|
Systems
Thinking in the Twenty-First Century St. English translation: Sergey S.
Polyakov (1997. European University at St. Petersburg) Agoshkova Elena B. Systems Thinking in the
Twenty-first Century //In: Proceedings of the Twentieth
World Congress of Philosophy, 1998, Boston https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TKno/TKnoAgos.htm ABSTRACT: Systems thinking is an important factor in solving global problems.
The twentieth-century has witnessed the development of a systems paradigm and
different spheres of systems knowledge. However, further development of systems
thinking necessitates overcoming the contradictions between different schools
and unifying them into a single systems conception. With this in mind,
systems problems are examined in light of the theory of knowledge. It is
suggested that the gnosiological definition of the notion 'system' should be
used as a basis for a single approach. An analysis of the concept 'system'
leads to a logically well-structured conception of system. It follows from
this that, in addition to the general theory of systems and the systems
science, a non-formal theory of whole object and non-formal systems logic
should form part of the systems thinking. This would set the stage for a
categorical structure and a conceptual basis for systems thinking. The
development of systems thinking should be regarded as the key challenge in
perfecting humanity. The elaboration of a single systems conception within
the philosophy of science and the methodology of scientific knowledge should
be treated as a basis for meeting this challenge. Philosophy
and science of the 21st century granted humankind one of the most important
achievements of human thought - a systems paradigm in knowledge and the
systems view of the world. Now the task is that all spheres of human
activities be refracted through the prism of the systems viewing of reality,
including interstate and state construction, production and consumption, and
everyday life of individuals. Let us hope that this new quality of
rationality, systems thinking will present the very magic crystal that, being
looked through, will help humankind learn to avoid the mistakes that destroy
our best undertakings by misleading us from the right track and threaten our
very existence. But in
order to do that, a systems paradigm itself should find harmony. Changes of
a Paradigm of Knowledge in the Twentieth Century The
thirties and fifties of the 20th century marked a turning point in science
and philosophy. Many outstanding intellectuals realised the mounting crisis.
Numerous works contained a formulation of contradictions between the new
goals of science and the methods available. It became obvious that the
fragmentation of science and the tragic of absence of a common language
lacked a perspective. At the
same time, several works, although not declaring a new paradigm, already
became the sources that were filling up its stream (E. Husserl, A.S. Lotka,
P.K. Anokhin, W. Weaver, N. Wiener and others). In Russia a project of
"General Organising Science (Tektology)" was put forward (A.A.
Bogdanov, 1913, 1922). But the success to advance an idea that would become a
determining paradigm of the 20th century fell on L. von Bertalanffy (1945). It was
suggested to seek the settling of the crisis in the following directions: (1) It is necessary to change the object of research - to turn to
"Lebenswelt", "back to things", to examine
"organism", "organised complexity". (2) One should search for regularities of the complexity at each level of
the organisation of objects of reality, without descending to physical
origins and striving to reductionism. (3) It can be expected that regularities in upper levels will possess
isomorphism, for the essence of regularities of the complexity is hidden in
the character of organisation and not in the nature of elements it's made of. (4) The unity of approach consists in examining an object's organisation
through examining "systems as a composition of interacting
elements". This will make a basis for a common language and the
integration of scientific disciplines. Nevertheless,
in the recent 50 years the systems problems have gone far beyond the scope of
initial ideas and programmes. Discrepancy
of the Initial Position Already in
the initial idea by L. von Bertalanffy there is a contradiction, which has
given a momentum toward a deeper self-reflection of systems research and a
quest for philosophical bases of the general systems theory (GST). Having
advanced a global concept, he perceived a system as a real object, which
later on would be called an organised complexity, an integrated whole, etc. But the
theory is not applicable to a real object. It is applicable only to a certain
aspect of this object and functions with regard to this aspect. That is why,
with the idea of GST, L. von Bertalanffy gave the notion "system" a
gnosiological meaning, and with the term "common" spread the notion
"system" over ideal, symbolic objects. This led
to the unfolding of systems research over numerous schools and trends
differing primarily in two propositions: (1) Is the
notion "system" applicable to a real object, a thing, or an image
of an object in knowledge? (2) Does
the definition of the notion "system" include the requirement
"to be the whole" (V.N. Sadovsky, 1974, et al.), or the notion
"system" can be related to an arbitrary set of elements and
relations (B.R. Gaines, 1979, et al.)? Some
philosophers realised that the global character of GST required, first of
all, that the problem be posed philosophically as a problem of the theory of
knowledge. Then the essence of systems research should be regarded as a task
of a most adequate reflection of real objects in perception, as a goal to
build up a specific form of knowledge which is capable of reflecting a whole,
an object (V.A. Lektorsky, V.N. Sadovsky, 1960). This task
remains actual until present, particularly to the philosophy of science, to
find out grounds for building up an initial object system (source system,
G.J. Klir, 1985). It is this
position that we shall approach the problem of systems thinking. Grounds
for a Single Systems Conception The
introduction to the systems view of the world (E. Laszlo, 1996) and the development
of systems thinking require the integration of all achievements of the
systems research over the recent 50 years into a single conception. A
thorough analysis shows that the diversity of issues being considered within
the systems research belong not only to GST or the systems science, but
embrace a wide area of scientific knowledge as human activity. Therefore, a
gnosiological understanding of system as a universal and fundamental notion
of the theory of knowledge should make a basis. The way to a single systems
conception runs through an agreement: (1) A real
object is connected with the notion "system" as a metaphor pointing
out to a definite character of a real object. (2) In its
philosophical and scientific understanding, a "system" acts as an
abstract object, as a model of a certain aspect of real object, and the
meaning of the notion "system" is determined by its function in the
theory of knowledge. A system is given on an object (W.R. Ashby, 1956; G.J.
Klir, 1985). (3) The
notion "system" is inseparably connected with the notion
"wholeness". This requirement has been initially contained in the
Greek term "system" and in historical interpretation of this term
(N. Webster, 1848, V.I. Dal', 1863), as declared by L. von Bertalanffy (1951)
a "doctrine of wholeness"), as a philosophical foundation (V.N.
Sadovsky, 1974), as the essence of the systems view of the world (E. Laszlo,
1996). Essence of the Notion "System" as Viewed by the Theory of
Knowledge Gnosiological Definition of the Notion "System" The
principal gnosiological function of the notion "system" is to find
an explanation of the emergence of integral properties of the whole through
properties and relations of elements. Hence, the notion "whole" is
primary in relation to the notion "system". Consequently, a system
is given by not only the assemblage of elements and relations but also by the
integral property of the whole object (P.K. Anokhin, 1935, 1973). When
developing the notion "object system"(G.J. Klir, 1985), one should
speak about "object system with respect to the given integral property
(quality) of a whole object" (E.B. Agoshkova, 1986). Then we
can suggest the following gnosiological definition of the notion
"system": "system S given on object A with respect to the
integral property (quality) Q is the assemblage of certain elements residing
in certain relations such that produce the integral property" (E.B.
Agoshkova, 1996). System as
a Means of Overcoming the Fundamental Contradiction It is
specific for the systems research that, representing an object as a system,
we always reflect the object through a discrete and finite set of elements
and relations. At the same time, objects of the real world possess an
infinite complexity and an infinite diversity of their properties. A task of
the theory of knowledge is to overcome this contradiction and to single out
from the infinite complexity of an object such a formation that gives
knowledge about this object with attributes of explanation and forecast. It
is the notion "system" that scientific knowledge employs for
solving this task (B.V. Akhlibininsky, 1989). System as
a Form of Representing a Subject of Scientific Knowledge From the
very beginning science has always operated with a discrete and finite form of
representing knowledge about an object, although without using the term of
system. The form of law, regularity possesses all features of a system and is
nothing else than "a properties' system" (N.F. Ovchinnikov, 1969). An
analysis makes it clear that a system as the assemblage of elements and
relations acts as a form of representing a subject of scientific knowledge.
Based on the philosophical unity of form and content, the conceptual aspect
of the notion "system" consists in producing the integral property
of the whole that is of interest for us. In this
sense, the notion "system" acts as a fundamental and universal
concept, as a philosophical category. Every regularity, beginning with the
theorem of Pythagoras, has been represented as a system. Procedure
of Simplification and the Completeness of Sets of Properties and Relations Transition
from a real object to an object system is a procedure of simplification,
which should have a limit. And this limit is determined by the fact that a
set making the system should reflect the object as a definite whole, an
integrity. Namely, the integral property of the whole relative to which we
form a system should be produced by properties and relations of elements. A
criterion of the completeness of representation of an object by a system is
self-determination of the set of properties and relations, its capability to
produce the integral property of the whole object with a certain
determination. As this
takes place, in the course of history of science a different degree of
determination has been accepted (from Aristotle's causality through Laplace's
absolute determinism to probabilistic determination and its generalisation in
the theory of fuzzy sets (Zadeh, L.A., 1973; G.J. Klir, 1985). The
necessity of a complete set of properties and relations is fundamental for
the essence of systems research. Regardless of what our cognitive abilities
are, this should be a principal objective. To illustrate this, we note that
the notion "state" in the theory of dynamic system was introduced
right from "the necessity to give complete characteristics of
system" (L.A. Zadeh, 1962). At the same time, in the practice of systems
research "system" is not infrequently substituted by
"non-system". Many ecological and technical projects do not succeed
due to incomplete image of real object as a system, and it is here that the
contradictory nature of contemporary systems paradigm counts. A proposition
that an arbitrary set of properties may form a quasi-system is of great
importance for the perception of systems thinking and for the systems view of
the world. Non-Formal
Theory of a Whole Object A
distinguishing feature of systems research is the vision of a whole object of
reality in rich diversity of its appearances. Nevertheless, a concept of GST
advanced by L. von Bertalanffy made an accent on the system as a formal
structure indifferent to the specifics of nature of its elements. This
approach determined essentially the repeated and successful attempts to
abstract from properties and qualities of real objects and to develop a
formal apparatus of the systems theory (M.D. Mesarovic, Y. Takahara, 1975;
G.J. Klir, 1985). At the
same time, the immense layer of systems research has proved to be devoted to
the examination of qualities of objects at all levels of organisation of
reality: from constructive geography to living organisms. This gap between
GST and the necessity to take account of the "completeness of
properties" (E. Husserl, 1937) has been recognised by many scholars
(W.R. Ashby, 1964; A. Rapoport, 1957). Obviously, the problem of
decomposition of the whole is connected with the diversity of properties and
qualities of a real object. Having introduced an integral property of the
whole in the above definition of notion "system", we practically reject
to abstract from the concreteness of properties and qualities of an object.
Moreover, the knowledge of these properties makes a basis for the
decomposition of an object and for the forming of a complete set of
properties that produce the given integral property. That is
why, in addition to GST and systems science, a non-formal theory of whole
object should make part of systems knowledge (E.B. Agoshkova, B.V.
Akhlibininsky, B.S. Fleisman, 1992) It can be called systemology. It
considers the self-determination of qualities of the whole object, as well as
universal, general and specific properties as applied to different levels of
the organised complexity and also their hierarchical order. It is this
meaning that B.S. Fleisman (1982) gave to systemology. He considered
fundamental properties of the complexity and the way they stipulated the
increasingly complex behaviour. Feasibility of a purpose and survivability
are taken by him as initial in the hierarchy of qualities of real objects. We should
note that the ideas of L. von Bertalanffy resulted from his attempts at
elucidating concrete specific properties of the complexity (purposeful
behavior, equi-finality, etc.). In his latest works he indicated the
necessity to include the theory of information and decision-making into GST.
Since real objects are not a system, and a system is formed out of properties
of an object, systemology as a science on properties of a whole object is the
objective basis for the choice of properties for an "object"
system. Non-Formal
Logic of Systems Thinking Contemporary
systems knowledge provides a basis for the development of systems thinking.
Therefore, it should involve all components that afford the systems thinking,
including non-formal systems logic, which determines categorical structure
and conceptual basis for the systems thinking. Although
from the very beginning science has been dealing with systems, non-formal
systems logic has not been developed within the framework of non-formal logic
of scientific knowledge. This is connected with the fact that in the research
on simple systems scholars have been well oriented in the rules of
identifying regularities without its obvious systems definition. It was a
period of sub-conscious employment of system paradigm. For the comprehension
of the very notion "system" started in the second half of the 20th
century and has been going on until now. Conceptual
basis for systems research is formed with the terminology borrowed from
different spheres of knowledge - from philosophy to mathematics. That is why
it is crucial to comprehend the essence which a term obtains when introduced
into the conceptual base of systems knowledge. The study of the in-depth
meaning of notions (structure, relation, emergence, etc.) has made an
essential part of systems problems. Notable is the discussion on an
understanding of the notions "purpose" and "teleological"
(A. Rosenblueth, N. Wiener, J. Bigelow, 1943) at the time when ideas of the
systems theory were just appearing. Now an ultimate comprehension of the
notions is to be made through taking account of all the achievements of
systems research. Non-formal
logic determines the laws of thinking that are expressed through relations of
categories. This is the logic of notions relations, of the production of
concepts from concepts. That is why it determines methodology of representing
an object as a system and has a direct connection with the problem of
emergence and recurrent principle of the elucidation of properties of the
whole (B.S. Fleisman, 1982). When concepts of systems knowledge enter into a
categorical structure of thinking, they will be used as unconsciously as the
categories "cause" and "effect" in everyday practice of
searching for "causes of success and consequences of failure". The
development of systems thinking should be regarded as the key challenge in
perfecting humanity. The elaboration of a single systems conception within
the philosophy of science and the methodology of scientific knowledge should
be treated as a basis for meeting this challenge. |
|
|