Organizing Complexity; Aphorisms on Ultimate Reality

Our world is one of distractions. Interestingly, distractions are both necessary and restrictive. The human mind is a very powerful entity; it processes information at extraordinary speeds; it both directs behavior and stores information while simultaneously accessing that information to encourage the direction of behavior. It is a miracle in itself to suggest with confidence that we have collectively managed to construct a series of social organizations that influence behavior and provide information

Complex systems seem to require feedback loops of information processing and information utilization. In fact, it is less a requirement than it is simply the nature of the systems at work. An entity behaves due to the information it receives. Thus, information in itself operates on several layers of primacy. There isn't ultimate primacy as much as there is a system at work that engages all layers in tandem. However, an ultimate system must exist in what Kant called the noumenal realm; or the space in which all entities within a system only access at the most fundamental levels. The primary laws that dictate what is allowed in a system are determined by whatever the parameters are. Certain parameters are not amenable; that is to say, because the largest majority (indeed, all things) seem to operate within certain unavoidable parameters, whatever exists in the noumenal realm must define the parameters. However, human understanding is also limited by a set of parameters. There is thus an outstanding and unavoidable paradox. We are reliant upon a certain Logic; that Logic constructs a Iimit for itself to operate. Within that limit, one might argue that such a limit is simply a product of the limits of the system that engages that logic. If a concept like evolution can thus emerge from a limited logical system, there must exist a system beyond the scope of the logic-understander that at the very least encourages the probable nature of potentiality. In this crevice we might encounter notions of God. However, it is not necessary to reduce that which we do not understand to a limited idea. Doing so might lead to an unnecessary limiting factor. The last thing a complex information system wants is a condition that limits it's ability to utilize information beyond what it requires to operate in a normal state. Indeed, novelty undermines the notion of any limiting feature, because any entity that defines it's own parameters must give way to a set of instructions that can up root it's former construction. This is evolution. Evolution does not destroy God. In reality it enables it as an open ended necessary condition. That is, it is a mistake to constrict God to a subset of rule systems that it's already limited creations define for it. A system does not operate if it's agents dictate it's rules, and it also does not operate if it's rule systems are not malleable in the face of novelty.

Systems require agents at work. Work, it turns out is the inherent product of opposing and complimentary forces. Common parlance understands work in sociocultural environments

The ISIS Initiative

Russian determination in Syria leaves us with a serious opportunity for self reflection. It is impossible to ignore what is once again becoming a clear indictment of American foreign policy; as a power intent on policing international law, it is alarmingly clear that the United States is the power exacting any real violation of the law. America has been largely irresponsible in the middle east in this regard, for it places it's own interests ahead of any established rules of international engagement. The question of whether any power is justified invading the sovereignty of another nation without sufficient cause is again on the forefront of debate. Russia is correct in this instance; it has been law abiding and very vocal against the contrary. Putin has responded to Assad's request for assistance. The United States has been complicit in bolstering the very elements that it currently finds itself opposed in the region. Interestingly, Washington remains silent about this fact and only emphasizes it's intent to intervene so as to encourage the ouster of Assad. This should remind us of the errors America committed in Iraq. This should also remind us that those infractions were largely catalysts for what is now a greater threat than Hussein was to begin with. Perhaps a larger question ought to be considered: is the international community prepared to get behind a Russian initiative against ISIS regardless of any hidden agenda Putin and his government might also be advancing? The propaganda machine so visible in the west cannot continue ignoring this question with impunity. Evidence continues to mount that whatever strategy the United States is undertaking has either failed, or what the United States has told us simply isn't what it actually wants. If the goal is to beat back the ISIS advance, it isn't clear that opposing Assad does anything other than impede that agenda. Assad is faced with an impossible threat; an already faltering regime encroached upon by a multitude of factions, some supported by the west, others seemingly isolated from any coalition beyond what the ISIS leaders dictate. It is also unclear if western intelligence has a real beat on the organization of ISIS, what other subversive interests it might have and how far it is willing to extend its influence.