Complexity is not defined by difficulty of understanding, but by the impossibility of reducing the object to a single frame.1 Such systems are marked by dense interconnection between internal elements, multilayered modes of description, and the absence of a stable center. Standard examples include ideologies, economic regimes, institutional configurations, and major theoretical systems.
Understanding complexity is not a process of acquiring knowledge, but a practice of assembly — identifying structures, reconstructing linkages, and establishing perspective. This process operates across several levels.
Cognitive level: decomposition and connectivity
The first step is structural decomposition. Any complex object can be broken down into relatively autonomous components — not to simplify them, but to capture recurring modules.
The second step is reconstructing relations. Understanding does not emerge from isolated elements but from observing types of interdependence among them. This requires a shift from object-based inquiry (“what is this?”) to relational analysis (“how is this connected, and to what?”).
Epistemological level: frame differentiation
Ideas and theories diverge not in vocabulary, but in foundational assumptions. What counts as knowledge? Where is the boundary between individual and collective? How is time structured? What constitutes value? These are embedded in any complex idea and mark the core lines of divergence. Intellectual history is not a list of names but a means to reconstruct these divergences as maps of conflicting premises.
Communicative level
Complex systems do not speak for themselves. They are mediated through interpretation, distortion, and institutional channels of transmission. Communication theory here is not a set of tools but an analytic method for tracking how meaning is refracted, who has access to voice, and what filters govern reception.
Observation as practice
Understanding develops through prolonged and directed observation. This is not about data collection, but about cultivating the ability to detect structural recurrences in nonlinear processes. The minimal time horizon is several years. Without dynamic observation, no schema provides real comprehension.
Defense against false clarity
Salient, emotionally charged signals in complex systems almost always signal instability. The mind registers them as “important,” but analytically they are often noise. The base protocol: avoid objects that demand attention on their own.
Ego and perspective
Understanding requires minimizing the role of one’s own position. The more emotionally invested one is, the higher the risk of projection. The priority is not introspection, but systematic engagement with frameworks that conflict with one’s own. The most useful conversations happen with those whose world-model differs fundamentally. Not to reach consensus — but to clarify the terms of divergence.
Instead of a conclusion
To understand complexity is to see how connections form, where frames originate, who is speaking, and why certain things appear self-evident. This is not about finding answers — it is about sustaining a system without collapsing it into a convenient outline.
Very few people are capable of this. Most operate on the cognitive level alone, ignoring the rest.
This topic deserves more than a short note in a marginal blog. But I am not inclined to launch a lecture series in altruism — especially now that LLMs can recommend suitable teaching materials on demand. ■
A “frame” is a stable pattern of perception, interpretation, or structuring of reality.
