Table of Contents
ADVANCING THE FRONTIERS OF SYSTEMS DYNAMICS
THROUGH HIGHER ORDERS OF PARADOX
Sadruddin Boga, Ph.D.
Professor of Graduate Management Program,
The Center for Creative Change,
Antioch University Seattle.
Postal Address: Sadruddin Boga Ph.D.
Antioch University Seattle
2326 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington
98121-1814. USA
Phone: (206) 268 4711
E-mail: sboga@ antiochsea.edu
or skboga@ aol.com
“All persons are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied
to asingle garment of destiny.”
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Abstract
In systems dynamics, certain archetypes, such as fixes that fail and shifting the burden, contain a
combination of balancing and reinforcing loops that exacerbates the original cause. Such a
paradox represents a shift from a mechanistic paradigm inherent in a balancing loop to a more
holistic paradigm. However, there is a second order paradox that is generally neglected in the
analysis of systems dynamics. It is characterized by mutual causality of elements, as observed in
new science, chaos theory and mystical traditions. Furthermore, there is a third order paradox
that belongs to the spiritual domain. As we advance from the first to the third order paradox, the
causal relationships between the opposites become subtler, until the duality disappears. This
paper presents a method of unveiling creative solutions—ranging from the material to the
spiritual—of puzzles in complex living systems through the exploration of first, second and third
order paradoxes.
Key words: Systems Dynamics— Paradoxes— Metaphors— Chaos— Polarities-- Mutual
Causality— A utopoieses— Spirituality.
Introduction
From the dim ages of the past, humankind has repeatedly searched for a common thread
that links all creation. Whether it is in the field of science, metaphysics or mysticism, we
encounter perennial human endeavour to connect all elements of reality to a single unified core.
According to Aristotle, everything is guided by its nature, structure and intrinsic purpose
(entelechy). Despite his dualistic theory in which he separated mind from matter, Descartes
postulated that there is a homogeneous "substance" underlying all forms of matter, and another
underlying all forms of mind (Durant, 1963). An all-encompassing system theory is evident from
Laplace's machinus ex dei, von Bertalanffy's dream of a general systems theory, Einstein's hope
for a unified field theory, Lovelock's Gaia theory (Lovelock, 1979), and Sheldrake's
morphogenic field in formative causation. (Sheldrake, 1980). At a spiritual level, the mystics
have perpetually longed for a transcendent state in which all creation is seamlessly united in a
single Truth.
In this perennial search for a common thread that combines all reality through the ages,
our so-called objective perceptions of reality are unwittingly and unconsciously shaped by super-
ordinate philosophy of the time, which Kuhn (1970) called the paradigm. Bohm (1987) named it
the tacit infrastructure of knowledge. Pepper (1942) described it as the world hypothesis, and
Habermas termed it Lebenswelt— the life-world (Habermas, 1987). In a very broad context, we
view our reality through two meta-theoretical paradigms— the mechanistic and the holistic.
It is not an accident that paradigms are often symbolized by metaphors. Close
examination of the evolution of paradigms shows that the emergence of a new paradigm is often
spawned by a new metaphor that offers a creative link between hitherto unrelated elements. In
the seventeenth century, Isaac Newton viewed the Universe as clockwork with predictable
planetary movements in space and time. This view came to be popularly known as the machine
metaphor or the mechanistic paradigm. It is characterized by linear and sequential relationship of
cause-and-effect. The holistic paradigm, on the other hand, corresponds to organic metaphors
depicting complex, non-linear and self-organizing systems.
In our facile efforts to construct simple causal links among the diverse elements of our
reality, we more commonly resort to the machine metaphor than the organic and the humanistic
ones. This trend leads to over-simplification of our complex systems— to the point that it has
blinded us to the possibilities of uncovering holistic paradigms, and has impeded our discovery
of new frontiers. In the analytic exploration of our world, we fragment our reality into
increasingly smaller parts in order to study their properties at the micro level, and predict the
behavior of the whole at the macro level. We have rigidly and steadfastly adhered to this
reductionism, because it has served us well in the material development of our societies, as
exemplified by significant advances in our knowledge in microbiology, genetics, quantum
mechanics, and so on. However, in such studies, we have not only lost a sense of the whole, but
have also overlooked the purpose or the existential values of human life. Similarly, when we
study the universe at the macro level, we observe and predict the astral and galactic movements,
and analyze the chemical and physical composition of planets, stars and supernova, without
instilling in them any meaning, purpose or mythology.
However, it is significant that every event has the capacity to inspire a metaphor that can
offer diverse interpretations of reality and creative options. While a falling apple offered Isaac
Newton a metaphor for planetary movements, it gives a mystic a metaphor of a union between
the lover and the Beloved. What the scientist sees as gravity, the poet sees as love. Thus a
metaphor can stimulate myriad perceptions— ranging from the material to the spiritual— making
it a powerful tool in systems thinking.
In a stable state, human beings tend to be quite content sustaining and reinforcing the
dominant paradigm. This activity constitutes an organized system of order and structure with
which the masses collude. Stacey (1996) describes it as a legitimate system. Accompanying it,
there is a shadow system of disorder and chaos that can jump-start a new metaphor and a
paradigm with an inherent capacity to renew the legitimate system. Curiously, such a shift is
often facilitated by paradoxes, which challenge the prevailing metaphor. Poetry, scriptures,
literature, philosophy and various sciences have facilitated a paradigm shift through the magic of
paradox. Thus the intricate and chaotic relationship between legitimate and shadow systems,
followed by the interplay of metaphors and paradoxes, has played a fundamental role in the
history of human evolution. Given the power of the paradox to unveil new metaphors and
paradigms, this paper focuses on the exploration of various orders of paradox in systems
dynamics to bring about systemic changes and transformation.
Most of our current conventional problem-solving processes lie in the mechanistic
paradigm. A new metaphor can be triggered by a paradox that confronts the prevailing machine
metaphor, and consequently mobilizes a broader arena of systems dynamics. Moving from the
mechanistic to the holistic paradigm, our field of exploration in space and time expands until we
transcend the temporal framework and enter into an acausal field. This transition depicts a move
from a linear problem-solving mode to explorations of greater complexities that correspond to
higher orders of paradox.
This paper examines causal networks that start with a simple problem-solving mode of
the machine metaphor to correct or “balance” a given deficiency, but which inadvertently
generate a number of unintended consequences. Such dynamics lead to what is described in this
paper as the first order paradox in which the original cause of a problem is unexpectedly
exacerbated. Most problem-solving processes involve the interplay of interdependent opposites,
such as profits and loss, giving and taking, thirsting and quenching, etc. This paper demonstrates
how myriad scenarios can be systematically uncovered in a wide field of space and time through
permutation and combination of these opposing elements. The analysis of the first order paradox
is followed by the examination of the second and third order paradoxes, which unveil even a
wider field of space and time, and ultimately lift us to higher realms of human consciousness and
spiritual awareness.
Dynamics of Similarities and Differences
Paradoxes and metaphors create a fascinating interplay of similarities and differences in
various aspects of our world. Bohm and Peat (1987) believed that this interplay forms a crucial
ingredient in the creation of new ideas or theories superseding the old ones. They said:
Through creative play and fresh perception there is a constant movement of
similarities and differences, with each new theory differing in some subtle and
significant fashion from what came before. (p. 28)
In India, philosophical thoughts on similarities and differences date back to over two
millennia, when the Vedic school of thought known as Vaisheshika was exclusively devoted to
classification of all objects of our experience (padarthas) according to similarities and
differences (Radhakrishnan and Moore, 1957). It draws a distinction between objects of direct
perception and those of intellectual discrimination. The former have a real objective existence;
the latter discriminate between what connects similar objects and what separates different
objects, and seeks their combination or inherence. Similarities have known links; differences
have undiscovered links.
Metaphors and paradoxes embody the intricate dynamics of similarities and differences.
They can therefore be creative tools for exploring the undiscovered links. In metaphors, we
identify potential links or similarities between elements that are seemingly different. A metaphor
creates a relationship between unrelated elements, helping us to unveil possible links or
scenarios. Newton's observation of the falling apple led to his gravitational theory (Bohm and
Peat, 1987), which inadvertently launched a mechanistic paradigm that we have continued to use
as our lens to view and operate our world to this day. When we are rigidly anchored in a
metaphor, the force (or the absurdity) of the paradox can shift us to a different metaphor or
another worldview.
Metaphors and Paradoxes
Paradox enables us to uncover possible diversions from the conventional pattern of the
dominant metaphor. For example, Tao Te Ching teaches us: “Act without action.” (Wing, 1986)
Conventional logic of the machine metaphor would associate act with action and reaction. The
apparent absurdity in the paradox provokes us to transcend our dominant metaphor (the
legitimate system or the paradigm in which we reside), and explore wisdom in a wider
framework of space and time. It helps us to weave scenarios that have the potential for validating
the paradox.
While a metaphor identifies possible similarities between unlike elements— for example,
an organization and an anthill— paradox rationalizes thoughts that contradict conventional
thinking— for example: food donations can increase starvation. Hunger and food constitute the
two interdependent opposites involved in the paradox. In systems dynamics, such a paradox is
commonly encountered in various systems archetypes that facilitate reinforcement of the original
problem or cause. Metaphors point us to possibilities of undiscovered links, which when
discovered through the force of a paradox, can lift us to a higher level of systems awareness and
anew metaphor.
Clearly, the metaphors and the paradoxes involve the interplay of two interdependent
opposites such as hunger and food, thirst and water, profits and loss, etc. They could be viewed
from the Hegelian dialectics as thesis and antithesis. Taking man and slave as an example, let us
explore similarities and differences between them. As explained earlier, similarities identify the
links that can offer us metaphors; and differences can stimulate discovery of unknown links
through the influence of paradox. We acknowledge the difference between a man and a slave,
when we declare an understanding of their conventional roles: the master dominates the servant,
and the servant serves the master. The “slave serving the master” represents the balanced loop.
We acknowledge similarities, when we attest that a man and a slave are both human, with
physical, psychological and spiritual needs. It triggers possible metaphors such as the man was a
slave to his cravings, or the slave was a master of his destiny. Clearly, the man and the slave
each take on the metaphorical attribute of the other for dealing with ones individual
circumstance— master’s cravings and the slave’ s destiny.
For a transcendent synthesis, we can rise to even a higher level of metaphor through the
power of a paradox, in which the master acquires the actual attributes of the slave and the slave
of the master. One possible scenario would be that the master develops the servitude of the slave,
and the slave develops a personal mastery. It is worthwhile noting that in this example, the
extrinsic behaviors of the master and the slave transform to intrinsic qualities that can influence
their relationship in a positive way.
We could explore still a higher order of paradox by actually reversing partially or fully
the roles of the master and the slave to lift us to loftier metaphors. In other words we can say:
1. The master serves the servant, and the servant serves the master. This case depicts a mutual
service.
2. The master commands the servant and the servant commands the master. This case depicts a
mutual command.
3. Master serves the servant; and the servant commands the master. This depicts a total
reversal of roles.
Such paradoxes resonate with copious spiritual reflections we encounter in mysticism. A
deeper examination of their inherent wisdom could unveil many possible scenarios that would
make sense of them. The higher we rise in the paradoxical synthesis, the more evident become
the rudimentary human qualities, such as humility, charity and sincerity. It is apparent from the
above examples that if we can construct various permutation and combination of two
interdependent opposites, we can list a gamut of axioms that have corresponding spectra of
possible scenarios.
Paradox in Chaos
Our thoughts, by their very nature, fragment our reality into multiple categories. Each
thought, in turn, is divided into interdependent opposites—a thesis and an antithesis. Paradox
confronts and challenges our mental propensity for partitioning the world into dualities and
multiple conceptual systems, and provokes a more holistic view of our reality in space and time.
When faced with chaos, we find ourselves in an environment of what appears to be a random
confusion. Paradox entices us to explore the underlying interconnectedness. Conversely, every
time we are presented with a paradox, it produces a mental chaos, an environment necessary for
jump-starting creative insights and possibilities.
In Zen Buddhism, paradoxes known as koans consist of statements that appear at first
glance to be absurd, but are designed to provoke mental confusion. One such popular koan is:
“What is the sound of one hand clapping?” Briggs and Peat (1999) explain:
“Paradoxes and koans take us to the edge of logical, rational, ordered thought.
They cause our minds to run in loops and perform iterations of logic as we try to
find a way out of the problem. Y et there can be no resolution from within the
context in which they are framed. Koans tell us something is missing, something
is incomplete about our concept of reality. Y et the very fact we think up such
paradoxes in the first place means we are bigger than the conceptual systems we
create.” (p. 169)
Huston Smith (1994), equally succinctly, describes the effect and profundity of a koan
and a paradox.
“By forcing reason to wrestle with what (from the rational perspective) is absurd,
the koan rouses the mind to a state of agitation wherein it hurls itself against its
logical cage with the desperation of a cornered rat. By paradox and non sequitur it
provokes, excites, exasperates and eventually exhausts the rational mind until it
sees that thinking is never more than thinking about.” (p. 89).
There are unlimited possible meanings and interpretations that one can draw from a
paradox, like the infinite growth one can see in our complex and fractal universe. Y et,
paradoxically, the complex universe evolves by simple rules observed in the growth of fractal
geometry. The complexity of a beehive or a termite nest results from a repetition of simple
actions. Like the chaotic systems, paradoxes have the property of sustaining simplicity and
complexity simultaneously. Taoist Chuang Tzu was faced with an intriguing paradox in which he
dreamt he was a butterfly; but when he woke up he wondered if he was in truth a butterfly
dreaming he was a man. This paradox unveils for us wondrous and complex intricacies of our
diverse states of consciousness. Y et this complexity and profundity is articulated in a very simple
story with a simple question. Paradox appears simple yet generates complex and diverse
perceptions in our minds.
Orders of Paradox
This paper delineates three orders of paradox that can facilitate systems thinking at
increasing levels of consciousness. The consideration of the first order paradox draws in a large
constellation of interdependent variables over a wide field of space and time. But the higher
orders of paradox, though common in new science and mysticism, are neglected in our current
mapping of systems dynamics. As we move from the first to higher orders, there is an expansion
of our panoramic view of the whole, presenting us with numerous possibilities. At the same time,
there is a contraction and a unification of their parts leading ultimately to a single undivided
whole. This scenario can itself be viewed as an ancillary paradox in that the paradigmatic
evolution entails expansion and contraction, divergence and convergence, multiplicity and unity.
In the second order paradox of systems dynamics, cause and effect become bi-directional
and simultaneous— common occurrence in ecosystems, wherein the needs of one form of life
simultaneously serve the needs of another form. In Sufism, such paradoxes are very common.
The lover seeks the Beloved, and the Beloved seeks the lover. It was epitomized by the spiritual
relationship inspired between Rumi and Shams Tabriz (Schimmel, 1992).
In the third order paradox, all the elements get united. The observer and the observed
become one; the lover and the beloved become one. Such Love transcends the field of space and
time, and consumes all realities to form a seamless union. Longing, search, and craving for a
higher level of wholeness become the catalysts for this ultimate experience that the Navaho
tradition articulates: “I am in the Universe and the Universe is in me.”
Systems Dynamics
Systems dynamics, as understood today, refers to causal networks of interdependent
variables in complex systems with negative and positive feedback, as represented by balancing
and reinforcing loops respectively. We view all our realities in terms of intricate assembly of
these two circular loops. The causal relationship between the interdependent elements is
quintessentially unidirectional and has a cause-and-effect sequence characteristic of a machine
metaphor.
In a balancing loop, the reaction (effect) balances the action (cause). The effect becomes
the cause to negate the original cause. This is a problem-solving modality in which the solution
(effect) corrects the deviation inherent in the original problem (cause). Thus in a balancing loop,
one element is balanced by its opposite through an intervening element (the balancing link). For
example, losses turn into profits by downsizing. Downsizing is the intervening element that
enables the polarity between loss and profit to balance. In a balancing loop, the causal flow is
unidirectional, sequential, linear and mechanistic with negating, predictable but generally short-
term consequences.
While a polarity is neutralized by an intervention in a balancing loop, it gets accentuated
in a reinforcing loop. The effect becomes the cause that exacerbates the original cause. For
example, a bank deposit swells with a compound interest; or warfare is escalated by a cycle of
retributions. A reinforcing loop signifies a causal flow that is positive, unidirectional and
sequential.
Systems Search
When faced with a systemic problem, we first need to engage in a systemic questioning
to uncover the full landscape that will need to be explored before constructing causal loop
network, and in preparation for subsequent analyses of first, second and third order paradoxes.
Such questioning should be able to lift us to a higher level of thinking. For example, if a
company is considering downsizing in order to increase its profits, we first need to explore
options in solving the company’s problem. In other words, what are the alternative ways in
which we can eliminate or reduce the losses? Downsizing may be one such alternative. This
intervention gives us a balancing loop, in that the losses are balanced. In preparation for
exploring paradoxes, a wider field of systems dynamics needs to be searched through systemic
questions, such as:
1. Which stakeholders will gain or lose by downsizing?
2. Are the consequent profits only monitory?
3. What social, cultural, political, global and ethical benefits can be accrued from the
profits?
The above questions will provoke answers that define the detailed contours of the
landscape to be explored.
First Order Paradox
In certain archetypal situations (such as fixes that fail and shifting the burden), a
balancing loop can set off unpredicted events that reinforce the original cause. Using the above
example, downsizing can jump-start events— such as low morale and absenteeism— that increase
company losses. This signifies a paradox in that the corrective action increases or reinforces the
original deviation. The balancing polarity turns into a reinforcing polarity by the emergence of
unintended consequences. It contradicts the conventional logic that says: “If we cut down the
wages, we increase our profits.” The original intent is reversed to “If we cut down the wages, we
compound our losses.”
As discussed earlier, paradoxes defy conventional logic, in which an intended effect is
contradicted or reversed, by the emergence of unexpected influences. While conventional logic
would expect cost-cutting measures to reduce losses, they actually increase the losses. The
polarity of losses and profits does not balance. However, there generally is a lapse of time before
the unexpected situations contradict the intended consequences. This suggests that if we can have
a broader vision of space and time during the analysis, we can construct meaningful scenarios to
predict and manage the unintended consequences.
Thus when seeking solutions to a given problem, the exploration of unintended
consequences through the forces of paradox can become an effective tool for uncovering
possible future scenarios. Such an approach presents us with a conscious strategy of seeking a
first-order paradox—a creative process— that lifts us out of our conventional problem-solving
mindset and moves us into a systems thinking mode. The balancing polarity tums into
unbalanced opposites in the exploratory process. For example, the balancing polarity between
losses and profits turns into increased losses. The following examples of “Fixes that Fail”
archetype (Senge, 1990) illustrate the first order paradox.
Example 1: Paradox of Charity
Consider an example of a country that has serious starvation problem. In order to carry out
a systems dynamics exercise, we first start with a systems search by asking the following
question:
> What are the alternative ways in which hunger could be eliminated or reduced?
Possible solutions: Donate food, support local agriculture, send money to neighboring
countries for support, etc.
Each of these alternatives needs to be investigated. Let us take “food donation” as the
first alternative intervention. It immediately provides us with a balancing loop, in which food
donations reduce hunger. The two interdependent polarities involved are clearly hunger and
food. Before launching the first order paradox, we need to ask systemic questions such as:
1. Who will be the short and the long-term beneficiaries of food donations?
2. What ecological, social, economic, and political consequences will it generate?
Answers to the above questions will prepare us for exploring paradoxical situations in
which food donations increase hunger. At first glance it defies logic, but following the systemic
reflections described above, a number of possible scenarios spring to mind to validate it. They
include long-term scenarios such as population increase, collapse of existing agricultural
businesses, corrupt governments, invading neighbors, etc., which all constitute the unintended
consequences.
This example points to the importance of an incubation period for provoking paradoxical
situations that lead to the formation of reinforcing loops. The multiplicity of possible scenarios
introduces additional links in the causal network. One such reinforcing loop is shown in the
causal loop diagram below, consisting of the balancing loop, and the reinforcing loop. As hunger
increases, food donations increase, resulting in alleviation of hunger. This sequence of events
constitutes the balancing (B) loop. However, after some delay, unintended consequences come
into play. The population increases, and hunger is amplified giving us a reinforcing (R) loop.
Food
Donations
Figure1: Paradox of Charity
The teachings of the sages and mystics abound in such first order paradoxes. The above
procedure could be applied equally effectively to any mystical paradox as illustrated in the
following example.
Example 2: Paradox of Justice
Foregoing the “systems search,” consider the polarity between thieves and law. Lao
Tzu’s teaches: “More laws we make, more thieves we create.” Logic suggests that laws reduce
the number of thieves, resulting in a balancing loop. Lao Tzu’s teaching forms a reinforcing loop
that reverses the logic of the balancing loop. The “fixes that fail” archetype shown below
presents one possible scenario to validate the wise saying. As the number of thieves increase,
more laws are instituted. As we institute more laws, we create more lawyers, who in time may
circumnavigate the laws via some loopholes, and potentially enhance the original problem.
Further exploration can unravel other possible scenarios.
Figure 2: Paradox of Justice.
Second Order Paradox
In the second-order paradox, the mutual causality of interdependent elements is
simultaneous, non-linear, reversible, autopoietic and spontaneous. It is not contrived,
orchestrated or pretentious. It has neutral consequences: it is neither positive nor negative,
neither balancing nor reinforcing. It is exemplified by Rumi’s words: “Not only the thirsty seeks
the water, but the water also seeks the thirsty.” (Schimmel, 1992). Examining this statement as a
Hegelian dialectic, it has thirsting and quenching as thesis and antithesis. It opens up the
possibility of a synthesis that transcends but includes both. In Buddhism, the polarity represents
the coevolution of opposites that the Buddhists call pratitya samutpada (dependent co-arising).
It views “reality as a dynamic interaction of mutually conditioning events... [It] posits no prime
cause or unconditioned absolute to which occurrences can be traced in a linear fashion.” (Macy,
1991 p.18) In the early 1970s, the Norwegian philosopher, Ame Naess, described it as deep
ecology. Much of the universe lies in this holistic paradigm of self-organization and mutual
interdependence.
A second-order paradox carries simultaneous reciprocity of events that cannot be
represented simply by causal loop diagrams. To cite an example, there exists a mutual causation
between intrinsic motivation and creativity. “Creativity may not only require motivation, but also
generate it,” says Stenberg (p.9, 1999). Not only does intrinsic motivation engender creativity,
but creativity also engenders intrinsic motivation, thereby creating a circular compounding effect
in both directions. In the second-order paradox, the two opposing thoughts or actions become
simultaneously reciprocal, as exemplified in the Prophet (Gibran, 1959), “For even as love
crowns you so shall he crucify you. Even as he is for your growth so is he for your pruning”
Such paradoxes transcend the cause-and-effect modality, and the dimension of time.
Time between the two elements disappears, but the separation between them persists. They
compel us to rise to a higher level of awareness and to probe for creative options that explain the
perceived inconsistency. Such inconsistency is not unique to just poetry and philosophy. In
quantum mechanics, a single subatomic particle can take a quantum leap between two points,
and yet appear simultaneously in both locations. Bohm explained this phenomenon as an
implicate order in which the two particles enfold themselves in a field beyond space and time,
and unfold in an explicate order within the dimension of space and time. In the field of
psychology, Jung described the synchronicity of events that are acausal and carry special
meaning for those involved. Peat (1987) says: “synchronicities are characterized by a unity of the
universal with the particular that lies within a coincidence of events.”
All these events suggest that in some complex systems, the elements move either in a
preset field, or evolve in some self-organizing manner. Moving in a predetermined choreography
within some field of influence is sometimes referred to as the field paradigm. The collective
unconscious (Jung, 1959), the Gaia theory (Lovelock 1979), and the theory of formative
causation (Sheldrake, 1980) are a few examples of the field paradigm (McWhinney, 1992) in
which the movements of elements seem to follow a set pattern. The elements can also operate in
an evolutionary paradigm in which there is a spontaneous unfolding of events through self-
regulating, self-renewing and self-creative (autopoietic) processes of evolution.
The paradox of the mystics often transcends time; and two apparently opposing elements
become concurrent. As characteristic of all paradoxes, second order paradox defies logic and
conventional wisdom, but on reflection can lift us to a higher level of awareness, and exploration
into far-reaching possibilities. The following example illustrates the point.
Example 3: Mutual Thirst
“Not only the thirsty seeks the water, but the water also seeks the thirsty.” --Rumi
The reversal is simultaneous, and the opposing elements of the paradox become
concurrent. It is a bi-directional event. The thirsty seeks the water at the same time as the water
seeks the thirsty, without forming the familiar circular causal loop that entails a time-dependent
sequence of events.
However, upon actualization of their union, each direction of seeking is followed by
mutual gratification (quenching), giving us two balancing loops.
Loop 1: The thirsty seeks the water; the water quenches his thirst.
Loop 2: The water seeks the thirsty; the thirsty quenches water’s thirst.
Seeking and quenching are each bi-directional and simultaneous as depicted in the
diagram below. The dimension of time appears only in the causal relationship between seeking
and quenching.
Ne pee “seeking” actions
peseae “quenching” actions
Figure 3: Balancing Mutual Causality
The above diagram superimposes two balancing loops to delineate the simultaneous and
the sequential actions involved. Each balancing loop is clearly causal. But for Rumi’s wisdom to
make sense, the parallel links flowing in the opposite direction, shown in the above loops, have
to occur simultaneously, and are acausal. In other words, the top set of parallel links attests that
as the thirsty seeks the water, the water concurrently seeks the thirsty. The second set of parallel
links suggests that as the water satisfies the thirsty, the thirsty concurrently satisfies the
water— another second-order paradox stimulated by the analysis. Actions of seeking and
satisfying are sequential in terms of cause-and-effect as seen in each circular balancing loop; but
the seeking actions of the thirsty and the water are simultaneous. Similarly, the satisfying actions
of the thirsty and the water are simultaneous.
In the above example, each second-order paradox contains the principle of autopoiesis.
This self-organizing principle of the second-order paradox seems to transcend but include the
first order paradox, suggesting a holarchy (Wilber, 1996). All parts of creation are engaged in the
cyclic process of thirsting and quenching or longing and fulfillment. Indeed, we can explore
wider consequences of this single theme, unveiling a rich and intricate ecological and a spiritual
map. As an expression of deep ecology, the above example illustrates a self-organizing principle
of nature. In mystical context, it represents mutual craving and longing.
For the union to occur, Sufis explain, the elements in the lower sphere of wholeness have
to transcend to the higher levels, bringing about a holarchy. Each transition is propelled by the
mutual need or longing of the elements to unite with one another. The atoms long to unite with
the molecules and vice versa. The lover longs to unite with the Beloved and vice versa. The
longing is bi-directional, and is the energy of love. The mutual longing affirms the separation in
the world of space and time, but the alchemy of love enables the transcendence to a higher level
of wholeness, frequently expressed in the second and third order of paradox by poets and
mystics.
Third Order Paradox
In the third-order paradox, the mutual causality converges to a single unified point, as the
interdependent elements merge and become indistinguishable from one another. Luis Borges
conveys this consummation in the following words (Jantsch, 1980):
It is the tiger that destroys me,
But I am the tiger.
Itis a fire that consumes me,
But I am the fire.
In the fifteenth century, the German philosopher, Nicholas of Cusa described it as
coincidentia oppositorum or the “coincidence of opposites.” He argued that as one approaches
infinity in the analysis of the world as a whole, or with respect to God, the coincidence of
opposites becomes operative. ((Reese, 1980). The duality of space and time disappear, and none
of the elements gets diminished or augmented by the separation or the union. The following
words of a great Sufi mystic, Abu Y azid al-Bistami, describes such a domain. (Hughes, 1974)
Be in a domain where neither good nor evil exists,
Both of them belong to the world of created things.
In the presence of Unity,
There is neither command nor prohibition.
All this talk and turmoil and noise,
And movement is outside of the veil.
Within the veil is silence, and calm and rest.
Dost thou hear how there comes a voice
From the brooks of running water?
But when they reach the sea, they are quiet;
And the sea is neither augmented by their incoming
Nor diminished by their outgoing.
This ultimate unity is embodied in most mystical traditions. They include the Buddhist
concept of dharmakaya (Capra, 1975), Vedantic philosophy of adwaita, non-duality (Wood,
1964), Lao Tzu’s idea of the Tao (Wing, 1986)), Sufi (22) belief in Fana-fi-Allah, annihilation
in God (Schimmel, 1975), and the Khusraw’s notion of aql-i Kil, the Universal Intellect
(Schimmel, 1975).
In the third order paradox, the power of longing or thirst dissolves the dualism inherent in
the space-time field; and the two converge to the highest truth of Love and Compassion, as is
manifest in the following quotations:
1. Itis in the act of giving that you shall receive. St Francis of Assisi
2. Act without action. Lao Tzu (Wing, 1986)
3. HeisI, and] is He (So ham, ahamsa). Vedic Prayer of a Sanyasi. (Wood, 1964)
Application of Paradoxes
It is clear that the paradoxes are made up of interdependent opposites, such as giving and
receiving, coronation and crucifixion, thirsting and quenching, feeding and starving, action and
nonaction, profits and loss, motivation and creativity etc. By exploring different permutation
and combination of direct and inverse relationships of two interdependent opposites in first,
second and third orders of paradox, we can construct diverse relationships that can lead to
exploration of myriad scenarios validating each potential link. It charts a heuristic map for
systems thinking. Various permutations of fluctuating trends can be explored in “balancing,”
“reinforcing,” and higher orders of paradox. Let us consider an example of water shortage in a
given region. Water demand and water supply constitute the polarity to be explored. The table
below demonstrates the dynamism of such an exploration and formalizes a systematic process to
aid analysis.
Table 1: Systems Exploration of the problem of inadequate water supply.
# Fluctuating Trends
Possible Scenarios
1 As water demand increases,
water supply decreases.
Balancing Loop:
2 As water demand increases,
water supply increases.
3 As water supply increases,
water demand decreases.
Problem: Inadequate water supply.
Possible Intervention: Increase size of
reservoir.
Balancing link: Problem “solved.”
First-order paradox:
Unintended C onsequences:
4 As water supply increases,
water demand increases.
5 As water supply increases,
water supply decreases.
6. As water demand increases,
water demand decreases.
Increase in population, irrigation projects,
prosperity, etc.
Water losses through the permeable bed
of the reservoir.
Population reduction due to dehydration,
and accompanying diseases.
Other permutations and combinations of the two elements of the polarity can initiate
additional first-order paradoxes.
Second-order Paradox:
This paradox embodies the simultaneity of occurrence of the polar opposites. An earlier
example of polarity between thirsting and quenching entailed Rumi's profound paradox:
Not only the thirsty seeks the water, but the water also seeks the thirsty.
This paradox can trigger in us a similar second order paradox for the given problem. For
example, we can state: “Not only the public demands more water, but water also demands
greater consumptions.” What scenarios can make sense of such a paradox? The question can
provoke an exciting dialogue. It clearly invites organic and ecological type of solutions. For
instance, we can develop long-term strategies for changing the ecosystem to attract rain and
forestation in the region, and construct infrastructures to contain floods, etc.
Third-order Paradox:
This paradox ushers us into the spiritual realm beyond space and time. Most mystical
traditions have pointed us to a path of ethics between the material and the spiritual domain. The
ethical values should transcend the borders of nations, territories, classes, races, religions, gender
and other pluralistic identities that have divided humanity. In the above example, attempts to
solve shortage of water in any part of the world should be based on a social conscience that
focuses on improvement of all creatures and indeed creation. Such action focuses on
transcending self-interest, and traversing the ethical corridor that balances the material with the
spiritual.
Conclusion
In studying systems dynamics, we frequently encounter interdependent opposites that
lead to unintended consequences influencing our lives at local and global levels. This paper
presents a methodology— illustrated with examples— for engaging in the exploration of systems
dynamics of complex systems by analyzing the polarities involved in current or anticipated
problems or puzzles. The opposing elements are lifted through first, second and third order
paradoxes to uncover emergent scenarios and develop systemic strategies and solutions. Every
order of paradox carries specific systems characteristics, ranging from linear-causal to
spontaneous-acausal, as summarized in Table 2.
The first-order paradox can be triggered by permutation and combination of opposing
elements of the polarity, leading to the examination of direct and inverse relationships in each
causal link of the balancing and reinforcing loops. This process can be conveniently tabulated for
analysis, as demonstrated in Table 1. The paper also introduces the idea of second-order paradox,
which examines acausal phenomena of simultaneity of events. It provides a platform for
stimulating global awareness, and understanding the global implications of organizational
interventions.
A third order paradox falls into the spiritual domain. As we move from the first to the
higher paradoxes, loftier values of humanity enter in the systems landscape. As human beings
and societies are becoming increasingly interdependent, a vision for the common good, become
imperative. This paper will hopefully open up new frontiers for systems dynamics, desperately
needed to resolve myriad problems on our planet today.
Table 2: Causal characteristics of Diverse Orders of Paradox
Systems Problem- Orders of Paradox
Characteristics solving First | Second | Third
Negative, balancing
Positive, reinforcing
Linear Sequential
Unidirectional
Causal
Chaotic
Reversible
Autopoietic
Mutual causation
Acausal
Spontaneous
Coincidence of opposites
NNAASN
VNAAS
NVYNAS
NSN
REFERENCES
Ashby, W. R. (1956). An Introduction to cybernetics. NY : John Wiley & Sons.
Bohm, D. & Peat, F. D. (1987). Science, order and creativity. NY : Bantam Books.
Briggs, J. and F.D. Peat (1999). Seven life lessons of chaos: Spiritual wisdom from the
science of change. New Y ork: HarperCollins Publishers.
Capra, Fritjof (1975). The Tao of physics. New Y ork: Fontana/Collins.
Durant, Will (1963) Outlines of philosophy: Plato to Russell. London, UK: Emest Benn Ltd.
Gibran, Kahlil (1959). The Prophet. Toronto, Canada: Henemann.
Gordon, W. J. (1961). Synectics: The development of creative capacity, London, Collier
Books.
Habermas, Jurgen (1987) The Theory of communicative action: Vol. 2 Lifeworld and System:
A critique of functionalist reason. Translator: J. McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press
Hughes, Catharine (1974). The secret shrine: Islamic mystical reflections. New Y ork: A
Crossroad Book, The Seabury Press.
Jantsch, Erich (1980). The self-organizing universe: Scientific and human implications of the
emerging paradigm of evolution. NY : Pergoman Press.
Jung, C. G. (1959). Archetypes of the collective unconscious. In Violet S. De Laszlo (Ed.)
The basic writing of C.G. Jung. New Y ork: The Modern Library.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of scientific revolution 2nd ed. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press
Lovelock, J. E. (1979) Gaia: A new look at life on earth. Oxford University Press.
McWhinney, W. (1992). Paths of change. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishers.
Peat, F. D. (1987). Synchronicity: The bridge between matter and mind. Bantam Books.
Pepper, S.C. (1942) World hypothesis: A study in evidence. Berkeley: University of
California Press
Radhakrishnan, S. & Moore, C. A. (1957). A source book in Indian philosophy. New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
Reese, W.L. (1980). Dictionary of philosophy and religion: Eastern and Western thoughts.
Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press Inc.
Schimmel, A. (1992). I am wind you are fire: The life and work of Rumi. Boston: Shambhala
Schimmel, A. (1975). Mystical dimensions of Islam. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of
North Carolina Press.
Senge, Peter M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. NY: Doubleday Currency.
Sheldrake, R. (1980). A new science of life. London: Bond and Briggs.
Smith, Huston (1994), The illustrated world religions: A guide to our wisdom traditions.
New Y ork: HarperCollins Publishers.
Spencer, L. and Krauze, A. (1996). Introducing Hegel. Lanham, MD: National Book
Network Inc.
Stacey, R. D. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organizations.
Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Handbook of creativity. NY : Cambridge University Press.
Wilber, Ken (1996) Brief history of everything. Boston: Shambhala
Wing, R. L. (1986). The Tao of power. New Y ork: A Dolphin Book, Doubleday.
Wood, Emst (1964). Vedanta dictionary. New Y ork: Philosophical Library.
Back to the Top
