On Describing Complex Systems

My experience, beyond an effervescing percolation of the very many sociotechnical instances with which both we and our reflexively teleological heuristics of symbolic communication (in and as language) aspire to epistemological closure, is that there is no simplest state or unified descriptive method available to us. Yes, we can iteratively refine taxonomies and (what become) normative conceptual vocabularies from which we then proceed to hyper-inflate whichever dialect of purposive logical algebra most keenly applies, but we must be very careful not to assert closure and the elimination of uncertainty because this is the trap that language itself sets for us and into which we quite willingly enter.

Language (and much as the histories we may assert through it) maximally self-propagates as a function of the uncertainties and ambiguities that are endemic to it. The generative discontinuity of doubt, error, tautological systems of belief and all attendant entropy becomes the transmission medium by which those systems of communication and organisation optimally self-propagate. The ontological skeleton key of system dynamics is precisely the presence of its own conspicuous absence in both material and abstract forms.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.