Introduction to Systems Philosophy

Toward a New Paradigm of Contemporary Thought

Ervin Laszlo

• Editore: Routledge
• Anno: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000436709
• Edizione: 1
• Argomento: Philosophy
• Categoria: Epistemology in Philosophy

First Published in 1972, Introduction to Systems Philosophy presents Ervin Laszlo's first comprehensive volume on the subject. It argues for a systematic and constructive inquiry into natural phenomenon on the assumption of general order in nature. Laszlo says systems philosophy reintegrates the concept of enduring universals with transient processes within a non-bifurcated, hierarchically differentiated realm of invariant systems, as the ultimate actualities of self-structuring nature. He brings themes like the promise of systems philosophy; theory of natural systems; empirical interpretations of physical, biological, and social systems; frameworks for philosophy of mind, philosophy of nature, ontology, epistemology, metaphysics and normative ethics, to showcase the timeliness and necessity of a return from analytic to synthetic philosophy. This book is an essential read for any scholar and researcher of philosophy, philosophy of science and systems theory.

Part One

OUTLINE OF A GENERAL THEORY OF SYSTEMS

Chapter 4

THEORY OF NATURAL SYSTEMS

The need to create sound syntheses and systematizations of knowledge … will call out a kind of … genius which hitherto has existed only as an aberration; the genius for integration. Of necessity this means specialization, as all creative effort inevitably does; but this time the man will be specializing in the construction of a whole. (Ortega y Gasset, Mission of the University, Princeton, 1944, p. 91)

The purpose of the here presented theory is to state those invariances which apply to phenomena of organized complexity throughout the micro-hierarchy. Although some relatively detailed and quantitative formulations of theories of natural systems are now emerging from the workshops of physicists, biologists, sociologists, economists and ecologists, most of these represent theories proposed in view of specific foci of attention; hence they are not necessarily reliable as a foundation for a general systems “philosophy.” Rather than surveying and summarizing the existing theories, I shall propose one of my own, mapping explicitly but a handful of systems properties, but ascertaining that each one of these is applicable throughout the range of phenomena of organized complexity that constitutes the terrestrial microhierarchy. Whereas individually these properties may appear trivial in their utmost generality, in their combination, as properties of natural systems, they produce a significant theory of what systems in nature are like. Since man himself is one species of such system, and his environment and experience is made up of others, we get anchor points for a considered general systems philosophy, rooted in an unbiased general theory of systems.

Our theory of natural systems will first be stated, then explored both axiomatically, and in regard to some of its many empirical applications.

THEORY: R = f(α, β, γ, δ), where α, β, γ, δ are independent variables having the joint function R (“natural system”).

α : coactive relation of parts resulting in ordered wholeness in the state of the system (“systemic state property”);

β : function of adaptation to environmental disturbances resulting in the re-establishment of a previous steady state in the system (“system-cybernetics I”);

γ : function of adaptation to environmental disturbances resulting in the reorganization of the system’s state, involving, with a high degree of probability, an overall gain in the system’s negentropy and information content (“system-cybernetics II”);

δ : dual functional-structural adaptation: with respect to subsystems (adaptation as systemic whole) and suprasystems (adaptation as coacting part) (“holon property”¹).

THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES²

R = f(α) (SYSTEMIC STATE PROPERTY)

Natural systems: wholeness and order

An ordered whole is a non-summative system in which a number of constant constraints are imposed by fixed forces, yielding a structure with mathematically calculable parameters.

The concept wholeness defines the character of the system as such, in contrast to the character of its parts in isolation. A whole possesses characteristics which are not possessed by its parts singly. Insofar as this is the case, therefore, the whole is other than the simple sum of its parts. (For example, an atom is other than the sum of the component particles taken individually and added together; a nation is other than the sum of individual beings composing it, etc.) However, no mysticism is implied or involved in this assertion. Traditionally, wholes were often considered to be qualitative and intrinsically unmeasurable entities because they were seen as “more than the sum of their parts.” This conception is spurious. Wholes can be mathematically shown to be other than the simple sum of the properties and the functions of their parts. Consider merely the following basic ideas. Complexes of parts can be calculated in three distinct ways: (i) by counting the number of parts, (ii) by taking into account the species to which the parts belong, and (iii) by considering the relations between the parts.³ In cases (i) and (ii) the complex may be understood as the sum of the parts considered in isolation. In these cases the complex has cumulative characteristics: it is sufficient to sum the properties of the parts to obtain the properties of the whole. Such wholes are better known as “heaps” or “aggregates,” since the fact that the parts are joined in them makes no difference to their functions—i.e. the interrelations of the parts do not qualify their joint behavior. A heap of bricks is an example of this. But consider anything from an atom to an organism or a society : the particular relations of the parts bring forth properties which are not present (or are meaningless in reference to) the parts. Examples of this range from the Pauli exclusion principle (which does not say anything about individual electrons), through homeostatic self-regulation (which is meaningless in reference to individual cells or organs) all the way to distributive justice (likewise meaningless in regard to individual members of a society). There are many natural complexes which are not heaps, but wholes which are other than the sum of their parts. Mathematical examples for both summative and constitutive complexes can be readily found.⁴

The noteworthy point for our consideration is that the mathematics of non-summative complexes apply to physical, biological, psychological, as well as sociological systems. These systems form ordered wholes, i.e., constitutive complexes in which the law-bound regularities exhibited by interdependent elements determine the functional behavior of the totality. The demonstration that this, in fact, is the case, will be attempted subsequently. I shall merely emphasize here that the construct “ordered wholeness” is not identical with the mystical interpretation of the principle “a whole more than the sum of its parts,” but is an acceptable and indeed an often used construct in natural, anthropological and social scientific literature.

R = f(β) (SYSTEM-CYBERNETICS I)

Definition of “system-cybernetics”

In any description which interrelates input-output functional analysis with internal state description, the control processes whereby the input is channeled through the system and results in the modification of some (or all) of its existing parameters—and eventually issues in an output— become the foci of attention. Now “cybernetics” is the term coined by Wiener to denote “steersmanship” or the science of control. Although current engineering usage restricts it to the study of flows in closed systems, it can be taken in a wider context, as the study of processes interrelating systems with inputs and outputs, and their structural-dynamic structure. It is in this wider sense that “cybernetics” will be used here, to wit, as system-cybernetics, understanding by “system” an ordered whole in relation to its relevant environment (hence one actually or potentially open).

Two kinds of system-cybernetics will be distinguished. The first is that which is most directly associated with the name of Wiener: it is the study of self-stabilizing controls operating by error-reducing negative feedback. The second has received attention primarily since Maruyama called attention to the importance of error (or “deviation”) amplifying control processes, which function by means of positive feedback (the “second cybernetics”). These two forms of system-cybernetics give us a qualitatively neutral conceptual tool for assessing processes which result in the pattern-maintenance, as well as the pattern-evolution, of ordered holistic systems through periodic, or constant, energy or information exchanges with their environment. Instances of “system-cybernetics I” and “II” can be found in the realm of atomic processes (microphysical cybernetics), organismic processes (bio-cybernetics), societal processes (socio-cybernetics), and even in the area of cognitive processes (psycho-cybernetics⁵). These terms refer to the most general characteristics of the controlled flows which result either in the maintenance of a typical structure over a period of time in a dynamic environment (stationary or steady states), or in the progressive modification of that structure in response to inputs from the environment (evolution). The use of the general cybernetic framework in studying qualitatively divergent self-stabilizing and self-organizing processes permits the discovery of invariances, appearing under qualitatively divergent transformations. Such invariances would be masked over by the use of special languages with limited connotations. (Hence the justification of such neologisms as may be involved in the above mentioned hyphenated identifications of particular cybernetic processes.)

Natural systems: adaptive self-stabilization

If a system is entirely governed by its fixed forces, the constant constraints these impose bring about an unchanging steady state. If, however, together with the fixed forces some unstrained forces are present in the system, the system is capable of modification through the interplay of the forces present in, and acting on, it. The presence of some fixed forces is sufficient to bring about a state which persists in time (“steady state”) when all the flows in the system which correspond to the unrestrained forces vanish. And any fluctuation in the system gives rise to forces that tend to bring it back to its stable configuration due to the fact that the flow caused by the perturbation must have the same sign as the perturbation itself.⁶ Hence the flow will tend to reduce the perturbation and the system will establish, and return to, its stationary (or steady) state. If the fixed forces are conserved, the stationary state is characterized by their parameters (since the unrestrained forces vanish). If both the fixed and the unrestrained forces are removed, the system is reduced to a state of thermo-dynamical equilibrium.⁷ “Ordered wholes” are always characterized by the presence of fixed forces, excluding the randomness prevailing at the state of thermodynamical equilibrium. Thus ordered wholes, by virtue of their characteristics, are self-stabilizing in, or around, steady states. Given unrestrained forces introducing perturbations which do not exceed their threshold of self-stabilization, they will tend to return to the enduring states prescribed by their constant constraints.

The above is a contemporary statement of Le Chatelier’s principle, advanced in 1888 in reference to closed systems in chemical equilibrium. The principle states, “Every system in chemical equilibrium undergoes, upon variation of one of the factors of the equilibrium, a transformation in such a direction that, if it had produced itself, would have led to a variation of opposite sign to the factor under consideration.”⁸ Le Chatelier’s principle was adapted by Prigogine to open systems and elaborated by Katchalsky and Curran in the aforementioned work. In various forms, it reappears in biology (Cannon, v. Bertalanffy, Weiss, et al.), in sociology (Pareto, Parsons, et al.), in economics (Ricardo, Schumpeter, …), political theory (Taylor, Kaplan …), and has gained such importance that Miller was led to state that no concrete system could exist without such self-regulation.⁹

Stable equilibrium in systems, i.e., the capacity of self-regulation by compensating for changing conditions in the environment through coordinate changes in the system’s internal variables, is stated here as a form of adaptation by concrete systems which are ordered wholes. It can be restated by a simple formula advanced by Weiss to symbolize the characteristics of systems in general:¹⁰

Let us focus on any particular fractional part (A) of a complex suspected of having systemic properties, and measure all possible excursions and other fluctuations about the mean in the physical and chemical parameters of that fraction Over a given period of time. Let us designate the cumulative record of those deviations as the variance (v_a) of part A. Let us furthermore carry out the same procedure for as many parts of the system as we can identify, and establish their variances v_b, v_c, v_d, … v_n. Let us similarly measure as many features of the total complex (S) as we can identify, and determine their variance (V_s). Then the complex is a system if the variance of the features of the whole collective is significantly less than the sum of variances of its constituents; or written in a formula:

$V_{\text{s}}\ll \sum \left(v_{\text{a}}+v_{\text{b}}+v_{\text{c}}+\dots v_{\text{n}}\right).$

Weiss regards as the esse...

Indice dei contenuti

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Table of Contents
• Foreword
• Introduction The Idea of Systems Philosophy
• Part One Outline of a General Theory of Systems
• General Theory of Systems: Conclusions
• Part Two Studies in Systems Philosophy
• Systems Philosophy: Conclusions
• Appendix Systems Philosophy and the Crisis of Fragmentation in Education
• Bibliography
• Index of Names
• Index of Subjects