Complexity and Postmodernism - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-29T15:57:03Zhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/complexity-and-postmodernism?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A70020&feed=yes&xn_auth=noAlso see this post, relevant…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2018-04-03:5301756:Comment:721212018-04-03T16:53:43.936ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Also see <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/states-stages-the-wc-lattice-and-the-fold?page=25&commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A72120&x=1#5301756Comment72120" target="_blank" rel="noopener">this</a> post, relevant here.</p>
<p>Also see <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/states-stages-the-wc-lattice-and-the-fold?page=25&commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A72120&x=1#5301756Comment72120" target="_blank" rel="noopener">this</a> post, relevant here.</p> Joseph Farley at FB linked to…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2017-09-07:5301756:Comment:700202017-09-07T15:35:42.910ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Joseph Farley at FB linked to <a href="http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2010/10/10/complexity-its-not-that-simple/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this</a> excellent article on the differences between systems that are simple, complicated, complex and chaotic. <span><span class="UFICommentBody">It's applicable to <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/470435939720069/permalink/966562050107453/" rel="nofollow">this</a> FB thread, and this thread, in that what passes for complexity is really just…</span></span></p>
<p>Joseph Farley at FB linked to <a rel="nofollow" href="http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2010/10/10/complexity-its-not-that-simple/" target="_blank">this</a> excellent article on the differences between systems that are simple, complicated, complex and chaotic. <span><span class="UFICommentBody">It's applicable to <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/470435939720069/permalink/966562050107453/">this</a> FB thread, and this thread, in that what passes for complexity is really just complicated and inadequate to the tasks at hand.</span></span> <span><span class="UFICommentBody">It's also applicable to some integral theory in that it seems more a top-down complicated model that doesn't allow for what's required in complex systems. To paraphrase a hackneyed expression around these parts: It's simply not that simple. E.g.:<br/><br/>Coping with complex predicaments requires a focus on continuously improving processes, not achieving outcomes.<br/><br/>If a group is grappling with a complex predicament, it needs to have a shared vision of what should be different at each step along the process of working towards the purpose,<br/><br/>Historically, most solutions have been devised and implemented top-down, by leaders atop political, corporate or social hierarchies. But complex predicaments [...] have defied all attempts at top-down fixes. The best approaches to such issues have come from bottom-up initiatives to deal with them at the local level.<br/><br/>Implicit in the idea that innovation and human ingenuity can ‘solve’ any problem is a level of arrogance and hubris that has no place in the struggle with complex predicaments.</span></span></p> I'm really liking the Loubser…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2015-06-12:5301756:Comment:613572015-06-12T16:11:05.190ZDavidM58http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/DavidM58
<p>I'm really liking the Loubser article. A discussion of complexity that is not too complex to follow. The quotes from Morin and Cilliers clarifying the distinction between restricted and general complexity are helpful. </p>
<p>And footnote #5 is interesting, esp. in relation to Bruce's project:</p>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>Wentzel van Huyssteen’s postfoundationalist epistemology links well with Morin’s<br></br>general complexity. Van Huyssteen argues for a postfoundationalist approach<br></br>as a…</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm really liking the Loubser article. A discussion of complexity that is not too complex to follow. The quotes from Morin and Cilliers clarifying the distinction between restricted and general complexity are helpful. </p>
<p>And footnote #5 is interesting, esp. in relation to Bruce's project:</p>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p>Wentzel van Huyssteen’s postfoundationalist epistemology links well with Morin’s<br/>general complexity. Van Huyssteen argues for a postfoundationalist approach<br/>as a viable third option beyond foundationalism and nonfoundationalism. Van<br/>Huyssteen (1999:113) explains that a postfoundationalist approach ‘should free us<br/>to approach our cross-disciplinary conversation with our strong beliefs and even<br/>prejudices intact, and while acknowledging these strong commitments, to identify<br/>at the same time the shared resources of human rationality in different modes of<br/>reflection ... a truly postfoundational move beyond objectivism and relativism is<br/>to rediscover the embeddedness of our rational reflection in the context of living,<br/>evolving and developing traditions’.</p>
</blockquote> Bruce, thanks for the link. I…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2015-06-10:5301756:Comment:616392015-06-10T16:11:53.840ZDavidM58http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/DavidM58
<p>Bruce, thanks for the link. I see that this author (Loubser) also engages with Cilliers, (and Human), bringing us back to the original topic of this thread. </p>
<p>Bruce, thanks for the link. I see that this author (Loubser) also engages with Cilliers, (and Human), bringing us back to the original topic of this thread. </p> Neelesh Marik shared the foll…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2015-06-10:5301756:Comment:615572015-06-10T15:02:42.903ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>Neelesh Marik shared the following on Facebook today, a book applying Morin's complex thought to theology: <a href="https://www.academia.edu/12767693/Engaging_Complexity" target="_blank">Engaging Complexity</a>. I haven't read it yet, but it looks interesting, possibly touching on some threads covered in my recent ITC paper.</p>
<p>Neelesh Marik shared the following on Facebook today, a book applying Morin's complex thought to theology: <a href="https://www.academia.edu/12767693/Engaging_Complexity" target="_blank">Engaging Complexity</a>. I haven't read it yet, but it looks interesting, possibly touching on some threads covered in my recent ITC paper.</p> Yes, I have Eisler's The Chal…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2015-03-20:5301756:Comment:605222015-03-20T03:33:17.294ZDavidM58http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/DavidM58
<p>Yes, I have Eisler's <em>The Chalice and the Blade</em> and <em>The Real Wealth of Nations</em> in my library. Thanks.</p>
<p>Yes, I have Eisler's <em>The Chalice and the Blade</em> and <em>The Real Wealth of Nations</em> in my library. Thanks.</p> Have you explored Eisler to s…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2015-03-19:5301756:Comment:606142015-03-19T19:26:38.135ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Have you explored Eisler to support your thesis? As noted in <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/riane-eisler" target="_self">her thread</a>, she see's an alteration between cultural periods of male dominance and partnership societies. The former are an unbalanced regression of dominator hierarchies, whereas the latter are balanced actualization hierarchies. I also made the spiral dynamics connection of alternating individual and social…</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Have you explored Eisler to support your thesis? As noted in <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/riane-eisler" target="_self">her thread</a>, she see's an alteration between cultural periods of male dominance and partnership societies. The former are an unbalanced regression of dominator hierarchies, whereas the latter are balanced actualization hierarchies. I also made the spiral dynamics connection of alternating individual and social levels. SD however sees both as spiraling upward, whereas I suggested that perhaps the more individually (male) oriented are really much more like Eisler's regressive dominators. Hence not really an ongoing upward evolutionary spiral per SD (and Wilber etc.) but an uneven spiral up and down.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Hence capitalism, with its unbalanced male individualism, is actually a regression rather than a necessary or healthy advance up the spiral. That would also go for the sort of complexity Stewart notes above, what I'd call false reason and a regression rather than an advance. Real reason though is an advance, which is a partnership between body and mind, abstract and concrete, etc. instead of the usual dichotomous metaphysics inherent to dominator cultures.</p> Thanks Edwyrd, this looks fas…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2015-03-18:5301756:Comment:605212015-03-18T20:44:37.809ZDavidM58http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/DavidM58
<p>Thanks Edwyrd, this looks fascinating and I will be looking at the attachment and links (re: Stewart). It looks like it may support some of the ideas expressed in the ITC paper I'm working on, in regards to a shift from emphasis on competition to increased cooperation in a future with less available energy. </p>
<p>Thanks Edwyrd, this looks fascinating and I will be looking at the attachment and links (re: Stewart). It looks like it may support some of the ideas expressed in the ITC paper I'm working on, in regards to a shift from emphasis on competition to increased cooperation in a future with less available energy. </p> I also posted the above as a…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2015-03-18:5301756:Comment:608142015-03-18T18:09:06.442ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>I also posted the above as a comment to Frank Visser's <a href="http://www.integralworld.net/visser82.html" target="_blank">latest Integral World article</a>. Frank's reply:</p>
<p>"Yes, I know Stewart's ideas very well have posted some of his writing on Integral World, some of which is originally written for this website. He is so much more interesting and knowledgeable than Wilber when it comes to evolution. Especially relevant is his emphasis on individual holons becoming more cooperative…</p>
<p>I also posted the above as a comment to Frank Visser's <a href="http://www.integralworld.net/visser82.html" target="_blank">latest Integral World article</a>. Frank's reply:</p>
<p>"Yes, I know Stewart's ideas very well have posted some of his writing on Integral World, some of which is originally written for this website. He is so much more interesting and knowledgeable than Wilber when it comes to evolution. Especially relevant is his emphasis on individual holons becoming more cooperative during evolution -- across micro and macro levels -- where Wilber gives a more transcendentalist presentation in which individual holons transcend and include previous holons, each with their own social counterparts. Wilber needs a metaphysical drive towards complexity to get this all off the ground, Stewart doesn't. But above all, Stewart engages the relevant literature (Gould, McShea) where Wilber is lost in his sound bytes that are only meant to impress and cater to the ignorance of his audience."</p>
<p><a href="http://www.integralworld.net/readingroom.html#JSt" target="_blank">Here</a>'s a link to Stewart's IW articles.</p> I'll park this here for now:…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2015-03-17:5301756:Comment:606122015-03-17T16:58:26.446ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p class="volIssue">I'll park this here for now: "<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030326471400080X" target="_blank">The direction of evolution</a>: the rise of cooperative organization." In <a class="S_C_volIss" href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03032647/123/supp/C" title="Go to table of contents for this volume/issue"><span>Biosystems,</span> Volume 123</a>, September 2014, Pages 27–36</p>
<p>An excerpt:</p>
<p>"The hypothesis that seems to have…</p>
<p class="volIssue">I'll park this here for now: "<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030326471400080X" target="_blank">The direction of evolution</a>: the rise of cooperative organization." In <a class="S_C_volIss" title="Go to table of contents for this volume/issue" href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03032647/123/supp/C"><span>Biosystems,</span> Volume 123</a>, September 2014, Pages 27–36</p>
<p>An excerpt:</p>
<p>"The hypothesis that seems to have gained most support is that selection tends to drive increasing complexity as evolution proceeds. [...] It is obvious that complexity <em>per se</em> is not favoured by selection. There are numerous possible changes in organisms that would increase complexity but are not advantageous in evolutionary terms. And changes that are less complex are not always inferior.</p>
<p class="svArticle section" id="par0025">"Proponents of this claim have been unable to identify how known evolutionary processes would drive the supposed trend towards increasing complexity. This is a serious deficiency that also bedevils other attempts to demonstrate an overall, driven trend in evolution. To demonstrate such a trend, it is not sufficient to identify some supposed large-scale pattern in evolution and to marshal empirical evidence that substantiates the existence of the pattern. The pattern may be an artefact and not driven by selection that directly favours the pattern. It is therefore also necessary to provide the claimed directionality with micro-foundations at the level of natural selection that show how the pattern is driven by selection and related processes.</p>
<p class="svArticle section" id="par0030">"This has proven particularly challenging because it is not at all obvious how natural selection could drive a trajectory encompassing all living processes, given that it produces only local adaptation to local circumstances (<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030326471400080X#bib0060" id="bbib0060" class="intra_ref" name="bbib0060">Gould, 1996</a> and <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030326471400080X#bib0125" id="bbib0125" class="intra_ref" name="bbib0125">Maynard Smith, 1988</a>).</p>
<p class="svArticle section" id="par0035">"This deficiency obviously cannot be overcome by the postulation of some new general ‘force’, ‘tendency’ or ‘drive’ that is unsupported by appropriate micro-foundations. Nor can it be overcome by teleological explanations that rely on impermissible ‘pulls from the future’."</p>
<p class="svArticle section">And from the conclusion:</p>
<p class="svArticle section">"Evolution has been heading towards the emergence of a coordinated and integrated global entity."</p>
<p class="svArticle section"></p>