PART TWO
1. Constructing a framework out of the-empirical view
And we now understand that organized entities are universal, from the cosmic to the ecological, biological, social or cerebral level. Accordingly we need urgently to "gather together" our ystemic-cybernetic-wholismic thinking for the practical study of interconnectedness, i.e. the ways interconnections appear, self-organize, act and persist.
Of course, no theoretical or abstract construction makes much
sense if it cannot be related to the study of [real] entities.
We are surely not responsible citizens at any level of action
if we do not base such action on a
sound understanding of how "things work" (Please note:
Not how they "should" work, which was the fodder of
the ideologists who plagued and tortured this century, or the
thin-aired idealsts)
Our first need is thus to discover efficient models for the workings of all the complex systems in which we are enmeshed. Systemics and cybernetics offer us already an enormous common treasure trove of tools for such endeavor. Just to give some few examples, concepts like emergence, synergy, interaction, constraints, trigger effects, autopoiesis, resonance, homeostasis, etc ... or models like compensated feedbacks, critical thresholds, types of growth, boundary effects, boundaryless, etc ... provide very general insights into the ways "things work". [It is only that we must understand their universal value and become able to translate them to a considerable variety of situations.
We should thus be advised to construct our theoretical framework
around the connection concept.
To do this, we should focus our inquiry on the following questions..
- What is a connection?
- What does produce connections?
- What are the effects of a connection on the connected elements?
- How do connections generate complexity?
- How to construct a descriptive taxonomy of the various types
of connections?
Moreover, through the connection model, Cybernetics and Systemics
become closely related (as complementary aspects of a more general
principle).
Generally speaking, the domain of Cybernetics is related to processes,
i.e. the dynamic interactions which emphasize the active aspect
of interconnectedness. The domain of Systemics would more clearly
cover the defined entities whose organization, relative permanence,
and global activities are observable consequences of repeated
and mostly nonrandom interactions.
2. From a framework for a theory to a theory framework
Taking the Lead from "Interconnections"
In order to construct a theory framework, we could try to work
in the "bottom up" or in the "top down" way.
In my opinion, we should start from bottom up and after a sufficient
time, rework the results as a whole from top down.
As an example, I made my Encyclopedia "Bottom up",
i.e. for many years I went fishing for unconnected bits of models
and concepts in the widest possible domain of information within
my reach.
Then, later on, I created a connecting web organizing the whole
as a whole, admittedly still in a loose way. My goal was, and
still is, to create a system of systems concepts and models, in
accordance with the general idea of systems connectedness.
This [is] not really, yet, a top down work. But a coherent general
theory could and probably will be constructed in the future.
I propose to work toward such a theoretical framework using as
the central organizing hub, the "interconnection" [model]concept,
Some basic queries could be used to find leads toward-, synthesis,
as for example:
-What is interconnected? (Elements catched [?], or even produced
in fields)
-Which types of interconnections can we define? - deterministic,
i.e. rigidly constrained - regulating, i.e. allowing for fluctuations
which remain constrained within limits by feedback - rando i.e.
not constrained in any clearly defined pattern (Practically, for
real entities, this corresponds to chaotic determinism, i.e. allowing
random variation within very wide space and time global limits)
For example
-In which order and ways can we derive all systemic properties
from the interconnection concept [model]?
The last question mark could really usher the top down phase
of the construction of the Theory Framework. This would be a
considerable work and would need a carefully established general
methodology for finding significant linkages, in a way somewhat
similar to L. Troncale's proposals some years ago.
It could be done by using the Encyclopedia as a first source
for a beginning, using the general question mark: "What does
..........mean in the light of the interconnection concept?"
Hereafter some examples., "What does Ageing, Carrying capacity,
Density (Critical), Heterogeneity, Lock-in effect, Memory, Perceptual
field, Structure (Fractal), Threshold, Variable (Relevant), Vortex,
and so on mean in terms of the interconnection model?.
Note: As the necessary precursors of any organized entity are
vortices in fields (C. Laville, D. MacNeill), we possibly need
a kind of systemic "big bang" concept, previous to the
"interconnectedness" one. Thus we will also flesh out
a Relationship Theory for a more general treatment.
The concept of "Process" (In H. Sabelli's formulation)
could cover most of the functional and dynamical aspects of interconnections.
In short, there is a lot of work to do.
Charles FRANC0IS
February 28th, 1998
To be Continued
Related Information
http://www.isss.org/primer/4domains.htm