Talk:Systems theory (general)/Archive 1

Replies

Status. I am going to keep the article on talk, and insert the revised version at article. I will be using notes here to explain specific perspectives. I ask that replies on this talk page be placed at the very top just below this line.

---

Replies here

I just found your comments Greg. I am planning on deleting the old article soon, and then reorganize this talk page according to tradition. Meanwhile, I have removed complexity for now and instead will deal with complex systems. I haven't done much with methodology because I am still trying to gather together significant areas. In one sense all of systemics is methodology, for example the change in thinking. I am working from several sources and I still haven't got the general framework correct yet,Thomas Mandel 11:13, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Methodology

The article has little to say (directly, at least) about methodology. It seems that the article ought to say something about how research in systems theory is done. Greg Woodhouse 22:34, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

hard vs. soft systems and controversy

The article states without justification that "soft" systems are not amenable to the same level of mathematical analysis as "hard" systems. This claim is not uncontroversial. Mathematical approaches such as neural networks or genetic algorithms are actually quite precise. What is more significant, though, is that these techniques do not easily (if at all) reduce to Zadeh's fuzzy systems, and there is little consensus that this is a useful theoretical approach. Other ostensibly "soft" models liike PDEs are reducible to "hard" models in a very precise way. Think, for example, of the relationship between thermodynamics and classical statistical mechanics. Greg Woodhouse 22:43, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

No one is saying that hard system approaches are not precise, but they failed to live up to expectations when these techniques were applied to social systems, family system theory for example. The bottom line is that we have to report what they did/do and not what it appears like to you and me. Thomas Mandel

operations research

Can you elaborate a bit on how OR fits into the framework of systems theory? The article lists it as a modern development, but doesn't elaborate further. Greg Woodhouse 22:47, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

computers and complexity

You might want to be a little more nuanced here. It is true that the growth of computer technology has played an important role in the styudy of complex systems, but one of the most iconic figures in the history of dynamical systems and chaos is Poincaré. Much of the theory goes back to the 19th century. The relationship between heat and triginometric series goes back to Joseph Fourier, In addition, the study of complexity theory in computer science (as is the case with computabilty) was initially concerned with computation in the abstract, not the complexity of algorithms executed on digital computers. Greg Woodhouse 23:33, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

I will delete complexity science for now. Thomas Mandel 11:19, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

---

Here's some feedback from the field --

Very interesting Thom:

I suggest that you keep up the work! It's quite good and contains a lot that I never knew.

Peace, -- Mark

Between you and me, I am surprised as much as you are, thanks to the guys here at CZ, I had to rise to a new level Thomas Mandel 14:32, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

---

It appears that there are two major applicabilities; one would within the systems theory domain, how systems theorists apply their research and the other would be in the field, or how systems theory is used by other than system theorists. This begs the question "Who is systems theory for?" The answer is found in the purpose of systems theory.Thomas Mandel 00:53, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

I don't know where your "this" starts and ends. I am trying to map it out as they have done it. Areas of applicability is what we call "Applications" I think what I was trying to do is form a historical sequence. Thomas Mandel 15:58, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

I moved this reply from the article page to here. Thomas Mandel 15:58, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

Oops! Sorry about that.

None of this is history of systems theory. What you are doing in providing a long list of areas of research where some sort of phenomenon (e.g., feedback in queuing systems where customers are not lost to the system but able to reenter) is present that is of interest to systems theorists. Perhaps you can call it "areas of applicability" or something along those lines. Greg Woodhouse 15:39, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

Very astute of you to catch that Greg. Thomas Mandel

notes

Note 1: Language is crucial to systems theory. In keeping with Korzybski's g-s and the Whorf Principle of Linguistic Relativity, it is imperative that the intro/definition be precisely worded. Leaving out a single word can make the difference between the new and the old. One bad word can turn the entire enterprise into nonsense. Furthermore, because ontological considerations are different, a new language is being sought. Until that is found, if ever, we are using old words to say something new.

There has to be a point where the knowledge of the subject takes precedence over editorial desires.

---

note 2) While I don't see it as a controversy of the confrontational kind, systems theory has a built-in controversy with classical science. Much ado is made of the diferent perspectives involved, (a) that of looking at an object and (b)that of looking at what the object is doing. So there is a lot of high-level talk about the shortcomings of the old science going on in the literature of systemics. I am not aware of any classical scientists refuting this observation however. So it has not become a controversy of the ordinary kind yet. Systems theory does not replace classical science, it is a complementary of classical science.

If there is controversy, used to be that cybernetics and systems each argued that the other came after, in the end, cybernetics is a special case of the more general systems theory. Today, the controversy is between complexity science and systems theory. IMO, Complexity wants to be top dog, and they act as if they invented something new e.g., the new science of complexity, but what they did is computerize/mathematize complex systems. They don't invalidate system theory principles, they regard them as "old hat" while, later, they refer back to them as their core principles. In my very personal opinion IMVPO

---

note 3) This quote is from the systems biology article. Does this suggest that systems theory is "dated"? Or does it suggest that the authors did not find it necessary (in this or any other part of the article) to acknowledge prior research?

"When trying to understand biological systems, systems biologists need not treat the components or elements of a system (or subsystem) exclusively as discrete or concrete objects or entities (e.g., molecules, organelles, cells, etc.), but may also treat them as abstracted concepts of organizational collections or activity patterns of those objects or entities, admitting of study by mathematical, computational and statistical tools. Those include such concepts as circuits, networks and modules, more about which will follow below. Such concepts have a way of appearing less abstract or hypothetical as biologists more fully define them in terms of structure and coordinated dynamical interactions; predict systems behavior from them using quantitative models; and relate them functionally in the larger systems embedding them."

The above is clearly systems theory. It is not consistant with the premise that systems theory is outdated/not used, it is consistant with the premise that systems theory is relatively unknown/ignored.

Note 4) I received two reprints from John Warfield who has written on how to do systems work of high quality. Here we have one of the inside stories concerning the politics within the systems movement. They are people like everyone else, and they have faults like everyone else. In this case Warfield has done a tremendous quantity of systems research but he feels that his work has been neglected. This seems to be a common theme among systemists - neglect of the work of others.

Note 5) On the other hande, Warfield writes, "It is a daunting task to discuss the design of a systems sciences program when the word "systems" and the word "science" have both been diminished in scope or scale by common yusage. This task is made still more dificult when, as in applications of systems science, the information that is required to resolve difficult situations is so often in the hands of people who are not accustomed to scientific language, whether debased or not."

I think that Warfield hits the nail straight on the head. I for one, when I read decades ago about this system or that system, did not imagine a special meaning. My personal research into organismic systems went on for 22 years before I discovered system has a special meaning, the same meaning I was researching, and that literally tens of thousands have worked with it. The point is that when I came across the word "system" in my early research I didn't find any need to look further into the meaning of that word and in no way did I think that there was anything special about it. While system theory is common among systemists, as is system philosophy, system science, system thinking and systemics, the general public, and this includes Phd's from all disciplines, does not make that special connection either. This does not mean that the principles of system thoery have been likewise ignored, systems biology is a good example of parallel research apparently without any knowledge of system philosophy. Thus it is all the more important that the definition be explicite about the integrative aspect of a system. Systems thinking does not mean that all science should be put into the same framework as a bus system or sewer system or organizational system.

note 6 The reason for this note is one sentence written by Warfield as a note 17 on page 538 journal article ----

"The fundamental idea is that the systems science must be a neutral science that is applicable across the board, but which will usualy have to be supplemented by experts from the specific sciences or from other areas where relevant experience is found."

It appears that systems science and CitiZendium have something in common. Creating a neutral science is not difficult when general terms constitute the language. Enabling experts from specific sciences is more problematic. Systems science is not just science 2.0. In some crucial (ontological) respects it is a completly new and different way of doing science. However, in our case, we have a perfect supplemental specific application of systems science to be found in the article systems biology.

---

OLD ARTICLE COPY

'Bold text'Systems theory is regarded by its adherants to be a transdisciplinary and multiperspectual scientific inquiry that studies structure and properties of systems in terms of their relationships. They emphasize that it is through these mutually interactive relationships that new properties of the whole emerge. Ervin Laszlo contrasts the system model with the Classical concept of reductionism as a shifting of emphasis from parts to the organization of parts; from the "component to the dynamic" as states it. Bala H Banathy regards this observation to be the value of systems theory, as this new whole has properties which are not found in the constituent elements. "We cannot understand the whole bit by bit" he explains.[1] (See Note 1:)

In 1954 at the Stanford Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Kenneth Boulding, Ralph Gerard, and Anatol Rapoport promoted systems theory as an authentic scientific methodology specifically to become a science dedicated to the advancement of humanity.[2] In collaboration with James Grier Miller, the Society for General Systems Research (SGSR) was formed in 1956 as an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. SGSR was renamed International Society for the System Sciences (ISSS) in 1988. Adherents today often find home for their ideas within the national and internatonal societies and their respective chapters most of which are affiliates of the International Federation for Systems Research (IFSR).

General systems theory

Ludwig von Bertalanffy's book General System Theory brought together the concepts and models of organismic thought using the umbrella word system. General systems theory is concerned with the concepts, principles, and models that are common to all kinds of systems and the isomorphisms between and among various types of systems. His book and the establishment of a research society served as the stage for the beginning the systems movement. von Bertalanffy writes, "...there exist models, principles, and laws that apply to generalized systems or their subclasses, irrespective of their particular kind, the nature of their component elements, and the relationships or "forces" between them. It seems legitimate to ask for a theory, not of systems of a more or less special kind, but of universal principles applying to systems in general."

Kenneth Boulding writes in the 1968 International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, "The task of general systems theory is to find the most general conceptual framework in which a scientific theory or technological problem can be placed without losing the essential features of the theory or problem." [] The proponents of general systems theory see in it the focal point of resynthesis of knowledge." []

Banathy wrote, “In contrast with the analytical, reductionist, and linear-causal paradigm of classical science, systems philosophy brings forth a reorientation of thought and world view, manifested by an expansionist, non- linear dynamic, and synthetic mode of thinking.

The late Bela H. Banathy had contributed extensively to the knowledge base of systems theory, human activity systems in particular. His role was that of an educator, having taught Boyscouts, North American Indians and Phd's. Professor Banathy wrote, "Traditional science was unable and unwilling to consider Purpose and Meaning which, in the emerging view of disciplined inquiry, has a guiding role. And where dominance once was the purpose, there is now a search for establishing a grand Alliance of science, philosophy, art, and religion. []

Overview

The history of the systems model is traced back by von Bertalanffy to the 1600s found in the binary numbering system of G.W. von Leibniz and the Coincidentia Oppositorum model by Nicholas of Cusa. von Bertalanffy writes: "Notice the theological motive in Leibniz's invention of the binary system. It represented Creation since any mumber can be produced by a combination of 'something' (1) and 'nothing (0). But has this antithesis metaphysical reality, or is it but an expression of linguistic habits and of the mode of action of our nervous system?" []

In an online article compiled by the Primer Group at ISSS,[2] Bela H. Banathy writes in his article Systems Inquiry, "The systems view is a world-view that is based on the discipline of System Inquiry, Central to systems inquiry is the concept of System.[[3]] In the most general sense, system means a configuration of parts connected and joined together by a web of relationships. The Primer group defines system as a family of relationships among the members acting as a whole. Bertalanffy defined system as "elements in standing relationship."

See

"In human activity systems these insights have led us to aspire to Understanding rather than predicting, problem Management rather than problem solution, and Purpose Seeking as a mode of thinking and action rather than determinism."

Systems Inquiry

Ludwig von Bertalanffy outlines the inquiry of systems via three major domains: Philosophy, Science, and Technology. In his work with the Primer Group, Banathy generalized the domains into four integratable "domains of systemic inquiry" operating recursively.

(1) Philosophy: ontology, epistemology, and axiology of systems;

(2) Theory: a set of interrelated concepts and principles applying to all systems;

These integrate as Knowledge.

(3) Methodology: the set of models, strategies, methods, and tools that instrumentalize systems theory and philosophy;

(4) Application: the application and interaction of the domains.

These integrate as Action.

Integrating Philosophy and Theory as Knowledge, and Methodology and Application as Action, Systems Inquiry then is Knowledgeable Action. Marcus Schwaninger describes this as "Being."

Systemic thinking: A tendency or natural predisposition to think in terms of systemic relationships without necessarily drawing upon systems concepts, systems principles, or systems models. Some examples of areas that incorporate and foster such thinking include permaculture, feminist studies, ecology, and the I Ching.

Basic System Principles:

The basic principles found in all systems to some degree operate by the principle of wholeness, the principle of relationship, the principle of emergence, the principle of hierarchy, the principle of feedback and the principle of mutual interaction. "Purpose, process, interaction, integration, and emergence are salient markers of understanding systems", Banathy writes.

System types

Crucial to working with systems are the types of system. The major categories are Natural and Designed systems. Natural systems are those which occur in nature while designed systems are those created by us. Designed Systems include

a) Fabricated/engineered/physical systems;

b) Hybrid systems which combine a designed system with a natural system (Hydroelectric plant)

c) Conceptual systems such as theories, mathematics, philosophy, modeling and descriptive tools; and

d) Human Activity Systems, our purposeful creations (groups)

The members of a set of classifications that arrange human activity systems according to how open-closed, mechanistic-systemic, unitary-pluralistic, or restricted-complex they are.

Human Activity Systems

Human Activity Systems are designed social systems organized for a purpose, which they attain by carrying out specific functions. The various types of Human Activity Systems include Rigidly controlled systems, (assembly line) Deterministic systems (educational systems); Purposive systems, (Corporations) Purpose Seeking systems, (social systems) and Heuristic systems, (R&D agentcies.

Hard and soft systems

Hard systems was made distinct from Soft systems in order to differentiate among the mathematical models employed. Some systems, such as a social system, do not lend themselves to mathematical formulations as they do in, say, chemical reaction systems. Generally, hard systems are the physical systems while Soft systems are Human Activity Systems.

SSM

SSM or Soft Systems Methodology was developed by Peter Checkland as a generic systems approach to problem solving in Management. In its simple form, SSM is a progressive learning tool involving gathering information, defining concepts, developing conceptual models, comparing the models to the perceived reality and then action is taken accordingly. The process is recursive.

Fuenmayor has extended SSM with his theory of Interpretive Systemology. In this interpretation, fact are not facts in themselves, but are interpretations of/in context. He writes: "The methological search or knowledge is characterized by the modeling of various contexts of meaning, by explicitly interpreting the phenomenon with regard to such contexts of meaning and by discussing the various interpretations in the light of their respective contexts of meaning."

Critical Systems Theory

Critical systems theory is a soft system methodology which attempts to equalize the power inequities which often thwart SSM. Jackson writes " privileged stakeholders (in terms of wealth, status, or power) are unlikely to risk their dominant position and submit their privileges to the vagaries of idealized design or whatever."

Heirarchy Theory

Hierarchy Theory focuses on levels and scale. A significant degree of emphasis is on the observer thus has been viewed as a theory of observation. For example, an individual human being may be a member of the level i) human, ii) primate, iii) organism or iv) host of a parasite, depending on the relationship of the level in question to those above and below. Of particular interest is the Holon described as a whole which is also a part of a greater whole. Principle investigators are economist, Herbert Simon, chemist, Ilya Prigogine, and psychologist, Jean Piaget.

General evolution theory

Evolution is a tendency toward greater structural complexity, ecological and/or organizational simplicity, more efficient modes of operation, and greater dynamic harmony by means of self-organization.A system by definition is an evolutionary system. A significant feature of a system is emergence. Because the focus is on the interrelationships of a system, these relationships will have emergent properties, properties which cannot be found in the elements when they are isolated. Thus a system is a creator of novel features. The general evolutionary principle thus is this "working together" to form something new such as self-organizing systems do. General evolution theory, based on the integration of the relevant tenets of general system theory, cybernetics, information and communication theory, chaos theory, dynamical systems theory, and nonequilibrium thermodynamics can convey a sound understanding of the laws and dynamics the govern the evolution of complex systems in the various realms of investigation.

Social system design

Social systems design advocates participative democracy in which those affected by the design are the creators of the design. This requires a working knowledge of the dynamics which govern the interconnected, interdependant and interacting problems. Solutions emerge when the situation is looked at as a whole. While traditional science describes what exists as determined by experiments, classification, analysis and deduction in a objective, rational and neutral way, social system design focuses on understanding, by means of analogy, metaphor, criticism and evaulation to form patterns, conjectures and models as a subjective, creative and emphathetic concern.

Evolutionary systems design

A form of systems design that responds to the need for a future-Design (ESD) creating design praxis, that embraces not only human interests and life-spans, but those on planetary and evolutionary planes as well. The primary vehicle for the implementation of ESD is the Evolutionary Learning Community (ELC).

Process model

An organized arrangement of systems concepts and principles that portray the behavior of a system through time. Its metaphor is the “motion-picture” of “movie” of the system.

Gyorgy Jaros has looked at information as a process. Of his teleonics concept he writes: "It is argued that these informationally bonded processes are the basic ingredients of life and entities, which appear only as the result of processes, are of secondary importance. Thus, in Teleonics one does not speak of interaction between entities, but interaction between processes."

Living systems theory

"By definition, living systems are open, self-organizing systems that have the special characteristics of life and interact with their environment. This takes place by means of information and material-energy exchanges." [3]

The Living Systems Theory of James Grier Miller is described as an open system characterized by information and material flows. The properties ( or behavior) of a system as a whole emerge out of the interaction of the components comprising the system.

In the conceptual system developed by Miller, living systems form eight (8) levels of organization and complexity:

The principle components are cells, in simple, multi-cellular systems; Organs, which are groups of cells; organisms (there are three kinds of organisms: fungi, plants and animals); groups, which contain two or more organisms and their relationships; organizations, which involve one of more groups with their own control systems for doing work; communities, including both individual persons and groups; societies, which are loose associations of communities; and supranational systems, organizations of societies.

Regardless of their complexity, they each depend upon the same essential twenty subsystems (or processes) in order to survive and to continue the propagation of their species or types beyond a single generation."The twenty (20) subsystems that process information or material-energy or both account for the survival of living systems, at any level." "Living Systems Theory is a general theory about how all living systems "work," about how they maintain themselves and how they develop and change [4]

Process model: An organized arrangement of systems concepts and principles that portray the behavior of a system through time. Its metaphor is the “motion-picture” of “movie” of the system.

Problematique

John Warfield writes in his book "Understanding Complexity, Thought and Behavior" about a program which is centered around the relationships among the elements of a complexity. He calls this program the "Work Program of Complexity", designed to illuminate the perplexity of complexity through "learning". The program has two fundamental thrusts , one is toward Discovery and the other is toward Resolution. Discovery has two thrusts, one is Description and the other is Diagnosis. Resolution has two also, Planning and Implementation. The program utilizes "Interactive Management" principles to enable a group to come to grips with a problem situation.

The most difficult step is the first step, that of description. Fraught with pitfalls, killer assumptions, lack of foundatinal principles, dominant personalities,and the like, getting all the contributing factors out into the open requires considerable effort. Warfield uses groups and idea generators to submit viewpoints directed toward a "Trigger Question" After clarification and authenticity, the listing of contributions is interrelated into a "Problematique" A "Problematique" is a modeling using a combination of prose and graphics, permitting a view of all the aspects in a relationship. Prose alone is inadequate to express systemic relationships. If the number of elements in a problem field is large, seeing all of them is usually enlightening.

Once the Problematique is created, and presented in an "observatorium" in such a manner to be worthy of the work involved, a skilled diagnosis/options is formed, a plan/options devised and then implemented.

Organizational theory

A systemic view on organizations is transdisciplinary and integrative. It transcends the perspectives of individual disciplines, integrating them on the basis of a common "code", or more exactly, on the basis of the formal apparatus provided by systems theory. The systems approach gives primacy to the interrelationships. It is from these dynamic interrelationships that new properties of the system emerge.

System dynamics

An aspect of systems theory, system dynamics, is a method for understanding the dynamic behavior of complex systems. ----

---

Glossary of key terms used by systemists

Because systems language introduces many new terms and new meanings essential to understanding how a system works, a glossary of many of the significant terms follows:

Adaptive capacity: An important part of the resilience of systems in the face of a perturbation, helping to minimise loss of function in individual human, and collective social and biological systems.

Autopoiesis: The process by which a system regenerates itself through the self-reproduction of its own elements and of the network of interactions that characterize them. An autopoietic system renews, repairs, and replicates or reproduces itself in a flow of matter and energy. Note: from a strictly Maturanian point of view, autopoiesis is an essential property of biological/living systems.

Boundaries: The parametric conditions, often vague, always subjectively stipulated, that delimit and define a system and set it apart from its environment.

Catastrophe: A mathematical description of a sudden and/or radical change in form, or a similar qualitative change in condition; relates to the theories of Réne Thom. closed system: A state of being isolated from the environment. No system can be completely closed; there are only varying degrees of closure.

Complexity: A systemic characteristic that stands for a large number of densely connected parts and multiple levels of embeddedness and entanglement. Not to be confused with complicatedness, which denotes a situation or event that is not easy to understand, regardless of its degree of complexity.

Culture: The result of individual learning processes that distinguish one social group of higher animals from another. In humans culture is the set of products and activities through which humans express themselves and become aware of themselves and the world around them. See cognitive map.

Development: The process of liberating a system from its previous set of limiting conditions. It is an amelioration of conditions or quality. See growth and evolution.

Dissipative structure: A term invented by Ilya Prigogine to describe complex chemical structures undergoing the process of chemical change through the dissipation of entropy into their environment, and the corresponding importation of “negentropy” from their environment. Also known as syntropic systems.

Embeddedness: A state in which one system is nested in another system.

Emergence: The appearance of novel characteristics exhibited on the level of the whole ensemble, but not by the components in isolation.

Entanglement: A state in which the manner of being, or form of existence, of one system is inextricably tied to that of another system or set of systems.

Entropy: In thermodynamics, entropy is a measure of energy that is expended in a physical system but does no useful work, and tends to decrease the organizational order of the system. Environment: The context within which a system exists. It is composed of all things that are external to the system, and it includes everything that may affect the system, and may be affected by it at any given time.

Evolution: A cosmic process specified by a fundamental universal flow toward ever increasing complexity that manifests itself through particular events and sequences of events that are not limited to the domain of biological phenomenon, but extend to include all aspects of change in open dynamic systems with a throughput of information and energy. In other words, evolution relates to the formation of stars from atoms, of Homo sapiens from the anthropoid apes, and the formation of complex societies from rudimentary social systems.

Evolutionary Development: A form of sustainable development concerned with the study of human change in an evolutionary context.

Evolutionary Leadership: The form of leadership required for successful sustainability management in an evolutionary context.

Evolutionary Learning: A community that strives toward sustainable pathways for Community (ELC) evolutionary development, in synergistic interaction with its milieu, through individual and collective processes of empowerment, and evolutionary learning. ELC's do not adapt their environment to their needs, nor do they simply adapt to their environment. Rather, they adapt with their environment in a dynamic of mutually sustaining evolutionary co-creation.

Feedback: A process by which information concerning the adequacy of the system, its operation, and its outputs are introduced into the system. Negative feedback tells us that there is a discrepancy between what the system produces and what it should produce. It tells us that we should change something in the system so that we can reduce the deviation from the norms stated in the output model of the system. Positive feedback, on the other hand, tells us that the whole system should change, that we should increase the deviation from the present state, and change the output model.

Feedforward: A process, akin to feedback, that informs current operations with future ideals, and adjusts the output model accordingly.

Function: Denotes actions that are required to be carried out in order to meet systems requirements and attain the purpose(s) of the system.

Functions/structure: Structural functionalism is a systems model that organizes in relational arrangements model systems concepts and principles that present an image of a system in a given moment of time. A metaphor for this is a “still-picture” or “snapshot” of the system.

Heterarchy: An ordering of things in which there is no single peak or leading element, and which element is dominant at a given time depends on the total situation, often used in contrast to hierarchy, also a vertical arrangement of entities (systems and their subsystems), usually ordered from the top downwards rather than from the bottom upwards.

Holarchy: A concept invented by Arthur Köestler to describe behavior that is partly a function of individual nature and partly a function of the nature of the embedding system, generally operating in a bottom upwards fashion.

Holism: A non-reductionist descriptive and investigative strategy for generating explanatory principles of whole systems. Attention is focused on the emergent properties of the whole rather than on the reductionist behavior of the isolated parts. The approach typically involves and generates empathetic, experiential, and intuitive understanding, not merely analytic understanding, since by the definition of the approach, these forms are not truly separable (as nothing is).

Hologram: A three-dimensional photograph created by the interference pattern of two laser beams with the result that each discrete aspect of the image contains all the information necessary to reconstruct the entire image so that, in effect, the whole is contained in all the parts.

Holon: A whole in itself as well as a part of a larger system.

Human Activity Systems: Designed social systems organized for a purpose, which they attain by carrying out specific functions. Learning: A lifelong process that at the core of adaptive capacity. In human terms it involves a) challenges the learner’s perspective and facilitates the expansion of his/her worldview; b) promotes human fulfillment; c) enables the learner to cope with uncertainty and complexity; and d) empowers the learner to creatively shape change and design the future.

Lowerarchy: A specific type of hierarchy involving a ‘bottom up’ arrangement of entities such that the few are influenced by the many.

Model building: A disciplined inquiry by which a conceptual (abstract) representation of a system is constructed or a representation of expected outcomes/output is portrayed.

Open system: A state and characteristics of that state in which a system continuously interacts with its environment. Open systems are those that maintain their state and exhibit the characteristics of openness previously mentioned.

Organizational learning: A process of developing organizational capacity and human capability to articulate and continuously examine the purposes, underlying perspectives and assumptions, and individual and organizational values in view of the (a) performance of the organization, and (b) the changing characteristics and expectations of the environment(s) in which the organization is embedded.

Paradigms: The set of fundamental beliefs, axioms, and assumptions that order and provide coherence to our perception of what is and how it works; a basic world view; also, example cases and metaphors. See cognitive map.

Process model: An organized arrangement of systems concepts and principles that portray the behavior of a system through time. Its metaphor is the “motion-picture” of “movie” of the system.

Reductionism: One kind of scientific orientation that seeks to understand phenomena by a) breaking them down into their smallest possible parts: a process known as analytic reductionism, or conversely b) conflating them to a one-dimensional totality: a process known as holistic reductionism.

Relationship: In the most general sense, a relationship is an interaction between the elements of a system. If the elements of the system are things, then the relationship is what those things are doing to each other. This interaction results in emergent properties which are perceived as the whole such as the wetness of the two gases of water.

Subsystem: A major component of a system. It is made up of two or more interacting and interdependent components. Subsystems of a system interact in order to attain their own purpose(s) and the purpose(s) of the system in which they are embedded. Suprasystem: The entity that is composed of a number of component systems organized in interacting relationships in order to serve their embedding suprasystem.

Sustainable development: A process of human development (individual, societal, or global) that can be said to be socially and ecologically sustainable if it involves an adaptive strategy that ensures the evolutionary maintenance of an increasingly robust and supportive environment. Such a process enhances the possibility that human and other life will flourish in this planet indefinitely.

Sustainability: The ability of a system to maintain itself with no loss of function for extended periods of time. In human terms it is the creative and responsible stewardship of resources — human, Management natural, and financial — to generate stakeholder value while contributing to the well-being of current and future generations of all beings.

Synchrony: Also synchronicity. In engineering; concurrence of periods and/or phases; simultaneity of events or motions: contemporaneous occurrences. In evolutionary systems thinking; a fortunate coincidence of phenomenon and/or of events. Synergy: Also system. Synergy is the process by which a system generates emergent properties resulting in the condition in which a system may be considered more than the sum of its parts, and equal to the sum of its parts plus their relationships. This resulting condition can be said to be one of synergy.

Syntony: In evolutionary systems thinking; evolutionary consonance; the occurrence and persistence of an evolutionarily tuned dynamic regime. Conscious intention aligned with evolutionary purpose; more loosely, the embodiment and manifestation of conscious evolution; a purposeful creative aligning and tuning with the evolutionary flows of one’s milieu. In traditional radio engineering; resonance.

Syntropy: The process of negentropy-importation. A syntropic system is a dissipative structure.

System: A group of interacting components that conserves some identifiable set of relations with the sum of their components plus their relationships (i.e., the system itself) conserving some identifiable set of relationships to other entities (including other systems).

System Domains: Philosophy; Theory; Methodology; Application.

System-environment: A model to examine and define a system in its model context and to organize systems concepts and principles that are relevant to system-environment interactions.

Systematic thinking: Any methodical step-by-step approach that is carried out according to a pre-determined algorithm or a fixed plan.

Systems approach: A view that perceives phenomena as a system and deals with problem situations and opportunities that emerge by the application of systems thinking.

Systems design: A decision-oriented disciplined inquiry that aims at the construction of a model that is an abstract representation of a future system.

Systems thinking: An internalized manifestation (in the thinking of individuals or social systems) of systems concepts, systems principles, and systems models.

Wholeness: In reference to systems, the condition in which systems are seen to be structurally divisible, but functionally indivisible wholes with emergent properties.

Further reading

• Ackoff, R. (1978). The art of problem solving. New York: Wiley.
• Bertalanffy, L. von. (1950). "An Outline of General Systems Theory." Philosophy of Science, Vol. 1, No. 2.
• Bertalanffy, L. von. (1955). "An Essay on the Relativity of Categories." Philosophy of Science, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 243–263.
• Banathy, B. ( ) Systems Design of Education. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications
• Banathy, B. (1992) A Systems View of Education. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications. ISBN 0877782458
• Banathy, B (1996) Designing Social Systems in a Changing World New York Plenum
• Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: Ballantine
• Bausch, Kenneth C. (2001) The Emerging Consensus in Social Systems Theory, Kluwer Academic New Yourk ISBN 0306465396
• Bunge, M. (1979) Treatise on Basic Philosophy, Volume 4. Ontology II A World of Systems. Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel.
• Capra, F. (1997). The Web of Life-A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems, Anchor ISBN 978-0385476768
• Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, Systems practice. New York: Wiley.
• Churchman, C.W. (1971). The design of inquiring systems. New York: Basic Books.
• Churchman, C.W. (1968). The systems approach. New York: Laurel.
• Corning, P. 1983) The Synergism Hupothesis: A Theory of Progressive Evolution. New York: McGRaw Hill
• Jantsch, E. (1980). The Self Organizing Universe. New York: Pergamon.
• Laszlo, E. (1995). The Interconnected Universe. New Jersy, World Scientific. ISBN 9810222025
• Laszlo, E. (1972a). The systems view of the world. The natural philosophy of the new developments in the sciences. New York: George Brazillier. ISBN 0807606367
• Laszlo, E. (1972b). Introduction to systems philosophy. Toward a new paradigm of contemporary thought. San Francisco: Harper.
• Lemkow, A. (1995) The Wholeness Principle: Dynamics of Unity Within Science, Religion & Society. Quest Books, Wheaton.
• Minati, Gianfranco. Collen, Arne. (1997) Introduction to Systemics Eagleye books. ISBN 0924025069
• Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
• Wiener, N. (1967). The human use of human beings. Cybernetics and Society. New York: Avon.

External links

• Principia Cybernetica Web

Member Organizations of the International Federation for Systems Research (IFSD

American society for Cybernetics

Asociation Argentins de Teria General de Sistemas y Cibernetica

Asociation Latinamericana de Sistemas

Asociation Mexicana de la Ciencias de Systemas

Asociation Mexicana de Systemas y Cibernetica

Association Francaise de Science des Systemes Cybernnetiques

Australian and New Zealand Systems Group

Bulgarian Society for Systems Research Centre for Hypercursion and Anticipation in Ordered Systems

Cybernetics Society

Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kybernetik Gesellschaft fur Wirtschaft und Sozialkybernetik

Globl Institute of Flexible Systems

Greek Systems Society

Hellenic Society for System Studies

Institute Andino de Sistemas

International Society for the Systems Sciences

International Society of knowledge and System Science

Internatiohnal Systems Institute

Italian Association for Research on Systems

Japan association for Social and Economic Syst3em Studies

Korean Society for Systems Science Research

Learned Society of Praxiology

Management Science Society of Ireland

Polish Systems Society

Slovendian Society for Systems Research

Sociedad Espanola se Systemas Generales

Systems Enineering Society

Systemgroep Nederland United Kingdom Systems Society

From Systems Research and Behavioral Science ISSN 1099-1743 Wiley Interscience

Systemists

• Ludwig von Bertalanffy
• Charles François
• John N. Warfield
• Gordon Pask
• Russell L Ackoff
• W Ross Ashby
• Bela H Banathy
• Stafford Beer
• Kenneth Boulding
• Peter Checkland
• C West Churchman
• Jay Forrester
• George Klir
• Niklas Luhmann
• Humberto Maturana
• Margaret Mead
• Warren McCulloch
• Charles McClelland
• James Grier Miller
• Harold G Nelson
• Howard Odum
• Gordon Pask
• Howard Pattee
• William Powers
• Ilya Prigogine
• Anatol Rapoport
• Robert Rosen
• Claude Shannon
• Len Troncale
• Francisco Varela
• Heinz von Foerster
• John von Neumann
• Geoffrey Vickers
• Paul Watzlawick
• Norbert Wiener

Holding

Bela H. Banathy has contributed extensively to the knowledge base of systems theory, human activity in particular. Bela Banathy's last book, Guided Evolution of Society: A System View presented a cultural evolution of models and ideas exploring "The Journey from Evolutionary Consciousness to Conscious Evolution." He talks about how biological evolution evolved into a cultural evolution, giving examples of how, when prehistoric man developed a language, his tool making evolved as well. [3]

Systems theory refers to a body of thought and way of thinking held among a small minority of thinkers across various disciplines. Systems theory primarily traces itself to a work by biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy, General System Theory, in which he sought to bring under one philosophical heading his thoughts about organismic structures. Bertalanffy argued [fill in core argument]. Adherents of system theory have gone on to apply Bertalanffy's thought to [fill in details].

However, the translation of the German into the English general system theory has "wroth a certain amount of Havoc" writes Ervin Laszlo[] in the preface of von Bertalanffy's book Perspectives on General System Theory.. []

"The original concept of general system theory was Allgemeine Systemtheorie (or Lehre). Now "Theorie" (or Lehre) just as Wissenschaft (translated Scholarship), has a much broader meaning in German than the closest English words "theory" and "science." A Wissenschaft is any organized body of knowledge, including the Geisteswissenschaften (Scholarship of Arts), which would not be considered true sciences in English usage. And Theorie applies to any systematically presented set of concepts, whether they are empirical, axiomatic, or philosophical. (Lehre comes into the same category, but cannot be properly translated. "Teaching," the closest equivalent, sounds dogmatic and off the mark. However, doctrine can be a translation for it as well.

"Thus when von Bertalanffy spoke of Allgemeine Systemtheorie, it was consistent with his view that he was proposing a new perspective, a new way of doing science. It was not directly consistent with an interpretation often put on "general system theory," to wit, that it is a (scientific) "theory of general systems." To criticize it as such is to shoot at straw men. Von Bertalanffy opened up something much broader and of much greater significance than a single theory (which, as we now know, can always be falsified and has usually an ephemeral existence): he created a new paradigm for the development of theories."

• 2006, John N. Warfield, AN INTRODUCTION TO SYSTEMS SCIENCE, World Scientific [5]

• 2001, Kenneth Bausch, The Emerging Consensus in Social Systems Theory. Kluwer Academic, London. ISBN: 0-306-46539-6

• 2004, Charles François, Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics, K G Saur, Munich

• 1999, Charles François, Systemics and Cybernetics in a Historical Perspective

• 1996, Ervin Laszlo. Systems View of the World. Hampton Press, New Jersy. ISBN: 0-8076-0637-5

• 1982 Fritjof Capra, The Turning Point. Bantum Books. ISBN: 0-0053-01480-3

• 1985, Len Troncale. The Future of General System Research. Systems Research

• 1975, Gerald M. Weinberg An Introduction to General Systems Thinking (1975 ed., Wiley-Interscience) (2001 ed. Dorset House).

• 1968, Ludwig von Bertalanffy General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications New York: George Braziller

Comments

Hope you'll forgive my small intrusion here. I've made some minor edits that you should feel free to revert. Made them during a read through with a view to offering a few comments. There's a lot here that is very interesting, and you have a broad canvas, and I'm very sympathetically inclined. On reading through though, there were a few things that jarred; bold text is I think overused, it shouts too loud for me. The reading list is just too long to be helpful, it didn't seem to be obviously selective nor did it appear to be comprehensive. Some parts of the text are I thought, too much influenced affected by the intrusion of the writer's opinion - I noted especially the section on Warfield as being congratulatory rather than informative. I also thought there was an apparent excess of jargon and definitions, and a corresponding underuse of simple explanatory terms. So, when you talk of Discovery for instance, is this in the natural meaning? in which case doesn't need capitalization, or is it in some internally defined special sense, in which case it seems to need explanation or should else be avoided.Gareth Leng 04:18, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Your perspective is welcome and refreshing, I changed the bold, but want to keep it in the first paragraph because those words are important. Don't know what to say about the jargon, why else is a encyclopedia for? DId I miss your point? I deleted a couple obvious opinions of mine. Discovery is used by Warfield to label a stage of his methodology but it is used in the conventional "legal" sense. Definitions are important to us because we do redefine many concepts. I like to use them because they can explain a significant concept. Did I miss anything?

Thomas Mandel 00:48, 27 June 2007 (CDT)