Natural complex vs. natural system

I draw an ontological distinction between two types of natural forms which are isomorphic across physics, biology, and human sciences. The first type, “natural complex,” depicts purposeful forms involved in organic interaction. Examples include atoms, cells, organs, organisms, populations of orgaisms, households, firms, tribes, and nations. The second type, “natural system,” depicts chaotic forms involved in topographic interaction. Examples include climates, water turbulence, geodynamics, ecosystems, and stock markets.

I examine six dimensions which juxtapose the two natural forms. With respect to canons, natural complex is governed by “rules,” while natural system by “principles.” In regards to interaction, the former is “organic,” while the latter “topographic.” In relation to arrangement, the former is exemplified by “configuration,” while the latter by “pattern.” With respect to spatial arrangement, the former is typified by “organization,” while the latter by “structure.” In regards to temporal arrangement, the former is characterized by “process,” while the latter by “dynamics.” In relation to hierarchy, the former is distinguished by “complexity,” while the latter by “complicatedness.”