The Dynamic Analysis of Organized Systems - Introduction

This blog is a personal publication of my philosophical comprehension of the workings of the universe. I am not in academia, nor am I trying to enhance my career publishing this. This is just one way to find anyone who may be interested in this subject, and may want to exchange ideas about it.

I will publish different parts in subsequent hubs.

About ten years ago, my wife introduced me to the most fascinating subject I had ever encountered. She gave me a book on chaos theory. I did not find the book too interesting or well analyzed. But it introduced me to the idea that chaos is a form of order that goes beyond the complexity that we understand. I am sure that the book did not express chaos that exact way, but that is how I understood it. That book talked about fractals, but it did not delve deeply into them. There were also some fascinating concepts about dynamic systems and chaos. It talked about the principle of initial condition, the butterfly effect, bifurcations, and other concepts that are typically embedded in current dynamic systems works. My curiosity was triggered and I started researching as much as I could in this new and intriguing field.

Soon I started noticing a lot of repetition and a common lack of depth. It seemed to me that the pioneers in this field were simply adopting a new language to talk about old problems. Consequently, I decided to investigate the academic side of chaos theory. I joined the Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology & Life Sciences. I subscribed to the Journal of the Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology & Life Sciences and found some interesting new points, but it still seemed to me that most of what was written was either based on traditional statistical thinking or a repetition of a few concepts, such as bifurcation and initial condition. Seeking more dynamic analysis and chaos concepts, I went to the convention of the Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology & Life Sciences and did get some very interesting perspectives on chaos and dynamic systems. Particularly, I had the honor to spend several hours discussing dynamic systems with Fred Abraham.

In a meet-and-and greet party at a restaurant I made a comment regarding the absurdity of the principle of initial condition. I heard an older man saying exactly what I was saying, we turned and shook hands as we finished an identical sentence. This was Fred Abraham. We agreed everything is a continuum, so we set the initial condition as the first condition that is of interest to us. A birth is the beginning of a life under a perspective, conception can also be the beginning, just as much as the moment the brain is formed. A car may become a car when you have built its parts and are ready to assemble it (as in a car kit), or when the motor is placed inside, or when some one recognizes it as a car. Beginnings are contextual. They don't exist until we decide when they happen. What there is, is a change in the way other systems start relating to a system that is new to them. I had already read some of Abraham's writings, so I was very impressed. He told me that I was one of the very few people who could see that there is no initial condition. Then, we went on to talk about everything chaos. I was amazed at how congruent our minds were. Our conversation contributed to many of the ideas I have formulated ever since.

After my conversation with Fred, I was very encouraged to present my ideas to the world. In the same convention, I met Stephen Guastello. Dr. Guastello was responsible for the Journal of the Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology & Life Sciences. I am not sure what his function was, but I remember he was one of the founders of the journal. He invited me to submit to the journal. With all the encouragement I had, I submitted a couple of papers. But even though Steven Guastello had liked what I wrote, I was not so fortunate when it came to other jurors. I did not like at all the modifications that were demanded for my papers to be published. I felt that basically I had to remove my own ideas and replace them with theirs. Every thing I had to contributed was what they found wrong with my papers.

I tried other journals, but the responses were similar. Even my references to Piaget were received with total negativity. One reviewer claimed that nobody is interested in Piaget any more. I was irate because I find that even if we disagree with the pioneers in a field, we must credit them with the foundations that nowadays are considered as matter of fact. Overall, I was left with the sensation that scientific journals in the social sciences are no more that self serving publications to control a field or an area of the field. In other words, the juried aspect, which should serve to improve the quality of a journal, ends up becoming the means to prevent disagreement in the field. Of course, academic professionals whose ideas are banned by mainstream journals will end up creating their own publications. That may have been how the Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology & Life Sciences wasformed. However, as a Ph. D. student who could barely adjust to the hierarchies of the academic world, I decided to stop trying to publish my ideas, and dedicate myself to applying them in my professional life. This is how I came to become a designer and organizer of complex developmental programs for special children. I was offered the opportunity to take complete charge of the development of a special child with very complex and severe developmental disabilities. This is how I have spent the last 13 years – applying my theories to the reconstruction of a person's development.

These writings are not, nor do they try to be, based on any theoretical foundation of whatever is available in the dynamics system world of today. These writings are the result of my own theorizing on the basis of my general knowledge of Chaos and complexity and of my experience.