HOLONOMY and HETERONOMY
| Collection | International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics |
|---|---|
| Year | 2004 |
| Vol. (num.) | 2(1) |
| ID | ◀ 1568 ▶ |
| Object type | General information, Epistemology, ontology or semantics |
Holonomy is “the law of the whole”. ( “Heteronomy”.)
D. BÖHM writes: “Holonomy does not totally deny the relevance of analysis… Indeed, 'the law of the whole' will generally include the possibility of describing the 'loosening' of aspects from each other, so that they will be relatively autonomous in limited contexts (as well as the possibility of describing the interactions of those aspects in a system of heteronomy). However, any form of relative autonomy (and heteronomy) is ultimately limited by holonomy, so that in a broad enough context such forms are seen to be merely aspects, relevated in the holomovement, rather than disjoint and separately existent things in interaction” (1980, p.156-7).
The perspective is finally neither top-down, nor bottom-up.
D. Mc NEIL insists that a General Theory of Systems should be holonomic, “i.e… contain a complete representation of itself, regardless of the echelon of order at which it is applied; for example, all of the central aspects of a general theory of systems must be represented in every subatomic system, mechanical system, social system, cosmological system, and every system in between. It must be self-referential, applicable to itself, and protean, able to change its own form” (1993, p.9).
While this author gives some interesting examples of such aspects, as for instance “toroids” and “fluxes”, this remains still quite a tall order. One also wonders how this could be possible, in accordance with GÖDEL 'S incompleteness.
The protean character however seems to exist, e.g. the various general formulation of the general theory: for instance SABELLI's theory of processes; HAKEN's Synergetics; PRIGOGINE's “total” thermodynamics; D. Mc NEIL's own's dynamic systemology; J.L.LE MOIGNE “Syst+me G+n+ral” and others, less embracing.