Why do we divide our world into contraries? Why do we perceive and interpret so many of life's contraries as mutually exclusive, either/or dichotomies such as individual~collective, self~other, body~mind, nature~nurture, cooperation~competition? Throughout history, many have recognized that truth may well lie in between such polar opposites. In The Complementary Nature, Scott Kelso and David Engstrøm contend that ubiquitous contraries are complementary and propose a comprehensive, empirically based scientific theory of how the polarized world and the world in between can be reconciled. They nominate the tilde, or squiggle (~), as the symbolic punctuation for reconciled complementary pairs.Experiments show that the human brain is capable of displaying two apparently contradictory, mutually exclusive behaviors at the same time. Coordination dynamics -- a mathematically expressed theory that reconciles the scientific language of "states" with the novel dynamical language of "tendencies" -- attests to the complementary nature inherent in human brains and behavior. It may explain, Kelso and Engstrøm argue, why we (and nature) appear to partition things, events, and ideas into pairs. Kelso and Engstrøm's account is not just metaphorical; the reconciliations they describe are grounded in the principles and mathematical language of the theory of coordination dynamics. The Complementary Nature provides a clear-cut methodology for this evolving theory of brain and behavior that can also be applied to areas and developments outside the neurosciences, hence aiding reconciliations within and between disparate fields.
| |||||||||||||||
Book Description
Editorial Reviews
Review
"The Complementary Nature is a genuinely fascinating, provocative, and unique book. It rises to the challenge of describing how either/or thinking obscures the in-between dynamic realities that constitute life itself and in turn how these realities rest on complementary rather than oppositional pairs. In the process, it breaks new ground and opens fresh terrain for future research by illuminating ways in which the science of coordination dynamics from the study of brains to the study of behavior offers new paths for understanding the nature of human nature." Maxine Sheets-Johnstone, author of The Primacy of Movement
"*The Complementary Nature* is a genuinely fascinating, provocative, and unique book. It rises to the challenge of describing how either/or thinking obscures the in-between dynamic realities that constitute life itself and in turn how these realities rest on complementary rather than oppositional pairs. In the process, it breaks new ground and opens fresh terrain for future research by illuminating ways in which the science of coordination dynamics -- from the study of brains to the study of behavior -- offers new paths for understanding the nature of human nature."--Maxine Sheets-Johnstone, author of *The Primacy of Movement*
About the Author
David A. Engstrøm holds a Ph.D. in Neuropharmacology from the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. Since 1991, he has worked with Scott Kelso to develop a conceptual link between coordination dynamics and complementary pairs.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
16 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Long-winded Compliment,
By
This review is from: The Complementary Nature (Bradford Books) (Hardcover)
This is a potentially momentous book. That being said, it is far from
a synthesis. It seems more like a long-winded manifesto with nice headshots of famous people. Nevertheless, the core idea is clear; namely that mentally-represented physical phenomena come in "complementary pairs", and that they form an interstitial and heterogeneous continuum between them. There is even a pairings glossary at the end of the book; each set of concepts is modified by a tilde (~) which denotes the link between two discrete states represented by linguistic titles. The universal tilde designation is my major objection to this approach. The pairs actually seem to come in one of three flavors: binary oppositions, causal pairs, and hierarchical nestings. Yet pairs of all categories are annontated in much the same way. Think of the tilde as a mathematical operator, which I'm sure was the authors ultimate intent given their tone. Following this logic, if pairs come in qualitatively different types, then the authors should have used different operators for each type. It would make the entire enterprise much more straightforward, especially when mapping pairs to a phase space as occurs later in the book. Binary oppositions (linear~nonlinear) are by far the most straightforward. People tend to be most comfortable with and can most intuitively analyze the outcome of these pairings. Consider the physical and mental aspects of hot~cold. Conditions in a physical system range from hot to cold; indeed, not only is there a linguistic dichotomy, but a physical one as well. Because the mapping between the two is relatively seamless, we can easily quantify "hot" vs. "cold" using both a dichotomous representation coupled to quantitative instruments. It is the pairings that do not fall cleanly into this category that cause potential confusion. For example, causal pairs (reaction~anticipation) and hierarchical nestings (individual~society) might be considered differentiated states in a superficial sense, but treated as such may not map to a phase space well. One interesting idea is that of functional information. One example from brain science is the specificity of COMT expression in prefrontal cortex. The initiation of gene expression at certain points in life history relies on the correct environmental conditions; interactions with surrounding proteins lead to specific types of emergent structures and specific phenotypes. No surprise there; such approaches to information are increasingly commonplace. The potential food for thought offered here is that this is part of an emergent process. Systems use functional information to build complexity; information everywhere does no good, but when coordinated by concurrent processes it is most powerful. Their treatment of emergence (micro~macro) is one of the best I've seen, and is at once mathematically rigorous and intuitive. They treat "individual" and "collective" as a metastable system (two local minima on opposite sides of a metastable "saddle point"). The system is driven by the values of a few key parameters; these parameters represent the reciprocal forces of downward and upward causation. Instability in these parameters drives the system towards a phase transition; more intuitively, the system climbs out of one stable state to a metastable plateau. At this point, it is free to return to its original state, remain unstable, or change to a new state. Dealing with the effects of causality on the initiation of phase transitions front and center makes for a much cleaner model than many of the other approaches out there. More formal complex systems models becomes the thrust of this book's second part. Readers not familiar with Kelso's 1995 book "Dynamic Patterns" would do well to go there for a formal mathematical treatment. Once you understand the underlying concepts of coordination dynamics, go back and read "The Complementary Nature" again. Fresh eyes will provide you with a new perspective on the pairings. For example, pairings might be viewed as the boundary conditions of an n-dimensional phase space, or as discrete states in a multistable system. In any event, it is the space between the discrete states that are of interest to the authors. The take home message seems to be that this space is complex, unstable, and potentially fertile ground for the gray areas that humanities, brain science, and complexity scholars alike must understand.
14 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Conceptual confusion.,
By
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Complementary Nature (Bradford Books) (Paperback)
I approached this book hoping to find an account of how the mathematics of non-linear equations could be applied to patterns found in real life. A fragmented account is indeed present, but it takes up only a few dozen pages. The rest of this book is a repetitive and poorly argued foray into something akin to metaphysics. I would strongly suggest that a curious reader think twice before devoting the time necessary to unravel the authors' prose.
The presentation is not just repetitive, it is also poorly structured. The arguments themselves are unconvincing. I will try and present their main points, with some criticisms. Mostly the criticisms focus on the vagueness of the authors' novel terminology, and on the unacknowledged presumptions inherent in their discussion. The authors repeatedly assert that humans conceptualize the world in terms of contraries. It is unclear whether they think this is the only way we structure the world, or the predominant way, or just one way amongst many others. After listing many alleged contraries, some of which seem less than obviously contrary, they slip into calling pairs of concepts `complementary'. Again it is unclear whether complementary is entirely synonymous with contrary, or only partly related, or an entirely unrelated term. Their citing of Niels Bohr' use of the term does not clarify their own, far more extended, use. In any case the notion of a `complementary pair' becomes central to their discussion. They fail to provide any criteria for including or excluding a pair of words or concepts under their rubric of `complementary'. Instead, they provide examples, culminating in a long list of such pairs. As noted in another review, the complementary relationship is signified by a tilde (~), implying that it marks a single kind of relationship. Yet the pairs listed are related in numerous, quite distinct, ways. Aside from plausible contraries, there are pairs related by similarity, by mere association, by one being subsumed in the other (through scale or function), by grammar, and yet other ways (there are literally hundreds of disparate examples, such as - `size~position', `prerogative~rank', `hero~quest', `affect~mood'). They do not stipulate that some pairs of words would be impermissible, but presumably this is the case. For example, `hearing ~ speech' is listed, but `hearing ~ artichoke' is not: if the latter is impermissible, as one would hope, some account of why it is barred would be illuminating. If it is in fact permissible, then one wonders what is the function of concept `complementary'. The authors claim that it is a pervasive habit of human thought to regard the terms in a contrary (or complementary) pair as mutually exclusive; so we take the elements of the world to be one or the other of the paired terms, but not both simultaneously. It is unclear whether this claim is based on empirical observation, or on some implicit a priori analysis of the concept of `contrary' or `complementary pair'. They claim that their approach is novel in that it focuses on the `in-between' space betwixt the opposed terms. Unfortunately, their examples belie all these claims. When the list features `love~hate', and `good~bad', already the reader is thinking that the co-existence of opposites is hardly a novel notion; when the list spills into juxtaposed terms that are less plausibly contrary, such as `lawyer~client', and `philosophy~science', then co-existence is either unsurprising or, indeed, expected. As mentioned previously, the definition of their new terminology is vague to the point of being inherently confused and confusing, and, if given a charitable definition, then it maps claims which are either false or uninteresting. They claim to be adopting a position beyond the conjunction of "either/or" and "and/both" thinking. I'm afraid that asserting this, without conceptual elaboration, did not give me any grasp on what they were in fact postulating. Why have the authors taken this general approach? It is tempting to speculate that their mathematics, or at least the way they wish to conceive of it, fits best with the interaction between two functions - possibly modified by a third function modelling extraneous factors. Hence the need for two poles, or contraries, and the logical space 'in between'. Frankly, this is just speculation on my part, and I really can't make out why the framework they have posited is vital to their enterprise. The authors make passing reference to laws, to `science', to Darwinian evolutionary theory, and to quantum mechanics, yet they do not follow through with any of their arguments, and at times appear to have an incompetent understanding of the conceptual complexities attending the cited terms. To take one example, they seem to imply that for knowledge to be `scientific' it must be based on a conjunction of mathematical theory and practical application - applied mathematics, if you will; this thesis, plausible though it might be, is contentious, yet the authors do not seem to be aware that alternative theses exist, or even to be aware that they have advanced a thesis per se; another example sees them mention `laws', but give no account whatsoever as to what constitutes a `law' in science or in general; re quantum mechanics, they choose one slant on the Copenhagen Interpretation and their presentation might blind the reader that an involved debate, with many positions, exists on this issue. The core of their pragmatic work seems to rest on `Coordination Dynamics'. This appears to be the mathematical modelling of the interaction of changeable systems. Applying the mathematics to real life is, as they point out, difficult. Choosing what aspects of reality to single out for attention is fraught. How one divides reality into `systems', or `levels', is likewise opaque. They do not explain how one might go about doing so. They give no practical advice, but only note the obvious difficulty of the whole endeavour. At best, one might make the assumption that their `complementary pairs' are candidates for modelling; however, how one relates `love', or `acquaintance', or `dumb', to a mathematical equation is left unaddressed. Indeed, having read their entire book I have no idea how their mathematics elucidates anything. And this is a shame, as I'm sure examples, comprehensible to the lay reader, do exist. Much of the book reads as a counter to a view of the world derivable from certain strands of established metaphysics. It is a view that sees the world as a machine; the paradigm vantage from which to view the world is from outside of it, that is from outside of space and time; from here, all of reality is laid out in four dimensions, the three spatial and time, which is regarded for practical purposes as a fourth spatial dimension; the world is entirely deterministic, and can be described, or even thought of as constituted by, linear equations. For an account of the history of such ideas I would recommend the work of Milic Capek, and that of Emile Meyerson. I doubt that Kelso and Engstrom could articulate exactly what view they object to, but my guess is something along the lines given above. It might even be the case that prior to their immersion in their chosen field they too held a similar view, and now they are arguing against it. Be this as it may, they want their mathematics to be seen as legitimate, as mapping reality, and so reality must be open to choice, the future not fixed, and non-linear equations equally capable of providing explanatory force as linear equations. Another invisible opponent is the deist, or someone who assumes that order necessarily implies a creator of order. They counter this position with their postulate of `self-organizing coordination', the most sustained discussion of this occurring under this heading on page 92. Here the main idea is that a deus ex machina is not necessary for things to exhibit order. This is a negative definition of the term self-organizing, in that we are told what it's not. A positive definition is omitted. We do not know if `self-organizing' means the components of the system have features which generate order, or whether they do so only in certain `conditions', conditions strictly not part of the `system' per se; the crucial difference here is that we do not know whether the system can be studied without reference to externalities, or whether externalities must also be studied - if the latter, in what sense is the system self-organizing? It might not be a deus but something ex machina is contributing to the establishment of order. They offer the example of an orchestra successfully performing without a conductor, but this fails to illustrate anything: even the intended premiss that the orchestra is without a conductor is dubious, as in rehearsal such orchestras effectively have one, often the first violinist (who is termed the leader of the orchestra), and the lack of a visible `time-keeper' during performance is trivial, this duty falling again to the leader. What is more, it is a vexed example to generalize, since the `components' are all conscious, that is they are human beings, and any `organization' is effected quite consciously by each and every one of the `components' - this is quite unlike cases where the components are inanimate and unconscious, and that is to say the vast majority of cases that are to be studied. As a further taste of the problems with their presentation, on page 104 they title a subsection ambitiously, "Origins of Agency". First off they reference the Santa Fe Institute approach to agency, which limits the conception of agency to: "all an agent does is alter its output based on its input". The authors do not explicitly say whether they endorse this definition; if... Read more ›
6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Complementary Nature,
This review is from: The Complementary Nature (Bradford Books) (Paperback)
The Complementary Nature (TCN) was written by individuals obviously deeply committed to grounding a philosophy of complementary pairs,(an ancient subject), in the newer science of coordination dynamics. This is a fascinating and exciting prospect, considering one of the physicist Niels Bohr's fondest wishes was to pursue this very subject. (Unfortunately he was unable to attain this goal in his lifetime.) The wish is immortalized in his credo, "contraria sunt complementa" or "contraries are complementary."
Could coordination dynamics be the key to Bohr's grail? Possibly-time will tell as the research covered in TCN progresses. At the very least, TCN chronicles an actual pursuit of a scientifically grounded general complementarity. And shedding any light on this subject has potentially deep implications, indeed. But why would achieving such a grail be important? What is to be gained by it? To quote the neuroscientist and roboticist Olaf Sporns, "The division of our world (natural and social) into distinct contraries or opposites has become almost universal practice in most fields of human endeavor and inquiry, including science. Undeniably, imposing such divisions on space and time, wave and particle, order and chaos, action and perception, or organism and environment have enabled significant progress in our scientific understanding of these separate domains. However, understanding based on separation or contraries is fundamentally limited, as is powerfully demonstrated by modern physics, biology and neuroscience. Kelso and Engstrøm's book offers an alternative, synthetic view based on the principle of complementarity, the reconciliation of contraries as jointly necessary and mutually reinforcing aspects of reality. This volume not only presents a comprehensive history of the idea of complementarity, it also puts forth a theoretical framework, called coordination dynamics, within which complementarity is rooted. The originator of this framework and lead author of the book, Scott Kelso, is a world-renowned neuroscientist whose unique perspective on brain dynamics pervades much of the text. The dualist stance, epitomized in the writings of Descartes and his followers, has had a dominant influence on our modern conception of brain and mind as separate entities. Within neuroscience, the dualistic counterposition of the concepts of localized function versus global processing, of segregation versus integration, continues to create major obstacles to theoretical progress in the discipline. Coordination dynamics offers a way out of this crippling dilemma. Coordination abounds in the living world, as seen in the emergence of morphology from genetic instructions, movement from the action of joints and muscles, and cognition from nerve cells. Coordination dynamics describes how coordinated patterns form and transform within and between parts of a given system. Core concepts, developed at length in the book, include self-organization, pattern dynamics, multifunctionality and functional equivalence, and information flow. The theory developed in this volume may well have far-reaching consequences, not only in paving the way to a more complete understanding of brain and mind, but in bridging and effectively erasing artificial conceptual boundaries that have hampered progress in many other fields of science. The accessible and thought-provoking style of the book will appeal to a broad range of readers from various fields. The impact of this volume will be felt for years to come."[1] Even we find even more detailed insights about TCN in the following excerpts of an extensive review of TCN by Arthur Fabel, which can be found on thecomplemetnarynature.com website. Fabel, an engineer, author and editor himself, takes his research into the nonlinear sciences very seriously. His natural genesis website reminds one of the almost otherworldly attention to detail found in the life works of Thomas Aquinas. Here we see deeper into the issues within TCN: "...Theoretical inklings of an innate nature from which life, mind and persons arise and exemplify began a few decades ago. In the 1960's general systems theory sought the elusive goal of a common pattern and process. In the 1970's and 1980's Ilya Prigogine and colleagues articulated a non-equilibrium thermodynamics of living systems, Hermann Haken, with whom one of the authors (Kelso) has collaborated extensively, conceived the field of synergetics about a self-organized coherence, among others were Benoit Mandelbrot (fractal geometry), Francisco Varela (autopoiesis), Stuart Kauffman (autocatalysis), John Hopfield (neural networks), and Murray Gell-Mann (complex adaptive systems). (Google will define these arcane terms for you.) In the mid 1980's, as science fields do, a stage of detailed studies commenced, orbiting about the Santa Fe Institute and other centers such as the authors. For the next decade or so, more features of life's consistent impetus such as modularity, symbiosis, local interactions between independent agents, criticality, information sharing, scale-free networks, algorithms, were identified. As these achievements converge and reinforce, a further phase is implied to at last glimpse a "universal" dynamic system. It is in this regard that TCN can presage and facilitate such a breakthrough...[2] "Amongst these various features and terms, the authors are able to distill and identify a core propensity to form complements which are not in opposition but in active coordination. Before proceeding however, some examples from nature might help convey what scientists are trying to evoke and describe..."[2] "TCN is a unique, concerted effort to lay out its theoretical lineaments. This is accomplished by three sections or Movements - conceptual roots in the history of wisdom and ideas, the technical theory of coordination dynamics, and philosophy and science rejoined via an integral research program..."[2] Is TCN accessible? I thought so. Though I am not a scientist myself, I do have a general interest in what is happening in science today, to stay as informed as I can. Though you may be reading about this stuff for the first time, the science involved is now around 30 years old, and is currently and vibrant field of research, where new theory and experiments are being frequently published in today's scientific journals. As Fabel points out, "Be reassured the authors know this may be unfamiliar terrain and write in accessible prose. Many topics are prefaced by a portrait and a quotation. How the Brain~Mind Works, for example, is introduced by luminations from Virginia Woolf. And as one reads along, it is not hard to imagine our cerebral dance of complements, "no coupling, no coordination," as yin and yang spiraling together and apart and together."[2] and "TCN is a work in progress as the authors and colleagues proceed to sort, explain, and convey a bicameral spontaneity. Their distillation of Complementary Pairs, due to and enhancing Coordination Dynamics, as the salient quality of complex systems, promises to initiate a consummate phase with these features: Universality - a realization that the same pattern and process organizes itself everywhere in nature at each nested stage and instance. Complementarity - whose creativity is most distinguished by a dual pair of components not in opposition but in mutual reciprocity. An Archetypal Identity - whereby each member takes on a representative role of a discrete, autonomy or holistic interrelation - particle~wave - individual~collective - compete~cooperate - masculine~feminine. Translation - there is much need today for a common terminology since everyone is describing the same vitality. An array of disparate words are in use which tend to obscure their common narrative." [2] And could such keys found within TCN be useful to society? Again, Fabel's words are quite informative: "The Complementary Nature! Might western modernity be at last catching up to the heart of wisdom? Confucian scholar and ATA vice president Mary Evelyn Tucker often writes of a Chinese cosmos graced by a "relational resonance." Can our late task be its empirical verification and rediscovery with new theory, clarity and import? Such an insight would do much to qualify a cosmic and earthly genesis of which people are an intended phenomenon. I do not want to make too much of this, but it is incumbent to recognize when something of incisive value has been found. For in closing what kinder and gentler earth community, as Thomas Berry would advise, could a complementarity of civilizations inspire? The previous Perspective considered a bilateral accord not only of East and West but South and North, with Islam located corpus callosum-like in each case. The Natural Genesis website section on Sustainable Ecovillages finds this imperative future rooted in a balance of person~group~planet. And what will it take for an electoral polity of familial right~left, orthodox~reformed, mother~father, which could not be more obvious, to come into salutary being. The most desperate need, however, must be to correct and heal the long imbalance of male domination, excluding and denying the feminine, now spending itself in social oppression, militarism and engulfing conflagration. This may even be the reason that male science cannot see the forest for the trees. In all these regards, The Complementary Nature is a significant contribution." [2] I read The Complementary Nature, and feel that it describes important, current, groundbreaking work that may well be just the tip of an iceberg. Keep this book in mind the next time you see something in politics, medicine, science or any field where new understanding... Read more ›
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Inside This Book
(learn more)
Citations (learn more)
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Suggested Tags from Similar Products(What's this?)Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product).
|
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
