From Complexity Science to Complex Thinking: Organization as Simple Location

Recent developments in the sciences of complexity have led to a rise in interest in the application of such insights to the understanding of social phenomena such as organization. This essay seeks to examine the fundamental differences between social and natural systems and to thereby render more transparent the possible limitations of a science of complexity for the analysis of organization. Against this science of complexity, it counterposes the kind of complex thinking inspired by philosophy, literature, art and the humanities to show how such forms of thinking may be more adequate to the task of revealing to us the whole spectrum of human lived experiences; something which we argue here that the complexity sciences, in the current form they take, remain unable to access.

[1]  Michel Foucault,et al.  The Order of Things , 2010 .

[2]  N. Bryson,et al.  Vision and Painting: The Logic of the Gaze , 1984 .

[3]  R. Devaney,et al.  Chaos, Making a New Science , 1987 .

[4]  I. Alexander.  Bergson : philosopher of reflection , 1958 .

[5]  Robert Cooper,et al.  Modernism, Post Modernism and Organizational Analysis 3: The Contribution of Jacques Derrida , 1989 .

[6]  M. Kot,et al.  Nearly one dimensional dynamics in an epidemic. , 1985, Journal of theoretical biology.

[7]  C. Wright Mills,et al.  From Max Weber , 1991 .

[8]  Hal Foster,et al.  Vision and visuality , 1988 .

[9]  Nicholas Rescher,et al.  Process Metaphysics: An Introduction to Process Philosophy , 1996 .

[10]  N. Katherine Hayles,et al.  Chaos and order : complex dynamics in literature and science , 1991 .

[11]  R. Lewin,et al.  Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos , 1992 .

[12]  G. Bateson,et al.  Mind and Nature , 1980 .

[13]  R. Miller,et al.  Jeremy Bentham's Panoptic Device , 1987 .

[14]  Benedictus de Spinoza,et al.  The collected works of Spinoza , 1985 .

[15]  P. Senge.  The fifth discipline : the art and practice of the learning organization/ Peter M. Senge , 1991 .

[16]  W. James.  A Pluralistic Universe , 2010 .

[17]  B A Huberman.  A Model for Dysfunctions in Smooth Pursuit Eye Movement a , 1987, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[18]  Von Furstenberg,et al.  Acting under uncertainty : multidisciplinary conceptions , 1990 .

[19]  Percy Williams Bridgman,et al.  The Logic of Modern Physics , 1927 .

[20]  R. Hepburn,et al.  BEING AND TIME , 2010 .

[21]  A. Whitehead.  Adventures of ideas , 1933 .

[22]  Jelliffe,et al.  Matter and Memory , 1896 .

[23]  Tom McArthur,et al.  Worlds of reference : lexicography, learning, and language from the clay tablet to the computer , 1986 .

[24]  Robert Shaw,et al.  The Dripping Faucet As A Model Chaotic System , 1984 .

[25]  Christopher Janaway,et al.  Schopenhauer: 'The World as Will and Representation': Volume 1 , 2010 .

[26]  K. Weick.  The social psychology of organizing , 1969 .

[27]  John D. Barrow,et al.  Theories of Everything , 1992 .

[28]  Josué V. Harari,et al.  Hermes--literature, science, philosophy , 1982 .

[29]  M. Gell-Mann.  A Theory of Everything. (Book Reviews: The Quark and the Jaguar. Adventures in the Simple and the Complex.) , 1994 .

[30]  S. Langer.  Philosophy in a new key : a study in the symbolism of reason, rite, and art , 1944 .

[31]  Nelson Goodman,et al.  Of Mind and Other Matters. , 1984 .

[32]  Robert M. May,et al.  Simple mathematical models with very complicated dynamics , 1976, Nature.