Order Out of Chaos

The human species reflects order out of chaos. The body mirrors this agreement more so than the mind. In all directions surrounding the small rocky planet we inhabit, the clockwork of the universe is at war. Small debris everywhere are traveling paths of inertia until collision mates them with larger material bodies. After thousands, or possibly millions, of cosmic conglomerate collisions, planetesimals both grow and shatter at the same rate of probability. Those surviving continue to build mass up to the point that the gravity of a nearby star pulls at and positions them into a spiraling structure. Expanding in/at certain points, and devouring itself at other points. From a finite and demanding point of view, we might fathom that it is all part of an elegant scheme. Mankind is now lifting up chaos driven rocks in hope that an underlying grand purpose resides there. Yet, none is seen without persisting in fabrications. Measured by humanity’s cumulative five senses, the scope of experience breeds questions with every problem it resolves. In all honesty, the scope of human limitation is unknown, unless we foolishly posture ourselves as the measure of all things.

As with the business of space – From an angle we can see both the edges of our understanding expanding into incomprehensibility, and being crunched into meaninglessness at fine intersections meeting with our deduction. The chaos of our dealings is similarly apparent. Like the cosmos, we are at war. Colliding, crashing, coming together and falling apart. And…as the universe, forces from within the human condition attempt to order the chaos. Every cultural language contains a conclusive number of terms and values. Each word carries a fragmented meaning with it. Depending on the context in which each value is used, the meaning varies to a degree. Furthermore, the individual interprets each word through unique association(s). These associations factor in emotional values imposed by the subject upon the word’s discovery. Ultimately, language plays a center role in cognition and communication. Through social interaction, people share thoughts, feelings, ideas, and develop a limited understanding of the world around them.

Information travels through a neural transitory system psychologists refer to as cognition. The process of cognition involves the defining moment (or, millisecond) of the information. The data is then converted in preparation for cerebral optimization, and filed away in categorized pockets of memory. The primary uptake of sensory data is seldom used. Useful, or necessary, information, such as linguistic terminology, is retrieved from the files of memory frequently for utilization. Cognition is a multifunctional process and carries out a number of different tasks. Depending on the task, cognition carries out dissimilar functions that tap separate neural patterns. Cognitive processes include imagery, decision, conceptual, deductive, and reasoning functions. Thinking is a widely used term, but most people’s understanding is not synonymous with the actual cognitive pattern of thought. Thought process exceeds basic cognitive function, as it forges synergies between two or more functions to achieve its aim – namely, concepts and imagery.

Applying concept to imagery formulates an inductive thought. Often, thoughts drift through the conscious mind with open reign. That is, until a problem draws in focus. Problem solving/deduction and reasoning are central components of the decision making function/process. At birth, instinctual needs operate the body without thought, nor the need for it. As the brain develops, familiarity with the outside world expands and the intensity of interaction increases. Socialization is a natural feature of the human environment. Infants gaze up in wonder at giant faces and are comforted by an instinctual recognition of symmetry. Soon, they’ll be running in packs around the school yard or funneled into churches. It’s difficult being a child. Instruction is presented in a perpetual continuum by physical presentation of the surrounding environment and the solicitors of socialization. Everything becomes as big or small as our capabilities permit. Every attempt at building an absolute framework for the fabric of our cumulative reality is a cry to calm the chaos.



Filed under anthropology, cultural relativism, humanism, non fiction, Philosophy, psychology, Social Evolution, sociology, thinking

15 responses to “Order Out of Chaos

  1. a] Knowledge and human power are synonymous. Francis Bacon

    b] The Great End of life is not Knowledge but Action. Francis Bacon

    c] Science is the knowledge of consequences, and dependence of one fact upon another. Thomas Hobbes

    d] No man’s knowledge here can go beyond his experience. John Locke

    e] The only fence against the world is a thorough knowledge of it. John Locke

    f] Man is the helper and interpreter of nature. He can only act and understand in so far as by working upon her or observing her he has come to perceive her order. Beyond this he has neither knowledge nor power. For there is no strength that can break the causal chain: Nature cannot be conquered but by obeying her. Accordingly those twin goals, human science and human power, come in the end to one. To be ignorant of causes is to be frustrated in action. Francis Bacon.

  2. Kelly

    //Applying concept to imagery formulates an inductive thought. Often, thoughts drift through the conscious mind with open reign. That is, until a problem draws in focus. Problem solving/deduction and reasoning are central components of the decision making function/process.//

    “that is, until a problem draws a focus” is particularly poignant in that the “individual” will likely not be fully conscious of the problem until this happens. In other words, the problem may exist but the subject is not fully conscious of it yet.

    • ““that is, until a problem draws a focus” is particularly poignant in that the “individual” will likely not be fully conscious of the problem until this happens. In other words, the problem may exist but the subject is not fully conscious of it yet.””

      Yes and no (imo).

      Yes – The problem may be universal – and, in that case, it did exist previously.

      No – The problem may be contingent.

      Gray area – The problem may be conspecific – pertaining to the human condition.


      Not correcting you, just expanding.


      • Kelly

        Are you suggesting that the conscious mind is always aware when their is a problem, universally or otherwise? (contingent – not sure what you mean by that) I would say no, but like you said, I may be overlapping epistemology and psychology. I believe that they exist together, not separate. Most rationalizing reconstructions tend to oversimplify what is an exceptionally complex story.

        • con·tin·gent

          Logic . (of a proposition) neither logically necessary nor logically impossible, so that its truth or falsity can be established only by sensory observation.


          //Are you suggesting that the conscious mind is always aware when their is a problem, universally or otherwise?//

          Negative. My apologies for being so brief.

          My initial statement:

          “that is, until a problem draws a focus”

          This leads on conscious awareness. Nothing else. That is, when a problem is perceived by the subject. The problem may be an issue like hunger (“universal” – something that all people experience). This would place the problem in existence before the subject in time.

          The problem may also be unique to the individual. Thus, establishing a dependent relationship (contingent) with the subject and the problem.

          You were inquiring about about where the potential problem(s) existed in time, correct?

          I would not place so much emphasis on where epistemology ends and psychology begins. Rather, focus on how the two relate.

          Think on it – epistemology is the study of cognition, essentially. This is why I am explaining cognitive principles. I have to appeal to psychology a bit because it provides an excellent working example.

          Hope this helps…

          • A problem, say in relationships, may exist in the eyes of, say, an individual’s perception of another.

            Does this constitute a real problem or a virtual one?

            This is where psychology can be both good and bad.
            With the Journals filling to the brim with MLA’s (Multi Letter Acronyms) of fancy terms, there seems to be an epidemic of “conditions” and “classifications” at a person’s disposal to be used to label someone else only because of a disagreement.

            This gives rise to seeding uncertainty in others and can lead to a questioning of whether they are consciously aware of their own problems, and eventually either lead them to a counselor or to heavy drinking!!! ;)

            I’m of the opinion that in such cases we overthink way too much.

            • I agree with you, there, Robert. I think psychology has both useful and useless applications.

              The reason I’m touching on it here is because I want to graze over the process of cognition.

              I think it’s important to realize that we all process information differently. Beyond that, our brain does legwork we’re not even aware of. Association is an important note, imo. A certain word, object, or place may rattle emotional behavior due to our association with it – whereas, others feel nothing in comparison.

              For example, what if two people were discussing the role of a father figure? One of the subjects had bad experiences with their dad. The other saw his/her father as a gentle, kind and caring man. One may argue that the family unit does not need a male role model, and suggests that the figure is even harmful to the relationship. Whereas, the other, argues that the father figure plays an integral role.

              //A problem, say in relationships, may exist in the eyes of, say, an individual’s perception of another.

              Does this constitute a real problem or a virtual one?//

              I’d say the problem affects communication wherever it takes place.

  3. Love the F. Bacon quotes; and I’m reminded again of the timeless novel, “The Name Of The Rose,” where the hero’s hero is. . . .Francis Bacon.

  4. Amen! The discussion of language, particularly how clumsy language can be is a most important topic to be investigated.

    The human design cries out for communication. Case in point, Helen Keller. Having severe limitations on her senses, yet someone with loving kindness and problem solving capabilities was not only able to communicate the physical world around her but also the conceptual world within her.

    BTW, I enjoy your writing style, lead in’s, and gentle summaries. My closest friend, Mark Sutton, and Mark J.A. top the list with you on good grammar and quality writing! :)


    • Thank you for the critique, Robert. :)

      There is so much out there I need to learn. I was humbled today by an extremely brilliant and educated personal friend.

      lol…It’s always good to have your ego checked.


  5. Charlie Z

    This topic has sparked many of my interest.

    Check this out this information I found on “Timothy Leary” he explains in his philosophy on “Chaos”.


    Chaos Engineering
    The first Chaos engineers may have been the Hindu sages who designed a method for operating the brain, called yoga. The Buddhists produced one of the great hands-on do-it-yourself manuals for operating the brain: The Tibetan Book of the Dying. Chinese Taoists developed the teaching of going with the flow; not clinging to idea-structures, but changing and evolving.

    The message was: Be cool. Don’t panic. Chaos is good. Chaos creates infinite possibilities.

    The wacko Socratic idea of Do It Yourself (D.I.Y.), which created modern democracy, was a practical, common sense, sassy Athenian version of the Hindu-Buddhist-Taoist yogas. And remember where this foolishness got India, Tibet, and China ? Know Where!

    The most dangerous idea is this crazed, megalomaniac notion of KNOW !

    which defines the serf-human being as a thinker. Outrageous impudence ! The slave is encouraged to become a philosopher. The serf strives to be a psychologist. A potential yogic sage!

    This heresy predicts why later atheist evolutionists like Linnaeus and Darwin defined our superchimp species as Femina (Homo) Sapiens Sapiens.

    The Chaos Without
    For centuries there existed a fanatic taboo against scientific understanding. Why ? Because of the fear of Chaos. The facts about our (apparently) insignificant place in the galactic dance are so insulting to the control freaks who try (so manfully and diligently and seriously) to manage Chaos that they forbade any intelligent attempts to look out there and dig the glorious complexity.

    At one point consciousness-altering devices like the microscope and telescope were criminalized for exactly the same reasons that psychedelic plants were banned in later years. They allow us to peer into bits and zones of Chaos.

    Galileo got busted and Bruno was burned at the stake for showing that the Sun did not circle the Earth. Religious and political Chaos-phobes naturally want the nice, tidy, comfy universe to cuddle around them.

    In the last century science has developed technical extensions of the human sensorium that specify the truly spooky nature of the complexities we inhabit.

    Stellar astronomy describes a universe of fantastic multiplicity: a hundred billion tiny star systems in our tiny galaxy, a hundred billion galaxies in our teeny universe.

    The Chaos Within
    In the last decades of the twentieth century, scientists began to study the complexity within the human brain.

    Talk about Chaos ! It turns out that the brain is a galactic network of a hundred billion neurons. Each neuron is an information system as complex as a mainframe computer. Each neuron is connected to ten thousand other neurons. Each of us is equipped with a universe of neurocomplexity that is inscrutable to our alphanumeric minds.

    This brain power is at once the most humiliating fact about our current ignorance, and the most thrilling prospect of our potential divinity; once we start learning how to operate our brains.

    by: Timothy Lear


    Chaos? Is it the big-jump of disorder? or the big bounce of chaos?

    Excellent grammar! and great writing.

    ~Charlie Z

    • Thanks Charlie! I have always liked Leary for his wild experimentation and his “Chaos” piece.

      It’s not the best writing, but hits on wild concepts concerning human behavior. Haven’t read this is awhile, but never realized how poor the writing was. He may have been on LSD. lol

      I sought to implement chaos in this piece while I was writing it, actually. I see the universe as born from, and cycling in – patterns of chaos. Then , I wanted to show the mind and social reality as being a product of it. I wanted to do it creatively, though.

      Thanks for the read!

      I need to hit you up.


  6. Very, very nice, and the conversation is a gem. Catalyst.

    • Thank you. The conversation is an integral aspect of my writing(s). I aim to discuss issues that are not only prevalent throughout modern history, but find relevance in modern times.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s