Brief Thoughts on the Evolution of Social Systems

System evolution, especially governance structures, can be thought of as a shell that calcifies and grows from the seed of human needs. It is composed of layers (paradigms), stratified by population, time, and cognitive development. Perforations in these layers are minor or major flaws that either curl downwards until critical mass is reached, collapsing the layer down onto a (cruder) supporting layer, or curl upwards and inspire the transition to a new (refined) layer. Layers become more reliable yet sensitive (taut) in the upwards direction because they stretch fewer human resources more efficiently over a wider breadth of the population. This provides interpersonal ease with a comparatively small spread out cost to any one individual's personal freedom.

The innermost layer of this shell is based on a basic survival premise of faux individuality and freedom that is instinctive, self-gratifying and immediately available. However, by overlooking the bigger picture individuals will be unbalanced in their manner of action, creating knock-on effects that entail a larger cost to their freedom than the initially realised gain. As the individual identity expands it begins to comprehend the interconnectivity of systems that feedback into his/her environment. So the individual begins to outsource what works for them to others, and vice versa, to reap the niche benefits of society such that needs are mutually covered. The focus of development shifts from balancing personal needs to calibrating markets to output optimal compromises for everyone's needs, to optimising how groups think in relation to the systems they govern and comprise. Once a fully developed governance structure has sufficiently supported and educated its populous, Individuals can self-govern harmoniously and the need for interpersonal governance is transcended, without considerable loss.

The limitation on systemic thinking is that it attempts to resolve and cleanly categorise with ever-increasing resolution and then solves from the bottom up, but this is an endless task where the tools also increase in fidelity, such that one solution yesterday is a problem today. As systemic thinking becomes more complex it reflects more and more the transformation of the tool-bearer, until the perception of its relative contradictions broadens and drowns any notion of being able to take "right" action. The only recourse for one drowned by relativity is to surrender the mind to mystical consciousness. Even to evaluate and circle the flaws of systematic thinking is a limitation of systematic thinking. You cannot solve it by its methods. The furthest you can reach is to methodically forgo categorisation and formal analysis, rather like how closing many open draws in a room creates the illusion of making space. Once the space is created you are at least mentally open and receptive to the new.

Many of us make the mistake of trying to solve our problems on the same plane that created them. The spiritual “method” is to relax the mind and draw it out from its pigeon holes so that new dimensions can come to light.

You can solve a problem with crude or refined methods. For example, you can solve self-esteem by dropping self-consciousness, or you can rebalance and re-frame your perspective. The drawback of crude methods is they tend to create irreversible results, whereas refined methods are flexible and adaptive.