- Email: [email protected]
From the simple to the complex: what is complexity theory, and how does it relate to Chinese medicine?
What is complexity theory, and how does it relate to Chinese medicine?
99
From the simple to the complex: what is complexity theory, and how does it relate to Chinese medicine? Sonya Pritzker
Debates as to the formal definition of complexity continue, but the underlying concept is clear. We are talking about systems whose dynamics are dominated by nonlinear interactions between their parts, and whose behavior can be understood in terms of emergent properties that ensue from these interactions. Ben Goerztel 1
DEFINITIONS* Attractor: A region in the space describing the behaviors of a system toward which the system will tend to go and where it will tend to stay. Strange attractors characterize chaotic behavior and consist of confined trajectories that describe a system that is never in the same state and moving in the same direction.2 Bifurcation: A system’s transformation from one type of system into another, for example, from a system with periodic motion to a system in chaos. This is to be distinguished from a catastrophe, which refers to a seemingly discontinuous change in one system.2 * The following definitions are quoted directly from David Schuldberg’s Chaos theory and creativity,2 M. Mitchell Waldrop’s Complexity,3 and James Gleick’s Chaos.4
Chaos: A class of dynamic behavior of deterministic systems characterized by sensitive dependence on initial conditions, diverging but constrained trajectories that imply unpredictability, and complex organization or structure. Complexity is sometimes used as a synonym for chaos.2 Complexity: A class of behaviors in which the components of the system never quite lock into place, yet never quite dissolve into turbulence, either. These are the systems that are both stable enough to store information, and yet evanescent enough to transmit it. These are the systems that can be organized to perform complex computations, to react to the world, to be spontaneous, adaptive, and alive.3 Dissipative Systems: Systems, such as living systems, that are using up energy.2 Fractal: A pattern characterized by possessing similar structure at different magnifications, more roughly described as self-similarity at different scales; strange and other complex attractors generally have fractal microscopic structures.2 Nonlinearity: A term describing a relationship between two variables or a causal relationship between components of a system that is not strictly proportional and thus cannot be represented as a straight-line graph on ordinary graph paper.2
Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (2002) 3, 99–104 © 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
100
Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine
Phase Transitions: Changes from solid to liquid, from nonmagnet to magnet, from conductor to superconductor, i.e. a transition from one state to another.4 Systems Theory: Theory describing the behavior of composite entities composed of changing, interacting, and interconnected parts whose functioning emerges from the mutual influences of the parts.2
many of the same conceptual models as chaos. Instead of focusing on the disorganized behavior typical of most chaotic systems, however, complexity looks at real-life structures that manage to grow and adapt in unpredictable ways, yet maintain integrity without dissipating into chaos. Chaos by itself doesn’t explain the structure, the coherence, the self-organizing cohesiveness of complex systems. Instead, all these complex systems have somehow acquired the ability to bring order and chaos into a kind of balance. This balance point – often called the edge of chaos – is where the components of a system never quite lock into place, and yet never quite dissolve into turbulence, either. The edge of chaos is where life has enough stability to sustain itself and enough creativity to deserve the name of life.3
THE CRISIS OF MODERN (WESTERN) SCIENCE, AND THE BIRTH OF COMPLEXITY THEORY Crisis, according to the American Heritage dictionary, means ‘a crucial or decisive point or situation: a turning point,’ or ‘an unstable condition, as in political, social or economic affairs, involving an impending abrupt or decisive change,’5 both of which aptly describe the transition taking place in science today. In physics, biology, chemistry, and economics (to name only a few), experts concur on the fact that the traditionally Western dependence upon reductionism, linear thinking, and logical analysis has reached its limits. People realized that logic and philosophy are messy, that language is messy, that chemical kinetics is messy, that physics is messy, and finally that the economy is naturally messy. And it’s not that this is a mess created by the dirt that’s on the microscope glass. It’s that this mess is inherent in the systems themselves. You can’t capture any of them and confine them to a neat box of logic.3
Complexity theory thus lies somewhere between excessive order and complete disorder. The key concept is the edge of chaos. The edge-of-chaos is the conceptual balance point between turbulence and stagnation. It is the region where simplicity meets the right conditions and yields complexity. Systems at the edge of chaos are stable, yet creative, emergent yet self-contained, malleable yet selfsimilar. They are adaptive and complex.† In the natural world such systems included brains, immune systems, ecologies, cells, developing embryos, and ant colonies. In the human world they included cultural and social systems such as political parties or scientific communities. Once you learned how to recognize them, in fact, these systems were everywhere. But wherever you found them [said Holland] they all seemed to share certain crucial properties.3
Complexity theory was born of this philosophical crisis. The complexity revolution began the first time someone said, ‘Hey, I can start with this amazingly simple system, and look – it gives rise to these immensely complicated and unpredictable circumstances.’ Instead of relying on the Newtonian metaphor of clockwork predictability, complexity seems to be based on metaphors more closely akin to the growth of a plant from a tiny seed, or the unfolding of a computer program from a few lines of code, or perhaps even the organic, self-organized flocking of simple-minded birds.3 Complexity theory can be seen as having roots in chaos, the theory that revolutionized physics with the discovery of fractals, strange attractors, bifurcations (see Definitions), and other concepts studying ‘the transition to turbulence.’4 Complexity uses
The properties of such systems include competition and cooperation between parts, mutual necessity of parts, and a lack of a concentrated center of control. Complex systems do not hold still for the camera. ‘A complex adaptive system can never reach equilibrium: the system can never get there. It is always unfolding, always in transition. In fact, if the system ever does reach equilibrium, it isn’t just stable. It’s dead’.3 In other words, the essential qualities of complex adaptive systems are interactivity and interdependence. They are emergent processes that are con†
It is interesting to note that somewhere in the development of complexity as opposed to chaos, the line between the two disciplines has been blurred. In most scientific circles, it is now assumed that the semantics are irrelevant – whether one says ‘chaos’ or ‘complexity,’ the implication is that one is speaking of such complex adaptive systems, also referred to as ‘nonlinear dynamical systems.’2
Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (2002) 3, 99–104 © 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
What is complexity theory, and how does it relate to Chinese medicine?
stantly developing, growing, and adapting They exhibit ‘apparent regularity without identical repetition,’2 and ‘autopoiesis,’‡ and their scientific properties are being continually unveiled. The ‘uniform’ properties of complex adaptive systems are still far from definitive1 but the theory has at least begun to define the parameters of what it means to say that life is a ‘complex adaptive system’ and must be studied as such. For those wanting to study phenomena as systems, rather than collections of static parts, a new way of thinking has led to a necessary re-evaluation of scientific analysis. Most of the conventional techniques like calculus or linear analysis are very well suited to describe unchanging particles moving in a fixed environment. But to really get a deep understanding of the economy, or complex adaptive systems in general, what you need are mathematics and computer simulation techniques that emphasize internal models, the emergence of new building blocks, and the rich web of interaction between agents.3 In the years since the birth of complexity theory, many such techniques have emerged. From neural networks to artificial intelligence, scientists have attempted to create nonlinear approaches to measurement, prediction, and analysis. Readers are encouraged to learn more about these specific mathematical and computer-based techniques, but for present purposes, it is enough to say that Western science is for the most part still struggling to digest the fundamental difference in approach that is represented by understanding systems as complex and integrative wholes. As of this date, though much progress has been made in the field, there is still no universal ‘Complexity Science’ with clear definitions and outlined rules.
COMPLEXITY IN WESTERN MEDICINE The human body, as the quintessential complex adaptive system, is understood in complexity theory to be an intricate network of parts in constant interaction, a creative process rather than a static arrangement of parts. ‡
‘The coinage of biologist Humberto Maturana (see Varela, 1978), it [autopoiesis] refers to the ability of complex systems to produce themselves. The paradigm case of autopoiesis is the biological organism, which consists of a collection of interconnected parts precisely designed so as to be able to support and produce each other.’1
101
Single organs and the whole organism of the human body must each be understood as a system of nonlinear complex dynamical systems of high sensibility. Tuning their control parameters to critical values may cause phase transitions of irreversible developments representing more or less dangerous scenarios of human health. Dissipative complex structures are open systems which cannot be separated from their surrounding environment. Thus, on the background of the complex dynamical approach, the classical ‘mechanical’ view of medicine separating the human body into particular parts for highly specialized experts must be heavily criticized. The whole body is more than the sum of its parts. It is amazing to recognize that from the modern view of complex dynamics an old demand of traditional physicians since antiquity is supported again, namely that medicine is not only an analytical science, but an art of healing which has to consider the wholeness of health and illness.6 This new understanding has been both the result of and the motivation behind many studies of the body as a complex adaptive system. The methods of applying specific complexity-based mathematic formulas to the human body are beyond the scope of this paper, but a description of some of the discoveries and insights that have led to such applications are relevant, namely: • The fractal structure of vessel networks, including the lungs and heart6 • The nonlinear dynamics of turbulence as it relates to blood flow in arteries6 • The chaotic appearance of atrial and ventricular fibrillation6 • The hierarchical arrangement of complex systems in the central nervous system6 Psychology, too, has embraced complexity’s approach. From the understanding of mental states as attractors7,8 to the viewing of psychological growth as bifurcation7 psychologists are reaching towards complexity science as ‘a potential unified theory of the mind.’1 To truly reflect complexity, this theory of the mind would also encompass the body and the environment, and would ultimately reflect a holistic and interdependent world-view.
A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON HEALTH Although there is a relatively small amount of concrete information available as to the quantifiable
Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (2002) 3, 99–104 © 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
102
Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine
relationship between complexity and health, many theories suggest that optimal human functioning is a result not of static equilibrium (i.e. homeostasis), but of a high level of complex biological and mental activity. In this view, excessive order and disproportionate chaos are both defined as states of disease, whereas a balance between the two (the edge of chaos) is seen as health. In the following example of such thinking, Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi writes on how ‘flow,’ or the ‘state of mind when consciousness is harmoniously ordered, and [people] want to pursue whatever they are doing for its own sake,’8 contributes to the ultimate healthy growth of the individual. Following flow experience, the organization of the self is more complex than it had been before. It is by becoming increasingly complex that the self might be said to grow. Complexity is the result of two broad psychological processes: differentiation and integration. Differentiation implies a movement toward uniqueness, toward separating oneself from others. Integration refers to its opposite: a union with other people, with ideas and entities beyond the self. A complex self is one that succeeds in combining these opposite tendencies.8 Likewise, the notion that original thinking and creative behavior emerges from a background of flexible and adaptable complex behavior has been put forth by several theorists in different psychological contexts (see Combs,10 Robertson and Combs,9 Schuldberg,2 Richardson7). Clinically, there have been promising results suggesting that complexity is indeed positively related to healthy states of mind. Schuldberg and Gottlieb,11 for example, found that ‘both Pleasant affect and Hypomania§ are associated with higher levels of complexity in affect dynamics, Anhedonia with lower complexity.’12 Sabelli et al. looked at the cardiac patterns of psychotic versus healthy individuals. Their results confirmed that health is more complex than pathology. The dimensional portraits of cardiac complexes, with median embedding dimensions of 40 to 100 in normals and less in patients, suggest to us that physiological health is a creative process that generates novelty and complexity, not a low-dimensional attractor that maintains §
Hypomania is the state described as ‘mild mania and excitement, with a moderate change in behavior’.14 As a potential pathological state, the fact that hypomania is associated with higher levels complexity is a thought-provoking result found by Shuldberg and Gottlieb. Interestingly, mild hypomania is associated with increased pleasure and is often seen as a positive side-effect of the drug Prozac when given to patients who are either severely depressed or manic.15
order. Conversely, illness is not disorder, but excessive order, a simplification of healthy complexity to simpler chaotic, periodic, and even static attractors – the order and equilibrium that homeostatic models define as health.12 Because there is no consensus as of yet on the most effective affect measurement method either within psychology or complexity science, and because there are still limited clinical trials, no study in this area is as of yet definitive. Even studies using traditional Western methods of assessing internal states are not conclusive. Some EKG and EEG studies suggest that there is firm physiological evidence for the higher complexity of healthy hearts and brains,13 but exactly what their significance is going to be for the broader scientific context is still uncertain. Their initially confirmed hypotheses, however, are suggestive of the fact that complexity theory has brought Western medical understanding of health into new territory. This landscape necessarily includes a different, more complex, complete, and interdependent perspective upon emotion, consciousness, brain biochemistry, cardiac rhythm, and countless other psychological and physiological processes.
COMPLEXITY AND CHINESE MEDICINE For anyone familiar with the basic concepts of Chinese medicine, the parallels in philosophy are clear. Complexity’s emphasis on functional, dynamic interaction-based patterns and processes is a concept that Chinese philosophy has embraced for thousands of years. Not surprisingly, many leading modern scientists and scholars have made the somewhat obvious connection between the two basic world-views.1,3,6,10,16 Many writers, however, have argued that the core difference between complexity and Chinese philosophy, mainly Daoism, is the lack of a quantitative, practical, and rigorous scientific analysis in the development of Chinese thought,1,6,10 and most serious inquiries have stopped here. This way of distancing Chinese philosophy and complexity theory is only true, however, to the extent that the philosophy of Daoism never led to the methodical differentiation and logically based analysis of static phenomena. It is utterly false to assume that because no ‘scientific theories comparable to Galilean mechanics with its atomistic philosophy of nature’6 evolved out of ancient Chinese philosophy that no practical, theoretical, or clinically useful applications based on the Daoist per-
Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (2002) 3, 99–104 © 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
What is complexity theory, and how does it relate to Chinese medicine?
spective ever emerged. In fact, Chinese medicine, a theoretically and therapeutically complete system of practical medicine, was the science that emerged from Daoism. This science was (and still is) based on the notion that human life contains within it an element of complexity (see Definitions), an unnameable, co-creative tendency that is constantly changing and which defies reason in the traditional Western sense. Looking to ancient Chinese culture to examine the roots of Chinese medicine as it is today, we find that context was always an integral part of philosophical and scientific understanding. ‘Knowing was an activity in which the rational operations of the intellect were not sharply disconnected from what we would call intuition, imagination, illumination, ecstasy, esthetic perception, ethical commitment, or sensuous experience’.17 Logical analysis and reason were never isolated and revered in China as they have been in the West. Intellect by itself in Chinese philosophy was an abstraction of definitive and fixed concepts.18 Intuition, or zhı¯ jué, must also be applied to know the ‘significance or tendency’ of dynamic and harmonious concepts such as yı¯n/yàng or five element theory,18 concepts that echo core notions in complexity theory (see below). This lack of differentiation between intellect and intuition in traditional Chinese thought has mistakenly been viewed by Western scientists as a weakness of the ancient system. In increasing numbers, however, researchers are starting to assert that in order to approach the theoretical and/or scientific understanding of phenomenon in complexity theory, logical analysis must be expanded upon and intuition must be incorporated into the equation.4 In this view, the modern technological tools that are presumed to be ‘objective’ (and thus fool-proof) fall short of truly appreciating the complexity of phenomenon such as consciousness, emotion, economics, or even weather. If in fact they [states of consciousness] are as real as the physical universe, or more so, then why do we not detect them with scientific instruments? One answer to this question offered by the pioneering researcher in the field of biological self-regulation, Elmer Green, is that we simply do not have instruments with parts that extend into these subtle realms. They are all made of gross matter. Evidently there is only one instrument sensitive enough to detect and report these subtle realms, and that instrument is the human being.10 The techniques of Chinese medicine reflect exactly this type of understanding and appreciation of the human’s role in scientific and medical inquiry.
103
Chinese medical strategies of healing consist of intricate teachings on the development, cultivation, and utilization of human capabilities of intuition as a tool. Reason has use, of course, but it is taught that for one to be a truly noble practitioner, intuitive appreciation of the patient, the universe, and oneself is an integral part of thinking.19 This type of thinking is exactly what scientists are grasping for in complexity science. In Chinese medicine, it has been there for thousands of years, entrenched and inseparable from the clinical application of theory and the actual effective treatment of illnesses. Looking more closely at the specific techniques and theoretical concepts in Chinese medicine, one can find seemingly endless correspondence between the 2000 year old science and complexity theory. ‘In fact, the whole system of traditional Chinese medicine is worthy of study and description according to the complex approach of complexity theory.’20 Indeed, concepts such as the above mentioned five element and yı¯n/yàng theories do show uncanny parallels to concepts in complexity theory. Examples of such correspondences include but are not limited to: • The fractal nature of the five phases in interaction with each other, which includes the constant balancing out of relative opposites yı¯n and yàng. • The notion of disease in Chinese medicine as the result of subtle energy imbalances that propel the system towards increasing disharmony as a similar expression of the concept in complexity theory of sensitivity to initial conditions. • The relatively simple and flexible base structures used in Chinese diagnosis to create a complex and individual picture for each patient as reflecting the simple ‘rules’ of complexity leading to multifarious and unpredictable situations and patterns. • The notion of stasis in Chinese medicine as it corresponds to the notion of stagnation in complexity’s perspective of health (see the previous section). • The ideal of ‘between Heaven and Earth’ in Chinese medicine as a philosophical representation of the edge of chaos phenomenon. Other suggestions include analysis of Chinese medical language, medicinal formulas, and diagnostic/therapeutic approach from a complex perspective, as well as ‘application of Chinese medical theories, models of thinking, and strategy to research in complexity theory, systems science, and related disciplines’,20 all projects that would contribute to both the expansion of complexity theory and the augmentation of Chinese medicine. This is not to suggest that the Chinese medical perspective is in any way ‘better’ than the traditional Western logical approach. In the West, we have
Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (2002) 3, 99–104 © 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
104
Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine
learned a lot about the specifics of things on their own, the breaking down of static parts and the microscopic observation of individual behavior. Everything we have learned has a place in the complex science that is attempting to re-integrate all that has been picked apart, to study the interactions between items instead of just the items themselves. In our quest to put together all the specific data, though, it would behoove us to look at and learn from a system that has actually always focused on such an integrative perspective. Our attempt to grasp the broader, very complex picture of life as a nonlinear dynamic system might be that much more fruitful, comprising a true integration of traditional Eastern and Western values. As David Schuldberg suggests, ‘We need not discard much that is familiar to understand health; if old models are combined with new non-linear linkages (‘sinews’), their behaviors can be surprising and creative.’21 I would argue here that the ‘old models’ can encompass not only older Western models, but older Eastern models as well, and that the effort can be mutual.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? As of this writing, the Complexity and Chinese Medicine Research Center (CCM) has been established in Beijng. The core purpose of this institution is to support the spark of interest that has been lit by recent, more serious inquiry into the question of Chinese medicine’s and complexity’s parallels, and to do so in an environment guided by interdisciplinary respect and appreciation. Thus far, commenced research includes the use of complexity-based science to interpret and codify Chinese medical terminology, and the huge task of rethinking Chinese medicine in complexity’s terms and vice versa. In my own research, I have chosen to focus on the remarkable equivalents between the notions of depression and other psychological illnesses in Chinese medicine and complexity theory, how the two perspectives can augment each other, and how this can all be integrated to create a unique and fresh perspective on treatment. Regardless of where exactly all of the above projects lead, we hope that even more questions than answers will emerge from such endeavors, and that a long-term conversation between Western and Eastern medicine is thus struck.
REFERENCES 1. Goertzel B. Faces of psychological complexity. [Online], Available: www.goertzel.org/papers/intro.html. 2. Schuldberg D. Chaos theory and creativity. In Runco, Pritzker (eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity. New York: Academic Press, 1999, pp 259–272. 3. Waldrop M. Complexity: the emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992. 4. Gleick J. Chaos: making a new science. New York: Viking, 1987. 5. The American heritage dictionary, third edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992. 6. Mainzer K. Thinking in complexity: the complex dynamics of matter, mind, and mankind. Berlin: Springer, 1994. 7. Richards R. Millenium as opportunity: chaos, creativity, and Guilford’s structure-of-intellect model. Creativity Research Journal 2000/2001;13(3–4):249–265. 8. Csikszentmihalyi M. Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Collins, 1990. 9. Robertson R., Combs A. (eds.) Chaos theory in psychology and the life sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995. 10. Combs A. The radiance of being: complexity, chaos, and the evolution of consciousness. St. Paul: Paragon House, 1995. 11. Schuldberg D., Gottlieb J. Dynamics and correlates of microscopic changes in affect. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Sciences 6:231–257. 12. Sabelli H. et al. Anger, fear, depression, and crime: physiological and psychological studies using the process method. In: Robertson R., Combs A. (eds.) Chaos theory in psychology and the life sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995, pp 65–88. 13. Pool R. Is it healthy to be chaotic? Science 1989;243:604–607. 14. Taber’s oyclopedic medical dictionary. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis, 1997. 15. Kramer P. Listening to prozac. New York: Viking, 1993. 16. Butz M.R. et al. Cross-cultural chaos. In: Robertson R., Combs A. (eds.) Chaos theory in psychology and the life sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995, pp 319–330. 17. Sivin N. Science and medicine in China’s past. [On-line], Available: www.ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~nsivin/ ropp.html. 18. An Y.M. Liang Shuming and Henri Bergson on intuition: cultural context and the evolution of terms. [On-line], Available: www.pears2.lib.ohiostate.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/yanming.htm. 19. Ni M.S. (Trans.) The yellow emperor’s classic of medicine. Boston: Shambhala, 1995. 20. Rose K., Zhu J.P. Chinese medicine and complexity. In press. 21. Schuldberg D. Theoretical contributions of complex systems to positive psychology and health: a somewhat complicated affair. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Science 2002;6:335–350.
Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (2002) 3, 99–104 © 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
99
From the simple to the complex: what is complexity theory, and how does it relate to Chinese medicine? Sonya Pritzker
Debates as to the formal definition of complexity continue, but the underlying concept is clear. We are talking about systems whose dynamics are dominated by nonlinear interactions between their parts, and whose behavior can be understood in terms of emergent properties that ensue from these interactions. Ben Goerztel 1
DEFINITIONS* Attractor: A region in the space describing the behaviors of a system toward which the system will tend to go and where it will tend to stay. Strange attractors characterize chaotic behavior and consist of confined trajectories that describe a system that is never in the same state and moving in the same direction.2 Bifurcation: A system’s transformation from one type of system into another, for example, from a system with periodic motion to a system in chaos. This is to be distinguished from a catastrophe, which refers to a seemingly discontinuous change in one system.2 * The following definitions are quoted directly from David Schuldberg’s Chaos theory and creativity,2 M. Mitchell Waldrop’s Complexity,3 and James Gleick’s Chaos.4
Chaos: A class of dynamic behavior of deterministic systems characterized by sensitive dependence on initial conditions, diverging but constrained trajectories that imply unpredictability, and complex organization or structure. Complexity is sometimes used as a synonym for chaos.2 Complexity: A class of behaviors in which the components of the system never quite lock into place, yet never quite dissolve into turbulence, either. These are the systems that are both stable enough to store information, and yet evanescent enough to transmit it. These are the systems that can be organized to perform complex computations, to react to the world, to be spontaneous, adaptive, and alive.3 Dissipative Systems: Systems, such as living systems, that are using up energy.2 Fractal: A pattern characterized by possessing similar structure at different magnifications, more roughly described as self-similarity at different scales; strange and other complex attractors generally have fractal microscopic structures.2 Nonlinearity: A term describing a relationship between two variables or a causal relationship between components of a system that is not strictly proportional and thus cannot be represented as a straight-line graph on ordinary graph paper.2
Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (2002) 3, 99–104 © 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
100
Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine
Phase Transitions: Changes from solid to liquid, from nonmagnet to magnet, from conductor to superconductor, i.e. a transition from one state to another.4 Systems Theory: Theory describing the behavior of composite entities composed of changing, interacting, and interconnected parts whose functioning emerges from the mutual influences of the parts.2
many of the same conceptual models as chaos. Instead of focusing on the disorganized behavior typical of most chaotic systems, however, complexity looks at real-life structures that manage to grow and adapt in unpredictable ways, yet maintain integrity without dissipating into chaos. Chaos by itself doesn’t explain the structure, the coherence, the self-organizing cohesiveness of complex systems. Instead, all these complex systems have somehow acquired the ability to bring order and chaos into a kind of balance. This balance point – often called the edge of chaos – is where the components of a system never quite lock into place, and yet never quite dissolve into turbulence, either. The edge of chaos is where life has enough stability to sustain itself and enough creativity to deserve the name of life.3
THE CRISIS OF MODERN (WESTERN) SCIENCE, AND THE BIRTH OF COMPLEXITY THEORY Crisis, according to the American Heritage dictionary, means ‘a crucial or decisive point or situation: a turning point,’ or ‘an unstable condition, as in political, social or economic affairs, involving an impending abrupt or decisive change,’5 both of which aptly describe the transition taking place in science today. In physics, biology, chemistry, and economics (to name only a few), experts concur on the fact that the traditionally Western dependence upon reductionism, linear thinking, and logical analysis has reached its limits. People realized that logic and philosophy are messy, that language is messy, that chemical kinetics is messy, that physics is messy, and finally that the economy is naturally messy. And it’s not that this is a mess created by the dirt that’s on the microscope glass. It’s that this mess is inherent in the systems themselves. You can’t capture any of them and confine them to a neat box of logic.3
Complexity theory thus lies somewhere between excessive order and complete disorder. The key concept is the edge of chaos. The edge-of-chaos is the conceptual balance point between turbulence and stagnation. It is the region where simplicity meets the right conditions and yields complexity. Systems at the edge of chaos are stable, yet creative, emergent yet self-contained, malleable yet selfsimilar. They are adaptive and complex.† In the natural world such systems included brains, immune systems, ecologies, cells, developing embryos, and ant colonies. In the human world they included cultural and social systems such as political parties or scientific communities. Once you learned how to recognize them, in fact, these systems were everywhere. But wherever you found them [said Holland] they all seemed to share certain crucial properties.3
Complexity theory was born of this philosophical crisis. The complexity revolution began the first time someone said, ‘Hey, I can start with this amazingly simple system, and look – it gives rise to these immensely complicated and unpredictable circumstances.’ Instead of relying on the Newtonian metaphor of clockwork predictability, complexity seems to be based on metaphors more closely akin to the growth of a plant from a tiny seed, or the unfolding of a computer program from a few lines of code, or perhaps even the organic, self-organized flocking of simple-minded birds.3 Complexity theory can be seen as having roots in chaos, the theory that revolutionized physics with the discovery of fractals, strange attractors, bifurcations (see Definitions), and other concepts studying ‘the transition to turbulence.’4 Complexity uses
The properties of such systems include competition and cooperation between parts, mutual necessity of parts, and a lack of a concentrated center of control. Complex systems do not hold still for the camera. ‘A complex adaptive system can never reach equilibrium: the system can never get there. It is always unfolding, always in transition. In fact, if the system ever does reach equilibrium, it isn’t just stable. It’s dead’.3 In other words, the essential qualities of complex adaptive systems are interactivity and interdependence. They are emergent processes that are con†
It is interesting to note that somewhere in the development of complexity as opposed to chaos, the line between the two disciplines has been blurred. In most scientific circles, it is now assumed that the semantics are irrelevant – whether one says ‘chaos’ or ‘complexity,’ the implication is that one is speaking of such complex adaptive systems, also referred to as ‘nonlinear dynamical systems.’2
Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (2002) 3, 99–104 © 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
What is complexity theory, and how does it relate to Chinese medicine?
stantly developing, growing, and adapting They exhibit ‘apparent regularity without identical repetition,’2 and ‘autopoiesis,’‡ and their scientific properties are being continually unveiled. The ‘uniform’ properties of complex adaptive systems are still far from definitive1 but the theory has at least begun to define the parameters of what it means to say that life is a ‘complex adaptive system’ and must be studied as such. For those wanting to study phenomena as systems, rather than collections of static parts, a new way of thinking has led to a necessary re-evaluation of scientific analysis. Most of the conventional techniques like calculus or linear analysis are very well suited to describe unchanging particles moving in a fixed environment. But to really get a deep understanding of the economy, or complex adaptive systems in general, what you need are mathematics and computer simulation techniques that emphasize internal models, the emergence of new building blocks, and the rich web of interaction between agents.3 In the years since the birth of complexity theory, many such techniques have emerged. From neural networks to artificial intelligence, scientists have attempted to create nonlinear approaches to measurement, prediction, and analysis. Readers are encouraged to learn more about these specific mathematical and computer-based techniques, but for present purposes, it is enough to say that Western science is for the most part still struggling to digest the fundamental difference in approach that is represented by understanding systems as complex and integrative wholes. As of this date, though much progress has been made in the field, there is still no universal ‘Complexity Science’ with clear definitions and outlined rules.
COMPLEXITY IN WESTERN MEDICINE The human body, as the quintessential complex adaptive system, is understood in complexity theory to be an intricate network of parts in constant interaction, a creative process rather than a static arrangement of parts. ‡
‘The coinage of biologist Humberto Maturana (see Varela, 1978), it [autopoiesis] refers to the ability of complex systems to produce themselves. The paradigm case of autopoiesis is the biological organism, which consists of a collection of interconnected parts precisely designed so as to be able to support and produce each other.’1
101
Single organs and the whole organism of the human body must each be understood as a system of nonlinear complex dynamical systems of high sensibility. Tuning their control parameters to critical values may cause phase transitions of irreversible developments representing more or less dangerous scenarios of human health. Dissipative complex structures are open systems which cannot be separated from their surrounding environment. Thus, on the background of the complex dynamical approach, the classical ‘mechanical’ view of medicine separating the human body into particular parts for highly specialized experts must be heavily criticized. The whole body is more than the sum of its parts. It is amazing to recognize that from the modern view of complex dynamics an old demand of traditional physicians since antiquity is supported again, namely that medicine is not only an analytical science, but an art of healing which has to consider the wholeness of health and illness.6 This new understanding has been both the result of and the motivation behind many studies of the body as a complex adaptive system. The methods of applying specific complexity-based mathematic formulas to the human body are beyond the scope of this paper, but a description of some of the discoveries and insights that have led to such applications are relevant, namely: • The fractal structure of vessel networks, including the lungs and heart6 • The nonlinear dynamics of turbulence as it relates to blood flow in arteries6 • The chaotic appearance of atrial and ventricular fibrillation6 • The hierarchical arrangement of complex systems in the central nervous system6 Psychology, too, has embraced complexity’s approach. From the understanding of mental states as attractors7,8 to the viewing of psychological growth as bifurcation7 psychologists are reaching towards complexity science as ‘a potential unified theory of the mind.’1 To truly reflect complexity, this theory of the mind would also encompass the body and the environment, and would ultimately reflect a holistic and interdependent world-view.
A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON HEALTH Although there is a relatively small amount of concrete information available as to the quantifiable
Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (2002) 3, 99–104 © 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
102
Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine
relationship between complexity and health, many theories suggest that optimal human functioning is a result not of static equilibrium (i.e. homeostasis), but of a high level of complex biological and mental activity. In this view, excessive order and disproportionate chaos are both defined as states of disease, whereas a balance between the two (the edge of chaos) is seen as health. In the following example of such thinking, Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi writes on how ‘flow,’ or the ‘state of mind when consciousness is harmoniously ordered, and [people] want to pursue whatever they are doing for its own sake,’8 contributes to the ultimate healthy growth of the individual. Following flow experience, the organization of the self is more complex than it had been before. It is by becoming increasingly complex that the self might be said to grow. Complexity is the result of two broad psychological processes: differentiation and integration. Differentiation implies a movement toward uniqueness, toward separating oneself from others. Integration refers to its opposite: a union with other people, with ideas and entities beyond the self. A complex self is one that succeeds in combining these opposite tendencies.8 Likewise, the notion that original thinking and creative behavior emerges from a background of flexible and adaptable complex behavior has been put forth by several theorists in different psychological contexts (see Combs,10 Robertson and Combs,9 Schuldberg,2 Richardson7). Clinically, there have been promising results suggesting that complexity is indeed positively related to healthy states of mind. Schuldberg and Gottlieb,11 for example, found that ‘both Pleasant affect and Hypomania§ are associated with higher levels of complexity in affect dynamics, Anhedonia with lower complexity.’12 Sabelli et al. looked at the cardiac patterns of psychotic versus healthy individuals. Their results confirmed that health is more complex than pathology. The dimensional portraits of cardiac complexes, with median embedding dimensions of 40 to 100 in normals and less in patients, suggest to us that physiological health is a creative process that generates novelty and complexity, not a low-dimensional attractor that maintains §
Hypomania is the state described as ‘mild mania and excitement, with a moderate change in behavior’.14 As a potential pathological state, the fact that hypomania is associated with higher levels complexity is a thought-provoking result found by Shuldberg and Gottlieb. Interestingly, mild hypomania is associated with increased pleasure and is often seen as a positive side-effect of the drug Prozac when given to patients who are either severely depressed or manic.15
order. Conversely, illness is not disorder, but excessive order, a simplification of healthy complexity to simpler chaotic, periodic, and even static attractors – the order and equilibrium that homeostatic models define as health.12 Because there is no consensus as of yet on the most effective affect measurement method either within psychology or complexity science, and because there are still limited clinical trials, no study in this area is as of yet definitive. Even studies using traditional Western methods of assessing internal states are not conclusive. Some EKG and EEG studies suggest that there is firm physiological evidence for the higher complexity of healthy hearts and brains,13 but exactly what their significance is going to be for the broader scientific context is still uncertain. Their initially confirmed hypotheses, however, are suggestive of the fact that complexity theory has brought Western medical understanding of health into new territory. This landscape necessarily includes a different, more complex, complete, and interdependent perspective upon emotion, consciousness, brain biochemistry, cardiac rhythm, and countless other psychological and physiological processes.
COMPLEXITY AND CHINESE MEDICINE For anyone familiar with the basic concepts of Chinese medicine, the parallels in philosophy are clear. Complexity’s emphasis on functional, dynamic interaction-based patterns and processes is a concept that Chinese philosophy has embraced for thousands of years. Not surprisingly, many leading modern scientists and scholars have made the somewhat obvious connection between the two basic world-views.1,3,6,10,16 Many writers, however, have argued that the core difference between complexity and Chinese philosophy, mainly Daoism, is the lack of a quantitative, practical, and rigorous scientific analysis in the development of Chinese thought,1,6,10 and most serious inquiries have stopped here. This way of distancing Chinese philosophy and complexity theory is only true, however, to the extent that the philosophy of Daoism never led to the methodical differentiation and logically based analysis of static phenomena. It is utterly false to assume that because no ‘scientific theories comparable to Galilean mechanics with its atomistic philosophy of nature’6 evolved out of ancient Chinese philosophy that no practical, theoretical, or clinically useful applications based on the Daoist per-
Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (2002) 3, 99–104 © 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
What is complexity theory, and how does it relate to Chinese medicine?
spective ever emerged. In fact, Chinese medicine, a theoretically and therapeutically complete system of practical medicine, was the science that emerged from Daoism. This science was (and still is) based on the notion that human life contains within it an element of complexity (see Definitions), an unnameable, co-creative tendency that is constantly changing and which defies reason in the traditional Western sense. Looking to ancient Chinese culture to examine the roots of Chinese medicine as it is today, we find that context was always an integral part of philosophical and scientific understanding. ‘Knowing was an activity in which the rational operations of the intellect were not sharply disconnected from what we would call intuition, imagination, illumination, ecstasy, esthetic perception, ethical commitment, or sensuous experience’.17 Logical analysis and reason were never isolated and revered in China as they have been in the West. Intellect by itself in Chinese philosophy was an abstraction of definitive and fixed concepts.18 Intuition, or zhı¯ jué, must also be applied to know the ‘significance or tendency’ of dynamic and harmonious concepts such as yı¯n/yàng or five element theory,18 concepts that echo core notions in complexity theory (see below). This lack of differentiation between intellect and intuition in traditional Chinese thought has mistakenly been viewed by Western scientists as a weakness of the ancient system. In increasing numbers, however, researchers are starting to assert that in order to approach the theoretical and/or scientific understanding of phenomenon in complexity theory, logical analysis must be expanded upon and intuition must be incorporated into the equation.4 In this view, the modern technological tools that are presumed to be ‘objective’ (and thus fool-proof) fall short of truly appreciating the complexity of phenomenon such as consciousness, emotion, economics, or even weather. If in fact they [states of consciousness] are as real as the physical universe, or more so, then why do we not detect them with scientific instruments? One answer to this question offered by the pioneering researcher in the field of biological self-regulation, Elmer Green, is that we simply do not have instruments with parts that extend into these subtle realms. They are all made of gross matter. Evidently there is only one instrument sensitive enough to detect and report these subtle realms, and that instrument is the human being.10 The techniques of Chinese medicine reflect exactly this type of understanding and appreciation of the human’s role in scientific and medical inquiry.
103
Chinese medical strategies of healing consist of intricate teachings on the development, cultivation, and utilization of human capabilities of intuition as a tool. Reason has use, of course, but it is taught that for one to be a truly noble practitioner, intuitive appreciation of the patient, the universe, and oneself is an integral part of thinking.19 This type of thinking is exactly what scientists are grasping for in complexity science. In Chinese medicine, it has been there for thousands of years, entrenched and inseparable from the clinical application of theory and the actual effective treatment of illnesses. Looking more closely at the specific techniques and theoretical concepts in Chinese medicine, one can find seemingly endless correspondence between the 2000 year old science and complexity theory. ‘In fact, the whole system of traditional Chinese medicine is worthy of study and description according to the complex approach of complexity theory.’20 Indeed, concepts such as the above mentioned five element and yı¯n/yàng theories do show uncanny parallels to concepts in complexity theory. Examples of such correspondences include but are not limited to: • The fractal nature of the five phases in interaction with each other, which includes the constant balancing out of relative opposites yı¯n and yàng. • The notion of disease in Chinese medicine as the result of subtle energy imbalances that propel the system towards increasing disharmony as a similar expression of the concept in complexity theory of sensitivity to initial conditions. • The relatively simple and flexible base structures used in Chinese diagnosis to create a complex and individual picture for each patient as reflecting the simple ‘rules’ of complexity leading to multifarious and unpredictable situations and patterns. • The notion of stasis in Chinese medicine as it corresponds to the notion of stagnation in complexity’s perspective of health (see the previous section). • The ideal of ‘between Heaven and Earth’ in Chinese medicine as a philosophical representation of the edge of chaos phenomenon. Other suggestions include analysis of Chinese medical language, medicinal formulas, and diagnostic/therapeutic approach from a complex perspective, as well as ‘application of Chinese medical theories, models of thinking, and strategy to research in complexity theory, systems science, and related disciplines’,20 all projects that would contribute to both the expansion of complexity theory and the augmentation of Chinese medicine. This is not to suggest that the Chinese medical perspective is in any way ‘better’ than the traditional Western logical approach. In the West, we have
Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (2002) 3, 99–104 © 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
104
Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine
learned a lot about the specifics of things on their own, the breaking down of static parts and the microscopic observation of individual behavior. Everything we have learned has a place in the complex science that is attempting to re-integrate all that has been picked apart, to study the interactions between items instead of just the items themselves. In our quest to put together all the specific data, though, it would behoove us to look at and learn from a system that has actually always focused on such an integrative perspective. Our attempt to grasp the broader, very complex picture of life as a nonlinear dynamic system might be that much more fruitful, comprising a true integration of traditional Eastern and Western values. As David Schuldberg suggests, ‘We need not discard much that is familiar to understand health; if old models are combined with new non-linear linkages (‘sinews’), their behaviors can be surprising and creative.’21 I would argue here that the ‘old models’ can encompass not only older Western models, but older Eastern models as well, and that the effort can be mutual.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? As of this writing, the Complexity and Chinese Medicine Research Center (CCM) has been established in Beijng. The core purpose of this institution is to support the spark of interest that has been lit by recent, more serious inquiry into the question of Chinese medicine’s and complexity’s parallels, and to do so in an environment guided by interdisciplinary respect and appreciation. Thus far, commenced research includes the use of complexity-based science to interpret and codify Chinese medical terminology, and the huge task of rethinking Chinese medicine in complexity’s terms and vice versa. In my own research, I have chosen to focus on the remarkable equivalents between the notions of depression and other psychological illnesses in Chinese medicine and complexity theory, how the two perspectives can augment each other, and how this can all be integrated to create a unique and fresh perspective on treatment. Regardless of where exactly all of the above projects lead, we hope that even more questions than answers will emerge from such endeavors, and that a long-term conversation between Western and Eastern medicine is thus struck.
REFERENCES 1. Goertzel B. Faces of psychological complexity. [Online], Available: www.goertzel.org/papers/intro.html. 2. Schuldberg D. Chaos theory and creativity. In Runco, Pritzker (eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity. New York: Academic Press, 1999, pp 259–272. 3. Waldrop M. Complexity: the emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992. 4. Gleick J. Chaos: making a new science. New York: Viking, 1987. 5. The American heritage dictionary, third edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992. 6. Mainzer K. Thinking in complexity: the complex dynamics of matter, mind, and mankind. Berlin: Springer, 1994. 7. Richards R. Millenium as opportunity: chaos, creativity, and Guilford’s structure-of-intellect model. Creativity Research Journal 2000/2001;13(3–4):249–265. 8. Csikszentmihalyi M. Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Collins, 1990. 9. Robertson R., Combs A. (eds.) Chaos theory in psychology and the life sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995. 10. Combs A. The radiance of being: complexity, chaos, and the evolution of consciousness. St. Paul: Paragon House, 1995. 11. Schuldberg D., Gottlieb J. Dynamics and correlates of microscopic changes in affect. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Sciences 6:231–257. 12. Sabelli H. et al. Anger, fear, depression, and crime: physiological and psychological studies using the process method. In: Robertson R., Combs A. (eds.) Chaos theory in psychology and the life sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995, pp 65–88. 13. Pool R. Is it healthy to be chaotic? Science 1989;243:604–607. 14. Taber’s oyclopedic medical dictionary. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis, 1997. 15. Kramer P. Listening to prozac. New York: Viking, 1993. 16. Butz M.R. et al. Cross-cultural chaos. In: Robertson R., Combs A. (eds.) Chaos theory in psychology and the life sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995, pp 319–330. 17. Sivin N. Science and medicine in China’s past. [On-line], Available: www.ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~nsivin/ ropp.html. 18. An Y.M. Liang Shuming and Henri Bergson on intuition: cultural context and the evolution of terms. [On-line], Available: www.pears2.lib.ohiostate.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/yanming.htm. 19. Ni M.S. (Trans.) The yellow emperor’s classic of medicine. Boston: Shambhala, 1995. 20. Rose K., Zhu J.P. Chinese medicine and complexity. In press. 21. Schuldberg D. Theoretical contributions of complex systems to positive psychology and health: a somewhat complicated affair. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Science 2002;6:335–350.
Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (2002) 3, 99–104 © 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.