On Simple - Complex
Complex rules, as with the tax law in most countries, lead to stupid behaviour" - Andrew Hunt, The Pragmatic Programmers, read in "Getting Real" by 37signals
"Simple rules, as with bird formation simulation, lead to complex [and beautiful] behaviour.
I need to be learning more about ’systems’ and more importantly, dynamic human systems (thanks Cole and Anthony). While beginning my research - hard for a non-math/physics educated person - I am finding that little quotes are popping up everywhere. This one, above, appeals to me not only in terms of my desire to learn about systems, at how to create healthier spaces/contexts/organizations/frameworks/strategies etc to enable us to have great behaviour as a most likely outcome…ie flexible flowing things, ‘dynamic LIVING systems’, clear elegant systems…that work, and nourish us in our humaness…it also appeals to a part of me that has been thinking about the lack of complexity in our world - the stripping of complexity (this goes beyond the stripping of quality of life that I see happening…and I actually am sensing that the stripping of complexity is what is leading to these stripping of qualities…).
All of which is a long way to wonder whether we have it backwards these days - complexify rules (add rules regulations structures rigid processes forms) and see simplified behaviour… I really like the idea of simple rules…than allowing for the opportunity for complexity and beauty to emerge! (And I am trying to remember: simple elegant beauty can take a long time to get too!)
Subscribe to think talk walk
October 13th, 2006 at 12:58 am
see the blog is on complexity, simplicity, humanity. Glad to be in
mind during composition.
Your C12th Tuscan, Leonardo Fibonnaci, revealed rule that controls
evolutionary shapes. 2/3/5/8/13/21/34 . . . leads also to Golden
Section. So simplicity leads to complexity and beauty. And that is a
lot. Life being about beauty and love sounds cheese; but it may be
true.
October 13th, 2006 at 4:05 am
This constellation of words: simple, complex, emergent … are all very troubling. I read the unintended but funny line in a paper once on “the emergency of emergence” which always comes to mind when I think of that word. That word IS an emergency.
Try to get your head around the word ‘emergence’ and you’ll go in circles. You’ll find dozens of definitions of that word, none of which really captures what anyone thinks it means. You’ll have a similar experience with the word ‘complex.’ This is a guess, or a prediction, of what your experience would be, but I’d put money on it. Both of those words are like porn, you know it when you see it even if you can’t write a definition for it.
‘Simple’ is even worse in my opinion, because Occam’s razor, Einstein, and etiquette make that word a value judgment. It is just as slippery.
“You know it when you see it” is important, I think, because all these words are about seeing. A friend of mine quipped that “you can’t take the ME out of eMErgence.” You see definitions employing words like “surprising” or “unexpected” or “unpredicted” with regards to saying something has emerged. Surprising to whom? Unpredicted with respect to what model?
A very short, simple computer program produces the Mandlebrot set. From the perspective of the computer program (”Kolmogorov complexity”), the Mandlebrot set is almost trivially simple. From the perspective of the image (e.g., its Hausdorff dimension), the Mandlebrot set is very complicated. However, if I choose to view the computer program in some way other than by its source code, well then the computer program may also look complicated. And if I choose to view the image in some way other than as an image on the screen (I look at the file “mandlebrot.jpg” on my hard drive), it may look very simple. It’s all about how I choose to view the data.
And so if these designations of simple and complex rely on how I choose to view something, do they really mean anything independently of those choices? Are they saying more about the *points of view* than they are about the thing *being* viewed? Thinking about this is a trap — you’re not doing philosophy, right?
That said, I think the way to avoid this trap is to formulate a more specific qustion. I think you’ve done that already. I think that as you explore what it means for a space to be nourshing, healthy, and ‘working’, you’ll naturally strip away the complexity (out of necessity) and eventually focus on a simple, elegant statement. Because what’s “complexity” but that which you don’t need to achieve your aim? You’re not really going to know what that is until you do. I tend to think you’ll reach a simpler and more elegant statement if you don’t pay attention to simplicity and elegance, but rather just let it happen as you create.
October 16th, 2006 at 7:13 am
thank you anthony - wise and appropriate words…and yes, the focus is on letting it ‘emerge ‘ or ‘unfold’ as we create it…at heart these are shared external spaces…and private internal ones…
thank you