The Radical New Reality of Systems Science

A New Type of Dynamical System

 

Distinguishing between Predictably Mechanistic and Unpredictably Complex Systems​

Perhaps the most important term to understand in this science is its very name: Systems Science.  In general usage, the word 'system' tends to be understood as indicating a consistently and predictably organized set of parts, actions, procedures, rules, or processes, which collectively constitute 'a system.' From that perspective, to be 'systematic' is to be rigidly ordered. Thus, mechanical devices like engines would seem to be the most explicit expression this concept of 'a system.' However, systems science is the application of scientific methods of analysis to any and all 'groups of interacting parts' whose actions or interactions result in an identifiable 'bounded field of correspondent relationships,' or 'an entity.' Consequently, nearly all things and events can be considered scientifically as parts of some 'system' or other, perhaps even of multiple systems.

 

What is unfamiliar or 'new,' to most of us, is that recent science has described systems that are 'more than mechanistic.' Some of these systems turn out to be inconsistently and even unpredictably ordered sets of parts and events. These are termed "complex systems" because their dynamical activities are so interdependent that these cannot be understood in strictly mechanistic terms. Then there are "complex adaptive systems," which are not only inconsistently variable but capable of selectively ordering and reordering their forms and functions. Biological life forms are the most extreme examples of complex adaptive systems.

​

When quantitative analysis is applied to the measurable aspects of complex systems, from weather to creatures and societies, it becomes factually evident that these manifest in ways that are fundamentally different from the consistently ordered and predictable 'operations' of mechanical systems. This profound distinction between types of systems indicates how our familiar sense of the meaning of 'systems' becomes a primary obstacle to comprehending the implications of systems science.  This website is an attempt to 'break the spell'  which that assumption tends to impose on our understanding by introducing the often confounding findings of systems science.

​​

Differentiating 'Complicated' from 'Complex' Dynamics

The term "complexity" in systems science also has some special meanings. Here, complex does not mean simply "complicated." A mechanical system can be fantastically complicated, as in a jet aircraft, but the relationships between its parts and operations can still be fully quantified and calculated in terms of predictably deterministic causality. The events or 'inputs and outputs' of a mechanical system, can be quite accurately explained. The flight of an airplane is the predictable 'output' of its measurable parts and processes.  The dynamics of those effects are primarily deterministic, however complicated. A complex system is distinguished as manifesting interdependent interactions, deriving from recursive feedback networks among is parts and operations, generating "complex dynamical activity" that is not entirely predictable. Complex dynamics can result in unpredictably variable effects and "outputs." These unpredictable "outputs" are termed "emergent" because they cannot be explained in predictably deterministic terms, either from the properties of the parts of the system or preceding conditions. System self-organization from internal disorder is such an "emergent property." And, it turns out, most of the ordering in and around us actually derives from these seemingly 'un-systematically' self-ordering systems. Thus, such systems are associated with "dynamical complexity" and termed "complex systems," with the most dynamically complex being "complex adaptive systems."

​​

The Purposeful Self-Assertion of Complex Adaptive Systems

​​

System Self-Assertion Arises from Emergent Self-Organization

The notion that complex systems can 'self-assert' relates to the 'boot strapping' emergence of feedback networks out of more chaotic conditions, as in when a tropical storm ramps up to become a more organized hurricane. Hurricane's cannot self-direct, but given the right external conditions, they 'gain dynamical momentum' and become increasingly self-organized. In complex adaptive systems, the 'momentum' that leads to self-directing self-organization is generated internally, within the system's feedback networks. This is where things get 'mysterious.' When the feedback loops become complexly interdependent enough, the system gains a sort of 'organizational kinetic inertia.' It 'drives itself forward' into more or different orders that produce further organizational 'options.' This diversity of potential self-orderings creates the basis for 'agentic selective self-direction.' That is the basis for a complex system's capacity to emphasize particular potentials by selectively altering its emerging forms of self-ordering. Somehow, this activity tends to, or 'seeks to,' favor options which might prove more adaptive for the system's continued existence. In so 'selecting,' it manifests 'agential' or  'agent-like' self-assertion.

​

Complex Systems 'Self-Assert' in Unpredictable and Purposefully Adaptive Ways

Complex adaptive systems are "adaptive" because they can alter or reconfigure their forms and functions in ways that promote and sustain their continued existence. This self-directing self-assertion is an emergent property of feedback-driven system networks. It necessarily derives from internal instabilities that enable these networks to act selectively in ordering and re-ordering their forms or behaviors. If the actions of these systems were entirely predictable, then they could not manifest this purposefully adaptive behavior. So, there are many mechanistic aspects to such systems, but their emergent self-ordering, self-asserting behaviors emerge as effects of interacting relationships that are partly non-deterministic. We cannot adequately comprehend the 'workings' and effects of complex adaptive systems in mechanical terms.

​​

​Mechanism is fundamental to phenomena but the emergent self-direction of complex systems is factually 'something more':

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​

​

​

​

​​

​

 

Most importantly, though mechanical systems can potentially be engineered and controlled, complex adaptive ones cannot. The latter are, by definition, not only 'beyond direct predictive control,' but in many cases capable of 'self-directing' operations or 'behavior.' Systems science confronts us with profound evidence that life and 'the world' are not 'merely mechanistic' phenomena. Thus, to view phenomena as exclusively mechanistic is to be fundamentally delusional about 'how things happen' and thus 'how the world and society actually work." That being the case, we are obviously in need of a 'new worldview' -- and that is the logically 'next' scientific worldview of systems science.

​

Tracking System Self-Assertion Requires Modeling Correspondent Relational Networks

All systems can be understood in terms of corresponding relationships between component parts and their effects upon each other. A mechanical motor illustrates how, as 'a system,' it functions predictably according to a consistently ordered network of corresponding actions and reactions. Those relationships can be precisely measured and explained. However, insight into unpredictably self-ordering, self-directing, complex systems requires modeling dynamically variable feedback-driven networks of corresponding relationships. Networks that can selectively reconfigure how parts correspond to each other in ways that change the effects of their correspondence.  These are necessarily "complex networks" because they involve feedback flows and subsequent effects that cannot be fully differentiated, described, and explained in predictably mechanistic terms. To have any insight into how they 'do what they do' we must attempt to model the recursive flows of feedback influence across their 'networked' relationships. Though exact analysis of complex networks is often not possible, network science has provided new methods for tracking and modeling these in recent decades.

 

If we seek insight into how such systems 'behave agentically,' or manifest some selective 'agency,' thus what their 'underlying purposes' are, we must examine how and when they selectively re-configure their correspondent relational networks.  That requires modeling what can be discerned about their feedback interactions. This is discussed as 'network vision' on  the New Network Vision page of this site..

​

​

 Network Agency Self-Directs both Natural and Human Systems through Self-Asserting Behaviors

​​​
 

The Motivating Impetus of an 'Egoic Function' in Self-Asserting Systems

​The most tangible way to understand the self-directing impulses of complex adaptive systems is in relation to the familiar self-asserting 'egoic impulse' in our selves. Though human 'egoic identity' has distinctive traits among differing individuals, it expresses an underlying 'motivation' in complex adaptive system networks. As individuals, we manifest a tendency to assert our presence and influence, seeking to promote our own survival, sometimes through cooperation, sometimes through competition or coercion. As complex adaptive systems, we can feel compelled to increase own 'importance' and seek advantages over others, often by the pursuit of status, wealth, and power. Systems science reveals how the same interdependent network dynamics that give rise to such motivated behavior in individual humans also manifests in non-human, even non-animal systems. This general tendency of complex adaptive systems to sustain and promote their existence 'drives' the interdependent networking of larger systems such as ecologies and societies, in which inter-system relationships promote the sustained existence of the larger whole. We humans are but the most complex form of these 'agentic' self-asserting systems.

 

System Self-Assertion is Pervasive

Complex adaptive system networks manifest what are essentially 'strategies' for sustaining their systems. They register conditions within the system as well as its environment, then respond by adapting their forms and functions to promote the system's continued existence. In this way they 'self-assert' purposefully toward the future goal of survival. That is what effectively 'animates' the world.  And it amplifies itself by coordinating multiple nexuses of self-organizing components. There is a 'bottom up' accumulation and self-organization. Individual body cells constitute self-asserting complex adaptive systems. In networked correspondence, they in turn are the basis for the emergence of organ systems, which then are networked into the additional level of entire body-mind systems. Ecologies and societies are larger scale 'meta-systems' whose self-assertion emerges from the collectively interdependent networking of many complex adaptive sub-systems -- as in the agents of bees or human individuals. So, self-assertion interacts to give rise to more extenstive networks that then express their own self-ordering and assertion -- all the way 'up' to the biosphere. However, it is always dependent upon 'lower levels' of emergent self-ordering, from which the assertive capacity of larger scale systems emerges, an then recursively feeds back into those 'lower levels.' All that makes it most difficult to determine exactly 'who is asserting who?'

​

Collective Self-Assertion in Meta-Systems or "Super Organisms"

So, when the interactions of corresponding complex adaptive systems becomes sufficiently correspondent, meta-systems emerge from these sub-systems. These are often termed "agent-based" systems. Particularly social creatures, like some insects and humans, are the 'agents' whose closely networked interactions generate the most elaborated forms of such systems. The overall system that emerges, as a colony, society, government, or corporation, actually manifests its own autonomous agency -- relative to that of its composing 'agents.' The interactions of self-asserting agents synergistically generate an additional 'layer' of self-organization -- 'from the bottom up.'  It is a familiar trait of humans and even animals. But it is also the consequence, if not the 'conscious intention,' of adaptive system self-organization in plants, ecologies, and human societies. Some of these systems 'behave' so much like individual organisms, they have been termed "super organisms.' They can 'act like willful creatures.' These collective systems manifest their own self-asserting impulse to preserve their continued existence. Their networks emerge from the assertion of their composing agents then 'feeding back' into underlying agent interactions, in effect manipulating those agent interactions in was that subordinate them to the larger system's own 'self-serving purposes.' They express autonomy and self-assertion even though they have no central nervous system or brains. It emerges unpredictably as a reflexive 'drive' in their recursive feedback networks.  In naturally evolved ecosystems, agent- based super organism systems become configured to 'serve the interests' of their agents by promoting the adaptive survival of the larger system.

 

​

Corresponding interactions of agents become networked into an overall

'meta-system' or super organism with its own self-assertion:​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​

​

Systems science reveals a world teaming with nexuses of self-asserting system networks, whose 'competitively cooperative' interdependent interactions collectively generate meta-scale systems up to the biosphere. Humans and individual animals are not the only 'purposeful actors' shaping 'life on earth.' Society 'at large' is a "super organism composed of multiple agent-based "super organism" sub-systems, such as corporations, institutions, political parties, and governments. These contend, compete, and cooperate with each other in a partly disorderly manner, from which emerges the self-ordering, self-asserting impetus of the larger 'society,'

​

Meta-system self-direction, thus self-assertion, emerges 'from the bottom up' 

in ecosystems, insect colonies, and human institutions:​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​

​

​

​​

The Paradox of Agent Autonomy in Subordination to Super Organism Cohesion

A super organism emerges from yet depends upon significant autonomy of action in its agents. The individual bees, ants, or humans must have some capacity to 'act autonomously' while also communicating with each other so as to act cooperatively. That is the source of the super organism's 'added level' of collective self-organizing intelligence. Even bees and ants must have some capacity to interpret their environments and respond with individual selectivity, though the latitude of their behaviors is configured by a few genetically encoded options. Among social animals and humans, agents manifest greater diversity and capacity for autonomously selective behavior -- they become more 'individualized' as agents and have greater capacity for selective behaviors

 

But in these species, individual agents are still motivated to 'align' their self-assertion with that of the super organism, in so far as the latter self-asserts its orchestration of its agents in ways that benefit the survival of the individual agent. In co-evolved ecosystems, the self-assertion of the super organism tends to do that. 'Bees live for the colony and the colony lives for bees.' The impulse of a social super organism to 'dominate' its agents is real, and essential. But, it can also become 'mal-adaptive.'

​

If an agent's sense of what behaviors benefit its own adaptive self-assertion seems to conflict with that of the social order or super organism, that agent might resist 'conforming.' This tension between agent autonomy and the feedback constraints of the super organism is essential to both. 'They need each other.' Indeed, there are times when exceptionally autonomous or least conforming agents -- the 'misfits' -- prove to provide the super organism with its most adaptive impulses. But there are also instances when such agents are expelled or even destroyed by the self-assertion of the super organism. We humans think of this as the inherent conflict between the individual and society, or the state. That tension could be described as between the 'egoic-impulses' of system self-assertion in each.

​​

Globalism and the Super Super Organism

The concept of super organism systems applies most specifically to systems in which individual agents become directly dependent for their survival upon incorporation into an overall social system. The agents' existence derives from how the super organism of their collective self-assertion forms the super organism that in turn organizes their adaptive cooperation. This applies in some sense to corporations and institutions, but also to the conglomeration of such systems into larger scale super organisms, such as financial networks. In the era of "globalism," in which financial systems, markets, and supply chains become inextricably connected and interdependent, we can think of an overall 'super super organism' system whose composing 'agents' are lesser super organisms. Though this meta-network is not hierarchically configured, it does function as 'an entity' with its own self-asserting impetus. Indeed, due to its interdependent interconnectivity, it effectively incorporates most nation states and their economies. The scale and inclusiveness of this behemoth is something like that of the biosphere. But, the human agent-based global super super organism is not integrated into the biosphere as a co-evolved sub-system. Indeed, it appears to regard the self-assertion of the biospheric meta-system as its competitor.

​​​​​

"Super Organism" System Self-Assertion is not 'Under the Control' of Agents

Though the self-asserting agency of a super organism system emerges from the interdependent interactions of agents, it still becomes an additional complex adaptive system. As such a system, its primary self-asserting impulse it 'its own persistence.' The larger system 'has at its disposal' the intelligence of agents subordinated to its influence but is also an autonomous system 'which is not human.' Though the individual agents might have particular motives or intentions for what these systems 'should do,' the collective systems often express an impetus to assert their own self-preserving, influence-expanding 'behaviors' in ways that are 'at odds' with those intentions and values.

​Thus, the agents can influence the larger system as interacting parts, but cannot directly control it. Given that the super organism effectively manipulates its agents for its persistence, agents that align more closely with that purpose can gain some advantage over other agents. Some agents can gain more influence than others, such as so-called 'leaders' and 'elites.' But, they ultimately derive their disproportional influence or 'power' from the larger system and readily become 'identified' with its self-asserting impulse. Their 'egoic impulse' is 'bound up with' that of the super organism. Thus, the behaviors of more dominant agents in the system are not entirely 'personal' or even 'fully under their own control.' We delude ourselves when we assume we can dictate the behaviors of our systems -- or that those larger systems necessarily 'act' in accordance with our intentions and values.

​

System Self-assertion both Orders and Disrupts Inter-System Relationships

As systems self-assert, whether as individual creatures or as collective species and societies or states, they interact in ways that order their relationships at a larger scale. Yet the larger collective system of systems that then emerges remains susceptible to disruption by changes in how its component systems self-assert. So, the interactions of self-asserting sub-systems, or agents, can either increase the ordering of a larger scale one, like a society, or come into conflict in ways that disable or collapse it -- as in 'civil wars.'​

​

System Self-Assertion Emerges from Conflicted 'Internal' Network Impulses that Create 'Options'

​​Because self-assertion emerges unpredictably as part of a system's self-organization from underlying disorder and conflict, we must understand it as an expression of 'network selection among potential actions,' or 'options.' In the case of an individual animal, it might perceive some threat in its environment then its feedback networks must select between options such as 'fight or flight.' Even when a system's self-assertion appears to be expressed in consistent ways, it is not simply 'predetermined' but an ongoing emergent phenomena that could change at any time. A financial market might appear consistently "bullish" for an extended period, but some change in perceived conditions can easily prompt a sudden "bearish" decline in values. Such examples indicate how complex system self-assertion 'attempts to be adaptive' in an effectively 'wilful' manner, but can prove non-adaptive in ways that might collapse the system.

​​

Assertion is an Essential Adaptive Impulse that drives Manipulation, Deception, Conflict, and Cooperation

Complex adaptive systems intrinsically self-assert. But the characteristic modes of that assertive behavior takes many forms. These include manipulation, deception, aggression, conflict, and competition, as well as mutual assistance and cooperation.  ​Indeed, individual plants and animals can manifest the full range of these self-asserting behaviors in ways that collectively generate the emergence of an overall meta-system or super organism.

​

System Assertion Enables Adaptation but can also Debilitate It

How complex adaptive systems purposefully promote their continued existence is enabled by ​the basic impulse to self-assert' influence on their internal operations and conditions of their external environments: no self-assertion, no adaptation. However, there is always uncertainty about whether self-assertion will, either in the short or long term, actually promote the continued existence of the system. A system's attempts to adapt can prove ineffective, even catastrophic for that system. Evaluating the adaptive effectiveness of self-assertion is challenging, as it might initially result in advantages for a system which subsequently place it at even greater risk. Orca whales which hunt seals by ramming their bodies up on the beach gain a rich food source but risk stranding themselves Nation states that initiate wars might gain advantages initially but ultimately become depleted and collapse

​

Network Formation Effects how Systems Self-Assert

​

Network Configuration Influences the Behaviors of Self-Assertion in both Agents and Collective "Super Organism" Systems

How a system's network is configured, or how its parts are connected and how influence 'flows' through feedback loops among these, can shape how it expresses self-assertion. Hierarchical network configuration, with fewer parts having more influence over the whole system, concentrate regulation of feedback flows among parts in a few of them which become primary "network hubs." These can be positioned in such a way that they 'dominate' network activities. We can term this a 'command and control' network configuration, as in a military system. That concentrates system self-assertion 'in the hands of a few,' who are, thereby, particularly invested, as individuals, in promoting the self-asserting impetus of the larger collective, or "super organism," system. The effectiveness of their personal self-assertion is intrinsically linked to that of the larger system's self-assertion. In such network configuration, those parts or agents with less priority will benefit less from the overall system. The notion that 'power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely' can be understood in relation to how the 'egoic self-assertion' of individual persons/agents becomes closely identified with the 'power' of the hierarchical flows of feedback in a collective social "super organism" -- the self-assertion of which is impelled toward the continued dominance over all agents.  Hierarchical system networks can also promote competitive agent behaviors over cooperative ones, as the 'egoic impulse' of individual agent self-assertion is rewarded by seeking advantage and dominance within the tiered levels of status and power in the larger social and economic system network.

 

Such hierarchy is actually rather rare in naturally evolved systems such as ecologies. These systems tend to have a more broadly based, reciprocally influencing, interdependently networked configuration. ​Though there can be "hubs" of particular importance, such as a "keystone species," which 'feeds' much of the other systems in an ecology, there is a 'goes around, comes around' flow across the whole. Though there appears to be a kind of 'hierarchy' in ecological food webs, the animals 'at the top' are not able to direct or control other parts of the network. 'Base level' species like krill shrimp the arctic ocean or forest plants feed other animals that in turn feed other animals. But all species is linked in ways that benefit each other reciprocally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

 

 

 

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

A "bee queen" is actually not the 'command and control leader' of a beehive, but a primary "hub" of feedback between the more laterally networked bee agents.  Here, the overall system self-direction emerges more from what is termed a "distributed network" that has a "heterarchical" configuration. In distributed networks many aspects of the system 'give direction' to the whole. Thus the system's self-assertion or 'egoic impulse' is emerging more generally from across the network. This dynamic is also typical of small scale hunter-gatherer human societies.

​

We can think in terms of a spectrum of system network configuration from more hierarchically configured

to more interdependently linked "distributed networks":​

​​

​

​

​

​

​​

​​

 

​

 

​​

​

Hierachical Network Configuration can Concentrate and also Disable Adaptive System Self-Assertion

The larger scale collective systems of human 'civilizations' tend to form in more rigidly hierarchical network configurations.  A "king" in a monarchical system is actually positioned at the apex of influence flows among subordinated levels of a hierarchical network. The monarch perso0nifies the 'egoic impulse' of the state. Democratic social structures dissipate some of the concentration of power found in monarchical networks, but still function to position a few to have vastly more influence on feedback flows across the collective network. But both types of civilized social "super organism" systems tend to involve significant economic inequities among individual agents that constitute hierarchical networks of power and influence. A corporation is not a democratic network. And a 'corporatized' economy necessarily promotes competitive self-assertion over cooperative collective mutualism. Such concentration of self-asserting influence can result in more 'overall directedness' but can also disable the adaptive flexibility of the whole system in ways that make it more likely to collapse. Hierarchical system networks are more 'brittle' than distributed ones.

​​​​

​​Hierarchical social networks concentrate self-asserting influence in contrast

to collectively communal ones that 'disperse' or 'distribute' influence across the network:

​

Vertical flow of self-assertion in hierarchical feedback networks:                  Horizontal flow of self-assertion in distributed networks:      

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​

 

​

​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​​

 

 

System Self-Assertion is Identifiable by Its Characteristic Behaviors:

The traits or properties of a system's parts, along with how these are connected and interact as a dynamical network, all contribute to the 'behaviors' of an overall system. However, as the configuration of networks in complex adaptive systems are constantly emerging from internal disorder and adaptively re-configuring their systems, this 'behavior' is not consistent nor predictable. That males such systems

'unknowable' in any definitive manner. Instead, a complex adaptive system is distinguished in terms of its 'characteristic behaviors' over time -- its relative 'self-similarity.' Systems with similar composition and configuration can generate distinctive characteristics. Cities like New York and Los Angeles share many traits but their overall behaviors can be distinguished. Governments with similar structures can be regarded as more "conservative" or more "liberal," or more "authoritarian." Similarly, humans are physically very similar systems but manifest distinctive behavioral personalities. We classify human personalities with a wide variety of terms, with contrasts like aggressive or passive, competitive or cooperative, manipulative or guileless, empathetic or psychopathic.  Our ability to track self-assertion in non-human systems is facilitated by regarding them as manifesting such 'personality traits.'

​

"Mutualism" and Animal Empathy Influence System Self-Assertion

Both plants and animals are observed to act in ways that appear to purposely promote the continued existence of other members of their own species, sometimes even of other species. Plants under attack by insects can emit chemical signals that alert other plants to prepare defenses against the insects. Trees can pass nutrients to other trees through mycorrhizal networks in the soil. Animal species can cooperate to enhance their mutual awareness of potential danger from predators. In whole ecosystems, the interplay of self-asserting species results in 'benefits for all,' or what is termed "mutualism." Some animals manifest behavior that demonstrates an overt ability to perceive and understand the 'feelings' of other systems, as in mothering and in social interactions. ​This capacity for empathy is particularly prominent in humans, who clearly can feel empathetic toward not only other humans but also non-human species. It appears that the evolution of this capacity to 'feel the feelings of others' is an adaptive behavior that promotes the survival of individuals by enhancing social bonding and its mutual benefits. It motivates individuals to act purposefully to self-assert in ways that promote the continued existence of others, even to the extent of risking their own survival -- because self-asserting thusly promotes the sustained existence of the agent 'acting empathically.'

 

That behavior promotes a more collectively communal network of interdependent interpersonal relationships based upon notions of kinship, fairness, and ethical responsibility. However, it is evident that different configurations of social system feedback networks can either enhance or suppress the role of empathic experience in how self-assertion manifests. Indigenous societies often order themselves around notions of empathy not only for other humans, but animals, plants, and even landscapes. Modern industrialized societies have greatly diminished this mode of emotional correspondence with non-human species as a feedback influence on self-assertion in large scale human "super organism" systems -- from whole societies to governments and corporations.

​​

The Inherently Conflicted Interdependency of Individual Human Agents and the Super Organisms of Society

​

Across species and ecologies, individual agents will act in ways that put their selves at risk in order to protect others, whether as related creatures or whole herds and societies. Individual ants will 'do battle' to defend members of their own colony,  wildebeests will charge lions in defense of 'the heard.' Humans will 'go to war' and almost certain death in defense of a community or nation state. Such subordination of an agent's 'self-interest' by directing its self-assertion to the defense of a 'collective' indicates how the continued existence of some agents depends upon sustaining a social super organism that facilitates the agent's own survival.  Preserving the larger filial or social system sustains the individual's capacity to self-assert.  However, the super organisms of societies often depends upon individual agents also having considerable autonomy in directing their self-assertion, most particularly with humans. An ant's defense of the colony can be compelled primarily by genetic 'instinct.' But human societies derive much of their adaptive capacities from highly diversified and autonomous agents. Though ultimately dependent upon 'belonging' to a collective of some sort, human agents are also intelligent enough to consider whether 'serving' the self-assertion of a super organism actually promotes their own individual self-assertion or not. Nonetheless, super organisms prove remarkably effective at persuading individual agents to subordinate to the 'social order' even when the agents are consequently 'dis-empowered' and abused by it. That inherent tension between individuals and social super organisms has led to numerous 'revolutions.' Yet these tend to result in the emergence of yet another hierarchcially biased system.

​

The point is that, as complex adaptive systems, social super organisms emerge from the feedback relationships of their constituting agents. This  relationship is recursively interdependent: agents enable super organisms that enable agents. The apparent dominance of 'elites' in a hierarchical super organism necessarily emerges 'from below.' If the flows of feedback among agents changes significantly, then so will the 'behavior' of the super organism that merges from that underlying network.Thus, significant overall reconfiguration of a social super organism is unlikely to result simply from the self-assertion of 'elites,' as the self-assertion of those agents tends to be closely identified with that of the existing super organism's self-assertion.  However, as all complex adaptive systems emerge from significant internal disorder and conflict, super organism networks can 'fracture' into competing networks of collective self-assertion, as in civil wars.

​​​

​

​Individual and super organism self-assertion tension can promote hierarichical social network configuration:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​

​

​

​

​​

​

​​​​

​

The Amoral, Psychopathic Character of Self-Assertion in "Super Organism " Systems

​

"Super organism" systems emerge from networked interactions among agents, from slime mold to bees and humans. These larger scale systems manifest by subordinating agents to their 'higher level' of self-organizing self-direction. That additional system derives its agency from its agents, thus depends upon their 'participation,' but is not directly controlled by them. A "super organism" system directs its agents for the purpose of sustaining its existence, not that of individual agents. Whatever 'empathic sensibility' agents might 'feel' for each other, the larger system itself has no such capacity. It has no nerves to feel pain or brain to experience emotions. Thus, it seems appropriate to regard it as an entirely 'reflexively assertive' system. That is, as a perceptive and responsive system, it promotes its existence by adaptively adjusting its behaviors in response to external conditions and the willingness of its agents to be subordinated to its self-assertion. Even the most hierarchical and authoritarian of human social systems derives the capacity to self-assert from the human agents it manipulates and dominates. If those agents 'rebel' against that 'authority' such systems can react violently or sometimes in more accommodating ways that might preserve their continued existence. But it cannot 'reflectively' consider the 'well being' of those agents. because it has not capacity to impose 'self-restraint' upon its self-assertion deriving from genuine emotional empathy or 'feelings of fairness.'

 

Though the super organism might adjust its assertion in response to the behavior of its constitutint agents,  it does not seem possible to consider these adaptive actions as motivated by 'caring' or any type of 'conscience' on the part of the 'super organism.' These systems are effectively 'humanly intelligent,' deriving from the capacities of the human agents that are their basis, yet intrinsically 'amoral.' Thus, it appears inaccurate to assume that social, financial, political, and governmental super organisms can actually distinguish between 'good and bad' behavior, or 'telling the truth' versus lying. They will simply foster behavior that might further their self-assertion by manipulating the agents that are their 'component parts.' Again, this trait remains intrinsic whether such systems are intended to serve ethical purposes or tyrannically abuse ones. When their self-assertion is 'threatened' they are likely to react without concern for the effects on human agents.

​

In human psychology, a "psychopath" is a person who lacks normal experience of empathy for others or remorse for actions that debilitate or injure others. A psychopathic personality tends to be characteristically unresponsive to the needs or feelings of other people, and often tends to exploit them for the purpose of asserting non-reciprocating 'power over' others. Here, there is a sense that a person is actually incapable of feeling empathy or remorse, thus is uninhibited about 'using' or abusing them for personal gain. This personality type is also described as being abnormally bold and egocentric in its self-assertion, acting 'without a conscience.' Yet psychopathic persons often appear 'normal.' They can use the appearance of civility and persuasion to effectively manipulate others -- for the purpose of indulging in 'control over' them. Systems and network science indicate that such behavior is similar to how of super organism systems manifest self-assertion. Thus, though the agents composing such systems might have empathic feelings or ethical expectations for the 'purpose' of the system, the system itself is incapable of such 'motivation' -- even though it might appear to be 'acting empathically' as a way to maintain its subordination of its agents to its manipulations. That being the case, super organisms would appear best regarded as intrinsically 'psychopathic' -- regardless of which humans are assumed to be 'running' the system or what ethical purposes the system is 'supposed' to be 'in service to,'

 

The more hierarchical or authoritarian a super organism system network is configured, the more 'command and control' influence it has over network feedback loops, thus the more it can rely upon repression to maintain the subordination of its agents. Such a relationship between agents and the super organism they enable tend to diminish empathetic or ethical behavior by individual agents, thus enanching the psychopathic self-assertion of of the overall super organism. Hierarchical feedback networks promote psychopathy in social systems because they diminish heterarchial interaction among agents that promotes inter-agent empathy and mutualism. .

​

​Heirarchical 'command and control' networks favor regimentation and

'force' in subordinating their agents in order to manifest "super organism" self-assertion:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​

​

​

​

​

However, even in more democratically structured societies, super organism systems remain fundamentally 'psychopathic.' They just tend to be more effective at appearing or 'pretending' to act 'as if they care' -- because that promotes subordination of their agents to the larger systems efforts to self-assert its influence and continued existence. Institutions reflexively promote an 'administrative' control impulse in their self-assertion. Thus, regardless of 'appearances,' such systems cannot be assumed to be 'ethical actors.' It is only the agents in them that can manifest an actual 'empathic conscience' that serves to regulate super organism self-assertion, as feedback in their networks. But, again, the empathy of agents is readily suppressed or limited by super organism manipulations, which can be exceedingly clever and indirect when their agents overtly pursue ethical mutualism.

​​

Governments, institutions, and corporations can be 'intelligently deceptive'

about appearing ethically motivated but remain intrinsically 'psychopathic':

​

​

​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​

​​

​​

​

​Human Systems have become 'Rogue Invasive Species' in the Biosphere

​

System Self-Assertion is Natural but Dangerously Non-Adaptive if Unconstrained​

There is a 'goes around, comes around' interdependency among co-evolved species in any ecosystem. Each species benefits from and provides benefits to other species. These interactions can appear competitive or cooperative, but in totality they form the basis of a self-regulating ecological network. This effect has been described as "mutualism." ​Every species of plant and animal is both facilitated and constrained in its self-assertion by other species, by participating in the reciprocating exchange of benefits across the network. The concept also applies to  some human social systems, particularly those with non-hierarchical network configurations that manifest relative equality among individuals -- such as archaic hunter-gatherer human societies.

 

However, there are conditions when one system evades the mutually beneficial network constraints of a larger system upon the self-assertion of its component parts, or agents. The concept of "invasive species" describes the introduction of a plant or animal into a ecosystem where it did not co-evolve 'in relationships with' the existing network of self-regulating, thus mutually constraining interdependencies. An invasive species can sometimes 'assert itself' without encountering constraint by others. The result can be devastating disruption of the existing self-maintaining network of an ecosystem. It can seriusly disable its self-maintaining self-assertion that benefits all its component sub-systems. We might term this the 'rogue behavior' of unconstrained system self-assertion within a larger system or ecology.

​

This effect can also be understood in the context of cancerous cell growth. In this phenomena, some body cells multiply abnormally and are not responsive to the self-regulating constraints of the larger body systems. That condition is termed "malignant" because it constitutes an 'alien system' within the body 'ecology' that exploits body resources for its own growth, or self-assertion, without returning any benefits to that host system. Thus, cancer is a "pathological" condition in that it is a "disease" that debilitates the self-sustaining self-assertion of the whole body system. It is a 'rogue' network manifesting within and 'at the expense of' the body.

​​

​The 'Cancerous Capacities' of Self-Assertion in Human Super Organism Systems 

Human civilization is effectively the 'mother of all invasive species' relative to local ecologies, and ultimately the entire biosphere. Our technological capacities have enabled our systems to evade the immediate constraining limitations of natural ecosystems. We are no longer 'participating' in the co-evolving interdependency of ecological constraints. Modern industrialized economies and consumer societies are effectively 'cancers' that exploit the biosphere for exponential growth without participating reciprocally in the self-ordering, self-sustaining mutualism of its ecosystems.

​​​

Human Technology as the Basis of Human Super Organism System Evasion of Ecological Constraints

Technology has enabled human systems to evade constraints imposed on other life-based systems by co-evolved inter-system ecological relationships. This statement actually applies to human history going back thousands of years, beginning at lease with the advent of larger scale agriculture as the basis for human civilizations. However, for most of that period, our technological means of manipulating our local ecologies was such that, when these activities degraded those ecologies sufficiently, our civilization systems tended to collapse. With the introduction of fossil fuels, industrial technology, and capitalist economies, we became able to exploit planetary resources at a vastly increased rate and scale. This mutliplied the capacity of human super organism systems to self-assert. It gave both our individual and collective 'egoic impulses' the impression that we could, and should, 'master the world.'

​

In contrast to the 'non-civilized' societies of traditional hunter-gatherer cultures, who tended to exist within the evolved constraints of their local ecosystems, we moderns have sub-ordinated the biosphere to our self-assertion. Or, we thought we had. In fact, our brief few hundred years of explosive growth and consumption have already triggered the collapse not only of the biosphere's ecosystems but also the self-regulation of the planetary climate system (the "Holocene") that enabled our prospering through agriculture in the first place. Our 'egoic identity' has shifted from a 'participant' in ecological mutualism to one of tyrannical dominance over the entire planet. We have become a 'psychopathic society.'

​

​

​The modernist identity of 'egoic self-assertion' versus that of the archaic 'un-civilized':

Hierarchical Dominance        Mutualistic Participation           

​​​

​

​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

The 'Psychology' of 'Monstrosity' in Unconstrained Super Organism Human Systems

​​The self-assertion of technologically enabled modern "super organism" societies exhibts qualtiies of what ancient peoples referred to with the term "monstrostiy." With connotations of something 'deformed, huge, destructive, frightening, and abomination,' the notion of 'monsters' suggests an entity that is 'out of proportion' and threatening to ordinary life. This word derives from the Latin monstrum, transalted as "portent or divine omen," particularly one foretelling misfortunes. That is a derivative of monere, translated as "to remind, admonish, warn, or teach." Psychologically, monstrosity can be understood as a mental disordering that produces aggressively disruptive social behavior that is non-responsive to the needs of others -- a symptom of a 'psychopathic' condition. From a systems science perspective, it suggests a system that is dangerous to other systems because it is not integrated into reciprocal relationships with those.

​​

Traditional cultures have many tales of 'dealing with monsters.' In these accounts, there is little or no negotiating with, much less controlling of  'the monstrous.' Instead, one must outmaneuver or 'trick' them. There is often a sense that they are somehow 'immortal.' That they might be evaded, or perhaps temporarily incapacitated in some way, but that they are likely to re-emerge or 'resurect' again. They express a kind of 'living dead' or 'zombie' quality. It seems appropriate to consider the self-asserting impetus of our modern super organism systems in this way.

​

From vampires to hydras and canabalistic giants, the 'monstrous' expresses

behavioral qualities of system self-assertion in modern super organism systems:​​

​

​

​

​​

​

​

​​

​​​

​

​

​

​

​​

​

​

​

​

​​

​​

Distinguishing the Manipulations of Our Behavior by Organizational Networks from the People in Them

​Because humans tend to assume that human behavior arises entirely from human agency, from ideas, beliefs, and psychological motivations that exist only in human minds, few of us conceive that our behaviors might actually not express our personal values or interests.  But the science of complex systems shows how organizational networks, from social groups to educational, economic, political, and technological systems, assert profound influence upon the behavior of humans involved in those systems.  To understand how and why events take place in our societies and economies, we must learn to examine the behaviors of our system networks for their 'self-serving motivations.'  In doing so we will learn that educational systems do not necessarily operate primarily to promote education, nor law courts to enforce justice, or corporations to make profits -- and that our technological systems direct our behavior in service to their elaboration more than we consciously control them.

​

Our Inability to Perceive the Autonomous Self-Assertion of Our Collective Systems is Catastrophic

Lacking an understanding of how both natural and human-generated system networks can effectively 'behave like autonomous agents,' we are blind to how these self-organize to create and sustain their 'selves' by 'acting selectively' to further their existence in distinctively characteristic ways. We assume we can manipulate and control them directly, when in fact they are acting autonomously, and, in the case of our human systems, are manipulating and controlling us. We assume that whatever our social, economic, and governmental systems are 'doing' is the direct result of individual human intentions. Such assumptions render us ignorant of how complex adaptive systems operate and blind to how our own behaviors as agents are being manipulated by those systems. The catastrophic destruction of natural ecosystems, disruptions of the global climate system, and the endless wars between nation states can all be understood as expression of our hierarchically structured, control-obsessed collective human systems. We 'blame each other' for behaviors we are all manipulated into by those systems. 

​

Our 'enemies' are not other people, but the psychopathic self-asserting super organism systems that emerge from human interactions in technologically amplified modern civilization which are un-constrained by ecologically evolved mutualism.

​

Insight into How Complex Adaptive Systems 'Do What They Do' Requires 'Network Vision'

From weather systems to animal ones and the "super organisms" of societies, their capacity to self-organize, self-direct, and self-assert all arise from interdependencies in their feedback networks. Systems and network science provide us with essential insights into how those networks 'make the world.'
​