Are Complexity Sciences "Too Complex"?

No, they aren't - but we are living in a day and age where people do not understand how they work - are quick to talk when they feel (and perceive something) and mindlessly trusting that their assertions (propositions) are for all times valid, as opposed to a belief-open-to-revision..

It is horrifying. There are an amazing number of people alive today who literally do not understand a shred of how they work - although the systems sciences are providing Humans the means to reconstruct themselves.

The problem is culture - and the ignorant, perverse, mindless, childish, rampant stupidity being shared on both the left and right.

There is the stupidity and simplicity of whats called "modernism" and its mindless concessions towards reductive materialism (as opposed to emergent materialism) and its ignorant dualistic splitting of whats called "the humanities", and what they call "science". A more apt term is "scientism - which about as ontologically, epistemologically and ethically responsive as any other conservative dogmatism that operates by abstracting the observing mind from the process of knowledge-making.

Another, equally stupid - but even more corrosive - belief system is the occultic, mystical, or spiritual. It is based on nothing more than a simple premise: all of reality is mental. Books by Graham Hancock, Robert Buvall, Jim Marrs and others ignorantly build-up fascination for historical movements channeled through "mystery schools" all the way back in time - to a "prehistoric" civilization ruled by "magicians" and "seers" who knew things we didn't. Both of these positions - and others like it - are differing degrees of IDEALIZATION - WISHFUL FANTASY - Borne from, as usual incomplete knowledge. Ignorance is what fosters shoddy ontological, epistemological - and ultimately, ethical belief-systems.

In any case, I have a true hatred for points of view that do not acknowledge evolution, good-bad organism preferences, and the structuring of the life-world of the organism ALWAYS in terms of how the organisms exists in relations to its environment.

Scientism ignores the observing Human Self as if this wasn't an essential pole in the knowledge-making process. Conversely, occultism associated with elitist groups (i.e. the "master plan") go in the opposite direction - as if an external world didn't exist which systematically constitutes your form of being. Whats missing from both analyses is a relationality - an ecological, processual framework that see's the atoms - and energy - that ultimately work to generate the conditions which underlie our collective existence.

For me, all of this is explicable if you're a sound mind - not prone to idealization and wary of the reality that idealization is the single greatest threat to the acquisition of true knowledge - knowledge of Self and its relation to Others.

Yet - if you watch a documentary that "bigs up" occultism - or happen to be an ignorant celebrity "puffed up" by the sense of power driven into you by your cultural and social context - amazingly, you will commit an error that will and should have profound consequences - if causality has anything to say.

Listen: Occultism - or the ontological emergence of paranormal phenomena - i.e. the "relevativzation of matter" - depends on Humans coming together - in synchrony, harmony, and togetherness. No ritual will work if antagonism or distrust i.e. a 'counter-dynamic' is present to any ritual. That is, if a Human being is present who is antagonistic - it will not work - because the very phenomena is an EMERGENT PROPERTY OF Self-Self attunement.

Just consider what sort of confusion can arise if the ecological organization of the physical world became lost - yet such phenomena still emerge. Given that the phenomena which emerge between people is a function of their psychodynamic "culture" - - it may seem as if the "things" which emerge between us were ontologically separate from us - but they aren't. The 'event' is always emergent - always dependent upon the nervous systems of the Humans in their multi-layered connections. "Talking" to such forces has the air of lunacy to it - because there is an assumption that one can "learn" from such forces - even though the forces and the knowledge they possess is inextricably linked with emotional vectors; hence, if you're a liar and used to lying - it should not be surprising if the entity which emerges between you lies: after all, that is what your brain-mind actually does. You gain by lying - by deceiving people, as the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans did to maintain control of their empires: imperialistic cultures and the elites which lead them seem to be an example of extracting an advantage in this world at the expense of the next (if there is a next - which seems likely). It is only right - and it is also just causal laws - from the lowest level of matter to the highest - doing what it does: flowing in terms of the forces which act upon its flow.

Yet pomposity - the spectacle, continues to operate as their "transitional object". A transitional object is akin to a ritual - but it initially referred to what a baby does as they 'transition' away from the continuous affective contact with its mother (it's epistemological and ontological sense of peace, relaxation, unity) to an object that serves the same internal purpose (such as a pillow or blanket). It could be your finger and the soothing it provides: the point is, an association is built between one category of object (coherency - mother) and another, (coherency - pillow) - where the person experiences a similar envlivenment/relaxation affect via relating with the object.

Todays Humans are too pretentiously un-self aware to realize that they are doing what baby's do to make themselves feel better - and thats' fine. We never outgrow the need for one another and for attunement, because that is what we are.

That said, there are people who foolishly think they are "outside" the category of need. Such people, of course, teeter on the very edge of suicidality: they will never 'depress' their egoism (which they may have spent a lifetime building) by acknowledging what they have metaphysically identified as the "demiurge".

No idea is more retarded - and more incompatible with reality - than developing an antagonistic AFFECTIVE RELATION - i.e. through the SYSTEM OF YOUR BODY - towards the so-called "demiurge". Think about the sheer idiocy of this belief: you are a system from the qurak-gluons that make up your neutrons-protons - up to the 10 octillion atoms that make up your body. Everything is a system - cells, inter-cells, organism - minds in interction.

The necessity of conceiving Human being with existence is only feasible - and meaningful - by paying attention to the fundamental system nature of everything - so what does it mean to put yourself into antagonism with the "demiurge"? It is pure nihilism. Self-destructive with no possibility of an "outlet" - inasmuch as existence and multiplicity go together - my having a mind is fundamentally related to other Human minds - and the way WE FIT.

And yet this view persists - with nothing more pushing it forward than a) power, and b) ignorance.

Social power - something Humans like, apparently (see the idiot Machiavelli) - yet somehow the lust for power and respect is not seen as a subset - an emergent property a preexisting human-human ontologic

relatedness.

The sheer illogicality of it amazes me!

a reply to: Astrocyte

It is horrifying

Chill out and go for a walk then .

a reply to: Astrocyte

There is a single pattern repeating over and over: conception; the chicken and the egg are one; God is thinking.

You're only making it more difficult than it needs to be, like a mountain out of a molehill, because you can't grasp the macrocosm that is the mind of God.

Seriously, you're reinventing the wheel here when even you have already identified the wheel: coherency (soul), physicality (body), affect (spirit) = Father, Son, Holy Ghost = Mind of God.

It's like you're trying to solve a puzzle that you refuse to look at. Just put the piece down and look at the big picture already.

Edit: The way that you are putting mind-brain together is the same way that Christians put Father and Son together, and the way that you have identified affect (love) as being the influence is the same way that Christians talk about the Holy Ghost / the Spirit.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

lol @ chill out.

Life is fun, eh? Just "block out" - dissociate, or "just be"?

This theory that you are apart - or separate - that "nirvana", or "enlightement", can be actually and ontologically attained - as opposed to temporally sustained via the regular regeneration of a sense of agency via enlivening relations with like-minded others - who affirm and acknowledge you, and therefore potentiate your affective relations and sense of identity.

If this thread seems meaningless to you - then ignore it. Ignoring things is a way to "get away" from that which you don't like. That is - the rules which rule things - which some people think they can "transcend" through stories about "merging opposites". The amazing thing - for me - is the space life provides for such delusions: our reliance on one another for our existence is so thorough that one group of people - the common masses - can be systematically exploited, ignored, hurt, and forced to endure much suffering - when a much smaller group - elite - share stories with one another about how much they "hate rules".

Ah - yes. As a Human invested in the future of our Human species, its bothersome to me that the majority of Humans are epistemologically dissociated from the childishness of their beliefs. It's incredible. While one part of Humanity moves forward with a sense of wonder at the way reality works (scientists and scholars involved in complexity studies) another group - those invested in the social world - in money, power, and fame - are disastrously unaware of their own dysfunctionality - of the causal forces that motivate their actions - and of the accounting - the accountability - that the Universe in its very structure entails from its agents.

In short: we are obviously one creature. I speak here, or attempt to speak here, from the vantage point of this higher perspective which recognizes the ontological unity of Self and Other - which functionally speaking, impresses itself into generating or degenerating Human feeling relations - into love or resentment.

Naturally, we become invested in our modes of living. Which also means - like all animals - we become antagonistic towards "species of ideas" which threaten the conceptual basis for our mode-of-living.

We literally foster a world of creatures inside of us, and to me - it is legitimately horrifying, since at some point, every person will have to encounter the other-side of the equation - the others their actions effected - the others whom are impacted by your egregious hoarding of wealth, power, strength, pleasure etc.

There is such an obvious complementarity to everything - that it is surprising that some people cannot imagine that their very beliefs - convictions - may be a function of "putting your eggs in the wrong basket" - and not having the sensibility to fix yourself.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Evidently, you do not understand my position.

My position - for the umpteenth time - is panentheistic. The whole is formative - the parts makeup the whole are themselves constituting the whole, as well as being constituted by it.

The entirety of my post is about how we - or some of us - imagine that ethics is somehow negotiable - that you can coherently relate to the Whole (God, lets say) without enacting those relations and so potentiating your own beings relation to the whole through your microcosmic attunement to others whom we exist with.

If you have any questions, ask. Don't just start making assertions that aren't connected to anything I've written - or the general thrust of my position.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

It's exponentially more likely that you are attempting to anthropomorphize reality out some misguided romanticism and fear of your mortality.

a reply to: Astrocyte

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Your opening post: "You all are stupid for thinking it's simple."

Your reply to me: "The whole is formative - the parts makeup the whole are themselves constituting the whole, as well as being constituted by it."

a reply to: Astrocyte

There is such an obvious complementarity to everything - that it is surprising that some people cannot imagine that their very beliefs - convictions - may be a function of "putting your eggs in the wrong basket" - and not having the sensibility to fix yourself.

We are given a basket and eggs to put into it .We then come to realize that there are some fixing needed ...Do we go to our basket and pull out one of the eggs we got for free or do we decide to abandon that basket and eggs and look else where for the fixing ? Self help cant fix Self ...Why do people even but self help books to begin with ...Sounds self defeating and why use someone else's eggs .

It could be your post makes perfect sense to a perfect mind .I wouldn't think that a perfect mind would be horrified about what we see and understand about this world .Its small components may be disgusting and un-fair but not horrifying or unexpected imo

a reply to: watchitburn

Ding ding ding.

Anthropomorphizing and Romanticizing.

See how he had to reference his Christianity - as if what I was writing was somehow threatening his position? Indeed, right after he edited his post to show that my ideas - based in science and empirical methodology (i.e. referring to objective phenomena) is the same as the "father/son".

When I say the problem is culture - I mean "references". Where are your ideas coming from? What culture?

Are you referencing the way matter self-organizes from its lowest levels i.e. quanta, atoms, cells etc - and so basing your knowledge of Human experience on what matter reveals about its nature and structure? Or, conversely, are you referencing ideas that originated (at the very last) 2000 years ago - at a time period when Humans didn't even have a coherent theory of how they worked?

Thales and Anaximander lost out to Plato's theory that the forms - or ideas - precede the situation which enacts them - a belief system certain to find acceptance by people who have every reason to deny (the absolutely legitimate) rights of other Humans.

It's simple: unjust social systems - a dynamical construct that is ontologically "above" individual Humans - shapes and forms the "inside" of Human brain-minds by guiding their affective orientation - which people do you seek 'recognition' from? If you are led into the Wealthy/elite circle - you'll find yourself self-organizing to THEIR INTERNAL REFERENTS. Or conversely, the majority of Human beings - being constantly accosted by the realities of life - discover the sorts of solutions that nature prefers: symmetry, caring, love. Their attitude is natural, whereas the elitist contempt for commoners is a function of DISOWNING THEIR GUILT - resisting the etiological meaning of its occurrence - and reinterpreting it as deriving from an "evil" archon, which of course is much more simply explained as a projectionit outwards into a philosophical system that demonizes that very condition - reality itself - which causes so much inner consternation for them.

To think that all of reality - all of Human history - could be constituted by such normal, natural and obvious processes - is pretty incredible to me.

Yet the wealthy shield themselves from truth like a leper is set apart from a community.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Aye. If you don't understand, or having trouble understanding what I've written, don't reply.

My first post is compatible with my second. The problem is your affective reactivity. Those words - probably poorly chosen - have become attractors in your brain-mind, and now compel you into opposing everything I have to write.

I've felt that way before. Know how it works.

You're not looking to justify my claim - but to disprove it.

Affects indicate orientation: they define your intentionality i.e. what you want to do. If your affects are negative - the whole procedure is purposeles i.e. will not yield true knowledge.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Complexity exceeds our comprehension. The truth is pure and simple.

Science is reductionist in nature. It cannot encompass complexity but seeks to tease out the non-complex reasons from the observed and yet it is assumed that somehow this gives us all the answers.

The fact that science has not comprehended the totality is obscured by the brightness of the particle it has understood.

And then some people use the spattering of points of knowledge upon the graph to prove some point that is similarly blind to its gaps and irrationality.

Don't get me wrong, I love science. The sense of nearly comprehending the numinous. The awe of the discovery of the enormity of creation and the tininess of my corner.

a reply to: watchitburn

That's what you want to think because of your own fears: you're projecting.

There is information within "forces" that constitutes will, that is the spiritual body, and that is what we are all conceiving.

e.g. The words of your post are not simply imagined - they are the translation of your actual spirit (your fear of God). You need to attack my conception so that you can feel like your conception is the truth of the spirit (so you can justify your faith).

a reply to: Astrocyte

I'm trying to help you understand so you can stop hating on what's good.

So you stop calling evil good and good evil.

So you stop wasting time making things overly complicated.


Edit: From my perspective you're taking something that is sacred and has been known for thousands of years and re-branding it, and calling it your own, while simultaneously calling the original stupid. And not just that, but you're trampling all over the truth of it by getting things confused. Because you don't know what you're talking about yet, you're "rediscovering" and making horrible mistakes as you go along.

Things that are holy/sacred demand respect - it is the reason for love and anger.

We are not emerging we are diverging. You can't emerge from nothing. You think in reverse order like someone opening a present might think the box or physical came first when in reality the "affect" was first: physical is a reflection of will - a translation of will - God said be. The mind of God had a thought and breathed will into it so that it would become a living-thought. Simple.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Maybe its a whole lot simpler and can be understood simply

a reply to: chr0naut

By complexity I mean systems theory/chaos/non-linearity.

This is a more complex way of seeing things than the simplistic methods of scientific reductionism.

Don't get me wrong - reducing things is interesting and a useful part of our current knowledge base. Atoms are now seen to be made of smaller particles - neutrons/protons/electrons. Protons/Neutrons in turn are regularities of even more energetic quark-gluon reactions.

With Quantum field theory, we now also have a sense of how space emerges (as a gravitational field). All of this is the product of reductionism.

But yes - I'm specifically referring to the NECESSITY of increasing representational awareness - i.e. how you know and understand cause and effect - and not simply trusting, as most religious people do, their initial affectivity.

Mindfulness - a uniquely Buddhist concept - has proven indispensable to western scientific approaches that study the mind i.e. neurosciences, phenomenology and psychodynamics. All of these understandings are buttressed by the Eastern conviction - and belief - that the mind can pay attention to its own functionality without becoming "absorbed".

It's a profound position, which, naturally, assumes a far more skeptical relation to the products of our self-experience than either westerners or Hindu's do.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Quanta are quantizations of fields.

Particles are coherence/collapse of waves.

Space is measurement of time.

Form follows [measurement of] function.

Son is image of Father, who is the translator of the Spirit.

These words are the image of my measure of my will.

Mathematical formula/expressions are measurements of functions.


You think the opposite direction. You think something comes from nothing or randomness or chaos and those things simply can't exist.

a reply to: Astrocyte

science is a language based on evidence it came up as a thing to explain the nature of our reality
and evolution of explanation from myth to what it is now i think
im sure its first creators used it as a tool to reignite the curiousities of the world as stated above things evolve cuz things die they lose its spark people i assume lost interest in the world and this was their outlet

the creators of such complex theories probably feel the same expanding the branch growing new leafs and that is a spiritual thing evolution is a spiritual thing just cuz u dont understand it dont call it a robotic thing theories evolve like a branch of that idealogy or theory otherwise life would be boring if we stick to the same # all the time sure there is a fundamental truth but people need their own narratives to make life worth living

we always need new ways of expression like u r doing now it is another branch of what u r talking about but u dont get it lol u have a problem with a few people perhaps but i dont think that warrents this much attention XD just mind ur own business

a reply to: daniel2sxc

infact u r making complexities with this issue when its a personal thing XD

a reply to: daniel2sxc

actually reading ur post i dont know where u stand and whether what i wrote was relevent XD too complex