Complex systems probabilistically tend (and trend) towards lowest energy cost, statistically median solutions. Once in place, these are natively and autonomously-oriented towards the reproduction of an environmental context as transmission medium for that emergent system or heuristic.
Seeking alternate paths of divergent conceptual vocabulary or usefully unorthodox behavioural grammar is problematised not only by the inertial mass of the organisational systems we inhabit, but by the unseen yet consequential “dark matter” as sum total entropy of all those complex feedback loops of harmonic resonance and reinforcement that always and also exist. This is why organisational change that occurs at an instance or component level is fragile, superficial and rapidly superseded as invalidation.
Our critical kernel error here is that we generally seek change in ways that only ever reinforce the gestalt dependencies that validate and self-propagate the systems (and problems) that already exist. Substantive change is axiomatic, distributed and holistic in nature. Solving holistic problems in one place tends quite naturally to cascade into all other places but the kinds of thinking involved are antithetical to an ascendant paradigm.
It also important to recognise that the kinds of energy and information-processing efficiencies that our organisational systems are intrinsically biased towards are not necessarily the goals and intentions we have in mind. This is much less a matter of intrinsic inefficiency than it a case of the ways we seek to organise ourselves and our world being for the most part divergent from the natural, logical orientation of complex dynamical systems. Bridging this conceptual and epistemological gap is a core interest of mine and falls quite naturally into the domain of philosophy and cybernetics.
Daedelus Kite 