Complexity Definitions moreThese definitions are included in a dynamic process and they change as the theory developed by Andrés Ginestet changes. Complexity is based on dynamics, and the response needs to follow the dynamics of complexity itself. |
55 views |
Complexity Leadership Theory, Cultural Complexity, Systems thinking, complexity science, emergence and organisational development, the application of knowledge from Quakerism to public policy to achieve social enterprise and sustainable development, Complexity Theory, Systems thinking, complexity science, emergence and organisational development, the application of knowledge from Quakerism to public policy to achieve social enterprise and sustainable development, Complexity Leadership Theory, Complexity, and Complexity Theory
http://www.aurora-‐hope.net/?r=714
Andrés
Ginestet®
2010©
Human
Complexity
definitions
These
definitions
are
included
in
a
dynamic
process
and
they
change
as
the
theory
de-‐ veloped
by
Andrés
Ginestet
changes.
Complexity
is
based
on
dynamics,
and
the
response
needs
to
follow
the
dynamics
of
complexity
itself.
“If
you’re
not
prepared
to
be
wrong,
you
will
not
come
up
with
any
thing
original”
Sir
Ken
Robinson.
A
short
version
of
the
complexity
definition
is
the
following:
-‐
Environmental
complexity
(C0)
is
any
portion
of
organized
information
in
any
state
that
is
required
to
fulfill
survival
conditions
for
human
complexity
(C1+C2+C3)
-‐
Absolute
complexity
(C1)
is
any
defined
portion
of
organized
information
in
an
inert
state.
-‐
Relative
complexity
(C2)
is
any
dynamic
communication
(communicative
exchange)
of
a
defined
portion
of
information.
-‐
Contingent
complexity
(C3)
is
any
dynamic
multiverse
possibility
of
any
transfor-‐ mation
of
any
absolute
information
that
has
(had)
a
relative
quality
to
it.
The
following
complexity
definitions
part
from
3
basic
theories:
a) system
theory
b) complexity
theory
c) quantum
physics
theory
(Hans
Peter
Dürr)
We
part
from
the
idea
that
matter
dos
not
exist
and
that
at
the
very
basis
of
every
mani-‐ festation
of
consciousness
(Bewusstsein)
the
only
thing
that
really
exists
is
the
relation
that
brings
the
appearance
of
a
reality
into
perception.
This
thought
is
based
on
Hans
Peter
Dürr’s
explanation
of
quantum
physics.
As
a
matter
of
fact
and
derived
of
this
pri-‐ mary
concept,
complexity
is
nothing
but
the
expression
of
relations
between
themselves
bringing
reality
and
its
perception
into
life.
For
this
reason,
the
present
definition
of
complexity
is
based
on
the
need
for
a
structure
to
define
social
actions
on
a
quantum
physics
level
for
human
complexity
organization.
This
definition
is
restraint
to
the
sys-‐ tem
of
human
organization.
Environmental
complexity
(C0)
is
any
single
or
combined
unit
of
C1+C2+C3
required
to
maintain
vital
constants
to
human
C1+C2+C3.
This
includes
any
portion
of
mater
or
action
necessary
to
maintain
the
vital
functions
of
human
complexity.
As
an
example:
the
human
body
breathes
in
permanence.
The
action
of
breathing
is
C2.
The
air
breathed
is
C1.
The
choice
of
the
quality
of
the
air
breathed
is
C3.
But
the
fact
that
a
human
being
only
exists
if
breathing
is
C0.
This
aspect
will
not
be
developed
further
in
this
document
as
the
implications
for
human
complexity
increase
by
factor
1000
when
this
complexity
gets
introduced
into
the
equa-‐ tion.
In
order
to
access
the
understanding
of
what
complexity
means
in
human
terms,
this
category
will
be
further
developed
at
a
later
point
in
time.
Human
complexities
Absolute
complexity
(C1)
is
any
single
unit
of
one
element
or
more
elements
having
defined
and
closed
boundaries
in
the
physical
(i.e.
organic
system)
as
well
as/or
in
the
psychic
context
(i.e.
psychic
system),
representing
the
objectivation
of
an
observation
about
any
item
coming
into
focus
to
our
perception.
This
single
unit
encloses
all
the
relations
that
are
necessary
to
its
bare
internal
constitu-‐ tion
and
functioning.
Each
single
unit
of
complexity
defined
as
such
contains
a
limited
amount
of
relative
and
contingent
complexity.
The
definition
of
the
specific
complexity
as
absolute
is
in
itself
a
tool
to
set
the
limit
between
the
categories
of
complexity
ob-‐ served.
Its
existence
is
determined
by
its
own
limit
for
decay
(time
it
takes
to
fall
apart
in
to
more
units
of
absolute
complexity
with
a
different,
like
i.e.
radioactivity).
Absolute
complexity
exists
without
human
presence
and
is
the
very
basis
of
the
struc-‐ ture
of
the
universe
as
a
static
model
(as
constructed
in
our
perception
and
after
admit-‐ ting
that
it
exists,
us
being
within).
Its
existence
determines
our
existence
as
human
be-‐ ings,
but
not
what
we
do,
once
we
exist.
This
model
requires
a
perception
of
the
universe
as
a
sequence
of
photography
taken
of
the
universe.
The
absolute
complexity
nomenclature
encloses
concepts
that
are
defined
as
such
from
different
perspectives,
creating
cascades
of
concepts
like
the
Russian
wooden
Ma-‐ moushka
dolls
within
each
other.
The
pictures
coming
out
of
this
perception
end
up
de-‐ fined
in
nomenclatures
of
language
of
the
following
kind:
-‐ an
atom
-‐ a
cell
-‐ a
human
body
-‐ a
population
-‐ humanity
-‐ a
corpse
in
decay
-‐ an
atom
-‐ a
letter
-‐ a
word
-‐ a
sentence
-‐ a
text
-‐ a
genre
of
literature
-‐ all
human
writing
-‐ a
population
that
falls
back
into
analphabetism,
or
the
library
of
Alexandria
being
destroyed
-‐ an
atom
-‐ a
coin
-‐ paper
money
-‐ an
account
-‐ a
bank
-‐ a
market
-‐ the
world
economy
-‐ an
economical
crisis
Relative
complexity
(C2)
is
the
relation
or
set
of
relations
between
any
2
or
more
per-‐ ceivable
and
observable
single
units
that
previously
get
defined
as
absolute
complexity
by
humans.
Animals,
things,
matter
as
such
also
have
relative
complexity,
not
just
humans
and
their
actions.
But
the
relative
complexity
attributed
to
any
single
object
gets
defined
in
the
field
of
perception
of
humans.
The
relation
defined
as
relative
complexity
implies
a
change
of
the
status
of
the
single
absolute
complexity
units
once
the
relation
has
been
established.
If
an
asteroid
hits
a
plan-‐ et,
the
asteroid
and
the
planet
change.
If
a
man
hunts
an
animal,
the
man
and
the
animal
change.
Etc.
Relative
complexity
exists
without
human
presence
and
is
the
very
basis
of
the
structure
of
the
universe
as
a
dynamic
model,
being
alive
or
changing
(as
constructed
in
our
per-‐ ception
and
after
admitting
that
it
exists,
us
being
within).
This
model
requires
a
perception
of
the
universe
as
a
chronological
sequence
of
films
taken
of
the
universe.
The
films
coming
out
of
this
perception
end
up
defined
in
nomenclatures
of
language
of
the
following
kind:
-‐ single
complexity
liquid
+
single
complexity
glass
=
relative
complexity
of
the
ca-‐ pacity
of
the
glass
to
contain
the
liquid:
the
liquid
has
a
shape,
the
glass
is
damp
or
wet
-‐ single
complexity
human
+
single
complexity
letter
+
single
complexity
word
with
a
missing
letter
=
relative
complexity
of
the
letter
being
set
in
a
word
by
a
human:
the
word
is
complete,
the
letter
finds
an
attribution,
the
human
entertains
him-‐ self
with
a
crosswords
game
and
is
happy.
-‐ single
complexity
human
+
single
complexity
human
+
single
complexity
language
=
relative
complexity
exchanging
information:
the
humans
participating
in
the
conversation
have
new
information
that
changes
their
predisposition
to
action,
the
information
exchanged
has
a
different
value
because,
as
it
has
been
ex-‐ changed
it
has
fulfilled
its
function
and
has
turned
from
pure
information
to
a
meaning
for
at
least
two
persons
with
a
potential
value
that
gets
added
by
the
means
of
the
potential
transformation
in
the
future
Contingent1
complexity
(C3)
is
the
relation
between
absolute,
relative
complexity
and
any
relation
possible
among
absolute
and
relative
complexity
in
the
future.
This
is
any
complexity
perceived
or
defined
by
humans
that
gets
put
into
perspective
by
humans,
that
gets
evaluated,
that
gets
targeted,
that
gets
planned
or
spontaneously
changed,
etc.
Contingent
complexity
is
subjected
to
the
notion
of
time.
It
only
exists
as
the
total
and
limited
amount
of
choices
possible
for
a
human
being
out
of
the
abstract
notion
of
time.
It
includes
the
planning
of
changes
for
any
thing
that
has
to
do
with
the
transformation
of
absolute
and
relative
complexity.
The
amount
of
choices
–even
though
it
is
huge-‐
is
not
unlimited,
but
also
limited
by
the
factor
time.
A
person
cannot
produce
more
than
a
certain
amount
of
contingent
com-‐ plexity,
even
if
this
person
only
produces
contingency
all
day,
like
a
philosopher
may
do.
If
a
philosopher
creates
ideas
for
4
hours,
that
is
the
limited
amount
of
ideas
that
can
be
produced,
including
all
those
ideas
possible
and
in
the
subconscious.
However
big
they
are,
the
contingency
(circumstances)
of
the
creation
of
ideas
for
that
philosopher
in
that
1
According to Luhmann any thing that is not impossible or necessary is contingent. Compare. Luhmann 1992c, S. 96. The definition of
contingent complexity is more specific in this context, but similar in meaning.
portion
of
time
is
limited
to
the
very
practical
contingencies
(psychic
and
organic
sys-‐ tem)
limiting
the
freedom
of
that
philosopher.
Contingent
complexity
exists
without
human
presence
as
far
as
any
living
form
has
any
capacity
to
develop
a
portion
of
freedom
or
liberty.
With
this
regard,
contingent
com-‐ plexity
is
the
equivalent
of
creativity,
which
is
the
capacity
of
giving
a
different
meaning
to
any
given
absolute
or
relative
complexity.
This
different
meaning
is
what
Sir
Ken
Rob-‐ inson
calls
new
ideas
with
value.
Generally
speaking
and
for
the
time
being,
as
long
as
we
seem
to
be
the
only
living
form
of
the
universe
capable
of
this
voluntary
transformation
of
complexity
itself,
contingent
complexity
is
a
mainly
human
attribution
that
situates
human
kind
in
the
(God
alike)
state
previous
to
the
existence
of
mater.
It
is
the
very
basis
of
the
structure
of
the
uni-‐ verse
as
a
dynamic
and
parallel
multidimensional
model,
being
alive
or
changing
through
the
conscious
transformation
of
what
brings
complexity
into
existence
itself
(as
constructed
in
our
perception
and
after
admitting
that
it
exists,
us
being
within).
This
model
requires
a
perception
of
the
universe
as
a
sequence
of
multiple
and
variable
film
scenarios
that
develop
all
in
parallel
departing
from
a
single
situation
taken
of
the
universe
and
have
several
different
endings,
like
interactive
literature
or
computer
games.
The
overlaying
films
coming
out
of
this
perception
end
up
defined
in
nomenclatures
of
language
of
the
following
kind:
-‐ single
complexity
liquid
+
single
complexity
glass
+
relative
complexity
of
the
ca-‐ pacity
of
the
glass
to
contain
the
liquid:
contingent
complexity
as
the
human
ca-‐ pacity
of
deciding
of
what
to
do
with
the
glass
and
the
liquid,
whether
to
fill
the
liquid
in
it
in
or
not,
to
drink
the
liquid
or
not,
to
water
a
plant
with
the
liquid
or
to
keep
false
teeth
within,
etc.
This
glass
of
water
gets
a
secondary
meaning
and
infringes
our
liberty
depending
on
the
(C0)
factor:
if
the
glass
is
standing
in
a
kitchen
in
Germany
besides
a
water
tub,
I
will
share
it
freely
with
any
person
wishing
to
drink.
If
that
glass
is
standing
in
the
desert
of
Gobi
after
a
three
days
march,
my
predisposition
to
share
that
glass
of
water
may
be
different
of
what
it
is
when
standing
in
a
German
kitchen.
(C0)
has
a
definitely
restrictive
meaning
for
(C3).
-‐ single
complexity
human
+
single
complexity
letter
+
single
complexity
word
+
relative
complexity
of
the
letters
with
a
word
being
a
meaning:
contingent
com-‐ plexity
as
the
capacity
of
deciding
what
to
do
with
the
letters
and
the
word,
as
to
understand
or
not
the
meaning,
as
to
use
the
word
in
a
sentence
or
not,
as
to
de-‐ velop
out
of
the
word
a
meaning
and
combine
this
meaning
with
x
other
mean-‐ ings,
as
to
enjoy
the
word
or
suffer
the
word,
etc.
-‐ single
complexity
human
+
single
complexity
human
+
single
complexity
language
+
relative
complexity
exchanging
information:
contingent
complexity
as
the
ca-‐ pacity
of
two
or
more
humans
to
translate
information
into
an
internal
meaning,
adopting,
refusing,
sharing,
constructing,
educating,
etc,
the
internalized
mean-‐ ing.
This
model
requires
also
the
definition
of
the
term
liberty
in
moral
terms.
Liberty
is
es-‐ sentially
different
of
freedom
of
action.
We’re
introducing
a
differentiation
about
the
two
concepts.
Liberty
is
the
sum
of
free
choices
executed
and
transformed
in
reality.
According
to
our
humble
opinion,
liberty
is
the
essence
of
an
intuitive
and
responsibly
chosen,
emancipated
contingency.
This
contingency
expresses
itself
as
action
(also
pat-‐ tern)
in
a
limited
amount
of
time.
In
short:
liberty
is
the
intuitively
chosen
essence
(or
condensation)
of
lived
eman-‐ cipated
Contingence.
It
is
important
to
stress
that
the
term
chosen
implies
responsibility
in
the
first
place.
General
assumption:
Any
form
of
complexity
(C)
is
and
has
different
proprieties
of
the
three
different
types
of
complexity
and
is
subjected
to
(C0)
in
different
proportions:
-‐ a
glass
is
always
absolute
complexity,
gets
a
relative
complexity
attribution
as
soon
as
it
gets
used
on
a
table
during
a
meal
and
any
kind
of
liquid
gets
pored
in-‐ to
it,
and
a
contingent
complexity
gets
added
about
this
glass,
when
and
if
a
deci-‐ sion
of
choices
gets
made
according
to
different
liquids
put
on
the
table:
water,
soft
drink,
wine,
beer,
etc.
-‐ a
letter
is
always
a
single
unit
of
complexity,
that
has
a
relative
complexity
added
to
it,
when
the
letter
gets
placed
in
a
word
and
gets
a
contingent
complexity
when
a
decision
has
to
be
made
about
which
kind
of
letter
gets
placed
into
which
kind
of
word,
as
to
i.e.
determine
weather
it
shall
be
a
male
or
female
denomination
of
the
word
or
the
sentence,
or
the
text.
-‐ A
conversation
is
-‐as
a
unit
of
information
between
two
persons-‐
a
unit
of
abso-‐ lute
complexity,
as
a
unit
of
information
exchanged
between
two
or
more
agents
(i.e.
secret
services
recording)
it
has
a
relative
propriety,
as
a
piece
of
information
that
transforms
the
very
basis
of
action
and
thought
of
the
two
agents
aware
of
the
communication,
the
contingence
is
created
by
the
change
of
possible
choices
after
this
conversation
has
taken
place.
The
two
agents
involved
can,
i.e.
decide
to
change
their
attitude,
they
can
decide
that
the
piece
of
information
is
not
worth
getting
involved
any
further
and
to
not
to
create
any
more
relative
complexity,
and
if
the
secret
services
have
recorded
the
information,
the
contingency
implica-‐ tions
are
enormous
according
to
the
relevance
the
piece
of
information
has.
Again:
a
short
version
of
this
definition
is
the
following:
-‐
Environmental
complexity
(C0)
is
any
portion
of
organized
information
in
any
state
that
is
required
to
fulfill
survival
conditions
for
human
complexity
(C1+C2+C3)
-‐
Absolute
complexity
(C1)
is
any
defined
portion
of
organized
information
in
an
inert
state.
-‐
Relative
complexity
(C2)
is
any
dynamic
communication
(communicative
exchange)
of
a
defined
portion
of
information.
-‐
Contingent
complexity
(C3)
is
any
dynamic
multiverse
possibility
of
any
transfor-‐ mation
of
any
absolute
information
that
has
(had)
a
relative
quality
to
it.
Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported
You are free:
To
Share
—
to
copy,
distribute
and
transmit
the
work
Under the following conditions:
Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). What
does
"Attribute
this
work"
mean?
You
may
quote
and
use
this
work
in
parts
or
in
its
total
referring
to
the
author
as
“Ginestet
Menke,
Andrés
Miguel:
2011,
WCC
documents,
pages
151
to
152
and
2011Complexity_Definitions_draft_Ginestet”
Noncommercial
—
You
may
not
use
this
work
for
commercial
purposes.
No
Derivative
Works
—
You
may
not
alter,
transform,
or
build
upon
this
work.
The
reason
is
simple:
please
grow
your
own
complexity
but
not
ours.
We’re
not
able
to
cope
with
what
others
do
with
our
work.
Please
work
your
own
definitions
out.
With the understanding that:
• •
•
Waiver
—
Any
of
the
above
conditions
can
be
waived
if
you
get
permission
from
the
copyright
holder.
Other
Rights
—
In
no
way
are
any
of
the
following
rights
affected
by
the
license:
o Your
fair
dealing
or
fair
use
rights;
o The
author's
moral
rights;
o Rights
other
persons
may
have
either
in
the
work
itself
or
in
how
the
work
is
used,
such
as
publicity
or
privacy
rights.
Notice
—
For
any
reuse
or
distribution,
you
must
make
clear
to
others
the
li-‐ cense
terms
of
this
work.
The
best
way
to
do
this
is
with
a
link
to
this
web
page.
This
work
is
licensed
under
the
Creative
Commons
Attribution-‐Noncommercial-‐No
De-‐ rivative
Works
3.0
Unported
License.
To
view
a
copy
of
this
license,
visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-‐nc-‐nd/3.0/
or
send
a
letter
to
Creative
Com-‐ mons,
171
Second
Street,
Suite
300,
San
Francisco,
California,
94105,
USA.
http://www.aurora-‐hope.net/?r=714