Lewis Works

This open, on-line Newsletter is published weekly, every Friday Afternoon at 5:30 PM PST. It is updated with new announcements and articles each week.

Lewis Works Newsletter*

*Back to Basics IV

The E-zine of Applied General Systems Science

By Hugh M. Lewis, PhD, MA, general editor

Vol. I, No. 15

5/07/04 Copyright 2004 ©, Hugh M. Lewis.  Facsimiles of this page or parts of this page may be printed and distributed for non-profit research, consulting and educational purposes only, as governed by fair use policy.

On Top

We have taken a fundamental shift of focus, moving the center of our attention and daily involvement away from the web-system framework, toward hands-on involvement in several different research, design, writing & art projects with the aim of tying together the larger meta-system framework. The development of the web-system will continue in the background on a part-time basis, though it will no longer be the exclusive object of our concern.

Criticisms/Comments, then Provide Feedback

On Top

Our newsletter is published once a week at 5:30 PM, Pacific Standard Time, Fridays.

We are continuing with our back to basics. We continue moving away from exclusive preoccupation with web-system development, and going back to the hands-on development of the various meta-system frameworks for the articulation of the whole. We are enjoying considerable success in this endeavor, and the meta-systems framework, as a set of articulatory subsystems, is functionally more integrated than previously and organizationally more simplified. This is reflected primarily in the periodic changes to our System Map that we introduce as a result of our continuous rethinking of the whole.

We invite your open involvement in our framework. We are creating a new membership program, open to all comers. The full details below, upon three levels: free membership, basic membership & premium membership. 

Mission Statement

Lewis Works is dedicated to realizing new human adaptive possibilities in order to create alternative long-term frameworks for human & biological systems development on earth and beyond.

The primary mission of Lewis Works is to fundamentally empower all human beings, without regard or reference to their individual or cultural differences, so that they may function in a more constructive and non-violent manner by means of their integration within an applied systems framework that enables them to contextualize and focus their independent developmental efforts toward comprehensive solutions to common problems in resource distribution, environmental adaptation, and social-structural interaction.

• 1. Lewis Works seeks alternative meta-systems based development through applied general systems with the main goals of:

• a. Achieving a mutually stable and harmonic balance between future human systems and earthbound biological systems.

• b. Providing all human beings in unbiased structural or cultural contexts the alternative systems-based frameworks for their individual & social development by means of increased opportunities, productivity, security and resource availability that they would not otherwise have in conventional frameworks.

• c. Developing the infra-structural context and means for the regular extension of human and biological systems beyond the boundaries of the earth.

• 2. Lewis Works is dedicated to achieving a better world for all people and for all life-forms through the implementation and articulation of an applied general systems framework to general and specific problem sets that occur in the adaptive organization of human behavior in a shared natural environment.

• 3. Lewis Works is non-exclusive, open, non-authoritarian, philanthropic and pacifist in orientation.

• 4. Lewis Works pursues a combination of both profit and non-profit programs and projects to the achievement of its main goals.

• 5. Lewis Works protects and promotes universal human rights and human responsibilities throughout its various programs and projects by the systematic pursuit of human development strategies.

• 6. Lewis Works is law abiding and honest in all its dealings and transactions in all contexts, and respects and honors the customs and manners of all peoples and all ethnocultural groupings.

• 7. Lewis Works protects and promotes the confidentiality and legitimate interests of its clients and customers under all circumstances and in all cases.

• 8. Lewis Works seeks to efficiently provide a comprehensive range of profit-based services and related product lines within an open, web-based forum of exchange that is global in scope, regional in character, and local in focus, and that serves as the basis for the development of a structurally open meta-systems based context in the world transcending local, regional and national identities and affiliations.

• 9. Lewis Works seeks to promote non-profit programs in alternative human development for the sake of alleviating human suffering, educating people openly and in an unbiased manner, and promoting pro-social human development.

• 10. Lewis Works seeks to create trans-national meta-cultural orientations in the world through various organizational frameworks that promote open, democratic principles of government, fair-play and the rule of just law, and through the development of anti-structural multi-media based systems that provide humanity a common symbolic context for their meta-cultural integration.

General Systems theory is a "theory of everything" and hence, more often than not, a theory about nothing in particular at all. The basis for the presupposition of "systems" is that there is an inherent structural patterning, or sense of order, that underlies all phenomenal events in reality. This patterning arises largely through recurrence and reiteration of event structures and the association of contexts together with such events. 

To ask what exactly this sense of order is, beyond our own imaginations of reality, is for some to seek the "ghost in the machine" and it is this "ghost in the machine" that has resulted in the strong dichotomization of formal Western worldview into the mind/body dilemma. The claim I put forth herein is simply that this ghost of the machine, this set of emergent properties, this synergy, is merely the result of the organization of the parts of a system into a functioning, operational whole. 

There really is no need for a mind/body dichotomization of reality--the emergent phenomena of "ghost in the machine" is simply the natural consequence of the organization and operation of the machine itself. Reality is organized, and it is because of this organization that we are able to infer "Systems" at work. Natural reality may be said to be ultimately self-organized, and this sense of self-organization has largely arisen as the result of stochastic process, as the result of the play of chance factors. But we are not thereby claiming that reality is unorganized, or undetermined--that variables do not arise in the course of development of systems at multiple levels that play a greater than chance influence in the conditioning and consequence of systems. 

It can clearly be said that this organization of reality is not a-priori to the phenomenal development and epiphenomenal action of reality itself. There was no master plan at work, no grand design, no sense of fate or predetermination, no fundamental creation, no universal miracle. It does stand as a paradox that there are abstract systems, namely in pure mathematics, that stand formally as the result of logic and basic forms and their relationship and which can be claimed to be completely independent of any demonstration in reality.

We have a preconceived bias about Systems and about organization that it is somehow synchronic and unchanging through time, that time does not really apply to perfect models of systems. The fact remains though that observation of periodic phenomena and the recurrence of similar events under similar circumstances, and the observation as well of the natural growth cycles and of change in the world, are the basis in the first place of our systems models of reality, and that all organizational relationships pertaining to systems occur as relations through time more than as instantaneous connections across synchronic space. About the only place I have hypothesized the existence of instantaneous synchronicity is upon a level so fundamental to physical reality that we have no hope of ever perceiving it directly.

Time is the measure of change that we apply to systems, and time and change are the way we really come to know systems as organized structures that recur or persist over time. The problem with including the variable of time to our models of systems is that it renders these models no longer simple in a linear sense, but very complex in a non-linear manner, and it has been the requirement and the paucity of accounting for systems in this diachronic and dynamic modality that has been the greatest stumbling block to the development of systems based approaches. Of course, our formulations become infinitely complicated when we attempt to take the temporal dimensions of change into account. Hypothetically we hold the variable of time in check in our models, so that we can imagine thereby a simplified "abstract" system in which time only recurs, but is without unpredictable change. Things happen in such static models in a cyclical manner, over and over again. Lower the heat in the system, the thermostat kicks on the heater, until the temperature is restored to the level at which the thermostat is set, and then the heater is turned off again. Heat slowly escapes again from the system, starting the cycle all over again.

To recap the main theme of this brief essay, we may claim that "systems" exist logically as the result of observation and interaction with phenomena in the world that give rise to a sense of order that is patterned and to some extent predictable due to the organization of the components into a coherent, interacting, functional whole. One of the primary conditions of such "systems" are that the component parts making up the organizational whole are constrained in their behavior by their proximal and functional interrelationships with other parts, and the parts work together, in serial coordination, to achieve organizational integration of the whole. Often this condition of internal constraint is effected by the functional specialization of components of systems, which specialization may be marked by the presence of special functional organs or subcomponents not shared by other parts of the system serving other functions.

It is obvious that equilibrium is achieved as a consequence of the operational and developmental integration of the components of the system into an organized whole--it cannot be done otherwise. Equilibrium in developmental systems may be said to be inherently dynamic and complex. Such integrative equilibrium can only be achieved by the mutual adaptation of the parts and the subordination of the function of the part to the interests of maintaining relationships to the whole (i.e., the collectivity of parts.)

The disturbance of equilibrium or its eventual eclipse in the degradative phase of systemic demise, represents a break down of the internal operational coherence of the parts, a relative "disintegration" and loss of internal functional integrity of the system as a whole. Often, exogenous factors initiate or play a part in the disturbance of equilibrium, or disequilibrium, of a system, due to the adverse effects these factors may have upon the component parts and their functional roles in the system. Clearly, a wildly contagious and mortal disease causes great disequilibrium in normal social systems because it invariably results in destruction or disrepair of people, the component parts of society.

We see organization therefore as being a relative thing that is primarily measured internally in terms of the component parts of a whole, and in terms of the relational interactions maintained between these parts, the complexity of which can become astronomical in number in even comparative simple system composed of only a few parts. We know for instance that organization of systems is never complete nor perfect, and that all systems function below their theoretical level of optimum or maximum performance. We also know that both external and internal conditions tend to fluctuate both periodically and non-periodically, within a normal range of thresholds that are themselves complexly defined by multiple interacting variables.

"Information" therefore that we get about systems, about the predictive patterning of systems, is a measure of the relative integration achieved by the organization of a system. All systems therefore always have both: 1 operational efficiencies measurable ultimately in terms of the thermodynamic transfer of heat energy within the system, by whatever transport vehicles and boundary maintenance mechanisms; 2. informational efficiencies measurable ultimately in terms of the signal coherence of the periodic patterning of transmission, which are the consequence and primary expression of the fundamental sense of order and functional/structural organization of the system as a whole.

Informational and operational (working) efficiencies are complementary and intrinsic to any real system, of whatever design and upon whatever level of analysis we are talking about. These complementary factors in a sense become the basis for the "mind/body" dichotomy of Western metaphysics, but because they are two sides of one coin, the question of their relationships and difference really boils down to the false question of the Hen or the Egg. Informational and operational efficiencies are relative measures of the achieved integration of a system that occurs in equilibrium, and these measures are ultimately of the same set of phenomena, namely the organized periodic event processes that recur within a bounded frame of time and space. The first informational efficiency is a measure of the pattern or coherence of the achieved integration of an organized system, while the operational efficiency is a measure of the achieved relational consistency of such a system in terms of the actual work and energy budget required to maintain such a system at its current state of operation.

Such measures at any single point are in fact still photographs of a moving scene, discontinuous and ultimately arbitrary points upon a moving continuous surface. They may be good for the immediate and for the short term, but they become soon useless for determination of the dynamic patterns of the longer term. 

We refer to the modal configuration or normal organizational pattern of a system in the course of its developmental trajectory as the normal, stable modality of its achieved state of equilibrium during its intermediate and longest period of development. This usually provides us the comparative standard by which all similar kinds of systems become contrasted and fit into a larger frame of reference. It is this modal configuration of systems that we use in order to simplify our understanding of such systems. For instance, an infant version of an animal is obviously not the same as a normal adult version--we use the later when we wish to typologize and compare the kind of animal to other kinds or individuals of a kind to one another. 

When we view systems in the larger frame, we view them always as developmental entities with a beginning, a middle of some length, and an eventual ending. We call real systems "temporary" because we know they will not last forever, but will eventually come to an end. The remarkable thing about reality, which should be a fundamental clue about the basic structure of the universe, is that though all the real systems we may see or know of that compose this reality are temporary, and eventually come to an end, the fundamental elements or components that constitute these systems do not end, but are merely broken down, disintegrated, and merged into the background context, to be reorganized later into some other systemic configuration. Whether we agree with a big bang or not, we may assert correctly that the energy used in composition of the earth's elements was energy that existed in some form long before the elements of the earth first originated, and, by my understanding of how elements are formed in the furnaces of stars, the earth's elements must originally have been a part of some star long before they became the earth.

The form of organization of the energy may have changed dramatically from the earliest times to the present, even the form of energy itself may have been altered somehow, in some way, but the energy itself must have existed from the beginning, in equal measure to what it is now. In all transactions, regardless of the efficiency of the system, there is always a complete equality of sign in energy budgets between total inputs and total outputs. Another way of saying this is that energy cannot be made or destroyed, only transformed from one pattern into another. This is the only known form of real transaction we know of that, from an abstract point of view, is totally, completely, undeniably equal in sign. And this aspect of our shared reality, of the physical universe appears to be permanent, unchanging, eternal, and possibly infinite.

Energy is always organized in one form or another, and it is the deterministic (non-chaotic) organization of energy that begets, epiphenomenally, informational patterning. If it isn't organized, it is simply random and therefore informationless. Informational patterning is always imperfect (noisy) because the energy transactions upon which it is based are always thermodynamically constrained--limited systems always leak or lose energy to the larger environment in which they occur. In fact this loss is a measure and demonstration of their connection and relationship to a larger meta-state system that is defined by their environmental context. Just as we cannot imagine a completely energiless state (Absolute Zero) we can also not complete step beyond the purview of an environmental context in which such states are defined energetically. Chaos may be defined as the tendency of all systems to elaborate themselves towards increasing complex entropy (entropy in the small, rather than entropy at large) We may call it constrained entropy that becomes expressed through the long-term parallax of determination. 

We may conclude therefore on the basis of the application of General System principles, that the original state of the universe was one of maximum disorder or a state of total undifferentiated chaos of energy without pattern in an open system. Pattern arose gradually in the discontinuous and differentiated transformations of energy in an open system. This patterning was stochastically self-organizing, but eventually achieved relatively stable and permanent configurations (i.e. gravitational/electro-dynamic radiation, proton-nucleonic matter) that "stock piled" over time in exponentially increasing amounts. We may conclude therefore that the universe is probably a totally open system, and therefore infinite, and that the energy budget of the total universe, as an open meta-state system, is unlimited. It is interesting to ask if energy, in its most basic form, whatever its present or contemporary states of transformation, remains essentially unchanged, and in a sense, beyond change in spite of its transformations.

All transformations of energy are organized (contain information) as systems based upon the emergent properties associated with such transformations leading to relatively stable states or configurations of pattern. A model of general systems, as a theory of everything, is therefore a model of the transformation of basic energy states in open systems, through the action of some kind of operating constraint (non-linear control), into a temporary state of patterned, recurrent organization that takes on some relatively stable form. Information is inherently suggested by its patterning, and this information is the basis of our perceptual awareness, our world knowledge and ultimately our scientific understanding, of such systems. This is true of all real systems, regardless of their kind or level of analysis. 

Abstract systems, by the same standard, are simply non-real systems that contain information, but lack any real energy transformations that are associated only with real systems. We depend upon abstract systems, formulated through restrictive symbological relationships, to take into account real systems. We sometimes confuse abstract systems with real systems, reifying them in the process (noumenal realities) and then construing them as ideologically more real than real systems, because, lacking any energy-based, entropic constraints, they are informationally "perfect."

To summarize, therefore, a real system (a system of physical reality) is any delimited, organized state of energy that takes on characteristic, predictable forms over time and that carries information intrinsic to its patterned form, within a larger meta-systemic context of environmental relationship that is ultimately open and that interacts with the specific system via certain boundary-mediating mechanisms that are part of the system. All real systems are subject to the constraints of space-time and change, and have an expectable growth trajectory with a definable beginning, a middle and an end. All real systems are measureable in terms of their relative entropy and the relative noise associated with their instantaneous operation--i.e., all real systems are mechanically subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

We may conclude, as a spin-off, that physical reality is ultimately open and infinite, and that information is the natural consequence of the organization and transformation of energy in recurrent forms. Any model of the universe, for instance, which contradicts this basic conclusion may be said to be fundamentally in error and in need of basic theoretical revisioning and rethinking.

Any measure of reality we may adopt may be said to be, if nothing else, discrete and therefore arbitrary. This is because our reality is anthropologically constructed in terms of symbols that are by design and of necessity discrete and arbitrary.  Measures, to be useful collectively, objectively, "inter-subjectively" must also be consistent, (i.e. standard) or else they are merely idiosyncratic constructions. We may in a sense look at our words that we speak and write as collectively shared measures of meaning, somehow pointing, however indirectly, to some form in the real world, or else some imaginary form. Collective meaning can only be created through language and the communicative sharing of meaning, and hence we can make a claim, a very serious claim, that meaning and semantics are largely linguistically relative. It is the translatability of human language, largely because, no matter what the modulations of any particular pattern of speech, we share the same fundamental language (speech production/recognition) apparatus, and because all symbols, even words, are ultimately arbitrary, that we can come to mutual agreement on common forms and measures of meaning in reality. Europeans have meters and litres and Americans have yards and quarts, but because these are standardized units of measure, we can apply simple mathematical formulas to translate one into the other, and back again. Through the sharing of measures of meaning, largely defined symbolically, human beings arrive at a collective worldview, a common, standardized frame of reference, that arbitrary design of symbols becomes thereby overlaid by convention and common agreement. All of human culture, which is largely behavioral and cognitively based in symbolically organized behavior, may be said to consist of shared conventions, whether these are explicit, in the form of meters and yards, or in the form of laws and rules, or remain implicit and indirect in our our common behavioral constraints. This in fact is an empirical, experimental, working definition of culture that allows us to take our presuppositions to the field and form conclusions about observations of behavior--it is the basis for an empirical science of human systems and human behavior.

Conventional constraint therefore overlays arbitrary and ultimately idiosyncratic organization of symbolic reality, and comes to demarcate a common field of shared cultural meaning by which people can organize themselves on a social basis into institutional systems. Conventional constraint with underlying arbitrariness of meaning entails a built-in flexibility of our received symbolic systems that enables them to be easily carried, transmitted and transformed over space and time. At the same time, conventional constraint, ultimately arbitrary, becomes reified and naturalized as if non-arbitrary and habituated as if automatic and even reflexively instinctual. It becomes ingrained and embodied, even upon a physical level of our being, such that we are conditioned and quite comfortable with such conventional constraint, and rendered quite uncomfortable without it. Conventional constraint takes on a certain inertia and momentum in terms of its direction, rate and conservative resistance to change, and many anthropologists have confused this with issues of natural speciation and natural selection, which it is not. Society that we are born into, raised with, and become members of, have a momentum, a mobility, and an institutional, "larger than life" presence that is greater than ourselves, and upon which we come to depend for our very survival and well being. Conventional constraint is not arbitrary--it is agreed upon, a consensus, and often also, a conflict of competing interests. It is not natural, genetic or instinct, either. Being founded upon arbitrary principles of symbolic design, it is ultimately constructed and constructed, by a process arrived at through compromise, coordination and cooperation of a group of people through time.

To reiterate, symbols mark our meaning, parsing up our phenomenal experience of the world in discrete and therefore comparable quantities or entities. In fact, we depend very much upon this symbolic process to achieve adaptive success in our life-worlds, and without it our world would be chaotic indeed. The symbols that we arrive at and are compelled to accept and use, are done so not from personal choice, but as the product of social process, group agreement, and continuous articulation and re-articulation in social contexts.

We may say our symbols, to be effective, must be achieved with consensus and agreement--they must be received in our social setting, or else they fall on deaf ears and hence are of no use beyond some psychologically solipsistic interest or need. Schizophrenics appear symbolically bound up just in this way--unable to use effectively the social symbolisms that are a standard coinage of the larger system, and who instead are entrapped within a private and narcissistic symbolic world of their own private construction, that is transparent from without but opaque from within.

If our terms, used to give reality a sense of structure, to provide it a place in a symbolic universe of meaning, are our measures of reality, then the relationships we hypothesize between our terms are used to build a symbolic universe onto which we can map our systems of reality in a coordinate and understandable way. We are aided greatly in this endeavor by the fact that natural systems, for all their self-organization, tend to be naturally organized into shared patterns that fall into larger categories and groupings that allow us to label and generalize across sets of systems, and even to arrange sets of systems in relation to other systems. Each tree in a forest may be individually unique in terms of its exact physical characteristics and measures, but fortunately our understanding of the forest is greatly aided by the fact that all the trees of the forest may belong to only a handful of groups of trees bound by homology and analogy, by common descent, shared form as a function of common adaptation, etc. We may thus categorize and label all the trees of the forest by the several types that are found to occur there and to characterize such a forest biome. And so it seems to be with all reality--reality is organized not only upon the level of individual systems, but in terms of sets of similar kinds of systems, either homologically (as a result of common origin) or analogically (as a result of common function). It is from the classification and understanding of these natural sets and the generalizations that are implicit to them that apply to all members of the set, that we arrive at what we refer to as natural laws that are the basis for our theories of reality.  

The natural laws that apply to one set of systems upon one level of observational analysis, do not necessarily apply to other sets of systems at other levels of observational analysis. In general such laws may be said to be general statements about the periodic patterning we associate with the members of a common set, and this periodic patterning is associated with the typical or characteristic organization of the prototypical member of the set, and the emergent properties that are the consequence of this organizational patterning. At the same time, sets of systems do not occur in nature in isolated or pre-grouped form, and it is most often the case that different sets, at different levels, overlap and interpenetrate one another in terms of shared space and time and the relationships that may occur between different but interacting members of distinct but overlapping sets. This has been the cause of much academic equivocation, especially in fields like biology and the social sciences, when the exact homological relationships between taxonomic sets, or taxons, for instance, cannot be determined in a precise or conclusive manner, or when for instance we articulate theories of natural selection based upon the speciation of populations, though in natural context we find interacting individuals of different populations with pure chance and happenstance playing a large part in selective processes.

Often, heterogeneous meta-systems, or systems of individually distinct and different subsystems, emerge in reality with their own characteristic properties. All eco-systems tend to be complex and heterogeneous meta-systems in this manner. The earth itself may be said to be a complex heterogeneous geophysical meta-system, composed of a variety of elements that to some extent interact with one another in regular ways. It has an iron core, and different hydrologic, plate-tectonic, and atmospheric-nutrient cycles maintain a fragile framework for the biosphere.

We symbolically group and parse up our experience of reality, and attempt to organize the totality of our phenomenal knowledge of reality, in terms of broader groupings on the basis of generalizations that we apply to all members of groups. Working with groups, instead of with individuals, is a way of simplifying otherwise complex realities and dealing upon a level of general analysis in an expanded frame of reference that leads to the formulation of worldviews and general principles about reality. This leads to the question of alternative frames of reference for understanding the same kinds of observational phenomena--11th Century Europeans saw a sun rise and set upon the earth, thinking that the earth was the center of their known universe--we see now the earth as traveling around the sun, as the earth spins daily on its axis, and even though we still refer to the rising and setting of the sun, we do so with a much clearer view of the real system than did our 11th C counterparts. If you are a member of a non-literate and fairly superstitious culture, you are unlikely to view a diurnal eclipse of the sun by the moon as a natural event, and more likely to attribute it to supernatural forces at play. You would be, in terms of the logic of your own symbology, no less correct than your modern counterpart, only less realistically accurate.

Pure mathematics are examples of abstract systems in which the relational identity of all known values are founded upon the basic idea of equality. The equal sign permits us to assume that what value exists on one side is either the same or otherwise as the value occurring on the other side, and we can perform common reductive operations which demonstrate this equality in terms of reflexive identity, or that demonstrate inequality in terms of basic difference. We can even perform manipulative operations, as long as we perform the equally on both sides of the equation sign, in order to solve the "problem" of proving equality. We sometimes substitute comparative signs (greater than or less than) for the equal sign, but this is usually the extent of our relational activities, but even such signs always allow for a clear dichotomous resolution of the implicit problem. The transformations we make on both sides of the sign we use are otherwise guided by the pure deductive logic that informs mathematics in terms of the axioms, laws and their corollaries that we employ. This is the same form of positivistic, two value logic that we find with formal logical philosophy. In fact, logical philosophical positivism was derived from the logic implicit to mathematics, based as it has always been on dichotomous (true/false) values. Logical positivism or syllogistic two-value logic only works in natural language to the extent that we can clearly restrict the basic meaning of terms to dichotomous (true/false) values. Often, in such operations, conventional meaning of truth is substituted for what is presumed to be natural truth--"common sense," being nothing but the operation of conventional meaning, takes over. We do not question whether the sky is really blue, the ocean is deep or that roses are red. We simply say, modus ponens style, If all roses are red, and this flower is a rose then this flower is red. The fact that we do not normally, naturally think this way seems to have little to do with the status enjoyed by logical positivism in academia. 

So how do we really think? We think symbolically, but without the necessary logical constraint of dichotomous truth value, except in very practical, common, everyday terms and applications. Our logic is less precise and more bound to the relative semantics of psychological/behavioral context, innuendo and association, whether this is conventional or arbitrary. We think rationally with a form of logic that is not constrained by two-value choices and that can move in more than one direction. We commonly employ a form of analogical association in which like is compared to like, and there is presumed similarity on the basis of proximity, co-occurrence, or pre-occurrence. 

We may tend to act in dichotomous terms, and even delude ourselves that we are right in thinking in black and white truth, but we tend in fact to think in looser terms that replaces the equal sign found in abstract models of relationship with alternative signs designating similarity, one-to-one correspondence, approximation and equivalence without the necessary constraint of the law of absolute identity.

What does this entail for our general understanding of systems? In our scientific models and symbolic representations of reality, we typically employ mathematical formulations that are based upon logical positivism and that are derived from the basic relationship of identity or equality. In chemistry, the equal sign is typically changed to a reaction arrow, or set of reaction arrows in systems with equilibrium, but we are always balancing the energy/number/mass budget on both sides as if it were an equal sign. In physics, equations seem to work really well because primarily we are dealing with energy pure and simple, and we know that energy always balances--it cannot be created or destroyed. We can of course reduce everything to chemical and physical reaction terms, and hence transform all event structures in reality into nice mathematical equations, but this would indeed become quite tedious.

This is not necessarily so when we deal with macro-biological systems or social systems. We can of course apply demographics, population measures and formulas, and other statistical measures and devices to our models, and we frequently do to great benefit. But we recognize basic limitations in these approaches at this level of integration of natural phenomena. 

For instance, if we have two pile of stones, seven stones to each pile, we can proceed to act and treat each pile as if they were completely identical and the same to one another, even if each stone is actually unique in terms of its exact physical characteristics. And because the stones do not act spontaneously (they are not living) and especially they do not talk back to us and behave in contradictory ways, we can treat them in our counting games as if they are in fact the same. We may easily do the same with many living organisms, such as amoeba, dogs, trees, and even ourselves. But at some point we must come to recognize a couple of limitations to our formulations especially when it comes to living organisms, and especially thinking organisms. Even if we tend to define evolutionary processes of speciation upon a group population level, the actual selection, transmission and mutation occur effectively upon the level of the individual organism. Organisms of a common set, a common gene-exchanging population, must vary continuously upon a genetic level, otherwise they will not evolve, and they will thus lose out in the long run. Treating all organisms of a common populational set as identical therefore does not solve our basic problems of understanding the fundamental mechanics of speciation. Beyond this, if individual organisms are enmeshed in complex webs of eco-systemic relationship with other species, then the simple classification of these organisms into their populational groupings will not get at the dynamics of meta-biotic organization and interaction that lead to certain fitness and selection regimes.

It is even more the case with human populations complicated as these have been by culture and human civilization and all the weaknesses associated with these phenomena. There are numerous instances and times when it has been of great value to treat people in a quantitative way in statistical manipulations, but so far very few if any universal laws of human nature or human social systems have been derived in this manner, with very few exceptions. So, the "hard" scientist used to the comfort of working with numbers and equal signs, will advocate throwing the human sciences out as "soft." This is not really coming to terms with the central problem because human systems are natural systems of their own right, at their own level. The theory of emotion is a good example to finish with--if we say that he is angry, and it is his anger that made him do it, and we then generalize that all people who do similar things do so because they are angry in the same way, we have reached a kind of hypothesis generalization based upon certain presuppositions. But in doing so we do not ask if the emotion of anger is a clear and universally shared feeling or even what it is as a feeling, or if other circumstances may co-occur to predispose a particular individual to commit a certain act, or if the sense of anger shared by all people is the same, for the same reasons, of the same quality or intensity, or may be different and even unique for different people. Upon further investigation, we may discover that in fact different people do the same sorts of things for very different sets of reasons, and the reasons are not always one and the same. There may be precedents and precursors of behavior resulting in similar consequences. Nor do we even really ask if similar kinds of acts, all lumped together, are really in fact the same acts, committed for the same sets of reasons, or perhaps different sets of acts, committed for different sets of reasons.

So, in such cases, of which there are far too many to count, do we simply throw out the problem as being somehow unscientific, or do we amend our scientific view and methodological approach to reality to be able to better account for the problem? I will only answer by stating that, in general, as we progress the hierarchy of emergent properties associated with different kinds of natural systems, we move from strictly logical, mathematical equations, to more linguistic, generally verbal generalizations in the form of basic statements, but even all our understanding of physical systems and realities cannot be completely coaxed in purely mathematical formula without reference to generalized verbal expressions. 

The Critique of "Systems"

In the course of my studies I have encountered the critique of systems-based approaches on several points. This critique was especially well elaborated at SUNY-Binghamton, home and host to World Systems Theory and other applied Systems-based approaches in development. My critique focuses on two main points: 1. the eidectic, abstract structure of "Systems" approaches that involve a fallacy of reification or misplaced concretization; and 2. the "information explosion" of the applied elaboration of general systems when carried to local levels of specificity. 

I would add to these two points the conclusion that there is a tendency in the use of "Systems" approaches to over-simplification of problem sets and the realities represented; that reality tends toward a level of complication of problem sets that has been far beyond the capacity of most system theories and approaches to sufficiently represent in symbolic form; and that general laws and rules of relationship that apply at one level or area of a natural systems framework do not apply to other areas. 

In other words there is a form of general relativity of systems laws that are specific to certain levels and contexts of systems, but not to others. This derives from the fact that all "systems" by definition are delimited in time and place and hence unique in their details, and all kinds of systems are similarly different. It is largely for this kind of reason that I have found the adoption of the term "meta-systems" appropriate as a means for stepping outside the kind of dilemma this entails. This would seem to mitigate against the idea that we can formulate a general, comprehensive theory of systems based upon a single abstract model that would be suitable for all possible kinds of systems we encounter in reality, though it is possible and possibly useful to have a general frame of reference (a meta-system) by which different systems and kinds of systems can be systematically grouped, compared and related to one another in a manner that makes greater sense of the ordering of reality.

The main point of the fallacy of misplaced concretization its that it is part of the overextension of reference of "Systems" and the tendency to reify our theoretical construction of "systems" as if they actually exist somewhere in the real world other than in the form of the ideas immanent in our own brains. Merely putting quotation marks around the upper-case word "SYSTEMS" serves to highlight and thereby bring notice to the implicit reification of such ideas, when just off-hand talking about systems in general serves to hide and smuggle in this idea as something more real and tangible in the world than it really, truly is.

Of course, it should be kept in mind that any general concept can be reified by overextension of reference and underdevelopment of the details and lack of specification. I would only claim that a concept like "systems" tends to be more easy to reify and forget the abstract, constructive nature of the concept, ultimately arbitrary, than other ideas that have more natural frames of reference. In this sense, a concept like "systems" is very much like the concept of "culture" that Anthropologists have used and abused for well over a hundred years now, without necessarily coming to agreement on a single, universally shared definition of culture in as few words as possible. The fallacy of reification is nothing intrinsic to the concept or theory of general systems, but is something that the use and abuse of such a concept brings with it, as with any concept that refers to patterns that are without direct reference.

The second charge, of the operational break down of such approaches in application and complication of details, is a more legitimate and more insuperable problem to consider. The challenge has been and remains to devise a methodological system of application that basically solves the "information explosion" that is attendant to the attempt to deal with large, complex problems with unknown solution sets. A large part of this problem is common to all methodological approaches in the scientific fields, because usually solution sets to large or complex problems are generally unknown, and methodological applications are usually experimental in intention and effort. Part of the problem also stems commonly from not having a clear theoretical understanding of the problem involved, as usually a correct theoretical understanding will yield results that permit simplification of the problem set. At the same time, applications that are intention primarily upon learning new things generally have a limited focus that serves to constrain this process of over-complication, while it is important to distinguish form these experimental efforts towards understanding with attempts at actual solution of real-world problems that involve some kind of engineering design or schema and the imposition of some kind of articulatory framework on the ground.

It is in this last class of applications, in the devising of alternative systems in solution to certain problem sets, that the greatest difficulties can be seen to arise in the extension of systems-based approaches, that are by definition top-down to begin with. This is actually a problem characteristic to all forms of application--the challenge is only amplified with systems-based approaches that make any pretense towards comprehensiveness of solution sets. 

To a great extent, computing and the information revolution has reduced the proportions of this problem, and has offered forms of technology which allow us to deal with the information explosion attendant to problem solution in a much easier and better method than previously. This was evident in the first development of computing devices in the solution of the German enigma war codes during WWII, and continues to hold true today. We now have the advent of supercomputing architectures and systems, capable of processing massive amounts of information at very high rates, and supercomputing has thereby allowed us to reliably and accurately model complex systems, in considerable detail, far better than we were ever previously capable of doing.

The only stop-gap solution to the general problem of over-complication is to narrow and delimit the focus of effort in solution sets to particular achievable goals with the hope and expectation that the goals thus achieved serve larger strategic ends in a decisive way. It is needless to comment at this juncture that a great deal of human effort in our collective history has been wasted on the achievement of goals with little or no long term consequence. It is also fair to say that many projects and efforts have been undertaking without overall coordination of effort and resources, with the result being a reduplication of effort on one hand, and a needless squandering of resources on the other.

Again we find what we would expect to be a deadly blow to systems-based approaches to be in fact a problem shared by all applied approaches, and hence from the standpoint of system-specific issues, to be more the nature of  a problem of the management of effort and resources in an efficient way, of planning and goal-seeking, more than anything else.

It must be remarked at this juncture as well, that in experimental approaches aimed at gaining new knowledge, strategic decisiveness also plays a key role--there is no point in amassing myriad details of information if this information is not to be used for addressing any particular questions one may have in mind. It is not the goal of systems-based approaches to describe in nitty-gritty detail every event of everything that occurs. The success of systems based approaches rests on being able to make generalizations that are applicable to many different instances of reality, without needing to resort to the unpacking of all the instances--it allows us to reliably summarize reality without thereby having to elaborate this reality on a finer level.

This last point is not to defend systems based approaches or thinking from all manner of criticism--these kinds of criticisms are legitimate and they are born of experience. It is rather to offer a way out of such problems that such approaches typically face in their worldly articulation. It becomes essentially the systems solution to the general problem of complexity and the related problem of chaos that is associated with all underdetermined systems, and all real systems are underdetermined in their outcomes. It is possible to arrive at such solutions in a rather formulaic manner, with the proviso that there are always exceptions to the rules that can be dealt with by other heuristic problem-solving means. It becomes therefore as much a strategy and a methodology of attack of unknown or semi-known problem sets as it is of anything else--call it a tool-kit of various methods and approaches that can be used ad hoc in an encounter style approach.

I would conclude this brief critique of an exclusive "Systems" orientation by claiming that any approach to knowledge, any way of knowing and framing the world, can become paradigmatically and ideologically closed if we allow it to. If everything is a system and everything is part of the same system of reality, then this "system" really tells us a lot about nothing in particular. We may easily substitute words like "structure," organization, sense of order, as synonymous with systems and lose little in translation. When we are highlighting the "systems" aspect of everything and ignoring the detailed differences, we are merely pushing the differences of and between things onto the concept of systems, thereby displacing dealing with such differences in a more direct manner. There is an inherent virtue in maintaining a diversity of ideas and wide range of alternative frames of reference, that even go beyond systems based approaches. As a comprehensive frame of reference a systems-based approach to general and specific knowledge should be capable of transcending the kinds of dialectical and epistemological philosophical dilemmas that tend to underlie the presuppositions we make about the world and thus to undercut our view of the world in basic ways.

To summarize, systems approaches offer a methodological means for dealing with huge uncertainties in large areas of problem sets that are mostly unknown or only partly known. As such they provide us, if properly used, and not overused, a powerful vehicle for tackling problem sets with unknown solutions, and for dealing effectively and in a methodical way with high levels of uncertainty that are attached to problem sets of all kinds. When we know that with whatever problem set we encounter, there is a simplifying solution that is rooted to the "system" of organization that underlies the problem set at hand, we have already have of the solution in hand, and we have the means for deriving the other half of the solution in hand as well. It is wise to take the critique of systems to heart in an objective way, and it is the epitome of wisdom to turn these kinds of criticism to the advantage of the application of systems-based approaches to real world problem sets.

We have rethought our meta-systems framework and have achieved a newer, better integrated mode of operation. We are achieving increasing levels of feedback response to our Internet efforts, and these responses are gradually improving in terms of their quality and seriousness and significance.

Our Consolidation efforts continue on different levels. We finished the consolidation phase a month ahead  though there are many loose ends remaining to be taken care of. We have announced out promotional development campaign for the next two months which should include a coordinated and targeted marketing & advertising campaign, though we will avoid e-mail or telephone solicitations or marketing strategies.

During this phase, we hope to announce the opening of our new store-fronts, and further development of our entire framework. We are publishing our own business leverage (business cards, letter-heads, post-cards, etc) and will be setting up new contact details.

Products/Services

Lewis Works strives to offer a genuinely comprehensive range of services and products for the global e-consumer in an informed, non-aggressive manner. It has taken us time to develop our resources into an integrated framework that will provide largely automated self-service to our members and other customers, bolstered by one-on-one account management and attention to personal details. But persistence & a great deal of patience is finally beginning to pay-off in terms of the emergence of a real web-system with an active presence on the Internet.

We act both as a reseller for other providers, and we also are increasing the product range that we actually own or buy ourselves wholesale and then resell. We also provide a range of peripheral options through associate/affiliate accounts.

We will soon be adding a comprehensive product service catalog link here.

We will be offering an increasing array of type of service and product we can make available to our clientele within the consolidation period. This services will include:

• Systems-based Consulting & Troubleshooting
• Systems-based Computing and Web-Design Development
• Systems-based Meta-scientific research & development services
• Systems-based Digital Publication and Production Services
• Systems-based Development Services in a range of areas, including Non-profit, Consolidated Business Services, Education & Human Development, Organization, Production & Engineering

What areas are currently Non-Profit in Lewis Works?

We have several non-profit domains organized, though these have not yet been developed for content:

Human Coop: promoting development of non-exploitative, grass-roots based, cooperative development & resource exchange network frameworks.

Aid Systems: organizing and deploying critical resource management & rehabilitation teams

Human Development Systems: promoting programs for alternative human development.

Lewis Library: promoting conventional & electronic literacy worldwide, developing an open, distributed-integrated common reference resource & comprehensive knowledge compendium resources.

Human Synergetics: promoting health in holistic, alternative lifestyles

We also recommend our current Link Palette for related links & portals, though most of these are as yet unfinished.

For external topic-organized links, we recommend Hugh's Hot Links

For popular, top-search links, we recommend Haut Lynx

Query us for advertising on our Advertising Pages that are shown throughout our web-system on more than a eleven hundred distinct URLs.

Subscribe to our Newsletter below: