- Home
- Materials
- Methodological Foundations of the Series
- Introduction to the Series
- Living Systems
- Structural Dynamics of the Evolution
- Animal Magnetism
- Territories and Landscapes
- Cultural Systems
- Shamanic Practices of North America
- Religious Systems
- SSIFS: Hybrid Information-Field Systems
- Digital Environments
- Economic Systems
- Spatiotemporal Logic of Structural Systems
- Conclusion of the Article Series
- Learning
- Blog
- About us
- Contacts
- English
Core Distinctions
- Space ≠ objects
- Space ≠ background of events
- State of space ≠ interpretation of state
- Information-field imprint ≠ object
- Information-field imprint ≠ subject
- Imprint ≠ its realization
- Active state ≠ archival state
- Archival state ≠ disappearance
- Information-field imprint ≠ information-field contour
- Contour ≠ sum of imprints
- Contour ≠ process control
- Non-subjectivity ≠ absence of influence
- Non-subjectivity ≠ chaos
- System dynamics ≠ intentions of participants
- System behavior ≠ goal
- Ontology of the system ≠ epistemology of the operator
- Operator ≠ selected element of the system
- Operator ≠ source of structure
- Distinction ≠ interpretation Interpretation ≠ explanation
- Calibration ≠ correctness of the model
- Calibration ≠ finalized state
- Intervention ≠ control
- Effectiveness ≠ intensity of intervention
- Node of connection ≠ point of force
- Node of connection ≠ cause of change
- Virtual testing ≠ prediction
- Virtual replica ≠ system structure
- Instability ≠ system failure
- Window of instability ≠ arbitrariness of change
- Interpretive error ≠ structural distortion
- Illusion of control ≠ control
Admissible Object of Analysis
Considered
- States of space formed by processes
- Information-field imprints in active and archival states
- Structural configurations persisting over time
- Dynamic contours not reducible to individual events
- Non-subjective systems with stable functional roles
- Conditions of emergence of unstable regimes
- Windows of instability as expansion of variability
- Nodes of connection identified through interaction outcomes
- Limits and constraints of intervention
- The operator’s role as a means of distinction, not a source of change
Not Considered
- Intentions, goals, and motivations as causes of system dynamics
- A controlling subject as a decision-making center of the system
- Psychological states as explanations of structural effects
- Metaphysical entities or hidden agents
- Moral evaluations of processes or states
- Linear causality in complex systems
- Prediction of the future as the aim of analysis
- Control and management as accessible modes of action
- Universal application recipes
- Ontologization of the operator’s interpretations
Interpretive Errors
- Substitution of the level of analysis
- Reduction of structures to subjects
- Searching for intentions where configurations operate
- Reading the approach as a metaphor
- Ontologization of the descriptive language
- Conflation of distinction and explanation
- Interpreting stability as control
- Illusion of control due to reproducible effects
- Reading instability as system failure
- Expectation of linear causality
- Attempting application without calibration
- Expansion of the admissible object of analysis
- Reducing the approach to psychology or philosophy
- Interpreting limits as weakness of the model
- Substituting limits of intervention with refusal of analysis
Limits and Failure Points of the Approach
- The approach fails if a controlling subject is assumed.
- Results lose meaning when analysis is replaced by explanation.
- The approach breaks down when ontological and epistemological levels are conflated.
- Application is impossible without distinguishing active and archival states.
- The approach is not applicable under assumptions of linear causality.
- Results become unstable when operator calibration is lost.
- The approach collapses when used for control or management.
- Application becomes invalid when scales and levels of dynamics are ignored.
- The approach does not tolerate ontologization of metaphors or descriptive models.
- The approach fails when limits of intervention are not acknowledged.