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 postmodern 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. In contemporary society this might be described as the exploration of what true power really means. It is not without saying that the kingdom or Queensland lays within. Thereby saying scattered around this site that even though the immense scope of seemingly material powers and desperate situations of survival, there remains to be decisions and choices to be made in the Supremity of the moments. Considering the resilience and the flexibility of the human psyche to survive and thrive amidst seemingly hopeless situations shown in our history, tells the greater story of the humanities as well. The ability to turn coal into diamond is the metaphor that portrays the potential for challenges laying ahead. To throw in some literature reference besides the allegorical stuff;
“The polar night of icy darkness” – Max Weber.
The insane humility of humanity is what is often referred on this website through etymological explanation; hummus, earth, ground, hum-bleness typified with the greater portion of fellow human beings living seemingly insignificant lives or below poverty thresholds. Being in the thick of it but not sticking to it, the ancient dances of capoeira, passive-aggressive resistance of chronic exploitation and abuse of races and fellow human beings or all others. Within that humility lays the strength and the same goes for the (post)modern world in which slavery still exist, yet in more subtle forms a.k.a. the iron cage described by Max Weber in the polar night of icy bureaucracy.
So this all boils down to the one fundamental issue, namely lack of proper feedback mechanisms within interconnected, yet different disciplinary systems that should have been brought into existence to assist civilians and the people of the world to follow a path which makes them contribute in an authentic way so that as well the individual as the collective benefit from a so called synergistic relationship rather then a relationship and power system founded upon abuse and exploitation.
‘Systems without having a proper common sense around feedback mechanisms with the local, intermediate and greater environment are likely to go corrupt due to isolation.’
Argumentation starts here; up to conversation if you find a way to meet me in person or join the intranet somehow;
So far my thesis in the reasonings and motives why a nested system will eventually collapse>>
This is due to the lack of proper communication with the neighbouring systems within the greater social and ecological fabric they are nested in. The Netherlands, as an example, is a highly individualised 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 an unique approach 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 ‘neighbouring’ 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 such nested system to go corrupt in some way or form. Which is highly dangerous since due to the isolation who intervenes in such a mess hole? That nested systems like a North-Korea go corrupt is psychologically speaking logical since power would be distributed among only a few agents within a nested system. Therefore, it is more likely one will 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. Ideas like the Trias politica in which there exist contra-powers work in reality to prevent such a concentration of power that in the rule of thumb leads to dysfunction and dystopia. It might be interesting to research how the performances of (sociocultural) nested systems can be compared to more open types of sociocultural systems that are cooperating among each other somehow within different kinds of ‘fitness landscapes‘. A fully nested system would not be possible to exist due to the principle of thermodynamics in which even castles in the sky are inclined to fall or crack during for example a nuclear disaster. To test such a rule of thumb by using systems modelling, simulations or mere observation in practical life one could see such cracks within contemporary society. Bare with me the terminology I use since I am trying to write what I know about system thinking and theory in sort of a simple way. A fitness landscape is according to my understanding the ‘setting, atmosphere or stage upon which there exist a potential of possible organisational forms and modes of being of finding a ‘fit’ so to speak with the existing architecture of such a landscape or setting. Simulations of such complex social systems could be made on computers today so the battle of the systems, more prevalent then ever today, could be simulated first in local cultural complexities before extremists or waves of radicals and fundamentalist folks reign over Europe when we finally have the technological means to gain more understanding in complex phenomena. It would be an absolute tragedy if again the acceleration of technological advances will result in a fall of civilisations shown in history before.
Doing some form of comparative analyse upon the qualities of each socioeconomic system possible or perhaps even finding a hybrid type of organisation by which members feel at home at a particular organisational setting. This then could co-exist among the other flavors of organisation if the different forms serve the process of defining a continual evolutionary goal for the organisation. 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 such a comparative simulation of such complex socioeconomic systems could perhaps give a better overview what type of organisation is necessary for an individual seen as an ‘entity’, or groups and economic organisations as examples. Knowing what form of structure would be needed during different times and challenges would be ideal then. Imagine the organisational 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 organising agents within a system have the capacity to be willing to change their ways to fit a collective paradigm switch as an example. Off course, history shows the enormous flexibility of the human psyche to survive and thrive itself amidst the worst and most terrible situations imaginable. The ‘dinosaur’ organisations 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 individualisation 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 path of cognitive dissonance and ‘closeness’ due to the attitude they have towards life, remaining entrapped in their habitus – Pierre Bourdieu. This could be especially true of a country like North-Korea that formulated their own made up origins, significance, mythology et cetera, making them as nested as can be and even more challenging for the people born into such systems to yearn into a hero’s journey, literally expanding their horizon is basically already a death penalty so. It is pretty hard to break free from the imprints of ones given society if it means your line of family will get murdered if you show deviance.
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 neighbouring 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 within emerging structural hierarchies of sub and supra systems it is in flux with. 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 like the earth.
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 and less rare 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 civilisations 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 ripple perhaps.
However, humanity is still here and going, so despite the current setbacks with the lock-down, new proxy wars etc, there must be a colourful 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 the above matter.
Thanks for the read,