For purposes of this essay, I offer the following operational definitions:

Meta-system: A "system of systems," and, theoretically, a generalized system of less general and more particular systems. Also, a philosophical and theoretical dialog about systems relativity and systems contexts.

Cybernetics: The logical organization of information that is implicit to the functional, developmental and relational-structural patterning of any given system. Usually cybernetic systems are looked at from the standpoint of control and feedback mechanisms that serve to maintain a complex stable-state of dynamic equilibrium over the structure of the long run and the large. Cybernetics also implies a model of nervous system feedback and organization typical of all animals, which is a model especially fit and adapted for the cognitive sciences and the development of artificial intelligence.

Integration: The problem of integration is the central theoretical and applied problem of general systems theory and methodology. Systems integration may be defined as the problem of understanding how systems come together, and how the components of systems interact, in such a way as to  produce emergent properties that are uniquely associated with a particular kind of system. Furthermore, meta-systems integration implies that there are ordered relationships not only of parts of systems, but between different kinds of systems, and this overarching sense of order forms the foundation for our understanding of the world.

Before proceeding let it be remarked that not everything in the world is integrated, nor was everything even meant to be integrated. In fact, most things that occur in the world appear to occur in a relatively un-integrated and therefore independent manner. And it seems, at least as far as we can tell, if left alone, things in the long run tend to fall apart. Things seem to go from states of greater integration to less integration. And this poses a riddle about the natural organization of reality--how did integrated systems come about in the first place if the tendency of all self-organization is towards greater disintegration. True Believing, born again, bible thumping Presidents hold to "Intelligent Design" which is another euphemized way of saying "God created the world in six days and rested on the Sabbath." But origin mythology aside, the sciences are indeed hard pressed to answer the question of the seemingly spontaneous stochastic self-organization of integrated systems when the overarching tendency in the universe is definitely towards disintegration.

Integration is what can be called organization of things into a larger whole, a system, which occurs over time and space in some self-consistent way. Any such organization requires working energy to maintain, and it also implies knowledge, or a sense of order, in its functional and structural relationships. So the question becomes, without some sense of predetermination being involved, or without the hand of some deliberate or intentional being, how did systems arise, apparently by themselves, in nature, when the gradient for all events seems to be in the opposite direction?

Ludwig von Bertalanffy essentially solved this riddle, and thereby laid the foundation for general systems theory as a fundamental paradigm for the sciences. First, he identified the difference between ideally closed systems, upon which the conventional laws of Thermodynamics were based, and the idea of partially closed/partially open systems. Second, he restated the principle that there can be no completely self-organizing systems, with the idea that systems may be partially self-organizational through interaction with the environment, and particularly, with interaction of other systems within the environment. Finally, he stated that systems may become self-organizing and integrative as complex-state, order-increasing systems in the context of open environmental situations when conditions of energy transport into the system may temporarily outweigh the loss of energy from the system, due primarily to the immediate availability of a certain form of energy and the availability of suitable transport mechanisms that permit energy to be carried into the system with a certain level of efficiency.

It appears for instance that the explanation for the spontaneous self organization of living systems as we have uncovered these from the strata of the earth follows precisely this general systems model, and can be explained scientifically in no other way. Any living system we know about on earth follows this same pattern of organization and systemic integration, however convoluted and meta-biotic they have become, and it can be hypothesized in a reliable way that any living system we may in the future encounter in the universe will also follow the exact same principle, albeit if not in exactly the same ways.

I would like to theoretically explain the spontaneous self-organization of physical systems by a similar model, but Big Bang creationists, thank you George Gamow, will have nothing to do with alternative paradigms. The organization of energy upon a fundamental level has yet to be clearly ascertained, if it ever can be clearly ascertained, given the statements of relativity that have been forthcoming regarding physical event structures.

And, if we are to believe prognostications of global warming and conspiracy theories about the fossil fuel wars, it appears that human systems, as grand state systems, operating upon the same basic guidelines, much to the chagrin of traditional capitalists and social engineers of all kinds.

The problem of systems solutions and integration is fundamentally the problem of solving the Von Neumann information bottle-neck in the search solution space for any given problem set. Each system imaginable or demonstrable in reality has one or more abstract symbolic representations that may be used for the purpose of relational and structural generalization about systems. The challenge of integration can be said to the problem of getting behind any immediate, or relatively local solution set, to achieve a more comprehensive or general solution set that properly integrates the local solution to a larger frame of reference. Systems integration is successful if local solutions, as subsystems, become coordinate to and incorporated within a larger systems framework. 

The problem of this is the relativity of systems by size, scale and generality. Many systems occur in the world independently, and there is no clear sense why they should be integrated. Ideally, we would want to create a socio-political system in which all people, as individual human systems, are independent and wealthy enough to pursue their own goals as long as these goals do not hurt or hinder the freedom of anyone else. There is no sense in such a world that there must be a single overarching ideological or political entity by which the interests of all people should be made to conform to a single set of general standards, however these may be conceived. On the other hand, there appears in any socio-political meta-system a need for the rule of just law that may apply to all people equally, without double-standards, without religious or racial bias, etc., etc. 

It is clear that if any real or possible system is underdetermined in any ultimate sense, then there is no reason to conceive of or attempt to design a meta-system, or a system of systems, that is itself more over-determined than the systems it contains. At the same time, it is generally conceded that in the long run some form of meta-systems integration is perhaps inevitable, in whatever manner it may be eventually achieved or realized. There is a clear sense, for instance, that the mass extinctions that followed the Permian or the Triassic were probably not caused by a gigantic meteorite or a super-volcanic eruption, which would be part of systems by themselves, but from the inherent dynamics of biological meta-systems that tend to run towards deterministic integration in the long run. Therefore, over-determination through meta-system integration is not always the most desirable state to achieve, and in fact may eventuate ultimately in a rather night-marish state.

The entire criticism of modern development has been the pursuit of local solutions that are not generalizable to global problem sets, and the lack of coordination of resources and information that would permit such generalization of solutions in a common context to take place. What occurs in this perspective is not the over-determination of systems, but the mass wastage of resources, and inefficient utilization of systems, and the arising of critical events from complex states, that result in destructive interference of systems or subsystems and the increase in randomization of systems.  This is not the same as foisting on the world a limited symbolic ideology or a form of "planned development" that stems from power and relatively narrow-minded and self-serving interests. It is rather a challenge of figuring out an appropriate generalizable methodology that can be considered genuinely comprehensive in design and therefore universally applicable, with the appropriate modifications, to all manner of different kinds of local problem sets.

Systems are good to think for humans because human thought is organized upon systems principles. The emergent properties associated with mind, and found to be transcendent to the functions of the brain, are the properties of the brain functioning as a super complex system in a symbolic manner. The entire mind-body dichotomy that underlies particularly Western Philosophy, and the binding problem that lies at the heart of philosophical debate concerning AI, resolves itself upon a systems-based perspective. This is not to say that we necessarily understand in any adequate way how the brain functions as a system to create the noetic properties of mind, but this system, as natural as it is, and as a unique product of natural evolution, forms the central basis for human systems that are to be distinguished analytically from biological and physical systems.

The entire challenge of attempting to design and articulate a comprehensive systems-based framework has resolved itself on the problem of integration. It is largely a cybernetic problem as it represents attempts to think through to solutions to problems that lie behind more immediate solutions. It is a cybernetic problem not only because systems are naturally good for humans to think and act in, but because all systems themselves that have any sense of order carry information and this information can be said to be cybernetic in terms of its integration. We are attempting to move from local problem sets to basic and global problems, to try to get behind local problem sets to see what connects them to larger frameworks. To a great extent this feels like an ever vanishing horizon, and with each step towards greater generality, there is implied an exponential jump in the levels of complexity that are being subsumed in the search-solution space.

The problem can be resolved in two ways--formally through the implementation of alternative general frames of reference, and heuristically through the implementation of practical shortcuts of working presuppositions that permit us to resolve some of the complexities for practical purposes. Fortunately, we have some fairly powerful heuristic shortcuts that allow us to resolve complexities at every-turn. One can even say that symbolic organization of consciousness, manifest for instance in human speech, permits us to put a simple and sweet symbolic label on a complex reality, and then to treat that reality by means of its symbolic handle as if they were one and the same thing. Even human perception appears to accomplish the same tricks of the imagination, in numerous ways and instances, that saves us the problem of processing all the information and signals that exist in the world. The more formal approach of course is large the approach of scientifically methodologies, in whatever way they are expressed or realized in terms of research and application in the world. These approaches tend overall to be more systematic, more deliberate, more analytical in dealing less with generalizations and more with the details of reality subsumed by such generalizations.

Backward chaining of inference structure is an important consideration of achieving comprehensive solution sets to general problems, and this process allows a formalization of solutions and their organization into a larger meta-systems framework with the promise of creating relatively complete computer-based integration of the framework utilizing a relevant inference engine and suitable database structures. In fact, it provides the entire basis for seeking a comprehensive systems-based solution set that can be cybernetically expressed in terms of computer-based design and management of information. If we recognize that all real systems carry information as intrinsic to the fact of their functioning organization, and knowledge, like work, requires non-random modulation and transference of energy, then we understand that the capacity to program knowledge based informational systems provides tremendous power to construct and maintain alternative working systems of all conceivable kinds.

I consider in fact backward chaining systems of inference to be so cybernetically important, especially in terms of the possible automation of artificial systems, that once we have achieved a global generalized solution set, all other possible problem sets may be logically and functionally integrated in an adaptive manner. This is perhaps my own specialized bias as an anthropologist, but it remains quite evident that the integration of human reality, and all reality is, from an anthropological standpoint, humanly filtered reality, is cybernetically organized and ordered in such a manner that is both good to think and good to do.

To compare this to conventional approaches to systems problem solving, which are based primarily upon empirical and experiential expertise through specialization and the division of labor and the implicit kind of structural-functional organization this entails, we may refer to this fundamentally as a forward chaining inferential approach, which relies upon a series of selections of known choices and progressive delimitation to a final selection. It is called the coke-machine approach to cybernetic problem solving, and works well with small ranges of choice that are in keeping with natural cognitive limitations of people. Such a system does not work well though with very large sets of alternatives or very complex systems.

The sciences have largely been articulated and organized on an empirical and analytical basis. This by itself is nothing bad, but it does represent by and large a tendency towards forward chaining solutions from particulars to generalities, rather than backward chaining from generalizations to particulars. Of course, science is not strictly speaking a forward-chaining affair even if it is mostly taught and idealized in this manner--the greatest contributions in science have been largely backward chaining theories that represent general systems solutions to basic problem sets, like the theory of evolution and the general theory of evolution. Careful and tedious observation to detail may have preceded the formulation of these theories, but by no means did the theories themselves depend or hinge upon such observation alone.

The basis for the Lewis Works framework has been the understanding of the universal applicability of general systems principles, and the potential value that can be derived from such understanding. It stands to reason that the studied application of such principles to general and special problem solving endeavors would in part serve the purposes of achieving relatively integrated solution sets at various levels of organization of reality. But this is not a problem that can be directly attacked or arbitrarily by the deliberate application of systems principles. It is a problem that can only be achieved through creative insight and intuition, through experience with different kinds of systems in all ways and at all levels, and through the process of discovery associated with the recognition and appreciation of the developmental emergence of systems.

A final proviso must also be remarked upon. Though Lewis Works has adopted a general systems perspective as a comprehensive framework for problem solving and project application, a systems perspective by itself is not the only or exclusive point of view that carries any relevance to the understanding of different kinds of things or phenomena in the world. The differences of each thing, or each kind of thing, must be appreciated for what they are, and understood in the unique terms that they represent by their design, whether this is conceived in a systems framework or not.  In fields like ecology where systems perspectives are almost automatic and therefore quite obvious, there is always an on-going debate between the analytic approach and a systems or holistic approach. Ultimately, it is the holistic approach that is capable of comprehending and incorporating the analytical perspective, and not the other way around. This kind of debate is really a hen or egg dilemma, once again, or rather a mind-brain dichotomy or a ghost in the machine kind of paradox. In terms of anything we may study or approach for study, the analytical or holistic perspective is neither privileged over nor exclusive of the other approach, whatever our manifest values or predilections in scholarship.

General Systems Essays, Vol. II