285
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
M. C. Tobias, J. G. Morrison, On the Nature of Ecological Paradox,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64526-7_31
Chapter 31
The Temptation of the Catastrophe: Deep
Structures of Suicide
31.1 Classifying Human Behavior
Mathematicians are fond of a category widely named “catastrophe,” but its actual
denominations are difficult to reconcile with real-world relevance. Famine, tsunami,
hurricanes, and tornadoes: neither numbers nor the laws of physics quite add up to
the significance of, say, the extinction of a single species at the hands of humanity
(Fig. 31.1).
For example, while there are equations to quantify “hyperbolic,” “parabolic,” and
“elliptic umbilic” catastrophes, and a rash of notational depictions, developed by
Vladimir Arnold (the ADE classification system)—folds, cusps, butterflies, periodic
boundaries, etc.—it won’t help those dying on respirators to better grasp the nature
of their demise. In mathematical terms, humans are simply too complicated; too
many variables beyond mere descriptive effects—ripples and pitchforks, symmetry
breaking and hysteresis loops (physical changes happening faster than the systemic
effects which caused them), bifurcations, stable or unstable minimums and maximums.
1
As a rule, people do not panic, resort to mob rule, faint, or kill themselves
because of gravitational lensing or the three-dimensional reflection of light.
Ecologically, rash behavior is medical behavior; psychological intention; emotional response; embrace or flight. Somewhere in the middle, beyond what we have
been characterizing as ecodynamic flux, is some level of odd, calming, beautiful
homeostasis. However tranquil the Zen satori or deep moments of prayer, independent temporal contingencies do, in fact, lend to these strangely becalmed aesthetic
zones a ticking-clock reality that turns from tranquility to panic with little or no
warning.
1 E.C. Zeeman, Catastrophe Theory, Scientific American, April 1976, in which the late British
mathematician Christopher Zeeman examines seven “elementary catastrophes.” http://www.
gaianxaos.com/pdf/dynamics/zeeman-catastrophe_theory.pdf
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
M. C. Tobias, J. G. Morrison, On the Nature of Ecological Paradox,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64526-7_31
Chapter 31
The Temptation of the Catastrophe: Deep
Structures of Suicide
31.1 Classifying Human Behavior
Mathematicians are fond of a category widely named “catastrophe,” but its actual
denominations are difficult to reconcile with real-world relevance. Famine, tsunami,
hurricanes, and tornadoes: neither numbers nor the laws of physics quite add up to
the significance of, say, the extinction of a single species at the hands of humanity
(Fig. 31.1).
For example, while there are equations to quantify “hyperbolic,” “parabolic,” and
“elliptic umbilic” catastrophes, and a rash of notational depictions, developed by
Vladimir Arnold (the ADE classification system)—folds, cusps, butterflies, periodic
boundaries, etc.—it won’t help those dying on respirators to better grasp the nature
of their demise. In mathematical terms, humans are simply too complicated; too
many variables beyond mere descriptive effects—ripples and pitchforks, symmetry
breaking and hysteresis loops (physical changes happening faster than the systemic
effects which caused them), bifurcations, stable or unstable minimums and maximums.
1
As a rule, people do not panic, resort to mob rule, faint, or kill themselves
because of gravitational lensing or the three-dimensional reflection of light.
Ecologically, rash behavior is medical behavior; psychological intention; emotional response; embrace or flight. Somewhere in the middle, beyond what we have
been characterizing as ecodynamic flux, is some level of odd, calming, beautiful
homeostasis. However tranquil the Zen satori or deep moments of prayer, independent temporal contingencies do, in fact, lend to these strangely becalmed aesthetic
zones a ticking-clock reality that turns from tranquility to panic with little or no
warning.
1 E.C. Zeeman, Catastrophe Theory, Scientific American, April 1976, in which the late British
mathematician Christopher Zeeman examines seven “elementary catastrophes.” http://www.
gaianxaos.com/pdf/dynamics/zeeman-catastrophe_theory.pdf