More on this book
Kindle Notes & Highlights
Read between
March 20, 2022 - July 8, 2023
Ludwig von Bertalanffy sought to introduce a new paradigm of thought based on the recognition that the world is a great organization, hierarchically structured into interactive systems.
general system theory (GST)
The first ambition of general systems research was to identify these laws and the schema that connects them, thus establishing a GST.
Von Bertalanffy’s primary discipline was theoretical biology, and in his day the chief controversy in this field was the deep tension between mechanicism and vitalism, as alternative approaches to understanding the nature of organisms.
Bertalanffy suggested that this conflict could be resolved by what he, initially, termed an “organismic” approach—the idea that it is laws of organization that distinguish organisms from non-living matter.
systemic laws involving organization are general in that they can be applied across different evolutionary levels. This was the birth of the idea of a general system theory.
axiological
It is only by studying diverse kinds of systems that we can discover these isomorphies, but because they are manifestations of general laws we can use them to develop a unified theory of systems that reflect a unified reality. Thinking about problems from this meta-level point of view is the essence of systems thinking.
von Bertalanffy explained that a system maintains itself because its organization results in a whole that—via its structure—exerts governing influences on its parts (so-called “top-down causation”) such that the parts act together to provide for the properties of the whole (so-called “bottom-up causation”).
Von Bertalanffy’s defence of humanism is substantiated by his ontological models, which provide a pragmatic account of the dangers and opportunities inherent in social systems. For example, it reveals that it is not wicked individuals that drive history, but dynamisms that (re-) produce the social organization that they exploit.
The crises we face are systemic in nature. To overcome those crises we need to understand how systems work. To arrive at such an understanding we need to think systemically.
it is a striking fact that biological systems as diverse as the central nervous system, and the biochemical regulatory network in cells should be strictly analogous . . . it is all the more remarkable when it is realized that this particular analogy between different systems at different levels of biological organization is but one member of a large class of such analogies.
General system theory, then, is scientific exploration of “wholes” and “wholeness” which, not so long ago, were considered to be metaphysical notions transcending the boundaries of science.
these are essentially “systems” problems, that is, problems of interrelations of a great number of “variables.”
What is to be defined and described as system is not a question with an obvious or trivial answer.
Thus the distinction between “real” objects and systems as given in observation and “conceptual” constructs and systems cannot be drawn in any commonsense way. These are deep problems which can only be indicated in this context.
If reality is a hierarchy of organized wholes, the image of man will be different from what it is in a world of physical particles governed by chance events as ultimate and only “true” reality.
an introduction into a rapidly developing field largely consists in its conceptual history. It may not be inappropriate, therefore, that the present work consists of studies written over a period of some thirty years. The book thus presents systems theory not as a rigid doctrine (which at present it is not) but rather in its becoming and in the development of its ideas which, hopefully, can serve as a basis for further study and investigation.
Piaget, for example, “expressly related his conceptions to the general system theory of Bertalanffy” (Hahn, 1967).
If there be a third revolution (i.e. after the psychoanalytic and behavioristic), it is in the development of a general [system] theory
In the last two decades we have witnessed the emergence of the “system” as a key concept in scientific research. Systems, of course, have been studied for centuries, but something new has been added. . . . The tendency to study systems as an entity rather than as a conglomeration of parts
a well-known systems principle, that of progressive mechanization—the individual becoming ever more a cogwheel dominated by a few privileged leaders, mediocrities and mystifiers who pursue their private interests under a smokescreen of ideologies (Sorokin, 1966, pp. 558ff).
The proposal of system theory was received incredulously as fantastic or presumptuous. Either—it was argued—it was trivial because the so-called isomorphisms were merely examples of the truism that mathematics can be applied to all sorts of things, and it therefore carried no more weight than the “discovery” that 2 + 2 = 4 holds true for apples, dollars and galaxies alike; or it was false and misleading because superficial analogies—as in the famous simile of society as an “organism”—camouflage actual differences and so lead to wrong and even morally objectionable conclusions. Or, again, it
...more
Systems theory also is frequently identified with cybernetics and control theory. This again is incorrect. Cybernetics, as the theory of control mechanisms in technology and nature and founded on the concepts of information and feedback, is but a part of a general theory of systems; cybernetic systems are a special case, however important, of systems showing self-regulation.
Cybernetics is a theory of control systems based on communication (transfer of information) between system and environment and within the system, and control (feedback) of the system’s function in regard to environment. As mentioned and to be discussed further, the model is of wide application but should not be identified with “systems theory” in general. In biology and other basic sciences, the cybernetic model is apt to describe the formal structure of regulatory mechanisms, e.g., by block and flow diagrams. Thus the regulatory structure can be recognized, even when actual mechanisms remain
...more
Inhomogeneous and incomplete as it is, confounding models (e.g., open system, feedback circuit) with mathematical techniques (e.g., set, graph, game theory), such an enumeration is apt to show that there is an array of approaches to investigate systems,
Models in ordinary language therefore have their place in systems theory. The system idea retains its value even where it cannot be formulated mathematically, or remains a “guiding idea” rather than being a mathematical construct. For example, we may not have satisfactory system concepts in sociology; the mere insight that social entities are systems rather than sums of social atoms, or that history consists of systems (however ill defined) called civilizations obeying principles general to systems, implies a reorientation in the fields concerned.
We presently “see” the universe as a tremendous hierarchy, from elementary particles to atomic nuclei, to atoms, molecules, high-molecular compounds, to the wealth of structures (electron and light-microscopic) between molecules and cells (Weiss, 1962b), to cells, organisms and beyond to supra-individual organizations.
A similar hierarchy is found both in “structures” and in “functions.” In the last resort, structure (i.e., order of parts) and function (order of processes) may be the very same thing: in the physical world matter dissolves into a play of energies, and in the biological world structures are the expression of a flow of processes.
A general theory of hierarchic order obviously will be a main stay of general systems theory.
Thus there is an array of system models, more or less progressed and elaborate. Certain concepts, models and principles of general systems theory, such as hierarchic order, progressive differentiation, feedback, systems characteristics defined by set and graph theory, etc., are applicable broadly to material, psychological and sociocultural systems; others, such as open system defined by the exchange of matter, are limited to certain subclasses. As practice in applied systems analysis shows, diverse system models will have to be applied according to the nature of the case and operational
...more
It is necessary to study not only parts and processes in isolation, but also to solve the decisive problems found in the organization and order unifying them, resulting from dynamic interaction of parts, and making the behavior of parts different when studied in isolation or within the whole.
Thus, 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 relations 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.
Or there are systems of equations describing the competition of animal and plant species in nature. But it appears that the same systems of equations apply in certain fields in physical chemistry and in economics as well. This correspondence is due to the fact that the entities concerned can be considered, in certain respects, as “systems,” i.e., complexes of elements standing in interaction.
Thus a basic problem posed to modern science is a general theory of organization. General system theory is, in principle, capable of giving exact definitions for such concepts and, in suitable cases, of putting them to quantitative analysis.
Another objection emphasizes the danger that general system theory may end up in meaningless analogies.
Theoretical economics is a highly developed system, presenting elaborate models for the processes in question. However, professors of economics, as a rule, are not millionaires. In other words, they can explain economic phenomena well “in principle” but they are not able to predict fluctuations in the stock market with respect to certain shares or dates. Explanation in principle, however, is better than none at all.
In many cases, isomorphic laws hold for certain classes or subclasses of “systems,” irrespective of the nature of the entities involved. There appear to exist general system laws which apply to any system of a certain type, irrespective of the particular properties of the system and of the elements involved.
General system theory, therefore, is a general science of “wholeness” which up till now was considered a vague, hazy, and semimetaphysical concept.
Conventional physics deals only with closed systems, i.e., systems which are considered to be isolated from their environment.
Every living organism is essentially an open system. It maintains itself in a continuous inflow and outflow, a building up and breaking down of components, never being, so long as it is alive, in a state of chemical and thermodynamic equilibrium but maintained in a so-called steady state which is distinct from the latter.
Obviously, the conventional formulations of physics are, in principle, inapplicable to the living organism qua open system and steady state, and we may well suspect that many characteristics of living systems which
Here, the same final state may be reached from different initial conditions and in different ways. This is what is called equifinality, and it has a significant meaning for the phenomena of biological regulation.
From these examples, you may guess the bearing of the theory of open systems. Among other things, it shows that many supposed violations of physical laws in living nature do not exist, or rather that they disappear with the generalization of physical theory.
So a great variety of systems in technology and in living nature follow the feedback scheme, and it is well-known that a new discipline, called Cybernetics, was introduced by Norbert Wiener to deal with these phenomena. The theory tries to show that mechanisms of a feedback nature are the base of teleological or purposeful behavior in man-made machines as well as in living organisms, and in social systems.
At first, systems—biological, neurological, psychological or social—are governed by dynamic interaction of their components; later on, fixed arrangements and conditions of constraint are established which render the system and its parts more efficient, but also gradually diminish and eventually abolish its equipotentiality.
We may state as characteristic of modern science that this scheme of isolable units acting in one-way causality has proved to be insufficient. Hence the appearance, in all fields of science, of notions like wholeness, holistic, organismic, gestalt, etc., which all signify that, in the last resort, we must think in terms of systems of elements in mutual interaction.
Similar considerations apply to the concept of organization. Organization also was alien to the mechanistic world. The problem did not appear in classical physics, mechanics, electrodynamics, etc.
But although we have an enormous amount of data on biological organization, from biochemistry to cytology to histology and anatomy, we do not have a theory of biological organization, i.e., a conceptual model which permits explanation of the empirical facts.
There are, however, many aspects of organizations which do not easily lend themselves to quantitative interpretation.
