IESC:Introduction
"Socrates complained about writing. He felt it forced one to follow an argument rather than participate in it, and he disliked both its alienation and its persistence. He was unsettled by the idea that a manuscript traveled without the author, with whom no argument was possible. Worse, the author could die and never be talked away from the position taken in the writing" (Alan C. KAY, Sc. American, sept. 1991)
"It is the confusion of (the) different meanings that causes an intolerable babel ruling out any possibility of the strict explication of appropriate concepts. We believe that the way out lies in singling out that part of the content of these concepts which makes them specifically systemic ones, and in carrying out the necessary systematization on this basis" (I.BLAUBERG et al., 1977, p.287)
My first motive to start compiling a "Encyclopedia of Systemics and Cybernetics" has been grounded in my own doubts about various aspects of these new approaches, as reflected in the writings of numerous authors.
To begin with: Why did they appear and why did they so during the second half of this century?
We can perhaps go back to the founding fathers. Ludwig von BERTALANFFY was obviously wondering why very similar concepts and models were appearing independently in many different disciplines. And which was the basic nature, of such similarities? It seemed that some common substrate existed and, being this the case, that it could be useful for creating valuable synthesis and short-cuts in a number of disciplines.
BERTALANFFY never stated very clearly that all "systems" have in common their complexity, which is different and much more than complication, because it reflects some basic and coordinated types of internal organization and interesting similarities in the basic nature of external contexts, whatever their particular nature. He did however perceived these general features as the common basis for his inquiry.
As to Norbert WIENER - particularly inclined to mathematics and engineering - he observed the seemingly universal character of some specific relationships, that could be modelized through similar mechanisms in very different kinds of systems. He thus introduced feedback, leading to the basic notions of "Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine". It became immediately clear that the feedback relation implied a closing loop, leading to nonlinearities and complex devices, that could be found in natural organisms or created to steer artifacts.
It is now confirmed that "complexity" is the master-concept. Emergence of complexity:
- paralleled the emergence of a better perception of complex systems in nature (Living beings, ecosystems, animal societies) and man-made (in business, economical, social, political).
- led to the dawn of our understanding of the intricate character of natural entities, either closely packed (a plant, an animal) or loosely interconnected (biota).
I have in this way been driven to the conclusion that Systemics and Cybernetics were interconnected and adaptive responses to complexity, either newly built in artefacts, or newly perceived in nature.
A serious problem for me, and probably for most of the would-be users of these new approaches has been the piecemeal appearance of numerous concepts and models, all somehow referred to complex entities, but in a haphazard and unconnected way. In effect, many systemic concepts have been elaborated under various guises and from different viewpoints by a number of systemists, or even by non-systemists. In some cases the correspondences are less than obvious, and many are probably yet to be discovered.
For example, as an afterthought, feedback seemed to be somehow related to dissipative structuration and hierarchies; variety to control; information to entropy; entropy to dissipative structuration; information to variety; etc... But these "somehow" should better be explained!
Many authors brought in numerous new notions, but it seemed to me quite difficult to find the significant linkages between them all. While, after all, a science of complexity must necessarily be complex itself, the crux of the matter is to discover a meaningful conceptual structure for the whole, if any.
Another very serious problem is that even nowadays, most self-styled "systemists" are interested in Systemics and(or) Cybernetics only within the limits of their own disciplinarian activity. This is understandable, but by doing so, they cut themselves out from the main and most important meanings of the new approach:
a) a general understanding of their personal location within global science and global society;
b) the emergence of a meta-language opening the real possibility for conversation, and most important, for true transdisciplinarian conversation.
Such metalanguage is now a much needed tool to compensate for the growing Tower of Babel syndrome which is a very unfortunate result of the evermore reduced and particularist scope of an ever growing number of very specialized disciplines, whose increasing isolation was already denounced many years ago by Kenneth BOULDING.
It must however be recognized that the systemic movement still suffers from chronic unsystemism also denounced many years ago by Margaret MEAD, at the time President of the S.G.S.R. ("Who shall systemize the systemists?"). There exists practically no global overview of the whole field, even if some quite synthetic theories have been proposed (MILLER, HAKEN, SABELLI, Mc NEILL, for instance).
It seemed of utmost importance to try to put together a kind of encyclopedia about the systemic approach, embracing as much information as possible in order to:
- create an introductory compendium and source book for any interested newcomer
- put information until now widely scattered in time and space at disposal of seasoned systemists.
- open the field as a whole to comparative and creative debate.
Accordingly, the three basic aims of the encyclopedia are to define (when possible and useful); to comment and discuss; and to interconnect systemic and cybernetic concepts, models and meanings. This last aspect is properly the systemic one.
Practical realism has been another important motive to tackle this work. I had to see myself with many critical real life situations, including war, civil strife, decolonization, transcontinental emigration, authoritarian regimes, learning new languages and trades, enduring painful personal losses, etc...
I am also very much afraid that the present slide towards a general and worldwide crisis of civilization has still to reach its nadir - perhaps with a global ecological crisis in a still more or less distant future: 50, or 100 years?
Meanwhile, the present situation is characterized by a piecemeal approach to all complex situations, generally commanded by short-term political or economic expediency, if not downright by strictly limited personal goals (many times non-sancti). This is a trap from which escape will prove very difficult, and probably impossible without previous vastly-embracing "educative" catastrophes. If and when these occur, the short-term and narrow view will prove useless and the systemic understanding could become a decisive factor, if clear-minded and very courageous people happen to be at hand. Our present responsibility is to handle over "food for thought" to the new generations.
Accordingly, I feel it very important that systemics and cybernetics as a new "Weltan-schauung" should as quickly as possible expand out of Academe. We - i.e. all of us - will evermore need good models of complex situations, that cannot anymore be understood, evaluated and amended by the exclusive use of our present linear and reductionist models. Some examples of such situations are: underdevelopment; the universal squandering of resources; the worldwide spread of unemployment; the hothouse effect; the new paludism and tuberculosis crisis and the AIDS one; the general ageing of populations; the growing cost of technified science, particularly medicine; the ethics of genetic engineering; etc, etc...
Accordingly, this encyclopedia also aims at transmitting systemic-cybernetic models and concepts to Jane and John Citizen, who need them urgently, and most of all to their children and children's children, who are going to inherit our blunders and our sins.
I thus personally deplore the multiplication of terminology derived from the old Greek language: "Autopoiesis", "Homeostasis", "Isomorphy", "Stigmergy" and the like, which could have perfectly well been replaced with plain English wording: "Self-reproduction", "Stability within limits", "Total similarity", "Transmission through environmental context". Accordingly, I introduced and discussed such terms only because they bear real significance or are widely used as a kind of shorthand, while no plain English substitutes are known.
Consequently, I am impatient with esoterism in Systemics and Cybernetics. We need to be understandable if we want our models and methods to reach the decision makers who really could use them and probably will need them urgently in the coming years. They specially include spiritual and institutional leaders, managers, politicians, and educators.
After 40 years of learning and thinking on systems, I still discover new aspects and insights into the systemic perspective. I have slowly reached the conclusion through personal experience that Systemics is the most important mental and psychological mutation since at least the Renaissance, and possible the Presocratic philosophers and, in a worldwide perspective, since Bouddhism, as a philosophy, and Chinese Confucianism and Taoism.
Also, after 60 years of being in four continents a more or less willing or unwilling actor and/or witness of this troubled finishing millennium, I must conclude that mankind is still far from the point where a sufficient number of people will acquire a reasonable non-magical and non-ideological understanding of the world they live in, even if general information and consciousness have very much progressed nearly everywhere since 1940.
Personal limitations
Insofar as Systemics may further such understanding, and as much as my best ability will allow me, I feel a responsibility to cooperate to this progress.
This work has been prepared in Argentina by a French-speaking Belgian citizen, who never lived permanently in any English-speaking country. This implies some limitations... but also some advantages.
Nearly nowhere in South America is it possible to find any printed material on systems and cybernetics in English (and even in Spanish, very few translations are available). As a result, I depended basically on what I was able to find out for myself in Europe and the States, or on what important systemists leaders, or personal friends have been kind enough to supply me, as for example a photocopy of some specific out of print work!
As a former and now retired officer of the Belgian Foreign Service, I was also never a member of any university or college staff. Consequently, I had, and have still now, to cover personally all expenses related to Systemics and Cybernetics, as for instance subscriptions to journals (which are becoming evermore costly), participation to meetings, travels, etc. This has been a sometimes severe limitation.
While most of my sources are the original ones, I also had to rely on quotations, or on translations (for example from Russian), or even worse, retranslations, when the original was unavailable, out of print or out of my reach. This has been signaled in every case. I translated myself numerous quotations from French authors, as well as a lesser number of others from Dutch, German, Italian and Spanish. In every case, a considerable effort was made to reproduce the original meanings as best as possible.
Moreover, I am well aware that a given source may not be the original one, nor possibly the most up to date. I simply used either the best (in my opinion) to my knowledge, or the best one at hand. In some cases I did not return to the original authors, using instead some clear and synthetic summary by a recent author, who sometimes clarifies a subject better than the original author, who can be obscure or esoteric, or as Socrates feared, alas not anymore able to follow any "argument".
I did not introduce in the encyclopedia logical and mathematical formalisms for various reasons. The first one is that I do not feel really qualified to enter with any depth in this particular aspect of Systemics and Cybernetics. It is to be hoped that some other author will in a near future tackle the difficult task to gather and interconnect the works in this field by authors like LØFGREN, RENYI, VALLÉE, DUBOIS and many others.
There are also other reasons for not entering in formalisms:
- It seems more useful for the time being to try to explain the whole subject in terms understandable by lay people;
- It would be better for anybody interested in formalisms to go to the original sources, which I have tried to indicate in every opportunity.
To whom this work is addressed
Paraphrasing POPPER on rational arguments, it could be said that people will not be moved by systemic arguments until they adopt a systemic attitude. This is of course a tall order.
It seems however decisive that any interested person should be able to find basic understandable information, collected in such a way as to avoid a very long and uncertain search in an enormous - but still probably quite incomplete - stack of scattered sources.
Accordingly, the general aim of the encyclopedia is to offer a tentative frame of reference for anyone interested. Anyhow, in Ernst JÜNGER words: "We cannot give the solution, as any solution is true only for who encountered it" (In his novel "Heliopolis", French translation, p.362).
Some items in the encyclopedia are quite elemental, others less so. As I see no reason why Systemics should remain restricted to higher level learning, my hope is that the work should even prove accessible at least partly at high school level for those young students who should become interested in the subject, or to any other intelligent person.
However, unfortunately but also inevitably, all that entered under the headings in the encyclopedia will not be immediately crystal clear for any user, even if great efforts have been made toward maximum transparency. Some notions are really difficult to grasp at the beginning. I myself needed many years to obtain a reasonable command of the whole subject, admittedly and partly because it slowly came of age during my own lifetime.
It is even possible that some concepts or models which presently appear to be significant could be seen as trivial or dubious in the future: in such kind of work, some risks must inevitably be taken.
Basics: What does Systemics means
The really fundamental meaning and usefulness of Systemics is the acquisition of a new (but complementary) way to look more globally at the world, i.e. J. de ROSNAY's "Macroscope".
The mere use of some systems concepts or models applied to any specific situation is generally useful. But this should be only a very partial and insufficient response to the real challenge, which is the fabulous increase of complexity and the multiplication of complex situations that urgently demand a most global synthesis capability for understanding, forecasting, planning and coherent action.
Systems, combined with Cybernetics, offers a holographic view of the real world, i.e. every systemic concept contains implicitly significant aspects of some or many other ones.
Only a more or less extended set of systemic models and/or concepts contains the essential of Systemics. However a start can be made through the serious pondering of any of them. Purely scholastic or reductionist exclusiveness is thus blocking systemic thinking and is antinomic to its essence.
Systemics implies a willingness to explore analogies and metaphors, in a critical but positive spirit. Many analogies and metaphors, specially most popular ones, reflects the perception by their users of some subjacent general rule, process or structure, worth of further inquiry. This is one reason why this work is more than a simple collection of definitions.
Donald McNEIL complains that, 45 years after von BERTALANFFY's first statements, we still have no General Systems Theory.
One critical question is precisely: Does a really all embracing General Systems Theory exist?. And if not, should it?. And under which guise?
My - different - purpose has been to create a kind of conceptual hologram of the whole field, as it is now. This is of course no General Systems Theory. However, looking at the hologram from any angle, systems concepts will appear in a connected way, revealing I hope, the general "skeleton" (in BOULDING's words) of which a genuine General Systems Theory could - or not - emerge and become clearly visible (see D. McNEIL, 1993b)
Another bone of contention is so-called "Systems Science". In John WARFIELD's words: "Unfortunately, there is a considerable confusion about what constitutes systems science, even among people who choose to identify themselves with systems-related areas" (in "Economy and Systems Science", 1990, p.67).
The encyclopedia does not pretend to rigorously define what "Systems Science(s)" is supposed to be, or not. It tries to collect as many as possible concepts and models related to complexity, most of which appeared in specialized disciplines without any clear a priori understanding of their general value. Examples are: Punctuated Equilibrium in paleontology; Stigmergy in entomology; or Hexagonal space filling in human establishments. Some of these are even now totally ignored by most systemists who, as a result, are unable to consider them as possible general models or concepts, fit to describe and, if possible, explain a number of situations in a number of different fields.
In any case, global or total knowledge is now impossible at the individual level. It should be replaced by as global as possible collective coherence in acquired knowledge, through conversation (which is in itself a systemic tool - G.PASK).
Outside her/his own professional specialization, a systemist is always treading a mine field when she/he refers her/himself to some really specific research. However, one of her/his most significant role is to create conceptual interrelations. This is not easy and, accordingly, one must more than once use prudent qualifications as for example "possibly", "probably", "could", "should", "seems to", etc...
This is the price to pay for advancing some speculations that may be stimulating and potentially useful.
Another point is that it is self-defeating, ill-advised and finally useless to try simply to convince specialists to become generalists. Specialists know best about their own work, which moreover is necessary and of utmost practical importance. This fact should be recognized once and for all, in order to eliminate a needless cause of controversy. The real point is to interconnect specialists and provide them with a meta-language or lingua franca in order to make them able to tackle global and complex situations, in collaboration with non-specialized people, mainly managers, administrators and politicians, who also need systemic concepts and models in their own right.
The historical triumph of reductionism, manifest in our everyday life, led to a narrow tecnocratism, which tends regularly to micro quick fixes and empirical tinkering, or even brushing the problems under the carpet.
Many systemists should however share the blame, as their response has been too frequently a short-sighted, hostile and superficial critique of "reductionism". We should return to a 1984 paper in which L. TRONCALE established a list of performance criteria for "General Theory of Systems" (not "Theory of General Systems"), which unfortunately has been widely ignored.
From another perspective, it appeared to me with growing evidence that it is not possible to construct a systemic-cybernetic language without constant reference to the general conditions of existence of any language. This explains the presence and emphasis in the encyclopedia on semiotics (PEIRCE, ECO), general semantics (KORZYBSKI) and generally many psychological references to forms of learning; acquisition of meanings; to meanings and to their representations (WHITHEHEAD, RUSSELL, BATESON, PIAGET, WATZLAWICK, von FOERSTER, von GLASERSFELD, etc.) quoted authors, BUNGE, GÖDEL, van GIGCH, ROSEN, WARFIELD, and others have been given serious coverage, even if some of them are, or were, not specifically known as practicant systemists.
For similar reasons, systemic epistemology has been given wide attention, as it seems basic in order to stabilize Systems as a scientific methodology. Accordingly, along the formerly Generally, the meaning of most of the formal mathematical and logical basements of systems are still somewhat enigmatic. This is the case with fractals and self-similarities, cellular automata and self-reproduction, fuzziness, catastrophes, chaos, dissipative structuration, GÖDEL's incompleteness, BREMERMANN's limit, CHAITIN's algorithmic incompressibility, HEISENBERG's indeterminism, etc... As commented by John CASTI: "Ascertaining the exact nature of the relationship between a real world phenomenon and a mathematical model of that phenomenon is probably the most fundamental problem in theoretical science" (1984, p.282).
On the other hand, Systemics and Cybernetics are still widely in a state of flux. It is therefore difficult, and even possibly unsuitable at the time being, to fix them very well defined boundaries. As discovered by this compiler during his evaluation work, systemic-cybernetic semantics, epistemology and ontology are still in process of formation. Some concepts or models have somewhat fuzzy meanings (for example, "Preadaptation"). Some others seem to overlap (somewhat, or much). Some other ones are not, or not yet really general, or did not yet become fused with some other ones of general meaning ("Catabolism"?). These are good reasons to remain flexible.
One of the main aims of the work is to contribute to what John WARFIELD calls "referential transparency", here in Systemics and Cybernetics. This is no mean task, and I do not fancy to have it completed. However I have gathered a considerable number of elements that will probably be useful in order to come closer to transparency. In any case, a deeper understanding of some very important concepts, as for example those enounced by von NEUMANN, ASHBY, von FOERSTER, PRIGOGINE, MATURANA, to cite only some, is a must. The spirit of the work is to incite the user to go to the sources.
D. McNEIL rightly observed that an encyclopedia, specially an alphabetic one, cannot be a substitute to an integrated view of Systemics. This seems correct to me even if I tried to emphasize global views by cross-referencing and clustering. I hope that the present work could at least be a stepping stone:
– for those who want to acquire a basic under-
standing of the systemic approach;
– for anyone who would wish to attempt for her/himself LASZLO's "Great synthesis", i.e. not merely adding some specific view on systems.
My view is that the encyclopedia should be a linguistic and semantic system in the sense of de SAUSSURE: "An organized totality, made of solidary elements, that can be defined only reciprocally in relation to their place in the totality". Only a frequent and critical use of such a language can produce a reasonable understanding of the ways meanings are interconnected or correlated.
Synthesis, as understood here is not a limiting or purely classifying one, but on the contrary, an open one, a multi-combinatory one. While the language as a whole acts as a global determinant, it allows also for a limitless open space for present and future variations: those produced by myself, and all those triggered in every user's mind.
In every case, I strenuously strived for clarity. No single quoted item entered the work without having been pondered. When necessary, comments and critique have been added, hoping to better the understanding of any notion that would possibly seem obscure for the reader. However, again, nothing can replace reference to the original authors.
Finally, I have tried to give a voice to as many people as possible, including many non-anglo-saxon authors, while still respecting the preeminence of the main concepts.
I tried also to interconnect various streams in the field by sometimes using information from less well known sources, as well as some frequently left aside because of language, or geographical, or simply diffusion problems. Examples are the Namur triennial International Congresses of the International Association of Cybernetics, or the works of the Systeem Groep Nederland.
Conceptual contents
Before taking any decision about anything, we need to acquire an as good as possible knowledge of the system about whose future we want to decide, the conditions that may influence it, and have an idea of its possible futures. In P. ALLEN's words: "... the necessary precondition to a discussion of policy is to have a model", and such a model, as a rule, must be dynamic and nonlinear.
Accordingly, what practically matters in Systemics and Cybernetics is the combined use of concepts, analogies, homomorphies and isomorphies to construct complex models of concrete systems.
In consequence, I adopted a quite extended and many-sided view of the work's content.
Many not well known terms have been included, in accordance with the following criteria:
– that the term really introduces some signifi-
cant systemic meaning, or at least some
specific shade of meaning, for ex. H. PRAT's
"aura", or P. GRASSÉ's "stigmergy";
– that it has been at least sometimes used in the litterature, for ex. R. GERARD's "artorg" or L. TRONCALE's "discinym".
– that some significant relation to systemic situations could be found, as for ex. through G. CHAITIN's "algorithmic compressibility".
From another perspective, strictly speaking, a more or less limited systemic definition of "organization", for ex., could be given. However, many systemists offered complementary views on organization (ACKOFF, BEER, BOULDING, BROEKSTRA, LEMOIGNE, MILLER, SIMON, VARELA, etc...) and this multi-dimensional perspective is so rich that it cannot be ignored in a work that tries to reflect as best as possible the wide content of Systemics.
It has also been taken into account that, between 1954 and 1997, a slow shift in systems terminology has taken place, as a commendable result of a progressive improvement of systems semantics, elimination of ambiguities, or even misleading uses of the original terminology: the differences between models of an isolated, a closed and an open system, or the precise meaning of "positive" feedback, are examples.
Some items of a seemingly very specific or specialized character have also been introduced (for example: "monoculture" - from Unesco-Unep Glossary) because of their general importance in systemic situations. On one side, this connects valuable information of special character to the mainstream of Systemics, with interesting generalizing possibilities. On the other hand, it may lead specialists to a better connected understanding of their own field.
Some terms were included:
– because it seemed useful to seek their meaning in the systemic perspective. This has been specially the case of some human sciences terms, like "ideology", "norm", or "value".
– as they seem to carry a potential for a general systemic meaning: "swarm", "symbiogenesis" or "Umweltlehre" are examples.
— mainly because they lead to a better understanding of the practical meaning and use of their implicit (and sometimes even enigmatic) systemic significance: "ethnocentrism", "parable of the boiled frog", or "Saint Matthews principle".
— for their practical value, as for example: "disasters: a systemic view", "patrimonial accounting", "perverse effects".
– because, while closely related to a specific discipline, their more general systemic nature, aspects or character are becoming more and more obvious: "anabolism", "autokinesis", or "catalysis".
– because of their relevance to Systemics for some particular reason: "Club of Rome", as a user of Systems Dynamics; "culture" as interpreted in systemic terms; "Dictyostelium discoideum", as a biological example of self-organization and sociogenesis.
A number of terms in the encyclopedia are related to para-systemic, or even anti-systemic views. They have been introduced for reasons of epistemological clarification, as it should be very difficult to understand some aspects of Systemics without the background of non-systemic situations or attitudes as "linearity", "reification" or "reductionism".
Some other terms have definite systemic and, simultaneously some non-systemic meanings, whose limits must be considered. An example is "memory".
A number of more or less technical terms were introduced because they are systemic in an implicit way or could be considered from a systemic viewpoint, even if many practitioners are working in a non-systemic style. Examples are: "research and development", "risk analysis", "sustainable development".
Some other terms, as for example "forecast", or "prospective", are used as stepping stones to define a systemic way of research and inquiry into the topic.
More items were incorporated, not so much for their intrinsic specialized interest (which may be considerable), but for their general systemic significance: "hysteresis", "Kondratiev cycle", "semiology", "thermodynamics", etc...
Considering their importance as modelization tools, logical and mathematical concepts related to Systemics have been presented, at least in general terms: "Boolean nets", "catastrophes", "chaos", "graphs", "KAM theorems", "neural nets", "topology", and others.
Superpositions in terminology have been discussed. Frequently different authors converge toward a systemic phenomenon through different ways. For example, the shaping of a system on a higher level of organization is termed by LASZLO as "emergence", by TURCHIN as "meta-system transition", by PRIGOGINE as "nucleation at bifurcation points through dissipative structuration", by researchers on networks as "spontaneous organization", etc... None of these concepts should be left out, as they give a kind of holographic view of various aspects of this type of phenomena. Even J. MILLER's taxonomy of living systems can be viewed as a photography of the results of emergence.
Consequently, the encyclopedia is somewhat redundant, and intentionally so, as it is not possible to assimilate any systemic set of concepts without viewing these again and again from different but more or less interrelated viewpoints. It is hoped that this feature will help to the globally interconnected understanding of our subject as a coherent whole network of concepts and models.
Some users will possibly think - or even say or write - that this work is a very mixed bag. This may be true, but so is that hypercomplex world that we have constructed and in which we must live, using models and concepts as different as the golden proportion, quanta theory, chaos, or organizational closure in perceptual and psychological terms.
Many examples are given, in order to avoid a purely abstract and theoretical character that could hinder the practical (and very much needed) uses of Systemics. In effect, as I believe that the systems approach and systems methodology are first rate tools to confront present and future complex challenges, I am critical of some tendencies that could exert a negative influence on their diffusion: excesses of superfluous abstract formalisms; exaggerated claims to a superficial universalism; unwarranted attacks against specialization; tendency to use jargon, etc...
This is not to say that I believe in the practical possibility of absolute objectivity. But I would at least like that any user should stop in his/her tracks everytime these words appear, and think for a moment about their relative personal, social and cultural meaning.
A final caveat about the evaluation of concepts seems necessary. In my own comments, I have tried to avoid loaded adjectives like: "correct", "convenient", "desirable", "legitimate", "reasonable", "satisfying", "valid", and the like (or their opposites) as such notions correspond to implicit personal or socio-cultural criteria that may not be universally admitted. When quoted authors use such qualifications, which have been respected, their dubious character should always be remembered.
Linguistics and Semantics
We should now turn back to the Tower of Babel syndrome. As noted by John WARFIELD, establishing a satisfactory conceptual language has been in the past the condition for the success of many scientific disciplines. This was done for example by LAVOISIER for inorganic chemistry; KEKULE for organic chemistry; MENDEL and FISCHER for genetics; LEIBNIZ and BOOLE for logic; CRICK and WATSON for biochemistry; WEGENER for plate tectonics; and quite recently by PRIGOGINE for generalized thermodynamics.
Precisely, one of the problems of the systems movement is the persistently scattered character of its language, which has remained ill-connected, confuse and fragmented. Accordingly, the main objective of the present work is to correlate and unify the language of Systemics and Cybernetics, in order to transform it into an efficient tool for the study of complexity. For beginners as well as for advanced researchers.
Margaret BODEN writes: "The'meaning' of an idea represented within a semantic net is a function of its place in the system" (1990, p.95). This is a very neat formulation of my own general concept of this encyclopedia as a network. Three aspects should be emphasized: – Language is always a mirror for the mind and the culture. But it is not always a faithful one;
– Every item has a potential for multiple linkages (TRONCALE), each of which adds - or restraints - some shade of meaning;
- Semantics is also a process: the network becomes more useful and efficient when used. The encyclopedia offers a connectionist aspect, as it invites to "ramble" freely within the whole systemic and cybernetic conceptual space. It also proposes a constructivist way of use, as such a free rambling must normally lead to the progressive construction in the mind of any individual user of her/his own semantic net.
In a converging way, every concept becomes more like an attractor or the center of a semantic cluster, including what Margaret BODEN calls a "penumbra" of more or less closely related concepts (1990, p.96, 175).
There is some degree of redundancy in the whole of the work. This allows for a multidimensional view of these interconnected concepts. "Connection", for instance is not exactly or merely a "relationship". Moreover, it acquires a slightly different meaning in "connectionism" or in "connection machine". This is a useful feature to obtain a deeper understanding of the systemic language.
Some doubts should also be clearly stated.
A number of terms of frequent use have, in common language, a somewhat fuzzy character. Examples are: "action", "change", "class", "concept", "description", "effect", "learning", "object", "problem", "representation", or "situation".
These apparently quite universal and taken for granted terms should not be passed by without a short pause to remember that their meaning(s) should be pondered, as they can be less transparent than frequently believed.
In values - or norms- loaded words, there exists a kind of "semantic declination", comparable with the "magnetic" one. A non-systemic term like "democracy", for example means something quite variable according to countries and cultures. This may even be the case with a supposedly rational concept, as for example "order", or "organization". Here again we have a case for a reflexive pause.
Finally, I was not always convinced that some terms used by some systemists had really a systemic meaning. They could even in some cases be considered as contaminants in the systemic language. Not a few have however be included, generally with a critical evaluation, whose responsibility is assumed. The user should decide for her/himself.
In any case it seems better to remain open and tolerant.
I tried to alleviate as much as possible some practical linguistic problems.
In some cases, quotations from authors reproduce some combersome redaction. The original has always been reproduced without modifications, in order to strictly respect the authors' work. Only in some serious cases have critical observations been made.
Most quotations are from the original texts. However in some infrequent cases, due to the unavailability of originals (out of print, out of reach), I had to retranslate to English from a translation in Spanish, French or German. This is not of course a very satisfactory method.
In some few cases, however, available original texts were not used because recent authors presented a specially clear and synthetic overview of a difficult concept. An example is K. DE GREENE crystal clear explanation of HAKEN's "order parameter" concept.
The whole work has been redacted in American English, with the exception of quotes from British or European authors, who may have used U.K. English, a feature that was respected. This is the reason why it is possible to find two different spellings in the encyclopedia, as for example "behaviour" or "behavior"
Jargon has been avoided as much as possible, as well as unnecessary (in my opinion!) abstractions: both act as a strong repellent against many potentially interested users. On the contrary, many examples and comments, some of them very close to popular common sense have been used.
The fuzzy limits of the work
What should be included and what should be rejected in such a work? There are two complementary dangers: to be too tolerant with seemingly senseless or totally redundant terminology... or to be too intolerant.
This problem has already been encountered for example in relation to biological terms ("anabolism", etc.), introduced because of a possible generalization in systemic terms that could be duly established in the future. The same difficulty appears with terminology from artificial intelligence, computer science, ecology, ethology, expert systems, etc... Even some quite general notions, related to the not so rational way we sometimes assess issues and situations, mostly considered as "obvious", have been discussed, because of some new shades of meaning from a systemic viewpoint: "change", "choice", "cost", "efficiency", "goal", "object", for instance. Other similar cases have been considered above. In general, I preferred to err on the tolerant side.
Some more specific items have been included mainly to try a critical evaluation, (as for example R. SHELDRAKE's "morphic fields"), as they may have a systemic outlook, but are not (yet?) consensually accepted in the mainstream systemic thinking.
Furthermore, I suspect that some, or even many systemic concepts and models are still to be discovered. Some mechanisms, used in a specific discipline, could be possibly given a more general character. An example is "apoptosis", a general cellular mechanism of cell self-destruction, also present in the brain of Alzheimer's disease patients. Could such a mechanism be somehow active in other types of social networks? The "stigmergy" concept, introduced in this work, is obviously an example of such possible generalizations, that could be much more than metaphors.
Undoubtedly, much work remains to be done in many different directions; this explains why the encyclopedia is interspersed with question marks, an unexpected feature in such a work.
While I always tried to reproduce as fully and as faithfully as possible all authors views and concepts, it remains obvious that it is impossible within the limits of short articles or entries to express all the shades of meaning developed in a paper or in a book. Accordingly, every quoted item has been carefully referenced in order to allow and encourage the user to go to the source.
Basic information has been added on the main systemic organizations in the world.
How the work is ordered and presented
The encyclopedia was constructed by progressive accretion, "reaping" terms corresponding to models and concepts from many and very different sources.
A curious result emerged spontaneously: a number of terms and expressions started to form clusters in the two following ways:
— "Blocks" of concepts corresponding to specific theories, as for example "Catastrophe theory", Communication", "Thermodynamics of far-from-equilibrium systems", etc. At times some isolated elements came to accrue a cluster (or various ones): "Learning matrixes" obviously are related to learning, but they also introduce insights about the concept and uses of matrixes in general.
– Clusters tended to coalesce around some quite specific notion. Examples are "Control", or "Model".
While related entries are as much as possible clustered, they are not fused. It seemed more convenient to neatly individualize different aspects of the same concept in order to encourage due consideration of the corresponding shades of meaning.
Even so, the general ordering of terms remains somewhat arbitrary. For instance, abstract terms describing systems are all listed under "system", as for example "system, multilevel" or "system, stationary". But specific concrete systems are at their corresponding alphabetic place as: "social system", "socio-technical system".
Generally, in composed expressions (as for example "circadian rhythm"), the alphabetic order chosen in the encyclopedia has been selected taking into account the meaning of the most specific term - in this case "circadian". However a reminder has been introduced at the corresponding place: "Rhythm, circadian".
The fact that such a work should in principle be alphabetic has some negative aspects, as for instance the need to separate items that are co-significant.
It would be advisable for the user to move "back and forth" (M. MARUYAMA, 1994, p.X), within the network of concepts and models in order to avoid unwarranted disconnections. While this may be difficult, the possibility has been created to criss-cross the whole work by using the net of terms printed in bold. It would be interesting in the future to consider a graphical representation of interconnections by linkage graphs (TRONCALE).
Nearly every term defined or concept explained in the encyclopedia is emphasized in bold types, everytime it is used. Some few exceptions are terms so basic and frequently used that the use of bold would be pointless: "Concept" "Cybernetics", "System", "Systemics".
The intention in using bold for general cross-referencing is double:
- That the user may know that she/he can find explanatory comments about the term within the work;
- To induce the user to stop and think for a moment when meeting anyone of these terms: "What is really the meaning, (or meanings) of "chaos", "cognition", or "regulation", for instance?"
When, in some cases, some connections between concepts or models are not so obvious, they are specially signaled by a comment of the type: See also "...".
Some terms with a specifically cybernetic or systemic meaning are also printed in bold when used in their everyday common sense, in order to sharpen the attention of the user to some shades of their meaning. Examples are: content, class, issue, means, scale, situation, survival, etc...
The use of bold characters is not always closely related to a specific meaning of the emphasized term. The word "group" appears frequently with different significations, which may, or not, be related. In many cases it is useful to ponder the sense given in a specific case in comparison with what one knows about the various possible ones.
Some terms printed in bold do not refer precisely to a specific entry, but to a closely related one. For example: "Combination", or "environmental" are not in the encyclopedia, but "Combinatorics" and "environment" are.
Italics have been used moderately, mostly to emphasize some critical point, or some personal view. When within quotations, they are always the quoted author's ones.
References in Dutch, French, German, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish have been used. When possible, the reference to the original work, or alternately to its translation in English has been added.
The following special markers have been used, in order to enhance the usefulness of the encyclopedia:
- meaning "systemic on a wide range", or "general information"
- meaning "general abstract or mathematical model", or "methodology"
- meaning "epistemological or ontological aspects", or "semantics"
- meaning "practical in human sciences"
- meaning "more specific or disciplinarian"
Personal views, self-critique and acknowledgments
It seems only fair to admit that a number of personal views have been introduced in this work. For example: "The results of sociotechnical manipulation on any environment should be closely monitored", or: "Metacommunication frames relativize communication. This is a very significant situation, specially when metacommunication remains implicit as it is the case in many transcultural situations". No user is supposed to accept such opinions uncritically.
My aim has been to include practical insights into as many issues as possible. In my opinion, Systemics should be connected to complex concrete situations whenever possible, because many of their aspects are easily neglected by specialists and from purely technical viewpoints.
While, at a definite moment, one must decide to put a final stop to any work, it is obvious that this kind of work is open-ended. In a sense, this encyclopedia is still a kind of enormous draft, even if quite elaborated. This offers at once some negative and some positive aspects. In cases, sources could be completed or replaced by better ones. Many new information, and even some older one from still unused literature, could be introduced.
My intention is to go on incorporating more information into this work, even after publication, in order to prepare future updatings. I will gladly receive material or serious critique that users would find of possible interest.
On the other hand, being well advanced into my seventies, I would also be pleased to collaborate with quite younger systemists eventually interested in such updatings.
I consider probable that some internal discrepancies, or even errors may still be present in this final version, even after various painstaking revisions. I hope that users will find out for themselves and, hopefully, communicate me their views.
Acknowledgments are, in this case, a very difficult task. In a way, I feel thankful for the whole systemic-cybernetic community, past and present.
More to the point, this work owes much to the members of the Argentine Association for Systems and Cybernetics (or Study Group for Systems, as it is also known), to the members of the Fuschl Group, to the leaders of various international and national societies (American, Austrian, Belgian, British, Dutch, Danish, French, Greek, Italian, Peruvian, Polish, Slovenian, Spanish).
It also owes much to personal systemist friends, who I will not enumerate here because their names appear frequently within the encyclopedia... and because I would be very much afraid to unfairly forget some of them.
Last, but not least, I need to emphasize the considerable support given by my wife, Gloria NAZER, as a professional librarian and generally as a helping hand in readying the whole work.