A Structural Approach to Self-Regulating Complex Systems
Abstract
This paper proposes a structural model for understanding complex systems through the concept of a supersystem. The model explains how self-regulating societies, institutions, and processes emerge not through direct control, but through higher-level organization of meanings and relations. Particular attention is given to the notion of metaposition as a non-authoritative but responsibility-bearing channel of systemic transformation.
________________________________________
1. System and Supersystem
A system may be described as a network of elements (nodes) and relations (edges) evolving according to internal rules. However, the dynamics of complex systems cannot be fully explained at the system level alone. At certain stages of development, a higher-order structure emerges.
A supersystem is defined as a self-organizing network of meanings and meta-relations derived from the nodes and relations of the underlying system. These meta-relations operate as relations between relations, forming a level of organization that is more stable than the system itself.
The supersystem does not exercise direct control over the system. Instead, it establishes structural conditions under which the system"s own dynamics tend toward specific outcomes.
________________________________________
2. Value of Meaning in the Supersystem
The supersystem is capable of generating new meanings that exceed the expressive capacity of the system alone. The value of such meanings is determined by two criteria:
1. Variability - the capacity of a meaning to adapt, transform, and participate in multiple contexts.
2. Integration - the capacity of a meaning to coherently connect with other meanings within the network.
Through these criteria, previously marginal or trivial elements of the system may acquire increased significance when re-embedded within supersystemic structures.
________________________________________
3. Stability and Directionality
Due to its higher level of organization, the supersystem exhibits greater stability than the system it overlays. This stability allows the supersystem to influence the system"s development by selectively amplifying productive trajectories and suppressing unproductive or wasteful practices.
Importantly, this influence is structural rather than intentional. The supersystem does not impose goals; it alters the landscape of possibilities such that certain developments become more probable than others.
________________________________________
4. Exit to the Supersystem
Transitioning from system-level problem solving to a supersystemic level produces a qualitative strategic shift. Problems that appear complex or intractable within the system often become secondary once the supersystemic level is established.
Thus, the primary strategic task is not the optimization of individual elements, but the occupation of a level at which deficiencies of elements cease to be decisive.
________________________________________
5. Metaposition
Within this framework, a metaposition is not a position of power or control. Rather, it is a structural channel through which inevitable systemic transformations pass.
An actor occupying a metaposition does not initiate change and does not fully control outcomes. Instead, the actor bears responsibility for how inevitable processes manifest within the system.
Metapositions cannot be deliberately seized or permanently maintained. They arise transiently during phases of systemic instability, particularly when an existing system loses effectiveness and a supersystem has not yet stabilized.
________________________________________
6. Architects and Administrators
During early phases of supersystem formation, actors capable of assembling meta-relations may function as architects of the supersystem. Their role is not governance, but configuration: shaping conditions under which self-regulation becomes possible.
Once the supersystem stabilizes, architectural roles disappear, leaving only administrative functions within the established structure.
________________________________________
7. Demystification of Conspiracy Narratives
The proposed model offers a structural explanation for phenomena often interpreted as conspiratorial or centralized control. Apparent "hidden power" is frequently the result of supersystemic effects rather than intentional coordination by privileged actors.
Individuals perceived as powerful are more accurately described as temporary effectors of supersystemic dynamics.
________________________________________
Footnote: Attention as an Early Indicator
The presence of a forming supersystem may manifest as a redistribution of attention within the system. Elements previously regarded as ordinary or insignificant may suddenly appear salient or problematic. This shift does not reflect intrinsic changes in the elements themselves, but indicates potential transition points through which structural transformation may occur.