In today’s article I would like to share some of my understanding of what ‘nested systems’ are and different viewpoints in how these kind of systems can perhaps co-exist in the new age in which cooperation is one of the key building blocks that can guarantee a bright future for more parties then just the ones with (potential) capital.
“The polar night of icy darkness” – Max Weber – source wikipedia.
‘Systems without having a proper common sense around feedback mechanisms with the local and greater environment are likely to go corrupt.’
Argumentation starts here;
This is due to the lack of proper communication with the neighboring systems within the greater social fabric they are nested in. The Netherlands, as an example, is a highly individualized country that can show these properties of becoming corrupt due to the closeness of a particular household, group, gangs or nations. Gangs, for example, have a whole unique way of initiating young children in Mexico or any other country which allows such ‘nested systems’ to evolve in a way that it creates too much negative externalities for the collective that are ‘neighboring’ these nested systems. The higher the level of closeness like that can exist in cults as example, the higher the chances of some figure or figures within this nested system to go corrupt in some way or form. This is logical since power would be distributed among only a few agents within a nested system, therefore, it is more likely one could get consumed by this high portion of the divided power depending upon what the maximum ‘power output’ of such a nested (social) system would be then. It might be interesting to research how the performances of (social) nested systems versus open and other closed type of socioeconomic systems compete among each other within different kinds of ‘fitness landscapes’. Bare with me in terms of the terminology I use. A fitness landscape is according to my understanding the ‘setting, atmosphere or stage upon which there exist a potential of possible organizational forms and modes of being of finding a ‘fit’ so to speak with the existing architecture of such a landscape or setting.
Doing some form of comparative analyse upon the qualities of each socioeconomic system possible or perhaps even finding a hybrid type of organization by which members feel at home at a particular organizational setting, then this could co-exist among the other flavors of organization if the different forms serve the process of defining a continual evolutionary goal for the organization. For example, the ‘mission statement’ of this website is one of those definitions of an evolutionary goal. However, it is only slightly changed in description over the past 6 a 8 years that I have lived this mission or evolutionary goal for my own personal and spiritual development. My example could also be called my ‘strong north’ or better said my ‘natural inclination’ and the values that can be typified by living that state of being by which you can feel being oneself despite and amidst all the hate one can get from ones environment by being honest and true to oneself in all aspects. This level of self-acceptance leads to self-love, which can then lead to many fulfilling and rich relationships by which there is already a common ground of self-love to build an (intimate) relationship from.
Based on a comparative analyses of such complex socioeconomic systems could perhaps give a better overview what type of organization is necessary for an individual seen as an ‘entity’, or groups and economic organizations as examples. Knowing what form of structure would be needed during different times and challenges would be ideal then. Imagine the organizational structure Spartans used, for example, to live the life they wanted to live and were also forced to live perhaps due to high tension circumstances. This above is with the assumption that all these different ways of organizing agents within a system have the capacity to be willing to change their ways to fit a collective paradigm switch as an example. The ‘dinosaur’ organizations are most likely not so flexible to change on time before certain paradigms are really crumbled down. This postponement of change would less likely not occur or less if their would be more feedback mechanisms with relevant other systems within the ‘fitness landscape’ these (nested) socioeconomic systems exists in. Depending upon which landscape it sits in, one could discern perhaps the relevant systems that could form some line of communication with the (nested) systems in question so that diplomatic ties could be formed to reduce any further damage by which the whole of existence could be at risk, hypothetically speaking.
A system which then is ‘nested’ so to speak, evolves by its own set of rules, and could almost be seen as ‘alien’, since it could be a high example of individualization by which it evolves on its own and, therefore, estranges itself from the collective. However, this level of disconnect with the greater village, nation or world it exists in can be disruptive due to the fact it would probably be highly interested in self-preservation and safety within the nested system. “Like imagine everything you need is available within such a system, why would you wanna leave?” This, in and of itself, could be seen as a calling for adventure into the wide unknown world that exists outside such a system. However, maybe the question should also be if it is really possible for those living in such closed systems to really get ‘out’ of it? This might be exemplary by what Max Weber meant with the ‘iron cage’ and how people can create their own ‘closeness’ due to the attitude they have towards life.
The formation of ones positioning in the world can then be disruptive towards the evolutionary path of other systems like that of the ocean for example or a neighboring village . Hence the reason why highly closed systems with little feedback with their environments are more likely to go corrupt sooner due to a lack of constructive criticism with the direct environment in which the system nestles itself in, so to speak, among other sub and supra systems. Therefore, a planet like that of Earth itself is heavily networked, complex, chaotic and, therefore, feedback mechanisms are necessary to find the appropriate equilibrium with the environment in which a particular system is nestled or simply apart of, and then in a more ‘open’ fashion. Maybe one could even argue that the planet itself is an example of some sort of nested system due to the high levels of freedom that exist on a free zone type of planet.
This then becks the question what the planet really is?
I would argue that the planet is not so closed or nested as is commonly believed by the scientific communities. There are plenty of exoplanets out there that could sustain sentience and, therefore, consciousness. So if the planet is already more open then once believed, it would make sense that lines of communication are already in place and (almost) always has been. However, I am of the opinion that in studying the ancient history of the planet and the civilizations that have risen and fallen, there must have been times so dark and grim that there was probably only a little bit of prospect for the human race itself.
A question with a never ending answer perhaps.
However, humanity is still here and going, so despite the current setbacks with the lock-down, there must be a colorful way out of it and into a new equilibrium, rather then sticking to the ways that bring too much havoc or negative outcomes.
It sure was interesting to write this down, so looking forward to some thoughts on above matter.
Thanks for the read,