daniel (w) on complexity

Understanding complexity: A prerequisite for sustainable design – may 2017 – by
Daniel Christian Wahl [https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/understanding-complexity-a-prerequisite-for-sustainable-design-fd45990e3bd6]

via 2 (of 3 – 1/ daniel (w) on eyes of world 3\ daniel (w) on whales) then (4\ daniel (w) on (non) natural and 5\ daniel (w) on tech) links daniel wahl replied with when i tweeted about daniel (w) on regen & self org:

did you actually *bother to listen? … fyi [https://twitter.com/DrDCWahl/status/1637374974259351555?s=20]

a reply to this particular:

‘Regeneration is the essence of life’s self-organisation’

what if self org is the essence of regen.. what if we only need regen in a disturbed/intoxicated/closed ecosystem

*wow.. yeah.. i did.. all of it.. serious questioning et al.. and reading all links you sent before responding as well (as per usual)

notes/quotes from link (26 min read):

title: Understanding complexity: A prerequisite for sustainable design

(to me) pre req’s are a red flag we’re doing it/life wrong.. and to me.. goes back to 1 of 2 link about eyes of world.. don’t need to learn love et al

As I have mentioned before, the simplest definition for a complex system is any system with more than three interacting variables.

complexity ness et al

This research and 10 years of experience as an educator, consultant, activist, and expert generalist in whole systems design and transformative innovation have led me to publish Designing Regenerative Cultures in May 2016.]

designing regen cultures

In particular, *lessons from non-linear mathematics and chaos theory added the crucially important insight of the fundamental unpredictability of complex dynamic systems, which allowed theories to progress beyond the detached systems theory mindset that still aimed to increase prediction and control.

(to me).. *lessons are there because we’re like (and have forever been like) whales in sea world.. like trying to ‘teach’ back or uncover or whatever.. what sea world ness stripped us of

hari rat park law et al.. not yet scrambled et al

It is important to understand that chaos does not refer to a state of absolutely incoherent disorder, rather “the scientific term chaos refers to an underlying interconnectedness that exists in apparently random events.” Briggs and Peat explain: “Chaos science focuses on hidden patterns, nuance, the sensitivity of things, and the *rules for how the unpredictable leads to the new”(Briggs & Peat, 1999, p.2

love this.. yes this.. sans the *rules.. see it more as natural fundamental state of legit free people

carhart-harris entropy law.. to me that’s like not yet scrambled ness.. graeber unpredictability/surprise law.. fromm spontaneous law.. et al

Chaos theory provides a radically different framework for *studying complex dynamics. It highlights the limitations that are inherent in a reductionistic and mechanistic — linear cause and effect based — *analysis of complex systems.

yes this.. we need a radically diff framework (hari rat park law).. but i think if legit diff (truly conditions for legit free people).. *studying and analysis would be more irrelevant s (wouldn’t be what we spend our days on)


1\ undisturbed ecosystem (common\ing) can happen

2\ if we create a way to ground the chaos of 8b legit free people

Envisioning an issue as a purely mechanical problem to be solved may bring temporary relief of symptoms, but chaos suggests that in the long run it could be more effective to look at the overall context in which a particular problems manifest itself (Briggs & Peat, 1999, pp.160–161).

rowson mechanical law.. et al..

part\ial ness is killing us.. for (blank)’s sake

The German bio-cyberneticist Frederic Vester emphasized: “simple cause and effect relationships only exist in theory, not in reality.” According to Vester, we have to face up to the fact that reality is governed by indirect causes, networks of relationships and time delays that in many cases make it absolutely impossible to clearly identify individual causes. It is this awareness that makes us fully appreciate how difficult it actually is to guess at the effects that a certain intervention will have (Vester, 2004, p.15)

and so.. the need to quit spending our time/energy on trying to guess/predict/identify.. et al

naming the colour ness et al

Accepting such profound and permanent limits to human knowledge and our ability to predict and control, will inevitably lead to taking a more humble approach to human interaction with natural process. It forces us to *recognize our role as participants in natural processes. In the face of their fundamental unpredictability — we have to adopt a more responsible mode of participation based on trans-disciplinary cooperation, careful consideration and action based on the precautionary principle

*not sure we even have to do that.. we just need to listen deeper to what is already in us.. that dance.. of and undisturbed ecosystem

‘in undisturbed ecosystems ..the average individual, species, or population, left to its own devices, behaves in ways that serve and stabilize the whole..’ –Dana Meadows

Sustainable design can be defined as **appropriate ***participation in natural process; and appropriateness should be *judged by the extent to which a certain design maintains the overall dynamic stability, resilience, flexibility, adaptability, or health of the system as a whole.

from response listening to daniel (w) on regen & self org – (to me) that’s pretty loaded .. **appropriate as socrates supposed to law and ***participation as invited vs invented et al.. and perhaps the loaded ness is all about the then need for *judge\ment

appropriate participation

In order to create sustainable designs we will *have to learn to integrate into natural process and this **will require us to consider insights from many different disciplines through trans-disciplinary co-operation and dialogue.

*(to me) if have to learn to (something) that’s red flag not legit natural process .. which (to me) is undisturbed ecosystem ness

**same.. (to me) red flags.. so to me.. need 1st/most: means to undo our hierarchical listening to self/others/nature so we can org around legit needs

imagine if we listened to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & used that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness)

An understanding of the insights gained through complexity theory can provide a very important contribution to appreciating nature’s scale-linking properties, as well as the the *work of trans-disciplinary design teams aiming towards meeting the needs of the present and future generations of humans while attempting to participate appropriately in natural process.

*what if we create conditions where everybody is legit free and trust ed.. to do/be what they need to do/be in order for the dance to dance?.. to me.. any form of m\a\p is a cancerous distraction to that dance..

Complexity refers to the condition of the universe which is integrated and yet too rich and varied for us to understand in simple common mechanistic or linear ways. We can *understand many parts of the universe in these ways but the larger more intricately related phenomena can only be understood by principles and patterns — not in detail. Complexity deals with the nature of emergence, innovation, learning and adaptation (in Battram, 1998, p.v).

maybe we don’t have to understand any of it for it to dance.. maybe our obsession w *understanding (thinking we can know) keeps getting in the way of the dance

In dealing with complex dynamic systems, trans-disciplinary design teams will have to *face the challenges posed by fundamental interconnectedness and unpredictability as well as the physical and biological fact of humanity’s participatory involvement in natural process despite our intellectual ability to assume detached observer perspectives and temporarily create a culture regarding itself as detached from nature.

*to me.. only/biggest challenge is letting go of thinking we have to predict/manage/know/plan/teach/design.. et al

intellect ness is killing/blinding us to us

Why do I stress temporarily? I would suggest that the basic assumption that our intellectual and cultural emancipation from nature justifies a position that culture is not part of nature is a root-cause of *unsustainable decision-making and design.

to me.. decision making is unsustainable.. it’s about/presumes a finite set of choices.. so to me.. decision making is unmooring us

The historical epistemological bias that has favoured *reductionistic and mechanistic analysis based on subject-object separation will have to be overcome .. **Trans-disciplinary teams will have to develop the skill to shift between reductionistic analysis and holistic contextualisation;

to me.. **that’s *reductionist/mechanist.. et al.. any form of m\a\p

Dietrich Dörner, who studied *problem solving as a method of information processing. In one of Dörner’s experiments a trans-disciplinary team of twelve specialists was given the task to improve the overall systems and infrastructure design of a fictional country in the developing world and the impact of their **design strategy was modelled by computer over a century of repeated cycles of system intervention and modelled system change.

*what if ‘solving’ irrelevant problems.. then all info and info processing non legit (and/or cancerous distraction)

need to get to the problem deep enough.. taleb center of problem law et al

**if can model by a computer? isn’t that mechanical?.. ? what computers can’t do et al.. unjustifiable strategy ness et al

Dörner’s *interest was not the adequacy of the computer model but how this team of experts would approach problem solving and planning and solution design, in order to identify common mistakes in the interaction with and intervention in complex systems. The list below summarizes six common mistakes that Dörner identified.

again.. if seeing how they ‘approach’ irrelevant problems.. that’s like bruce alexander realizing rats don’t crave heroin.. they just choose it when given finite set of choices.. et al..

hari rat park law et al

Six Common Mistakes In Dealing With Complex Systems

this is what last 5ish years have kind of been for me.. after 5ish years of experimentation.. finding red flags that would keep us from a legit undisturbed ecosystem.. so will be responding with short red flag notation i see as deeper roadblocks (mistakes?) in these 6

1\ Inadequate definition of goals

to me .. both defn and goals as the red flags.. not the adequate ness of them

2\ Lack of a joined-up systems analysis – collection of a huge amount of data, which did result in enormous lists but were never joined up into a coherent understanding of the interactions involve.

to me.. any data to date is a red flag.. we have no idea what legit free people are like.. only speculation of what whales in sea world are like

3\ The creation of irreversible emphasis – if there are partial successes within a particular problem theme, it can become a favourite at the neglect of others. 

again.. if none of data legit .. wouldn’t matter if able to not neglect any.. result still not legit.. need to go/listen deeper

4\ Lack of attention to side-effects –  At no point was the set of *proposed interventions subjected to a **policy test to distinguish between ***alternatives

again.. to me.. all non legit anyway.. but *proposed and **policy ness red flags.. and to me.. we’ve yet to try any legit ***alts.. we need to try something legit different .. otherwise not alts.. just same song

5\ The tendency to over-steer or over-react – the reactions was usually to hit the breakes or try to reverse the interventions.

intervention ness as cancerous distraction/red flag

6\ The tendency to act in an *authoritarian way – Frequently **personal aspiration’s to gain professional or political prestige are the main drivers behind large-scale changes that jeopardize systems dynamics.

to me.. *any form of m\a\p is authoritarian

**yeah that.. sinclair perpetuation law et al

Frederic Vester emphasizes frequently that when we are dealing with complex systems the only *realistic strategy is a careful holistic approach and not a precisely planned strategy. “Since complex systems require a constant dynamism in the way we think about them and therefore a rich heuristic structure — they have to include the **entire range of ways in which humans can reach insights”

*to me.. unjustifiable strategy

**to me.. would come from imagine if we ness via org-ing around legit needs

This reiterates another important point: In order to create appropriate design solutions that integrate into complex dynamic systems like a community, and ecosystem or the biosphere, we have to *learn to include a wide variety of viewpoints into our decision making process. This integration has to **span beyond trans-disciplinarity among academic disciplines to include indigenous or traditional ways of knowing and other participatory epistemologies.

*sounds like school trying (year 0 – pilot math – self-directed et al) to expand choices in curriculum.. or consumerism going online to can buy even what’s not locally in store.. or coops allowing workers to decide how they want to still spend their day working.. still spinach or rock ness of finite set of choices

**today we have the means to span beyond any of that.. to curiosity over decision making et al.. small is {ginormous} beautiful.. infinitesimallly .. et al

Professor Vester summarizes three root causes of the most common mistakes that we commit in dealing with complex systems. These are: i) the reductionist and piece-meal way we employ when dealing with them, which makes us ignore their interconnectedness and dynamism; ii) the tendency to ignore feedback and focus on inappropriately chosen systems parameters; and iii) inappropriately short planning horizons that leave us unaware of time- delayed feedback (Vester, 2004, p.39). All three of these mistakes are also the most common causes of unsustainable design!

to me.. again.. feedback to date.. non legit.. planning ness.. red flag

Another way is to *aim for a better understanding and increased intelligibility of the underlying dynamics and properties that **define the behaviour of complex dynamic systems.

*i think this is a cancerous distraction.. i think legit free people wouldn’t go there.. wouldn’t spend time/energy there.. would be irrelevant s

**to me defining and behavior.. so esp defining behavior .. red flags

to have or to be ness et al.. fromm spontaneous law et al

In traditional science, if you can predict and control the behaviour of a system you have defined it and therefore have understood and explained it. This can’t be done with living things, nor can it be done with the economy or the weather: all of which are complex systems.

totally agree.. so we need to seriously quit trying to predict/control.. to me.. that’s any form of m\a\p

Instead, complexity science uses simulation: an approach which can be defined as synthetic, because it is about creating rather than analysing (as in the traditional analytic approach). (battram)

to me.. the creation part is of conditions so that people can be legit free.. ie: hari rat park law et al.. to me.. our problem is we keep trying to create the kinds of people or whatever.. rather than conditions to get us all out of the rat cage (sea world).. so we can then just trust us

Complex adaptive systems are constantly revising and rearranging their components in *response to feedback from the environment. Examples are to be found in the evolution of organisms, the brain changing connections between neurons, firms reshuffling their departmental structure, countries realigning their alliances.

seems silly now to keep repeating myself.. again.. to me *this response is all based on whales in sea world.. and on presumptions we have gained from that.. like we need to know/analyze/synthesize anything.. ie: we still keep looking at intoxicated/caged whales/parks/worlds to describe what natural ness is.. to me that is all unnatural/non-legit/cancerous distraction.. to an undisturbed ecosystem (which to me are conditions we need for rat park.. et al)

At some deep, fundamental level, all these processes of learning, evolution and adaptation are the same.

so me.. at some deep level.. learning/evolution/adaptation (or maybe just thinking we have to understand them rather than grok them.. i don’t know) are irrelevants.. roadblocking us from an undisturbed ecosystem

Agents in the system can never ‘optimise’ their ‘fitness’ or their utility. The *space of possibilities is too vast; they have no practical way of finding the optimum. The most they can ever do is to change and improve themselves relative to what the other agents are doing. In short, a complex adaptive system is characterized by **perpetual novelty (Battram, 1998, p.36).

*to me.. maybe in the past.. but i think today we have the means to facil that ginormous/smallness

**so let’s create conditions for that.. ie: imagine if we via tech as it could be

Any optimisation of an individual design *can only be temporary and will have to be repeatedly reconsidered within the dynamic context of natural processes of change and transformation. In designing we should focus more on contributing to the dynamic flexibility, resilience and health of the overall process rather than on optimising the fit of our design to temporarily adapted cultural and economic paradigms.

*why i see the 1st thing everyday ness as a legit means to detox/re\set us

*In order to participate appropriately and adaptively in complex dynamic systems we need to aim to make their underlying dynamics **more intelligible. This is the aim of complexity theory and the reason why it can provide an effective conceptual ***framework for sustainable decision-making and design.

*to me.. this is loaded (whalespeak) and setting us up for more sinclair perpetuation law ness..

**rather mechanism simple enough ness.. so it’s accessible/usable by all of us.. today

humanity needs a leap.. to get back/to simultaneous spontaneity .. simultaneous fittingness.. everyone in sync..

***need conditions for curiosity over decision making sans any form of m\a\p

Peter Reason and Brian Goodwin have suggested six principles of complexity: rich interconnections, iteration, emergence, holism, fluctuation, and the edge of chaos (Reason & Goodwin, 1999). The list below these principles with brief explanations.

cool.. sounds to me like what imagine if we ness would facil

Six Principles of Complexity

1\ Rich Interconnections – Complex systems are *defined in terms of rich patterns of interconnections between diverse components.

to me.. if can define them.. not rich/deep enough

2\ Iteration – Complexity theory describes novel, emergent form and behaviour as arising through cycles of iteration in which a pattern of activity, *defined by rules or regularities, is repeated over and over again. Giving rise to coherent order. The order arises as a rich network of interacting elements is built up through the iterative process and the consequences of the process emerge.

yeah.. was hesitant on this one.. to me.. *this is loaded with red flags.. rules/order/ et al.. rather.. to me.. need to be iterating detox.. so we can iterate hardt revolution lawrevolution of everyday life et al

3\ Emergence – The order that emerges is not predictable from the characteristics of the interconnected components and can be *discovered only by operating the iterative cycle, despite the fact that the emergent whole is in some sense contained within the dynamic relationships of the generating parts.

if legit free.. if conditions for legit free.. to me.. *no need to discover and operate some set/ruled iterative cycle.. to me that is still cancerous distraction

4\ Holism – The emergent order is holistic in the sense that it is a consequence of the interactions between all the component parts of the system and is *not coded or determined by the properties of a privileged part.

yeah that.. *not by any form of m\a\p

5\ Fluctuations – During the process of iteration and emergence there are critical phases characterized by fluctuations in state variables whose **amplitude can be described by a well-defined pattern (a power-law distribution) in which most fluctuations are small, a few are very large, with characteristic pattern in between. These fluctuations **presage the novel, emergent order.

*to me.. that’s not a fluctuation if describe/defined by pattern

**oi.. presage? the novel?.. order? of emergence? red flags

6\ Edge of Chaos – Living systems are most creative, with the greatest potential for discovering order that expresses an emerge nt property of the whole system, when they are living near the edge of chaos.

and/or living systems (organism as fractal) are (edge of?) chaos

It is important to understand how all these properties relate to each other and to keep in mind that they are concepts used to *create a new explanatory metaphor (complex dynamic systems) — a dynamic and fuzzy map that is less detailed and precise than that provided by reductionist analysis, but a map that captures the dynamics of the overall system and may therefore **guide appropriate participation.

*oi.. rather.. to re create same song

**oi.. huge red flags (i tried/bothered to follow this)

The properties of complex systems are simultaneously cause and effect of each other and of themselves.

i thought complex wasn’t cause and effect..

Emergence is a key concept within the theory of complex dynamic systems. It describes the unpredictable and uncontrollable manifestation of novel properties arising out of complex interactions of diverse components. Emergence, therefore takes place at a higher explanatory level and the novel forms, behaviours and properties of the whole system “are neither predictable from, deducible from, nor reducible to the parts alone (J. Goldstein, 1999, p.50).

yeah that.. let’s keep to that.. all else (all above et al) .. cancerous distractions

Accepting the fundamental unpredictability and uncontrollability of emergence, *redirects our intention from control and prediction of complex systems **to increasing contextual intelligibility through explaining relationships and dynamics holistically ***rather than predicting or controlling outcomes.

*but it hasn’t.. because if **this.. still ***this

Iteration drives this amplification of random events that makes emergent properties so radically unpredictable

but not the iteration described above.. that results in same song

since the smallest differences are amplified by each successive iteration.

to me.. this is huge.. as to why all data to date is non legit.. we’ve been iterating non legit ness

black science of people/whales law et al

This region of the dynamic spectrum, where outdated *order dissolves into a creative and responsive chaos from which novel order can emerge, is often referred to as “the edge of chaos.” Stuart Kaufman suggested: “The best place for a system to be, in order to respond appropriately to a constantly changing world, is at the edge of chaos.” He explains: “Here order and disorder are combined in such a way that the system can readily dissolve inappropriate order and discover patterns that are appropriate for changing circumstances” (in Reason & Goodwin, 1999, p.286).

to me.. we haven’t yet tried that.. because we can’t seem to let go of control ness.. and allow trust ness (in legit free people – but also haven’t created conditions for legit free people) so we keep defining order by our non legit defn of order.. we keep perpetuating myth of tragedy and lord ness et al

carhart-harris entropy law et al

The emergence of order out of chaos is not due to a *deterministic, previously existing blueprint, but due to the intrinsic dynamics or **repeated interactions among the diverse components [participants] of a complex whole (Wahl, 2001, p.5).

to me **this is *this (as you’ve described it above).. to me we haven’t yet tried anything intrinsic enough.. to me this is why we need to listen to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & used that data to connect us

One of the central propositions made in this doctoral thesis is that design can only be sustainable if it *participates appropriately in natural process

to me not natural if appropriate ness required..

*Design, planning and decision-making are obvious ways in which a social system can adapt to feedback from its environment. The fundamental re-design of humanity’s interaction with and integration into natural process will be best **guided by notions such as complex adaptive systems, participatory responsibility, and salutogenic (health-generating) design adapted to ***multiple scales.

*oi.. **oi.. ***multiple is not enough.. gillis on small scale.. and our ability today for infinitesimal rather than the finite set of choices of multiple ness

we need to *minimize the possibility of catastrophe when it does not. We need to be as sure as humanly possible that when the unexpected does occur, it does not bring about disaster. This means checks, balances, feedback, complexity, sometimes a conservative stance. In ecosystem design, the whole stake should never ride on the role of the dice (Lyle, 1985, p.264).

*gershenfeld something else law et al.. **these – any form of m\a\p – perpetuate possibility of catastrophe

Natural design aims to create expressions of appropriate participation in natural process. As such it does not suggest final nor universal solutions, rather, as a process natural design aims to integrate appropriately into the conditions of the local environment through expressing the continuous, community based, learning process that reflects sustainability as a process of co-evolution and co-adaptation of culture and nature in place.

sounds like what we started calling a raised eyebrow

One of the most effective ways to catalyse the transformation towards sustainable human participation in natural processes is to facilitate the *availability of appropriate information to the diverse agents within the complex dynamic system of human society.

yeah .. to me.. that (all we need) is already in each one of us.. we just need to uncover/unmute that.. so again.. need 1st/most: means to undo our hierarchical listening to self/others/nature ie: tech as it could be

The emerging global to local network culture which links *responsible and engaged citizens in communities and NGOs worldwide is the medium through which appropriate information can spread and affect the system as a whole. **Education as a means of inter-and intra-generational spread of appropriate information clearly plays and important role in the transformation towards sustainability (see chapter five).

*huge red flags.. responsibility ness and informed populace/citizenry ness.. **any form of m\a\p.. no train.. no prep.. this is same song as supposed to’s of school/work

How we classify knowledge and information as reliable critically affects our worldview and thus how we design and make decisions. 

i’d say.. because we keep thinking we have to classify knowledge and info as reliable.. causes us to keep living as whales in sea world .. rather than as legit free people.. curiosity over decision making et al

In order to meet *human needs while expressing this fundamental intention and aim, natural design will have to integrate into natural process by learning from natural process (see chapter three).

big(gest?) part of our problem.. we have no idea what legit needs are.. so we keep org ing around non legit ones..

Everything co-exists with this paper. That is why I think the word inter-be should be in the dictionary. “To be” is to inter-be- we cannot just be by ourselves alone. We have to inter-be with every other thing. This sheet of paper is, because everything else is.

thurman interconnectedness lawwhen you understand interconnectedness it makes you more afraid of hating than of dying – Robert Thurman 

and so back to love.. which said above.. don’t need to learn.. already in us.. our essence