General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications

by Ludwig Von Bertalanffy

Typical feedback or homeostatic phenomena are “open” with respect to incoming information, but “closed” with respect to matter and energy.

Thus dynamics in open systems and feedback mechanisms are two different model concepts, each in its right in its proper sphere. The open-system model is basically nonmechanistic, and transcends not only conventional thermodynamics, but also one-way causality as is basic in conventional physical theory

The cybernetic approach retains the Cartesian machine model of the organism, unidirectional causality and closed systems; its novelty lies in the introduction of concepts transcending conventional physics, especially those of information theory.

Physiologically speaking, the feedback model accounts for what may be called “secondary regulations” in metabolism and other fields, i.e., regulations by way of preestablished mechanisms and fixed pathways,

On the other hand, dynamic interplay of reactions in open systems applies to “primary regulations” such as in cell metabolism

The fact that many processes follow simple allometry, indicates that this is a general rule of the harmonization of processes

Is not any simple model and formula a sort of rape of nature, pressing reality into a Procrustean bed and recklessly cutting off what doesn’t fit into the mold?

What is really invariable is the organization of processes expressed by certain relationships. This is what the theory states and experiments show, namely, that there are functional relationships between certain metabolic and growth parameters.

without loss of generality, we may understand “metabolic” and “growth types” as ideal cases observable under certain conditions, rather than as rigid species characteristics.

The two conceptions should be clearly distinguished; the feedback model (homeostasis) should not be considered a cover-all for physiological regulation in general or identified with “systems theory.”

Less advertised than the contemporary revolutions in technology but equally pregnant of future possibilities is a revolution based on modern developments in biological and behavioral science. For short, it may be called the Organismic Revolution. Its core is the notion of system—apparently a pale, abstract and empty concept which nevertheless is full of hidden meaning, ferment and explosive potentialities.

Now we are looking for another basic outlook on the world— the world as organization. Such a conception—if it can be substantiated—would indeed change the basic categories upon which scientific thought rests, and profoundly influence practical attitudes.

the robot model is theoretically inadequate in view of empirical fact and is practically dangerous in its application to “behavioral engineering.”

Biologically, life is not maintenance or restoration of equilibrium but is essentially maintenance of disequilibria, as the doctrine of the organism as open system reveals.

in my opinion, be stated quite confidently: Social science is the science of social systems. For this reason, it will have to use the approach of general systems science.

Thus statistical regularities and laws can be found in social phenomena;

In the variety of modern currents, there is one common principle: to take man not as reactive automaton or robot but as an active personality system.

In contrast to physical forces like gravity or electricity, the phenomena of life are found only in individual entities called organisms. Any organism is a system, that is, a dynamic order of parts and processes standing in mutual interaction

“Whatever else personality may be, it has the properties of a system”

The stimulus (i.e., a change in external conditions) does not cause a process in an otherwise inert system; it only modifies processes in an autonomously active system”

The living organism maintains a disequilibrium called the steady state of an open system and thus is able to dispense existing potentials or “tensions” in spontaneous activity or in response to releasing stimuli; it even advances toward higher order and organization.

“Organisms are not machines; but they can to a certain extent become machines, congeal into machines. Never completely, however; for a thoroughly mechanized organism would be incapable of reacting to the incessantly changing conditions of the outside world”

“Except for the immediate satisfaction of biological needs, man lives in a world not of things but of symbols”

It can be justly questioned whether man is a rational animal; but he certainly is a symbol-creating and symbol-dominated being throughout.

Mental disease is essentially a disturbance of system functions of the psychophysical organism. For this reason, isolated symptoms or syndromes do not define the disease entity

The contrast of normality to schizophrenia is not that normal perception is a plane mirror of reality “as is,” but that schizophrenia has subjective elements that run wild and that are disintegrated.

Scientific notions such as the earth running with unimaginable speed through the universe or a solid body consisting mostly of empty space interlaced with tiny energy specks at astronomical distances, contradict all everyday experience and “common sense” and are more fantastic than the “world designs” of schizophrenics. Nevertheless the scientific notions happen to be “true”—i.e., they fit into an integrated scheme.

Hence the answer whether an individual is mentally sound or not is ultimately determined by whether he has an integrated universe consistent within the given cultural framework

The ingrained mechanistic way of thinking which comes into difficulties with modern scientific developments is a consequence of our specific linguistic categories and habits, and Whorf hopes that insight into the diversity of linguistic systems may contribute to the reevaluation of scientific concepts.

But we must remember all the time that E = mc2 is also only a grammatical conception of reality in terms of Indo-European morphological categories of speech. A Hopi, Chinese, or Eskimo Einstein might discover via his grammatical habits wholly different mathematical conceptualizations with which to apperceive reality.

Thus, the categories of our experience and thinking appear to be determined by biological as well as cultural factors. Secondly, this human bondage is stripped by a process of progressive de-anthropomorphization of our world picture. Thirdly, even though de-anthropomorphized, knowledge only mirrors certain aspects or facets of reality. However, fourthly, ex omnibus partibus relucet totum, again to use Cusa’s expression: Each such aspect has, though only relative, truth. This, it seems, indicates the limitation as well as the dignity of human knowledge.