what he says.
However, I am attempting to distinguish a different but related field. I
am attempting to create the principles of design and organisation which
allow for, even cause, emergent phenomena and yet which don't spill over
into the area where we have lost control and require John's approach to
reducing complexity to bring us back to effectiveness. (I like having the
availability of John's approach to save me when I go to far or if I'm
wrong.)
I have to end because my battery is giving out. More soon.
-- Michael McMaster Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk