Chapter Three
Human Metasystems Theory
The human metasystems context occurs at the level of the family as an on-going set of trans-generational patterns of behavior, personality and socialization (i.e., of primary culture) as well as upon the secondary level of social institutional contexts. The evolutionary development of human civilization is intrinsically tied to the gradual development of the human metasystems context upon earth. Language, culture, and cognition in human systems did not arise independently in isolation, but gradually through a process of long term indirect contact and transmission.
The human metasystems context has largely led to a reshaping of the surface of the earth, especially within the past ten millennia, and it has led, especially within the last millennium, to a non-linear influence of biogeophysical systems of the atmosphere, the hydrosphere and the geosphere, that can be associated with the global circumscription of human systems upon earth.
Past, Present & Future in
Human MetaSystems Theory
Problems of the past, present and future provide a framework for understanding humanity within a natural systems framework. The question of the Past is a kind of problem that is rooted in our own natural history, of our origins, the rise of our culture and civilizations, and their larger social context. It serves to guide us in our understanding of human systems in general, as a form of mechanical and efficient explanation for the way things are at present, and what they had been like before. It provides a larger context within which to interpret and evaluate individuals and different groups in terms of their behavior and their greater symbolic significance in the world.
Human systems are distinguished in natural systems theory by the formation of complex social patterns based upon human language and cognitive functions that result in behavior patterns the occur independently of any genetic predetermination. It is not to say that genetic factors may not have some influence in such patterning upon a basic level, but this influence is both adulterated by the heavy effect of environmental conditioning, that is a function of the basic evolved dependency of the human being in its ontogenetic development upon a human-mediated environment, as well as by the pleiotropic and polymorphic expression of complex behavioral patterns and organic structures underlying these patterns. Human systems are characterized by the invention and transmission of new information, that is culturally encoded and linguistically expressed, and that is independent of any biological mechanism of information storage or reproduction, or of selection and adaptation. This characterization entails that human systems involve ultimately a resort to the study of event structures and developmental patterns upon a level that can be said to be constituted by a form of natural and cultural history. In this way all social interactions are understood within a dynamic continuum of time and place.
Human systems theory can therefore be properly characterized as a form of historical science, and upon this level that is characterized by the derivative complexity of the phenomena in question, it is virtually impossible to formulate an exceptionless and tightly worded set of equations or propositions about them that would account for all human event structures in a sufficient manner. It appears that the best that can be accomplished in this manner in a methodological sense is the accurate recording of time and date, and of the location of the event, and an objective description of the form of the event itself in as much detail as possible. In a theoretical sense, the best that can be hoped for is a kind of historical paradigm of general rules that describe in a fairly clear manner, the main pattern of articulation of events. By paradigm, I am not referring to the Kuhnian paradigm with its theoretic, social and constructive components. Rather I refer to a kind of legal or lawyer's paradigm that governs a body of understanding and that roughly guides actions in certain fields or cases.
Social, psychological, cultural and other aspects of understanding of human systems are all contained within and referenced by the larger encompassing framework of human history, which is itself referenced within a framework of a natural history of the earth. By history, I am referring to the study of events and their structures through time, and more broadly, to the structure of the past patterns of events and their underlying determinations. Any particular group or society is by definition found within a larger context of relations between other people, between people and the environment, and among themselves. Psychological event structures, no matter how subjectively solipsistic and idiosyncratic they may be, area also contained within the same overarching framework.
At the same time, we must understand the pivotal role that has been played by the development of human civilization and culture as a noetic event structure. At the center of this informational event patterning has been the organization of the human brain around a unique anthropomorphic trait complex that includes language, manual dexterity, human sexuality and sociality, bipedalism as well as the particular features of the human mind itself. To understand the developmental and progressive aspects of the development of human system, we must first see how knowledge structures and socially encoded informational systems have come into being, and that have allowed the integration and acquisition of new knowledge and information in reality.
Human society has achieved a number of important adaptive "breakthroughs" that have led human evolutionary development in the direction of greater symbolic, cultural and social dependency. These breakthroughs have included tool technology, fire, use of habitations and clothing, domestication of various plants and animals for a variety of uses, inventions of boats, wheels, power generation of various forms, etc. The accumulative consequences of these breakthroughs has been such that they have led to the rise of human civilizations as regional structures and, more recently, even as globally integrative social patterns.
Human, or anthropological systems, present something of an anthropocentric view of such systems, and this reflects the fundamental anthropological relativity of our scientific knowledge more than any other aspect of natural systems theory. We would be hard pressed at this point to rename this basic area of stratification in the natural world in a manner that would not reflect some kind of anthropocentric bias about how such systems are organized and function. It will only be with the encounter of similar but alternative such systems, it seems now only through the discovery of extra-terrestrial intelligence, that we will be able to escape this problem of anthropological relativity.
We can predict that the likelihood exists that other similar systems will eventually be found and will emerge in the universe. These systems arose on earth as stochastically as the rain that falls under the right conditions of humidity, temperature and vapor pressure. In other words, given the right sequences of events leading up to such developments, and given the right set of conditional event structures, the repeated emergence of similar alternative systems should become available.
We know that biological systems are probably pretty rare in the universe, though in an infinite universe, these systems may themselves be infinite in number, though they are few and far between by our own standards. We can predict that for all the physical mass in the universe, only a very infinitesimal fraction of this mass at any one time will exist in the form of a living system. And we can also reasonably estimate that human-type systems are rare in biological history--after all, in the 3.5 billion year history of life on earth, they appear to have arisen only within less than a 3.5 million year framework, and the real evidence of human symbolic culture, primarily within the last 35 thousand years. The odds are probably pretty long indeed on the multiple, independent occurrence of intelligent, cultural constructing species of life within close proximity to one another in time and place. It is likely that if contact is to be made between different intelligent species in the universe, if this is what they can even be called, then it is mostly likely that the most advanced system will initiate and achieve discovery of other systems first. In our quest for alien intelligence and extra-terrestrial forms of life, if we do not receive some intelligent signal, then we can assume that the rarity value of human-type systems only increases with increasing time and space, and that we may after all be very near the top of the natural pyramid of systems, if not uniquely upon the top. The systems of life that we would encounter in such a case are likely to be those that have not yet evolved to higher forms of intelligent functioning, and which would probably be quite incapable of initiating contact with us.
On the other hand, if and when a different alien species initiates contact with us, we can assume almost by default that such a species will probably be more advanced in terms of its scientific civilization and possibly evolutionarily more intelligent than ourselves. We are then likely to find ourselves overmatched and outwitted, though I could not see why such a contest would have to lead to violence or be destructive unless such a species had imperial or colonial pretensions in mind. More likely, we are likely to find such a species more curious and fascinated with us than we are with them anyway, or at least there should be a reciprocal relationship of mutual interest and a desire to establish communication not only across species boundaries, but across the boundaries of totally different kinds of life-systems.
How exotic might cosmo-genic species be compared to species original to the earth system? There is some convincing reasons to suggest that such life-forms may not be too different after all from ourselves. Many examples of convergent evolution demonstrate functional stream-lining to standard forms that represent optimal adaptive solutions to particular contexts. It can be assumed that an intelligent creature would have large brains, and probably bilateral symmetry, such that the brains would be located in the head, and there would be sets of appendages, probably, like mammals, four in number, etc. There is reason to think as well that some form of sophisticated communication system based on sound would have been evolved, and that the creatures would be social like ourselves, etc. There is also reason to think that such a system would be carbon-based and would respire oxygen, etc., because there are chemical principles in organic chemistry that determine these to also be optimal kinds of solutions to problems of chemical energy requirements necessary for the metabolism of living systems.
The degree to which variation of pattern may be involved, and at what level, in the formation of different kinds of biological systems may depend as much upon the bio-geophysical substrate of the planet on which such forms take hold, as upon anything else. Also, it is clear that we do not clearly know the degree to which biological systems are stochastically and complexly underdetermined as systems. On a genetic level of organization, living systems in fact appear to be highly determined. Chaos occurs at each higher level, at the level of organismic systems and super-organic systems. Still, it is next to impossible to say in any definitive manner how much of the variation we encounter in life forms and patterns has been due purely to chance and how much to a kind of blind evolutionary problem solving that leads to a convergence of similar kinds of results.
We can in other words expect a broad convergence of form and function, composition and metabolism, of life that has undergone independent bio-genesis in other places of the universe. At the same time we can expect many particular divergences along certain trait lines, and this may even take some surprising and unexpected twists and turns of the evolutionary rope.
Whatever such creatures may look like, what will count will be the organization and functioning of their brains and their intelligence. In this, we must ask how much their cognitive processes will be like that of human beings, and how different may it all be. It cannot be though that the organization of brain function of such creatures would be similar or exactly like that of human beings, nor even the patterning of brain function follow the same neural pathways, etc. The critical issue, I believe, would be in what we might call the structure of thought of such creatures. Would their mental organization resemble ours in some ways and not in others? We would expect, out of necessity, that such a pattern of organization would be fundamentally symbolic as our own can be said to be, but this symbolic structure may not precisely match our own symbolic patterns of consciousness and knowledge organization.
We will not be able to describe human-type systems in any other way than by using our own anthropological examples until if and when we actually do encounter some alien form of intelligence in the universe. The best we can accomplish in the interim is to study the systems of other intelligent life forms on earth, like primates, cetaceans, and other mammals in particular that demonstrate some remarkable qualities of intelligence. This is at best a partial solution to the problem, because none of these other forms of life exhibit what can be called true language, culture or symbolic cognition. By "true" of course we are led back to the same basic conundrum of our own anthropological relativity, because whatever is considered "true" is done so only from implicit comparison to human language, culture and cognition.
We can assume that other human-type systems will resemble our own in some basic ways, and will probably be quite different from our own in many other, especially derivative respects. The model of human-type systems that we develop from an objective description of anthropological realities can be said to be more-or-less applicable to all human-type systems, to the extent that we are able to control the bias of the anthropological relativity of our own point of view. This anthropological relativity is not just a matter of an anthropocentric world-view and attitudes that overvalue our own constructions of reality. It is a matter that affects the very way we perceive and conceive of reality, and how we construct and do our sciences
Systems Cybernetics and the Challenges of Meta-systems Integration
For purposes of this essay, I offer the following operational definitions:
Meta-system: A "system of systems," and, theoretically, a generalized system of less general and more particular systems. Also, a philosophical and theoretical dialog about systems relativity and systems contexts.
Cybernetics: The logical organization of information that is implicit to the functional, developmental and relational-structural patterning of any given system. Usually cybernetic systems are looked at from the standpoint of control and feedback mechanisms that serve to maintain a complex stable-state of dynamic equilibrium over the structure of the long run and the large. Cybernetics also implies a model of nervous system feedback and organization typical of all animals, which is a model especially fit and adapted for the cognitive sciences and the development of artificial intelligence.
Integration: The problem of integration is the central theoretical and applied problem of general systems theory and methodology. Systems integration may be defined as the problem of understanding how systems come together, and how the components of systems interact, in such a way as to produce emergent properties that are uniquely associated with a particular kind of system. Furthermore, meta-systems integration implies that there are ordered relationships not only of parts of systems, but between different kinds of systems, and this overarching sense of order forms the foundation for our understanding of the world.
Before proceeding let it be remarked that not everything in the world is integrated, nor was everything even meant to be integrated. In fact, most things that occur in the world appear to occur in a relatively un-integrated and therefore independent manner. And it seems, at least as far as we can tell, if left alone, things in the long run tend to fall apart. Things seem to go from states of greater integration to less integration. And this poses a riddle about the natural organization of reality--how did integrated systems come about in the first place if the tendency of all self-organization is towards greater disintegration. True Believing, born again, bible thumping Presidents hold to "Intelligent Design" which is another euphemized way of saying "God created the world in six days and rested on the Sabbath." But origin mythology aside, the sciences are indeed hard pressed to answer the question of the seemingly spontaneous stochastic self-organization of integrated systems when the overarching tendency in the universe is definitely towards disintegration.
Integration is what can be called organization of things into a larger whole, a system, which occurs over time and space in some self-consistent way. Any such organization requires working energy to maintain, and it also implies knowledge, or a sense of order, in its functional and structural relationships. So the question becomes, without some sense of predetermination being involved, or without the hand of some deliberate or intentional being, how did systems arise, apparently by themselves, in nature, when the gradient for all events seems to be in the opposite direction?
Ludwig von Bertalanffy essentially solved this riddle, and thereby laid the foundation for general systems theory as a fundamental paradigm for the sciences. First, he identified the difference between ideally closed systems, upon which the conventional laws of Thermodynamics were based, and the idea of partially closed/partially open systems. Second, he restated the principle that there can be no completely self-organizing systems, with the idea that systems may be partially self-organizational through interaction with the environment, and particularly, with interaction of other systems within the environment. Finally, he stated that systems may become self-organizing and integrative as complex-state, order-increasing systems in the context of open environmental situations when conditions of energy transport into the system may temporarily outweigh the loss of energy from the system, due primarily to the immediate availability of a certain form of energy and the availability of suitable transport mechanisms that permit energy to be carried into the system with a certain level of efficiency.
It appears for instance that the explanation for the spontaneous self organization of living systems as we have uncovered these from the strata of the earth follows precisely this general systems model, and can be explained scientifically in no other way. Any living system we know about on earth follows this same pattern of organization and systemic integration, however convoluted and meta-biotic they have become, and it can be hypothesized in a reliable way that any living system we may in the future encounter in the universe will also follow the exact same principle, albeit if not in exactly the same ways.
I would like to theoretically explain the spontaneous self-organization of physical systems by a similar model, but Big Bang creationists, thank you George Gamow, will have nothing to do with alternative paradigms. The organization of energy upon a fundamental level has yet to be clearly ascertained, if it ever can be clearly ascertained, given the statements of relativity that have been forthcoming regarding physical event structures.
And, if we are to believe prognostications of global warming and conspiracy theories about the fossil fuel wars, it appears that human systems, as grand state systems, operating upon the same basic guidelines, much to the chagrin of traditional capitalists and social engineers of all kinds.
The problem of systems solutions and integration is fundamentally the problem of solving the Von Neumann information bottle-neck in the search solution space for any given problem set. Each system imaginable or demonstrable in reality has one or more abstract symbolic representations that may be used for the purpose of relational and structural generalization about systems. The challenge of integration can be said to the problem of getting behind any immediate, or relatively local solution set, to achieve a more comprehensive or general solution set that properly integrates the local solution to a larger frame of reference. Systems integration is successful if local solutions, as subsystems, become coordinate to and incorporated within a larger systems framework.
The problem of this is the relativity of systems by size, scale and generality. Many systems occur in the world independently, and there is no clear sense why they should be integrated. Ideally, we would want to create a socio-political system in which all people, as individual human systems, are independent and wealthy enough to pursue their own goals as long as these goals do not hurt or hinder the freedom of anyone else. There is no sense in such a world that there must be a single overarching ideological or political entity by which the interests of all people should be made to conform to a single set of general standards, however these may be conceived. On the other hand, there appears in any socio-political meta-system a need for the rule of just law that may apply to all people equally, without double-standards, without religious or racial bias, etc., etc.
It is clear that if any real or possible system is underdetermined in any ultimate sense, then there is no reason to conceive of or attempt to design a meta-system, or a system of systems, that is itself more over-determined than the systems it contains. At the same time, it is generally conceded that in the long run some form of meta-systems integration is perhaps inevitable, in whatever manner it may be eventually achieved or realized. There is a clear sense, for instance, that the mass extinctions that followed the Permian or the Triassic were probably not caused by a gigantic meteorite or a super-volcanic eruption, which would be part of systems by themselves, but from the inherent dynamics of biological meta-systems that tend to run towards deterministic integration in the long run. Therefore, over-determination through meta-system integration is not always the most desirable state to achieve, and in fact may eventuate ultimately in a rather night-marish state.
The entire criticism of modern development has been the pursuit of local solutions that are not generalizable to global problem sets, and the lack of coordination of resources and information that would permit such generalization of solutions in a common context to take place. What occurs in this perspective is not the over-determination of systems, but the mass wastage of resources, and inefficient utilization of systems, and the arising of critical events from complex states, that result in destructive interference of systems or subsystems and the increase in randomization of systems. This is not the same as foisting on the world a limited symbolic ideology or a form of "planned development" that stems from power and relatively narrow-minded and self-serving interests. It is rather a challenge of figuring out an appropriate generalizable methodology that can be considered genuinely comprehensive in design and therefore universally applicable, with the appropriate modifications, to all manner of different kinds of local problem sets.
Systems are good to think for humans because human thought is organized upon systems principles. The emergent properties associated with mind, and found to be transcendent to the functions of the brain, are the properties of the brain functioning as a super complex system in a symbolic manner. The entire mind-body dichotomy that underlies particularly Western Philosophy, and the binding problem that lies at the heart of philosophical debate concerning AI, resolves itself upon a systems-based perspective. This is not to say that we necessarily understand in any adequate way how the brain functions as a system to create the noetic properties of mind, but this system, as natural as it is, and as a unique product of natural evolution, forms the central basis for human systems that are to be distinguished analytically from biological and physical systems.
The entire challenge of attempting to design and articulate a comprehensive systems-based framework has resolved itself on the problem of integration. It is largely a cybernetic problem as it represents attempts to think through to solutions to problems that lie behind more immediate solutions. It is a cybernetic problem not only because systems are naturally good for humans to think and act in, but because all systems themselves that have any sense of order carry information and this information can be said to be cybernetic in terms of its integration. We are attempting to move from local problem sets to basic and global problems, to try to get behind local problem sets to see what connects them to larger frameworks. To a great extent this feels like an ever vanishing horizon, and with each step towards greater generality, there is implied an exponential jump in the levels of complexity that are being subsumed in the search-solution space.
The problem can be resolved in two ways--formally through the implementation of alternative general frames of reference, and heuristically through the implementation of practical shortcuts of working presuppositions that permit us to resolve some of the complexities for practical purposes. Fortunately, we have some fairly powerful heuristic shortcuts that allow us to resolve complexities at every-turn. One can even say that symbolic organization of consciousness, manifest for instance in human speech, permits us to put a simple and sweet symbolic label on a complex reality, and then to treat that reality by means of its symbolic handle as if they were one and the same thing. Even human perception appears to accomplish the same tricks of the imagination, in numerous ways and instances, that saves us the problem of processing all the information and signals that exist in the world. The more formal approach of course is large the approach of scientifically methodologies, in whatever way they are expressed or realized in terms of research and application in the world. These approaches tend overall to be more systematic, more deliberate, more analytical in dealing less with generalizations and more with the details of reality subsumed by such generalizations.
Backward chaining of inference structure is an important consideration of achieving comprehensive solution sets to general problems, and this process allows a formalization of solutions and their organization into a larger meta-systems framework with the promise of creating relatively complete computer-based integration of the framework utilizing a relevant inference engine and suitable database structures. In fact, it provides the entire basis for seeking a comprehensive systems-based solution set that can be cybernetically expressed in terms of computer-based design and management of information. If we recognize that all real systems carry information as intrinsic to the fact of their functioning organization, and knowledge, like work, requires non-random modulation and transference of energy, then we understand that the capacity to program knowledge based informational systems provides tremendous power to construct and maintain alternative working systems of all conceivable kinds.
I consider in fact backward chaining systems of inference to be so cybernetically important, especially in terms of the possible automation of artificial systems, that once we have achieved a global generalized solution set, all other possible problem sets may be logically and functionally integrated in an adaptive manner. This is perhaps my own specialized bias as an anthropologist, but it remains quite evident that the integration of human reality, and all reality is, from an anthropological standpoint, humanly filtered reality, is cybernetically organized and ordered in such a manner that is both good to think and good to do.
To compare this to conventional approaches to systems problem solving, which are based primarily upon empirical and experiential expertise through specialization and the division of labor and the implicit kind of structural-functional organization this entails, we may refer to this fundamentally as a forward chaining inferential approach, which relies upon a series of selections of known choices and progressive delimitation to a final selection. It is called the coke-machine approach to cybernetic problem solving, and works well with small ranges of choice that are in keeping with natural cognitive limitations of people. Such a system does not work well though with very large sets of alternatives or very complex systems.
The sciences have largely been articulated and organized on an empirical and analytical basis. This by itself is nothing bad, but it does represent by and large a tendency towards forward chaining solutions from particulars to generalities, rather than backward chaining from generalizations to particulars. Of course, science is not strictly speaking a forward-chaining affair even if it is mostly taught and idealized in this manner--the greatest contributions in science have been largely backward chaining theories that represent general systems solutions to basic problem sets, like the theory of evolution and the general theory of evolution. Careful and tedious observation to detail may have preceded the formulation of these theories, but by no means did the theories themselves depend or hinge upon such observation alone.
The basis for the Lewis Works framework has been the understanding of the universal applicability of general systems principles, and the potential value that can be derived from such understanding. It stands to reason that the studied application of such principles to general and special problem solving endeavors would in part serve the purposes of achieving relatively integrated solution sets at various levels of organization of reality. But this is not a problem that can be directly attacked or arbitrarily by the deliberate application of systems principles. It is a problem that can only be achieved through creative insight and intuition, through experience with different kinds of systems in all ways and at all levels, and through the process of discovery associated with the recognition and appreciation of the developmental emergence of systems.
A final proviso must also be remarked upon. Though Lewis Works has adopted a general systems perspective as a comprehensive framework for problem solving and project application, a systems perspective by itself is not the only or exclusive point of view that carries any relevance to the understanding of different kinds of things or phenomena in the world. The differences of each thing, or each kind of thing, must be appreciated for what they are, and understood in the unique terms that they represent by their design, whether this is conceived in a systems framework or not. In fields like ecology where systems perspectives are almost automatic and therefore quite obvious, there is always an on-going debate between the analytic approach and a systems or holistic approach. Ultimately, it is the holistic approach that is capable of comprehending and incorporating the analytical perspective, and not the other way around. This kind of debate is really a hen or egg dilemma, once again, or rather a mind-brain dichotomy or a ghost in the machine kind of paradox. In terms of anything we may study or approach for study, the analytical or holistic perspective is neither privileged over nor exclusive of the other approach, whatever our manifest values or predilections in scholarship.
The Idea of a Global Meta-system
I first formulated the idea of the Global Meta-system in the spring of 2002, as a result of a set of research-design proposal submitted to the Nasa Institute of Advanced Concepts. I sought in these proposals to take a systems based approach to strategic problems that would be relevant in a fifty year time frame of the future, and I had just completed my main systems manuscript Natural Systems. Concurrently, I had written a short, half-finished work in entitled Global Systems, which represented the emergent formulation of the notion of Metasystems.
The main idea in these proposals was of a single, centrally integrated global meta-system that articulated at all levels and in all areas of human social reality. This includes integration of systems across multiple levels of natural systems stratification, and addresses potentially all areas of importance in human society.
I reproduce the main proposal outline below:
Proposal: Interdisciplinary Program Structure in Natural Systems Theory and Metasystems Science.
Abstract: Based upon previous research and inquiry, I propose a unique interdisciplinary program of study that has as its basis the articulation and elaboration of a form of advanced systems science to natural phenomenal patterning upon multiple levels of integration. I propose three basic levels of primary application involving work in the three basic levels of the natural sciences as I have identified these in my previous work Natural Systems (2000): i.e., 1. the physical, 2. the biological and 3. the anthropological. In each of these areas I propose basic theoretical sets that are comprehensive, and methodological and teleological extensions of these to real world problem sets that are pivotal to the challenges of human adaptation and survival on earth. I propose as well basic work in three other related areas--a. basic metasystems science that includes mathematical and philosophical theory and the elaboration of basic methodological and operational designs in statistical and representation procedures; b. alternative systems development that involves centrally and primarily the extension of work in artificial intelligence to the problems of exploration, technological development and automation; and c. applied solutions to practical problems research and development at multiple levels of integration. The theoretical and conceptual aspects of this outline are being elaborated in the book I am currently undertaking. It is my proposal to extend this work in a systematic level upon as many levels as I can successfully and practically carrry forward, given severely limited means, and to apply for as many grant applications in as short a period of time within this framework to hopefully extend the platform for its further development. In this regard, I propose the implementation on a basic level of a heuristic system based primarily upon a modeling laboratory that seeks to build both scale working models and nonscalable simplified simulations of complex systems in both real time and in virtual space. It is most important to emphasize in this preliminary proposal that it is the metasystem as a whole, and the challenge of its integration on multiple levels and in numerous alternative areas, that remains foremost in my mind and efforts. The outcome of this proposed research work should be: 1. An articulated experimental framework for a working basic metasystem; 2. A blue-book for alternative development in which many basic designs and plans are elaborated in substantial detail; 3. A theoretical and methodological primer for metasystems science. The remainder of this paper is devoted to a synoptic outline of the main points of this work, and then, in summary, a rationalization and justification for this kind of work.
The primary object is in heuristic problem solving over a very broad range of central issues in the natural sciences in a coordinated manner, and in the development of alternative lines of inquiry and avenues of practical solution for any give problem set within a larger frame of reference. The basic presumption of metasystems science is that in reality all systems are interconnected in complex ways, however indirectly, and we cannot realistically define a system independently of its natural contexts of articulation. On the other hand, from a philosophical and metalogical point of view, the presupposition is adopted that there exists abstract forms of reality and truth, as for instance in mathematical language and logic, for which there are no necessary real manifestations--nevertheless as forms of possible knowledge these abstract systems are internally coherent and as real as any substantive empirical pattern in reality.
The basis for metasystems rests upon certain finite conclusions:
1. The forms it adopts must be amenable and derivable from the challenges of adaptation of human culture and biological systems to outer space. The solutions to the challenges of survival in space must be also solutions to the challenge of survival upon earth. The same systems that permit humans to live in outer space in significant numbers, to carry forward evolutionary systems under artificial conditions, and to travel and explore increasing depths of space, will also allow humans to set up an alternative infrastructural and institutional framework upon earth that permits humankind to progress without the undue destructive effects of current technological trends.
2. A solar-hydrogen energy platform is the best and most necessary form of energy to adopt for both earth and space. All future human power needs can be met, and soon overpast, with this form of energy that is fundamentally non-polluting and that would allow us to step up by several orders of magnitude in the amount of net energy production that human civilization has at its disposal. Current predominance and control of the global political economy by elite fossil fuel interests is interfering and impeding with this alternative development to the point that the situation is becoming critical, especially in conjunction with other global issues of pollution, loss of net biological diversity, human over-population, socio-economic underdevelopment and increasing militarization.
3. Natural biological systems must be further protected from human selective and disruptive forces than they have been in the past or are now. These natural systems must be further augmented with artificial biological systems that are controlled by people. Humans must accept their metaethical responsibility for stewardship towards biological life forms of all kinds, and in this we can elaborate a foundation for biological ethics. It becomes important not to isolate nature from humankind's activities, but to restrict humankind's activities from nature. We need to develop a sophisticated system of habitation, resource utilization and space-allocation that serves to target the zoning of human systems, rather than the zoning of biological systems.
4. Cultural systems must be elaborated that promote the symbolic mediation of stress and potential for conflict in saturated and enclosed social systems. Metacultural systems must and can be elaborated that provide the foundations for the realization of human rights and potential for human development, and that adequately deal with problems relating to violence and human development in a rehabilitative manner.
5. Hybrid, light-based alternative intelligence systems that are autonomously robotic systems, that are distributed, integrated and that articulate directly with the environment in terms of in-out feedback loops need to be developed and elaborated. These represent an extension of the power of human intelligence over the issue of metasystems integration by many orders of magnitude of informational processing power than what has heretofore been realized.
6. Applied systems need to be developed in conjuction with other work that are auxiliary and necessary to the establishment of a single metasystem model, as well as extensions of the model to various problem sets.
Science achieves productivity by establishing feedback between theory and method, between abstract notions and realized actions. For the most part, this has been achieved in the history of science in a serendipitous and somewhat myopic manner--by trial and error in a disparate way. There exists the possibility that this form of development can proceed in a more deliberative and intentional manner with resources for research and development coordinated at multiple levels in a manner of systems integration that has heretofore only been achieved by default and by implicit integration. I propose a single integrative metasystem that is a teleological extension of natural systems theory, the implementation of which at multiple levels, locally, regionally and globally, would serve the purposes of humanity in helping to establish long term equilibrium of human systems in relation to all biological systems, and which allows the extension of these same systems into outer space. It is not the only answer to our shared problems--other issues such as population control and promotion of equality and the reduction of violence in the world needs to simultaneously cooccur with the wide-scale implementation of a metasystem.
I propose that there are three main operational levels of scientific inquiry and involvement--the physical, the biological and the human. Beyond this, there is an integrated super-level that I have called metasystems science, and at the same time that as an extension of uniquely human systems, there occurs a fourth level of alternative intelligent systems that has experienced increasing integration and development in the information age. In the natural patterning of physical reality, these systems are in essence inseparable, though in our normal sciences we proceed out of necessity as if they were separate and isolated. We find that we cannot ultimately distantiate or alienate the human knower from the thing being known, even in the most basic of physical systems. The natural stratification of physical phenomenal patterning, that can be considered the principle substantive basis for most scientific inquiry, constitutes a natural hierarchy of determinations that is stratified on several main levels and in numerous sub-levels, and these serve to define in a natural manner the stratigraphy and landscape of scientific knowledge beyond academic labels and disciplinary boundaries. We can seek to impose certain forms of relativistic frames of reference over these natural systems--they are in some way or another mechanical systems, they involve some level or another of complex informational patterning, they are non-linear stochastic systems in the sense that they are inherently underdetermined in a chaotic and probabilistic manner.
This proposal intends to work on basic and key problem sets and basic projects related to these problem sets at all levels, at least heuristically on paper if not in any practical form. As many separate aspects and individual projects will be undertaken as possible, with the caveat that it is the question of the integration of the entire metasystem, as a single functional entity, that is the overriding consideration.
Reality is naturally interconnected upon multiple levels. It is people, in their knowledge systems, who have defined the boundaries around certain areas and sets. It is the case that natural patterning tends to stratify in a non-arbitrary way upon different levels and in different areas of information--but it remains the human prerogative how we cut the pie and then try to piece it all back together. Problem sets cannot be solved individually without solving holistically the entire framework.
Outline of Metasystems Theory & Application
A. Metasystems theory
B. Physical systems theory
C. Biological Systems
D. Human Systems
E. Alternative Systems
F. Applied Systems
The entire project of the metasystem is completely scalable--it can be articulated on a local scale, and integrated up to a global or even broader level. It is clearly the case that under the current circumstances, I lack the means to carry forward this work on any significant scale, except to produce working models of the system on a basic level, and perhaps an extended lower level model, along with guidelines and plans for scaling up the model. In closing, it must be reiterated that what is of primary strategic focus is the concept of a single integrated meta-system, and of the primary components necessary to such a system and its organization and mechanical function in real time.
Needless to comment, I was not successful in being awarded the grant, but I have kept on with my framework in its development. Subsequent to this I penned out another manuscript entitled Metasystems in the following Fall.
In subsequent attempts to implement a framework that would potentially embody the principles of meta-systems design, I've come to realize that it is really a framework that is based upon a central idea, regardless of the articulatory structures that occur as a consequence, or the possible articulatory structures that may be developed. In attempting to extend the framework in an articulatory manner, I've gone in several different directions and have elucidated various aspects of it. It was a year later in the Spring of 2003 that I came to a relative stable organizational framework embodying the concept of the meta-system, and over the next year this framework rapidly evolved from one that was primarily defined in a formal way to one that was increasing defined and articulated in a functional manner.
In retrospective, I think the development of the metasystems framework, as an articulatory structure, or as central organizing idea, has not been off-schedule or too delayed by such factors of chronic resource shortage and restriction, etc. To some extent, much of this development has been resource independent, and I'm just beginning to realize that the correct course is in the requirement of fewer, rather than more resources, at least in basic forms.
Needless to say, the enormity of the task and its inherent complexity has often been temporarily overwhelming--solutions were always at best part-whole answers, and achieving what can be called a "whole gestalt" on the framework, as a whole, in a manner that was clear and made sense, has only been reached in recent months and weeks. During this interim period I've come to realize that other people would have their own ideas and possible designs on how such a framework may or may not become articulated, and I do not think there is a prescribed manner for doing this, though I do generally believe that there will be convergence of design as a consequence of its functional streamlining and development and as a matter of time as systems become increasingly integrated in the real world.
If I had to summarize in a general sense the idea of a Global Meta-system, I would state that it is a "developmental idea" that is about development, primarily of human systems, and that it embodies the notion of "alternative development" which means the exploration of alternative pathways of possible problem resolution in real world contexts, with the realization that with complex problems especially there is perhaps more than one best solution, and that we do not necessarily know what the best solution may be without systematic exploration and experimentation.
Furthermore, I would claim the idea of a Global Meta-system involves the functional articulation of human systems in a total and comprehensive sense, and this involves the idea of automated and applied systems generally, that are the logical extensions of the development of human systems, particularly of information systems. Automation, and more particularly, automated integration, will increase significantly as a consequence and a cause of meta-systems development, and I feel this this will be primarily Internet and web-system based in form, as this is the primary global infrastructure available for this form of integration to proceed.
Blanket Copyright, Hugh M. Lewis, © 2009. Use of this text governed by fair use policy--permission to make copies of this text is granted for purposes of research and non-profit instruction only.
Last Updated: 09/17/09