Complexity and Control

Naming the TET Axes

In the previous topic, the likely layout of the TET was determined based on taxonomic principles and using resonance as a guide.

We can now consider the formal properties further and label:

• the X- and Y-axes,

so as to get an understanding of the four quadrants and the two diagonals.

The two axes define the psycho-social dimensions that paradigms must take into account to a greater or lesser degree when depicting an entity-situation.

The X-axis determines the social or output dimension affecting the use of any depiction paradigm. This appears to be how much the paradigm addresses the complexity of situations.

The Y-axis determines the psychological or input dimension when using any depiction paradigm. This appears to be how much the paradigm addresses control of situations.

This then generates a TET with quadrants as shown at right.

Labelling the axes and quadrants in this way makes it possible to see whether the proposed plot fits. If not, either the axes are in error or the plot is in error.

Checking X-Axis Complexity via Diagonals

The diagonal that stretches from lower left (LL) to upper right (UR) depicts entities or situations as bounded and compound . Such entities with internal structures or components are referred to as a system. Any system looks inward but needs to handle its environment. In moving up the diagonal and along the X-Axis, complexity is given progressively more attention. As a result, the coverage of the paradigm is increasingly complete.

Details

• The Atomistic paradigm depicts a situation/entity/self as discrete with internal and external interactions assumed but not specifically depicted. These interactions potentially lead to an evolution, but addressed complexity is minimal.
• The Structural paradigm depicts situations as a system with interacting components that are specifically defined and stably ordered. This means some limited complexity is considered, and the need to fit with the environment may force some evolution.
• The Dynamic paradigm depicts a situation as a system whose ordered components dynamically affect each other with an explicit aim to support and even generate evolution. Consequently, the paradigm addresses much greater complexity.
• The Unified paradigm attempts to comprehensively depict any situation to generate a dynamic system of systems all interacting including with the environment. There is co-evolution and the deliberate appreciation and acceptance of maximum complexity.

The diagonal that stretches from upper left (UL) to lower right (LR) contains unstructured experiential depictions. Moving down the diagonal and along the X-axis progressively increases the orientation to complexity. Correspondingly, moving up the diagonal from LR to UL shows an increasing disinterest, neglect or rejection of the complexity inherent in any situation.

Details

• The Unitary paradigm depicts a situation as a single indivisible entity without components or connection to the environment, which means a minimal orientation to complexity.
• The Dualistic paradigm depicts a situation as two opposing components amidst a non-specified variety. So addressed complexity is greater but still rather limited.
• The Few factors Causal paradigm depicts a situation as a multiplicity of specified relevant components but with no more than a couple or a few causally linked. So the focus on complexity becomes significant but constrained.
• The Multi-factorial Causal paradigm is similar in depicting a situation as a multiplicity of specified relevant components, but with many more involved in causation. So much more complexity is expected and addressed.

Checking Y-Axis Control via Diagonals

The diagonal that moves upward from lower right (LR) to upper left (UL) contains unstructured experiential depictions that are increasingly oriented to control due to the move up the Y-axis. Control in this set is desired to serve domination and demands the exercise of coercive power.

Details

• The Causal paradigm depicts entities/situations as containing a variety of components with some having causal links. If there are large numbers of causal links or multivariate causation, then exerting power achieves little and concern with control is lowest. When fewer causal links are perceived, then some control in handling change becomes possible and power can be used to persuade others of validity.
• The Dualistic paradigm depicts entities/situations as a variety of components of which two are by far the most significant. These are in opposition and each seeks to dominate the other as well as other factors in the situation. Use of the paradigm involves using power to win significant control over one major component and to have as much influence as possible over the situation as a whole.
• The Unitary paradigm depicts entities/situations as single and indivisible with a concern for domination within and also domination of the environment as far as possible. There is a maximum orientation to control via enforcement and coercion, and a tendency to demand ever more power.

The diagonal that moves upwards from lower left (LL) to upper right (UR) contains compound entities or systems that are increasingly concerned with control. This concern results from the challenge of increasing comprehensiveness and the desire to shape situations effectively through harnessing evolution.

Details

• The Atomistic paradigm depicts entities/situations as discrete elemental systems whose self-regulation and natural unregulated interaction expects and provides a minimum form of control.
• The Structural paradigm depicts entities/situations as containing components that are ordered in specified way so as to maintain a structure and present an identity. These static systems have a necessary concern with control.
• The Dynamic paradigm depicts entities/situations as the deliberate development of the system via cooperative interaction. These dynamic systems demand a greater and more continuous focus on control to direct desired evolutionary developments.
• The Unified paradigm depicts entities/situations as including the environment and showing organic growth of systems of systems in the evolving environment. Such complex systems reveal a very high concern for control in the sense of staying true to endeavours, moving with the grain of human nature, and enabling win-win-win outcomes for wider society and the environment.

The Apollonian - Dionysian Duality

Nowhere is it clearer that THEE's approach duality represents contrasting aspects of human nature highlighted by Friedrich Nietzsche in The Birth of Tragedy (1872) as Appollonian and Dionysian:

• The Appollonian aspect reflects rationality, order and structured
  self-awareness.

• The Dionysian aspect reflects emotion, instinct, fusion with the crowd,
  loss of boundaries.

On the TET, the diagonal that moves from LR to UL is Appollonian. These paradigms call for the creation of boundaries, the careful identification and ordering of elements, the search for completeness. The paradigms are systems demanding careful thought and deliberate methodical effort with concern for efficacy and remediation of errors. This is where the bulk of academic work is focused.

On the TET, the diagonal that moves from LR to UL is Dionysian. These paradigms emerge spontaneously, often almost unthinkingly, or are implicit and taken for granted. They are used to give meaning to situations, which enables crowd acceptance and participation. Being experiential they are subject to egotistic tendencies, most significantly the urge for domination and power. There is no name to this class of paradigms: see more here.

Zones on the Axes

Based on the above descriptions, it is possible to identify zones on the axes and see similarities between otherwise very different paradigms.

Complexity Orientation : X-Axis

On the X-axis, there are four zones which, moving from left to right, show a progression in their capacity and preference for complexity in the situation i.e. in the entity and/or the environment.

Atomistic – Unitary	Complexity is singular i.e. just one component or entity.
Structural – Dualistic	Complexity is fixed i.e. specific and limited components
Few Factor Causal – Dynamic	Complexity is selective i.e. multiple components with optional choices.
Multi-factor Causal – Unified.	Complexity is inclusive i.e. considers all relevant components

Control Orientation : Y-Axis

On the Y-axis, there are four zones which, moving from bottom to top, show a progression in their concern for control of the situation. This control may be exercised within the entity or on the environment.

Atomistic – Multi-factor Causal	Control is discretionary i.e. flexible, discontinuous, minimal.
Structural – Few factors Causal	Control is rigid i.e. concentrated in specific linkages between components.
Dualistic – Dynamic	Control is persistent i.e. to direct the components continuously
Unitary – Unified.	Control is pervasive i.e. extensive, intensive, permeating.

---

Having confirmed and elaborated on the layout, it is now possible to commence an exploration of how the paradigms address various change issues.

• Start with where change is expected to happen: within or without.

Originally posted: 30-Jun-2024. Last amended: 15-July-2025.