What do you think?
Rate this book
The Complementary Nature
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.
- GenresScience
317 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2006
4 people are currently reading
64 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
August 2, 2017
A thought rather than a review: if two ends of a complementary relation are of equal standing and entail each other, and either/or thinking and both/and thinking are complementary, then to be free from either/or thinking, one must also be free from both/and thinking.
Read
December 6, 2020Science is stuck. Has been for decades. Philosophy has been stuck too, but for much longer, centuries at least. I'd venture to even say it's lost, perhaps irretrievably. A reconciliation attempt between the two in their current conditions is akin to trying to fit a melted key into a broken lock.
The authors try to shoehorn complementary pairs into coordination dynamics and vice verse. Now, I don't doubt that each can elucidate the other. But how can the two be considered complementary, much less pairs? It is like saying integers and gravity are a complementary pair.
Next, the language is convoluted and not easy to follow. The idea is not worth a whole book (the idea is "There are no equilibria, no fixed points at all, the world contains only tendencies—polar extremes represent ideal states or affairs while reality lies in between"; saved you six hours). The authors have to resort to repetitiveness to the point of patronizing.
Most revealing of all, they write of "going beyond metaphor" and "grounding the Complementary nature in science"—specifically in the nascent and promising science of coordination dynamics. I have no quarrel with coordination dynamics. I am sure it is wonderful. But you can't go beyond metaphor anymore than you can go beyond Shakespeare. It's science and philosophy that have to be grounded in metaphor, not the other way around. The authors are still stuck in the world-as-pure-matter perspective that gets us stuck where we currently are.
But all is not gloom and doom!
In the 50s Alan Watts playfully proposed a language mechanism would have to be developed to show the inextricable togetherness of complementary aspects. He called it "goes-with" (as in "mind goes-with body"). He suggested improvements could be made, since "goes-with" is clumsy and ugly. The authors seem to have taken this to heart, with their squiggle "~". Hence we have life~death, good~evil, mind~body, etcetera~etcetera. I think it's great, and hope it catches on, at least when appropriate (the authors kind of overdo it in the book).
In fact I think the concept of Complementary Pairs themselves deserve their own exploration, not from a scientific perspective but from a religiously, mythologically, and aesthetically critical perspective. It could be said the artists, the poets, and the critics do this implicitly, but it would be interesting to do it explicitly. Most helpful of all is the extensive list of pairs at the very end of the book. This is what we need to get the brain juices flowing.
When every aspect of our world ends up being part of a complementary pair, perhaps that means we need to overhaul the way we view the world, instead of creating a whole new theory (yet another theory!) for accommodation. Until then we will remain bamboozled by language and by our senses.
The authors try to shoehorn complementary pairs into coordination dynamics and vice verse. Now, I don't doubt that each can elucidate the other. But how can the two be considered complementary, much less pairs? It is like saying integers and gravity are a complementary pair.
Next, the language is convoluted and not easy to follow. The idea is not worth a whole book (the idea is "There are no equilibria, no fixed points at all, the world contains only tendencies—polar extremes represent ideal states or affairs while reality lies in between"; saved you six hours). The authors have to resort to repetitiveness to the point of patronizing.
Most revealing of all, they write of "going beyond metaphor" and "grounding the Complementary nature in science"—specifically in the nascent and promising science of coordination dynamics. I have no quarrel with coordination dynamics. I am sure it is wonderful. But you can't go beyond metaphor anymore than you can go beyond Shakespeare. It's science and philosophy that have to be grounded in metaphor, not the other way around. The authors are still stuck in the world-as-pure-matter perspective that gets us stuck where we currently are.
But all is not gloom and doom!
In the 50s Alan Watts playfully proposed a language mechanism would have to be developed to show the inextricable togetherness of complementary aspects. He called it "goes-with" (as in "mind goes-with body"). He suggested improvements could be made, since "goes-with" is clumsy and ugly. The authors seem to have taken this to heart, with their squiggle "~". Hence we have life~death, good~evil, mind~body, etcetera~etcetera. I think it's great, and hope it catches on, at least when appropriate (the authors kind of overdo it in the book).
In fact I think the concept of Complementary Pairs themselves deserve their own exploration, not from a scientific perspective but from a religiously, mythologically, and aesthetically critical perspective. It could be said the artists, the poets, and the critics do this implicitly, but it would be interesting to do it explicitly. Most helpful of all is the extensive list of pairs at the very end of the book. This is what we need to get the brain juices flowing.
When every aspect of our world ends up being part of a complementary pair, perhaps that means we need to overhaul the way we view the world, instead of creating a whole new theory (yet another theory!) for accommodation. Until then we will remain bamboozled by language and by our senses.
April 16, 2020
I got recommended this book on twitter after a half exciting description. The book basically just goes through a list of things that appear contradictory but aren't. It's basically Hegel but done by arrogant physicists who have lightly read some philosophy and think their physics training has to amount to something therefore it can mix with their philosophy. Needless to say, it doesn't, waste of time and space, no new insights, take 100 pages to just talking about the history of philosophy, and it is the least informative such history I have ever read.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews