O.k. guys, in a very non-controlling way I am asking that
we consider the Theory of Chaos as a better paradigm for understanding these
In a nutshell, says my friend, the butterfly fluttering in Japan is moving the air in the tornado in Kansas
Chaos theory is a theory of unpredictability. It says that basically, there are too many variables at any given time in order to be able to make any kind of accurate prediction as to what's going to happen next. This as opposed to Newton style dynamics which maintained that anything could be known following simple, deterministic principles. Complexity theory transcends both
I do know of attempts to use chaos theory in relation to human development .
Thus they are attractors, a pattern which is often repeated in a certain situation.
Acclaimed by its followers as the major intellectual revolution of recent times, 'chaos theory' (also known rather less catchily as 'complexity sciencHe' or 'non-lineardynamics') uses mathematical techniques boosted by computer power to explore aspects of nature which have hitherto proved resistant to analysis
As Stacey and Parker remark,the use of the shorthand term 'chaos' to cover the whole science of complexity or nonlinear dynamics is unfortunate: in scientific terms, 'chaos' refers not to the word's popular meaning of utter muddle and confusion, but to the behaviour of a system -- like the weather, for example -- which is governed by simple physical laws but is so unpredictable as to appear random.
Whereas in a linear relationship, a given cause has one and only one effect, in non-linear relationships, a single action can have a host of different effects; and the interactions become so complex that the links between 'cause' and 'effect' disappear.
if the problem under examination is characterized by a transformation system, with (1) entity states, (2) external environments, and (3) nonlinear iterations (i.e., current states dependent upon previous states), the system will likely exhibit some degrees of chaos over some of the domain
Self-organizing system theory posits that open systems use disorder tocreate possibilities for growth. Through both resilience and self-reference, self-organizing systems are capable of maintaining an identity while changing form. .. . This "rolling equilibrium" or adjustment is morethan a reaction to an action in the Newtonian sense because the reaction is not predictable.
Any thoughts, both of you, all of you, any of you (and me too) about the chaotic (as in tohu and bohu) nature of love?
BTW, I find this approach is the best -for me- promising of the most poetic depth and eros-infused realism...(must be the idealist phenomenologist bias parading in the form of jack of few trades, master of fewer!) But, I don't think we'll be able to crawl into the deep structure this way.
A wag might say that chaos theory doesn't work which proves it works.
The notion of attractor while it may in a mathmatical context be rigorously defined is, in essence, a metaphor.
Call it re-search. Just trying to point out some of the distinctions between research styles. So far, most of us here seem to be phenomenologists! But, as was pointed out to me years ago...to hell with the beating butterfly in Japan, it's the palpatating flea's heart on the back of a yak in Mongolia (apologies to Lorenz ;-)
The whole impetus to my own line of cheap reasoning here recently is, was our 'hijacking' of chaos theory this week. Iin different ways we've begun to make it meaningful for our mutual exploration here. And *attractor* is a wonderful term to play with in our babbling brook.
This "attractor" and "chaos theory" stuff kinda does bubble in a stew with some of my other preoccupations.
"From where, then, does our feeling of beauty come? From the idea that the work of art is not arbitrary, and from the fact that, although unpredictable [. . . chaos . . . ?] IT APPEARS TO US TO HAVE BEEN DIRECTED BY SOME ORGANIZING CENTER OF LARGE CODIMENSION, FAR FROM THE NORMAL STRUCTURES OF ORDINARY THOUGHT BUT STILL IN RESONANCE WITH THE MAIN EMOTIONAL OR GENETIC STRUCTURES UNDERLYING OUR CONSCIOUS THOUGHT. [emphasis added] in this way the work of art acts like the germ of a virtual catastrophe in the mind of the beholder. [an attractor?]" (316)
There is one big problem: An attempt to put a difficult mathematical concept into plain language is real hard.
Return to Index