Abstract
The search for a foundational general systems theory (GST*) formally became a scientific enterprise with the founding of the Society for the Advancement of General Systems Theory in 1954. Many scientific advances have been made towards a GST*, but GST* is still incomplete and there is a rich ongoing debate about the nature, structure and value of GST*. In this chapter we argue that the general theory of a discipline has a generic structure, which can be inferred by attending to the process by which disciplines build up their knowledge base. We develop a model of this generic structure and then use it to envision the structure and scope of GST*. This provides a principled baseline for assessing the developmental status of GST*, planning work towards its completion, and defending the potential value of GST*.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
George Mobus and Michael Kalton recently proposed a useful list of heuristic “principles of systems science ” (Mobus & Kalton, 2014, pp. 17–30), that could form a useful starting point for developing general systems principles that can be explicitly connected to the manifestation of systemic isomorphies.
- 2.
This view is defended by Mario Bunge, who proposes that GST* does not exist as a distinct theory but only as a collection of specialised theories about each of the kinds of systemic structures and processes (Bunge, 1979, p. 1; 2014, p. 8). A similar but more refined position has been pursued by Len Troncale, who does takes GST* to be distinct from theories about the isomorphies , but sees GST* as a model of the linkages between the isomorphies rather than the principles underlying them (Friendshuh & Troncale, 2012; Troncale, 1978, 1986, 1988). According to Troncale, the isomorphies are not merely correlations between aspects of models of kinds of systems, but isomorphies are objectively real and are the causes of the manifestations of systemic structures and processes (Troncale, 1988, p. 17).
- 3.
Concrete systems are systems with causal powers. GST* was conceived as a general theory over natural systems, hence the specification of its scope as embracing concrete systems. However, it may have significance for abstract systems too.
- 4.
“Empirical” is defined in the OED as “based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic”.
- 5.
We adopt this technical term from its usage in Biology. It derives from the ancient Greek μορφή, morphé, meaning “form”, and λόγος, lógos, meaning “study, research”. In the present context we interpret the notion “form” very widely, to include all aspects of appearances for example shape, structure, composition, colour, functions, behaviours, properties, powers, capacities etc.
- 6.
From the ancient Greek μορφή, morphé, meaning “form”, and from the Greek δυναμικός dynamikos “powerful”, from δύναμις dynamis “power”.
- 7.
From the ancient Greek μορφή, morphé, meaning “form”, and γενετικός, genetikos, meaning “genitive”/“generative”, which in turn derives from γένεσις genesis meaning “origin”. Our usage generalizes the application of the term morphogenetics beyond its current use in biology, where it refers only to the study of the development of normal organic form (Merriam-Webster, n.d.).
- 8.
In many technical disciplines (for example Biology) the term “ontology” is used for what we have here called “subject terminology”. In the context of a disciplinary Knowledge Base we will reserve “ontology” to refer to the set of entities treated as logical or natural objects by the discipline (more on this in Sect. 5.3.4.1), in line with conventional usage in philosophy. In the AKG model we also use the term “ontology” in the Guidance Framework in its philosophical sense, to refer to the worldview component concerned with what exists most fundamentally in the universe (relative to how the term “the universe” is construed in the worldview). The usage context should always make it clear in which sense the term “ontology” is being used.
- 9.
- 10.
From the ancient Greek πρῶτος protos, meaning “first”, and γενετικός, genetikos, meaning “genitive”/”generative”, which in turn derives from γένεσις genesis meaning “origin”. The noun “protogenetics” is not in current scientific use but the adjective “protogenetic” is in use in Geology to refer to mineral inclusions that are older than the host material.
- 11.
From the Greek ὄν, on (gen. Ὄντος, ontos), meaning “being; that which is”, and from –γένεια, −geneia, meaning “mode of production” or γενετικός, genetikos, meaning “genitive”/”generative”, which in turn derives from γένεσις genesis meaning “origin”.
- 12.
From the Greek φυλή, φῦλον - phylé, phylon meaning “tribe, clan, or race” and from γενετικός, genetikós meaning “origin, source, or birth”.
- 13.
The term “functional pattern” is used here in a neutral way, and does not entail the existence of an intentional designer for whom the ‘function’ has some ‘purpose’.
- 14.
Literally, “the art of producing value” from the Greek ἀξίᾱ, axiā, meaning “value, worth” and the related ancient Greek terms τέχνη, tékʰnɛː, meaning “craftsmanship, craft or art”, τεχνικός, tekhnikós, meaning “of or pertaining to art, artistic, skilful” and τίκτειν, tíktein, “to bring forth, produce, engender”.
- 15.
- 16.
The term “panarchy” in the sense used here refers to a form of organised complexity that involves a totality that has multiple interrelationships without forming a hierarchy, so that the totality evolves but not under some kind of linear dominance relationship. See (Gunderson & Holling, 2001).
- 17.
References
Bailey, K. D. (1994). Typologies and taxonomies: An introduction to classification techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bard, J. B. L., & Rhee, S. Y. (2004). Ontologies in biology: Design, applications and future challenges. Nature Reviews Genetics, 5(3), 213–222.
Billingham, J. (2014a). GST as a route to new systemics. Presented at the 22nd European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research (EMCSR 2014), 2014, Vienna, Austria. In EMCSR 2014: Civilisation at the crossroads – Response and responsibility of the systems sciences. Book of Abstracts (J. M. Wilby, S. Blachfellner, and W. Hofkirchner, Eds) (pp. 435–442). Vienna: EMCSR.
Billingham, J. (2014b). In Search of GST. Position paper for the 17th conversation of the International Federation for Systems Research on the subject of ‘philosophical foundations for the modern systems movement’, St. Magdalena, Linz, Austria, 27 April–2 may 2014, pp. 1–4.
Billingham, J. (2015). GST* as the unifying theory of the systems sciences. In D. Rousseau, J. Wilby, J. Billingham, S. Blachfellner (Eds.), Systems philosophy and its relevance to systems engineering. Workshop held on 11 July 2015 at the International symposium of the international council on systems engineering (INCOSE) in Seattle, Washington, USA. https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg2015iw15/systems-science-workshop-at-is15
Bogdanov, A. A. (1913). Tektologiya: Vseobschaya Organizatsionnaya Nauka [Tektology: Universal organizational science] (3 vols). Saint Petersburg: Semyonov’ Publisher.
Boulding, K. E. (1956). General systems theory – The skeleton of science. Management Science, 2(3), 197–208.
Bunge, M. (1979). Ontology II: A world of systems. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Bunge, M. (2014). Big questions come in bundles, hence they should be tackled systemically. Systema, 2(2), 4–13.
Francois, C. (2006). Transdisciplinary unified theory. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 23(5), 617–624.
Friendshuh, L., & Troncale, L. R. (2012). Identifying fundamental systems processes for a general theory of systems. In Proceedings of the 56th annual conference, International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS), July 15–20 (23 pp.) San Jose State University
Gillett, C., & Loewer, B. (Eds.). (2001). Physicalism and its discontents. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2001). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Hill, D. P., Smith, B., McAndrews-Hill, M. S., & Blake, J. A. (2008). Gene ontology annotations: What they mean and where they come from. BMC Bioinformatics, 9(5), 1–9.
Koestler, A. (1967). The ghost in the machine. Chicago: Henry Regnery.
Laszlo, E. (1987). Evolution: The grand synthesis. Boston: New Science Library.
Laszlo, E. (1994). An introduction to general evolution theory. Journal of Biological Systems, 2(1), 105–110.
Laszlo, E. (1996a). Evolution: Foundations of a general theory. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Laszlo, A. (1996b). Evolutionary systems design: Way beyond the two cultures. In Proceedings of the Conversation on the comprehensive redesign of societal systems, International Systems Institute, Pacific Grove, CA.
Laszlo, A. (2001). The epistemological foundations of evolutionary systems design. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 18(4), 307–321.
Martin, J. (2011). INCOSE Systems science charter. INCOSE. Retrieved from http://www.incose.org/docs/default-source/wgcharters/systems-science.pdf
Mayor, C., & Robinson, L. (2014). Ontological realism and classification: Structures and concepts in the gene ontology. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 686–697.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Definition of MORPHOGENETIC. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morphogenetic
Mingers, J. (1997). Systems typologies in the light of autopoiesis: A reconceptualization of Boulding’s hierarchy, and a typology of self-referential systems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 14(5), 303–313.
Mobus, G. E., & Kalton, M. C. (2014). Principles of systems science (2015th ed.). New York: Springer.
Rousseau, D. (2011). Minds, souls and nature: A systems-philosophical analysis of the mind-body relationship in the light of near-death experiences (PhD thesis). University of Wales Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, Wales, UK.
Rousseau, D., Billingham, J., Wilby, J. M., & Blachfellner, S. (2016). In search of general systems theory. Systema, Special Issue - General Systems Transdisciplinarity, 4(1), 76–92.
Rousseau, D., Wilby, J. M., Billingham, J., & Blachfellner, S. (2016). A typology for the systems field. Systema, Special Issue - General Systems Transdisciplinarity, 4(1), 15–47.
Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106(6), 467–482.
Troncale, L. R. (1978). Linkage propositions between fifty principal systems concepts. In G. J. Klir (Ed.), Applied general systems research (pp. 29–52). New York: Plenum Press.
Troncale, L. R. (1986). Knowing natural systems enables better design of man-made systems: The linkage proposition model. In R. Trappl (Ed.), Power, autonomy, utopia (pp. 43–80). New York: Plenum.
Troncale, L. R. (1988). The systems sciences: What are they? Are they one, or many? European Journal of Operational Research, 37(1), 8–33.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1932). Allgemeine Theorie, Physikochemie, Aufbau und Entwicklung des Organismus (Theoretische Biologie— Band I). Berlin: Gebrüder Borntraeger.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1950). The theory of open systems in physics and biology. Science, 111(2872), 23–29.
Wilby, J. M. (2006). An essay on Kenneth E. Boulding’s general systems theory: The skeleton of science. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 23(5), 695–699.
Yon Rhee, S., Wood, V., Dolinski, K., & Draghici, S. (2008). Use and misuse of the gene ontology annotations. Nature Reviews Genetics, 9(7), 509–515.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 David Rousseau
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rousseau, D., Wilby, J., Billingham, J., Blachfellner, S. (2018). The Knowledge Base of General Systemology. In: General Systemology. Translational Systems Sciences, vol 13. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0892-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0892-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-0891-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-0892-4
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)