The Radical New Reality of Systems Science

 

​

 

​​​

'Network Vision' Beyond the Science

​​

Non-Technical Aspects for a Generalized Perspective of 'Network Vision'

​

The scientific methodology involved in systems science and technical network analysis is intimidating to say the least -- and few of us were taught even the basics in school. But can we distill from this realm of scientific knowledge some basic precepts to enhance our awareness of how the network dynamics of complex adaptive systems shape our lives and the larger systems around us? Firstly, the science indicates we must somehow 'elude' an impulse to equate a system with its identifiable parts or physical properties. The terms we use to 'name' things is a kind of practical 'short hand' that obscures much complexity: 'This is a machine. That is a finanical market.'  The categories we use to define phenomena are often simplistically exclusive: Order is the opposite of disorder. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Our summary reductions gives the impression that what is named or classified is fully known as a unitary phenomena. But from the perspective of systems science, events and systems often manifest as turbulent, variable, partly unknowable, 'flows' of interdependent relationships. How then accurately perceive and understand these entities composed of 'moving parts' that can reconfigure their 'selves' out of their own disorder to manifest unpredictable yet purposeful properties and behaviors -- behaviors that have a "telological" purpose of maintaining a system 'into the future'? We require ways to understand the 'why' of these behaviors, particularly the 'behaviorial character' of self-asserting "super organism" human system -- to understand them as 'creaturely' entities with no empathy for other systems.

 

'Network Vision' as a Trans-Temporal Perspective on Concurrently Interactive Network Relationships

Perceiving the dynamics and feedback flows in relational networks involves a kind of 'trans-temporal' perspective. Firstly, we must track a network's 'history' to consider how its past formations might be active in its present activity. Secondly, we must try to notice what simultaneous activities might be part of the 'now' -- what are the various impulses of its synergistic 'many things happening all at once.' Thirdly, there is the consideration of what potential future formations it might be tending toward -- or what 'purposes' might be influencing its emergent formations. So, there is both a longitudinal factor of time in the interdpendencies of 'past <> present <> future' relationships, and also one of 'breadth' or 'latitude' in the concurrently interactive influences in each instant.

​

We can also think of this expanded scale of awareness in spatial terms -- as in, 'where is what happening' in a network relational field. Many systems have accessible physical structures to their networks, such as ecologies and social institutions with various sub-systems. These aspects make it easier to 'locate' where and when specific actions and interactions might be occurring.  However, the potential formation of recursive feedback loops, with simultaneous flows of influence in multiple directions, and resulting interdependencies among these 'locatable' network "nodes" and connections, are not easily tracked in terms of spatial location and time sequences. Thus, it becomes necessary to think in terms of simultaneous actions occurring in response or relationship to each other, as well as to a network's 'history,' which might result in unpredictably emergent system behaviors. This is the realm of network dynamics that eludes exact analysis. Getting some understanding of what is happening and why thus requires interpreting a system's 'outputs,' or specific traits and behaviors, relative to a larger scale perspective on its past behaviors and extended interactions with other system networks. There is always much of significance 'going on betwixt and between' the identifiable 'parts' of complex systems, as well as between them and other systems. 'How things happen,' from a network perspective, involves interdependencies that defy our ordinary sense of time and space.

​

'Network Vision' as Correlation of both Internal and External Relational Fields

The context dependent aspect of system network manifestation also requires any assessment of what one is 'doing' and 'how,' as well as 'why,' or 'for what purpose,' to examine not only its 'internal' relational field but also that field 'in relation to' an 'external' one. 

The question, 'how did the batter hit the ball out of the ball park?' can be described in exact terms from the perspective of material physics by assessing determinstic causality in the batter's actions, the pitcher's throw, plus atmospheric conditions, etc. However, from a complex systems perspective, such a seemingly simple event becomes vastly more intricate and subtle. In that view, the physical events are consequences of ultimately obscure interdependencies both within the 'mind-body system' of the batter and with external network factors. The ball does not 'get hit out of the park' simply by physical forces. It does so because of numerous interacting networks that are 'acting' emergently to generate purposeful system self-direction. That home run does not manifest as 'mere physics' or as a discreetly isolated phenomena.

​

A justice system that is configured for the purpose of ensuring fair and equal treatment of individuals according to 'the law' might manifest behavior that is racially biased. The source of that unintended system behavior might not be found in the internal structure of the system's network, nor the 'letter of the law,' nor the individual person's staffing it, but in flows of feedback that involve its networking with extended relational fields of cultural, social, political, and economic systems. 
​

​

'​​Network Vision' as Archetypal Perspective

 

So, how then can we 'know' complex systems with any accuracy? Well, we cannot know them predictably or definitively. But we can know these in terms of the relative range of their dynamic behaviors over time and in relation to various contexting factors -- in reference to particularites of their internal relational constellations and how those interact with external relational fields. Such references provide a 'characteristic' sense of their likely behaviors. But how can we compose some method for making these 'characteristic distinctions?'

​

An Archetypal Concept of the Origins and 'Relational Identity' of Phenomena

The term archetype is derived from the ancient Greek word arkhetupon, translated as 'something first molded as a model,' and that word is a compound of arkhe, translated as 'primitive,' and tupos, translated as 'a model.' In contemporary usage, 'an archetype' has been regarded as representing the 'original form' of some thing, behavior, or concept. The term has also been used as an adjective, archetypal, and adverb, archetypically or archetypally. Here, there is a notion of 'being like' some particular 'type.' This usage has been employed to characterize how a given form or behavior derives from, or is an expression of, a range of somehow related forms and behaviors. Baseball is thus archetypally a form of game. The 'archetypal character' of baseball involves aspects of a broader 'archetypal field' of traits associated with the concept of games. This usage allows for understanding things, behaviors, and concepts as derived from a potential range of traits that are often found to be associated without defining them as exact 'copies' or 'identical with' a clearly defined, categorical type. An 'archetypal characterization' allows for identifying the unique particularities of a thing, behavior, or concept 'in relation to' a larger field of related phenomena. So, one can pose an 'archetypal field' of 'fathering' that includes a wide range of behaviors associated with 'being a father.' Then, an individual father can be characterized by identifying his 'fathering' as manifesting particular traits of the larger 'archetypal field' of 'fathering.'

​

This mode of 'identifying' originating references and characterizing individual phenomena is clearly not definitive nor categorically precise and exclusive. It does, however, enable us to gain a sense of the potential relationships between a given phenomena and what it is 'related to' on an extended scale of associations. It allows us to understand origins and identity as potentially inconsistent and even conflicted, yet still 'related.' The 'archetypal field' of 'fathering' could be said to include such contrasts as affectionate as well as abusive behaviors, thus that these behaviors are somehow 'related' in that 'field' of traits that can be noted in 'fathering.' Thus, a particular father could be assessed as an 'archetypally affectionate fathering,' an 'archeytpally abusive' one, or as the archetypally conflicted manifestation of  both. These phrasings do not define an individual father but characterize a prominent aspect of his behavior as a complex adaptive system. Linking such description with a systems science perspective, it indicates that his 'fathering demeanor' is emerging from feedback loops in his mental system networks that promote such 'characterizing behavior.'

​

The 'relational identity' of geese could be described as an archetypal 'expression' of the larger field of traits associated with birds. Geese are 'bird like' in their particular ways. Similarly, 'a goose' is a version of the related field of traits associated with all geese. It is 'goose like' but also an individualized manifestation of 'goose-ness.' It might be distinguishable as more or less aggressive or curious than many geese. But this distinction is necessarily relative or 'relational' to the larger traits of 'archetypal goose-ness.' Taking a larger scale perspective again, we could characterize geese as archetypal expressions of the broader archetypal field of animal forms, which are archetypal expressions of the larger field of complex adaptive systems.

​

This archetypal  field-view provides 'derivational' references and 'relational identity' at multiple scales -- as in, 'from atoms to biospheres,' or animals to humans to societies. It gives us information about why systems act as they do 'in relationships to' other systems. It can also characterize the potential behaviors of fundamentally unpredictable complex systems, providing understanding 'beyond' what causal analysis and explanation alone can do, enabling us to have some anticipation of 'what they might do next.'

​​​

Correlating Network Science and Archetypal Perspective

This 'archetypal characterization' of the origins and traits of 'an entity' is obviously rather vague. But, as a means of conceiving the overlapping aspects of relational influences 'at work in the world,' it is a kind of 'network vision.' We might tern this perspective as 'tracking the archeytpal dynamism' of network formations, or  their 'relational fields.'

​

​

 

 

​​

Relational networks as archetypal fields

 

​the mystery of dynamical attractors and persistent coherence or self-similarity in archetypal fields

​

In the most general sense, we can think of network configurations as having 'archetypal morphology,' or types of structural relationships that tend to constrain flows of influence across the network in particular ways. also artchetypal relational dynamics

 

In the most general framing, we might characterize some systems as more 'archetypally deterministic' and others as more 'archetypally emergent,' as a way of 'identifying' the origins of their behaviors and effects.

​

​

​​

​

​Knowing Networks as 'Archetypally Characteristic Relational Constellations'

 

​

​

shoe vs city

​

​

​

​

​archetpal thinking

​

​

​psychelogical archetpalizing

​​

achetypal 'beaver-ness; or 'psychopathic-ness'

​

osscillation/enantiodroma, bipolarity, fluctuation, archetypal 'attraction'

archetypal fields as evolved tendencies in large scale net formation that constitute a kind of attractor landscape

​possible state space of system

​

But What is the 'Language' of this Archetypal Characterization?

​--language is archetyypal--the suchness of things knowable as relational fields that aerr infinitely overlapping/interdependent, mutually derivative

​

---archetypal 'structuring' of relational patterns and between these --a s in dynamical  attractors!!

​

​cas require options thus instability to so adaptively so what 'holds' nets in a particular pattern yet can also shift them to a differenty one/ perturbation by intention? external vs internal? but ultimately self-induced? attracrto-repellor tensions.  symetyry breaking

​tipping points between attractor basis on a landscape -- net activity shifting between in response to ....

landscape as external relational field which is itself dynamic, whose variations are perceived/intepreted  (accurately or not) prompting internal net responses that shift its archetypal configuration, But that perception/interpretation emerges in relation to nets own historical configurations and percpetion/interpretation

​

The Experiential and Imaginal Necessity of Network Vision

​

shimmering resonance

 

'​Network Vision' as symbolic modeling dynamical Metaphoric Symbolism

​

​Similarly to how 'archetypal characterization' derives from identifying the 'likeness' of something in relationship to types of formation and behavior, the use of overtly metaphorical symbolism involves the use of 'a representation' (an image, form, or words) as a 'likeness' of other phenomena. A distinction is often made between the terms "sign" and "symbol," in which a sign directly 'stands for' what it signifies, but a symbol suggest what it indicates indirectly or metaphroically. Numbers are explicit 'signs' of a 'count.' There is a direct relationship between the number "2" and the 'count of two things.' But a symbol is not exactly what is being referenced.

​

connotation as qualities of vs denotation as literal/equational signification

​ imply, allude, embody, sign of, convey, impression of, evoke,

​

short hand for complex dynamics and characteristic network behaviors

​

The use of metaphoric symbolism involves the use of some 'representation,' (an image, form, or words) to convey or express the traits of some phenomena by eluding or 'characterizing' it.

​​​​

'Seeing Networks' as 'Experience'     The Intellectual 'Gknowsis' of

​

​​​

Network vision as altered state of consciousness when engaged experientially

​​

​The 'Spiritual Implications' of Network Vision

​'seeing' the influence of agency in complex adaptive systems and its effects on all else.

Archetypal spiritualism

​

Perceiving Network Dynamics and the Necessity of Symbolic Representation

​

​

'MOVING PARTS'​