INTRODUCTION

Systems abound in the natural world. In truth a legitimate claim could be made that all of nature coheres itself in terms of systems, and systems within systems, and even within other systems yet. We cannot really say where exactly systems end or begin in nature--they seem not to end in fact and possibly to have had no beginning. The grand paradox is that though we find systems at almost every turn of the resolving screw of our observational powers, we know about natural systems comparatively little, and seem to understand them in a non-trivial sense, beyond the basics, even less.

And yet any "system" is no more than how we, as people, see and construe the patterns of nature. It is a name we choose to call patterns we find in nature. They are the theories and relationships we discern and bring to our natural experiences. And yet we must take a slight leap of faith in positing a fundamental objectivism, and objectivity, about the reality of external relationships, and the confidence in our knowledge about that fundamental reality, as well as structural patterns forthcoming from natural epiphenomena. Otherwise, what would be the value of our sciences to see or believe whatever we wished to see and belief?

Any system, all systems, are a complex but finite set of enduring relationships that occur and recur between a limited set of "objects" or parts of objects that exist in physical reality. These relationships are a series or sequence of transactions that together form an emergent set of properties or a synergistic pattern of integration as a result of the interaction itself, and that are not a part of the properties of the parts or objects involved in the composition of the system. This is as true of atoms and cells as it is of civilizations and galaxies.

We are left with a basic and seemingly insoluble dilemma about our understanding of systems, which I will call the dialectic between analytical reductionism and synthetic anti-reductionism. Mechanically, on some level, a system is a kind of "machine" that on one hand is reducible to the function of parts, and on another, functions as a whole in its own boundary conditions and operating limits. When we seek to dissect the machine, the ghost of the machine disappears, just like the mind of the brain or the spirit of the organism, or the reproductive action of the cell. Both points of view are right and not wrong, but the synthetic point of view, when non-exclusive, is a broader and more open minded point of view, encompassing an analytical perspective of the inter-functioning and design of the parts of the whole machine.

Any system, all systems, occur de facto embedded in a field of external and infinitely extensible relationships with other objects or sets or systems of objects beyond the operational boundary of the system. The "openness" of systems set off systems theory from the conventional physical sciences that deal with ideal "closed systems." It is the boundary maintaining function of systems implicated in its control structure that becomes critical to the understanding of systems. Any real system cannot be isolated in a non-relative manner, or occur in isolation, and the sense of boundary separation that differentiates a system internally from its external environment does so in only a relative and incomplete sense. Thus, another dilemma of our knowledge that we must deal with; there seems little non-relative knowledge about systems as these occur in their natural settings, and science, somehow, eschews relative knowledge as insufficient to our final comprehension.

Part-whole relationships of systems and components of systems are relative to the metasystem framework of a system. Integration of a subsystem into a larger super-system sets boundary conditions for the operational freedom of the subsystem. Otherwise, itself whole and stand alone, when integrated as a part of a larger whole, the subsystem functions automatically in relation to the larger framework.

Systems thus, in the stratification of nature upon basic levels, become subsumed within a hierarchy of increasingly complex integration that is founded upon lower level boundary control of subsystems. This is a hierarchy of systems control, which tends be multi-factorial and underdetermined, and therefore, non-linear, complex and frequently chaotic in outcome. We find this amazing pattern of natural stratification at all levels we can observe, and so far, beyond our observational limitations, we've discovered no absolute or final boundaries to this sense of order and hierarchical integration.

Systems are self-organizing and are "predetermined" only in the sense that they arise as a logical and natural consequence of factors interacting with one another, however complexly or chaotically. Because of inherent indeterminancy, any system is only partially, or incompletely, determined, hence systems have a degree of built-in variability and possible alternation of pattern. Each system is therefore upon a fundamental level unique in its particular identity even if, as a kind of system, it may be classified as a member of larger sets of general kinds of systems.

Natural systems are real systems that are self-organizing and that arise stochastically in nature as a consequence of the forces and actions of natural events and the patterning of these events. There is neither deliberate predetermination--by definition they are neither man-made nor God-made--and they are not in a strict sense "self-determining" though through their processes of equilibriation they appear to be partially self-determined. They arise stochastically from chance processes and complex event structures, develop in semi-deterministic and non-linear directions, and then pass away. They arise naturally, automatically, in response to causal predetermined conditions that create the conditions for their integration as systems.[1]

There are three main levels of stratification in natural systems that we know of: the physical, the biological and the anthropological. There may be other levels, more fundamental than what we now know about the physical, or more complex than what we know of the anthropological. Already, systems of artificial intelligence are giving rise to the possibility of a new foundational level of automata systems integration on some complex level achieving integration independent of their human programmers.

In natural systems, cause and consequence of pattern event is not always clear-cut, and processes of complementary interaction of coexisting entities may play as much of a role as a strict analytical precedence of event order or sense of direct causality. It was Neils Bohr who first spoke of the complementaritiness of processes in different systems, comparing those of the atoms and cells and frogs and even human cultures, in what was a very early allusion to natural systems theory.

The developmental patterning of systems is by definition non-linear, being multi-factorial always. Non-linear control theory plays a role in defining the state-path trajectory or life-cycle of a system. All systems have a life cycle, a beginning, a birth, a period of growth, and stasis, and then decline and eventual demise as a system. Just as all systems are finite and particularly unique, so too all systems are temporary and eventually expire as a system, their components rejoining the larger field of relationships and interactions from which they were originally configured.

The developmental patterning of non-linear control systems form possible alternative state path trajectories: cyclical growth, cyclical decline, stasis about a stable center, and disruptive disintegration. We see these processes in living organisms, in stars, and possibly, even in atoms, and they serve to define the life-cycle and alternative state-path trajectories of systems.

2. No system occurs in absolute isolation, but each is embedded in a unique and complexly dynamic field of extensible relationships that may possibly be ultimately infinite.

3. Reality is stratified by implicit hierarchical control structures into systems upon multiple levels of scale and extent in both time and space. The levels of stratification may in fact be infinite in extent and infinitesimal in scale, but the boundary conditions and operating limits are unique to each level of natural stratification.

4. All systems are subject to principles of change, or systems dynamics, that govern their state path trajectories and that connect systems events with larger and smaller scale events in the larger field. These tend to be multi-factorial, hence complex, stochastic, hence underdetermined, and variable, hence chaotic, in state-path trajectory and developmental cycles.

The stratification of natural systems is an interesting dimension of natural systems theory that has itself been rarely addressed or explored in any direct manner, though repeated references to such natural stratification can be found in the literature if many different scientific fields. It is clear, for instance, that rules and determinations that seem to apply upon one level of natural stratification, do not necessarily apply upon any other level, hence, the science that has developed at any given level is completely appropriate to that level but inappropriate to any other level. To attempt to explain the biology of cells exclusively or primarily in terms of the chemistry or physics of the interactions of the atoms composing the cell runs the risk of the fallacy of analytical reductionism, a not uncommon occurrence in scientific explanation and theory building.[2]

The most basic discriminations between levels of natural systems are primarily physical, biological and human systems. Each subsequent level is a special subset of the previous level, and each subset has a particular set of emergent or integrative properties, as a system of a system, that is not shared by the larger set. Within each of these strata of natural systems, the physical, the biological, and the human, there are at least several sublevels of stratification upon which entirely different processes of integration and differentiation take place.[3]

Stratification of systems appears to have been a long-term outcome of the self-organization of natural systems, the stochastic organization of physical, objective reality. When we refer to natural systems as being fundamentally stochastic, we mean to say they are ultimately based on the chance or random configuration of physical events, or what might be called unpredetermined bias. It is not to say there are no predetermining factors that are not causally related to the development or origin of systems, but that these factors are inherently underdetermined; there are few if any absolute predeterminations in nature.

Indeed, it is one of the major challenges of any general science to ultimately and conclusively explain the facts and reasons for this stratification of nature upon so many levels. Reasons for the stratification of natural systems appears to have much to do with the basic definition of general systems and the emergent properties shared by systems of a similar kind. Emergence of properties associated with the integration and differentiation of systems entails the occurrence of patterning that cannot be reduced or explained by the properties associated with the components of the systems, or subsystems. And yet this is an entirely relative kind of explanation to adopt, insufficient for scientific explanation, and even less sufficient for scientific research that tends to be exclusively analytical in orientation.

For a model of stratification, we may state that any given system is part of a larger general system framework, that is composed of a metasystem context connecting that system to a larger field of relations. At the same time, any given system will be composed of smaller subsystems, which in turn are also probably composed of subsystems. These are hierarchically organized by means of control dominance which is basically stochastic and underdetermined in any given instance.

At any given point or instance of a system, or at any given level or scale of that system, we may therefore identify what can be called three relative levels of systems stratification/integration:

1. The supersystem context: the field of relations connecting the system to other systems, or to larger scale systems.

What is emergent from the development and stratification of systems are not just properties that are the function of the integration of the system, but entirely new systems with their own unique properties. While it would make no sense to speak of nuclear interactions in biological terms or of the function of cells in human cultural terms, because all biological systems are a subset of physical systems, the explanation of cellular behavior and function in terms of atomic or molecular processes is not only possible, but a received approach. What is lost from such analytical reduction is the view of higher order "biotonic" systems and processes and properties relative to those systems, that are not a part of or analytically pertinent to some lower subsystem level.[4]

This brings to bear an essential dilemma. If a general system paradigm states that at any given level, for any given particular system, there is always a larger metasystem or super-system level, and there is also always a smaller compositional level that might be apprehended, then should we accept or reject the claims of scientists outright who assert that they have reached the limits of physical reality in the form of quarks or in the Deepest Fields of the most current Space Telescope? It is at this level of explanation and theory construction, just beyond the limits of our empirical evidence but somewhat before a truly blind leap of faith, that general systems explanation parts company with traditional scientific theorization, and comes into its own as a beacon of our collective night.

This brings up an essential difference between a general systems perspective and what can be referred to as a traditional scientific perspective. Scientific worldview is data-bound in the sense that it can only proceed as far as the empirical evidence allows it to go. Scientific thinking comes to a stop at the boundaries of scientific observation, and where scientific thinking stops, other forms of thinking tend to come into play and, often somewhat subtly, take over. General systems thinking, on the other hand, makes specific assumptions about the a priori structure of reality, which are at least implicitly universal. This should in principle, if not always in practice, allow us to extend our grasp of reality one step beyond the limitations set by our data, offering us at least clues, a structure of possibilities, about where to go next with our research and problem solving and thinking.

The lack of a basic, general definition of a "system" serves as a critical short-coming in the development of systems-based perspectives, models and applications. The lack of a common received terminology serves to confuse and foster ambiguity about our formal, collective knowledge on the topic. Terms are often employed in an ambiguous and sometimes even in a contradictory manner.

A system is a finite co-occurring set of event structures that form subsystem components, that are relationally self-organizing between components, and that exhibit mutual constraint such that the relations occurring between them tend to be minimally non-random and recurring within a developmental sequence, and such that the system as a whole exhibits thereby integrative properties of emergence, negentropic growth of order, dynamic-state equilibrium and self-perpetuation under varying sets of external conditions.

In general, a system is any self-integrated pattern that maintains regular order, in some minimal sense, against a general meta-systems gradient or encompassing set of tendencies towards disorder.

At this time, I distinguish three general types of systems, depending upon the degree of non-random constraint that governs their integrative patterns, and that determines the ontological and developmental status of the component subsystems.

Type 1 systems: Internally integrated systems. These are usually the most determined of systems, with highly constrained relations and interactions, and exhibit the most non-random of patterns. If any component parts from such a system that are critical to the functioning of the system are removed, then the system as a whole cannot be sufficiently maintained. The component parts of such systems cannot be maintained outside of the internalized context that the system as a whole provides, and would end when the system ends. Type 1 systems tend to be highly differentiated internally in a functional and structural sense, such that component subsystems tend to take on highly compartmentalized and specialized functions.

Type 2 systems: Externally integrated systems. These are usually only partially determined and with less constraint governing the relationships occurring between the parts. In such contexts it is usually the case that individual component parts of the system may be removed from the system, and the system will maintain its equilibrium without significant disturbance. It is also often the case that individual component parts can be self-maintaining outside of the context provided by the larger system. The basis for the organization of such Type 2 systems seems to be the intervention and condition of external constraints that are tied to the shared meta-systems context or environment in which they subsystems exist. Type 2 systems may be said to be less differentiated than type 1 systems, such that component parts may be to some extent interchangeable, and functional articulation of the subsystems substitutable by alternate components.

Type 3 systems: Heterogeneous systems. These are mixed self-organizing systems that by definition are usually the least constrained and determined, the least enduring and tend to be the most ephemeral. Such systems often involve interactions and regular relationships between component parts across levels or orders of integration of natural reality, or across extensive boundaries of other systems. It is the case in such systems that the component parts are probably parts of other Type 2 systems simultaneously as being involved in a Type 3 system, and such components can be fully self-maintaining independent of the meta-systems context provided by the Type 3 system. Type 3 systems seem to exhibit the most chaos of pattern in their state-path trajectory and are therefore the most open and subject to the perturbation of external influences.

We may also refer to different types of system as basic and self-organizing, or as extended, meaning that they are the complex elaboration of one or more basic systems within an expanded environment.

Though we define general systems by a common set of definitions, we must also limit our general definition by stating that, though all real systems may be defined generally as a system, each specific system is unique in terms of its overall patterning and complexity in relation the meta-systems context in which it occurs. Our definitions apply in only a general or non-specific sense, and the understanding of any particular system requires that we specify its unique event pattern as well as classify it by type and kind.[5]

The distinction between a general system and a particular system is an important analytical and semantic difference to draw upon in the definition of systems. We must be careful to specify a particular system or kind of system in the statements we make about a system, and to separate those features unique or characteristic of that system or kind of system, from any other systems, or from the general properties or patterns that can be ascribed to all systems. A general system model and definition provides us a point of entry into the examination and comprehension of any particular system or kind of system, but it is not necessarily the final set of statements we want to arrive at about any given system or set of systems.

We are safe to conclude therefore what I would call the first precept of natural systems theory, or the natural systems principle--any and every natural event, upon any level of occurrence that it may be observed or logically inferred based upon measured observation, is part of a non-random system occurring within a larger meta-systems context, and can be understood and studied as such. In other words, all natural phenomena is thought to cohere as a system or a manifestation of a system, upon whatever level it is phenomenologically encountered or observed or measured, and therefore we can come to expect all such phenomenal occurrences to exhibit signs and patterns that are indicative of an implicit or underlying sense of order or, formally speaking, "structure" that can be said to be non-random and semi-deterministic in its dynamic outcomes.

The key word here is really "non-random" as this imposes a sense of being at least semi-deterministic and therefore regulated by some principle or set of principles that are logically available and derivable. We emphasize non-random because nature has this nasty underlying predisposition and predilection toward total randomness in the structure of the large and the long run. Total randomness, or chaos, lacks any sense of order, and we certainly cannot base any theory, much less a science, upon the observation and deduction of random events, except perhaps for a theory of randomness itself. But, somewhat miraculously, we find that nature has another, observable tendency as well, and this is the tendency towards self-organization into non-random systems. Furthermore, nature manifests both sets of tendencies upon almost every level of its phenomenal occurrence upon which we have observed it. There is no reason not to conclude therefore that these principles do not occur upon all levels of natural manifestation and that there are ultimately an unbounded number of levels of such manifestation.

How to best try to understand this paradox of our reality? Perhaps we can surmise that all non-random events that are possible are always a subset of a much larger set of total possible random events that may occur within a given set of coordinate reference points. And if the total set of possible random events is infinite, we can conclude that the total subset of non-random events may also be infinite. If all possible random events have some fundamentally equal or probable chance of occurrence, then all non-random events also have some probability of occurring. If both random and non-random events have some differential set of probabilities of occurrence, then, given enough time, non-random events will eventually occur against a larger background of random events. We would therefore call all such non-random event structures that occur naturally and spontaneously as "self-organizational."

We observe something further that seems to be distinct about non-random self-organizing systems, and that is that they have a tendency towards self-propagation, reduplication or regeneration as non-random event structures. In other words, a self-organizing system must be something more than merely a set of non-random event structures, but they must be a set of non-random event structures that become self-maintaining or self-propagating through time, usually in some developmental sequence. The easiest way to explain this is perhaps to hypothesize the simultaneous co-occurrence of two (or more) non-random event structures, the patterning of one of which results in and in turn results from the patterning of the other, and vice-versa. This describes a kind of pendulous closed-loop feedback system. Non-random order in self-organizing systems in nature that are otherwise completely stochastic, may become self-maintaining and self-propagating when the sense of order of one set of event structures leads to and results in the non-random organization of another set of event structures, and so on.[6]

I would put this principle another way, in terms of a basic definition of what a system is. A system is some finite structure or pattern of relational events that co-occur and reoccur in a minimally non-random manner in a common set of dimensions, sequentially or synchronously or both, within a larger meta-systems context of alternative possible relationships. A meta-system is therefore some unbounded and at least semi-open relational context within which systems of a certain kind or set of systems of various kinds, can be expected to co-occur and recur with a non-random chance.

The key word here for a system is that it is a finite and bounded structure of relationships, compared implicitly to a meta-system that can be expected to normally contextualize such a system. We have operating a kind of figure-ground gestalt framework in understanding the systems-based organization of nature, and, going back to the point above, the failure of most theories can probably be attributed to the failure to account sufficiently for the meta-systems framework or for a "system" as some kind of a bounded set of relationships within such a context.

We can further extend our understanding of systems and meta-systems to stipulate that a "semi-closed" or bounded system is one in which the determining constraints that occur non-randomly within the relational structure of the system have been internalized to the system as a self-organizational entity, most frequently characterized by what are referred to as emergent or synergistic properties. We can compare and contrast this to externalized systems that are semi-open or relatively unbounded and which are constrained in some non-random manner by relationships that extend outside of the system itself, and which may include indirectly a much larger set of interacting variables.

This kind of distinction parallels the kind of holistic/analytic dichotomy made in the beginning between analytical and holistic approaches to science, and ultimately is a kind of analytical hen or egg dichotomy of reality. In reality, all systems are both semi-closed and semi-open, and all systems usually have a self-organizing set of internalized relational components and constraints, that are also conditioned by a larger meta-systems context of external factors that constrain the system directly or indirectly. It becomes therefore a matter of perspective and emphasis how we wish to define any particular system, as independent from a context or as part of a larger meta-system framework. How we do so determines, among other things, the ultimate success of our theoretical and hypothetical constructions.

Rethinking old problem sets in reality from a systems-based frame of reference permits us to step beyond the boundaries of our own logic and ideas, and to contextualize the problem sets in terms of larger realities in which they occur as developmental possibilities. We are not talking about overextending the systems analogy as a covering law model to describe and relate unrelated kinds of problems. Each problem set demands its own theoretical explanation that is independent of that of any other kind of problem set that may occur. It does not do well to mix apples and oranges merely because they are both more or less round systems. But as different kinds of fleshy fruit, that bear seeds, and that come from fruit-bearing trees, we can describe and even classify both as similar kinds of systems.

I believe that what a systems-based perspective allows us to do foremost is to provide us with a general and comprehensive reference frame that is suitable for all levels and areas of scientific involvement. This is an invaluable framework to have for the common contextualization of different kinds of problem sets.

We may separate analytically and for book-keeping purposes what we refer to as general systems and specific systems. A general system is really an instance or theoretical construct of the "general system model" (GSM) as this was enunciated and later elaborated and explained by Ludwig von Bertalanffy. A specific system is one that is an example of some form or kind of general system, as a real time or real world instantiation of a particular kind of system. Specific systems tend to be unique.

A system is an interrelated set of event-structures that are partly non-random and the occurrence of which results in newly emergent properties that stem from the interaction of events.

Any system has several components--implicit information, or non-random organization, anti-entropic energy, a boundary mechanism and boundary conditions governing the boundary mechanism, a metasystem context or effective environment from which it derives its energy.

All systems operations involve the transaction and transformation of energy. Energy is defined as the capacity to do work--work is defined as the nonrandom transfer of energy.

All systems have implicit information, which is the non-random organization of the system and its components. Energy and information go hand-in-hand. Energy without information is entropy, information without energy is chaos.

Any system may begin or end in any number of alternative start or stop states, but all similar systems achieve a similar kind of dynamic boundary-maintaining equilibrium that results in a relatively stable "equifinal" state which can be defined as a similar pattern of stable organization.

All systems are underdetermined in their control structure and in their state-path or developmental trajectories.

All systems occur in context, have a partial boundary that mediates between the external and internal environments. In other words, all systems are "open" systems (i.e., they are not isolated from their environment.) It is the openness of systems that explains their tendency towards equilibrium and equifinality, as well as their anti-entropic or negentropic patterns towards self organizaiton.

All systems exhibit in their state-path trajectory and development of integrated behavior, or emergent properties, a sense of teleology or directive behavior the understanding of which runs against the grain of explanations of scientific causality.

To recapitulate the general system model, systems arise under the proper environmental conditions with a boundary that separates external environment from the system. Whatever start state a given system may have, similar systems end up with similar kinds of equilibrium end states, a process Bertalanffy referred to as equifinality. Systems occur within a larger context, from which occur energy exchange transactions that sustain the system. Systems maintain dynamic equilibrium through first order resonance dampening mechanisms, and grow and develop by means of second order resonance amplificaiton mechanisms.

Von Bertalanffy provides what he calls the "Open System Model" as based upon principles of equifinality and directive teleology as an alternative in explaining general systems from the point of view of what he refers to as a "perspectival" orientation as opposed to the conventional reductivist explanation of "closed system models" in the physical sciences. He offers several alternative models for possible examples of what can be called the General System Model:

1. The model based upon the principle of equifinality, or "the tendency towards a characteristic final state from different initial states and in different ways, based upon dynamic interaction in an open system attaining a steady state. (1968:46)

2. The model based upon the principle of feedback, or "the homeostatic maintenance of a characteristic state or the seeking of a goal, based upon circular causal chains and mechanisms monitoring back information in deviations from the state to be maintained or the goal to be reached. (1968: 46)

3. The Ashby model of adaptive behavior, or "step functions defining a system, i.e., functions which, after a certain critical value is passed, jump into a new family of differential equations…having passed a critical state, the system starts off in a new way of behavior. Thus, by means of step functions, the system shows adaptive behavior by what the biologist would call trial and error. (1968: 46)

The biological cell is a prototypical general system model, and it was probably the "black box" of the mysterious cell that served as the key model of von Bertalanffy's development of the General System Model in the first place. The cell has the defining features, a semi-permeable cell membrane, internal environment, energy and information, and a typical pattern of cyclical growth, which all exact describe the General System Model. Von Bertalanffy in fact uses examples of living systems, of the physiology of organisms, as the basis for his "Open System Model."

For any given instance of a system, we may assign a complex variable (X) that is the composite product of all sub-factors and variables that are themselves the product of the relational interactions and subactions of the component subsystems that make up that system. Characterizing this complex variable with any measure of accuracy or completeness in terms of its complexity is virtually impossible, especially as a function of time. The temporal function may be expressed as the change of this variable X over time, (X ® X_t') and the differential characterization of this variable from one instance to the next. (X_t' ® {x₁, x₂, x₃,….})

We cannot discretely characterize any, much less all, of the sub-variables that go to a composite variable of a system, (X « {X_t', Y_t', Z_t'….}) but we can safely elaborate the properties and characteristics of this variable in terms of the associated attributes that are the function of the boundary or operational behavior of that system (X ® X_t'). Any system is characterizable, in other words, by a basic and unique profile of system-properties, or system based properties that are 1. Unique that particular system. 2. Shared in the main by similar kinds or related systems. 3. That are explainable in general terms as the complex product of the GSM. (X_t' ® {P[x₁, x₂,x₃,….]}). These properties as assumed to be a complex function of the matrix of possible relationships occurring between the variables of the system

The component sub-variables of a complex system ({X_t', Y_t', Z_t'….}) are constrained by their contextual relationship to the system X, and system X in its turn is further constrained by a composite profile of interactive relationships with its environment or Y-environment (Y_Env ® F[X]) In other words, system X as a whole interacts continuously with subcomponents as well as with environment Y, and the general developmental trajectory of the system is a function of this complex set of interactions.[7]

We tend to associate with general systems what are known as emergent, integrative or synergistic properties that are the product of the integration of the system as a whole and that cannot be clearly explained only in terms of the inter-functioning of the parts. All systems in nature, that are true directive systems, demonstrate some set of emergent properties that are differentially associated with that kind of system and by which we come to scientifically define and categorize such a system as a part of a larger taxonomy of systems. Different molecular configurations result in surprisingly different sets of molecular properties, which cannot be directly derived from knowledge of the molecular structure alone--color, texture, density, etc., are all properties that are the consequence of a particular manner of arranging atoms in relation to one another over a larger span or field of similar atoms.[8]

What is sought is a characterization of naturally occurring systems that has general applicability to a broad range of such systems and yet which might retain some efficacy as a theory that can lead to operationalization and experimental results confirming or disconfirming the theory. A systems theory of natural phenomena is not the same thing as a scientific theory or explanation underlying the reasons for such phenomena. It is a frame of reference for the connecting of such theory to other theories and other kinds of evidence, and it provides theory with a framework for interpretation of evidence.

All naturally occurring systems obey certain fundamental physical principles and principles of design or order that cannot under all circumstances be violated. These principles serve as fundamental constraints guiding the behavior and patterns of natural phenomena that we can then classify as one kind of system or another. A system, to be categorized broadly as such, must exhibit conformity to those kinds of constraints that serve to characterize and distinguish different kinds of systems from one another.

We can thus come up with a larger system of classification for naturally occurring phenomena, to which would be added as well some other kinds of systems that are not directly "natural" but that relate somehow to naturally occurring systems upon different levels of integration. There occur rules or principles that can be said to be universal at least to the largest class of systems that are known so far to us. This is not to say that there might not be even some larger class or framework that remains unknown about which little is known or observably obvious to our muddled heads.[9]

Efficiency in ecological and evolutionary frameworks are relative to the system and the surroundings being described. A mechanical definition of efficiency is a relatively high ratio of output to input in a working system. An maximally efficient system accomplishes a set of effects (an end state) with the minimum of waste or effort. We can contrapose efficiency of a working system to the complementary state of entropy we can assign to a system, which for a closed thermodynamic system becomes the measure of the amount of total energy unavailable for work, or the relative measure of disorder or randomness in a system (in any given state). All naturally occurring systems, including human systems, must obey the laws of thermodynamics, which means that we can have no perfectly efficient or perfectly non-entropic system.

Work is defined as the informational (nonrandom) organization of energy to achieve some desired effect or product or to maintain some systemic state of order within a given amount of time. Work in its most fundamental sense can be defined as the systematic transfer of energy from one form or state to another, or state transformation.

Work induces a kind of change therefore, and results a form of change. This form of change is the opposite of natural entropic tendencies towards increasing randomization. I will therefore call "positive change" any state transformation that results in an increasingly non-entropic state, and a negative change as any state transformation resulting in an increasingly entropic state.

All systems are changing either towards increasing order or increasing disorder.

All other things being equal, all systems will tend towards increasing disorder if no work is done to increase order.

Since work is always be definition imperfect, and because all systems tend in the long run towards increasing disorder, all working systems must eventually become dysfunctional as systems.

Naturally occurring systems can therefore be called informationally stochastic or "self-organizing" systems because there occurs no well-defined, external causal agency that determines the organizational structure of the patterning of a system.

An organized system is one that is intelligently ordered, or "informationally coherent," to perform some minimal form of work. Intelligent ordering of any system is a measure of that system's integration and relative state complexity.

1. All systems are part of a larger, more entropic environment that constitute the surroundings of a system.

3. All systems are composed of multiple components and thus are multi-factorialy determined.

4. The determination of any system, according to the laws of thermodynamics and of informational dynamics, is always incomplete--systems are thus complexly underdetermined.

5. Systems are therefore subject to continuous state change that is both exogenous and exogenous.

6. The complex underdetermination of partially open thermodynamic systems entails that all such systems can perform only a limited amount of work for a given duration of time.

7. Eventually, all naturally occurring systems must disintegrate and cease to function (to do work) as informationally coherent systems.

It is important to distinguish between total entropy of a complex system and the net entropy of such a system.

1. Naturally occurring systems are self-organizational working systems that achieve some sense of complex equilibrium within its environment.

2. Equilibrium is an entropy dependent and temporally dependent relationship of a system, such that the higher the equilibrium of a system, the lower its total entropy, and the longer lasting the system will be.

3. This equilibrium can be understood in terms of the ratio of net efficiency of the ratio of energy input into a system (E_I) over the energy output from the system (E_O) plus the energy lost from the system, or the instantaneous disorder of the system (S) equals 1.

4. All natural systems will tend towards some optimum value of equilibrium that will be a function of the time and size of the system. Equilibrium of a system is a time dependent function, such that a system will increase in order towards equilibrium, achieve a stable state-path trajectory, and eventually then decrease in order back towards total disequilibrium.

5. The measure of the efficiency of a system is positively correlated with the measure of the integration and informational value of a system.

6. A totally disordered system is a one that exists at the lowest potential energy state and has the least amount of informational value, whereas a hypothetically and totally ordered system is one that exists at the highest potential energy state and that has the greatest amount of informational value.

A general system paradigm is a framework of scientific worldview rooted in holism of perspective, ("perspectivism") forthcoming originally from Ludwig von Bertalanffy's General System Model. This worldview emerged gradually from recognition that many different kinds of scientists were dealing with many similar kinds of patterns and problems of natural phenomena, and that there may be a common framework that would allow dialogue and at least some modicum of integration between scientific fields of inquiry, in part to obviate overlap of effort and possible reduplication as a result.

But more than this, it emerged from an increasing recognition of the underlying sense of order and patterning in nature at all levels, and from the fact of the stratification of natural patterning at different levels in the first place. Emergent properties have been recognized as such from the time of Aristotle. It was von Bertalanffy who has correctly identified such properties, the proverbial "ghost in the machine," as the apparent consequence of the integration of systems, in which the functioning of the parts becomes subordinate to the functioning of whole, or of the parts in relation to the whole, with self-organizing emergent properties.

Natural systems theory is forthcoming from the biologist Ludwig von Bertallanfy's preoccupation with general system theory, and what can be called the General System Model (or GSM). In this theory, systems were by definition contextualized by critical relationships within a semi-open environmental context, creating boundary mediating conditions that served in part to govern the patterning of the system. It developed, somewhat oddly, through the fields of systems ecology in the biological sciences, of anthropology, to a lesser extent, psychology. In other words, systems perspectives have taken firm hold in all the non-physical sciences, even though physical scientists have made reference to systems models and properties in the description and explanation of phyiscal phenomena. The gradual modern development of notions of the food web, of energy exchange relationships in nature, and ultimately, of eco-systems as somehow important to living systems, formed a theoretical framework and touchstone for a new kind of thinking and approach to science that influenced many fields, stimulating a cross-over of systems based models into other areas of inquiry.

Eventually it has led to the consideration of the General System Model (GSM) at all levels of the organization and stratification of reality and natural patterning. In his work General System Theory (1968: 38), von Bertalanffy outlines the major aims of General System Theory:

1. The general tendency towards integration across the natural and social sciences.

3. Such general systems theory may provide a means for development of exact theories in the different sciences.

4. General systems theory unifies the sciences by providing common principles that unify vertically across the sciences.

5. This unification can lead to the integration of scientific education: i.e., a paradigm of general science.

According to von Bertalanffy, there thus has occurred a trend throughout the sciences towards a general system theoretic or paradigmatic unification. "Thus, there exist models, principles, and laws that apply to generalized systems or their subclasses, irrespective of their particular kind, the nature of their component elements, and the relations or 'forces' between them….(1968: 32)" He thus calls for a theory "of universal principles applying to systems in general." (ibid, 32), by this he defines General System Theory as a new discipline for the development and formulation of concepts and principles valid for general kinds of systems.

The general system principle may be said to be a concept that is rooted in the apparent structural order of the natural world.

Basically, it may be stated that all non-random phenomena in the natural world are organized as systems upon multiple levels of stratification, therefore we may understand and model any set of related, non-random event structures in terms of some applied general systems model that sufficiently accounts for the variables used to measure such event structures in a consistent and reliable manner.

a. Events in nature will never be completely undetermined nor completely determined.

b. Any natural event or phenomenon will be inherently underdetermined, hence variable in outcome in some minimal sense.

c. No natural event or phenomenal pattern will be completely determined by causal factors.

d. Therefore, natural events or phenomena will always be semi-deterministic in cause and consequence, and hence incompletely predictable in outcome and insufficiently accountable in origin.

We might furthermore state that all event patterning in physical reality is fundamentally random, upon its most basic level, and we really have no way of explaining this sense of fundamental randomness of the event structure of reality. Because change seems to be a universal principle of physical event structure upon a most basic level, we must inquire whether or not change is fundamentally random on its most basic level of occurrence. Infinitesimal event structure seems to be always non-discrete and therefore continuous fundamentally. Non-random structure is always finite, and is always subsumed within a larger set of possibly alternative random events, that are presumed to be infinite, because for any finite non-random system of any large size we might specify, there is always a larger random set of possible event structures of which that non-random system is a subset.

If all natural event structures cohere into systems, and all systems are organized minimally by a common set of general principles, then we should be able to assume that, similar kinds of systems occurring upon the same level of analysis, share similar systems principles, no matter where they occur, and we can expect certain basic principles to recur for all systems upon those levels.

The hypothesis of a general systems principle allows us to apply general systems models to all kinds of event structures that occur in reality, at all levels of analysis, with a degree of confidence that our models may be reliable fit to the explanation of the phenomena at hand. This must be seen as a grand assist in our attempt to generally explain a wide range of natural phenomena under a common theoretical umbrella.

The General Systems Principle therefore may be said to implicitly encompass of a paradigm or a set of sub-principles that goes like this:

1. All possible event structures that have non-random patterns of occurrence are the consequence of natural self-organizing systems that fit the definition of general systems of type 1, type 2, or type 3.

2. All possible self-organizing systems that occur in reality exhibit certain basic structural patterns of organization and order that determines the behavioral outcomes and developmental trajectory within a constrained field of possibilities.

3. All systems have a developmental life-cycle marked by a beginning, a period of increase of complexity, a period of dynamic-state stability, a period of increase of simplification, and an end.

4. All event structures occur within a larger meta-systems context and the field of possibilities for each system are constrained by the unique meta-systems context in which they instantaneously occur.

5. There is only a single meta-systems context that comprehends all event structures and this is isomorphic with the physical reality of the total universe.

6. This comprehensive meta-systems context is hierarchically stratified upon three known orders of integration: 1. physical; 2. biological; 3. symbolic.

7. Each known order of integration can be analytically subdivided into sub-levels of stratified organization based upon integrative emergent properties characterizing each level.

8. There may be more orders of integration occurring, at either a sub-physical level or a super-symbolic level.

In short, we may say because all real patterns in nature are minimally organized in certain recurrent ways, they may all be defined and explained in terms of systems-based models that are adapted to the particular level and area of observational analysis and measurement.

We may say that all natural systems are self-organizing, partially determined (hence partially open), and are always constrained behaviorally within a larger meta-systems context in which they occur and are developmentally determined.

We may hypothesize that there is only one grand meta-systems context that comprehends and encompasses all natural systems that we know of or that may possibly exist. An extension of the general systems principle is that, if there are multiple meta-systems that are disconnected from one another, we cannot know these alternative meta-systems, and therefore unless there is some relationship, however indirect, to our own universal meta-systems context, we cannot presume or act as if such alternative meta-systems exist. And if they are somehow, however indirectly connected with our own meta-systems context, then they are ultimately part of the same larger meta-systems framework.

This grand meta-systems context, as far as we know or may know, is to be considered to be isomorphic with what we can call the total universe upon a physical level of order, and it leads us to see the larger structure of order of the total universe as what is known as a meta-state system. This is an important relationship to consider, as it grounds all real systems in the physical order of nature. We may say, as an extension of the General System Principle, the following:

9. All real systems are physically constrained, and there is no real system that is not so constrained fundamentally, by the physical order of nature.

Furthermore, such a meta-systems context is hierarchically stratified upon what can be considered a well system of nested derivative systems. This fact of derivative, nested stratification of all systems is significant for the extension of the general systems principle to an understanding of basic and comprehensive realities. It means that the accounting for the original organization and process of integration of systems must be upon the most fundamental physical level possible. We are left to consider the possibility of how physical systems may become organized into non-random structures from a field of what may ultimately have been totally random possibilities.

All systems arise as the result of the stochastic possibility of self-organization, which means that self-organizing systems having non-random negentropy of patterning are semi-deterministic possibilities occurring in a larger field of undetermined possibilities. We may put the principle this way, in an open field of almost infinite possibilities, whatever might possibly happen eventually probably will happen.

If we generate a very large set of random numbers, there remains a remote possibility that some of these numbers may actually fall into non-random sequences. Given a large enough set, some of these non-random sequences of numbers may fall into patterns of non-random order at more than one level. Once such systems have become organized in a non-random, negentropic manner, then it may be possible that they may become self-sustaining or self-reproducing, as a recurring non-random sequence of numbers, as long as the original conditions continue to persist that led to their organization in the first place.

Because all systems occur bound and constrained within a larger meta-systems context, we need hypothesize the non-random organization of structure from a larger random field of possibilities only on the most basic and original level of organization of physical or possibly sub-physical systems. Once non-random sets have been organized from an original ground of random possibilities, all other systems derivative from this original level may be based upon both random and non-random factors, becoming what can be called semi-deterministic. Thus, the fundamental level of original systems may have acted like 'seed systems' upon which all derivative systems eventually developed.

All known systems obey basic fundamental laws of systems dynamics. For instance all known systems obey what I would call energy or force dynamics, and these include at least the paradigms of thermodynamics and gravitational dynamics.

We may therefore state a tenth proposition regarding the General Systems Principle:

10. All general systems are dynamic (changing) relative to the meta-systems frame they occur within, and therefore are subject to systematic change of some kind.

The consequences of this last principle entail that ultimately, though we have homologically or analogically similar kinds of systems, all real systems are unique in the profile of their complexity and specificity of internal dynamics or relative context.

Change is a universal property of all real systems, and change is a fundamental systems principle for which we have no ultimate definition. All change seems to be both fundamental and relative to the context that it occurs within. We have not yet a sufficient scientific definition of change or the root causes of event structures or patterns.

We may furthermore stipulate that because all real systems maintain a sense of non-random order, they convey a general systems principle of design:

11. All real systems may be said to be minimally self-organizational (hence, minimally self-sufficient for a given type of system) by integrated, implicit design which carries information about the instantaneous state and developmental/relational solution space occupied by a given system.

Finally, the last principle alluded to by points above involve the principle of the intrinsic relativity of general systems in the sense that our awareness of such systems conditions their behavior and therefore this behavior exhibits a built-in complementariness of perspective related to the problem of holistic integration, that is unapproachable by a logical model based upon direct or simple linear causality.

12. All real systems are relative to the context of their observation and measurement, as well as to the meta-systems context of their instantaneous behavioral articulation. We may say, for instance, that similar kinds of systems, under similar kinds of conditions, can be expected to behave in similar ways with a high degree of probability. A part of these conditions are by definition the frameworks of observation and understanding we impose upon a system or kind of system.

There is something that is basic about systems. If all natural phenomena can be claimed to be part of a system of one form or another, there is then something in nature that lends itself in a very fundamental and universal manner to the organization of systems. Of course, we may ask how else could it have been done, if not in terms of a system? I would claim that there is a basic environmental responsiveness of all things in nature, and things in nature are in a process of continually interacting with and adjusting to a larger context of occurrence. Natural relations appear to respond to non-random phenomena upon all levels of the observation and articulation of natural systems.

All systems are governed by basic paradigms constraining possible change in such conditions, hence determining fundamental structure and structural limits of boundary and operating conditions for any and all kinds of possible system. I can identify at this time at least three types of such paradigms that I consider to be theoretically related to one another.[10] All physical systems, as finite systems embedded in a universal field of relationships, must be constrained by all three kinds of dynamic paradigm governing change and interaction of such systems.

General systems dynamics refers to the problem of universal change that underlies all systems. In our conventional models of systems we are inclined to view such structures as synchronous, temporally repetitive of patterning or recurrent in process (recursive), and therefore as basically contemporaneous and non-changing. Most systems have a life cycle or state-path trajectory that may be called diachronically developmental, passing from one state-stage to another, in either a continuous or discontinuous manner.

To hypothesize that semi-random change processes are at the heart of all systems flies in the face somewhat of common sense and our received wisdom of systems models. We may say that all systems are ultimately defined by the arrangement of event structures that they are constituted by. Such event structures, by definition, refer to a change of state, or a basic transformation, from one pattern into some other pattern. We call such transformation "dynamic."

General systems dynamics therefore refers to the understanding of the structure of change that is intrinsic to all systems at all levels of integration. Such change is seen first and foremost to be systematic and to follow either a basic trajectory of increasing complexity or increasing simplicity of design. Another way of seeing this is that any possible systems state may change or transform into either a more or less complex state, or non-random state, by design.

There is in this a dilemma of understanding the relative meaning of "complexity" in systems. Random patterns of possible alternative states are inherently chaotic or entropic. It would seem that these have maximum complexity as undetermined systems. On the other hand, maximally determined systems would have maximum deterministic complexity in terms of the ordering of the relationships that constitute the system. Thus we might refer to type one complexity, or undeterministic complexity, and type two complexity, or deterministic complexity, and state that the following:

There will never be total complexity of type 1 (non-deterministic) or of type 2 (deterministic) and to the extent that there is type 1 complexity, there cannot be type 2 complexity (type 1 and 2 are both complementary and mutually exclusive forms). Complexity in systems will always be relative to the ratio of type 1 to type 2 kinds of complexity.

General systems dynamics therefore refers us to a theory of change that is characteristic of all systems. I would hypothesize several distinct kinds of dynamics by which we might characterize systems generally, with a basic covering law paradigm relevant to each kind, listed below and dealing with each in turn:

We may thus identify the following dynamic paradigms that serve to constrain systems in their development.

Developmental dynamics concerns the state-path behavior and trajectory of systems as a whole, and we may state the following principles:

1. All real systems may be characterized in terms of their state path trajectories that they assume.

2. All real systems have at least five basic stages of their development: a. beginning or birth phase; b. rising or growth phase; c. equilibrium or steady-state phase; d. falling or declining phase; e. ending or death phase.

3. All real systems are complexly underdetermined such that the state-path trajectories of particular systems are ultimately unpredictable, but tend to follow the pattern of non-linear dynamics of a second order system. There are four meta-states of solution space (equilibrium) that all general systems fall within--1. a stable center; 2. an unstable saddle point; 3. a node; 4. a spiral that can be either stable or unstable.

4. Different kinds of systems have typical patterns of state-path behavior characterizing each of their developmental stages, and all systems tend toward "normal" trajectories referred to as equi-final states regardless of a variety of alternative starting conditions or intervening variables. It is in terms of the typical or expectable state-path behavior of different kinds of systems that we can taxonomically and homologically classify systems.

In a physical sense, we refer to the dynamics of energy as this pertains to alternative system states, and in particular the transition or transformation between states, which is in reality always continuous, and it appears, to always occur in a condition of reciprocal equilibrium. Energy in this sense implies "force" that results in transformational change of state.

In nature, we cannot have a physical system that is completely without energy--indeed, transformation of energy states defines physical systems fundamentally. A system maintains itself through doing work, which I will define as the non-random or deterministic organization of energy. Work is always accomplished at less than perfect efficiency, and hence all systems, as energy systems, tend to "leak" energy to the environment in which they occur. In order for work to be accomplished, energy must be taken into a system from outside by some means or transport mechanism, and there must be a sufficient reservoir of energy to allow the system to maintain its energy budget in an equilibrium state.

Conventionally, on a basic level, the paradigm of the principles of thermodynamics are the most widely applicable set of statements on energy state changes that we have.

0. The Zeroeth Law of Thermodynamics (Equilibrium): If two systems are in equilibrium with a third system, they are in equilibrium with each other. Law of Equilibrium

1. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation): Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only transferred to and from a system.

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy): The state of entropy or measure of disorder of a system can never decrease unless work is done.

3. The Third Law of Thermodynamics (Absolute Zero): Absolute Zero, a state of zero heat, (an energiless system) cannot be achieved, only approached by infinite degrees of closeness.

The implications of these principles are manifold and of great significance when we consider the conventional mechanics of physical systems. From this, for instance, we may deduce that any system that is capable of maintaining order or increasing order against a natural tendency towards disorder, can only do so through work, or the effective organization of energy transactions. Work is never 100 percent efficient, and requires energy to be consistently realized in a usable form. There can be no systems that occur or work without some continuous expenditure of energy, and there can be no "perpetual motion machines."

I would postulate a general systems paradigm for gravitational dynamics that I consider to be entirely complementary to a thermodynamic paradigm, based upon the observation of event structures common in nature that do not clearly fit within a thermodynamic framework, and that appear to be based primarily upon gravitational energy relations. I will try to state this paradigm in a manner I consider to be more or less equivalent to a thermodynamic paradigm, point by point, but a full development of a gravitational dynamic paradigm is beyond the scope of this present context. In order to explicate this paradigm, it must be briefly mentioned that in gravitational systems, motion of bodies of mass are considered to be equivalent to the effects of gravitating bodies.

0. The Zeroeth Rule of Gravitational Dynamics: if two bodies are in gravitational equilibrium or motion relative a third body, then they will be in gravitational equilibrium with one another. We may state that one or more bodies in motion will seek a state of zero gravitational equilibrium in relation to one another in the structure of the long run.

1. First Rule of Gravitational Dynamics: gravitational energy or the energy of momentum cannot be created or destroyed, but only transferred between physical systems of mass. We cannot increase the gravitational energy intrinsic to an object of matter. We can increase its mass or acceleration in the gravitational field of another object of matter.

2. Second Rule of Gravitational Dynamics: Gravitational differentials between two or more objects of mass, or acceleration of an object of mass in motion cannot increase unless work is done. We cannot have an "anti-gravity" machine, made of matter, that can reverse the functions of gravitational force on that matter.

3. Third Rule of Gravitational Dynamics. Absolute Rest, or a zero state of motion that is non-gravitational, cannot be achieved. I consider Absolute Rest to be the gravitational equivalent of Absolute Zero.

Gravitational Dynamics requires a certain amount of rethinking of our models of physical reality, and of course the idea would not be well received or embraced by all people. The paradigmatic statements of gravitational dynamics above are not to be considered to be set in stone, either. They are rather tentative, and intended to provide an entry way into an alternative model of physical reality that is based upon systems-design principles.

It is to be legitimately wondered whether or not there may not be more forms of energy dynamic paradigms that we may associate for instance with the strong or weak forces or that we may associate with all four known forms of energy collectively in a general sense. Further, I have in my models hypothesized a fundamental quintessential form of energy that is constitutive of the four known forms, and it would seem that we would need a paradigmatic statement of principles concerning these fundamental energy dynamics as well.

A paradigm of informational dynamics is rooted in the fact that all real systems carry a non-random sense of order to which we attribute meaningful pattern or information. This sense of order changes as the patterning of the system develops, and the change dynamics attributed to the informational design of a system thus become altered. Every system carries partial order, a value from the standpoint of a human observer translates into something that we may refer to as information about the system.

1. All systems have a minimum non-random pattern of relational order that is subject to alternation.

2. The pattern of alternation is systematic in a non-linear manner, and hence is subject to description by rules that define the sequential event structures or the synchronous relations between the components of a system. These rules of a system constitute an implicit grammar of a system.

3. A system cannot increase its sense of order except through the organization of work (i.e., energy)

4. A system may never be totally random. Complete randomness may not in fact exist in the natural scheme of things. A system may never be one hundred percent integrated. We cannot in reality have a perfectly organized system, and I suspect such an organization would be equivalent to an energy efficiency of 100 percent.

A system may be said to be "determined" to the extent that its relational patterning is ordered as a consequence of intereaction. It is a constraint of all real systems that no system may be completely determined in the totality of its patterning, hence information connected to any given system is never total, nor without noise or entropy. It is interesting that the organization of energy in the form of work that a system must do to remain a system and to develop is connected precisely to the informational value of that system.

It is not by chance that information theory is almost exactly parallel to thermodynamic principles in basic form. Relative inefficiency of working systems due to heat loss is completely homologous to the principle of "noise" in informational systems--carrying capacity or channel capacity of an information transmission system is synonymous to the load or working efficiency of a energy train in an energy transmission system.

I will venture a basic rule: wherever we find the non-random organization of energy exchange within a system, we will find information, and wherever we find information, we can expect to find the non-random organization of energy occurring as well as the non-random ordering of relationships or interactions within a system. So now the sixty thousand dollar question, what comes first, the information or the energy?

We may put this problem another way. Wherever we find in the physical universe energy that is being systematically trapped, transformed, transferred, stored, and organized in some kind of cyclical feedback process, in a manner that is in local violation of the laws of thermodynamics, we will find also in the organization of the system meaningful pattern we refer to as information. The information is of course implicit to the pattern of relationship that we read from the observation of the system itself. If the system may be said to contain "intrinsic" information, this is a form of structural patterning that is inherent to the semi-deterministic organization of the system itself.

I will further speculate that if we combine informational and energy paradigms in a systems based framework, we end up with a third systems-based paradigm that refers to the relational organization of events and things in interaction to one another. We may say that all organization is semi-self-deterministic to the extent that the reactions of one part of a system are the direct or indirect consequence of the previous actions or interactions of other parts of the system or of all parts of the system as a whole. We may say furthermore that just as we cannot have perfect energy conversion or 100 percent carrying capacity in informational systems, we cannot have a fully 100 percent determined system of organization. Relations occurring between parts of a system will be inherently variable and the outcomes not completely predictable.

Any system is a working, functional organization of energy, containing intrinsic information.

The relations between components of a system are inherently variable and never exactly determined.

Any system is finite in the number of its components, the number of relations between its components, and in the combined size and distribution of its components over space and time.

Any system must maintain a boundary mechanism that mediates energy relationships between the external environment of the system and the components of the system.

Emergent properties of the system are the behavioral properties of the system as a whole that is the product of the dynamic integration of the components of the system, in interaction to its environment.

General Systems Dynamics implicitly necessitates consideration of what can be called General Systems Design. State-complexity may be considered a measure of relative order of a system that is organized by a design or configuration of pattern. This design or pattern occurs as a non-random possibility in a field of alternative possibilities, and carries therefore what can be referred to as informational value about any particular system.

Though achieving a design configuration may occur by chance or stochastic process alone, the likelihood of this happening is usually astronomically residual. Design configurations themselves are usually achieved through organizing or self-organizing processes that themselves require work. Furthermore, the maintenance of the non-random design configuration always requires some rate of energy input, otherwise the tendency would be for the design configuration to change into one that is increasingly random and "noisy."

We cannot clearly separate questions of design from questions of dynamics and change therefore, as they intrinsically imply and necessitate one another in their realization in any system we may consider.

We may stipulate expectancy values attached to the transformations that occur within a given system, based upon the rate of decay of ordered relations toward disordered states on a random basis. We cannot predict the occurrence of such non-random or deterministic patterns--but we can assess stochastic expectations of the likelihood of occurrence of random events or non-deterministic patterns in a given system. Different systems that are order maintaining have different rates of decay, and different components of such systems also have different rates of decay that may effect the net-values of transformation occurring in the system as a whole.

The basis for understanding a theory of general systems design is to understand that the "structure" of a system that underlies its patterning and developmental dynamics is a kind of grammar based upon rules implicit to the sequence of events and relational directions that occur in a given system. We may refer to points of articulation of a system as structural switching points that exhibit non-random patterns of systematic transaction.

It may be well argued that the "purpose" of any system is the overall effort expended towards the maintenance of its sense of order, its design, over the long run and the large, though this is somewhat of a circular argument. No real, naturally occurring system may be attributed a sense of "purpose" beyond the fact of occurrence of its own behavioral existence. It would be great to spin a child's top on a table and interpret our failed attempts to knock it on its side to a "ghost in the machine" with the implicit intention of staying upright on its spinning point.

It can be argued that any system achieves self-maintenance and perpetuation of its design pattern in some minimal and sufficient manner, for that is the definition of what a system is. Living or biological systems for instance, and unlike purely physical systems, have achieved self-maintenance not only in terms of the life of a single instantaneous system, but over a successive series of systems that are self-replicating and regenerative as systems. How they do this is an interesting and complex point, and we have been prone to try to attribute the "miracle" of life to some "spirit" or a sense of vitalism or synergism that resides in living things and that defines the sense of purpose that we attribute to such things.

Physical systems are self-maintaining but not in a self-replicative or self-reproducing manner. Physical systems are by definition one time or rather one "period" or one "duration" event structures, and the stability of the system is in direct proportion to the duration of the system.

Non-random pattern is intrinsic to the design of systems, and hence important to the definition of systems. A totally disordered system may be said to be a system lacking any meaningful pattern or information. It is a system that has zero design efficiency and 100% design potential or possibility. The design of such a system may be said to be completely undetermined. A totally ordered system is one that can be said to contain maximum information, and may be said to have 100% design efficiency but zero design potential or developmental possibility. The design of such a system may be said to be completely determined.

No real system may achieve a maximum state of information, or 100% design efficiency, nor may any real system exist beneath some threshold of minimum design efficiency or at a level of zero design efficiency. All real systems are de facto, default working systems and any working system is by its design of ordered relations and interactions between its parts fundamentally an information system. The information such a system contains and processes is implicit to the organization, function, sense of order and development of the system over time, to the relations it maintains with its environment and is pattern of response.

Like any information system, there is always a trade-off between informational carrying capacity which varies directly with the entropy or inherent uncertainty of the information, and the storage or informational density which varies directly with the achieved redundancy of a signal carrying information. In other words, potential information, or carrying-capacity, of a system must exist in an optimally dynamic relationship with the achieved or actual information stored by a system, or its load.

In theory at least, all systems must exist within the boundaries of this dynamic optimization of its informational content and carrying capacity, or the conflictual relationship between deterministic relationships and undetermined possibilities of relationship. To marry a certain individual is to forego the field of all other possible candidates. To choose door one is to forgo the possibilities of choosing the other alternative doors. Systems may be said to be inherently underdetermined and hence fundamentally entropic and stochastic in its final determinations--this being said, systems remain remarkably integrated and maintain a sense of order that remains optimally determined.

It therefore follows that a system at any instantaneous point of its trajectory, cannot be completely described with 100 percent accuracy or reliability. As an instantaneous set of event structures, systems are in the final analysis always continuous. Discontinuity of structure is relative to the emergent properties of alternative systems states, usually sequentially or developmentally occurring. Stadial pattern is associated to the state-stage of the properties of the system as a whole, but not as a discrete physical process. The continuity of systems upon a fundamental physical level of analysis brings up an inherent dilemma of our observability of such levels--we seek point-line constructs in our language and understanding of discrete phenomena, and yet we find only processes that are fundamentally lacking in discrete definition.

We may say there is an intrinsic parallax of uncertainty in the structural order of any real system that is part of the relativity of general systems, that is a function of the inherent indeterminancy of such systems. If we observe for instance a DNA molecule, we might note that the same amino acids can be constituted by usually more than one set of triplet codons. This in itself has little to do directly with error of transcription or random mutation that may affect the information on a given strand of DNA, but indirectly it can be the source of fundamental change as a result of point mutation occurring.

We are left therefore with a certain complementariness of perspective regarding different systems and different kinds of systems that may be attributed to all systems in general. Another way of looking at this is to say that we may have more than a single correct solution or model of the same system, even for otherwise very particularistic systems or apparently well defined systems or state-stages of such systems, and this would in part depend upon the point of view we adopt about the system.

The design of any system must be seen both in whole or in part, and there is in this a dialectical synthesis overcoming apparent contradiction of terms and meanings. If seen in part, then it is to be seen in terms of the principal subsystems that are constitutive of the system, and these subsystems may be seen both in whole, in and of themselves, and in relation to the other subsystems that occur synchronously with them.

To look at a specific system as a self-constitutive whole is to adopt a "holistic" frame of reference toward that system, and to look at a specific system in terms of its composite parts is to adopt an "analytical" frame of reference. This leads to a certain basic dichotomization of perspective that is inherent to our knowledge and our scientific approach to understanding systems. Traditional sciences have been dominated, since Plato and Aristotle, by an analytical frame of reference to systems. It has only been in recent decades, with the rise of digital information processing technologies, with a renewed perspective of system, that an alternative holistic frame of reference has come into vogue, there being computational methodologies now available that permit us to model complexity in a reliable and representative manner.

All real systems may be seen as self-constitutive, or as composite, and all real systems are, depending upon the frame of reference we adopt, to be construed either as being self-constitutive (holistically) of design or as composite (analytically). The problem is really the systems hen or egg type of dilemma--nevertheless it has real consequences what frame of reference we adopt in looking at and solving a particular problem set, or even for how we define a problem set in the first place.

All known real systems are in fact both composite and self-constitutive as integrated systems. Therefore we may treat their design in both a manner as a single, summative variable, a general monomial, or as a complex composite set of variables, or a polynomial, and we may apply the general concept of a systems grammar to the patterning and change dynamics of systems that is inherent to the structure of their design.

Design Principles of General Systems and the Meta-Systems Context: Philosophical & Theoretical Foundations

Scientific knowledge is really systems based knowledge. The object of scientific research is the understanding of the principles underlying the manifest patterning of natural systems in all the multifaceted forms of their occurrence and the many different levels of their articulation. Science assumes a certain universal validity of its basic physical laws and principles that are considered inviolable under all conditions. The laws of Thermodynamics are a case in point, and the first to come to mind when we consider non-relative formulations in science. The systematic and quite predictable interactions of subatomic particles are another kind of phenomena that can be said to be universally applicable--we can assume that wherever we get to in the universe we will find the same kinds of basic interactions occurring between the same kinds of particles on the same levels of analysis.

The principle of change is one of the most fundamental, enduring and perplexing problems of our shared reality. We do not really have a comprehensive or universal theory of physical change. For instance, are the laws that we ascribe to the physical universe as we know it now, really immutable and universally applicable according to the cosmological principle, or is it possible that the universe may have evolved from one stage to another during which periods the laws that pertained and governed physical events were varied and relative to the frame in which they applied? We cannot at this stage of development of our knowledge answer these kinds of questions with any final authority or, especially, in any kind of manner that would be completely satisfactory for all areas of application of our knowledge in the world.

The principle of change itself begs us an implicit question of the very structure of reality. We know for instance, that all things change--all things are really events subject to change, whether these changes are partly predictable or completely random. We can legitimately ask the paradox: does change change, or does all change somehow remain the same?

If science is about systems, and systems are really about change, then we can conclude that science is primarily concerned with the principles and patterns of change in systems, and indeed, in all fields of science, this is the case. Static, non-dynamic systems that do not change are of no real scientific interest, because they cannot be studied in any valid methodological manner.

Before proceeding, I will attempt to briefly define a nosological framework for classifying systems in a general manner. Real systems are those which can be said to exist in some form in objective reality (i.e., they have some form of physical manifestation). Natural systems may be said to be a subset of real systems that includes those systems that are partly determined by structural relations between variables that are intrinsic to and emergent from the system. Artificial systems are those human-made systems that are partially the result of human arbitration and construction, and hence may be said to be partly determined by human defined relations between variables. We may distinguish real systems from ideal systems, or abstract systems in the pure sense, that may be said to exist in principle but do not necessarily take any real or corporeal form or manifestation, except in terms of symbolic representation that is humanly mediated. We may go on to distinguish other kinds of systems, i.e.: possible systems; alternative systems; applied systems; etc.

General Systems Proposition 1: All science is primarily concerned with the understanding of the pattern of change in dynamic systems.

Corollary 1a: All real systems are complex in terms of their part-whole relations.

Corollary 1b: All real systems are dynamic in a non-linear and partly determined manner.

I will now make a statement that I cannot really prove or qualify, but which I feel may be intuitively and probably true:

General Systems Proposition 2: There exist a set of basic principles of systems design, applicable universally to all naturally occurring systems, relatively to the context of their occurrence, that may be said to be universal (i.e., immutable) for all possible occurrences of real systems.

We may not fully or explicitly comprehend these principles of systems design, but may theoretically hypothesize their universal applicability to all real systems.

General Systems Proposition 3: All real systems are working systems--whatever their level of articulation or configuration or state-path trajectory, they obey the principles of thermodynamics (and, in the larger meta-systemic context, gravitational dynamics) in some basic manner.

Finally, I will conclude this brief with one more proposition that derives proposition 4 above and from the consideration that all real systems that we know of or imagine are found embedded in a larger context of physical reality, and hence, in exogenous relationship with other systems. We may explain this physically in terms of both thermodynamics and gravitational dynamics in stating that we can imagine no physically real system that exists in a total or complete vacuum in perfect isolation from a larger system in which it is embedded. Therefore:

General Systems Proposition 4: All real systems are bound by and delimited by a meta-systems context in relation to other systems that encompass and compose any particular system in time and space.

Corollary 4a: All real systems are finite in space and time and are relative to the meta-systems context in which they immediate occur in a phenomenological sense.

Corollary 4b: All real systems demonstrate some form of dynamic boundary maintaining mechanism in relation to the larger meta-systemic context.

Corollary 4c: All real systems demonstrate a sense of holism in terms of emergent or synergistic properties that are the consequence of the boundary maintaining mechanism relative.

Corollary 4d: All real systems are subject to a unique state-path trajectory or life-cycle as a consequence of exogenous change patterns arising from its meta-systemic context (i.e., external meta-systemic factors are primary determinants or causal of dynamics in the change patterning of real systems, while internal intra-systemic factors are secondary determinants or consequents of dynamics of change in this patterning)

Finally, we may speculate that the total meta-systemic context, i.e., in a physical objective sense, the total universe, is infinite and unbounded in some basic sense, as we cannot imagine the total universe as a finite system within a vacuum, or that may not be a part of some larger meta-systemic context.

Design Principles of General Systems and the Meta-Systems Context: Meta-systems Context and the General Problem of Relativity

Relativity has been a general concept and problem that has plagued Western Philosophers and other scholars for a very long time. We have inherited a classical Greek view of the world that provided little room for relativistic orientations, though Eastern philosopher's had been quite comfortable with the idea from the beginning. As an a traditionally trained cultural anthropologist, within the Boasian Tradition, I have taken naturally to a relativistic orientation, although the proposition of cultural relativity is largely rejected by ethical philosophers and many anthropologists who want a more clearly defined deterministic model of the world and a single set of standards by which to judge the many ways of the world. Philosophically and theoretically, and even methodologically, the general problem of relativity informed my own dissertation research, at least in part, that was designed and executed on cross-cultural or comparative grounds. The problem of relativity underlies what is known in the Anthropology of knowledge as the worldview problem, and this informs the cognitive sciences, AI research & theory, as well as diverse areas of linguistics, psychology and other social science disciplines. Even before my fieldwork I wrote an extended manuscript on the problem of relativity that has now been e-published online for some years at:

The object of this brief article today is to address a central set of issues regarding:

2. The relationship of Meta-systems context to the general problem of relativity.

3. The special relationship of General Systems frameworks to the problem of relativity.

4. Forms of relativity, particularly the role of physical and anthropological relativity in general knowledge systems, and their relationship to one another.

5. The theoretical and methodological role of defining and manipulating knowledge in terms of alternative frames of reference and units of analysis, and the relationship this has upon both systems-based and relativist problem sets.

Before proceeding, several caveats are in order. The general problem of relativism/relativity is difficult to deal with in any form or fashion because basically it proposes a certain inherent uncertainty of our knowledge, which is itself uncertain, and hence puts certain constraints and limits on our ability to know things in any certain way about the world in any fundamental or non-reductive manner. The general doctrine of relativism and the general problem of relativity has therefore posed an implicit kind of paradox concerning the certitude and ground of our knowledge, and our ability to know the world in any certain terms. Different kinds of intellectuals have found this implicit proposition unsatisfactory, particularly scientists who define their primary goal as certain, exact knowledge, Platonic and Rationalist philosopher's who seek a single ideal set of standards by which to measure and judge reality, and various kinds of ideologues and minor scholars who've had their own agendas and paradigms to peddle through the ages. The blatant and often strong rejection of the problem and paradox of Relativity has resulted in a general failure to adequately address the problem as anything but a pseudo-intellectual or minor concern, and therefore the general doctrine of relativism and the definition of relativity has been largely misinterpreted in a shallow sense, or else has fallen prey to being reinterpreted in a revised form as a kind of strong determinism of largely contextual/environmental factors in causal definitions of complex systems. Regardless of the gap in our understanding of the entire problem of Relativity and the doctrine of general relativism, it remains in the background of all we do, think and say, to plague us in our quest for ultimate truths and refined, mathematical formulas, and to mock us in the illusions of our own comprehension of reality.

1. What is a Meta-system, how is it systems-based, and what has this all to do with the problem of relativity, or are we not just making complex issues more confusing by mixing our metaphorical cocktails?

The concept of the Meta-system as it is used within the Lewis Works framework and various publications, has been deployed in several ways with several implicit meanings and several explicit definitions. None of these definitions or functions are considered exclusive of one another, and in a larger, general framework they are complementary to one another.

First of all, a meta-system is a system of systems. Also, we may say from a more naturalistic and realistic point of view, it is the total surrounding systems-based context that always embeds any delimited system we may be referring directly to, that is somehow bounded and made finite by the constraints and relationships of its multi-level attachment to the larger meta-systems context.

Second, a meta-systems framework is a conceptual apparatus that permits us a handle for both stepping outside of our own systems relationships and involvement, hopefully for a more objective view of reality, and for allowing us to look both at other systems, and at the natural meta-systems context as well, in a manner that will allow its greater objectification and generalization, especially from a structural and functional point of view.

We may say therefore that the definition of a Meta-system is systems based in the sense that all systems formulations and theories demand a form of contextualization, that, by necessity, must be in terms of and conditional to the relationship to other systems. This is centrally important to the doctrine of relativism and the general problem of relativity because relativism/relativity is in a specific sense the problem of the contextuality and contextualization of knowledge, both in terms of the real world, and in terms of other forms of knowledge and symbolic representations of knowledge. It is not surprising therefore that the key doctrinal statements in regard to General Systems Theory (Von Bertalanffy, 1968) deals in the latter half of the book with the general problem of relativity in various received forms (i.e., linguistic, cultural, & psychological). There is good reason for this, because both general systems thinking and relativistic doctrine demand the same holistic and synthetic (i.e., non-analytic) approach to knowledge and to attempting to see larger part-whole relationships of things to their surrounding contexts. We can conclude therefore that a systems thinking approach is de facto a relativistic approach, and a relativistic way of looking at problems implicitly involves a systems-based approach to such problems.

2. Saying that both meta-systems and relativism are contextual in approach to problems and understanding, and thus both approaches seek to relate focal issues to broader relationships and frameworks that serve to define and configure the issues as problem sets, still begs the question of what is a more exact nature of the relationship between the concept of the meta-system and what I would call relativistic doctrine as a semi-coherent if not completely rational conceptual system.

If we take physical systems as an example, we can state clearly and unequivocally that all known physical systems, and all physical systems in principle, are constrained by the laws of thermodynamics. Therefore, certain kinds of systems that are imaginable or conceivable, like perpetual motion machines, perfect vacuums, etc., are physically impossible. All such systems, as working systems, can be said to be relative thermodynamically to the context of physical relationships in which they immediately occur. If we follow chemical reactions in detail, as for instance in the study of physical chemistry, we can find various forms of equilibria occurring that affect rates of reaction and resultant pathways, and that in turn would be affected by the relative presence/absence of chemicals, heat, pressure, etc. We may refer to the classical principle of relativity that states that if two systems move uniformly relative to one another, then all the laws of mechanics are the same in both systems. This classic principle of relativity relates the doctrine of relativism on a level of physical systems at least directly to the concept of physical meta-systems.

We may extend this same relationship to embrace both biological systems and anthropological systems, as derivatives of physical systems, and also as systems in their own right with associated emergent properties. We may state for instance that in the same sets of contexts, under similar operating bio-geophysical conditions, similar species of life or members of the same species or genus of life will respond in very similar ways, with the principles of evolution, selection and ecology operating similarly for both. If we extend this to the challenge of psychological explanations for human behavior, or anthropological explanations of the cultural patterning of behavior, we can emerge with similar kinds of conclusions that in comparable systems, similar or the same sets of basic structural principles would be operant--at this level the patterning of biological or human behavior would become at least expectable, due to the complexity that we are normally referring to at these levels, if not exactly predictable.

3. The reference has been made previously that those who engage in general systems thinking invariably refer to relativistic doctrines in support of their ideas, and vice versa, those who are inclined to relativistic orientations in their thinking almost invariably fall back upon and come to rely heavily upon systems based principles and general systems thinking in general or specific explanation of phenomena. The reason for this has to do with a concern for the holism of phenomena, and a faithfulness to the natural or real context of real systems and the relations and constraints these may entail for the behavior and outcomes of a system. The approach can be largely called "synthetic" in style, and "global" or "organic" in approach, versus and dialectically contrasted with an analytic and reductionist approach that defines a problem as a mere sum of its parts rather than a set of interrelationships between the parts in the synergistic creation of the whole. Emergent properties, or the synergism of systems that assume their own independent characteristics and state-path trajectory, are associated directly with the sense of equilibrium or steady-dynamic state pattern of relationships maintained or developed between the components of the system.

The classic example is an biological organism, as in the case of an animal, even a human being, that is reducible as nothing but a collection of cell tissues that interact bio-chemically in complex ways--but beyond respiring, the human organism also has a set of associated behaviors external to the operations of cellular relationships, within a larger ecological environment in relation to other organisms that cannot be simply understood in terms of biochemical reactions. The human brain brings the problem set to an entirely new level of complex, constructive cultural behavior, structural patterns of behavior, social relationship and symbolization that cannot be fully explained by resorting only to physical or biological based explanations.

It can be concluded therefore that a general systems approach is consonant with relativistic doctrine, and both approaches demand and require one another, for the sake of the sense of synergistic, emergent holism of property (i.e., structural pattern) that is found in all systems, and for the sense of contextuality in which all systems are bound and constrained in the larger scheme of thing.

Beyond the fact of consonance between the two approaches to knowledge, we may say even more importantly that a systems-based approach, and a meta-systems framework, actually provides us a way of controlling and thereby transcending the problems and paradoxes that are normally associated with relativistic understanding and relativized problem sets, while being simultaneously capable of comprehending and incorporating these relativistic points of view. It allows us, simply put, to step at least one foot outside of the circle of our own symbolic relativity of our knowledge, to gain some sense of partial, if incomplete, comparative objectivity about that knowledge. It does this by the fact of the unification of a systems-based approach, and the presupposition that all real systems are structurally unified in a general sense, however independent they may be in their occurrence or happenstance.

4. The attacks against relativist doctrine should be all the more surprising when we realize that the modern physical sciences have been largely defined by principles of the physical relativity of systems, from Einstein's theories of special and general relativity, to the theories of the inherent uncertainty, complementariness and non-particularity of electrons in their orbitals and other sub-atomic "events." We can go on to postulate an observational relativity of the visible universe, and a universal relativity of the inferable, total universe, if we are so inclined. And the relativistic buck by no means stops there. If the very ground of our physical experience may be said to be some how, in a fundamental and larger sense, relative to our observation and point of view, to our rate of travel, our size, and the gravitational field in which we are immersed and can only escape with extreme physical energy, then why should we have difficulty with notions of biological relativity of species in eco-evolutionary or meta-biotic contexts, or of biological biomes, regimes and epochs in the natural history of the earth, or the earthbound relativity of all known biological life forms? Why then should we be especially upset and critical of rather studied notions of linguistic relativity, cultural relativity, social relativity, historical relativity, or psychological relativity of human behavior, when we find so much difference and contrast and individual uniqueness in the human world? Is it not possible that so many people have such a demand, a rage for order, that they must try to stamp out any suggestion of difference that might invite a larger sense of disorder?

The doctrine of relativism is a statement of the inherent uncertainty and therefore limitations of our knowledge. For all that we know or may believe we know, there is that much more in reality that remains unknown and probably unknowable. There is much more that remains known but not well known and poorly understood. Ideologically, for symbolic completeness and closure of our worldview, it is nice to live in a make-believe world in which everything is not only known, but known with unshakeable faith and certainty, as well as illusion. The promise of science is the promise of a continuous, never-ending horizon of the unknown, that we may always explore and learn new things about reality.

The various forms of relativity were alluded to above. From the standpoint of natural systems we may distinguish physical, biological and anthropological forms of relativity--within each of these general forms there are recognizable various sub-forms or types and general or specific instances of relativity. In fact, name me an area or field of general or applied knowledge, and I can pick out a form of relativity for that field that applies to the boundaries and parameters of its knowledge and the problem sets it is most theoretically or methodologically concerned with. We may extend the proposition of relativity to cover all real systems, and alternative systems, and the entire idea of alternation of possible systems invites the problem, or is the problem, of the relativity of such systems. Our earthbound biosphere is the only known form of organic life yet discovered--but this does not mean that some alternative system of life does not exist somewhere in the greater sphere of the Universe, and, once discovered, will bring us face to face, to the "relativization" of our own ideas and knowledge about what biological systems are and may be in the larger context.

Of special interest and importance from the standpoint of general systems theory is the problem of the anthropological relativity of knowledge. This is so because the only knowledge we have, know of, or can possibly use, is filtered through our own human screens of symbolic perception and cognition. Our chance encounter with alien intelligence will only suffer us the problem of translation of entirely different styles and ways of seeing and knowing the world. It will also suffer us the "anthropological shock" of the relativization of our own knowledge systems on a very basic level. More immediately important to us though is to comprehend the limitations that this form of anthropological relativity of knowledge actually entails for us, as it is so basic to our entire sense of awareness of the world, whatever our worldview or knowledge base, that we not only take it for granted, but proceed to act in ways as if it didn't even exist. The paradigmatics of scientific knowledge, so clearly elucidated by Thomas Kuhn, is a brilliant demonstration of the inherent anthropological limitations of even our most treasured forms of scientific understand, subject as this may be to predominating social and symbolic constraints. This is only a single noteworthy example, but not the entire problem in a nutshell.

5. All systematic research activity, which must be undertaken if we are to roll back the relativistic boundaries of our knowledge about general systems, must be approached from the standpoint of explicit frames of reference and well defined units of analysis. Any reasonable research design approaches general problem solving this way, especially if it is to have any pretense to being "scientific." Such an approach allows us not only to carve up the complexities of reality into manageable, bite-size pieces, that we can then take a measuring stick to, but also to arrange such pieces into meaningful patterns that we can then manipulate and manage in ways that make greater sense.

From the standpoint of the anthropological relativity of knowledge, we see the world through different sets of lens. The world will look to us very different if we are in the habit of looking at it through a light microscope versus a light telescope. Similarly, our worldview and the maps we hold of the larger sense of the forest of reality is largely constrained by the knowledge, beliefs, and values we hold of the world, however contradictory these may really be--in short, what psychologists call our "attitudes." To put it more precisely, our view of the world is conditioned by the lens of our "attitudes" manifest or latent to our behavior, culturally contextualized, and defined through the symbolic apparatus of our intelligence, emotion and perception of the world. The wonderful thing about human symbolic cognition is not only that it is socially and culturally shared, but that it is capable of enduring and managing contradiction to the nth degree, as well as mediating any kind of sense of contradictory experience that may "marginalize" or relativize our view of the world. If one wants to understand the true persuasive and controlling power of the communication and newsprint media, one must understand how these forms of media hold sway over our symbolic consciousness and imagination in shaping our view of the world and thereby conditioning our responses to it.

From a systems standpoint, in a phenomenological vein, we may say, that for any problem set we may encounter in relation to any real or natural system we are dealing with, we may adopt any number of alternative viewpoints, or alternative possible frames of reference, regarding that problem set, and we may say, standards of realism and truth notwithstanding, we may imagine even an infinite number of possible alternative frames of reference for any given problem set. At the same time, from a systems standpoint in a scientific vein, we may hypothesize that for any given problem set or general kind or class or problem set, there may exist one, and only one, single most optimal solution for such a set, regardless of whether this solution is actually realizable or not.

In general, the progress of our scientific knowledge is taking us gradually from the former condition of a kind of "multi-cultural" tower of Babel in our knowledge, to the goal of the latter condition of having fairly precise, if not exact, optimal solutions for any problem set we encounter.

It was the great systems-based archaeologist, Lewis Binford, who inaugurated the revolution of New Archaeology in the early Sixties, breaking a Century long iconoclastic tradition of Culture History, by his seminal articles on systems-based archaeological method, who has also recently given to the world the most cogent and studied example of the systematic deployment of alternative frames of reference/units of analysis in his recent work Constructing Frames of Reference (2001). Defining alternative frames of reference, allowing us to systematically adjust and change our points of view of the world, requires thorough, indeed comprehensive, command of the knowledge base and information about any particular or general problem set. It requires the definition of such alternative frames of reference in terms of fairly precise and well defined units of analysis that are explicit and that become on some level at least available to scientific replication and experimentation. It requires furthermore seeing our units of analysis for what they really are, in relation to one another, rather than in terms or frames of what we might want them to be. This requires in turn a certain suspension of our preconceived frames of reference, our attitudes, and sense of credibility. When a forensic scientist or detective approaches a crime scene, the evidence is looked at in as fresh a light as possible, without presuppositions of what may have happened, or any of the baggage that the human may bring to the moment that is not in the setting itself.

As it has become with scientific archaeology, so it must become as well with all areas of our knowledge that we want to approach in a "scientific manner," i.e., in a systems based approach. A systems based approach, a meta-systems framework and context, and a relativistic orientation to problem solving may all be said to fundamentally transcend in a basic way some of the conundrums and paradoxes represented by the symbolic condition of our knowledge, by our own inimitable anthropological relativity, and by the importation of biased frames of reference and pre-selective units of analysis in our comprehension of reality. They offer us a way out of the symbolic box we are confined within in our view of the world beyond, and they offer at the same time a means for defining in a systematic way alternative frames of reference by which we may compare, contrast and optimize our possible solution to various problem sets.

Design Principles of General Systems and the Meta-Systems Context: Part III Basic Design Principles of General Systems Science

General Systems has been an eclectic field. This eclecticism has been in part due to the cross-disciplinary nature of General Systems, and can also be attributed to its inherently holistic and comprehensive orientation to knowledge and applied frameworks. There is now a confusing plethora of disciplinary names and interests that can pass somewhat synonymously for "General Systems." These include, but are not limited to, some of the following: Complexity, Chaos Theory, Cybernetics, and Control Theory. We may also refer to feedback systems, circular systems, developmental systems, etc, as examples of the same general concepts and principles. Von Bertalanffy listed several related sets of general systems concepts: compartment theory, set theory, graph theory, net theory, cybernetics, information theory, theory of automata, game theory, decision theory, and queuing theory (General Systems Theory, 1968: pg 21-2)

I would include certain developments in number theory, statistics and probability theory, scaling and modeling theory and methods, and even in some aspects of geometry and other areas of mathematics, both theoretical and applied. I would add to this list specialist concerns in certain areas of computing and mathematics, as well as applied aspects of engineering, critical path analysis, systems management and also certain theoretical schools that have developed in various fields of study. Super computing designs have made the feasibility of General Systems modeling & representation more practical. Systems based archaeology is clearly elaborated in the New Archaeology under the leadership of Lewis Binford, primarily. I have found systems principles articulated in a lucid fashion as well in fields of biology, especially ecology, in psychology and other behavioral sciences, as well as in the larger framework of anthropology. I would also add my own ideas to the list: meta-systems, alternative systems, synergetics or the study of systems-based emergent properties, and organics, or the study of "whole systems"

A distinction is furthermore made between hard and soft Systems theory, with the implication being that hard systems theory is tied rigidly to mathematical models and formulas, relatable as well to computing theory and logic, while "soft" systems theory is concerned principally with what is referred to as systems philosophy, systems epistemology, systems ontology and general systems models that are primarily verbal, rather than mathematical, in form and terms of elucidation. For instance, for all the efforts to the contrary, the leading theory in biology, the theory of evolution, remains still largely a purely verbal explanation of natural processes, both on a molecular level of genetic transmission, and on a species level of natural selection of whole organisms in larger population-ecological contexts. This distinction is really a hubris of a false sense of science that, on finer analysis, really gives way both in terms of consideration of the constructive dynamics of knowledge systems, as for instance in Thomas Kuhn's elucidation of scientific paradigms in his now classic work on the subject of Scientific Revolutions, and in terms of the elaboration of theoretical terms for genuinely complex real systems, even on basic physical levels, where emergent properties and their analysis defies simplistic or reductionist quantification.

I will add a short list of basic principles that are found consistently operating in systems based thinking (Lewis, Natural Systems, 2001)

These basic concepts represent important challenges to our scientific ways of thinking, bound as this has been in a classic, Aristotelian view of the natural world. A brief list of such concepts as they come to mind are as follows:

Ours has become an age of extreme specialization that has accompanied the dramatic differentiation of our scientific knowledge even down to nine or more levels of complexity. Generalism of a more comfortable academic era, that implied a kind of armchair eclecticism and the entitlement to pontificate in extended tracts and lecture series, has had to yield to the speed and emerging interests of Internet based communications. What has been lacking, and what we are in dire need of, is a new level of comprehension, and a new sense of studied, systematic comprehensiveness of approach, especially in our worldview, that affectively provides us with a working roadmap of our complex and ever emergent noetic landscape.

Comprehensiveness is what the term implies, a deliberate attempt at exhaustive holism without the appearances or consequences of dilettantism. Thus an effective comprehensive framework must embrace in full force and detail the entire range and spectrum, and coordinate this broad range of knowledge in a manner that makes some kind of grand, if not strategic, sense.

Comprehensive frameworks necessarily represent neither dilettante spuriousness nor mere generalist eclecticism. Comprehensiveness, especially within an effective systems framework, demands and provides a contextual theoretical framework driving the search for specific solutions to complex problems in a number of different areas of inquiry. These are frequently problems that demand answers that naturally do not fit the departmental delineations of different conventional areas of study and research. Comprehensiveness, to be effective, therefore does not require less expertise, but greater, as well as greater understanding of the fundamental issues involved in any natural problem set.

With the rise of chaos theory, we view the natural world in an entirely new way than we did in the age of the slide rule, Newtonian Laws and Euclidean Geometry. So much that we find in the natural phenomenal patterns of nature, whether it is in the spiral design of a sea snail shell, or in the growth and development of a deciduous tree, suggests to us at some level the working of complexity and chaos in critical systems. This chaotic complexity belies a supreme simplicity that is in control of the infinite variation of pattern.

Scientific models and worldviews must not only explain such complexity, in whatever way it might be encountered in the natural world, in the finite and elegant terms of simplicity, but it must also learn to see and construe the natural world in such terms also. I believe that no theory or model of science now can be framed without at least one hand on the issue of complexity and chaos.

Natural informational systems are largely self-organizing systems. The rule-properties they exhibit are always intrinsic and implicit to the patterning of epiphenomenal organization that is its manifestation. If they are "self-organizing" systems, they are not "self-knowing" systems in the way that we understanding this. Natural information appears to be largely nonreflexive, even at the anthropological level, and therefore we can assume that is it almost never "intentional" patterning in the way that we understand motivations from an anthropocentric worldview.

With the rise to preeminence of chaos theory and new thinking about complexity, there has come as well a new understanding of the inherently dynamic structure our natural world. We find increasingly that everything changes, even things once considered immutable like atoms and protons, and we have a received picture of the universe now as something that ushered into being in less than a nanosecond, and that has been slowly, gradually unwinding ever since.

With dynamism implied in the complexity of nature, I believe heterogeneity is also an important part of the conceptual formula of the modern scientific worldview. Heterogeneity stems from the idea that reality is composed of multiple kinds of things at all levels. We have a vision of this if we explore the sub-atomic levels of particle physics to discover a range of exotic things unknown in a bygone era. Heterogeneous systems are complex informational entities, and tend to defy prime mover theories that like to invest ultimate causes in single, clear to understand mechanisms. Often, like the hen or the egg dilemma, in such systems it is difficult or impossible to isolate original causes or sources.

As we push back the edge of reality, we discover on ever finer levels of analysis the place of a basic sense of relativity, even in our physical existence. In such complex systems, relative states, or rather, relatively understood states, become more important in the final accounting than abstract or static or absolutistic models that entail some "noumenal" sense of perfect order. In our accounting, we must say conditionally that "such and such is true....under certain conditions a, b, c, but not under other conditions e, f, g."

From a classical perspective this attitude and approach to a scientific worldview, one that undermines a sense of absolute certainty in either the world or our knowledge about the world, seems antithetical to a rational worldview, if not downright heresy. But it is increasingly the case that our realities have not been made more certain by scientific progress, but more uncertain. With each new fact and bit of knowledge we learn about the world, we open up an entire Pandora's box of unanswered questions and suggestion of things we have not yet figured out.

In this world, even our sense of ourselves as "for all practical purposes" certain and, at least in human proportions, absolute, becomes itself relative to that anthropomorphic level of dimensionality about reality. Shift to another level or order of magnitude, and this sense of "things are as they are" quickly goes away, if we are to explain and have a firm sense of the real patterning of the world.

Relativity has intruded irreversibly upon our collective worldview in a wide variety of ways, but especially it was Einstein who offered a model of the universe, and a new way of thinking about reality, when even time and space itself no longer had an absolute sense. This and subsequent science has fundamentally and irretrievably rendered our worldview relativistic for all time.

Synergism has acquired an implicit connotation of being something "holistic" and somehow a-scientific, like flower power and herbal remedies. But synergism, as a central systemic design principle, has a legitimate and very scientific place in the conceptual design of the natural world. Basically, it states that patterns at one level inaugurate processes that are more than the mere sum of the individual component parts that make up that system. The system as a whole does something that cannot be done by the parts separately.

Synergism thus has a superorganic function of systems. We cannot fully explain the operation of the system as a whole by a mere enumeration of the functioning of the various parts. Synergism is central in gestalt theory, which underlies the understanding of human cognition and symbolism from an anthropological perspective. Patterns are the result of complex part-whole relations and are apprehended as such, and are not merely the analytical reduction to the individual parts.

This sense of synergism is especially important when we apply it to the understanding of living versus non-living systems, and even truer when applied to sentient and self-conscious systems versus those that appear to lack such deliberate volition. But the sense of synergism can be found aplenty even in the vast and empty reaches of outer space. I doubt a solar system or a galaxy is merely the complex cosmological waltz of planets and stars around a common center of gravity. As systems they create forces and patterns that cannot be understood merely by a reduction to its individual entities and would not happen if they were not locked into such a system in the first place.

Concepts like these inform our thinking about our world on very basic levels, and it is important that our understanding of the basic concepts is sound and reasonable before we begin to seek solutions and answers about that world or our place within it.

There are, I believe, a set of primary questions and answers that inform our natural systems theory at its several basic levels. We must seek to ask and understand such questions fundamentally, and to derive in a clear sense whatever implications they may have, if we are to construct for ourselves a worldview that is less prejudiced and more objective than before.

Perhaps this is the real and practical purpose of our scientific philosophy to be able to make obvious those questions and answers otherwise not so obvious. And if, as primitive philosophers, we can do this half well, then maybe we earn for ourselves the reputation for being good at what we do. I would add to this list the concepts of holism, analytical hierarchy, developmental ontology, stochastic process, equilibrium and equi-finality.

The patterning of nature is founded upon and derived from several primary systems. There are three clear basic systems that we are most familiar with: the atom, the cell and the human brain, which define basic non-derivative systems upon the respective levels of natural stratification (i.e., the physical, the biological and the anthropological). These systems have been elaborated in basic theory--atomic theory by John Dalton, cell theory that developed over a one hundred year period by contributions of various scientists. Functional theory of the brain has not yet been clearly defined, but is emerging through advances in neuroscience. There is a sense that all scientific explanation centers upon the differential elaboration of basic models of these primary systems.

I propose an elaboration of these three primary systems that underlie the stratification of systems in our reality, and propose as well a model of a fourth system, the system of space-time, which is even more fundamental than and foundational for the atomic system. Each of these systems need to be accounted for in terms of:

Associated with each of the different types of primay system are a large series of derivative systems that are composed from these fundamental types, and it is largely the elaboration and analysis of these alternative derivative systems with which conventional natural science has been most preoccupied.

The natural order of the physical universe as well as its epiphenomenal event patterning as we observe and understand these, can thus be seen to be founded upon these basic kinds of primary systems and their derivative elaboration as extended systems in whichever direction we may look.

Of these primary systems, we know the most fundamental and the most enduring to be that of the atom. We understand fairly well the structure of the atom and its component substructures, though this view is probaly as yet very incomplete. To explain the fundamental structure of the natural order, we need to get beneath the structure of the atom, substantially. We have partially accomplished this in terms of a physics of subatomic particles and forces, yet we have not yet explained these subatomic particles in terms of an underlying primary system. They are defined as yet in terms of the possible systematics of a derivative and extended system, which implies the possibility at least of a more fundamental primary order of reality. Any such model we may come up with, like String Theory, is likely to be mainly hypothetical and speculative, impossible to demonstrate or disprove one way or another.

We can only speculate at this time if there occur more fundamental subsystems upon which these primary physical systems might be founded, or even a more basic form of natural stratification of reality beneath the physical, in something we might now only be able to refer to as the fundamental ontological structure of real systems. We know that real systems are a subset of all possible systems. We do not know how to define the boundaries of possible systems, except to say that any possible system is a potentially real system that is waiting to happen. Impossible systems are therefore by definition non-real systems, though not all non-real systems are indeed impossible systems, and there is as yet an uncertain and for some an uncomfortable degree of overlap between possible and impossible systems in the as yet unknown and yet to be known world.

In other words, we as yet do not know what is clearly possible or impossible in our understanding of primary and fundamental systems.

[1] System theory, or systemics, is non-ideological in the sense that it does not prescribe a priori symbolic concepts or structures upon how we see and interpret our world. The framework is derived entirely and empirically from the observation of the patterning of nature itself. In this sense, it is inductively non-paradigmatic, and therefore it has the prospect and promise of a truly general framework for our scientific knowledge.

[2] Part of the problem may have been that such stratification cuts completely across scientific disciplinary and methodological boundaries. It seems, mostly, to have been taken for granted, but it is a central problem to the paradigmatic unification of a general science perspective.

[3] We can speculate that there may be further primary levels of natural systems stratification--a larger set of which all known physical systems may be yet a part. It is clear, if we discover some form of alien intelligence in space, then we will need to expand both the biological and the "human" strata to include the fact of this extraterrestrial life and intelligent civilization.

[4] At this time, we cannot clearly identify an upper or lower boundary limit upon the stratification of natural systems that may not in fact be the artifacts of our own observational limitations or the boundaries of our own knowledge. Scientists discuss the point-likeness of Quarks and other Bosons, appearing upon some level to be self-consistent and not in need of further analytical reduction to sub-sub atomic entities, and yet this seems somehow to fly in the face of the wisdom of general systems thinking or of the experience of our knowledge at almost every level. This is thought to be the case even if self-consistency in appearance or properties is one of the hall marks of systems integration and suggestive of subsystem interaction. Similarly, we at least implicitly find some finite end to the observable universe, even it it always seems just beyond our most recent observational limitations.

[5] It makes sense therefore to distinguish what we can call "general systems" or a single kind of "a general system" from what may be referred to as specific or "particular systems" as in "this particular system." All real systems may be said to be both a particular system, and at the same time, a general system of a particular type, kind or level of integration.

[6] I suspect that conventional theories get into the most hot-water when they neglect the universal application of this principle, and proceed as if some thing or event structure occurs in an isolated manner and with some absolute sense of non-relative, irreducible fundamentality of occurrence. And because we would like to endow all theories with the status of universality, the temptation to reify our ideas is both quite normal and quite irresistible.

[7] The risk in general system theory is the fallacy of analogy, confusing what is an apparent homology of systems pattern, with what may be considered independent parallel development of different kinds of systems in nature. The General System Model (GSM) has broad-based applicability, and indeed, runs a risk of overextension, particularly from a perspective of trying to explain causality in subsystems. But this risk does not necessarily obviate the value and applicability of the GSM or of general system theory, because we are left yet to explain why nature appears to universally organize itself into terms of systems upon all levels of its stratification, integration and differentiation.

[8] The case can be clearly made that it is the principles of holism and synergy of emergent properties that separates a general systems perspective from largely analytical models elaborated in most conventional science fields and which tend to explain the behavior of the whole in terms of the relationships and behavior of the parts. It appears that synthetic thinkers, who might be considered more "right brain" in approach and organization of information about reality, tend toward a general systems approach to phenomena, while analytical thinkers, allegedly more "left brain" will tend toward approaches more consonant with conventional science paradigms. Of course, a great thinker like von Bertalanffy worked both sides effectively at the same time, and made important contributions to the biological sciences as well as being the sole creator of a general systems framework.

[9] Discovery of new kinds of systems must await the acquisition of new forms of information and/or the reframing of old information in new ways. Past experience in such discovery processes and a broader history of knowledge entails that this future discoveries will almost certainly occur. Science lives with the illusion, very deep-seated I believe, that it had somehow exhausted itself or rather its central subject or object of knowledge, and that it has therefore little new to learn about reality. Nothing in fact could be further from the truth.

[10] Depending upon our primes, I've identified possibly five such types of basic paradigm.

[11] There is pressing need nowadays to design and develop systems that are human proof in the sense that they serve to counteract the destructive and unintended consequences of human behavior. We need to bring the person back into the center of human systems, and we need to bring nature back into the center of the human being. Human proofing a system is designing such a framework that serves to counterbalance and prevent human nature from corrupting or otherwise undermining the developmental possibilities of such a system, as has been so common in the world today.

[12] The study of systems in our world has only begun, and we have just begun to recognize and acknowledge not only the relevance of systems to our scientific comprehension of our world, but the potential productivity of understanding systems in their application and possible, especially studied, alternation in that world. What is demanded of us in the study of systems is an entirely new way of seeing the world, and a new kind of idiom within which to frame this new worldview.

[13] Artificial systems of human design pale in comparison to the sophistication and complexity of natural systems, and yet human-made systems are becoming increasingly sophisticated and intricate in their design and capacity. Even the possibility of our imagination and comprehension of systems, being ourselves the natural products of such systems, are more than just remarkable and extremely, astronomically unlikely.

[14] Systems theory and thinking is more of a way of knowing and seeing the world than it is anything new. It is a framework for the understanding of reality in a holistic and synthetic manner, and it offers for science a genuinely holistic approach to problem formulation and solution, one that encompasses the analytical in a non-exclusive manner. To construe the world from a systems perspective is to rethink the world in alternate terms than we are conventionally taught to see it through our received definitions, proscriptions and methodologies of normal science. The same phenomena or problem can be viewed in either a systems or a non-systems perspective, with radically different outcomes in how we see and respond to the problem or pattern depending upon the perspective we adopt. The realities with which we must deal remain the same, but the outcomes in our knowledge and relationship with the world become radically different.

[15] As discussions below on various central topics will readily demonstrate, systems thinking and theory has a part to play, not just in the philosophical armchair, but in the discussion of scientific theory. Scientists may be methodologically and analytically strong, by training and natural inclination, but they are not necessarily theoretically or synthestically equal in strength--hence thinking often falls short of expectations or presuppositions, especially upon the boundaries of our knowledge where the unknown looms large and outweighs the light of the known. On the margins of our knowledge, where many scientists are supposed to work, we often confuse fact with fancy and knowledge with what we think we know.

[16] Some of these kinds of questions we cannot now answer, and some we may never be able to finally answer. But these are questions that are worthy of being asked and wondered about, and they are questions that are provided by a systems-based perspective and framework of natural phenomena.

[17] On the basis of this natural philosophical foundation, I have attempted to derive what I consider to be basic naturalistic statements about human metaethics, aesthetics, epistemology, metaphysics and logic. I also attempt to apply this form of philosophical perspective as a means of inquiry into the fundamental nature and structure of reality, and as a heuristic problem solving way of knowing that has applicability to a broad range of naturally occurring problem sets in reality. Though we cannot have a naïve, unpreconditioned view of reality, we can approach the real world in a manner that can be said to be naturalistically naïve in a relatively unprejudiced and unbiased manner. This can lead us to new insight and wisdom concerning the nature of our reality.

[18] The point of departure for universal systems is general system theory, particularly as this was developed and propounded by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, the consequence of the common, cross-disciplinary recognition that fundamentally different kinds of systems, otherwise unrelated, often demonstrate very similar or analogous patterns of development, which tend to include the achievement of a stable state characterized by dynamic equilibrium maintained between the components of a system and the external environment, as well as boundary-mediating mechanisms or "transport" devices that serve to maintain the internal-external differential in balance.

[19] The reality of the matter seems to be that we really cannot completely or even sufficiently step beyond or outside of the boundaries of our own very human knowledge about the world. This anthropological relativity of all human knowledge, the sciences included, means, among other things, that we probably need to account for the philosophy of systems somewhere along the way. Recognizing what these limitations may be, allows us at least the sense of when we might be straying too far in our speculations and scientific leaps of faith.

[20] The distinction between general systems and a particular system is an important analytical and semantic difference to draw upon in the definition of systems. We must be careful to specify a particular system or kind of system in the statements we make about a system, and to separate those features unique or characteristic of that system or kind of system, from any other systems, or from the general properties or patterns that can be ascribed to all systems. A general systems model and definition provides us a point of entry into the examination and comprehension of any particular system or kind of system, but it is not the final set of statements we want to arrive at about any given set or set of systems.

[21] I would speculate that there is a certain left-brain emphasis in the analytical and conventional model of scientific methodology that we have come to accept, and this is largely rooted in what I would call a Pythagorean perspectival frame that relies upon systematic analysis to the solution of a finite problem set. This is contra-posed to an alternative form of logical argumentation, known as dialectical, that we can refer to as Zenomian in style. In a superficial sense, the Zenomian style of dialectical argument may be a more right-brain form of argumentation.

[22] I would say about the way science is currently being articulated, in conformity to the demands of Academic frameworks now largely sold-out to industry and the corporate business world, tends to work against the development of a holistic systems-based perspective. What is sought and in demand, what is being trained for among young, innocent and often unquestioning brains, is narrow specialization of interest and involvement, and a kind of conservative comformism in the guise of "scientific objectively and neutrality" about all the rest. This is encouraged, no, it is even promoted.

[23] The resistance of formal styles and modes of scientific thinking, particularly that steeped in a Western tradition of Aristotelian and Platonic logic, to systems based orientations and viewpoints is similar and related to the same kind of resistance to what can be called "relativistic" arguments or points of view that emphasize or incorporate "relativity" of things and knowledge. The quest and call always seems to be one of greater certainty, and a sense of simplicity, however arrived at by ill-gotten means, is preferable to the problem of complexity and the uncertainties it always entails.

[24] Lacking the sophistry or sophistication to practice philosophy in an academic manner that would be interesting to professionals, I will not attempt the effort, so there is for me no initial "Cogito Ergo Sum." Instead, I prefer to cut through the word-play directly to the sticking point. Ultimately, it is an "empirical leap of faith" we must take in the reassurance and relative certainty of our objective knowledge--that the world exists out there, whether we are present to apprehend it or not. It exited before we were there, now in a universal sense, whether we can comprehend it all or not, and will continue probably to go on existing well after all of us are gone.

[25] Scientific knowledge peels back the layers of truth one at a time. We do not get straightway at the truth of anything, and often, once we find the layers peeled all off, we discover that nothing remains at the core anyway. Much that passes in the name of science has the prospect of a "Wild Goose Chase." The rest, as we say, is clouded by ignorance, and we all know that ignorance is just another excuse for an overactive imagination that lacks any clear facts or experience.

[26] In fact, much that passes for human rights in the eyes of the law, and blind justice, does so from the same standpoint of arriving at the truth as does scientific method--facts are gathered, clues followed, research conducted, and alternative hypothesis entertained, then systematically discounted in favor of the one that best fits all the evidence. In this sense, justice is a dramatic demonstration of the application of scientific principles in the adjudication of law and the resolution of conflict in human society, and it becomes in a sense an objective foundation for human ethics and meta-ethical prescription--such as "do not be too quick to judge."

[27] Even though this digression upon metaphysical systems reflects a preoccupation with scientific knowledge and method, it should be understood that such metaphysical systems construe a scientific approach as being but only one of several different kinds of alternative approaches to reality that each has its own distinct method of inquiry. These other approaches, through art, religion or philosophy itself, are no less valuable or important from a metaphysical standpoint that are such scientific methods. Furthermore, I believe that the social sciences can be categorized separately from the physical sciences in this regard, as their metaphysical implications are also somewhat divergent from those of the harder sciences. Each has its own merits that warrant special consideration in terms of their metaphysical implications.

[28] Part of what I have sought in natural systems theory has been a reunification of scientific and philosophical approaches on a level that transcends and comprehends narrowly defined interests in science, and yet which nevertheless ties broad and general philosophical concerns back down to an empirical foundation in scientific reality. To a great extent I believe this has been accomplished, though not completely.