by Hugh M. Lewis

If it is ever felt that we are generally overstating the case of systems theory in reality, its importance to the structure of events in reality, or its general relevance to either the pattern of these events or our understanding of them, especially what we refer to as our scientific understanding, then I think a counterargument can be just as readily made that overall general systems theory has not been advanced or developed enough to be satisfactory as a general framework for describing and explaining our shared reality, that it has been either too superficially applied, on one hand, and therefore misappropriated and somewhat misrepresented, or else it has been largely if not completely ignored as anything but a superficial and general description of everything.

To some extent, the fault lies within general systems theory itself, as it largely lacks a central core theory or theoretical-methodological framework as this is normally construed within scientific fields of thinking. My own efforts in the last four and twenty years have been largely to try to correct these kinds of critical weaknesses, and I have succeeded to a minimal extent, though I would suggest that much more constructive work remains to be accomplished before we can make a claim that we have a full-blown and interesting field of general systems theory and application that we call "scientific."

I have elaborated what I consider a successful general systems theory for physical systems, providing a model of the dynamic state universe invoking known evidence, suggesting that the universe is probably much older and much larger than the predominant hegemony of Big Bang theorists want to believe or want the rest of the world to believe. Such a model provides some sense of resolution of the unified field problem, albeit non-mathematically, and an enlargement of the paradigm of thermodynamics to embrace a complementary paradigm of gravitational dynamics--gravitational systems observationally do not behave in strict accordance to thermodynamic principles. 

I have sought to elaborate and enlarge somewhat evolutionary theory to embrace eco-evolutionary systems models and the notion of the early formation of an original proto-biotic framework that made possible the evolution and selection & differentiation of life forms on earth. It is expected that anywhere where there are a similar concatenation of complex conditions, then life will develop in similar ways, albeit along different fundamental design pathways, though it is most likely that all life forms will be structured by hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen compounds, and that water will be the likely fluid context for most living systems.

I have offered what I take to be a relatively comprehensive and paradigmatically complete human systems framework, a framework that is in a general sense and in principle reiterated by Ludwig Von Bertalanffy in his development of human systems theory along symbolic systems lines. At the same time, I have sought to extend systems theory in a number of different directions, mathematically, in terms of abstract systems, in terms of applied & automated systems, and in terms of philosophical systems.

Ludwig Von Bertalanffy, originator & founder of General Systems Theory, highlighted two main points in his definition of General Systems theory: 1. there is a critical distinction to be made between what he termed "open systems" and what are conventionally construed in terms of thermodynamic models as "closed systems" and 2. open systems are non-linear and more complex and dynamic in their relational patterning than suggested by simple cybernetic models based upon linear feedback systems.

The presence in nature of what he termed complex open systems that were based upon irreducible transport mechanisms between the internal environment of the system and the external environment, permitted processes to occur which he termed "negentropic" and in reverse of the thermodynamic principles used to conventionally characterize closed systems. The presence of such internal transport provided the bases for the growth of systems, such as living systems, that cannot be easily explained as the result of thermodynamic principles alone.

The theory of open systems demands more sophisticated and complex models than are conventionally and somewhat superficially employed in the invocation of general systems principles in service of explanation and application. This was also recognized by Von Bertallanfy, when he recognized that the nature of such systems and their structural patterning was defined by a host of interacting variables that created complex and non-linear relationships within such systems. 

Von Bertallanfy recognized that a general theory of open systems had not yet been clearly stated in a thermodynamic manner similar to what had been defined for theoretically closed systems.

Supercomputing was not as developed in his day as it is today, though he realized the possibility of the application of computer simulation to the description of such complex systems and to systems complexity in general. 

I would like to suggest some basic revisions of General Systems theory in light of several important points: 1. All systems can be defined as semi-open in complex ways, and their internal structured is maintained by what can be referred to as boundary-mediating mechanisms that serve to regulate exchange relationships between the internal components of the system and external variables, and that serve thereby to maintain the integrity of the system in a state referred to as "dynamic equilibrium." These mechanisms in general serve the purposes of maintaining a balancing equilibrium of internal states and behavior of a system regardless of fluctuating conditions or externally changing circumstances of the system. 2. All real systems exist within and are defined within a larger real world meta-systems context that conditions and exogenously determines the outcomes, emergent properties, and long-term behavior of such systems. 3. All real systems can be defined at multiple levels of integration as non-linear dynamic systems, characterized by non-linear control structures. 4. All real systems go through a life-cycle trajectory of development, from origination, latent development or aggregation, fluctuating or dynamic steady-state, to eventual decomposition/demise as a coherent system. 5. All real systems can be characterized symbolically in terms of a set of emergent properties that are distinctive to that particular kind of system, and by a pattern configuration that is unique to that particular system in time and place. 6. The symbolic characterization of real systems renders them available to our comprehension and our manipulation as systems--we are able to influence and modulate the patterning and outcomes of system's behavior.

We may restate therefore Ludwig von Bertalanffy's primary concern over open versus closed systems by stating that there can be no real systems that are totally closed, that "closed" systems are abstract ideal systems tied theoretical to the logic of thermodynamics, without phenomenal instantiation in nature. At the same time, there are no completely "open" system in the manner implied by von Bertalanffy's original deployment of the term. All systems are partly closed, and thereby partly determined in a linear manner, and all systems are simultaneously partly open, and thereby remain partly underdetermined in a non-linear ways. We can arrive therefore at a more basic understanding of a general model of systems of all kinds. We may state for instance that all systems achieve some dynamic equilibrium state after a period of growth and development, during which rates of input & output or loss of heat from the system are more or less balanced. Such a state of affairs in living populations are steady state periods of optimum population balance when birth rates are balanced more or less equally by death rates.

We may furthermore state that all real systems have an effective meta-systems context that link and integrate any such system into a larger system framework, as a component, upon some other level of emergent integration. This meta-systemic context is extrinsic to the system but critical to the state-path trajectory and effects of the system in a larger framework of understanding.

General Systems Essays, Vol. I