Foundations of the Ontology of Emerging Complexity/Order as Local Effect/II - The Emergence of Order as an Ephemeral Torsion of the Unstable Field

3.3.2 - The Emergence of Order as an Ephemeral Torsion of the Unstable Field

Order, as conceived within the Ontology of Emerging Complexity (OEC), does not present itself as a transcendent instance or as a plan preceding matter. On the contrary, it arises as a localized and ephemeral effect of the productive instability of the real. Within this ontological regime, there is no original repose, no inaugural equilibrium: the plane of being is continuous agitation, tensional composition without center, without exteriority, and without normative reference.

The classical image of the cosmos, understood as pre-established harmony, dissolves into a new image of the real as chaosmos—a concept introduced within the framework of complex thought by Edgar Morin—an operative term designating the coexistence of order and disorder, of form and flux, of emergence and simultaneous dissolution. As previously articulated, all stability is a pause, not a foundation. Form is not a given, but a torsion: a temporary inflection of matter in variation, which, through functional coupling, reorganizes itself and produces zones of operatory consistency. This formulation resonates with process philosophy, particularly in Whitehead, who conceives reality as a succession of relational events rather than fixed substantial aggregates.

Such relational composition—and it is crucial to reiterate this—is not chaos conceived as absolute disorganization, but a dynamic regime of material interactions in perpetual modulation. Within it, matter does not rest: it recomposes, hesitates, resists, and reshapes itself. Upon reaching certain thresholds of complexity, this hesitation generates momentary patterns, symbolic torsions, precarious stabilizations. These patterns, though they may acquire relative durability, remain fundamentally unstable in both origin and persistence.

At this juncture, the distinction between a teleological conception of order—as a structuring force guiding the real toward its fulfillment—and an emergentist conception becomes evident. The latter conceives order as a whirlpool: a swirling of forces that, for brief moments, produces organization, before dissolving back into the relentless movement from which it arose. Far from being metaphorical, this image carries conceptual potency: like the whirlpool, order does not come from outside, is not imposed, nor sustained by a center; it is matter itself operating as such. This approach stands in direct opposition to the Platonic tradition and transcendental idealism, both of which posit immutable forms or pre-experiential ordering principles.

Stability, then, is not the natural state of things, but their recurring exception. Regularity is not a principle, but a collateral effect of threshold conditions. In complex systems—such as climate, ecosystems, or living organisms—order appears precisely when multiple instabilities intersect and enter into resonance. This reading aligns with the paradigm of self-organization proposed by Prigogine, for whom order in dissipative systems emerges from instability, not homogeneity.

Order, therefore, does not exclude chaos—it integrates it as a condition of possibility. What appears as “form” is merely the momentary modulation of a dense, unstable, and relational material weave—a constellation of interactions rather than an ordered system. This conception finds affinity with Morin’s proposal for complex thought, which assumes the inseparability of order, disorder, and organization as the founding structure of the real.

Such a formulation destabilizes any ontological attempt to ground order as essence. In OEC, order is not a “state” to be preserved, but a function to be understood. There is no model to be followed, only operations to be recognized. The local torsion within this dynamic network of materiality points not toward an ideal totality, but to the capacity of the real to inscribe itself differently upon itself—always in a situated, ephemeral, and relational manner.

The scale of such inscription, however, is not fixed. What appears as an instant to human consciousness may, at another scale, constitute a stability of millions of years. The fleeting formation of a complex molecule, lasting mere seconds, and the persistence of a structured galaxy whose coherence spans billions of years, both belong to the same regime of transitional organization. The difference between them lies not in their ontological nature, but in the duration of their consistency—time understood here as an interval of material operativity, not as a metaphysical substrate. Even when prolonged, stability does not lose its status as pause: it is always an event of instability, never its overcoming.

At this point, it is worth suggesting a speculative possibility arising from the dialogue between the Ontology of Emerging Complexity and certain recent proposals in contemporary physics—namely, the model of three-dimensional time put forward by Kletetschka (2024). This theory—which conceives time as a field with three independent dimensions, and space as a topological derivation of these temporal relations—allows one to imagine the emergence of organized patterns not as a result of causal succession, but through simultaneous attempts at inscription.

This image, though speculative, remains philosophically grounded: it suggests that order may arise from lateral interaction among multiple operatory trajectories tested within the unstable field. As in quantum mechanics, where multiple states coexist prior to collapse, emergence may be conceived as competition and convergence among parallel temporal torsions, which, on occasion, encounter material conditions sufficient to persist as figure. This is not to affirm such a hypothesis as a physical model, but rather to recognize its metaphorical potency—capable of enriching the speculative ontology of operatory instability.

It must be emphasized that such torsion is neither directed by an agent nor aimed at an end: it occurs through saturation of material conditions, through tensions that precariously balance, through convergence of heterogeneous flows. This is unplanned emergence, where function precedes meaning, and consistency precedes representation.

In this sense, one may affirm that order is the name we assign to certain forms of duration—not because they endure intrinsically, but because, by enduring, they allow for naming. Such duration, however, is inscription—not substance. What emerges as form is matter itself reorganizing, becoming capable of maintaining, if only briefly, a functional coherence. Contrary to idealist conceptions, there is no plan to be fulfilled, only a plan that happens—and, in happening, already begins to unravel.

Order, as ephemeral torsion of active materiality, should not be celebrated as perfection, but understood as one among many possible figures of immanence. More than that, it must be recognized as an interpretative function, not a property of the real. The universe does not “possess” order—it merely produces itself. Order is the name human consciousness assigns to certain material configurations which, by persisting long enough to be inscribed, allow for symbolic codification.

This is, therefore, an anthropocosmic operation: in attempting to understand, the human projects upon the real a form of intelligibility that is always situated, partial, and functional. There is no “order” in the universe except as mediation—as an act of inscription upon that which does not offer itself as legible. What appears as order is not the world as it is, but the world as we manage to translate it—through perceptual and operatory schemes that do not grasp totality, but only that which remains sufficiently stable to be spoken.

In this sense, order is not substantive—it is adjectival. Not an attribute of being, but an effect of meaning emerging from a specific regime of material organization crossed with a specific regime of symbolic reading. To think order, then, is not to recognize a hidden plan within the cosmos, but to expose the process through which certain material recurrences become nameable.

Torsion, therefore, is the minimal figure of order—not its foundation, but its event, and also its interpretation. A fold without plan, a curvature of instability, an operation without guarantee, and a symbolic reading that transforms such an operation into intelligible form. And it is precisely this unstable and symbolic condition that renders order thinkable—not as promise of salvation, but as index of the potency of a real that never rests, but that, at times, allows us to believe it might.

🜂 Reading Colloquium – Pedagogical Framing  

(For students and readers in formation. This section does not replace the text — it accompanies it.)

1. Placement of the Text within the Architecture of the Work

---

2. Philosophical Problem at Stake

---

3. Core Thesis and Conceptual Reorganization

---

4. Key Concepts and Their Articulation

---

5. Implications for Readers and Pedagogical Pathways

---