Chaos theory is still thriving - it has been for over ten years. Such a long, almost sustained durability could not really be foreseen. Incalculable like chaos itself. But if the author is correctly informed (which he need not be, given the spirit of the times), the really interesting thing about chaos is not that we could not discover any kind of order in it at all, but that we can never predict when what order will arise. So there is order - potentially, but not factually. That is, chaos mainly results from a quick alteration of different states of order - affirming and contradictory ones. Order will emerge when a previous state is transformed into another, following an inherent logic of shifting and rearranging. Chaos consequently means there are hypercomplex kinds of order - which are not to be traced back to a superior principle but which will occur relatively to an existing, changeable state of a system. In short: the way a system starts offers no conclusion as to how it will develop. The intellectual difference between the principle of order and its factual realization sometimes becomes painfully aware: from the butterfly's flapping of wings to the earthquake.
Although it may be old-fashioned to resort to examples beyond the natural sciences and technology, the author chaotically characteristically professes he will use a different illustrative example: everyday communication. Conversation, be it object-oriented or mere small talk, rarely end up the same way as they started - and even more rarely as they had been intended. The nice German saying something ran out of the rudder directly points to this chaotic connection which hands over the strategic cyberneticist of the old kind (the determined and strong helmsman) to the mercy of arbitrary sea winds. Anyway - not only the weather or auto-referential machines, but even simple everyday conversation takes a chaotic course. And just like chaos theory communication has its orientation marks, beaten paths in the thicket of inpredictability we pay attention to, keep missing without automatically starving. Things will go on - somehow. In the end we are inclined to believe we originally had intended to achieve Y when we started with X in mind. Hail to the sub-conscious. (From that perspective the chaos of It might be the most efficient means to intellectually control the outside chaos).
But originally the author was aiming at someting different before his associations carried him impredictably away - just in accordance with Kleist's dictum referring to the gradual production of ideas while talking (or writing). But these associations are also chaotic insofar as they are, no matter how tortuous they are, motivated. That is, order has unnoticedly shifted - it remains, but against expectation. This is the point about chaos theory - the constant change of the existing order can only the traditional principle of causality regard as disorderly. We might state a little maliciously order will revolve just when the observing chaos scientist has recognized it. This attaches a dynamic quality to organizations called runaway systems. So we recognize a pattern of behaviour, enjoy our analytical competence, perceive something completely absurd, consider an act of desperation, but then recognize a pattern, enjoy our analytical competence, consider an act of desperation and so on.
Chaos theory calls these patterns the strange attractors. They can be found in everyday life, too; take for instance a planning dialogue concerning after work activities displays a conflict of interest and somehow turns into a serious relationship quarrel, after which silence arises (sometimes caused by a pistol bang), which again might be converted into a bilateral reconciliation groaning. Who can tell? (Chaos theory can tell it cannot.)
Now what is really interesting is dealing with chaos on both sides of the border separating science from the rest of the society; science lives on conjuring up chaos so that it can receive if necessary more money from the environment, especially economy. It is meant to fulfill the hope of defeating chaos. Money can buy anything, can it not? Outside economy it is exactly the other way round. Chaos is not liked; virtually every profession beyond the research departments has to select only the recognizable patterns and to promise everything will remain the same. By the way: this marks the difference between a communication analyst and a communication coach.
Although it may be old-fashioned to resort to examples beyond the natural sciences and technology, the author chaotically characteristically professes he will use a different illustrative example: everyday communication. Conversation, be it object-oriented or mere small talk, rarely end up the same way as they started - and even more rarely as they had been intended. The nice German saying something ran out of the rudder directly points to this chaotic connection which hands over the strategic cyberneticist of the old kind (the determined and strong helmsman) to the mercy of arbitrary sea winds. Anyway - not only the weather or auto-referential machines, but even simple everyday conversation takes a chaotic course. And just like chaos theory communication has its orientation marks, beaten paths in the thicket of inpredictability we pay attention to, keep missing without automatically starving. Things will go on - somehow. In the end we are inclined to believe we originally had intended to achieve Y when we started with X in mind. Hail to the sub-conscious. (From that perspective the chaos of It might be the most efficient means to intellectually control the outside chaos).
But originally the author was aiming at someting different before his associations carried him impredictably away - just in accordance with Kleist's dictum referring to the gradual production of ideas while talking (or writing). But these associations are also chaotic insofar as they are, no matter how tortuous they are, motivated. That is, order has unnoticedly shifted - it remains, but against expectation. This is the point about chaos theory - the constant change of the existing order can only the traditional principle of causality regard as disorderly. We might state a little maliciously order will revolve just when the observing chaos scientist has recognized it. This attaches a dynamic quality to organizations called runaway systems. So we recognize a pattern of behaviour, enjoy our analytical competence, perceive something completely absurd, consider an act of desperation, but then recognize a pattern, enjoy our analytical competence, consider an act of desperation and so on.
Chaos theory calls these patterns the strange attractors. They can be found in everyday life, too; take for instance a planning dialogue concerning after work activities displays a conflict of interest and somehow turns into a serious relationship quarrel, after which silence arises (sometimes caused by a pistol bang), which again might be converted into a bilateral reconciliation groaning. Who can tell? (Chaos theory can tell it cannot.)
Now what is really interesting is dealing with chaos on both sides of the border separating science from the rest of the society; science lives on conjuring up chaos so that it can receive if necessary more money from the environment, especially economy. It is meant to fulfill the hope of defeating chaos. Money can buy anything, can it not? Outside economy it is exactly the other way round. Chaos is not liked; virtually every profession beyond the research departments has to select only the recognizable patterns and to promise everything will remain the same. By the way: this marks the difference between a communication analyst and a communication coach.
No comments:
Post a Comment