|
|
PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF SYSTEM THINKING 2002.
Agoshkova, Elena: Philosophical Foundations of Systems Thinking. In: Christensen,
Birgit (ed.): Knowledge. Power. Gender. Chronos Verlag. Zurich 2002, pp
789-796 “The many become
one, and are increased by one” A.N. Whitehead Human
thinking develops over millennia on the basis of perception and activity. Experience
of philosophy and science penetrates even into everyday consciousness. The
systems movement of the 20th century has added to humankind’s
knowledge a considerable layer of knowledge known as a systems paradigm,
systems methodology, and systems research. It can be said that since a
presentation by L. Von Bertalanffi at the 9th World Congress of Philosophy in
1937, the second half of 20th century has gone under the badge of
the concept of system. The end of the century saw the goals of developing system
thinking and systems view of the world outlook formulated.[1] Systems
thinking rests upon the extension of conceptual basis with systems notions;
enrichment of knowledge of real-world properties with the properties of
“organized complexity”; development of non-formal systems logic.[2] In order
to enter the procedure of thinking, systems notions should take a proper place
in the structure of categories. But systems terminology is borrowed from
philosophy, mathematics, natural and technical science. Therefore it is
necessary to correlate it with philosophical categories. Historically,
systems movement broke into different systems schools and trends that
frequently adhere to opposite views on the very notion “system”. The most
principal divergences are reflected in the following approaches. Definition-S:
“A system is a set of elements in relations and links with each other that
makes a definite whole, unity”.[3] Definition-G:
“A system is what is distinguished as a system”.[4] The
principal difference between these two approaches is that by Definition-G a
system is any arbitrary set of properties, while by Definition-S it is required
this set to present a whole. If the understanding of a system as an arbitrary
set of elements can be accepted for developing a methodology of systems
research, then for the development of systems view of the world and of
systems thinking philosophical essence of the notion “system” is of principal
significance. If a
system is understood as an arbitrary set of elements, such a definition can
in principal be used for building a procedure of scientific perception. This
trend is successfully developed by a school of American systems movement.[5]
But if it is suggested to everyday consciousness that a system is any set of
properties and relations, we are deprived of the notional foundation of
systems thinking. But in what does the specifics of systems vision of the
world reveal itself? What set of categories determines systems thinking? If
systems movement has given so contradictory definitions, we should look for a
point of intersection between them. A solution to these questions requires a
philosophical comprehension of the very notion “system”. Gnoseological
Foundations of the Notion of System Human
thinking receives knowledge only through the partition of reality; through
the separation of discreet manifestations, parts of phenomena and objects. In
doing this human mind is orientated toward three main cognitive goals: ·
Explaining the phenomena through looked-for causes. ·
Forecasting phenomena under the changes of known factors. ·
Projecting artifacts with desired properties on the basis of a
synthesis of elements with known properties. To
achieve these three goals it is necessary to determine regularity between the
properties of a whole object and the properties of its components. This
regularity is to be determined through forming a system. In /2/ we
have shown that presently the notion “system” acts as a gnoseological
concept. It is a definite form, a definite construction, which we single out
in the object in order to determine regularity between the properties of a
whole object and the properties of its parts. A system is a form of
presentation of the whole through its parts. But
neither the whole that we are going to represent as a system, nor the parts
can be “things”, i.e. things possess an infinite number of properties and correspondingly
the image of an object requires an infinite number of relations. In the
objectives of perception a thing can appear to us as the whole only with
regard to a definite property, quality Q of this thing. Then we
come to Definition-1: “A system S formed on object A with respect to the
object’s property (quality) Q is a set of certain properties that are in
certain relations, which generate property Qs of this set” (see footnote 2). Hence, a
system as a set of properties and relations is an abstract object
distinguished in object A. Nevertheless,
the very fact of distinguishing in an object an abstract object does not make
it a system. In the beginning of our examination we have rejected the
understanding of a system as an arbitrary set of properties and relations.
So, it is appropriate to reveal the specific feature of this abstract object,
which makes it a system. Integral
property Qs of a system is its principal individualizing feature. System as a
gnoseological concept embodies our attempt at revealing, among the properties
and relations of an object, such a finite set, which regularly generates
integral property Qs of this set. Then for integral property Qs of a system
we have two identical (due to abstracting) designations: on the one hand, it
is an integral property Qs, and on the other hand, the same property Qs is
represented by a set of properties and relations. From a position of
examining an integral property it can be said that these two types of setting
a system are in relation of “identity due to abstraction”. “Identity due to
abstraction” is the so-called gnoseological identity[6],
as against logical/formal identity. Now we
are able to give gnoseological definition of the notion “system”. Definition-2: “A system is an abstract
object containing the relation of identity due to abstraction between the set
of properties and relations and the integral property of this set”. It
becomes clear why many systems researches adhered to the definition: “a
system is an equation”. The relation of identity reflects the generating of a
new property Qs. Therefore, notion of “generative system” introduced by G.J.
Klir gains a higher status. As this
takes place, the following gnoseological problems come to the surface. 1.
In forming a object system, we use a finite set of the object’s
properties, considering other properties foreign to the producing of an
object’s property Q. But any object has an infinite number of properties. So,
what consequence will be there? What would be the role of the principle of
universal interdependence and the principle of phenomena’s independence? 2.
It is obvious that we are not able to gain an object’s representation
as a system for all the objects. Humankind should be “shown” particular
properties that generate the property of a whole object. Indeed, history of
human perception is the history of revealing new properties (energy, electric
potential, information, etc.). The laws of motion in mechanics were accepted
only after Galileo introduced the concept of acceleration. 3.
Having formed a system as a finite set of properties and relations, we
suppose that integral property Qs of the system is congruent with property Q
of the whole object. Consequently, the system would be an image of the
regularity of generating an object’s property Q. What properties of what
objects allow forming such a system? We know
that fundamental laws of physics possess high precision and simplicity. They
include a very narrow set of properties. Procedures of abstraction, of
throwing the foreign properties away present the essence of scientific
perception. If the finite set of properties would not give us definite
regularities, the procedures of abstraction would be senseless. Since the
time of Pythagorean theorems and Euclid’s treatise on geometry, the system is
a universal form of representing knowledge. The program of L. Von Bertalanffi
should have strengthened the universality and commonness of this form.
Systems movement intended to apply this form not only to primary properties
(laws of physics, mechanics, etc.) but also to spread it over
macro-properties of such objects as economics, organism, natural and
technical objects. But the comprehension of the essence of this form
stretched to 20th century. Once a
gnoseological form proves a universal form of perception, there should be
ontological foundations within reality or human consciousness. Ontological
Foundations of the Notion of System We can
proceed on to considering the ontological foundations of the notion “system” from
two viewpoints – ontology of reality and ontology of reason. There is a
question whether a system is a fundamental construction of reality or a
system is just a gnoseological form, which operates intellect, or a priori
form of reason. If the
notion “system” is so significant, then philosophy, starting from the
Antiquity, could not have passed by a discussion of the essence of system,
although the term “system” in its contemporary meaning was not used.[7] Thanks to
the perception of systems paradigm in 20th century, a new side in
the works of great philosophers becomes visible for us. It becomes obvious
that the problems of ontology of reality and ontology of reason discussed
throughout the history of philosophy are directly related to the problem of
systems vision of the world. Of the greatest interest in search for
ontological foundations of the notion “system” is the exchange between Plato,
A.N. Whitehead and their contemporary followers. The problems of unity and
plurality, the one and the many, the whole and part are directly connected
with the essence of notion “system”. In his
“Physics” Aristotle points out that ancient philosophers were of opinion that
the one can not be the many. Plato was
the first to state the dialectic compatibility of the one and the many. Let
us read carefully his words: “If one is, he said, the one cannot be many?”[8]
And he affirmatively asks to the question: “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?”[9] In
penetrating into the problem of the whole, Plato gives a formulation, which
is directly applicable to the essence of system. He differentiates the
notions of “all” and “whole”. “All” shows up as a mechanical sum of discrete
parts. A whole presents, as we’d say today, a new attribute and the parts of
the whole reflect in themselves this property of the whole (interpretation by
A.F. Losiev). Plato
emphasizes that parts of a whole remain what they are; it is not an arbitrary
division into parts, but such a division, which retains the distinctness of
each of the parts. It is this sense that should be attached to elements of a
system. Consequently, in singling out an object system we should have an
opportunity of decomposition into qualitatively definite parts. These parts
should have the definiteness of their properties acting as a possibility of
interaction. The definiteness of property should be so that it would be
possible to show the definiteness of relations between the parts. It is
obvious that half a cloud does not show this definiteness. However,
the essence of the notion “system” is not limited to the problem of the one
and the many. The essence of a system consists in creating a new property. A
system acts as self-sufficiency, as the definiteness of the system’s integral
property. Plato’s creative ideas are of great interest here. For Plato, ideas
are ideas of creating. In them there is the essence of things, with which the
ideas are in inseparable unity. A system is akin to such a kind of Plato’s
ideas when one idea embraces many very distant ideas. Similar to sounds and
letters, certain ideas are capable of mixing and correlating with each other,
other do not match. Contemporary
vision of an object system is that the possibility to distinguish parts of an
object having a definite property does not guarantee the forming of object
system. It is necessary that a set of properties and relations should create
an integral property of this set. Here we plumb the depth of ontology in
order to reveal the principal possibility of bearing new properties through
interaction of groups of properties. A.N. Whitehead has explored this side of
ontology in-depth. The
categorical scheme by A.N. Whitehead contains ontological foundations of
producing a novelty. He introduces the category of the ultimate: creativity,
one, many, as well as defines the essence of the universe as the creation of
a novel entity. He writes: “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”.[10] Let us
note that in fact this is the exposure of essence of system. The notions of
“complex unity”, “togetherness of the many”, “conjunctive unity” allows
regarding Whitehead’s ontology as a profound elaboration of systems paradigm.
At the same time Index to the A.N. Whitehead’s work includes no notion of
system. We should
notice an important feature of Whitehead’s ontology. In fact, he formulates
the principle of systemic organization and hierarchic structure of the
universe, which lies in the basis of system vision of the universe. A.N.
Whitehead introduces the notion of “creative advance”, thus spreading the
effect of the principle of “creating a novel entity” over the all levels of
reality: “The creative advance is the application of the Ultimate principle
of creativity to each novel situation, which it originates” (see footnote
10). Let us
note that neither Plato nor Whitehead raises the problem of infinite
interactions, of common interdependence. Novel entities are generated from
the definite “many”, and one idea embraces a finite number of compatible
ideas. This unity of “one” and “many” is the main distinctive feature of a
system as an abstract object with relation of identity. Then the
question of “What is a system?” can be answered by Definition-3: “A system is
“the many” united in “one”. Or we could say, “A system is the many producing
one”. This one is philosophical essence of the notion “system”. Thus,
principal philosophies contain ontological foundations of a system as an
ideal form of creating a new property, creating the diversity of the
universe. A system as a pattern of Plato’s idea determines the regularity of
generating novel entities. It is the form of uniting the many in one. Similar
to Plato’s ideas that are intimately connected with things they produce, the
idea of system does not exist isolated in nowhere but does exist everywhere. Is there
a system as a form in the basis of the universe? Probably, it is. Fundamental
laws of physics are observed with high precision. The simplicity of
fundamental laws advocated by A. Einstein reveals itself in the fact that the
laws unite a very narrow number of properties. Thus, at ultimate levels of the
universe the system is formed from a definite number of properties. But this
has been revealed only at the level of fundamental laws. At the
same time, the goal set by L. Von Bertalanffi and the 20th-century systems
movement is to apply this form to macro-properties of reality – economics,
natural phenomena, artifacts. However, here we have no grounds to accept the
principle of phenomena’s independence, thinking that a definite set of
macro-properties would give a strict regularity. Therefore, with regard to
macro-objects the notion “system” begins to act as an abstraction of human
mind, as Kant’s a priori form of reason. Then the
notion of “General System” is the understanding of a system as an abstraction
or a form, which the knowledge of regularities takes. And it is this form,
which is universal for humankind. Correspondingly, the contents of General
system theory should include the logic of abstraction processes[11]
as applied to the abstraction “system”. It is at this stage that a shift to
an arbitrary set of properties occurs, what we have discussed in the
beginning. This is preconditioned not by the essence of system but only by
limited cognitive facilities of the subject. One must be aware that an
arbitrary set of properties can form a system, as well as a non-system or a
quasi-system. Now we
can pose a question, whether the notion “system” can be included into the
structure of categories of thinking? We create a perceived world from
categories of common sense and abstraction processes. In this gnoseological
universum, which is created by our consciousness, a system acts as a
universal form of human knowledge. The categories of cause and consequence
took their place in the conceptual structure of thinking. A system can be
regarded as a single complex of categories, as a complete cognitive form that
contains a structured cause-and-consequence relation. What
conceptual scheme would determine systems thinking? Let us just note that the
understanding of a system as a creating form makes the key principle of systems
thinking. The notion “system” reflects the fundamental feature of the
universe of creating the new by uniting a finite number of phenomena. We
should foreknow that every phenomenon we produce coalesce, participates in
concrescence with other phenomena of nature, techno-sphere and society. This
avalanche-like process, which is similar to the chain reaction, determines
the future of the planet. Correspondingly,
“contemporary science concentrates on organization: not what a thing is per
se, not, how one thing produces an effect on one other thing, but rather how
sets of events are structured and how they function in relation to their
“environment”, - other sets of things, likewise structured in space and
time”.[12] Our
systems vision of associative events will make it possible to set a barrier
against natural and social cataclysms and the neglect of Justice. Systems
concepts should belong not only to science and philosophy. They must get into
everyday consciousness of every person. It is consistent with the principle
advanced by the 20th World Congress of Philosophy: “Philosophy Educating
Humanity”. Here in
Switzerland, in close proximity to Vienna, I would like to pay tribute to
Ludwig Von Bertalanffi, who 75 years ago in a presentation in Vienna
proclaimed the idea of general systems theory. Let me
also dedicate this presentation to the memory of my father, Boris Agoshkov. |
|
|
