Keywords: Complementarity, Neuroscience; Cognitive Psychology; Brain; Philosophy
We have written The Complementary Nature to describe our interest, our intrigue and fascination with a pervasive set of natural phenomena that impinge on all aspects of human life.
It outlines a novel science grounded worldview we have developed in which ourselves and other intrepid seekers might think about, explore, test, interpret and hopefully comprehend these phenomena, how and even why they come about, how they operate, what they can do and importantly, how they seem to be the root of human sentience. It is worthwhile to note here, that by ‘seeker’ we don’t only mean philosophers and scientists. Though the philosophy is grounded in science, we make the point many times throuhout the text that the ideas and concepts are relevant to any human being pursuing any discipline in any field of endeavor, at any level.
As mentioned above, experiments and theory show that the human brain is capable of displaying two apparently contradictory, mutually exclusive behaviors–integration and segregation–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. This 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.
In The Complementary Nature, we contend that pairs of opposites or ‘contrarities’ or ‘complementary pairs’ are ubiquitous, dynamic and complementary. We propose a comprehensive, empirically-based scientific theory of how the polarized world and the world in between can be reconciled. As far as we know, we are the first to nominate the squiggle (~), as an official symbolic punctuation for ‘reconciled complementary pairs.’ We often say that this book “reconciles the philosophy of complementary pairs with the science of coordination dynamics.”
WHAT ARE THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF TCN?
In TCN we have a synopsis and interpretation of a scientific research program called coordination dynamics co-authored by a person who has done much to establish this field and the other an avid student and researcher of that same research program. Thus, the scientific information described in TCN is first hand. TCN reconciles philosophy with science, and calls for a long overdue reconciliation of different fields of endeavor. It provides a way for coordination dynamics to be generally applied to advance arbitrary fields, and for arbitrary fields to make basic discoveries that could be used to advance the science of coordination dynamics. A unique feature of TCN is, therefore, that it is specifically general and generally specific.
The mission of TCN isn’t just to impart information. It doesn’t just say, “This is how it is and isn’t that interesting.” TCN engages and challenges its audience, providing new directions for discovery and invention. TCN says, “Here is a fresh approach to life that you can use, and you don’t have to be a theoretical physicist to appreciate and apply it.” Therefore, although one could conceive of TCN as a popular science book, almost any interested individual or group could study and apply the concepts in their own realms. TCN provides the methods, concepts and tools to do this.
TCN introduces a new meaning and application of the tilde, or squiggle character (~) , as in mind~body, organism~environment, individual~collective. Unlike the hyphen, the squiggle does not represent a concatenation of words, but indicates their complementary relationship. This novel way of writing complementary pairs then, if it is adopted and accepted, could have a life of its own, perhaps akin to the “@” symbol. The whole notion of the complementary pair has the potential of becoming a new kind of word association that may someday find its way into dictionaries.
Another more cosmetic feature of TCN is its small black and white stylized pictures of historical figures along with an epigram that ties them to the underlying theme of TCN. This metacommunication expresses to the audience a deep and non-trivial connection between thinkers from many ages and points of view. The pictures and epigrams are small and unassuming, take little space and enhance readability.
A third feature is that TCN provides a “Hopefully No Pains Tutorial on Nonlinear Dynamical Systems” that has been finely honed in lectures to many audiences over the years and fits a crying need for those who would like to understand these concepts and tools better, and even put them to use.
A fourth, more subtle special feature is that the book is structured after its own message, in three movements. The first is philosophical, the second is scientific and the third deals with their reconciliation (philosophy~science).
TCN is intended for the broadest possible audience. Why? Because complementary pairs are ubiquitous. They impinge on all aspects of the human condition. Following the main message of the book, its scope includes young~old, as found in issues of a developmental scope; male~female as found in issues of procreation and sexuality, chauvinism and feminism; rich~poor as found in socioeconomic issues; experience~inexperience as found in educational settings, businesses and corporations; organism~enviroment as found in discussions of sustained development, deforestation and global warming; etc.
We expect that if complementary pairs and coordination dynamics (CP~CD) are pursued in a serious and dedicated manner, they will open up new avenues of research and development, aid in the creation of inventions, and facilitate communication between disparate fields of endeavor. We also believe that TCN is the tip of the iceberg. We are anticipating a whole series of related work, some by us, some by others, such as “The Complementary Nature of Economics”, “The Complementary Nature of Art”, “The Complementary Nature of Pharmacogenomics”, The Complementary Nature of Management, The Complementary Nature of the Stock Market, etc.
If these developments come to pass, TCN can serve as a manifesto, providing the seed for a whole new branch of research and development. We want it to be on every bookshelf because we think it will continue to be useful and relevant in the future. TCN isn’t time- or scale-dependent. We hope that people will be reading TCN fifty and a hundred and fifty years from now, and will still find it inspiring as a philosophy and useful as a science.
At its core, TCN brings a novel scientific grounding to age-old questions that are asked by all of us, like what is more fundamental, nature or nurture, body or mind, whole or part, individual or collective? TCN places these questions in a whole different light, contending that the way these questions are raised misses a great deal, possibly the essence of phenomena that are located, quite literally, in the “excluded middle”. Such “grey areas” are replete with ambiguities, metastabilities, complexes, mixtures and transitions that fill life with content, color and flavor. It is to these wonderful difficulties that TCN is dedicated.
TCN is needed because the world is still dominated by a mutually exclusive either/or mentality, in spite of a mountain of evidence indicating that such a view is detrimental and prone to error. Something needs to replace it. But ironically, if we seek to replace either/or thinking with some alternate mind-set, the either/or thinking has remained! Instead, what is needed is to place mutually exclusive either/or thinking in a more appropriate position within a spectrum of other equally valid ways to interpret nature.
TCN is needed because its method of reconciliation includes different points of view, especially ones standing in polar opposition. Five or ten minutes of CNN should convince anyone that the world is ready for a novel interpretation of conflict that reconciles competition and cooperation, science and art, Muslims and Christians, liberals and conservatives, etc. Note that in eschewing polarized either/or thinking, TCN is not advocating a “centrist doctrine”. Indeed, TCN shows how any kind of policy based on an “ism” will eventually lead people astray.
