32 / CHRONICLESnistic systems embodied in the empirical causal logic of thenmodern scholarly humanistic disciplines, hi other words, ifneven the sciences themselves no longer insist on a causalnmechanism for events (and its attendant rules of objectivenand positivistic empirical evidence), then it is high time thensocial, historical, and humane studies reevaluated theirnscholarly methods. The indeterminacy of quantum physicsnwas hard enough for the academy to swallow. The newnindeterminacy is of quite a different kind.nWhat the new science shows us is that the operation ofnfairly simple processes—the period-doubling mechanism ofnturbulence, for instance, or the random walk of particlesnprecipitating a crystal—can yery rapidly bring about statesnof a system that are utterly unpredictable from their initialnconditions. In a computer simulation of planetary orbits,nfor instance, there is an unstable zone in which the velocitynand proximity of a satellite to its primary is critical tonwhether it will settle into a stable orbit, whether it willnescape altogether, or whether it will adopt an eccentric,ncontinually changing looping orbit around its primary.nEach time the initial velocity or position is defined to anfurther decimal place, the resultant orbit is radicallyndifferent—not different so as to form a convergent seriesnhoming in on an asymptote, but utterly and unpredictablyndifferent. Thus the accuracy by which the world is definednmakes a total difference to the nature of the world itself Anseacoast measured with a one-mile ruler might be hundredsnof miles long; if measured by a foot ruler, thousands; if by anmicron ruler, millions; and each level of magnitude has itsnown lawfulness and predicts its own pattern of wave actionnas the surf rolls in.nGiven their unpredictability, such processes might benexpected to bring about mere chaos, mere ugly inchoateness.nBut no. Often enough they resolve themselves intonextremely beautiful, complex, and stable structures, tonwhich I shall give the generic term “paisleys.” Such formsnare coming to replace the classical shapes of idealngeometry—lines, triangles, circles, regular solids—as thengoverning imagery of the scientific visual imagination.nExamples range from the convection cells of a good rollingnboil in a teakettie or the planetary pattern of trade winds ornJupiter’s Great Red Spot—a storm that has raged fornhundreds of years—to the forms of electrical discharge,ncrystals, river drainage systems, and organic structures.nThese systems forget their causes, and indeed if their causalndetermination were the only language in which they couldnbe understood, they would be inherently unintelligible.nThe “modeling” or “generative” logic by which they arennow understood is profoundly new as mathematical formalismnbut, as I hope to show, very ancient as an intuitivenhuman -activity.nThe test of whether we truly understand such a system isnno longer our ability to predict it but our ability to constructnanother system that does the same sort of thing as thenoriginal. Perhaps we could say that we still test by prediction,nbut what we are predicting is not a certain future statenof the system but the general type of behavior of the wholensystem itself In other words, we are not predicting along anline of time, but across a sort of plane. And this notion, ofnother temporal geometries than the linear, has enormousnimplications not only for the study of history but for the artsnnnand humanities in general.nThe common feature in all these systems is feedback.nThe simplest forms of feedback are given in the initialnconditions, for instance the setting of the thermostat of anhome heating furnace. In this case the only unpredictablenelement is the precise value of some parameter—in ournexample, the temperature of the house at a specific time, innthe course of its wanderings up and down around then”attractor” or average temperature we have set for it. Morencomplex feedback systems can set their own parameters orneven create the sort of parameters toward which they aspirenor around which they oscillate. That is, their state at anyngiven moment is the resultant of ordering processes thatnhave arisen within the system itselfnNow the supreme example of such self-organizing systemsnis life. And we may go further and say that thenevolution of life has been the evolution of more and morenautonomous and complex and unpredictable—becauseninventive—feedback systems. The human species is, as farnas we know, the most advanced state of this process, wherenit shows in its most paradigmatic and articulated form thengeneral tendency it always exhibited. Nature strives towardnfreedom, in the sense of autonomy, as the clearest expressionnof its essence. And here of course we return to ournsubject, which is the present crisis in history and socialnstudies.nFor surely, a fortiori, the collective activities of humannbeings are of all phenomena in the world the most fullyngoverned by the principles of complex feedback systems.nSocial game theory takes us part of the way. Gonsider ansimple dyadic predicting contest—a littie marital spat on anSunday in some large American city. There is tensionnbetween Jack and Jill; they haven’t been able to talk muchnrecentiy, because they have both been working hard. Jack,nas usual, intends to get Sunday lunch. Jill, however,nknowing what Jack has in mind, intends to shop for lunch atnthe deli instead, in order to upset him. But Jack knows hisnJill. Guessing that she intends to go out to the deli in ordernto forestall Jack’s usual lunch. Jack plans to claim that he isnfeeling ill and doesn’t want lunch. Jill, though, expects then”I feel sick” ploy and finds occasion to joke pleasantiy aboutnJack’s past propensity to use pretended illness to get out ofnthings. Jack, recognizing that the game has got too complexnat this level, changes levels by deliberately randomizing hisnown behavior. He starts a tedious conversation about fatalnillnesses. Jill is flummoxed only for a moment, thennrecognizes the paradigm—or genre-switch. She plays thensame game, but without any pretense at normal conversation,nbreaking in with some earnest remarks about chickadeennesting habits. She has thus thematized the issue ofnavoiding the subject and changed the ground rules oncenagain. Jack now steps outside of the conversation and looksnat it as a stranger might; no longer as “Jack versus Jill” butn”Jack and Jill versus the outside world.” He sees how absurdnthey sound, catches Jill’s eye, and they both collapse innlaughter. No doubt they will go out to lunch at their favoritencafe. Or maybe not.nJack and Jill have become a “we” by internally modelingneach other’s motivations and each other’s image of thenother. In the process they have touched on a broad andnsensitive range of values and value judgments. Their story isn