General convergence can be described as the tendency for systems, no matter what their initial start conditions, to achieve a stable state of dynamic equilibrium. In a meta-systems framework, general convergence describes the trend for alternative systems to search and explore their environment and to achieve an optimal complex solution state relative to their environment. More loosely, we can describe convergence as the "coming together" of the diverse components to achieve an integrated "system" state. Diverse factors of a multi-factor system "converge" upon a common arrangement that constitutes a "complex solution set" for the problem implicit to the system in the first place. A problem intrinsic to all kinds of systems is that of achieving the most efficient self-organization possible based upon dynamic environmental feedback mechanisms and given the built-in constraints and limitations of the components used to configure the system.

Applied systems and meta-systems development tend toward general convergence upon the functional designs that represent the most optimal solution sets for complex problems. In terms of product development and technology that we are familiar with, we can refer to this process of developmental convergence as one of "streamlining." Functional streamlining is found in nature in evolutionary development of especially mechanical designs of body and tissue, for as blind as evolution may really be, it nevertheless represents a form of search-solution leading to "intelligent designs." The streamlining of birds in flight is a fitting example of how evolution has managed to solve complex problems in a blind albeit productive manner. Even if evolutionary development is fundamentally blind and random in the chance occurrence of mutation, selection of alternative variation does occur on a somewhat continuous basis, and this is enough to drive the search for convergent functional solutions to complex problem sets. I would call these complex solutions "convergent designs."

I bring up the notion of general convergence in part because I have been seeing a lot of it happening lately, both in relation to my own applied meta-systems framework and in relation to kinds of possible alternative solutions that I have been seeking in key problem areas. The kind of convergence that has been occurring in relation to my own meta-system framework is interesting to observe and think about as a kind of phenomenon.  I have come to realize and recognize its importance and its implications when it occurs. I take this phenomenon of convergence as symptomatic that a system is emerging and developing, and that the integration of the system is developing in some direction.

I think our notion of "progress" in a technological sense at least hinges on this idea of convergence and streamlining. Problem sets we have to deal with in the larger scheme of things are simply to multi-factorial and complex to find simple, single solutions. There are always trade-offs and other limitations which prevent us from facile discovery of the best or most straight-forward solution. So we work with a vague sense of "improvement" toward some vague and complex set of standards, themselves only half defined, with the idea that in the long run we are not just waiting for Godot but are actually achieving some kind of significant progress.

To put it another way, evidence of "convergence" however vague this may be is a signal that something is "happening" that is interesting from a systems perspective. We assume that where we find convergence of patterning in reality, we find something that may be interesting to consider and deal with and possibly even study. There are all kinds of convergences in the world to study. What can we say about people around the world who awaken with the same dream only to discover that the events of their dreams came true in some obscure corner of the world? We can dismiss it as para-scientific poppycock, but if such convergences do seem to occur, and are empirically documented, the problem of their sufficient accounting still remains to be resolved.

To summarize, I would claim that "convergence" is a general systems property that is indicative of the emergent integration and integrative patterning characteristic of a complex system. Convergence of many factors must occur on different levels if a system is to emerge and exhibit the kind of equi-finality and equilibrium of property that we come to associate with systems.

Universal systems relativity sounds like a oxymoron--that which is universal cannot be relative. But by this term I am referring to the universality of the condition systems relativity. All systems are different, indeed, particularistic and unique. The uniqueness of systems comes from several sources, namely their inherent complexity and variability, as well as their inherent heterogeneity of composition. The uniqueness of systems is also defined within a meta-systemic context that is always different and particular for each and every system that occurs. The differences between systems in a detailed sense does not preclude the grouping and generalization of systems on the basis of shared similarities and types.

In a formal sense, we may state universal systems relativity in this way: All systems, no matter their level of articulation, are relative to the meta-systems framework in which they occur, and each meta-system framework is unique to the system as it occurs. Similar systems in the same frameworks can be expected to follow the same kinds of rules and to respond in similar ways.

All systems as well, though they are functionally independent of their environment in a relative manner, nevertheless are in the long run dependent upon a stable range of environmental conditions for the stability of their developmental trajectory. We see this easily with plant systems like gardens--grow too many plants in too small a space, fail to feed them fertilizer or water them regularly, and one will see plants that are undersized and unproductive. The individual plant, as an internally separate and independent system, will continue to grow and pass through its stages of development, but in an abnormal and stunted manner.

Universal systems relativity states therefore, in a formal sense, that we ultimately cannot separate a system from the normal or natural meta-systemic context of the environment in which it occurs. All systems in other words come bound within a meta-systems context, and their behavior is critically determined by these meta-systems contexts.

It has been our own analytical presumption to stereotype systems as finite, delimited constructs that exist in some kind of ideal isolation from a natural world. We have approached most of science in this manner, and though it often entails great progress in specialized fields of knowledge and application, it comes at a cost of hyper-compartmentalization, generalization of knowledge to other problem sets, and capacity to deal with systems in naturalized settings.

It is not in our habit therefore of thinking about systems or representing systems in terms of a figure-ground relationship that interacts in significant ways with its meta-systemic context or environment. The fact that all systems are thus bound in such a gestalt-like frame has not precluded our pretension that they are isolatable and capable of being treated as isolated entities. Sometimes such analytical isolation is necessary, but more often than not it is simply misleading and oversimplifying of reality.

Meta-systems relativity also critically concerns the problem of our own knowledge and pre-understanding and preconceptions that we bring to systems. We impose even our own frameworks of seeing systems in their definition and perception of how they work. We need only point to a Ptolemaic way of looking at the sun and moon in relation to the earth and ourselves on the earth, as an example of how our own preconceptions, and ultimately, ignorance, can influence how we see and talk about things in the world. Acknowledging the relativity of systems, and attempting to objectify systems in a relativistic manner, brings us a step closer to understanding them in a less biased manner.

Universal systems relativity must be seen as a condition of our knowledge and capacity for knowing the real world, and for limiting our objective understanding of that world.  We seek a more realistic vision of the world, and the systems that compose the world, in the naturalistic contexts in which they occur. To pretend that we have absolute knowledge, or that we have discovered "truths" about the world that are complete and final, is to simply maintain an ideological illusion of a closed world, that things are just so, and no other possible way, and that what we know is certain and admits of no doubt or critical uncertainty. This is of course not the best attitude by which to build a science or by which to achieve a better adaptation in the world.

An important part of scientific investigation is the discovery of universal laws and precepts that govern fundamental relations in the world. Most of this deals of course with physical systems and is the purview therefore of one form of physics or another. Philosophy is no longer looked at as being a significant contributor to the dialogue about the structure of physical reality, and there is thus a sense of living in a kind of dichotomous world in which physical worldview and metaphysical worldview operate in separate and non-congruent spheres. It is perhaps true though that physicists may need philosophers, objective philosophers, for world vision at least as much as philosophers may need physicists to retain a sense of objectivity.

Theories once received as generally universal will in time become embedded in emerging frameworks of knowledge as "special covering law models," and new candidates to claim the title of universality will emerge from the woodwork. This is to be expected as a normal pattern of the history of development of ideas and new knowledge, particularly in science where there is some sense of a track-record of intellectual achievements, a working comparative baseline and hence of definitive progress achieved in the long run.

Universal systems theory may effectively bridge the gulf between "blind" physicists and "crippled" philosophers. It may serve to revitalize the role of philosophy for science, and to simultaneously open the minds of scientists who are otherwise bound to rather narrow sets of purposes in the world. If events in the physical world appear to organize themselves in terms that are describable as systems, and if "systems" are good to think about, "things" that lend themselves wonderfully to abstract elaboration and reason, then they may provide just the common ground that is needed to effect some kind of amnesty and remarriage between the physics and philosophy, and in a larger sense, mind and body and in an academic sense the sciences and the humanities.

The problems of modern worldview have developed in large part because the scientists and the philosophers quit talking with one another, and could find no common ground any longer to communicate--the former were alleged to be "value free" or at least "neutral" on the topic of values, while the latter were confined to a prison of values, from which there could be no escape. I think there is hope for a renewal of a contract between science and philosophy when we can have a truly secular worldview in which values are important but ultimately unnecessary if we are to understand and comprehend reality. Secretly, scientists were loath to let go of religion, or a default resort to an explanation "by God." when all else might fail. Philosophers, the original atheists and secularists of the world, were put into a prison by "God fearing" theists. Whatever the case may have been, it is clear that hope for a unified and unitary worldview can only best be restored when and if scientists and philosophers resume a meaningful dialog on meaningful issues that transcend questions of value.

We may begin by asserting that in the structure of reality, all event structures are organized as systems. Therefore, all events may be accounted for in terms of the systems that they are a part of. Any explanation of natural event structure we may make, if the event structure demonstrates a sense of order and determination, must be found a relevant and relative systems framework that is appropriate to its explanation.

The happy reunion of philosophy and science in terms of universal systems theory would be productive of new models and potential experiments in answering key questions and problem areas of science that may only be approachable through a systems-based methodology. Key questions at all levels of the natural and human sciences might be thus reframed and reformulated in a productive manner. Potentially, any problem set can be recast from a systems based perspective, but the application of such a framework allows us to go after especially complex and central problem sets that have been key issues in general theoretical development.

Systems theory first emerged in the late 1920's and the 1930's. Scientists from many disciplines were becoming frustrated with disciplinary boundaries, and coming to realize that similar kinds of problems were being confronted, and dealt with, in similar kinds of ways in otherwise separate and independent spheres of activity. The Second World War both interrupted attempts to form cross-disciplinary Systems based frameworks, and at the same time provided big boosts to the development of systems frameworks in a number of fields. Aspects of general systems frameworks emerged after the war and in the 1950's through the 1960's. Systems frameworks have been known by many different names, and applied in different ways to different kinds of problem sets. It was in the early sixties that Systems approaches were beginning to be advanced and to have revolutionary implications in many fields of science. Noteworthy during this time was the impact the Louis Binford made in Archaeology by the application of systems based principles to archaeological theory and method, effectively ending over a century of paradigmatic dominance by the Culture Historical approach in American archaeology. It was in the later half of the 1960's that Ludwig Von Bertalanffy published his most concise and definitive statements on a fully self-conscious general systems framework. He had worked out many of the implications for this framework for various areas of science, most notably I believe for the human sciences.

Since that time, there have been various developments under the guise of Chaos theory, non-linear dynamics, Complexity, Cybernetics. Overall, since the sixties, it has been advances in computing and supercomputing architectures that have perhaps most dramatically influenced Systems based approaches and perspectives. Progress in computing has been steady, relentless and itself non-linear in its development. Half way through the first decade of the 21st Century, we find ourselves in the midst of a full-blown Information revolution and a continuation of steady advances in computing. At the same time, within the last decade we have made revolutionary advances in biological work with genetics and the structure, composition and dynamics of the large molecules that constitute living systems on a very basic level. There has been a more quiet revolution going on in Astronomy with the introduction of digital imagining techniques and the use of interferometry in telescopes. 

Systems have not yet come of age in the world. Indeed, resistance to and ignorance systems based frameworks continues to be the norm here in the US, particularly among Academic scholars and researchers. Systems based frameworks have been more readily received I think in big business and in some sectors of government due in part to the organizational nature of problems involved, but I think more importantly due to the applied and functional nature of these areas of involvement.

I think at this time we are on the verge of a General Systems revolution in the larger world, as the idea is slowly sinking in, perhaps at many places at the same time, that we might be able to finally dispense with some out-dated and out-moded ways of thinking and doing things, and that we can work in far more productive and efficient ways without all the extra symbolic baggage attached to things. This realization is becoming increasingly common in the world, and I think the information revolution is having a similar effect upon people's thinking everywhere.

How long this revolution will take to occur, or its exact pattern of development, is impossible to tell. It will undoubtedly happen at an accelerating pace of development. The full implications of such a revolution are yet to be ascertained. It seems to be a process largely in the background--like the working of the stage props while the actors strut and banter. I think we will ultimately know it by its results, by the things made available to more and more people, by the convergence of thinking on common meta-cultural ground. It is certainly a revolution in which the resort to violence and the threat of violence will become less and less necessary--"obviated" is the word--as the means to peacefully resolve issues through the application of appropriate advanced technology becomes not only feasible, but available. Availability of course, and appropriateness are big words in problems of International development. We must recognize a dangerous trend in the world toward escalating violence and increasing frequency of warfare, and I attribute this in the main to authoritarian power structures seeking to monopolize and hold on to their little resource hierarchies as long as they are able, in the fact of an accelerating rate of global change.

Mainland China is a perfect case in point, as well as its cousin, North Korea. The Chinese communist regime is savvy enough to know that if they do not change, do not allow the Chinese people to change, then the members of their little totalitarian party would have been strung up about a decade ago. China moves forward with a controlled plan of acculturative development, orchestrated from above, and motivated from below. North Korea is an example of an archaic form of human system that is attempting at all costs to maintain its one-man totalitarian organization--it can only do so by maintaining a completely closed society. The trouble is, all systems leak, especially human systems. So change even in a nightmare land like North Korea is inevitable in the structure of the long run.

The primary rate determining factors of the on-going Systems Revolution at this point are not technical, but human factors at all levels of behavior and organization. The human variables also are perhaps the least predictable about it all. The realization is also being made at the same time that the human factor is central to the formula and no system can factor the human element out completely. Systems frameworks that fail to take into central account the challenges of human sized and human kind problems are frameworks that are doomed to fail. There is no system advanced by people that is not first and foremost, and in the final analysis, a human system.

There is a principle in modern development. Simply put, technologically based development  is inevitable, given time. Social development always lags behind, and often far behind. There is also a recurrent historical pattern we must deal with--development is uneven, and it is the case that over-development of some regions may be tied by interdependency to underdevelopment of other regions.