Chaos and Control
A dismantling of a few systems theories regarding the state and other control systems.
Theory Proposition ~
In this episode we talk about control as it relates to the state (government). We discuss systems theory and what the problem is, and the idea that trying to fix it, is the problem.
What we don’t do is talk shit about people, use logical fallacies to discredit ideas, or boost our egos through character assassination.
After studying chaos and chaos theory in many forms for many years, i began to realize a few things. One is simple enough… ‘Chaos’ and ‘Order’ are not, nor ever have been battling with each other. In systems theories of chaos it can be seen everywhere in the universe and nature that chaotic systems create emergent and stable ordered systems without the need for totally centralized control, as a ‘natural process’.
What are battling it out with each other are chaos and control. In this theory i state that control ≠ order. In the system we currently have there is something i would call ‘apparent order’ through control. That is to say it ‘seems’ as though the system is mostly stable due to the control being imposed on it. In my view this is simply not true. I would make the claim that this is actually the opposite of what is happening.
To explain: Emergent ordered systems in chaos theory start with a seed, or more correctly, initial conditions… In programming this could look like a set of very simple rules. When you start the program things happen which you wouldn’t expect. Chaotic patterns start to emerge that are not predictable and seem to exhibit behaviors of self replication. This is seen in biology, fractal math, coastlines, galaxies, DNA, everything. The interesting thing is that in this chaos order automatically comes as an emergent property, without anything but a basic seed and through random processes and similar nearby conditions things naturally stabilize and find equilibrium. Call it a yin/yang understanding of chaos and order. When anything in the system acts to throw the system off, the system naturally acts to stabilize itself.
So, that being the case; i am saying that the ‘apparent order’ in our US system of government actually has nothing to do with governing control, but is instead ordered and relatively stable ‘despite it’; that the more we try to control the system, the more instability is caused and ultimately chaos will win. This however is not problematic in the long run (assuming we don’t blow everything up or poison it to death in the meantime) because as soon as we stop fighting it using control, order emerges out of the chaos which destroyed the control. As it stands this is a constant struggle and as we, through control, destroy our environment, use all of our resources, etc…nature will impose the chaos necessary to destroy the control and bring the system back to ordered equilibrium. This is a natural system and ideas like game theory will support this hypothesis. In our governmental case you might be able to call the US constitution the seed. But only the original simplistic ideology and form, not the corruption and distortion that is now (this would be causing the problem). And this does not imply the constitution to be ‘correct’, as in this theory that is actually meaningless.
The problem with this theory is deceptive. We ‘think’ this system is ordered because we are controlling it. It ‘looks’ like it is stable and we falsely believe that it is because of our ‘apparent’ control of it. The harder we fight to keep it under control, the harder nature responds to cope. I would not only apply this theory to systems such as the government and the environment, but existential thinking and psychology, brain chemistry and pathology, sickness and disease, etc.
Why this is a problem is that if you come to the table and say to someone, we are oppressed and this system is failing. Our hearts and minds are dying and our children have no future. Because the belief is that the system is at all stable is in the false assumption that control is what did it; we will think more control will fix it.
So i still say, we are not better off. In some ways we are the worst off. We have the most potential to do the most change, and the thing we think will do it (control) is what is killing us, our hearts and minds, and the planet.
As a backup relationship that may help this model we can use the word discipline… I also say that discipline ≠ control. And actually that sustained self control is not possible. Discipline is a process whereby we condition our awareness and body to allow the order to emerge naturally through repetition and understanding, being ‘one with chaos’. When we are truly disciplined, behavior and understanding becomes intuitive, emergent and natural…’one with the disciple’. There is no control in discipline… Another false analogy that is problematic to explain.
Just a theory, but i think it is extremely sound and very well supported through nature and science… Even religions have this (non-abrahamic mostly); although their dogma tends to distort it horribly. And in case you would use the brain as an example of a centralized control system (and you may not), keep in mind that it is not control it imposes, it only acts as a task scheduler and relay for communication through the whole corporate body structure to communicate with itself. Every cell is aware of its own purpose and depends on the rest of the cells around it to know that as well. Being a human has nothing to do with being in control… It is all about equilibrium. Control is an illusion which only causes instability in the system.
This is not a complete theory in that i have not discussed every other thing it can apply to. I also realize i have not cited sources for your convenience. As this is in the realm of discovery, i welcome you to also partake in that process and look some things up. You may find it quite revealing!
About the author:
Glen Allan is a ridiculous person with thoughts and ideas which fly in the face of normal convention and challenge many assumptions about what people generally think of as reality.
He recognizes that many people will either disagree or claim the ideas to be founded in delusion, and only has to say that he'd like it if you could try to realize the world might not be what you think it is.