Under any circumstance, a given basic mind set will provide the next impulse. A drive for organization, a lack of need for it, or a lust for chaos. Whatever it is – we strive to balance the disturbed equilibria of what perception brings us. In the analysis of whatever impulse we generate, the question becomes what is leading for the direction and type of impulse? Is it the actually perceived that gives us direction, or is it the equilibrium we are most sensitive to be disturbed by?

In other words – let’s examine the way we deal with perception of structure and chaos. Are some of us more likely to interpret reality as a function of structure? Are some of us more sensitive to the same perceived unbalance in structure, compared to other people? It’s quite a difference whether the reaction to a similar phenomenon is simply more extreme in quantity, or the observed reality is not observed to reflect the same phenomenon and is therefore not leading to any impulse.

Psychological constructs like chaos or structure and order are culturally defined. At least we generally accept to regard this as a function of culture (something which really doesn’t have to be the case). But what happens if we start understanding the two-fold mechanism behind the reaction towards chaos and structure? What happens when we realise the quantitative reaction towards dealing with chaos might be more extreme in another culture, however the mere perception of the construct is differently defined? What happens when we learn to understand that ultimate interrelatedness leads to a total chaos in terms of overseeable quantities of relations, however greatly increases the logically connected constructs..?

Most mellow colors & nuanced light – welcome to golden hour in South East Asia.