Bureaucrats, emailconfirmed, Administrators
5,468
edits
→Systems theory
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Systems== | ==Systems== | ||
===Systems theory=== | ===Systems theory=== | ||
From the perspective of multilayered structures, two concepts of systems will be introduced: the chaosmos of Deleuze and Guattari and the holistic theory of biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy. In addition an input-output system of Niklas Luhmann is mentioned. | |||
====Bertalanffy==== | |||
“in the past centuries, science tried to explain phenomena by reducing them to an interplay of elementary units which could be investigated independently of each other. In contemporary modern science, we find in all fields conceptions of what is rather vaguely termed ‘wholeness.’” (Bertalanffy, 1950) | “in the past centuries, science tried to explain phenomena by reducing them to an interplay of elementary units which could be investigated independently of each other. In contemporary modern science, we find in all fields conceptions of what is rather vaguely termed ‘wholeness.’” (Bertalanffy, 1950) | ||
Bertalanffy's proposed theory aims at defining a unity of the sciences. General System Theory was outlined as a holistic theory, wherein the whole is equal to more than the sum of its parts and wherein interaction between heterogeneous elements plays a significant role (Bertallanffy 1950). With reference to Alfred North Whitehead, who defined every large organism as a unity of smaller organisms (Whitehead 1925:18,80,105,112), Bertallanffy's theory introduced the idea of strata as physical “wholes,” such as atoms, molecules, or crystals consisting of the union of other elements defining another strata. In so doing, Bertalanffy's holistic theory has features of hierarchical structure and, with that, a top-down approach (Bertalanffy 1950). | Bertalanffy's proposed theory aims at defining a unity of the sciences. General System Theory was outlined as a holistic theory, wherein the whole is equal to more than the sum of its parts and wherein interaction between heterogeneous elements plays a significant role (Bertallanffy 1950). With reference to Alfred North Whitehead, who defined every large organism as a unity of smaller organisms (Whitehead 1925:18,80,105,112), Bertallanffy's theory introduced the idea of strata as physical “wholes,” such as atoms, molecules, or crystals consisting of the union of other elements defining another strata. In so doing, Bertalanffy's holistic theory has features of hierarchical structure and, with that, a top-down approach (Bertalanffy 1950). | ||
Although approached from a different perspective towards transdisciplinarity, the equivalent of Bertallanffy's “whole” for Deleuze and Guattari could be chaosmos, a complexity arising from chaotic structures through self-organizing processes. Chaosmos, similarly to Bertalanffy's “whole,” is an indivisible | ====Deleuze and Guattari==== | ||
Although approached from a different perspective towards transdisciplinarity, the equivalent of Bertallanffy's “whole” for Deleuze and Guattari could be chaosmos, a complexity arising from chaotic structures through self-organizing processes. Chaosmos, similarly to Bertalanffy's “whole,” is an indivisible system of interacting elements. The difference is only in its structure, which is described as a non-hierarchical or, using Deleuze and Guattari's term, a non-arborescent system having no structural elements around which all “things” can be discussed. However, Deleuze and Guattari introduce a definition of strata that is different from Bertallanffy's strata. Within this alternative definition, all the earlier concepts of Deleuze's ontology – difference, connection, heterogeneity, cartography, virtuality, multiplicity, becoming (individuation), etc. – are included. Deleuze and Guattari's strata is divided into three main layers – physico-chemical, organic, and anthropomorphic – wherein, differently from Bertalanffy's strata, all the levels are equal and each of them could be introduced as a substratum of another at any order of magnitude (Deleuze & Guattari 1980:40,69). Although Deleuze and Guattari's strata is “layered,” as opposed to Bertalanffy's onion-like reductionist structure, the division between layers happens in a horizontal “grassroots” structure, where none of the layers are wrapped up with a new layer and where dependency between layers varies depending on perspective. | |||
Therefore, Deleuze and Guattari's holistic approach should not be confused with the reductionistic definitions given by Whitehead or Bertalanffy. Instead of defining a system as a unity of smaller organisms, Deleuze and Guattari's system draws an abstract map of linked processes and elements interacting with each other at a horizontal level. | Therefore, Deleuze and Guattari's holistic approach should not be confused with the reductionistic definitions given by Whitehead or Bertalanffy. Instead of defining a system as a unity of smaller organisms, Deleuze and Guattari's system draws an abstract map of linked processes and elements interacting with each other at a horizontal level. | ||
====Luhmann==== | |||
In contrast to the idea of Whitehead's wholeness and Bertalanffy's extended notion of system, a slightly different understanding of system is proposed by sociologist Niclas Luhmann, who doesn't enclose the system into the final unit, wholeness, instead, he puts systems into interaction with their environments. The problem Luhmann encounters (1984:20-23) is the definition of system as of Antic tradition, because the use of "entity" (or "wholeness" as of terms of Whitehead) is hardly definable while talking of social systems. Instead of using "entity" and "element" Luhmann proposes the use of terms brought by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, accordingly the "environment" and the "system", which is always less complex as environment. Interaction between systems and its environment then explain (through theory of organism, thermodynamic and evolution theory) open and closed systems. The distinction between the meanings of different use of system could be also illustrated by terms of Luhmann (2002:47), who, while speaking of systems, put an emphasis on Input-Output-Model of interaction between different systems (System-zu-System-Beziehungen) instead of differentiating between system and its environment (System-Umwelt-Unterscheidung). | |||
===Autopoiesis=== | ===Autopoiesis=== | ||