understanding complexity, challenging traditional ways of thinking.pdf

SystemsResearch andBehavioral ScienceSyst. Res.24, 393^402 (2007)Published online inWiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com)DOI:10.1002/sres.840
& ResearchPaper

Understanding Complexity, ChallengingTraditional Ways of Thinking

Jin Wulun*

Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, P. R. China

*CorAcadE-ma

Cop

This paper discusses the historic evolutionary process of thinking patterns since modernscience, which can be divided into three stages: modernism, systems thinking andpostmodernism. The paper proposes that themain form of thinking pattern of modernismis mechanismwhich accompanies modern science. Systems thinking set its aim on holism,but its approach is still inseparable from division and reduction. Both the thinkingpatterns of modernism and systems thinking are of the category of constitutive theory.However, the rise of complexity sciences has brought great changes to thinking patternsand moved toward postmodernism that has the characteristic of generative theory. In thispaper, the function of both convergent and divergent patterns of thinking in the evolutionof holistic thinking is interspersed. Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords thinking pattern; modernism; systems thinking; postmodernism; constitutive theory;generative theory

INTRODUCTION

The study of complexity is a hot topic in thedomain of science and philosophy. One of themost important problems in the philosophy ofscience is the problem of the way of thinking.We need a new reason exceeding the traditionalreason, because the traditional way of mechan-istic thinking is challenged due to the continuousevolution of society and the quick developmentof science and technology. The new reason whichis complex thinking instead of traditional think-ing should be an open one and be based on

respondence to: Jin Wulun, Institute of Philosophy, Chineseemy of Social Sciences, Beijing 100732, P. R. China.il: [email protected]

yright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

complexity sciences. The theory of complexityprovides us with powerful evidence and enlight-enment for challenging traditional ways ofmechanistic thinking and for adopting a newway of thinking.

It is the two sides of the same coin to understandcomplexity and to challenge traditional ways ofmechanistic thinking. If we cannot understand thedefault attribute as well as the fault and the limit,we cannot understand the importance and signifi-cance. Putting it in another way, the deeper andclearer we understand complexity, the moreknowledge and insight we gain from under-standing the importance of replacing the way oftraditional mechanistic thinking. Our discussionbegins with the two patterns of thinking.

RESEARCHPAPER Syst. Res.

TWO PATTERNS OF THINKING

The philosopher of science Thomas Kuhnelaborates two patterns of thinking in his bookThe Essential Tension: convergent pattern of thinkingand divergent pattern of thinking. Kuhn sets forththat some scientists’ work have the character-istics of ‘divergent pattern of thinking—a think-ing way goes freely to different direction, castingthe old answers and developing new way’, somescientists think that ‘the total work of science hasthe character of divergent pattern of thinking andthe divergence exists in the centre part of themost important events of scientific development’.Kuhn believes that ‘some kinds of divergentthinking, like convergent thinking, are necessaryin the development of science. The two patternsof thinking are inevitable in the same contradic-tion, so we know that it is the ability to maintainthe tension which is difficult to maintain that isone of the necessary primacies in excellentstudies of science’ (Kuhn, 1987, p. 233). That isto say that the convergent pattern of thinking anddivergent pattern of thinking have their func-tions, respectively, in scientific studies anddiscoveries. Einstein is a model for divergentthinking, while Michelson who measured thespeed of light and Robert Andews Millikan whomeasured the electric charge of electron areexamples for convergent thinking. If we want todevelop science, we should keep tension betweenthe two ways of thinking. If there is no highlyactively- and openly-developed divergent think-ing, there will be no scientific revolution. Also, ifthere is no routine scientific studies there will beno traditional scientific revolution.

In a 1990 paperwhich I presented at a conferenceheld atMIT to celebrate Kuhn’s devotion to scienceand philosophy, I wrote: ‘Kuhn’s opinion in twoways of thinking enlightened educational thoughtsin training a person’s capability. Both divergentpattern and convergent pattern of thinking areimportant for the prospect of science’. Kuhntook a positive attitude in his reply to me. Hewrote: ‘Your emphasis on the need for trainingin both convergent and divergent thinking inscience especially pleased me. It is an aspect ofmy work that’s seldom noticed, and I think it isimportant’

Copyright � 2007 JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd.

394

We know that Nietzsche, the predecessor ofpostmodernism, described the completely con-tradictory way of thinking and worldview in thecontext of ‘Apollonian Pattern’ and ‘DionysianPattern’. The ‘Apollonian Pattern’ described byNietzsche can be seen as the same thing asconvergent pattern of thinking described byKuhn, and the ‘Dionysian Pattern’ is the samething as divergent pattern of thinking discussedby Kuhn. The difference resides what Nietzschediscussed is a general worldview and a commonmethodology, while what Kuhn did is a way toput it into scientific practice. The ApollonianPattern of thinking stems from an ancient Greektale, the Sun God, Apollo, who represents order,balance, harmony and law. The DionysianPattern of thinking stems from the Greek tale,the wine God, Dionysos, who represents thespirit of happiness, craziness, ferventness,power, bravery, etc. Nietzsche criticizes modernpeople’s attitude of highly valuing Appolonianpattern of thinking and losing sigh of DionysianPattern of thinking. Nietzsche’s point is that thespirit of Apollo and the spirit of Dionysos areboth the instinct of human mentality. He alsopointed out that modern people only stress theApollonian Pattern and disciplinary knowledge.Nietzsche asserts that developing the spirit ofDionysos can lead to powerful and brave humannature, and to accept the rude and roughmiserable life that belong to the life itself, inthe mean time, when a man comes to the end ofhis life he can be happy and his words be full ofpassion and affirm his life cheerfully. What wediscuss here is that both two patterns of thinkingare necessary for human living and development,but the question is how to keep moderate, not tovalue one higher over the other.

The mechanistic pattern of thinking hasbecome more and more dominant in humanepistemological field with the development ofmodern science. The mechanistic pattern ofthinking is developed with the developed modernscience, and the scientist Newton and the philo-sopherDescartes are the representatives at the verybeginning. The mechanistic pattern of thinkingreached its peak at the form called physicalism inthe academic domain of logic empiricism. In thiscontext, the physics world can be seen as a

Syst. Res.24, 393^402 (2007)DOI:10.1002/sres

JinWulun

Syst. Res. RESEARCHPAPER

machine that can be dismantled and cut a partinto molecules and atoms, say, the world is adismantled and broken up machine, and all thisopinion leads to the typical reductionism whichcontains three basic hypotheses:

� A

Co

Ch

ll things can be decomposed and reduced toits elements, and the elements can be replacedby other things.

� A
ll the elements add up to the original entirebody.
� I
f the elemental problems have been settled,the entire problem should be settled. (Chenand Zhang, 2003, p. 17)
The mechanistic pattern of thinking has ahistory of hundreds of years. It takes a dee-p-rooted way and has a profound and far-reaching influence on human mind. To put itin the space dimension, it has its influence inevery domain of society; to put it in the timedimension, it controls our life until today. Especi-ally, themain pattern of thinking has been gradu-ally controlled by the mechanistic pattern ofthinking since modern science came into China.Although system theory has already been intro-duced into China, the systematic pattern of think-ing has been marked the footprint of the mechan-istic pattern of thinking. If the mechanisticpattern holder says that the world is a machinecomposed of dismantled physical matters, thesystem theory holder will say that the systemis an assemblage composed of several parts.

The introduction of complexity sciences intoChina and the development of new sciences, forexample, the theory of chaos and the theory ofdissipative structure, attach importance to thecomplexity pattern of thinking. The complexitypattern of thinking presents a feature of diver-gent thinking, and it is not convergent as thetraditional inductive mechanistic pattern ofthinking. Why is the complexity pattern ofthinking reasonable? Firstly, the new age ofknowledge economy is coming, as Tolfler defined‘the third tide of time’, and as being called‘post-industry time’ or ‘post-modern society’. Inthis new era, ‘innovation, complexity researchand ecological civilization have become the maincharacters’. With the development of science andtechnology, our fields of vision have been

pyright � 2007 JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd.

allengingTraditional Waysof Thinking

extended and the researching domains havebeen expanded. We have exceeded the originalsimple mechanistic systems, and are marchingon the road to complexity through generalsystem theory—‘approaching complexity’. Thetraditional ways of thinking are not enough orsuitable for the studies of complexity. Thetraditional pattern of thinking is built on thehypothesis of atomism with characteristics oflinearity and causal determinism, so it cannot beapplied to the complex and stochastic non-linearproblem. The research of complexity needs a newframe, which is a new way of thinking called‘complexity pattern of thinking’, and the newframe has special value for the study of complex-ity. The special value means that the traditionalways of thinking characterizing by the analyticalmethod are not suitable. Its function, like whatKuhn said, is to accelerate the revolutionarychange of old way of thinking, and to shape thenew complexity pattern of thinking. Only theapplying of complexity pattern of thinking canlead to new achievements. This is because ‘thepower of technology has opened new possibi-lities for science’. Before this, ‘one of the mostimportant scientific tools has always been theanalytical method. If something is too complexto be grasped as a whole, it is divided intomanageable units which can be analysed separ-ately and then put together again’ (Cilliers, 1998,pp. 1–2). We call this analytical method ‘analyti-cal and reconfiguration method’ which belongsto a ‘constitutive’ way of thinking. ‘The study ofcomplex dynamic systems has uncovered afundamental flaw in the analytical method. Acomplex system is not constituted merely by thesum of its components, but also by the intricaterelationships between these components. In cut-ting up a system, the analytical method destroyswhat it seeks to understand’ (Cilliers, 1998, p. 2).As for this, I suggest the ‘generative pattern’ ofthinking which can be used as a substitute forthe dominant traditional ‘constitutive pattern’of thinking to meet the needs of complexityresearch (Jin, 2000).

Large quantities of the rising new sciences,especially complexity sciences, have made theapplying of mechanistic analysing fail or false tothe research of complex dynamic systems. The

Syst. Res.24, 393^402 (2007)DOI:10.1002/sres

395


many-faceted complexity pattern of thinkingwhich takes the divergent pattern of thinkingas its main feature grows up with the surmount-ing of traditional mechanistic pattern of thinkingor even with the overcoming of the limitations ofthe ‘constitutive pattern’ of thinking supportedby systems science, and it also develops to meetthe needs of the newly developed sciences,especially complexity sciences, and to meet theneeds of social innovation and economic devel-opment.

THE THINKING PATTERNOF MODERNISM

The main feature of the thinking pattern ofmodernism is mechanism, and it is a kind ofreductionism which takes the feature of divisionand partition. If mechanism features division andpartition as its dominant characteristic, we canconsider the ‘systematic pattern of thinking’claimed by some Chinese scholars as a kind ofthinking pattern of modernism. The systematicpattern of thinking has become a basic pattern of‘grant narrative’. Even though the systematicpattern of thinking has some value in replacingthe mechanistic pattern of thinking, it still holds‘the infinitive division of substances’ as its way ofthinking, and analyses problems through theconstitutive pattern of thinking. The view ofinfinite division has made some ‘systematicscholars’ pursue the interpretation of the inte-grated system composed of several parts, whichgives the systematic view apparent mechanismfeature. This point will be discussed in the nextsection of this paper.

According to the thinking pattern of modern-ism, or the traditional mechanistic pattern ofthinking, there are different kinds of functionaldivisions in the structure of brain with each itsown compartmentation. For a long time, scien-tists’ studies on apoplexy, tumour, bullet wound,different kinds of hurts of the brain, etc. haveshowed that there are divisions of labour insidethe brain. Different divisions of the brain,respectively, control vision, emotion, language,behavioural control, direction, etc. So some


396

scientists hope to invent a cerebral scanningmachine and to divide the functional divisions indetails. However, they are disappointed at thevery beginning even though the scanning revealsthe moving pivot section. When a man isspeaking, the left cerebral pivot point is working,but at the same time, hundreds of thousands oflights representing other parts of the brain areworking, too. This reveals that the brain workscoordinately as a whole. No single division‘controls’ just one function in the brain. The brainhas no definite model of labour division. Eachdivision of the brain is an all-rounder, and cancarry out special functions needed for the wholebrain. The newly done experiments in cerebralscience and nerve network studies have revealedthat the old knowledge of the brain and nervenetwork based on the mechanistic and divisionaltheory is substituted by that of the complexitytheory. By the applying of the complexity theoryonly, the phenomena of the wholeness, self-organization, emergence and so on can bescientifically explained. Scholars are now tryingto explore the treating mechanism of traditionalChinese medical science and medicines with thetheory of complexity and wholeness, and thismay overcome the divisional pattern which takesstop-gap measures.

The limits of traditional mechanistic pattern ofthinking are not only revealed in the movementof scientific studies but also in every social aspect,especially in social organization and manage-ment. This way of thinking is believed that theworld and all things in it, needless to say everyaspects of physics or biology or society, can besimplified as the mechanistic movements similarto the watch and the clock whose composed partsinteract in the way of linear and accuratemeasurable causality. If we can analyse andexplain the specific parts and their rules of action,we can rebuild the world and all things in it.People have noticed that social organizationshave been disintegrated all over the world. Thetotal healthiness of body and mind is steadilydeteriorating due to the divisional discussionabout the physiological healthiness and psycho-logical healthiness. The school education hastransformed into the teaching of fragmentalknowledge and the exhausted exercising, and

Syst. Res.24, 393^402 (2007)DOI:10.1002/sres

JinWulun


finally develops to be disjointed with reallearning process and personal development.Each branch does things in its own way as thegovernmental dividing, and the government hasbecome an old and paralytic ineffective machinedue to the dividing by different needs of differentinterest groups. In fact, everything being con-cerned with the modern management system isoriginated from the partition thoughts andinevitably leads to competition. The marketingdepartment and the manufacturing departmentare opposed to each other in a company. Men ofinsight have realized the faults of the partition.When entering the world economic system andrealizing industrialization, China is confrontedwith the same risk of following the same olddisastrous road of the West, or maybe confrontsmore severe problems. ‘The power of industri-alization is also that of partition. With thedevelopment of industry, it is not unexpectedfor partition to develop at an accelerate speed,and this is not unexpected. The seed of partitionsowed in the agricultural revolution era developsmore quickly in the environment of industrialfactories and traditional management’ (Senge,1998, p. 5). This brings about environmentalpollution and ecological disasters. The reality of‘being polluted and then governed’ is actually aphenomenonof no-governing andhard-governing.What originates this situation is the lack ofwholeness thinking and complexity thinking,and the situation is controlled by departmentprofits and the partition thinking.

Obviously, China must avoid the partitionpattern of thinking and exceed the reductivepattern of thinking in order to avoid recommit-ting the same error, which is to change thethinking pattern of modernism. Otherwise manshould be immersed in a ‘big vertex’ from whichman cannot free himself. If the traditional wayof thinking is not changed, lots of talents wouldbecome persons whose mind would be con-strained by manual notebooks piling up to amountain, whose judgement be avalanched bythe guiding principle, whose sense be concealedby analysing reports jungle, whose creative ideabe cleared up by the analysing flood, whoseresponsibility and decisional ability be boggeddown by the sea of interest groups.


ChallengingTraditional Waysof Thinking

In China, this partition pattern of thinking isnot restrained. Instead, it is pushed to an extremeopinion called ‘theory of infinite division ofmatter’. This opinion holds that matter can beinfinitely divided, and all things can be split intotwo, so ‘the field and particles can be splitinfinitely’, ‘the quark and the light particles canbe split infinitely’, or even ‘the magnetic sole is aunity of opposites’ (He, 2000, pp. 137–164). InChina, there was a long period of time when thetheory of infinite division was applied to everyaspects of society. The struggle betweenman andnature and between man and man was stronglyproposed. It was sure for man to surpass thenature, and there being no coordination orharmony between man and nature. The struggleof social classes should be stressed on every day,every month, and every year. ‘It is an infinite joyto fight against heaven and the earth’. This hasled to the consequence of the country’s fallingbehind, lack of materials, and poverty of life.

The infinite divisional view of the world hasaffected innovation in China severely. Enteringthe new century, China is striding toward thegreat goal of innovative country, intends tointegrate enterprises, institutes and universitiesin order to turn scientific research achievementsinto productive force. What is needed is holisticpattern of thinking. However, the actual effect isnot so good, even though the integration ofenterprises, universities and institutes is empha-sized. The hoped innovation like the ‘siliconvalley’ never appeared, instead, the ‘deathvalley’ which means the failure of the applicationof scientific and technological achievementsappeared. That is to say, nobody troubles toask about the scientific research achievementssince they cannot be used to realize the actualeconomic value. Why is it like this? The answer isthat there is something wrong with the integ-ration of enterprises, universities and institutes.What is the problem? It is that different profitsubjects hold strongly the divisional pattern ofthinking and the whole system is hard to getintegrated. The innovative efficiency is certain tobe low if the partition problems of respectiveprofit subjects are not settled.

So we must settle the problem of ‘systematicparadox’ whichmeans the contradiction between

Syst. Res.24, 393^402 (2007)DOI:10.1002/sres

397


holism and partition by applying the achieve-ments in generative holism and complexitysciences, which will be discussed in the latterpart of this paper (Jin, 2006).

SYSTEMS THINKING IN TRANSITIONFROM MODERNISM TO POSTMODERNISM

General systems theory developed by Bertalanfyhas formed a connection in the transformationfrom the thinking pattern of modernism to that ofpostmodernism.

John Stewart Mill, a philosopher in the 19thcentury, writes in his works: ‘If there is nogreat changes in the basic components of ourthinking pattern, there will be no greatchanges in many people’s qualities’. In theera of our time, Albert Einstein asserts: ‘We arein need of a brand new way of thinking ifmankind want to survive’. I believe that thenew way of thinking has been developed byLutherwich von Bertalanfy (Davidson, 1983,p. 4).

It is sure indeed that Davison’s comments onBertalanfy are appropriate. Bertalanfy fullyrecognizes the failure of the traditional mechan-istic thinking pattern in coping with the newsituation, and thus the system approach isbrought in.

According to Bertalanfy, ‘Systems can bedefined as the aggregation of inter-connectedelements’. Qian Xuesen, a founding member ofsystems engineering in China, defines ‘system’ asan organic body with a specific function inte-grated by several interacted and independentparts, and the system itself is at the same time apart of a much bigger system which it belongs to(Qian, 1988). Proceeding from Qian’s definition,the ‘school of systematic engineering’ is formed,and has made great devotion to China’s devel-opments, especially to the development ofscience, technology and national defense.

From the point of view of the scientificprinciple, there are still some theoretical pro-blems whichmerit deep-going discussing both inBertalanfy’s ‘general system theory’ and inQian’s ‘theory of engineering systems’. We know


398

there are close systems and open systems. Closesystems change from order to disorder, which isactually deteriorating, while open systemschange from disorder to order, forming a seriesof order and thus being explained by the flow ofnegative entropy introduced by Prigogine’stheory of dissipative structure and the theoryof self-organization.

But people’s thinking pattern does not developalong the direction of self-organization, instead,it brings into systematic studies the fixedthinking pattern of mechanism and reductionismwhich takes the system as a collection ofseparated elements. The whole system is com-posed of parts, so that it must be understood andstudied by reducing it to its parts. They believe itis a must to combine and then analyse the parts tostudy the system, and ‘reduction is necessary butnot sufficient’ to understand the system. Thisholistic view of systems contains two presuppo-sitions:

� T
he whole is composed of parts and the partsare the foundation and premise of the existenceof the whole. However, the whole is not alwaysequivalent to but larger or smaller than thesum of the parts.
� T
he whole can only be understood by beingdivided into or reduced to its parts andunderstanding those parts (though the under-standing of the parts is not sufficient forunderstanding the whole).
The hinge here is the understanding of thewholeness of the system. ‘The whole is acollection, which is the sum of the elements’.This is the main idea of Bertalanfy and the under-standing of the mainstream Chinese systemsschool.

A new kind of understanding is that ‘the wholeis not a set, and it is a non-collection’, and that thewhole has no parts and no elements, and it is justthe whole. The whole cannot be understood bybeing divided into or reduced to its elements. Inthis way of understanding, concepts likeelements, collections, sum, and so on all losetheir originality, independence and absoluteness,because once the whole is reduced to itselements, the relationship between elements willbe cut off. In holism, the whole is the premise and

Syst. Res.24, 393^402 (2007)DOI:10.1002/sres

JinWulun


foundation, and the divisional parts are extendedfrom the whole, so the wholeness comes back toits original and naturalmeaning. Thewhole is notthe output of the collection of elements. It has itsprior nature over its elements, and is dynamicand self-organized. The parts are the generativeconsequence and reveal of the whole, and are aspecific express of the ‘patterned integrity’(Davidson, 1999, p. 4).

Thus the system theory of Bertalanfy and Qiancan be seen as a constitutive theory which can beunderstood as limited holism. Though superiorthan mechanism, it is not the original organicholism, which is not the generative holismwe areto look for.

For me, it is the many-faceted new under-standing and controversy about the systemicwholeness that makes our thinking pattern comeinto postmodernism.

THE THINKING PATTERN OFPOSTMODERNISM

When talking about his systematic method,Bertalanfy once respectfully informs: ‘If we wantto settle the unique complex and dangerousproblems, we absolutely cannot take this (inte-grated force) as the naturally sole answer’ (Senge,2004, p. 4). The systematic pattern of thinking issubstantially to do away with the theory oftraditional division and to transform to con-nectionism and holism. It is a way of theexpression for the latter, and of course, theremay be some other proper ways of expression.

The complexity pattern is a new way ofthinking which has its supremacy over systemsthinking, and it is also the thinking pattern ofpostmodernism we are to talk about. Accordingto postmodernism:

� T

Co

Ch

he nature of reductionism and division isderived from the default of humanmind, and itis not a universal principle.

� T
o go beyond reductionism has become thecommon creed and manifesto for the scholarswho are engaged in complexity research.
It is necessary to understand complexity asan interacting network system, and not as areductive simple system, nor as a complicated

pyright � 2007 JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd.

allengingTraditional Waysof Thinking

system. The complicated system (not the same ascomplex system) is actually a kind of ‘mechan-istic holism’. The central idea of mechanisticholism is that the whole is equivalent to thesum of the parts. There are mechanistic, andnot organic connections between the whole andthe parts, or between parts themselves. Mechan-istic holism is different from organic holism. Theformer is a method to dodge complexity, and is athinking pattern in the mechanistic era.

The thinking pattern in the mechanistic era isbased on the following three ideas:

� T
he universe is understandable. � T he analytical method is the only way for
research.
� E verything in the world can be explained by
causality (Johnson, 1997).

And it has four characteristics as follows:

� c
ontinuity or unbreakable attribute, and therebeing no leap in nature world
� c
ertainty, which leads to determinism withvarious forms
� s
eparability, reductionism and the constitutivetheory, which lead to the deny of the connec-tiveness between matters and the wholeness ofsystems
� s
trict predictability, deny of randomness andcontingency, and the deny of emergence andgeneration of matters
Complexity pattern of thinking is differentfrom this. It holds that different matters areinteracted and connected. The interaction andconnection are non-linear and non-causal deter-minism. Systems are open. They have the prop-erty of self-organization and self-generation. Isummarize the ‘four properties’ of the complex-ity pattern of thinking as follows (Jin, 2005, p. 7):

� n
on-continuity � u ncertainty � in separability � u npredictability
In his book Complexity and Postmodernism, Cil-liers (1998) builds the connectionist modelthrough the studies of complexity, and explicatesthe net characteristic of complex systems byusing brain, language, etc. These networks are

Syst. Res.24, 393^402 (2007)DOI:10.1002/sres

399


of distributedness, self-organization, and theoperation on local information without centralcontrol. The elements of the networks are non-linear, asymmetric, and do not have atomisticsignificance or determinism. The connectionistmodel is not only different from the traditionalmodel of mechanism, but also different from theprinciple-based model. The connectionist modelhas many advantages for understanding andmodelling complex systems.

In respect of the history of human thinkingpattern, we learn that the changing of thinkingpattern is based on the development of science,technology and social economy. We can also saythat the scientific and technological developmenthas greatly and profoundly influenced humanthinking patterns. Each of the consequence ofscientific revolution has depicted the world as apicture, a kind of natural view, and a relatedpattern of thinking. If we say that the naturalview and the pattern of thinking formed by therevolution of Newton mechanics lay the founda-tion of mechanism and reductionism, the theoryof relativity and quantum physics, until today’sflourishing complexity theory marked by theconcept of self-organization and emergence, willmake the scientific base for building the newworld landscape and new pattern of thinking.

We name the world picture and pattern ofthinking of mechanism and reductionism thatNewton’s science has led to ‘constitutive theory’.Modern science, which was based on Newton’stheory, has been developed into a constitutivetheory system for hundreds of years. Accordingto constitutive pattern of thinking, developmentand change are originated by the division orcombination of the unchangeable constitutiveelements, which aremade of the elements smallerthan themselves. The constitutive elements canbe divided infinitely. After the introduction ofquantum physics, biology, and especially sys-tems science, humans have gradually realizedthat the natural world and human society are aninseparable, interacted whole. To understand thewhole needs systems thinking. However, thereare still some mechanistic and separable ideas insystems thinking both in understanding andcognition. Now the development of complexitysciences provides a new world picture of holism.


400

It tells us that the changes of things are uncertain,and there are interactions and connections inthem. Things are continuously transforming,generating and vanishing. The generating pro-cess is not the decomposing or reorganizing ofthe elements of material structures, but emer-gence, self-organization and the generation ofnew things (Holland, 2000, 2001), which we call‘generative theory’. The natural view of the‘generative theory’ goes beyond that of the‘constitutive theory’ provided by Newtonmechanics, and it is different from the constitu-tive thoughts provided by the general systemtheory which holds that ‘the whole of the systemis composed of its parts’. This ‘generative theory’is provided by the new sciences of the late 20thCentury, and has led us to the thinking pattern ofpostmodernism.

The Germany physicist Werner Karl Heisen-berg is a visionary toward the generative theory.From the study of the particle physics, he realizesthe concept of the generative transformation ismore applicable than that of the constitutivetheory. He talks about matter transforming andasserts his opinion insisting on the generativetheory and opposing the constitutive theory asfollows:

. . .during the collision (between basicparticles), the basic particles can usually bedivided into many parts. What is surprising isthat those parts are not at all smaller or lighterthan those basic particles. According to thetheory of relativity, the great kinetic energy ofthe basic particles impacting into each othercan transform into mass, so such great kineticenergy can be used to produce new basicparticles. Therefore what really happens hereis not the division of basic particles, butproducing new basic particles from the kineticenergy of the particles impacting into eachother . . .

So, he draws on a philosophical conclusion:

‘. . .the basic particles in modern physics cantransform into each other just like the basicparticles in the philosophy of Plato. Theythemselves are not composed of mass, but arethe only possible form of mass. Energy

Syst. Res.24, 393^402 (2007)DOI:10.1002/sres

JinWulun


transforms into mass when it is in the form ofbasic particles’.

Thus the kind of phenomena showed by theexperiment of basic physical particles’ collisionare just like an apple being split into twowatermelons and the two watermelons bind tobe an apple. It cannot be understood from thepoint of view of the constitutive theory, but canbe easily understood from the point of view of thegenerative theory. The concept of creation andannihilation operator in the quantum field theoryjust bases on the generative theory. The conceptthat various unified field theories require allparticles being produced through symmetry-broken from the unified field also bases on theuniversal view of the generative theory. How-ever, the thoughts of physicists have not totallychanged from the constitutive theory to thegenerative theory. What they adopt is thecontradictory combination of the constitutivetheory and the generative theory, so that theycannot completely overcome the theoreticaldifficulties, which is incisively shown in theunderstanding of the EPR experiment (Dong,1999, p. 134).

The foundation of contemporary sciences ischanging greatly, showing more and moreapparently characteristics of the generativetheory. For example, the electrons transmittedby radioactive substances do not exist as theelements of atomic nucleus, but are generated inthe process. The photons transmitted by atoms ormolecules do not exist as the structure of atoms ormolecules, and they are generated in the process.The quantum field theory is a mathematicaltheory with characteristics of the generativetheory, because its basic spirit is to describe theproducing and annihilation of particles. Thesteam of thoughts to build the quark model isalso of the generative theory, because it infers theinner elements and actions of hadrons on thebasis of the whole display of the phenomenon ofparticles’ collision, which is opposite to thethinking of the constructive theory of the gaskinetic theory. The complexity pattern of think-ing produced by these new sciences has gonebeyond the separable and partition pattern, oreven gone beyond the systematic constitutive


ChallengingTraditional Waysof Thinking

theory. That is to follow a logical train ofthought. The generative philosophy and thecomplexity pattern of thinking are increasinglydeveloping and growing up through thecriticizing of reductionism and the constitutivetheory.

Holism lays the foundation of complexitypattern of thinking and generative theory ofphilosophy. Our ancestors put forward thefamous ‘three integrations’: the heaven–manintegration, the ego–others integration, and themind–body integration. They put forward somefamous well-known sayings and aphorisms like‘Tao is generating and generating’, ‘the greatvirtue and morality are called life and living’.These theories are the basis of the survival andreproduction of China. And the traditionalChinese medical science and medicines are alsobased on holism and generative theory. Today,like other countries, China is also experiencingtransformation from traditional mechanistic pat-tern of thinking to the thinking pattern of holism,say, the complexity pattern of thinking. We nolonger believe in the philosophy of ‘struggle,struggle, struggle’, and try to build a harmonioussociety by advocating the harmonious andamiable philosophy. The essential prerequisiteof the struggle philosophy advocated before isthe separation and division into parts and therelationship between parts. Struggle philosophyis the vicious display of the constructivephilosophy expanding from the field of scientificresearch to the social field. However, the essentialprerequisite of generative philosophy we nowadvocate is the harmonious development of thewhole which considers the parts as generatedfrom the whole and the reveal express anddisplay of the whole. The generative philosophyexists as the embodiment of the whole, which isthe so-called traditional Chinese saying ‘kui yi baner zhi quan ju’ that means by looking at a spot on aleopard, the whole animal may be visualized’. Ithas not only the inner-relationship and inter-actions between parts advocated by systematicholism, but also the function of the whole togenerate, coordinate, couple and nourish theparts. The generating of changes and the ‘threeintegrations’ are basically the central idea andessence of the traditional Chinese holistic culture.

Syst. Res.24, 393^402 (2007)DOI:10.1002/sres

401


It is also the main content of complexity patternof thinking. It means that the future is alwaysopen to us, and there are a lot of new ideas andnew things to generate and emerge. Holding upthe banner of generative holism, we will beconfidently expecting and continuing the heri-tage of the essence of traditional culture, while atthe same time, drawing or assimilating theimportant ideas from complexity sciences forthe building of a harmonious China and aharmonious world, and contribute to the beauti-ful future of human beings.

REFERENCES

Chen YJ, Zhang HQ. 2003. New Thinking Paradigm.Scientific and Technical Documents PublishingHouse: Beijing.

Cillers P. 1998. Complexity and Postmodernism: Under-standing Complex Systems. Routledge: New York.

Davidson M. 1983. Uncommon Sense: The Life andThoughts of Ludwing von Bertalanffy. Jeremy P.Tarcher, Inc. Los Angeles. Translated into Chineseby Chen Rongxia, Orient Press, Beijing, 1999.

Dong GB. 1999. Fractal and the Natural View. ThePhilosophical Ramble of Fractal. Capital Normal Uni-versity Press, Beijing.


402

He ZX. 2000. Three Debates: The Philosophical Issues in theStudy of Modern Physics (Chinese version). PekingNormal University Press: Beijing.

Holland JH. 1995. Hidden Order: How Adaptation BuildsComplexity. Reading, Mass.: Addison–Wesley.Translated into Chinese by Zhou Xiaomu. Scienceand Technology Press of Shanghai, 2000.

Holland JH. 1998. Emergence: From Chaos to Order.Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. Trans-lated into Chinese by Chen Yi. Science and Technol-ogy Press of Shanghai, 2001.

Jin WL. 2000. Generative Philosophy (Chinese version)Hebei University Press: Baoding, China.

JinWL. 2005. The Characteristics of Complexity Think-ing. Study Times, 29 August 2005.

Jin WL. 2006. From Systematic Holism to GenerativeHolism. Study Times, Vol. B3. 30 November 2006.

Johnson L. 1997. From Mechanistic to Social SystemicThinking: A Digest of Talk by Russell L. Ackoff. PegasusCommunications, Inc: Cambridge, MA.

Kuhn TS. 1981. The Essential Tension. Translatedinto Chinese by JiShuli. FuJian People’s Press,China.

Qian XS. 1988. On Systemic Engineering (revised edn).Hunan Science and Technology Press: China.

Senge P. 1995. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice ofthe Learning Organization. Translated into Chinese byGuoJinlong. Shanghai SDX Joint Publishing Com-pany, 1998, Shanghai, China.

Senge P, Scharmer C, Joseph J, Betty SF. 2004. Presence:Human Purpose and the Field of the Future. Society forOrganizational Learning, Inc: Cambridge, MA.

Syst. Res.24, 393^402 (2007)DOI:10.1002/sres

JinWulun

understanding complexity, challenging traditional ways of thinking.pdf

Documents

Transcript of understanding complexity, challenging traditional ways of thinking.pdf