|
The Essence of the Notion
"System" for Systems Thinking Agoshkova,
Elena В. The Essence of the Notion "System" for
Systems Thinking // XXI World
Congress of Philosophy. Istanbul, 2003. Abstracts, p. 5-6. Section: Theory of Knowledge Annotation The development of systems thinking requires a level
of comprehension of the systems concepts other than that required by systems
methodology of scientific knowledge. For the systems concepts to enter the categorical structure of thinking it is
necessary to correlate them with the philosophical categories; in the first
place it is necessary to reveal the philosophical foundations of the notion
"system" in the unity of ontological and epistemological
aspects. It has been shown that the ontological origins of the notion "system" are in an ontological
statement by A.N. Whitehead "production of novelty". That is why
the system is that side of a thing's being which determines the
production of a new property of the whole through the properties of elements
and the interaction among them. Then epistemologically, the system in its initial
sense is a universal form of grounding the property of the whole through the
properties of elements. In the theory of knowledge the system is a
bi-component abstract object with the relation between something being grounded and its ground. A fundamental
philosophical principle which determines
the place of the notion "system" in epistemology is Leibniz
"Principle of sufficient reason" interpreted more deeply by
M. Heidegger. The system is an expression of this principle. The systems approach of the 201 century should be
regarded as a detailed contemporary formulation of "The principle of sufficient reason", with the refinement
of the notion "sufficiency". These two fundamental
philosophical principles determine the principles of systems thinking and their
harmonious perception by scientific and every-day thinking. Human thinking develops for millennia, having
knowledge and activities as its foundation. Each new century creates a layer
of knowledge that enriches the categorial and conceptual scheme of thinking and the
principles of knowledge. The second half of the 20th century went
under the sign of "system". Systems paradigm comprises three
components: systems methodology of scientific knowledge, systems view of the
world and systems thinking. Systems methodology was the one to receive detailed
development in the 20th century. But the development of systems
thinking requires a level of perceiving systems concepts other than
methodology of scientific knowledge did. For the systems concepts to enter
into the conceptual structure of thinking, it is necessary to correlate them
with philosophical concepts. And the first task to be achieved is reveal
philosophical grounds of notion "system". Epistemological Sense of Notion System Achievements of systems research in the 20th
century led to a broader interpretation of notion "system" and gave
birth to a multiplicity of definitions of this notion. Although the initial
definition of system by L. von Bertalanffi borne ontological
hint, the concept of general systems theory he advocated gave the notion
"system" strictly epistemological meaning. When further developed,
an analysis of the notion "system" as viewed by the theory of
knowledge[l] results in the following. System acts as a universal form of presenting
knowledge. It is a definite construction, a set of properties and relations
that we single out from an object under study in order to determine the regular relation
of property of a whole with properties of its components. System is the form of presenting the whole through
its components. A real object is not a system, since a real object
possesses an indefinite number of properties. But in a real object system Sp
can be distinguished with regard to property P of a whole object. System Sp
characterizes the producing property P by the properties and relations between the components
of an object. Therefore, it is substantial that system Sp on object A relative to property P
of the object is the set of such properties in such relations that produce integral property Ps
of the set. It is supposed that integral property Ps is coincident with an object's property P
about which the system was built in the course of examination. Integral property Ps is the main
individualising feature of the system. It is habitual for us that even in ordinary understanding
the word "system" always requires a predicate (energetic system, information system,
etc.). The main substantial feature of a system consists in producing an integral property Ps
which is generated by the complete set of elements and relations of the system. That
is why the notion "generative system" introduced by J. Klir[2] should obtain a high status. System as an epistemological notion embodies our
attempt to reveal among the properties and relations of an object such a
finite set of properties and relations of parts which naturally produces integral property Ps
of the set. In so doing, property Ps represents property P of a
whole object. This leads to an understanding of
system as an abstract object on which a certain-type relation R are performed between
property P of the whole and a set of properties of the parts that generate
integral property Ps. For characterising this
relation we used[3] a concept of "identity due to abstraction"
introduced by M. Novoselov[4], which is interpreted as a gnoseological
identity. Already Plato spoke about such a conditional
identity of unity and plurality that formed this unity. Depending on the type of relation
R we can get a system, a quasi-system and non-system. Since the times of Pythagorean theorems and But for developing systems thinking it is not
sufficient to limit ourselves to the essence of concept system as viewed by
the theory of knowledge. Noticeably, systems methodology permits in principle
an arbitrary set of properties of which the system is composed. In so doing
criteria "measure of uncertainty", "generative
uncertainty", etc. are introduced (G.J. Klir). But for revealing the
principles of systems thinking such a broader interpretation of concept
"system" does not allow us to penetrate in the very
essence of systems thinking. In what then do we see its specifics? To introduce the concept system in the conceptual
structure of thinking a more in-depth understanding of the essence of concept
system is required. To do so, we should turn once again to ontological aspect
of the notion system, initial for L. von Bertalanffi. Noticeably, in systems
movement a trend appeared at the very beginning that regards systems problems
as those of philosophy (V.A. Lektorsky, V.N. Sadovsky, 1960; B.A.
Akhlibininsky, 1969; E. Lazslo, 1962, 1972). The intensive development of
systems methodology and general systems theory gave an excessive turn
toward understanding a system as an abstraction. This turn was timely set
right by Ontological Origins of the Concept System The exceptional interest aroused by the idea of L.
von Bertalanffi allows a supposition that he brought to surface a
topical problem of modernity. But then one should suppose that it must have
been examined during the history of philosophy, and that great intellectuals
could not refrain from raising this problem. From the standpoint of today's understanding it is
evident that the problems of the unity and plurality, of
producing new properties that were discussed in the history of philosophy
have direct connection to the essence of the notion system.
Earlier on we have examined in detail ontological grounds of the
concept system (see Plato was the first to dialectically contend the
problem of "one" and "the many". He gives a clear definition of the
problem: "Yet that which has parts may have the attribute of unity in
all the parts, and in this way being all and a whole, may be one?"[6] And his answer to this question is positive: one and
the many co-exist. Plato stresses that parts of a whole remain what
they are. This is not an arbitrary division of a whole into parts but such a division which retains the
distinctness of each part. It is this meaning that we should give to the
concept "element of a system": an element should have a
distinctness of its property revealing itself as a possibility of
interaction. This makes the difference between the part and the element,
between dividing an object into parts and setting off a system on the object.
Obviously, half a cloud does not have such definiteness. Nevertheless, a possibility to single elements out
is not a guarantee for forming a system on an object. We have
stressed elsewhere that an important distinctive feature of a system is that
the set of elements and interactions should generate an
integral property of this set. And it is the property of "the one".
Here we penetrate into the depths of ontology in order to reveal a principal
possibility of generating new properties due to interactions between
elements. This aspect of ontology is developed in depth
by A.N. Whitehead. Whitehead's categorial scheme contains an ontological
principle of Novelty. He introduces the Category of the Ultimate (Creativity,
One, Many) and defines the essence of universum as the production of a
novelty: "The Ultimate metaphysical principle is the advance
from disjunction to conjunction, creating a novel entity other than the entities given in
disjunction... The many become one, and are increased by one."[7] With this statement Whitehead unveils the essence of
the concept system. Concepts of "complex unity",
"the togetherness of the many", "conjunctive unity"
introduced by him allow recognising in Whitehead's
ontology a deep elaboration of contemporary systems paradigm, although the
index to his work does not contain the concept of system. Now the question
"What is a system?" has the answer: "A system is "the
many" producing "one". It becomes evident that the concept
system should include the requirement of wholeness, unity
(V.N. Sadovsky, 1974, 2002), and why we define a system
with regard to property P of a whole object. It is this property of a whole
object that characterises "the unity" of Plato and
"the one" of Whitehead. This relation between property of a whole (one) and the
set of properties of parts (many) that produce the property of the whole is
the ontological origin of the concept system. That is why we had to require
for a system the presence of an integral property of the set of elements.
Identity of a sort between one and the many was pointed out already by Plato.
Therefore, as noted above, epistemologically the system shows up as a
bi-component abstract object with a relation which we have referred to a
class of relations of identity due to abstraction. Let us note that a number
of systems researchers define the system as an "equation". Possibly,
at a closer examination this relation can be called a relation of conditional
equality, relation of determination and so on. Thus, the production of a new
property through "conjunction of "many" into "one",
the co-existence of property of a whole object (one) and a set of properties
of (many) is the ontological origin of the concept system. It is this
peculiarity of the universe that E. Laszlo makes an accent in his concept of
systems view of the world. System as a Form of Grounding Now we are to determine to which sphere of
philosophical knowledge the concept system belongs to and what it is
that makes this form of knowledge universal. To do this let us examine the
class of issues lead scientific methodology to the concept system. Cognitive practices performed in various fields of
science, technology and artefact production are quite diverse by
content. Among these explaining, forecasting, projecting are the cardinal
issues that assure human survival. It has been shown that the
procedures of explaining, forecasting, retro-telling, revealing the laws and
regularities, proving, defining, etc, as well as the choice of a project's
elements, designing and the like are similar in their essence in logic and
gnoseological terms. All these practices can be regarded as variants of one
and the same fundamental cognitive procedure, i.e. procedure of
grounding. [8] In the foundation of all these procedures there are
two fundamental methods of cognition, i.e. analysis and synthesis, and
consequently, presenting the whole though parts. It is these tasks of grounding the whole
through parts that the initial epistemological understanding of system is
related to. By its essence grounding presupposes the presence of
two components - something being grounded and its grounds.
The meaning of grounding is that grounds in total lead with necessity to the
something being grounded as a result. Ideally, the system as a form of
grounding of a whole through parts is such a presentation of the whole
through such parts that with necessity give property of the whole. Now it
becomes clear why we have defined the system on an object with respect to
property P of a whole object. This property P is the component being
grounded. This leads us to the understanding of system as the unity of
something being grounded and its grounds and gives the system a bi-component
form with relations between the components. This attests to the above
affirmation that system is a bi-component abstract object. Consequently, the system as a form of grounding is
the cognitive construction, which is called to express Leibniz
"Principle of Sufficient Reason". The Principle of Sufficient Reason and Its
Systems Vision "The Principle of sufficient reason"
formulated by Leibniz, though entered into logic as a law did not in fact live an active life of a
law. In the mid-2 0th century M. Heidegger called this principle
out from oblivion in his brilliant study.
According to M. Heidegger, this principle remains in everyday human
perception as something insensibly habitual. The in-depth meaning of the
principle escapes from human mmd. M.
Heidegger hears this in-depth meaning mme latest formulation by Leibniz principium
reddendae rationissufficients: "Nichts ist ohne einen zureicheden
Grand der seine Zustellung
beansprucht".[9] Thus, Leibniz ennobled this principle up to the
paramount foundation and simultaneously put forward a
requirement of obvious presence of the grounds of knowledge in knowledge
itself. For him groundless knowledge is not knowledge. This makes
it possible to turn back to the concept system and to the
recognition of system as a universal form of knowledge. Since the science of Galileo methodology of science
has made as its task the elaboration of expressive tools for
delivering into knowledge the grounds of this knowledge. As M. Heidegger
said, "Als die ausgezeichnete Weis des begriindenden Vorstellens der
Gegenstande versteht sich nun aber die neuzeitliche
Wissenschaft" /M. Heidegger, Op. cit, p.56/. As M. Heidegger writes, "Das principium reddendae
rationis verlangt, daft alles Vorstellen der Gegenstande ein sich
begrundendes sei..." But it was that presentation which further on would
be called "system". It was a form of system.
Among all abstractions of human mind the system proved a self-grounding
abstract object. L. von Bertalanfi started searching of a universal
form of grounding a complex object. He called this form
"general system". His idea was success only due to the fact that
science had already revealed such necessary grounds of the complex as
interaction and information. Without these notions grounding of
the complex was impossible. The 20th-century systems movement was
directed toward revealing the grounds that produced property of a complex
object, toward bringing these grounds into knowledge and securing these procedures in systems
methodology of scientific knowledge. [10] We should note that this philosophical
analysis had as its foundation the achievements of systems research done in
the 20th century and follows a comprehensive
methodological study by G. Klir (Op. cit, 1985). The requirement of
"sufficiency" as a characteristic of system was included into the
definition of the notion "system" by P.K. Anokhin, V.N. Sagatovsky
and Yu. A. Urmantsev. Systems approach should be regarded as a detailed
formulation of contemporary understanding of the principle of
sufficient ground. As systems research strives for clear presentation of all
sufficient grounds, expressive means of systems methodology are
far richer that expressive means of classic science, in which many relations
were understood as granted. But what is meant under the sufficiency of
grounds? Leibniz himself did not touch upon this question.
But if the system acts as a realisation of sufficient grounds, than we have
the right to pose a question in a different way: sufficient for what? And
then it proves that the content of any knowledge is limited. Any knowledge
obtained is characterised by a "contents interval of
given abstraction" (M.M. Noveselov. Op. cit.). That is why the notion sufficiency
undergoes a considerable transformation since the time of Leibniz.
Contemporary scientific understanding of "sufficiency of
grounds" requires the involvement of measure that in systems methodology
has received the name of "measure of uncertainty" (G.J. Klir, Op.
cit., 1985), etc. General approach to contemporary understanding
of sufficiency is possible on the basis of logic of abstracting in
cognitive procedures (M.M. Noveselov. Op. cit.). But it is noteworthy that by its philosophical
richness the concept of "sufficient ground" is akin to the concept of
"truth". This is like an ideal that we should long for and its
unconditional necessity is in being a lighthouse for thinking. Thus, for the purposes of developing systems thinking
the concept of system should be perceived in the unity of ontological and
epistemological aspects (B.V. Akhlibininsky, 2000). Conclusion With the aim of further developing systems thinking,
scientific understanding of system as an abstraction should be
essentially enriched by its philosophical understanding. We have revealed those initial
philosophical grounds that lead to the notion system. Two great principle - "Creating a Novelty"
and "Sufficient Reason" - in their contemporary interpretation is the
philosophical basis which determines the essence of the concept system and
will determine principles of systems thinking in their harmonious perception
both by scientific knowledge and everyday
thinking. Both add to scientific understanding of system as an abstraction. The principles must
be reanimated in a new system meaning for purposes of developing a more
perfect way of thinking and for transition to a new level of thinking -
systems thinking. Creative faculties of humans are surprising. But a
contradiction becomes more and more acute between what humans
can create and their ability to understand what they have created. The creation is ahead of
the perception of the created and its consequences. At the same time,
humankind is impotent to solve certain problems. Systems terminology as a 20th-century
achievement must be comprehended and interpreted from a philosophical
perspective to be part of conceptual scheme of thinking. It should be part of
both scientific and
everyday thinking. That is one of the most important goals of philosophy -
the Enlightenment of humanity. Notes: Agoshkova, Elena:
Systems Thinking in the 20th Century. In: Proceedings of the
Twentieth World Congress of
Philosophy. Boston 2000, http://www.bu.edu/wcp Klir, George J.:
Architecture of Systems Problem Solving. Agoshkova, Elena:
Philosophical Foundations of Systems Thinking. In: Christensen, Birgit (ed.): Knowledge
Power. Gender. Chronos Verlag. Zurich 2002, pp. 789-796 Novoselov, M.M.:
Logic of Abstraction: Methodological Analysis. IFRAN, Moscow 2000 Laszlo, Ervin: The
Systems Thinking View of the World. A Holistic Vision for Our Time. Hampton Press, 1996 The Dialogues of
Plato. In: Great Books of the Western World. Encyclopaedia Britannica 6 (1996), p. 566 Whitehead, Alfred
N.: Process and Reality. New York/London 1978, p.21 Nikitin, E.P. The
Nature of Grounding. "Nauka", Heidegger, Martin:
Der Satz vom Grand. Gunther Neske Pfullingen, 1958, p. 91 Agoshkova, Elena,
Akhlibinsky Boris: Evolution of the Notion "System". In: Voprosi filosofii,
|
|
|