Skip to content

Inviting systemic self-organization: Competencies for complexity regulation from a post-cognitivist perspective

Michael Kimmel

Journal of Dynamic Decision Making January 6, 2024 DOI: 10.11588/jddm.2023.1.93037 (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed
Keywords System regulation Complexity theory Agency "4e" cognition Embodied interactivity
Key points Argues that regulating multi-causal, non-linear systems requires a framework grounded in dynamic systems theory and 4E cognition, where regulators impose constraints to enable self-organizing dynamics rather than exerting direct control.

Abstract

This contribution discusses competencies needed for regulating systems with properties of multi-causality and non-linear dynamics (therapeutic, economical, organizational, socio-political, technical, ecological, etc.). Various research communities have contributed insights, but none has come forward with an inclusive framework. To advance the debate, I propose to draw from dynamic systems theory (DST) and “4E” (embodied, embedded, enactive, and extended), cognition approaches, which offer a set of perspectives to understand what expert regulators in real-life settings do. They define the regulator's agency as skillfully imposing constraints on a target system and hereby creating context-sensitive openings for self-organizing dynamics, rather than “controlling” the system. Adept regulators apply multi-pronged and multi-timescale constraints to achieve nuanced effects. Among other things, their skill set includes scarcely noted enactive processual competencies for “emergence management”, which the intellectualistic and insufficiently ecologically situated accounts of the complex problem solving literature omit. To capture the nature of system regulation, I advocate treating regulation dynamics and target system dynamics “symmetrically” by grounding regulator competencies in concepts from complexity theory.