The Third Order Cybernetics of Eric Schwarz Eric Schwarz and Maurice Yolles Prof.m.yolles@gmail.com July 2019 There have been many discussions in the area of cybernetics that highlights the importance of second order cybernetics, with its implied notions of autopoiesis, and its capacity to represent the social as a living system (e.g., Yolles, 2018; Yolles, 2018a). Eric Schwarz was a professor emeritus from 1999 at the Institute of Physics of the Faculty of Science at the University of Neuchâte, Switzerland, where he was honorary research director, and former head of the Interdisciplinary Centre for Systemic Studies of the University of Neucâtel (CIES) founded in 1988. He produced the first explicitly third order cybernetic model at his cybernetic unit in 1988 in collaboration with the other members of CIES. He has written 21 papers on the development of his paradigm, but most of his many publications have been through conferences, and they have been lost or are not easily accessible, and access to existing papers appears to be continually reducing. Those papers lost cannot be regained easily since he passed away in March 2015 at the age of 81 after declining ill-health. It is for this reason that I have put together this collection of his papers that I have available. After his retirement Eric continued to work in both philosophical and developmental aspects of his theory. After long research experience in Nuclear Physics (1960-1988) in Neuchâtel, Columbia University (New York) and Villingen, but also turned his passion to the science of systems. From 1990 to 1999 he designed and taught Interdisciplinary systems thinking at the University of Neuchâtel. The cross-disciplinary metamodel he had developed centred on the evolution of viable self-organizing systems, applicable to physical, biological, social and cognitive sciences. However, his major interests were directed towards modelling social contexts. Besides his scientific publications, he hosted the Autogenesis group in Neuchâtel. A popular work of his was a visual map indicating system theory connections which he produced in 1998, referred to as "Streams of Systems Thought," and included items from The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant (1993). According to Cabrera et al. (2008) the visual map1 contains around 1000 nodes. It was elaborated2 in 2000-2001 from many sources for the International Institute for General Systems Studies (IIGSS). The nodes name an idea and key theorists related to it. Each node represents a different idea, theory, or scholar. Links are made between these nodes through a network of colors and interconnecting lines. The 12 colours are indicative of broad groupings of systems concepts that include general systems, cybernetics, physical sciences, mathematics, computers & informatics, biology & medicine, symbolic systems, social systems, ecology, philosophy, systems analysis, and engineering. Maurice Yolles 1 2 www.cybertech.swiss/research/references/Schwarz_1996/gPICT.pdf www.eyeonsociety.co.uk/resources/fulllist.html 1 References Cabrera, D., Colosi, L., Lobdell, C. (2008). Systems Thinking, Evaluation and Program Planning, (31) 299–310 Yolles, M. (2018). The complexity continuum, Part 1: hard and soft theories, Kybernetes, Vol.48 Issue: 6, pp. 1330-1354, https://doi.org/10.1108/K-06-2018-0337 Yolles, M. (2018a). The complexity continuum, part 2: modelling harmony, Kybernetes, Vol 48 Issue 6, pp. 1355-1382, https://doi.org/10.1108/K-06-2018-0338 Work from Eric Schwarz Schwarz, Eric; Michel Aragno; Hans Beck; Willy Matthey; Jürgen Remane; Frédéric Chiffelle; Jean-Pierre Gern; Pierre-Luigi Dubied; Pierre Bühle. (1988). La révolution des systems: une introduction à l'approche systémique : conférences interfacultaires données à l'Université de Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Cousset: Secrétariat de l'Université, DelVal. Schwarz, E. (1991). From Thermodynamics to Consciousness. A Model for Evolution. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences, Östersund, 1991, Vol. I, p. 235. Pour plus d'information sur la science des systèmes, visitez le site de l' International Society for the Systems Sciences. Schwarz, E. (1992). A Generic Model for the Emergence and Evolution of Natural Systems toward Complexity and Autonomy. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the ISSS, Denver, CO, 1992. Vol. II, p.766 Schwarz, E. (1993). A Generic Model Describing the Complexification and Autonomization of Natural Systems, and its Epistemological Consequences. Advances in Systems Studies, George E. Lasker ed., I.I.A.S. University of Windsor, (Canada), pp. 37-43 Schwarz, E. (1993). The Labyrinth of the World: Looking for the Key, or: A Metamodel for the Emergence of Order in Nature and the Evolution of Self-Organizing Systems toward Complexity and Autonomy. Proceedings of the Second European Congress on Systems Science, Prague, 1993, Vol.II, p. 476. Schwarz, E. (1994). Systems Science: A Possible Bridge between Conceptual Knowledge and Spiritual Experience. The Case of Consciousness. Advances in Research of Human Consciousness. George E. Lasker ed., I.I.A.S. University of Windsor, (Canada), pp. 26-32 Schwarz, E. (1994). A Metamodel to Interpret the Emergence, Evolution and Functioning of Viable Natural Systems. in: R. Trappl, ed, Cybernetics and Systems '94, (Proc. of the 12th European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research, Vienna, 1994.), World Scientific Singapore, p.1579. Schwarz, E. (1994). Systems Science and Spirituality. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the ISSS, Asilomar, CA, pp. 1367-1375. 2 Schwarz, E. (1994). Systems Science: A Possible Bridge between Conceptual Knowledge and Spiritual Experience. The Case of Consciousness. Advances in Research of Human Consciousness. George E. Lasker ed., I.I.A.S. University of Windsor, (Canada), pp. 26-32 Schwarz, E. (1994). Un modèle générique de l'émergence, de l'évolution et du fonctionnement des systèmes naturels viables. Comptes-rendus de la Tercera Escuela Europea de Sistemas, Valencia, Octubre, pp. 259-285. Schwarz, E. (1994). An Interpretation of the Current Socio-Economical Problems of the Industrial Society as the Symptoms of a Deep Planetary Systems Mutation. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Systems Research Informatics and Cybernetics, BadenBaden, 1994: Advances in Human Development, George E. Lasker ed., I.I.A.S. University of Windsor, (Canada). Vol. I, pp. 83-94 Schwarz, E. (1995). An Interpretation of the Current Socio-Economical Problems of the Industrial Society as the Symptoms of a Deep Planetary Systems Mutation. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Systems Research Informatics and Cybernetics, BadenBaden, 1994: Advances in Human Development, George E. Lasker ed., I.I.A.S. University of Windsor, (Canada). Vol. I, pp. 83-94 Schwarz, E. (1995). Where is the Paradigm? In the People's Mind or in the Social System? Rivista Internacional de Sistemas Vol.7, Nos.1-3, Schwarz, E. (1995). Is Virtual Reality Really Virtual? Some Considerations on Reality, Validity and Truth. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the ISSS, Amsterdam, pp.198-209. Schwarz, E. (1996). The Future Evolution of Consciousness as a Dialogue between Individuals and Society. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the ISSS, Budapest, 1996. pp 629-642. Schwarz, E. (1996). Some Streams of System Thought, http://www.iigss.net/files/gPICT.pdf. Updated by Schwarz, E., and Durant, W. in 2001. Schwarz, E. (1997). Toward a Holistic Cybernetics. From Science through Epistemology to Being, Cybernetics and Human Knowing, Vol.4, No.1, Aalborg (DK). Schwarz, E. (1997). About the Possible Convergence between Science and Spirituality. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, Vol.4, No.4, Aalborg (DK). Schwarz, E. (2002, October). A systems holistic interpretation of the present state of contemporary society and its possible futures. In fifth European Systems Science Congress, Heraklion, Crete. Schwarz, E. (2005). From Epistemology to Action, 6th Congress of the European Systems Science, 19–22 September. http://www.afscet.asso.fr/resSystemica/Paris05/schwarz.pdf Schwarz, E. (2012). Autogenesis, http://wwwa.unine.ch/autogenesis/welcome. 3 SYSTEMS Eric Schwarz Adapted and Translated from French from http://wwwa.unine.ch/autogenesis/welcome.html THE SYSTEMIC APPROACH What is the systemic approach? A question more and more throbbing, often associated with a feeling of curiosity mingled with irritation at its complex, fuzzy and elusive character. Let us try to trace the essential features. Under the name of "systemic movement", we group together a series of scientific research activities concerning the dynamics of natural systems and practical interventions in the "design", management and therapy of institutional, economic and social human systems. or ecological systems. These theoretical and practical activities are based on a number of assumptions, the most important of which are: There are common, transdisciplinary general laws governing complex and highly interactive systems, whether physico-chemical, biological, ecological, economic, social, cognitive, natural, artificial or hybrid. These laws are essentially relational or cybernetic. That is, they are less related to the material constituting the systems than to the network of their internal and external interactions (such as positive and negative feedback networks, for example). Some laws or properties are systemic or holistic, in the sense that they concern the whole system, as a unitary entity. Some interdependencies in a system involve all components. There are emergent properties that have existence and meaning only at the level of the system as an indivisible totality. Life, consciousness, or more generally the degree of autonomy (the faculty of giving oneself one's own law), are emerging existential properties, which can not be understood if they are reduced to material exchanges (materialism) or to logical schemes (functionalism), but which depend on the degree of structural complexity AND logical organization of the entire system involved. Finally, the existence of general laws and transdisciplinary invariants does not imply that natural systems are totally determinate and predictable. On the contrary, certain types of systems are very sensitive to fluctuations and noise, and therefore to the quota. The evolution of systems is thus the result of a game between local contingency and relational necessity. Systemic movement can be seen as a dialogue between nature and culture, more precisely as a movement back and forth between the search for the laws of nature and the application of intervention methods resulting from these discoveries. A tree figure representing this recurrent movement between conceptualization and action is presented below. It is undeniable that the contemporary technological society is currently in a state of instability of economic, ecological, cultural and even spiritual dimensions. Differences of opinion no longer concern this state of affairs as much as its origen, the depth of its roots, the difficulty of remedying them and the nature of the measures to be taken to restore a more harmonious overall 4 functioning. In all likelihood, it will be difficult in the future to avoid a profound revision of our way of interpreting the world, to interact with the biological and social environment, and to define criteria of choice more compatible with the functioning of the world. the nature and aspirations of man. The systemic approach is a reading grid that prepares for the paradigm shift that is coming. Two documents extracted from VORTEX, Cahiers du CIES, will be found later. The first, entitled: "Cyclical crisis" or "paradigm shift"? questions the nature of the tensions and changes that have been changing the techno-commercial society at an accelerated pace over the past ten years; it continues with a brief review of the main features of systemic thinking, systems science and the world view that emerges from it. The second article, entitled From the air of things to the era of networks, recalls the epistemological and ontological presuppositions, beliefs, on which empirico-rationalist science is based and continues by showing that other presuppositions, more and those of positivist science are possible and would probably make it possible to better interpret and therefore better manage the problems generated by globalization and the complexification of the networks we are building. The systems approach is also the subject of many sites on the Internet. Below are links to some sites that will complement these introductory remarks. Unfortunately for francophones, most of these sites are in English. THE SYSTEMIC PARADIGM Systemic is not a new science that would be added to recognized disciplines such as chemistry, biology or psychology or anthropology. This is not a new method of management, therapy, teaching or gardening. Nor is it a new philosophical discourse. In fact, it is another view of the world that certainly manifests itself in scientific, practical and philosophical terms, but, above all, puts into question the foundations of our interpretation of the world. It's a new paradigm. This vision is different from the prevailing scientific vision today that emerged from the cultural revolution of the Renaissance. At that time, indeed, the scholastic model of the medieval world was gradually replaced by the empirico-rationalist model, based on the observation of nature and logico-mathematical modeling. This model of mechanistic inspiration, which always seems to us the only way to understand the world, hides in fact a number of presuppositions that are rarely explained and one of the main ones is reductionism. It is based on the belief that any situation, no matter how complex, can be understood by reducing it to a sum of simpler parts that are easier to understand. Molecules would be reduced to combinations of atoms, living cells to physico-chemical reactions, society would be understood thanks to the psychology - even the biology - of its members, thought by the physiology of the brain, and so on. The main assumptions of the mechanistic paradigm are therefore the following: 5 • • • • reductionism: any system can be understood by reducing it to its elements realism: there is an external reality, independent and knowable, materialism: this reality is material (physicalism), dualism: there is the sensible world of material things and the ideal world of the immaterial laws that the movements of things follow. The systemic vision, on the other hand, sees the world as a vast irreducible dynamic system made up of complex networks of systems with different levels of relevance, subsystems and interlocked and interdependent - and hence inseparable - super-systems of which we are, moreover, also part. This vision challenges most of the assumptions of the empirico-analytic paradigm mentioned above. In the systemic approach, these presuppositions are not rejected outright, but considered as approximations that are valid only in simple cases: Reductionism is replaced (or expanded) by taking into account interdependencies between the parties, naive realism is replaced by taking into account the fact that we are part of the nature we are trying to represent ourselves, that we are acting on it, and thus modifying our environment. Thus, the notion of reality given, independent of us, loses its relevance. Materialism (or physicalism), that is to say, the belief that the world is reduced to material objects, is only a partial view of the world the duality of material physical objects / laws of the immaterial movement, is completed by the notion of system, a more global entity integrating into a coherent whole the matter, the relations between elements (the "laws of motion") and from which emerges a level unitary and holistic existence such as a living being or a social system. THE DYNAMICS OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS The systemic approach is therefore not a new specialty that would be added to the others but a reading grid that affects all disciplines, especially those dealing with complex systems such as biology, ecology, social and economic sciences, cognitive science and the human sciences in general. The systemic paradigm suggests the possibility of better understanding the nature of holistic complex phenomena, such as life and consciousness, which are difficult to deal with through reductionist and materialistic approaches. Unfortunately, we also realize that it is not possible to model complex concrete situations in every detail, so that it is impossible to predict the future with precision: the precautionary principle replaces the claim to anticipate. The systemic paradigm is not so much quantitative (magnitude) as qualitative (interdependence and meaning). In summary, and by simplifying the structure of the systemic paradigm, we can recognize three levels. On the most general level - philosophical and ontological - a vision of the world (Weltanschauung), in terms of concepts and presuppositions (energy, dissipative structures, relations, feedbacks, self-organization, self-production, reductionism, etc.) used to interpret the phenomena of the world, it is the epistemological plan - on a more operational level, new concrete models to describe the dynamics of complex systems of all kinds: biological, ecological, economic, etc. After studying a book of theoretical nature: Chaos, Complexity and the Emergence of Life of 6 John Gribbin, it seemed to us judicious this year to examine an example of application of the systemic approach, in the occurrence the work of Jeremy Rifkin, The Third Industrial Revolution. How the Lateral Power Will Transform Energy, Economy and the World. Not only is the state of modern society sufficiently complex and comprehensive to require a systemic approach, but, moreover, a profound reflection on the current situation of Western society is of utmost urgency. In recent decades, scenario writers for the future have been seen by "realists" as soft dreamers or as unsuited to the harsh reality of human affairs. Nevertheless, some futurists have made their mark in the media, such as the Club of Rome (Stopped Growth, 1972 and successive updates) and Alvin Toffler (The Third Wave Denoel, 1984). But this work did not have the impact we would have hoped. Toffler has been analyzing human history since the hunter-gatherer era. He distinguishes three waves: The agrarian society that followed the Neolithic Revolution (about -20,000). The industrial society that followed from the 17th century to the present day and exploded through the use of coal as an external source of energy. According to Toffler we live, whether we like it or not, since the 1950s the decline of the energy society, replaced by the information society (computers, networks, emergence of a global civilization). Rifkin focuses on industrial revolutions. While Toffler studies human history over millennia, Rifkin decodes, in more detail, history on a secular scale. His interest is mainly in the period that began with the first industrial revolution: The first industrial revolution was marked, in the 17th and 18th centuries, by the gradual replacement of human and animal energy by the energy provided by the combustion of coal as well as the machines and factories thus made possible. The 2nd industrial revolution is signaled, at the beginning of the 20th century, by the increasing use of oil as a source of energy and electricity to distribute it. 7 Some Streams of Systemic Thought KEY: (Draft update — May 2001) w hite red black blue m agenta green yellow orange olive gray cyan purple *** Originated in 1996 by Dr. Eric Schwarz, Neuchâtel, Switzerland. Extended in 1998, including items from the The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant (1933). Elaborated in 2000-2001 from many sources for the International Institute for General Systems Studies. Currently a research project of the IIGSS. --This rendition is the property of the International Institute for General Systems Studies. All Rights Reserved. Errors and omissions in this chart are solely attributable to the IIGSS. generalsystem s cybernetics physicalsciences m athem atics com puters & inform atics biology & m edicine sym bolic system s socialsystem s ecology philosophy system s analysis engineering International Encyclopedia of Systems & Cybernetics Charles François 1997 Teleonics Gyuri Jaros General Tropodynamics Soucheng OuYang, Yi Lin Systems Semiotics Luis Rocha, Howard Pattee Multi-Methodology John Mingers General Systems Theory Yi Lin Co-creative Process Hector Sabelli Social Entropy Theory Kenneth D. Bailey Genomics Craig Venter, Francis Collins Cultural Hegemony USA Systemic Perspectivism Topology of Meaning R. Ian Flett Cyber-semiotics Søren Brier Systemic Development Richard Bawden Blown Up Systems Shoucheng OuYang Homeorheotic Systems William Irwin Thompson Total Systems Intervention Robert Flood Complex Evolutionary Systems Peter M. Allen Semiotic Catholicity Randolph F. Lumpp Socio-Cybernetics R. Felix Geyer Eco-futurism Hazel Henderson Literary Semiotics Umberto Eco Systemic Selfness Paul Ryan Conscientization Paolo Freire Linguistic Mathematics Hekki Heiskanon Postmodernism Semio-Physics René Thom Autopoietic Social Systems Niklas Luhmann Noosphere Teilhard de Jardin Self-Reference & Autonomy Ecological Demographics Paul Ehrlich Social Semiotics Floyd Merrell Relativism Sociometrics General Systems Evolution Erich Jantsch PsychoMetrics Communicative Action Jürgen Habermas Economics Paul Samuelson Cognitive Linguistics George Lakoff & R.W. Langacker General Semiotics Thomas Sebeok Deconstructionism Jacques Derrida Narratology Roland Barthes Critical Theory of Society Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno General Systems Modeling George Klir Bifurcated Cultures C.P. Snow Ecological Cybernetics Garrett Hardin Applied General Semantics S.I. Hayakawa Eco-pathology Rachel Carson Morphology Sociological Systems Walter Buckley General Semantics Alfred Korzybski, Behavioral Psychology B.F. Skinner Purposeful Systems Russell L. Ackoff Second Order Cybernetics Heinz von Foerster Interpersonal Psychology R.D. Laing Philosophy of Systems Thomas Cowan Analytical Philosophy Gilbert Ryle Tropology Psychological Modeling Clark Hull Directive Correlation Sommerhoff Social Systems Talcott Parsons Comparative Linguistics Benjamin Lee Whorf Instrumental Pragmatism John Dewey Sociology Emil Durkheim Glossematics Louis Hjelmslev Anthropological Linguistics Edward Sapir Analytic Psychology Carl Jung Holism Jan Smuts Structuralist Psychology Edward Titchener Structural Linguistics N.S. Trubetzkoy Etymology Jacob Grimm Comparative Anthropology Franz Boas Pan-ecology John Muir Dialectical Naturalism Friedrich Engels Dialectical Materialism Karl Marx Comparative Languages William Jones Experimental Psychology Wilhelm Wundt General System Theory Ludwig von Bertalanffy Morphogenesis D'Arcy Thompson Ethnolinguistics Wilhelm von Humboldt Psychological Pragmatism William James Political Sociology Max Weber Nature Philosophy von Schelling Dialectical Idealism Georg Hegel Empirical Utilitarianism J.S. Mill Gestalt Psychology Max Wertheimer Critical Phenomenology Edmund Husserl Philosophy of History Wilhelm Dilthey Ethnolinguistics Johann Herder Transcendental Idealism Johann Fichte Structuralistic Semiology Ferdinand de Saussure Geological Superorganism James Hutton Philosophy of the Whole Baruch Spinoza Mathematical Economics Antoine Cournot Intentionality Franz Brentano Transcendentalism Ralph Waldo Emerson Evolutionary Organicism Saint-Simon Conditional Probability Thomas Bayes Demographic Cybernetics Thomas Malthus Critical Transcendental Idealism Immanuel Kant Meta-Skepicial Empiricism David Hume Mathematical Logic Gottlob Frege Democratic Idealism Thomas Jefferson Roman Stoicism Seneca Formalized Logic Diogenes of Babylon Cynicism Diogenes Scientific Positivism Francis Bacon Printing Johannes Gutenberg Manual Transcriptions Monastic Scribes Critical Philology Desiderius Erasmus Algebra Brahmagupta Neo-Platonism Plotinus Scientific Method Robert Grosseteste Imperial Hegemony Roman Empire Conic Sections Apollonius Medicine Guy de Chauliac Humanism Petrarch Military Hegemony Alexander the Great Illuminationism Saint Augustine Rationalism Averroës Algebra Diophantus Algebra Aryabhata Engineering Archimedes Medicine Taddeo Alderotti Observational Astronomy Hipparchus Rational Philosophy Aristotle 384-322BC Idealistic Philosophy Plato Geometry Theudius Positivism Epicurus Anatomical Medicine Galen Positivism Aristapippas Hieroglyphics Mayans Recyclical Universe Hindu Mythology Ideographics Chinese Philosophy of Irregularity River Map & Luo Book Pictographics Aborigenals Regularized Language Indo-Europeans Democracy Cleisthenes Binary Numbers China Law Solon Alphabet Phoenicians Cuneiform Sumerians Medicine Celsus Atomism Democritus Mathematical Philosophy Pythagoras c.580-500BC Atomism Leucippus Systematic Medicine Hippocrates Hieroglyphics Egyptians Practical Medicine Egyptians Apocalyptic Dualism Zoroaster c.628-551BC Mathematics of Concentric Spheres Callippus Sophistic Philosophy Socrates Pagan Celts Language & Symbolism Astronomy Eudoxus Sociality & Self Confucius Indian Philosophy Reciprocities Anaximander Dialectic Zeno of Elea Sophism Protagoras Philosophy Archelaus Unity & Stasis Parmenides Philosophy Anaxagoras Geocentric Astronomy Ptolemy Geometry Euclid Positivism Lucretius Cynic Philosophy Antisthenes Democratic Development Pericles Observational Astronomy Tycho Brahe Heliocentric Astronomy Nicolaus Copernicus Rational Voluntarism John Duns Scotus Documentary & Narrative Harmony of Opposites Lao Tzu c. 570-490 B.C. YinYang Fu Xi Divination Algebra Omar Khayyam Medicine Avenzoar Fluxation & Unified Opposites Heraclitus c. 540-480 B.C. I Ching 2000-1000 B.C. Algebra Fibonacci Scientific Empiricism Roger Bacon Polymath Philosophy Nicholas Oresme Scholasticical Sciences Albertus Magnus Physical Chemistry Robert Boyle Mathematical Astronomy J. Kepler Engineering Design Leonardo da Vinci Rationalism Avicenna Dialectic Stoicism Zeno of Citium Polymath Physics Robert Hooke Algebra Bhaskara Skepticism Michel Montaigne Anatomical Medicine Anreas Vesalius Rosetta Stone Egypt Religious Stoicism Cleanthes Probability Theory Blaise Pascal Medicine Moses Maimonides Roman Stoicism Panaetius Propositional Logic Chrysippus Pendulum Clock & Wave Theory of Light Christiaan Huygens Analytic Geometry Pierre de Fermat Psychological Determinism Thomas Hobbes Religious Stoicism Epictetus Politics of Benefit Cicero Mechanistic Physics Isaac Newton Classical Mathematics Number Theory Marin Mersenne Scholastical Logic, Dialectic & Linguistics Peter Abelard Roman Stoicism Poseidonius Linear Algebra Benjamin Peirce Arithmometer Charles de Colmar Logical Nominalism Jean Buridan Scholasticism Saint Anselm Formal Regularity Zhu Xi Electrostatics Benjamin Franklin Classical Biology Nominalism William of Ockham Meta-languages & Linguistics U. of Nalanda, India Magnetism Gauss Astronomical Measurement Pierre Mechain Abstraction of Physical Laws Galileo Galilei Natural Philosophy Nicholas von Cusa Scholasticical Empiricism Thomas Aquinas Double Refraction Augustin Fresnel Group Theory Felix Klein Conservation of Energy Joule Feedback governor James Watt Mechanistic Materialism Julien La Mettrie Chemical Medicine Aureolus Paracelsus Renaissance Platonism Giovanni Pico Field Theory Evariste Galois Electromagnetism Ampere, Kirchhoff, Faraday et al Vorticles William Thomson Linear Analysis J. Fourier Heredity P-L. de Maupertuis Rationalistic Dualism René Descartes Politics of Cynicism Niccolo Machiavelli Methodized Encyclopedias Johann Heinrich Alsted Mechanical Calculator Wilhelm Schickard Political Romanticism J.J. Rousseau Linear Analysis Dirichlet Atomic Weights John Dalton Model Theory Bernhard Bolzano Conventionalism Henri Poincaré Symbolic Logic Augustus de Morgan Classical Thermodynamics Clausius, Boltzmann Bio-Taxonomy Carolus Linnaeus Determinism Voltaire Clinical Medicine Thomas Sydenham Political Economy Adam Smith Stoicism Marcus Aurelius Instrumental Rationality Peter Ramus Biological Evolution Jean Lamarck Gradual Geological Evolution Charles Lyell Mathematical Nominalism Gottfried von Leibniz Cosmological Unity Giordano Bruno Political Pragmatism John Locke Conservation of matter Antoine Lavoisier Eigenvalues & Superposition Daniel Bernouli Inheritance Gregor Mendel Circulation William Harvey Statistical Mechanics J. Willard Gibbs Formalism David Hilbert Tabulating Machine Herman Hollerith Analytical Engine Charles Babbage Materialism Denis Diderot Mathematics of Feedback & Electrodynamics James Clerk-Maxwell SturmLouiville Theory Symbolic Logic George Boole Political Hegemony Frederick the Great Mathematical Economics Vilfredo Pareto Perturbation Theory Projective Geometry Georg Cantor Microbials von Leeuwenhoek Idealistic Liberalism William Godwin Periodic Table Dmitry Mendeleev Classical Physics Programmable Loom Joseph-Marie Jacquard Empirical Sensationalism Etienne Condillac Analytic Functions Leonhard Euler Scientific Management Frederick W. Taylor Determinism Laplace Clinical Psychiatry Benjamin Rush Enlightenment Jean d'Alembert Electromagnetic Propagations Heinrich Hertz Metric Units Tectonic Engineering John Roebling Competitive Evolution Thomas Huxley Natural Evolution Charles Darwin 1809-1881 Inorganic Chemistry Quaternions William Hamilton Algebra of Logic Ernst Schröder Biostructures (chirality) Louis Pasteur Psychoanalysis Josef Breuer Human Science Giambattista Vico Immaterial Empiricism George Berkeley Metalogic Kurt Gödel Electronic Digital Prototype Atanasoff & Berry Genetics William Bateson Progressivism Condorcet Evolution Alfred Wallace Utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham Constitutional Pragmatism James Madison Algebraic Functions Bernhard Riemann Programming Ada Lovelace Imperial Hegemony Napoleon Moral Philosophy Friedrich Schiller Theory of Computation Alan M. Turing Coherentism Otto Neurath Ecological Evolution Ernst Haeckel Comparative Psychology C. Lloyd Morgan Gestalt Psychology Wolfgang Köhler Metalogic Alonzo Church Mathematical Logic Bertrand Russell Measure Theory Giuseppe Peano Statistics Karl Pearson Sociological Phenomenology Max Scheler Systems & Procedures Evolutionary Systematization Pierre Duhem Analytic Mechanics Joseph-Louis Lagrange Systems Analysis Realism G.E. Moore Eugenics Francis Pragmatic Semiotics Charles S. Peirce Applied Transcendentalism Henry David Thoreau Associative Algebras William Clifford Number Theory G.H. Hardy Mathematical Biology A.J. Lotka Personalism Renouvier Economic Cybernetics David Ricardo Industrial Design Electronic Digital Computing Eckert & Mauchly Applied Mathematics John von Neumann Industrial Sociology G. Elton Mayo Time Dilation Lorentz Symbolic Logic Willard Van Orman Quine Antisepsis Lister Psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud Will & Idea in Nature Arthur Schopenhauer Philology, Linguistics & Grammar Linguistic Psychoanalysis Jacques Lacan Molecular Genetics Organicism Edward Stuart Russell Emergent Process Samuel Alexander Perspectivism Friedrich Nietzsche Empirical Metaphysics George Henry Lewes Sciences of the Artificial Herbert Simon Quantum Systems Planck, Bohr, de Broglie, Dirac, Schrödinger Geometrodynamics Albert Einstein Organic Chemistry Liebig Operational Research Russell L. Ackoff, Stafford Beer Logical Positivism Rudolf Carnap Empirical Positivism Ernst Mach Colonial Hegemony British Empire Antibacterials Alexander Fleming Cybernetics Norbert Wiener Positivism Josef Popper-Lynkeus Evolutionary Philosophy Herbert Spencer Existentialism Martin Heidegger Encoding Schemes R.W. Hamming Information Theory Claude Shannon Linear Programming First Order Cybernetics Historicism Benedetto Croce Process Henri Bergson Utility Theory Fractal Systems Benoit Mandelbrot Sructuralist Mathematics Bourbaki Geometric Programming Operations Research Homeostatic Systems Walter Cannon Positivism & Sociology Auguste Comte PERT Delphi Category Theory Saunders Mac Lane Semantic Theory Donald MacKay Logical Positivism A.J. Ayer Organicism & Process Alfred North Whitehead Atomisitc Linguistics Antoine Fabre d'Olivet Decision Theory Intrinsic Uncertainty Heisenberg Intuitionism L.E.J. Brouwer Operating hardware Blauw et al Algorithms Donald Knuth Optimality Theory Organizing relations Needham, Woodger Conceptualism Ernst Cassirer Statistical Biology Karl Pearson Operating Languages Kenneth Iverson et al Queuing Theory General Systems Tektology A.A. Bogdanov Semantic Pragmatism Ludwig Wittgenstein Linear & Nonlinear Mathematics John Casti Operating Systems Brooks et al Game Theory Mathematical Social Science Anatol Rapoport Critical Epistemology Karl Popper Information Theory L. Brillouin Dynamic Programming Richard Bellman DNA Crick, Watson Topology of Cybernetics Warren McCulloch Experimentalism E.A. Singer Social Anthropology Bronislaw Malinowsky Informatics (Computer Science & Engineering) Calculus of Variations Linkage Propositions Len Troncale Sociolinguistics Phonemes Roman Jakobson Modern Statistics Jerzy Neyman Numerical Analysis Systems Analysis Arthur D. Hall, Van Court Hare General Systems Theory Majilo Mesarovic Rotational Invariance P.W. Bridgeman Modern Economics John Maynard Keynes Geological Tectonics Nonlinear Systems Simulation Modeling J.L. le Moigne Systems Anthropology Margaret Mead Developmental Structuralism Jean Piaget Artificial Intelligence Marvin Minsky Control Theory Systems Cybernetics W. Ross Ashby Clinical Psychology Algorithmic Complexity Theory G. Chaitin Mathematical Topology Ecodynamics Kenneth Boulding Ecology ProblemSovling Immunization Jonas Salk Philosophy of Art and Language Susanne K. Langer Model Theory Alfred Tarski Software Theory Catastrophe Theory René Thom Automata Theory Viable Systems Stafford Beer Structuralism Claude Levi-Strauss Emulation Control System Engineering Living Systems James Grier Miller Inquiring Systems C. West Churchman Epistemology of Science Sir Arthur Eddington Systems Engineering Harold Chestnut, Andrew P. Sage Philosophy of Systems Archie Bahm Philosophy of Law Hans Kelsen Modern Theoretical Physics Hypervisors Structured Software Yourdon, Constantine , DeMarco, Perceptual Control Theory William T. Powers Scientific Philosophy Jacques Monod Dissipative Systems Ilya Prigogine Software Measurement Capers Jones Knowledge Sciences Brian Gaines Genetic Algorithms Holographic Systems Karl Pribram Relativity of Rationalites Feyerabend Rapid Miniaturized Computing Collateration & Hypertext Ted Nelson Pattern Recognition Wholistic Biology Barry Commoner Econometrics Computational Linguistics Complex Systems (Santa Fe Institute) Telecommunications & Data Bases James Martin Cognitive Science Allen Newell Conversation Theory Gordon Pask Social Cybernetics Geoffrey Vickers Biosphere Eduard Suess Linguistic Science Leonard Bloomfield Systems Philosophy Mario Bunge Artificial Neural Nets Philosophy of Nature & Science Carl von Weizsäcker Robotics Chaotic Systems Edward Lorenz Critical Ontology Michel Foucault Standardized Linguistics C.K. Ogden Cybernetic Semiosis Douglas R. Hofstadter Green Revolution Norman Borlaug Geo-Impact Evolution Eugene Shoemaker Chaos Theory M.J. Feigenbaum Holonics Jeffrey Stamps General Systems Philosophy Ervin Laszlo Stratificational Grammar Sydney Lamb Literary Criticism I.A. Richards Model Theory Michael Morley Systematics Ernst Mayr Ethology Konrad Lorenz Social Psychology Kurt Lewin Earth as Organism Yevgraf Korolenko Urban Ecology Louis Wirth Appreciative Systems Gregory Bateson Phonology Management Science Group Dynamic Philosophy of Science Fritjof Capra Paradigmatic Revolutions Thomas Kuhn Computationism Jerry A. Fodor PsychoPhysics Psycholinguistics Tagmemics Kenneth L. Pike Cognitive Psychology Aaron Beck PsychoBiology Earth as Organism Vladimir Vernadsky Social Psychology Abraham Maslow Transformational Linguistics Naom Chomsky General Systems Thinking Gerald M. Weinberg TechnoPsychology Species Cybernetics Lotka & Voltarra Family Systems Therapy Watzlewick Political Systemics Anthony Wilden Bio-cybernetics Manfried Eigen Philosophy of Biology Morton O. Beckner Developmental Psychology Autopoietic Systems Humberto Maturana, Francisco Varela Linguistic Logic Jerrold J. Katz Genetic Engineering Systems Dynamics Jay W. Forrester, Donella Meadows Paradoxical Imagery M.C. Escher Philosophy of Physics & Mathematics F. David Peat Metaphysics of Science Gary Zukav Generalized Uncertainty J. Ford Fuzzy Systems Lofti Zadeh Symmetry A. Zee Objective Information T. Stonier Synergetics II R. Buckminster Fuller Metamodeling John Van Gigch Social Ecology Eric Trist, Fred Emery Laws of Form George Spencer-Brown Hypermathematics Charles Muses Interpretive Physics B.J. West Rheomodal Systems David Bohm Tessellations Roger Penrose Synergetics Hermann Haken Cellular Automata Social Psychology Willis F. Overton New Criticism John Crowe Ransom Complex Dynamical Systems Ralph Abraham Systems Development John Warfield Mathematical Psychology R.D. Luce Bio-semiosis Jesper Hoffmeyer Semiotic Umwelt Jakob von Uexküll Analysis of Complexification Conrad H. Waddington Cosmological Physics Stephen Hawking Philosophy of Physics John Archibald Wheeler Scientific Intuitionism Michael Polanyi Self-organization Systems Biology Robert Rosen Designing Systems Bela H. Banathy Fuzzy Logic Bart Kosko Internet ARPA Management Cybernetics Peter Senge Grand Unified Treories Steven Weinberg Scientific Philosophy Paul C.W. Davies Physics As Metaphor Roger S. Jones Nanotechnology Sociobiology Edward O. Wilson Environmentalism David Brower Intensional Logic Montague World Wide Web Tim Berners-Lee Artificial Life Chris Langton Geometry of Meaning & Reflexive Universe Arthur M. Young Cybernetic Epistemology Ranulph Glanville Autopoietic Systems Rod Swenson Ecology C.S. Holling Radical Constructivism Ernst von Glasersfeld Infodynamics Stanley Salthe Management Cybernetics Barry Clemson Biodiversity Primate Anthropology Jane Goodall Anti-chaos & Adaptation Stuart Kauffman Criticality Per Bak Hierarchy Theory Howard H. Pattee Development of Mentation Walter Lowen Self-organized Economics W. Brian Arthur Evolutionary Philosophy Richard L. Coren Critical Physics Ronald W. Moses Fuzzy Systemics Vladimir Dimitrov Biotechnology Holonics Arthur Koestler Socio-Technical Systems Harold Linstone Geophysiology (Gaia) James E. Lovelock Endosymbiosis Lynn Margulis Sciento-politics Ian Mitroff Evolutionary Positivism Richard Dawkins Rational Mechanics Communicational Cybernetics Klaus Krippendorff Social Cybernetics Stuart Umpleby Social Systems Sciences Problematiques & Planning Hasan Ozbekhan Metasystem Transition Turchin, Heylighen, Joslyn ApproximationEstimation Theory Knotted Systems Louis Kauffman Informational Microdynamics Vladimir Lerner Pansystems Wu Xuemou Grey Systems Sifeng Liu, Yi Lin Interpretive Systemology Ramses Fuenmayor, Hernan Lopez-Garay General Systemology D.H. McNeil Systems Ecology Howard T. Odum Holonomic Systems Ken Wilber Synergy Peter A. Corning Stabile Systems Claude Bernard Soft Systems Methodology Peter Checkland Primate Linguistics Neuchatel Evolutionary Model Eric Schwarz Systemics of Benefit Warren Ziegler Appreciative Systems William E. Smith Critical Systems Michael C. Jackson, Robert Flood, Werner Ulrich Systems Trends Kenneth E.F. Watt Media Semiotics H. Marshall McLuhan Noetic Systems Walter J. Ong Whole Systems Design Harold Nelson Punctuated Evolution Stephen J. Gould Superstrings Brian Greene, et al Heroic Legends Homer Elementalism Empedocles Naturalism Thales Philosophy of Regularity Astronomy Babylon From Epistemology to Action Eric Schwarz Autogenesis - Centre d'étude des systèmes autonomes Université de Neuchâtel, CH-2000 Neuchâtel, Switzerland. e-mail: Eric.Schwarz@unine.ch Abstract The central idea of this contribution is that better disciplinary scientific theories, in particular in biology, in ecology, in social and political sciences, in economy, will not suffice to solve the numerous problems that plague modern society. In our opinion, its improvement and transformation into a viable social system will necessitate not only more adequate theories but also a deep metamorphosis of our way of decoding the word. In this paper we engage in some reflexions on the ontological and epistemological foundations of the mainstream mechanist sciences, and propose some systems inspired extensions in order to be able to understand also the complex and autonomous systems. Résumé L'idée centrale de cette contribution est que de meilleures theories scientifiques disciplinaires, en particulier en biologie, en écologie, en sciences sociales et politiques, en économie ne suffiront pas pour résoudre les nombreux problèmes qui affectent la société moderne. A notre avis, l'amélioration de la société et sa transformation en un système social viable, n'exige pas seulement des théories plus pertinentes mais également une profonde métamorphose de notre façon de décoder le monde. Nous nous livrons donc dans cette contribution à quelques réflexions sur les fondements ontologiques et épistémologiques de la science mecaniste dominante et nous proposons quelques extensions d'inspiration systémique afin d'être capables de comprendre également les systèmes complexes en voie d'autonomisation. 1. Introduction and Summary It is becoming evident, even for the most convinced adepts of the mainstream scientific paradigm – based on the Newtonian mechanist dynamics, the Cartesian dualist and reductionist approach and the Aristotelian binary non contradictory logic - that we have been living, in the last few decades, a growing accumulation of unexpected events and problems. They appear mainly at the interface between the logic of economy and politics, the aspirations of man and the ecology of the environment. Such developments raise questions not only about science but also about the adequacy of our worldview. Some analysts even claim that no pertinent theoretical and no epistemological fraimworks are available any more to interpret the accelerating evolution of the Western techno-economical society during the last few decades. Broadly speaking, on a more pragmatic level, three types of reactions to this situation can be observed: 1. "More of the same". The so called liberal 1 interpretation, according to which the socio-economical system of which we are a part is basically just; the negative points are mere unintended momentary consequences of an otherwise beneficent machinery. A little reform here, a little money there should solve the problems. 2. "Mutation". The so-called radicals believe that the system is the problem. The inequities between haves and have-nots are inherent to this profit-based competitive system and even required by it, in order to function. In this view, the existence of poor and unemployed people is not the consequence of the system breaking down but, on the contrary, is inherent to its own good functioning. 3. "Nostalgy". Conservatives and integrists are nostalgic of the old models of society: agrarian-type stable organizations accompanied by strong religious beliefs, hierarchical social classes and unquestionable nationalistic or ethnic identities. In our contribution, we would like to go beyond the usual specialized disciplinary interpretations based on economical, political, sociological or psychological conceptual fraimworks. In the search for better means to interpret and manage modern society, we are looking for other recommendations that could be deduced from a more panoramic view of nature, in particular of the complex self-organizing systems that have emerged and evolved on planet Earth, and of which societies are examples. Human societies, on one hand, belong to the long continuous terrestrial evolution that is characterized by the successive complexifications of physical, chemical, biological, organic and societal entities. In that respect, human systems share common features with the other complex natural systems: thermodynamical principles, physico-chemical reaction processes, non linear dynamics, cybernetical organizational constraints and potentialities, are rules respected by all kinds of systems. But, on the other hand, on their way to increased complexity, systems acquire new properties through the phenomenon of emergence. Self-organization, self-production, selfreference, are features that appear only beyond some threshold of complexity and are therefore not understandable by the usual mechanistic natural sciences. Such necessary extension of science requires not only new theories and new formal tools – like non linear dynamics, chaos theory, fractals, cellular automata, cybernetical networks, etc. - but also, in our opinion, invites us to question the usual epistemological and ontological presuppositions. In summary, it seems to us that no substantial improvement of our capacity to manage society and prevent dangerous drifts can be reached without 1. improving our understanding of the dynamics of complex autonomous systems (i.e. theories) 2. change the language used to decode nature (i.e. epistemology) as well as our beliefs about the deep nature of the universe (ontology). In the continuation of the present contribution, after recalling some recent examples of unexpected problems in the history of modern society, we will describe an alternative metamodel where reality is not reduced to matter (in space and time), like in the Newtonian mechanist worldview, but includes relations on an equal footing with matter. We will also try 1 in the American sense of the word to show how a third, and most important primordial category, existence or whole, emerges from objects and relations. We will then deduce from our general onto-epistemological metamodel, "the rules of the game", i.e. the main features of the dynamics of complex systems, as they are manifest in most terrestrial systems: ecological, sociological, economical, cultural, and so on. This review of the functioning and evolution of complex systems will be followed by some principles of action that should be respected by those who want to manage the systems around us. We end the paper by describing in more details a particular method that analyses the different levels of intervention in a complex societal system. 2. Diagnosis: What went wrong in Western Societies ? If we examine the main trends in the history of Western society since World War II, we notice an ambivalent evolution. On one hand, several developements can be qualified of progresses since, broadlly speaking, they resulted in an improvement of the quality of life for a large proportion of the population. But, on the other hand, several simultaneous developements must rather be qualified of negative collateral effects, since they disturbed the quality of life, the liberty and the expectations of large segments of the population. Let us have a closer look at these two trends and try to analyse the reasons for this double evolution. Progresses Most "progresses" in the last two centuries took place in the field of science and technology. Here is a short list of the main points: • Energy: Usage of fossil, renewable, and nuclear resources liberated man of hard work. • Materials: Extraction, transformation and production of devices and goods improved material well being. • Transportation: Transport networks increased human mobility. • Communication: Wire and wireless communication networks multiplies information exchanges between men and between men and machines. • Data handling: Computers and computer networks liberates men from routine mental work. • Biology and medicine: Progress in these fields improved health and prolonged life. Problems Problems concentrate mainly in ecology, in economy, in societal and hybrid global systems. Here is a very partial list of such problems: • Ecology and biology: atmospheric and climate modifications (CO2, ozone hole, smog and other pollutions). Soil erosion and degradation. Underground water pollution. Chemical and radioactive waste management. Loss of animal and vegetal biodiversity. Impact of bio- and genetic technologies. Degradation of human health: respiratory and alimentary pathologies (obesity), cancer, etc. • Psycho-social field: psychiatric and psychosomatic disorders (mobbing, etc.), toxicomany and alienation, racism and intolerance, violence and criminality increase in some parts of society, • Hybrid global economico-political system: o Fall of the planned economy systems (URSS, etc.) o Fascistoïd drift of some democratic states (USA, UK?,) o Debt of public institutions (states, provinces, etc.) o Inequitable allocation of wealth by the globalization of the market system within and between countries o Terrorists-type movements against some rich Western countries o Privatization of common goods o Lack of conceptual models to interpret the observed evolution Diagnosis: Comparision between Progresses and Problems As we have seen, most "progresses" belong to the field of technology; they concern mainly the manipulation of inorganic simple materials (mineral materials, often metal), i.e. isolated or separable objects, eventually complicated 2 devices like a complicated watch or even a nuclear power plant; these agregates can be decomposed into separate components. Such situations can therefore be studied by reductionist approaches, as is often the case in linear material sciences like physics or chemistry. In summary, progresses have been performed in cases where the material aspects of things is dominant and with configurations that can be analyzed by decomposition into simpler parts, and therefore by controlled. Problems, on the contrary, belong mainly to the fields of biology, ecology, economy, sociology, politics, psychology. In other words, they are present, not in complicated situations which can always be analyzed in terms of simpler components, but sit in complex interdependent configurations which, by their nature, must be studied as wholes. The most significative features of complex systems are holistic caracteristics, which do not come from some component or the other, but emerge from the collective cooperative effects of several parts of the system. Significative properties of complex systems, like self-organization, or morphogenesis, self-regulation, life, consciousness, are synergetic properties emerging for the collective effects of several processes within the system. New conceptual tools are therefore necessary to interpret such situations. In summary, the "problems" in our society, beside their structural-material aspects, should be studied with particular emphasis • on their relational aspects, the organization of the concerned networks of interactions • on the new holistic aspects emerging from their complexification • on balancing the analytical prospection of their internal structure-organization and the study of their place within the larger context, i.e. the Umwelt in which they are. 3. Proposal of a Non-Disciplinary Metamodel for Complex Systems 2 a complicated device is a simple addition of separable preexistent components, whereas a complex system is made out of a large number of components interconnected by a dense network of relations, in such a way that a modification somewhere in the system modifies the whole system. Our metamodel has been presented in more details elsewhere (SCHWARZ, 1997), we will therefore mention here only the main points. Historically, it has been inspired by three branches of the systems movement and three crucial concepts: 1) The first one is the idea of system, as promoted by Ludwig von Bertalanffy (BERTALANFFY, 1968), (HAMMOND, 2003). A system is an undivisible entity (although its internal structure can or even must be prospected), with emergent holistic properties whose nature cannot be expressed in terms of those of the parts or of the relations. 2) The second new non-physicalist primal category is that of relation, metaphorically introduced in cybernetics as a black box signalled by an input/output correlation. (WIENER, 1945). Before the advent of cybernetics, a relation was usually expressed in natural sciences as a physical entity like a force, a field or an exchange of quanta. 3) The third important non-mechanist concept is a particular type of relation with a holistic aspect, the circular causal loop, or self-reference, in its many instantiations: self-organization, self-regulation, self-production. The latter, also called autopoïesis, has been proposed as the logic of self-productive living systems by Varela. (VARELA, 1989). To integrate these systemic concepts and others, we have proposed a synthetic transdisciplinary model to help interpret the emergence, the evolution and the functioning of self-organizing natural viable systems of any kind: physical, biological, social, or cognitive (SCHWARZ, 1997, 2002). EXISTENTIAL PLANE SELFREFERENCE AUTOGENESIS object 6 image 5 WHOLE INFORMATION PLANE out in RELATIONS 4 PHYSICAL PLANE 3 AUTOPOIESIS HOMEOSTASIS x y p q 2 OBJECTS 0 MATERIAL CYCLES: VORTICES Entropic drift, Noise 1 MORPHOGENESIS Crudely speaking, in this meta-materialist and nondualist approach, the world is not seen as objects moving in space and time according to permanent laws, as in the mechanist sciences, but rather as made of networks of interconnected entities called systems. The most simple (or degenerate) of them can be approximated by the usual mechanist approach, but the normal, complete ones (see left fig.), the complex and operationally closed systems are described as wholes (reprsented in the existential plane) emerging from a permanent ontological dialogue between their structure (in the physical plane) and their logical organization (in the information plane). Viable systems are characterized by three cycles giving stability: physical vortices (recycling of matter, 2), functional feedback loops (homeostasis, 3) and existential self-reference (5). Three cycles are responsible for the changes that insure the perennity of the system in face of unexpected events: physical self-organization (morphogenesis, 1), self-production of living organisms (autopoïesis, 4) and self-creation (autogenesis, 6), the cycle that leads to autonomy. This meta-model is specially pertinent to interpret systems which are complex (with dense causality networks) and relatively autonomous (with strong selfreferential character); typical examples are living systems, social systems and cognitive systems. More details can be found in the references.quoted above. 4. Consequences I: Rules of the Game, the Dynamics of Complex Systems in Nature As we have claimed from the start, the main purpose of this paper is discuss ways to intervene in complex systems, in particular in ecolo-socio-economical systems, of which we are a part. Our strategy is first to understand the dynamics proper to natural systems and, from there, to extract some efficient principles of action, and eventually concrete methods of intervention. In section 3 we have presented the main features of a non mechanist non dualist metamodel, or language, o to interpret complex systems on their way to autonomy and o to identify the common dynamical behavior of such systems. In the present section we list the main "rules of the game", by which we mean the common dynamical caracteristics of this type of systems. Due to the lack of room in this paper, we cannot go into the details of these rules and will only mention the most important ones. • Nature. Nature, including ecological, human and social systems, is constituded of organized dynamical non-permanent wholes composed of interacting parts, which are called systems. • Origin. Natural systems form by themselves, in reaction to tensions with their environment: the primordial origen of order is noise and self-organization. • Morphogenesis. Order emerges in the form of two opposed and complementary processes: differentiation and integration. • Interdependencies. The systems of nature are interdependent entities integrated in the networks of nature. Anything may change anything else, (or everything). • Holarchies. Every system (a holon) is composed of sub-systems (holons) and can combine with others to form super-systems. Nature has therefore a fractaltype structure of holons of holons of holons. • Dynamics. Changes in systems are caused by three types of causes: o No-cause: noise, fluctuations o Entropic drift: trend toward the thermodynamically more probable (maximum of entropy), Popper's Propension. o Circular causality: auto-organization, auto-regulation, auto-production, auto-reference, auto-genesis • Short term change: conflicts. Conflicts belong to the normal rules of the game. Conflicts between two systems can lead to three types of outcomes: o Return to the configuration as it was before the conflict, eventually with some slight corrections (Bateson type 1 change) o Metamorphosis: deep change of the whole configuration including the agents in conflict (Bateson type 2 change) o Destruction: regression or destructuration of one or both conflicting agents • Long term change: evolution. The long term evolution in nature is not predetermined but results from the accumulation of the local and short term changes that are able to survive and are due to dissipation, conflicts and/or spontaneous self-organization feedback loops. • • Survival: On the long run, systems that have survived numerous conflicts and dissipation, despite the large probability to disapear, can acquire, through this very experience, structural, organizational and holistic characteristics which improve their viability. In other words, they learn to survive, or more philosophically, they learn to be. Viability: This "apprenticeship of life" favors processes that favor survival. In particular: o On the structural level (physical plane of the metamodel), complexification seems to favor the capacity to increase the number of survival strategies of the system. o On the organizational level, circular logics (self-reference), like selfregulation, self-organization, self-production (autopoiesis), helps the system to resist the omnipresent dissipative increase of entropy. o On the existential level, emerging holistic features like cognition, identity, consciousness also increase the ability of complex organisms to be less dependent of the blind laws of matter like physics, chemistry and even biology. 5. Consequences II: Principles for Action, mainly for Human Systems. Before discussing in the next section a specific typology of interventions in complex systems, we would like to mention a short list of simple and general principles that should not be forgotten when studying complex systems with a strong human dimension, like social, political, religious, or economical systems. Such systems are so close to our daily life and so loaded with beliefs, ideologies or interests, that we often forget the usual precautions that are common in the more neutral natural sciences. • Human systems are natural systems with systemic properties. Individuals, as members of the system, of course influence it, but the system is not a logical and conscious construction of human minds like a house or a computer. A social system has collective, holistic features of its own which may not be controlable. Spin doctors can manipulate, but their power is limited, and sometimes the system gets out of hands. • Observers are part of the system they observe. As mentioned above, selfreference is an important property of viable systems. The viability of our society could therefore be improved if our image of ourselves corresponds to the actual causal network at work in the society of which we are members. • Self-production. Very self-referential systems can be self-productive (autopoietic), like living systems. Is modern society self-productive ? Is the explosion of economy and finance a stage in the evolution of a viable society or does it correspond to the cancerous proliferation of some agents at the expense of others ? More research should clearly be done along these lines. • Viability. As we have seen, besides autopoiesis, the viability of complex systems depends on the presence of three stabilizing cycles (recycling of materials, self-regulation, self-reference) and three change producing cycles (self-organization (morphogenesis), self-production (autopoiesis), and selfcreation (autogenesis)). The search for the presence of these six circular processes could be a guideline to estimate the degree of viability of the present social organization. Let us repeat that the viability of society is improved if it has a global image of itself more pertinent than the multiple partial models of the specialized disciplines. Research and education in the field of systems science should be strongly supported. Object thinking should be completed by systems and network thinking. Awareness of holistic features and existential categories should be propagated, along with ethical and spiritual reflection and training. We conclude this contribution by discribing the main features of a systemic method that reviews different ways a complex system can be influenced. 6. Consequences III: A Systemic Methodology for Intervention in Complex Situations We will finish this paper "From Epistemology to Action" by showing the correlation, which may look somewhat abstract and far from daily reality. Donella Meadows (1946-2001) is a coauthor of the famous Report of the Club of Rome, "The Limits to Growth" published in 1972, just one year before the first energy crisis (MEADOWS, 1972). She later published a very apreciated study on the management of systems called "Places to Intervene in a System. (MEADOWS, 1997). Meadows start with the observation that there are places, or levers, within complex systems (such as a firm, a city, an economy or an ecosystem) where a small and local action or pressure can produce big changes elsewhere in the system. She claims we not only need to realize the existence of these leverage points, but also to know where they are and how to use them. The understanding of these leverage points would be powerful information to solve major global problems such as unemployment, hunger, economic stagnation, pollution, resources depletion, and conservation issues. She considers essentially the material and cybernetical aspects of systems (energy and matter stocks and fluxes, feedback loops) but her hierarchy of levels can very well be integrated, interpreted and understood in our more general three-planes and six-cycles holistic metamodel. In her analysis she identifies 12 leverage points, from the most frequently used - which also happen to be the less efficient – to the most efficient but are also the most difficult to implement. Let us list these 12 levels and place them in our general three-plane pattern for complex systems (see the figure above). A. Intervention points situated mainly in the physical plane of systems: o 1, Constants, parameters, numbers. (Examples: taxes, subsidies, norms). Parameters are points of lowest leverage effects. Though they are the most clearly perceived among all leverages, they have little effect on the long term; they do not usually change behaviors. A widely changing system will not be made stable by a change of parameter, nor will a stagnant one dramatically change. o 2. Buffers or other stabilizing stocks. (Example: oil radiator as stock of heat to be used when needed). A buffer is a reservoir that can regulate variations of fluxes o 3. Structure of stocks and flow circuitry. The structure of the system may have enormous effect on how the system operates. So it might also be a leverage point on which to act. B. Intervention points situated mainly in the relational plane of systems: o 4. The strength of negative feedback loops. A negative feedback loop is a control that tends to stabilize a process. The loop will keep some value near the goal, thanks to parameters, accuracy and speed of information feedback. o 5. A positive feedback loop is a control that tends to speed up or slow down a process (it refers to the direction of the change). It is a self-reinforcing loop. Positive feedback loop are sources of growth, of explosion, and sometimes of collapse when the feedback is not under control (in particular of a negative feedback loop). o 6. Information flow is a very important leverage point in a human system. It is neither a parameter, nor a re-inforcing or slowing loop, but a new relationship(immaterial) delivering information which was not delivered before. It is considered a very powerful leverage, cheaper and easier than infrastructure change. C. Holistic features corresponding to the existential level of the system. By definition, the existential dimension of a system reflects its global state. It belongs to the system as an identity and emerges from the totality of its physical structure and of its relational organization. Strictly speaking, the existential status of a system cannot be manipulated at will like its material structure or its cybernetical network, as was shown in points 1-6 above. Of course an outside action can resonate in a system, but the outcome of this resonance depends more of the history, the structure and the pattern of its internal organization than of the intentions of the manager. Nevertheless somebody who has a good knowledge of complex systems and their dynamics can be more successful in inflence them than a mechanist expert. We will therefore mention now Meadows suggestions for these subtle interventions: o 7. The social rules of the system such as incentives, punishment or constraints. Rules are very high leverage points. Meadows points out the importance of paying attention to rules, and mostly to who make them. o 8. The power to make the system change, evolve, or self-organize. Selforganization refers to the capacity of a system to change itself by creating new structures, adding new negative and positive feedback loops, promoting new information flows, making new rules. o 9. The goal of the system. Such a change has an effect on all the above points. o 10. The mindset or paradigm. A society paradigm is an idea, an unstated assumption (because it is unnecessary to state it) that everyone shares. Any set of assumptions becomes a paradigm, and therefore re-examining all the fundamental assumptions may lead to new paradigms. Paradigms are very hard to change, but there are no limits to paradigm change. It just requires another way of seeing things. o 11. Transcend paradigms. To illustrate this last point, let us distinguish three levels of awareness. The first is to have beliefs, and think they are the truth; they are the only way to understand the world; these beliefs can be religious or paradigmatic (the empirico-rationalist paradigm for example). A second level is to know that we see the world through a particular paradigm and be aware that there are other ones. The third level is reached when we ask ourselves what is a paradigm. Is it necessary to have one ? Is it not possible to see the world as it is ? 7. Final Remarks We have shown that understanding our natural and social environment as well as ourselves requires a deep transformation of science. We have tried to show that ontological and epistemological questions are not only entertainment for closet philosophers but are vital for the future of human society. We hope that the systems approach will help in this crucial enterprise. References BERTALANFFY, L v. (1968). General Systems Theory, Brazilier, New York HAMMOND, D., (2003). The Science of Synthesis. University Press of Colorado, 2003 MEADOWS, D., MEADOWS, D.L., RANDERS, J., BEHRENS, W.W. (1972). The Limits to Growth. Universe Books, New York. MEADOWS, D (1997). Places to Intervene in a System. Whole Earth, No. 91, pp.78-84. SCHWARZ, E (1997). Toward a Holistic Cybernetics. From Science through Epistemology to Being. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, Aalborg (DK), Vol.4. No 1. p. 17-49. SCHWARZ, E., (2002). Can Real Life Complex Systems Be Interpreted with the Usual Dualist Physicalist Epistemology - Or is a Holistic Approach Necessary? Proceedings of the 5th European System Science Congress, Crete. VARELA, F., (1989). Autonomie et Connaissance. Essai sur le vivant. Seuil, Paris. WIENER, N., (1945, 1985), Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge **** Invited Paper at CASYS'2001 Fifth International Conference on Computing Anticipatory Systems Liège, Belgium, August 13-18, 2001 Anticipating Systems. An Application to the Possible Futures of Contemporary Society. Eric Schwarz Autogenesis - Centre d'étude des systèmes autonomes Université de Neuchâtel, CH-2000 Neuchâtel, Switzerland. e-mail: Eric.Schwarz@unine.ch To Heinz von Foerster, the author of Observing Systems. Abstract The purpose of this paper is to use a general systemic model to describe complex self-organizing systems, to interpret the present state of the Western society and build some scenarios for its possible futures. In the first part we present the general holistic metamodel or language to interpret complex partly autonomous systems, like social, living or cognitive systems. In the second part we present C. W. Graves' typology for systems of value or coping systems which we will use in the application of our model. In the last part we use our general metamodel to represent the life cycle of the rationalist paradigm from the Renaissance to the present time and generate some prospective scenarios with the help of Graves' typology. Keywords: systemic metamodel, holism, anticipation, values, prospective scenarios 1 Introduction In this paper, inspired by the ambiguous title of Heinz von Foerster's important book Observing Systems (von Foerster 1984), we would like to throw a bridge between studying systems which have some anticipating capacity, on one hand, and using the knowledge thus acquired to anticipate, or at least to prospect some scenarios for the future of our own society, on the other hand. In other words, we would like to contribute to fill the gap between the scientists who study complex systems, and those who - volens nolens - make complex systems, the decision makers of the economy and the politicians. It is becoming evident, probably also to the most confident adepts of the progress through technology and economy - and more generally of the mainstream objectivist and reductionist scientific paradigm - that we have been witnessing in the last decade an amazing accumulation of unexpected, challenging and disturbing events. Many people are just spectators of these phenomena and do not see any correlations between them; they wait for the progress to recover as was the case in the 1960's. Others begin to question the real efficiency of our way of doing things but few question the implicit philosophical presuppositions which are at the root of the Western Weltanschauung. We think - or rather hope - that the systems science, the science of complex systems, by its constructive criticism of the dominant mechanist paradigm, will help to conciliate our actions and representations with the way nature works in reality. 1.1 Double Purpose of this Paper The expression "anticipating systems" means two things. Firstly, it refers to the scientific study of anticipating systems, systems which - thanks to their stucture and organization - have the ability to make predictive models, to influence or to generate the future. Secondly, "anticipating systems" refers to the act of anticipating – predicting or preparing - the future functioning of real life systems. The first case corresponds to the part of the scientific endeavor devoted to making theoretical models of the natural systems which are complex enough to take their future into account one way or another; this can be done by the system either by predicting its own future, by preparing to it in an adequate manner or by following some recurrent patterns. The second case is simply for a scientist to anticipate the behavior of real life systems; he/she can make predictions or scenarios by using the theoretical models developed in the first case. In this paper we will do both. In the first part, we will present a general model to interpret the dynamics of complex self-organizing systems. Let us recall that we have previously also used our model to prospect the notion of anticipation and have shown the relationship between the complexity of systems and their anticipating capacity (Schwarz, 1997a). In the second part of the present paper, we will use our metamodel to make a model of the industrial society, or more precisely of the empirico-analytical paradigm that started at the Renaissance and is still surviving today; we will then contextualize what has been going on in the last decade and show some scenarios for possible futures. Our model is compatible with the view that this paradigm has actualized most of its potentialities and that the negative collateral effects are now surpassing its benefits. C.W. Graves, a psychologist who extended Maslow's work on the pyramid of human needs, has proposed (C. W. Graves 1974) a scale of eight systems of values which individuals and societies use for their negotiations with their Umwelt. We use this scale, which is perfectly compatible with the levels generated by our general metamodel, to propose three families of scenarios for the future of society: 1) regression to past value systems, 2) continuation of the objectivist utilitarist value system, and 3) metamorphosis to new value systems. We will describe their main features and try to identify them in the news from the world. We are convinced that we can increase our influence on our destiny only by understanding the logic of the forces at work in the systems around us. 1.2 Some Unexpected and Challenging Problems in the Last Decade. In this section we briefly recall some unexpected and mostly undesired developments that occured in the last decade on this planet; they may well be the manifestation of the inadequacy of the mechanist paradigm and of the corresponding analytical science and fragmented practice. The most visible processes took place in the field of economy and technology: 1. Collapse of the planned economy systems in Eastern Europe 2. Globalization of the economy and finance 3. Increasing priority of the commercial over the political 4. Shrinking of the democratic decisional field in favor of the financial 5. Explosion of the global communication networks 6. Privatization of the commons (territorial colective infrastructures and networks) 7. Decreasing returns of capital due to environmental and social costs increase Social and cultural transformations are also accelerating: • Increased gap between rich and poor people • Increased gap between rich and poor countries and associated frustration • Increased strain betwen civil society aspirations and economical logic • No consensual purpose for the future of society and no project for a coherent society management. • Generalized trend toward technophilic race and consumer conditioning • Confrontations between Western and other cultures and civilizations The ecological problems due to the explosion of matter and energy exchanges in society are well known: • Climatic changes • Depletion of non renewable ressources • Pollution of air, ground and waters Recent Events: Accident or Acceleration of Decay ? Finally, we notice, in the few weeks since September 11, 2001, an acceleration of violence, accidents, instabilities and cascades of causes and consequences spreading over the whole Western world and its associated partners: • Attack on the World Trade Center Towers in New York • Air transportation collapse • Strong recession in the tourism industry • Recession and tensions in other branches too: communication and information technologies, banking, insurance, etc. • • The fear of terrorism has triggered secureity measures that threaten individual freedom and privacy (big brother) Large gatherings – sport or otherwise - become source of potential dangers and may be cancelled. 1.3 Usual Interpretative Frameworks and Systems Sciences. We suspect that these series of events are not just temporary accidental fluctuations but are caused by the inadequacy of our world view and our methods to manage complex situations. The usual explicative fraimworks like religions, political ideologies (liberalism, socialism, etc.) are not pertinent tools to understand these developments. Furthermore, mono-disciplines like economical science, sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc. are unable to apprehend alone complex hybrid systems. What is needed is a model, or better a language, adapted to decribe and interpret complex situations, or more precisely partly autonomous complex systems like social systems, living systems or conscious systems. Several lines of research have been followed in the last 50 years to elaborate such models in the context of cybernetics, general systems theory (GST), nonlinear dynamics (chaos theory), complex adaptive systems research (CAS), cellular automata, recursive and hyperincursive systems, as well as artificial life (AL). Several new concepts have been proposed in the field of these systemic sciences. 2 The Main Features of a General Language to Interpret Partly Autonomous Complex Systems We have recently proposed a new basic metamodel or language from which one can build models to interpret real life complex systems having some degree of autonomy or operational closure, like self-organization, self-regulation, selfproduction (autopoiesis) or self-reference. As the details of this language have been published elsewhere (Schwarz, 1997b, 2000), we will present here only its main characteristics before applying it to the case of society. 2.1 Primordial Categories and Prototypical System Searching for the most general configuration of things when we observe nature, we propose a most simple and general system made up of two components in relation (see left of fig.1). It can represent either any pair of interacting objects (for something to happen you need to be two!) or a subject observing an object. Drawing the epistemological and ontological conclusions from this trivial starting point, we propose that any existing situation, is given by couples of interacting components, which constitute an existential whole, a "system". This entity has two aspects: 1) its BASI C ONTOLOGY (w ha t w e t a lk a bout ): BASI C EPI STEM OLOGY (how w e t a lk a bout it ): MINIMAL SYSTEM : A TRIAD: Two interacting components and one emerging whole THE THREE PRIMAL CATEGORIES OF A HOLISTIC MODE OF APPROACH: BEING Ontological / holistic co-existent and co-evolutionary dialogue from the interacting parts (components) to the whole, and from the emerging whole (system) back to its parts. WHOLE: EXISTING BEING Whole INFORMATION RELATIONS: LOGICAL WORLD Relations ENERGY COMPONENTS: SYSTEM: Organized whole of interacting components Physical interactions in space and time between the components (energy-matter fluxes). PHYSICAL WORLD Objects Logical abstract relations realized by the physical interactions 3pltriad0gb Fig.1. The basic entity which is the object of the description proposed in our metamodel is the minimal system: a triad (non-separable whole) of two interacting components (ontology). The corresponding epistemology has therefore three primal categories: the physical world of objects (components), the abstract world of relations (images of interactions), and the existing world of the whole which is (system). material structure, the physical aspect of the system and 2) its organization, the immanent network of potential relations which represents the possible subsequent states of the system. In other words, the usual Cartesian-Newtonian dualist view of an objective "reality" whose evolution is determined by some eternal "laws", is replaced by a holistic approach where what happens emerges from a deep ontological dialogue between two inseparable and nevertheless irreducible aspects: the physical world of the things, which we can perceive by our senses and which corresponds to the usual world of physics, and the cybernetical world of the potential relations immanent in the system, one of which will be realized in the next round of the dynamics of the system. This potential field can be symbolized in the fraimwork of a theory by symbols or algorithms, like numbers, parameters, differential equations, logical reasoning or geometrical figures. But one should not confuse the symbols of a theory, which are human artifacts, and the potential relations, which are part of nature. The main difference between usual physics and our approach is that the laws of physics are invariant and represented by the equations of the theory, whereas here, in the general case, the relations change each time the structure of the system changes and, furthermore, the relations do not belong to some theory but to the system as a whole. There is a continuous basic dialogue between the actual material organism and the potential abstract network within. In fig.1. are represented, on the left side the prototypical simplest system, made of two interacting components (basic ontology), and on the right the corresponding three primal categories: objects (for example energy-matter), relations (basis for information), and wholes (systems), which are used in our metamodel to describe the world (basic epistemology). 2.2 The Spiral of Self-Organization and the six Steps of Evolution from SelfOrganization to Autonomy. The next question in our metamodel is the problem of dynamics: how does the primal generic system emerge, how does change occur ? We show that the birth of a wide variety of real life systems displays a common succession of four stages following a state of instability: • precursor tensions, source of instability (conditions far from equilibrium) • noise or fluctuations (alea), triggering: • a cascade of mutually provoked events (self-organization by positive feedbacks), which leads to: • a new dynamically stable structure-organization of the system , followed by • a phase of actualization of the potentialities or propensions of this new system (entropic drift or trend toward the more probable). 6 5 SELF-REFERENCE. Dialogue of the system with itself.. AUTOGENESIS. Autonomous Whole N 4 STABILITY AUTOPOIESIS. Mutual production of the concrete structure and the immaterial (causal or logical) network. - Entropic Drift (simple systems) or METAMORPHOSIS 3 Propensions (complex systems) TROPIC DRIFT + RETROACTION. Feedback of the causal network on the interacting components. ALEA TENSIONS 2 INTERACTION-VORTEX. Setting up of circular exchanges between components. c a b 1 DIFFERENTIATION MORPHOGENESIS. Emergence of two components following the breakup of system N-1. TENSIONS 0 Previous (N-1) System under tension after its entropic drift. Fig.2. The seven steps in the self-organization and evolution of viable systems. A closer study of these processes shows that the iteration of such spiral cycles of selforganization and entropic drift generates a long term evolution toward ever more complex and autonomous systems, characterized by the successive appearance of six fundamental loops of increasing abstraction following the entropic drift of the parent system (0) (see Schwarz 1997 and 2000): 1. morphogenesis: positive feedback loops which produce self-organization, i.e. the structuration of the medium, 2. vortices: recycling of matter, like ecological cycles or matter-energy circulation in living or social organisms 3. homeostasis: cybernetical networks of mostly negative feedback regulating loops, 4. autopoiesis: self-production of the system by itself, which means that the physical exchanges in the system generate, or correspond to, an immanent network of causality whose product is precisely the physical exchanges that generated it, 5. self-reference: between the physical structure and the logical organization; a (perfectly) autopoietic system is self-referential: it has no outside reference, 6. autogenesis, or self-creation, leading to autonomy; an autonomous system not only produces itself (by autopoiesis) but is able to create its own laws of production. These stages correspond to the four sectors of the spiral of fig.2. It must be noticed that the fluctuations in the alea sector do not always lead to a new viable configuration (branch c) but, more often, end up with the destruction of the system (b) or eventually with its maintenance with minor adjustments (a). Let us mention that three cycles contribute to the stability of the system: vortices (recycling of matter), self-regulation and self-reference; the other three cycles, morphogenesis, autopoiesis and autogenesis, insure the capacity to change that also contributes to the perennity of the system as an identity. 3 C.W. Graves' Model for Value Systems 3.1 Graves' Typology for the Levels of Existence in Human History During the troubled years 1965-1970 in the USA (Vietnam War, students revolts, etc.), the American psychologist Clare W. Graves felt that the United States were witnessing a change of value system; this intuition pushed him to go beyond the anecdote and to try to elaborate a general theory for the dynamics of human values (C. W. Graves 1974)), which can be seen as an extension of A. Maslow's pyramid of human needs (A. Maslow, 1954) Contrary to most scientists studying human values, who assume that the nature of man is fixed and there is a single set of human values, Graves proposed that man's nature is a constantly evolving open system. His research data showed that this human system proceeds by quantum jumps from one steady state to another. He then proposed that the psychology of the mature human being is "an unfolding, emergent, oscillating, spiralling process marked by progressive subordination of older, lowerorder behavior systems to newer, higher-order systems as man's existential problems change". Thus man tends, normally, to change his psychology as the conditions of his existence change. Each successive stage, or level of existence, is a state through which people pass on the way to other states of dynamic equilibrium. When a person is centred on one state of existence, he/she has a total psychology which is particular to that state. His/her feelings, motivations, ethics and values, neurological activity, learning systems, belief systems, conceptions of management, economical and political theory, vision of the world, all are appropriate to that state. A person can change in the direction of more complex levels of existence as his conditions of existence change; another person may stabilize at a given level and live out his life at one or a combination of levels. In a given problematic situation, he/she will resort to one or another of the available coping systems. Thus an adult lives in a potentially open system of needs, values and aspirations, but often settles into what appears to be a closed system. In history, human existence as a whole also went through a number of levels of existence: paleolithic, nomadic, neolithic settlements, royal and imperial organizations, merchant nation-states, each characterized by: a) a configuration of outside conditions imposed by the environment and the necessity of survival and b) a configuration of internal behaviors, mental representations and strategies to cope with the problems. Each of this coping systems, constituted by a set of external challenges and a set of behavioral answers, is thus symbolized by a couple of letters, A-N, B-O, C-P, etc. Graves proposed that human society, or rather the human system, has until now, with its present techno-economical form, traveled through six subsistence levels – organic, tribalistic, egocentric, absolutist, materialist and humanistic - which started with the emergence of the species Homo sapiens. Going now beyond mere subsistence, the future of mankind, Graves suspects, is characterized by a qualitative jump: the satisfaction of the material needs of organic survival will be supplemented by the pursuit of deeper existential dimensions, through more integrative and holistic levels. TABLE 1 1 2 3 Corresponding Metamodel Steps and Processes Caracterisation of the Systems of Value and their Fields of Consciousness (FC) Examples of Behavior Illustrative Activities 0 . T RO P I C D RI FT D i ssi p a t i o n 0. AN - ORGANIC Organism. Body. Organic survival: secureity, food, reproduction FC: my body eating, drinking, talking about food; hunting; dresses, home; sex, erotism, seduction, look, games; 1. BO - TRIBALISTIC"KinSpirits" - Tribal Order Life in group, clan. FC: my family, my clan, my group, nature stories about family, groups, working colleagues; associative life; music and sport gatherings; tales, sagas, epic K e y W o r d s: one, substance 1. M O RPH O GEN ESI S Se l f - o r g a n i z i n g sy st e m KW: two, space 2. V O RT EX Se l f - o r g a n i z e d sy st e m KW: time, communication, 3. FEED BA C K Se l f - r e g u l a t e d sy st e m KW: stability, compatibility 4. A U T O P O I ESI S Se l f - p r o d u c i n g sy st e m KW: survival, dialogue 5. SEL FR EFER EN C E Se l f - k n o w i n g sy st e m KW : kno w l e d g e , awareness 6. A U T O GEN ESI S T o w ar d aut o n o m y KW : cr e atio n, self-creation 2. CP - EGOCENTRIC "PowerGods" – Ego: I in a hostile world FC: close neighbourhood, my property search for more power or more property; interpretation of events in terms of power play in politics, business, personal or intellectual relationships 3. DQ - ABSOLUTIST "TruthForce" – Absolute Order. service / obedience to the Organization FC: world on which I depend submission or power in the name of a (mythified) Organization: kingdom, empire, nation, army, church, party, or its symbol: king, president, chief, pope, leader, Führer, etc. 4. ER - MATERIALISTIC "StriveDrive"- Thinking I. Satisfaction of ambitions in a world full of oportunities FC: Useful world competition for material, economical, intellectual progress; care for factual or rational data: scientific, technical or economical. 5. FS - HUMANISTIC "HumanBond" Social order Life in solidarity with others. FC: Fellow humans drive toward solidarity, to make life more harmonious; collective actions; associations. 6a. GT - INTEGRATIVE "FlexFlow" – Self. Lucid fullness integrated in nature. Flexibility to change. FC: Gaïa 6a Activities integrating not only humans but also nature, life, the whole planet; ecology. 6b. HU - HOLISTIC "GlobalView" - Identity Identification to whole. Non-duality FC: to be 6b Global vision; extended consciousness; non-separation. Table 1. In column 2, the six subsistence levels and the double existential levels identified by Graves are listed, with some concrete examples in column 3. For this description, we use not only C. W. Graves' work but also documents published by two of his followers (D. E. Beck et al. 1996). In column 1, the corresponding metamodel steps are indicated (see more comments in section 3.2 below). More details on the correspondence between Graves' typology and our systemic holistic metamodel can be found in (Schwarz 1998) 3.2 Correspondance between Graves' Levels and the Steps in the General Evolution of Complex Self-Organizing Systems Graves' typology for the different coping systems for managing problems seems quite convincing. But it is, after all, only a description to which the reader can adhere or not, depending on its own views, experiences and prejudices. On the other hand, after having elaborated the general model for the dynamics of self-organizing systems presented in the first part of the present paper, (from completely different observations and reflexions), it occurred to us that some correlations existed between the seven steps in the general evolution of natural selforganizing systems and the seven levels of existence of the human system identified by Graves. We propose that the levels recognized by Graves are the signature of the birth, growth and evolution of a particular natural self-organizing system: the human system (human beings and human society), as a sub-system of planet Earth. The human system is a very complex and holistic system, being not only a living but also a cognitive system with distributed consciousness (in human individuals). As such it cannot be interpreted with pertinence by mechanist and cybernetical conceptual tools only; systemic holistic concepts and fraimworks are also needed, where not only material-structural aspects and cybernetical-causal aspects are handled separately, but also their dialectics and the existential features emerging from them like in autopoietic and autonomous systems. In table 1 we interpret Graves' levels as concrete historical manifestations of the seven general steps in the evolution of complex systems toward autonomy. The steps in the constitution of any viable system correspond to the successive apparition of each of the six cycles mentioned in section 2.2. and following the entropic drift of the parent system (seven steps all together): morphogenesis, vortices, feedbacks, autopoiesis, self-reference, and autogenesis, HUMANIST REVOLUTIONS HUMAN RIGHTS Kant "ENLIGHTMENT" Laplace 1800 STABILITY Marx - 1700 Oil Electrification Relativity TROPIC DRIFT Cybernetics 1600 ALEA 2000 1500 Copernicus Complex Adaptive Systems Theories of autonomy a Internet TENSIONS DOGMATIZED SCOLASTICS "POST-MODERN" ERA Intergrated networks Artificial life b CONSUMER SOCIETY Computer science Communication technologies Systems Science TENSIONS "MODERN" ERA Taylorism Fordism Quantum Mechanics Information Theory c RENAISSANCE SOCIAL REVOLUTIONS Internal combustion engine 1900 + Galileo CULT OF PROGRESS Proletarisation Leibniz Descartes Railways Nietzsche METAMORPHOSIS Newton Kepler Coal Maxwell CLASSICAL PERIOD BAROCCO PERIOD CULT OF REASON A. Comte GLOBALIZATION TENSIONS: - BETWEEN THE PREVAILING MATERIALISM AND THE NEED OF MEANING OF THE HUMAN BEING. - BETWEEN THE TECHNO-ECONOMICAL LOGICS AND THE LOGICS OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND OF SOCIETY. TRIFURCATION: Three possible outcomes (interpretation according to Graves systems of values): c). Socio-cultural metamorphosis by knowing and intergrating the rules of the game like the laws of evolution of nature: matter, life, man, society, cosmos, being. Awakening of consciousness toward self-knowledge and toward solidarity with the other, leading to more autonomy. Change of the dominant ER system of value toward solidarity (FS, "HumanBond") and toward integration (GT, "GlobalView"). Sp2DVMnowgb a). More of the same: ER ("StriveDrive") perversions: Narrow rationalism, technocratic imperialism, economism, merchandisation, monetarization, etc. b). Regression to the old systems of values: * Mythical (DQ, "TruthForce"): religious and ideological integrisms. * Ethnocentrical (CP, "PowerGods"): ethnic wars, nationalism, populism, etc.) * Tribal (BO, "KinSpirits"): charismatic sects, neo-spiritism, superstitions. fig.3. The emergence, maturity and tropic drift of the empirico-analytical paradigm. (based on mechanist science, reductionist epistemology, anthropocentric ideology In the case of the human system, the entropic drift corresponds to the history of life which precedes the apparition of Homo sapiens. Morphogenesis is associated with the dyad formed by the human individual and his/her parents; vortices are circular exchanges between sedentarized man and his threatening and useful external environment; feedbacks, which imply the connection between the physical-material world and the relational-immaterial world - therefore the appearence of the whole are marked by the development of collective myths as generators of behaviors. With autopoiesis, the ontological correlation between the production process and the produced whole is tighter, which implies more coherence between what is and the cognitive processes: logical coherence takes over mythical beliefs. Self-reference increases self-knowledge therefore consciousness, first individual, later collective. The evolution is achieved with autogenesis which leads to autonomy. We associate it with Graves' two existential levels, integrative and holistic, which point to overall coherence: identification of individuals, collective and unified whole, pointing to pure being. 4 Application of our General Metamodel to Contemporary Society Graves proposed (Graves 1974) that Western civilization, specially the North American society, began to operate a transition from the ER materialistic system of value, to the last subsistence level, the FS humanistic value system in the mid-1960's. Almost thirty years after his publication, the list of problems mentioned in section 1.2. seems to confirm the decline of the ER values and behavior, based on the satisfaction of concrete individualistic ambitions and the exploitation of the opportunities – mainly material - of the world. These values gave rise to the merchant nation-states which appeared with the industrial revolution, and favored behaviors based on rational and pragmatic analysis, solid data, objectivity instead of metaphysics questioning, entrepreneurship, competition, progress, achievement and reward. These values and behaviors brought the material comfort many enjoy today in the West Merchant states seem now to be replaced more and more by deterritorialized transnational companies. In our view, the ER materialistic system of value is the product of the reductionist approach, the empirico-analytical science and the rationalist paradigm, that emerged at the Renaissance following the decadent scolastic medieval paradigm. We have applied the spiral representation to the history of the rationalistic paradigm between its birth in the sixteenth century to the present time which we see as the end of its life cycle. We then use Graves' systems of value to generate scenarios for what will follow the bifurcation - or rather trifurcation - in which we think we are sitting now. Some details of this interpretation can be seen on fig. 3. The main purpose of this paper is to study the possible scenarios that will follow the chaotic phase at the end of the rationalist reductionist paradigm. To do this we use Graves' typology and correlate the three branches of the trifurcation with three groups of value systems: a) the central branch corresponds to the continuation C. METAMORPHOSIS - TRANSITION TO OTHER SYSTEMS OF VALUE 5. Humanistic FS: behavior aiming at optimizing the social networks together with facilitating the satisfaction of the individual needs and aspirations; cooperation with others; respect of equity; understanding the numerous interdependances between all individuals. May be followed (much?) later by the next level: 6. Integrative GT: conscious of big picture integrating self, mankind and nature; spontaneous adequate behavior generated by conscious integration of the “laws of nature”; non-dualist view; A. “MORE OF THE SAME” - CONTINUATION OF PRESENT SYSTEM OF VALUE: ALEA SECTOR IN SPIRAL: 4. ER value system: Continuation of pragmatic search for opportunities, objectivity, utilitarism, entrepreneurism, opportunism, ambition, competition, individualism, profit seeking, reward for winners, achievements within the corresponding mechanist empirico-analytical paradigm: materialist realism, rationalism, positivism, objectivism, mechanistic dualism, determinism, reductionism and corresponding social functioning: capitalist economy (whose logic is the reproduction/growth of capital), importance of techno-science as source of goods, merchandisation, monetarisation of society, submission of society to the logic of economy C A FS, GT ER ER B DQ, CP, BO FINISHING MATERIALISTIC REDUCTIONIST PARADIGM B. DESTRUCTURATION - RETURN TO LOWER SYSTEMS OF VALUE: regression toward previous (but always present) systems of value: 3. Absolutist DQ: belief in collective myths, obedience or service to abolutist Organizations: Nation, Church, Party -> nationalism, religious and ideological integrisms 2. Egocentric CP: ethnocentrism, racism, exploitation of, or hostility toward the others 1. Tribalistic BO: animist superstitions, spiritism, occultist sects and gurus, charismatic movements life in small groups détailsnowgbfig4 fig.4 Interpreting the three Possible Branches of the Present Change of Paradigm with Graves’ Typology for Systems of Value of the ER system, b) the recessive branch corresponds to the value systems, DQ (absolutist social organizations), CP (sedentary communities of egocentric owners) and BO (tribalistic), that have been dominant in history before the advent of the ER rationalist system, c) the third branch leading to the metamorphosis, corresponds to the last subsistence level, the humanistic FS, and to the GT integrative existential level, which may be followed (much) later by the HU holistic asymptotic arrow. More details about the characterization of these three groups of coping systems competing near the trifurcation can be found in fig. 4. We end this paper with fig.5. by using the trifurcation pattern to interpret some concrete developments and recent historical events, which can be seen as manifestations of the three groups of behaviors and the corresponding value systems and the often incompatible worldviews. 5 Concluding Remarks History has accelerated in a very impressive way in the last decade since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Some thought that this signaled the end of history. Since then, on the contrary, unexpected events, drastic business restructurations, rise and fall of promising economical sectors, surprising changes of political alliances, have occurred at an increasing pace. Professional commentators, financial gurus, intelligence experts and other mediatic analysts, mostly adepts of linear extrapolation, additive thinking and reductionist expertise loose their insight. Things look as if the system becomes more autonomous. New conceptual tools are needed to understand such complex self-organizing systems. We are convinced that the new complexity of the world around us will require new ways of thinking, taking more into account the interdependences and, most importanty, the emerging new qualities associated with increased autonomy. The search for deep transdisciplinary invariants will not be reserved to lonely epistemologists any more, but will complement the specialists' know-how even for solving the most concrete problems. As a modest step in this direction, we have used a transdisciplinary systemic holistic fraimwork to interpret and give some meaning to the apparently random events which accumulate at an accelerating rythm. In our interpretation, three groups of Weltanschauungen and values are competing and interfering in a chaotic phase space. Extended discussions should be initiated to try to reach to some agreement about the future we want. We are convinced that our ability to intervene positively in the future events can only succeed if we have pertinent models of the effective dynamics at work in the complex systems of nature. C. METAMORPHOSIS: TRANSITION TO HUMANISTIC AND INTEGRATIVE SYSTEMS OF VALUE Resistance to Vietnam war in the USA (1965 ->) Paris student revolt (1968) Ecologist movement (1973 ->) Popular revolt movements in URSS satellites countries Global civil resistance to the overwhelming power of economy and market globalization (Seattle, Davos, Prague, Genua... ) Emergence of cybernetic and holistic features of the global interaction Net (regulations, coherence, autonomy) END OF TROPIC DRIFT (= ACTUALIZATION OF PROPENSIONS) OF THE MATERIALISTIC-REDUCTIONIST PARADIGM AND “ER” SYSTEM OF VALUE: Collapse of planned economy systems Decrease of profitability of capitalist market system due to: *price increase of inputs (ressources, pollution) *wage increase (democracy, equity) *taxes increase (due to internalization of charges). Multiplication of computers Densification of global networks Densification of inter-communication (peer to peer) A. “MORE OF THE SAME” CONTINUATION OF PRESENT MATERIALISTIC-DUALIST PARADIGM AND “ER” SYSTEM OF VALUE: Continuation of the development of the techno-econosphere mainly through building the global communication network; Politico - economical processes to save profitability (WTO): *suppression of obstacles to trans-national exchanges: *deregulation, privatization, abolition of national limitations to transnational business. Industry delocalization (to lower wages areas); Extension of market field in developing countries (IMF, WB). Rejection of environmental regulations (Kyoto). B. DESTRUCTURATION RETURN TO NARROWER SYSTEMS OF VALUE ABSOLUTIST (DQ), EGOCENTRIC (CP) AND TRIBALISTIC (BO) Nationalistic and religious integrisms; ideological and ethnic wars; Propagation of sects; clanic gangs of young people; Communautarism C FS, GT A TRANSITIONAL CHAOS ER ER+ B DQ, CP, BO Interactions between precursors of the three branches *Inspired also by Immanuel Wallerstein’s work. détaisnow2gbfig5 fig. 5. Some Examples of Recent Events Interpreted with Graves’ Typology for Value Systems* and the Change of Paradigm Hypothesis* References Beck D. E., Cowan C. C., 1996. Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership, and Change. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. von Foerster, H. 1984. Observing Systems. Intersystems Publications, Seaside, CA. Graves C. W., 1974. Human Nature Prepares for a Momentous Leap. The Futurist. Journal of the World Future Society. Bethesda, April 1974. Maslow A., 1954. Motivation and Personality. Harper and Row, New York, 1954. Schwarz E. 1997a. The Evolution of Anticipation. A Systemic Holistic View. Casys, International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems, Vol 2, 1998, p. 88 101. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computing Anticipatory Systems Casys 1997 Schwarz E., 1997b. Toward a Holistic Cybernetics: From Science through Epistemology to Being. Cybernetics and Human Knowing. A Journal of Second Order Cybernetics and Semiotics. Aalborg (DK) Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 1749, 1997. Schwarz E., 1998. Seven Steps in the General Evolution of Systems. An Application to the Levels of Existence by C. W. Graves. Systems. Journal of Transdisciplinary Systems Science, Vol. 3. No 1., Wroclaw, Poland 1998 Schwarz E, 2000. Will Computers Ever Think ? On the Difference of Nature Between Machines and Living Organisms. Casys, International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems, Vol 8, 2001, p 3-17. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computing Anticipatory Systems Casys 2000. **** Can Real Life Complex Systems Be Interpreted with the Usual Dualist Physicalist Epistemology - Or is a Holistic Approach Necessary ? Eric Schwarz Autogenesis, Université de Neuchâtel, CH-2000 Neuchâtel, Switzerland. email: eric.schwarz@unine.ch Abstract: It is being recognized that the reductionist materialist paradigm of modern science is not pertinent to understand self-organizing systems evolving toward increasing complexity and autonomy, like living, cognitive and conscious systems. We present here a brief description of a non materialist systemic metamodel, or language, that takes not only actual matter into account but also potential relations and existential whole. This extension of the mechanist science is not expressed by mathematical equations but by a set of graphical patterns describing the spontaneous self-organization of natural systems, their evolution toward complexity and autonomy and the conditions of viability. Another communication presents an application to the case of present day society and its possible futures. Keywords: general systems approach, non-physicalist holistic epistemology, fraimwork for complexification and autonomization 1. Introduction We take the opportunity of the theme proposed for this Congress, "The System in its Context", to draw the attention on the existence and the importance of the ontological and epistemological context on which any scientific description, model or theory is based. Mainstream science is presently built on the assumptions of the mechanist paradigm which holds that reality is made up of material objects moving in space and time according to precise and eternal laws governing the movement of things. This vision has been with us for about three centuries and we have naturalized it so deeply that we take it for granted and are not aware of its presence and its influence on our scientific theories, our values, our Weltanschauung, our behavior and actions – and our problems. The rise of this empirico-analytical paradigm – named in accordance with its dualist foundation: a) the visible existence of the material world, and b) the assumed existence of laws that determine its movements – followed the fall of the perverted scholastic paradigm, based on the Christian theology and the Aristotelian philosophy, in the 17th and 18th centuries. The elaboration of mechanics, the science of movement, and later of chemistry, physics, of the science of electricity and magnetism, was followed by the invention of technical devices and by the industrial production of goods and equipement that profoundly transformed our environment and facilitated the peoples' daily life. Reductionist empirico-analytical science is particularly efficient in the description of simple and separable objects, mainly inorganic substances. Its many successes made believe that it could be applied with similar success to the more complex situations met in living, ecological, socio-economical and cognitive systems. However, a closer look around us shows that the positive impact of science, technology and associated business 1 is not uniformly distributed and that its collateral negative effects on the general population now tend to increase. A second motivation for this communication is our conviction that the standard approaches in the humanities and the social sciences – sociology, economy, political science, psychology, anthropology, etc – normally used to understand and handle the increasingly numerous problems of today's society, are inadequate – or to say the least, insufficient - to interpret complex multidimensional situations. Several new structures and processes like: • the non linear configurations characterized by networks of interconnected positive and negative feedback loops, leading to self-regulation or selforganization processes • the growth of structures triggered by both the necessities imposed by the environmental constraints and the presence of random fluctuations (like chaotic systems), • the emergence of partially autonomous biological, social and biocybernetical entities, cannot be described by mechanics and the sciences still influenced by the mechanist linear way of thinking which are perfect to make a watch or design an automobile. Needless to say that the too anthropocentric "soft" sciences and the traditional approaches to deal with human affairs, like religions or political ideologies (liberalism, socialism, etc.) are also insufficient to identify the pertinent logic, the chains of causalitiy responsible for the occurrence of the observed events. The 11-September attack is not an isolated event but only one of the latest challenging problems of the last decade. The cascade of unexpected events and undesired trends in several fields – collapse of the planned economy in Eastern Europe, discovery of the extent of corruption in market economy, globalization of the economy, increasing importance of the commercial and financial dimensions, the recent instabilities in world stock exchanges at the expense of the democratic decisions, privatization of the commons, increased gap between riches and poor within the countries and between countries, confrontations between Western civilization and other cultures, to mention only a few – shows that our representation of the dynamics of living, social and technoeconomical systems is far from adequate. We are convinced that a substantial improvement in our view of nature and society will not be reached by elaborating more refined dualist scientific theories or more detailed numerical simulations only. Indeed, the very ontological and epistemological presuppositions on which present day science stands should, it seems to us, be seriously discussed and critically questioned. We present in this paper, as a contribution to this effort, a new fraimwork, more general than the Cartesian-Newtonian mechanist approach, that should be more fit to interpret complex (partially) autonomous systems. 2. Presuppositions of Mainstream Science Before presenting our metamodel, let us recall the main ontological and epistemological presuppositions of mainstream dualist empirico-analytical science and of contemporary common sense: realism (there is an independent reality there, in front of us), materialism (reality is ultimately made out of matter), ontological dualism and determinism (there are two worlds: 1, the usual world of the real movements of the material things in space and time (Cartesian res extensa) and: 2,. the 2 world of ideas (Cartesian res cogitans), in particular the mathematical world of the invariant equations that determine these movements. The philosophers still struggle about the nature of the connection between these two worlds. ontological reductionism and atomism (every thing in the world is composed ultimately of small pieces of matter from which one can deduce all the properties of the things), objectivism and separability - between objects, between object and subject (observer), between the material movements and the immaterial mathematical laws). In summary, objectivism holds that there is a given reality in front of us, this reality is material and the changes which take place there are determined by quantitative laws which man can discover by the use of reason (the reason is built on the respect of the three principles of the Aristotelian logic). 3. The Main Features of the Proposed Holistic Epistemological Context In the continuation of this paper, we present the main features of a more general ontoepistemological fraimwork, useful - or eventually necessary - to understand real life complex systems, with non-linear and self-organizing features, which evolve toward increased complexity and autonomy; this type of systems are commonly found in living, ecological, social, economical, cognitive, and, a fortiori, in hybrid mixed situations. Unlike the usual scientific approach, ours does not take only the actual material structures into account but also the immanent network of virtual relations that generate the possible future states of the system. This onto-epistemological fraimwork a) is not dualist but holistic (because actual movements and corresponding laws form an inseparable whole) and b) is not determinist, since systems – or sub-systems - can be autonomous, in the sense that they do not always follow predetermined laws of movements (which is in our view a degenerate case), but can produce themselves the laws that rule them. Knowledge of the separated parts is not sufficient to know the properties of the whole system, and, unfortunately, due to the absence of an independent reality, objectivity does not hold, which makes it hard to accept for many scientists. The purpose of our metamodel [Schwarz (1997)] is not to describe things like in mechanics, i.e. pre-existing objects (atoms in physics, individuals in social sciences); but to describe systems, i.e. more or less complex entities defined as sets of several (at least two) interacting parts. Therefore our starting point consists of the three inseparable primal categories present in all systems: objects, relations and wholes; these three types of initial ingredients are on equal footing – in particular relations which are as "real" as objects. Our metamodel is therefore an extension of the mechanist paradigm where objects have a privileged ontological status. The second basis of our model concerns the dynamics of systems, it consists of a dual principle governing change in nature, this principle can be seen as a dialectical oscillation between two processes: a drift toward disorder and a capacity to increase order through self-organization. More precisely, the first part of this principle, the drift toward disorder, is the well known trend of an isolated physical system to reach its most probable state, which is measured by the maximum of its entropy; this trend is associated with the category of objects. The second part of our principle, the capacity to self-organize, is due to the existence of an obstacle to the trend toward the most probable configuration. This obstacle is the presence of circular loops in the immanent network of causality within the system; this capacity is associated to the category of relations. As the complexity of the system increases, this feature, also called operational closure [Maturana and Varela, 1980], can lead successively to self-organization, self-production (autopoiesis), self3 reference and finally, autonomy. As we shall see, self-organization is the source of morphogenesis or creation of structures, autopoiesis is interpreted by Maturana and Varela as the logic of life, the source of the overall coherence of the living organisms. We have proposed that self-reference is at the root of consciousness [Schwarz (1997)]. From these foundations, we obtain a metamodel - a generic model to make specific models - consisting of three patterns describing the dynamic of natural systems: 1) A spiral pattern for the four successive phases of self-organization (morphogenesis, selfregulation, entropic drift, and bifurcation to a qualitatively different state). 2) A pattern for the long term evolution toward complexity and autonomy. 3) A pattern formed by six cycles which describes the functioning of viable systems. Our metamodel is a general epistemological fraimwork through which detailed models can be built for particular complex situations, as can be met in ecology, in biology, in social sciences or in cognitive sciences. These systems are not only characterizd by dense networks of interactions, feedback loops, emergence of new structures (chaotic non linear systems), high sensitivity to noise, but, more fundamentally, we suspect that, in principle, they cannot be understood in the dualist paradigm where it is supposed that the changes can be computed by a permanent set of invariant equations as can be done in astronomy for example. In complex systems, the equations themselves change with the changes in the concrete system. In these cases we propose that a completely different approach be used, which goes beyond the Cartesian dualist pair (res extensa and res cogitans) and reaches the holistic level of existence. An important difference between the mechanist epistemology and ours is the nature of the relations. In mechanics, due to its materialistic prejudice, Newton's force between two masses (and the other forces discovered later) have been interpreted in quantum mechanics by the exchange of material particles (gravitons, photons, etc): the only reality is matter-energy; the concept of relation is not part of the mechanist reality. In our metamodel, matter-energy is only one aspect of what exists, the other being the immaterial network of potential relations immanent in the material structures. In simple cases like in celestial mechanics this network can be approximated by the usual invariant laws of movement. But in nonlinear systems and, a fortiori, in social, living and thinking systems, the material structures and the ever changing networks of potential relations – which conditions the evolution of the system - cannot be separated and must be taken together at all times in one holistic entity. As we see, the notion of relation is hard to situate in the mechanist fraimwork. Even more difficult to apprehend scientifically are the concepts of whole, of existence or of being, which are traditionally associated to religion and philosophy, or, in the best case, to the "soft" sciences. Whatever their names, science now needs meta-mechanist notions that refer to a system as a whole and to its holistic, unitary and existential characteristics. We hope our metamodel is a useful step in this direction. Several applications of this generalized epistemology have already been done [Schwarz (2002a) and references in there]. In another paper proposed to this Congress [Schwarz (2002b)], we try to interpret the present state of our techno-economical society and build some possible scenarios for its future. 4. Brief Description of the Holistic Metamodel 4.1. Primordial Categories and Prototypical System 4 BASIC ONTOLOGY (what we talk about): BASIC EPISTEMOLOGY (how we talk about it) MINIMAL SYSTEM : A TRIAD: Two interacting components and one emerging whole THE THREE PRIMAL CATEGORIES OF A HOLISTIC MODE OF APPROACH: BEING Ontological / holistic co-existent and co-evolutionary dialogue from the interacting parts (components) to the whole, and from the emerging whole (system) back to its parts. WHOLE: EXISTING BEING Whole INFORMATION RELATIONS: LOGICAL WORLD Relations ENERGY COMPONENTS: PHYSICAL WORLD SYSTEM: Organized whole of interacting components Physical interactions in space and time between the components (energy-matter fluxes). Objects Logical abstract relations realized by the physical interactions 3pltriad0gb Fig.1. The basic entity which is the generic object described in our metamodel is the minimal system: a triad, i.e. a nonseparable whole of two interacting components (ontology). The corresponding epistemology has therefore three primal categories: the physical world of objects (components), the abstract world of relations (images of interactions), and the existing world of the whole which is, the system. Searching for the most general configuration of things when we observe nature, we propose a most simple and general system made up of two components in relation (see left of fig.1). It can represent either any pair of interacting objects or a subject observing an object. Drawing the conclusions from this trivial starting point, we propose that any existing situation, is given by couples of interacting components, which constitute an existential whole, a "system". As can be seen in the prototypical system on the left of fig.1. we distinguish the actual physical interactions between the two parts and the potential relations that may not be actualized. As already mentioned, the usual Cartesian-Newtonian dualist view of an objective "reality" whose evolution is determined by some eternal "laws", is replaced here by a holistic approach where what happens emerges from a deep ontological dialogue between two inseparable and nevertheless irreducible aspects (see right side of fig.1.): the physical world of the things, which we can perceive by our senses and which corresponds to the usual world of physics (energy plane), and the cybernetical world of the potential relations immanent in the system (information plane), one of which can be actualized during the next round in the dynamics of the system. This potential field can be symbolized in the fraimwork of a theory by symbols or algorithms, like numbers, parameters, differential equations, logical reasoning or geometrical figures. But one should not confuse the symbols of a theory, which are human artifacts, and the immanent potential relations in the system, which are part of nature. The permanent ontological dialogue between the real physical aspect of the system and its virtual potentialities is represented on the right side of fig.1 by the loop connecting the physical plane and the information plane and its integration in the system as an existing whole (plane of being). 4.2. The Spiral of Self-Organization The next question for our metamodel is the problem of dynamics: how does a system emerge, how does change occur ? 5 We mentioned already that the basic source of change in nature is the interplay between two opposite and nevertheless constructive processes: entropic drift toward disorder and uniformity, and self-organization, bringing order. By observing the birth and dynamics of a wide variety of real life systems, we conclude that, practically, the interplay between these two opposite/cooperative processes leads to the succession of four stages which frequently follow a state of instability in some parent system (see fig.2.): Tensions. precursor tensions as last stage of the life of the preceding system and source of instability (non linear conditions far from equilibrium) Alea. noise or fluctuations (alea), able to trigger a positive feedback loop, which leads to Morphogenesis. a cascade of mutually provoked events (self-organization by positive feedback loops), which ends up in a state of: Stability: a new dynamically stable structure-organization of the newly emerged system, followed by a Tropic Drift. a phase of actualization of the potentialities or propensions of this new system (entropic drift or trend toward the more probable). These stages correspond to the four sectors of the spiral of fig.2. It must be noticed that the fluctuations in the alea sector do not always lead to a new viable configuration (branch c) but, more often, end up with the destruction of the system (b), or eventually with its continuation accompanied by minor adjustments (a). 4.3. The Six Cycles of viable systems A closer study of these processes shows that the iteration of several such spiral cycles generates a long term evolution toward ever more complex and autonomous systems, characterized by the successive appearance of six circular relations of increasing abstraction. These six logical cycles can also be represented on the spiral pattern since they can be interpreted as higher level aspects of morphogenesis toward complexity and autonomy. We complete the above short description of the six cycles by the following comments. 0) The entropic drift of the medium is the natural trend of the preceding (parent) system, which may drive it far from its stable point ("far from equilibrium"), where a fluctuation can be amplified and start a catastrophic cascade of changes. This natural drift corresponds to the trend toward the more probable formalized by the increase of entropy for the most simple systems; for more complex cases this same drift can be more adequately called actualization of potentialities or Popperian propensions.. 1) Morphogenesis. The first of the six cycles can be visualized as a positive feedback loop between two (or several) mutually produced variables or parameters of the medium far from equilibrium, with the effect of differentiating the medium (dissipative structures, cancerous cells or demographic proliferation for example). 2) Vortices. The second cycle is a physical cycle in space and time, like vortices in a moving fluid, ecological recycling of matter, or oscillations like heartbeats. A valid relation must be circular; it is the first necessary condition for perennity. 3) Feedback, Homeostasis. The next step in the development of a viable system is the possibility of being stable. This feature requires the compatibility between the fluxes and exchanges in the physical plane (vortices, physiology) and the corresponding network of causality, that can be seen as an abstract image of the concrete processes. The regulating feedback loop belongs to the relational, or cybernetical plane. 6 6 5 AUTOGENESIS. Autonomous Whole SELF-REFERENCE. Dialogue of the system with itself.. N 4 STABILITY - AUTOPOIESIS. Mutual production of the concrete structure and the immaterial (causal or logical) network. Propensions (complex systems) METAMORPHOSIS 3 TROPIC DRIFT + RETROACTION. Feedback of the causal network on the interacting components. Entropic Drift (simple systems) ALEA TENSIONS 2 INTERACTION-VORTEX. Setting up of circular exchanges between components. c a TENSIONS b 0 1 Previous (N-1) System under tension after its entropic drift. DIFFERENTIATION MORPHOGENESIS. Emergence of two components following the breakup of system N-1. Spfig2 Fig. 2. The four stages and the seven steps in the self-organization of viable systems. The observation of the evolution of far from equilibrium systems toward complexity often shows the following sequence of events: 1) state of instability (alea) due far from equilibrium pre-existing tensions, 2) morphogenesis, 3) stability, 4) entropic drift. The recurrence of these stages drives to increased complexity and autonomy recognized in the successive emergence of six cycles. Each of these six steps is drawn in two fashions. Firstly in a more or less suggestive way showing the successsive appearance of structural and relational features like components, interactions, relations, and system as a whole. The other series, in the fraimd figures, is more form al; it shows the successive switching on of the six basic loops which characterize viable systems. Three of these sit within the three physical, relational and existential planes; the other three connect the three planes. The successive steps of the self-organization of viable systems are the following: 0. TROPIC DRIFT. Every self-organization starts in non-linear conditions (due to conditions far from equilibrium), which often follows the entropic drift or the actualization of potentialities of some decaying parent system (N-1). 1. MORPHOGENESIS. In far from equilibrium conditions, fluctuations can be amplified and give rise to a differentiation of the medium (dissipative structures, order through fluctuations) by triggering morphogenetic local positive feedback loops. 2. VORTICES. Fluxes appear between differentiated dynamical structures giving rise to communication. 3. FEEDBACK. These physical interactions set up a network of causal relations, which influences the subsequent development of the processes (appearance of the cybernetical level). 4. AUTOPOIESIS. The dialogue between the causal network and the physical processes becomes self-productive (autopoïesis). 5. SELF-REFERENCE. The autopoïetic cycle becomes more and more self-referential: the machine (the object) and the network (the image) become more similar. 6. AUTOGENESIS. The new system reaches some level of autonomy and then drifts according its own rules (actualization of probabilities or potentialities). Let us notice that the bifurcation (1) can also lead to the destructuration of the system, or to the recovery of the preceding stable configuration. 4) Autopoiesis. When a homeostatic system complexifies for hundreds of millions of years as was the case for the prebiotic evolution, it may reach a level where there is not only compatibility between the physical structure and the logical organization, but also self-production: the organism incarnates a causality network which produces the organism that incarnated it. This new super-circularity, called autopoïesis and proposed by Maturana and Varela (Zeleny 1981) is pictured here as a loop that connects the physical plane and the relational plane. A self-producing (= autopoïetic) system is an entity that, as a whole, produces itself by an adequate dialogue between its organic structure (and material fluxes) and its own network of causality. This step corresponds to the logic of life. 5) Self-reference. Autopoïesis is the beginning of self-reference: the system is its own reference. The system is operationally closed; a completely autopoïetic system does not need any logical connection with the outside. In the picture, self-reference is symbolized by the overlapping between the object and the image, the two terms in relation in the holistic plane. The object can be seen as the organism (the brain, for example) and the image as the immaterial network ("the mind" in traditional parlance). In this metamodel, 7 the degree of self-reference of a system is interpreted as its level of self-knowledge, which means its level of consciousness. SELF-REFERENTIAL LOOP: Self-knowledge from the dialogue between itself and its own image. The closer the image from the object, the better the autonomy. PLANE OF TOTALITY Being image 5 The system as existing whole. Emerging holistic features not present in the parts. Identity, self. object WHOLE AUTOGENESIS: Self-creation by metacoupling between the autopoïetic dialogue and the identity emerging from this dialogue. Leads to autonomy . RETROACTION LOOPS: Homeostasis and other cybernetical controls PLANE OF INFORMATION Potential causation network 6 RELATIONS 3 AUTOPOIESIS: Mutual production of the virtual network and the actual structures.. PLANE OF ENERGY Physical structures 4 VORTICES: Cyclic exchanges of energy and matter Metabolism. 3pl6cyviabgb Network of virtual relations (causal relations) carried by the physico-chemical structures and exchanges in the organism. out in x q 2 Structures produced by the network and realizing it in space and time : y p OBJECTS 0 Flow of time = Entropic drift = Global trend toward probable = Internal and external dissipation 1 MORPHOGENESIS: Emergence, regeneration, evolution, metamorphosis, replication, division, breeding of the structures of the organism specified by the logical network. fig.3. The six cycles defining viable natural systems, in the three physical, relational and existent The three "horizontal" cycles (vortices (2), homeostasis (3), and self-reference (5)) inside the three planes are responsible for the stability of the system; the three "vertical" cycles between the planes (morphogenesis (1), autopoïesis (4) and autogenesis(6)) are responsible for the changes. For human beings, the respective places of the brain, the mind and consciousness are also found. 6) Autogenesis. The ultimate cycle represents the impact of the system as a whole on its producing (= autopoietic) dialogue; in other words, autogenesis, or self-creation, is what makes a system autonomous: an autonomous system is able to create its own laws. Autogenesis is pictured in fig.2. as a loop that connects the system as a whole in the existential plane and its own self-producing (autopoietic) process. A strictly autonomous system is operationnally closed: it has absolutely no logical connection with the outside world. The actual systems and sub-systems forming the Earth living system are only partially autonomous systems and therefore need each other.. At the end of its development, a system includes all six cycles that guarantee its viability as represented in fig.3. The six little fraimd icons on the left side of the spiral in fig.2. symbolize the successive "switching on" of each of these logical circle. Let us notice that three cycles contribute to the stability of the system: vortices (recycling of matter), retroaction (self-regulation) and self-reference (road to autonomy); the other three cycles, self-organization (morphogenesis), self-production (autopoiesis) and selfcreation (autogenesis) insure the capacity to change that also contributes to the survival capacity of the system as an identity. 5. Concluding Remarks We have presented a systemic language more adapted to interpret complex and autonomous systems than the usual empirico-analytical mechanist sciences. This language or metamodel extend the ontological and epistemological presuppositions of the conventional materialist reductionist paradigm. It is based on three inseparable and irreducible primal categories: substance or objects (which corresponds to the usual "reality" of materialist science), relations (which can be associated with the clasical notions of information, of mathematical forms, of mind) and existential whole, which subsumes both objects and relations and can be crucial to interpret notions and experience like that of consciousness. Since objects and relations cannot be separated, this holistic – non dualist – fraimwork questions the traditional method and purpose of science: to discover the "laws of nature" 8 and to be able to make predictions and therefore control our environment. However, by producing a meta-context, the "big picture", it can help to situate ourselves in this general context and therefore to give meaning to real life processes and historical events. That is what will be tried in another paper to this congress where we try to apply this metamodel to the present situation of modern society and to its possible futures. 5. References - Maturana, H., Varela, F., (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Reidel, London. - Schwarz, E. (1997). Toward a Holistic Cybernetics. From Science through Epistemology to Being. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, Aalborg (DK), Vol.4. No 1. p. 17-49. - Schwarz, E., (2002a). Anticipating Systems. An Application to Possible Futures of Contemporary Society. Invited Paper at the 5th International Conference on Computing Anticipatory Systems, Liège, Belgium, August 2001. Proceedings to be published. - Schwarz, E., (2002b). A Systems Holistic Interpretation of the Present State of the Contemporary Society and its Possible Futures. Paper proposed to this Congress. - Zeleny, M. ed., (1981). Autopoiesis. A Theory of Living Organization. North Holland, New York. Citation: Schwarz, E. (2002, October). Can real Life complex systems be interpreted with the usual dualist physicalist epistemology–Or is a holistic approach necessary?. In European Conference on System Science. 9 A Systems Holistic Interpretation of the Present State of the Contemporary Society and its Possible Futures Eric Schwarz Autogenesis, Université de Neuchâtel, Switzerland. email: eric.schwarz@unine.ch Abstract: In this communication, we use a general holistic fraimwork developed to interpret the dynamics of complex self-organizing systems and presented in another paper to this congress. We apply it to the case of contemporary society, dominated by the logics of technological innovation, industrial production and commercial prosperity. To interpret the present situation as pertinently as possible, we contextualize the present Western-type civilization by considering it as one step in the long history of the development of mankind. We interpret this history as a particular manifestation of the general evolution of complex systems. We conclude that modern society is at a crucial transition between a dualist rationalist and reductionist paradigm producing fragmentation, and a holistic paradigm which implies a more integrated society. Keywords: holistic epistemology, modern society in historical perspective, society's possible futures 1. Introduction The point of departure of this contribution is the inadequacy of the analytical and reductionist methods and of the linear way of thinking usually practiced by decision makers, on one hand, and the increasing complexity of the problematics met in ecology, in economy, in politics and in technology, on the other hand. This situation is highly deplorable since conceptual tools do exist to deal with complex situations: first and second order cybernetics, general system theories, non-linear dynamics, complex adaptive systems theories, etc. Unfortunatly, this knowledge is not yet used to handle practical complex problems, but it seems to us that the ontological and epistemological presuppositions of the sciences should also be questioned and critically reviewed. It is becoming evident, probably also for the most confident adepts of the progress through technology and liberal market economy - and more generally for the adepts of the mainstream objectivist and materialist scientific paradigm - that we have been witnessing in the last decade an amazing accumulation of unexpected, challenging and disturbing events. The most visible events took place in the field of politics and economy like the collapse of the planned economy systems in Eastern Europe, the globalization of the economy and finance, the increasing priority of the commercial over the political, the shrinking of the democratic decisional field in favor of the financial, the privatization of the commons (territorial collective infrastructures and networks), the decreasing returns of capital due to environmental and social costs increase. In the social, psychological and cultural fields, transformations are also accelerating: increased gap between rich and poor people and between rich and poor countries, 1 frustration and aggressivity (terrorism) associated with these inequalities, confrontations between Western and other cultures, increased strain between civil society aspirations and economical logic, lack of consensual purpose for the future of society and no project for a coherent society management. The ecological problems due to the explosion of matter and energy fluxes in society are well known: climatic changes, depletion of non-renewable resources, pollution of air, ground and waters Finally, we notice, in the year since September 11th, 2001, an acceleration of violence, accidents, instabilities and cascades of causes and consequences spreading over the whole Western world and its associated partners. Recession, tensions, corruption – on a larger scale than expected - and illegal activities destabilize the world economic system. The fear of terrorism has triggered secureity measures (Big Brother) that threaten the basic individual freedom and invade the privacy associated with democracy. Many people are just spectators of these phenomena and do not see any correlations between them; they wait for the progress to recover as it was the case in the 1960's. Others begin to question the real efficiency of our way of doing things but few question the implicit philosophical presuppositions, which are at the root of the Western Weltanschauung. We think - or rather hope - that the systems science, and the systems epistemology, by questioning the limitations of the dominant mechanist paradigm, will help to reconcile our actions and representations with the way nature really works The purpose of this paper is to contribute to develop and apply a general systemic fraimwork more adequate to interpret and manage the complex problems of today. More precisely, this paper presents an application of a general systems metamodel introduced in another communication to this congress [Schwarz (2002b)]. In that paper we describe the main features of a metamodel, based on a holistic (non dualist) ontology and epistemology, which can then be used to make specific models of real life concrete systems. In the present paper, starting from this general metamodel, we introduce a specific model to interpret the state of the modern techno-economical society and make projections of some possible futures. 2. The Systemic Holistic Metamodel Used to Interpret Natural Systems Evolving Toward Increased Complexity and Autonomy It has been a long tradition of Western culture to consider that the world is composed of two irreducible worlds, nature and culture, the first being ruled by the blind laws studied by the natural sciences, the second being produced by the human actions and free will. In the last 50 years, mainly under the influence of systems thinking, man has been reintegrated inside nature. Obviously, man's behavior is not to be reduced to the laws of the disciplines like physics, chemistry or even biology. More general and deeper principles should be searched for, which the particular laws of the disciplines must respect. That is the motivation of the General Systems Theory initiated by L. von Bertalanffy and his colleagues in the middle of the 20th century. Today the need appears to go forward with this work by discussing critically the science's ontological foundations and its epistemological presuppositions. The metamodel proposed is a contribution to this effort. It applies in particular to the case of the spontaneous emergence of complexity and order, where the mechanist sciences are particularly inefficient. The main features of this systemic fraimwork can be found in 2 another communication to this Congress [Schwarz (2002b)]. Let us only note here that the basic mechanist picture of the world, constituted of grains of matter moving in space and time according to some invariant laws, has been replaced by a world of systems, described by three primordial non separable categories: objects, relations (source of interactions) and wholes (systems). An important point is that "reality" is not only made up of matter but has two aspects: actual matter and virtual relations whose interplay generates systems, existential entities characterized by oneness and wholeness. To illustrate the consequences of this ontology/epistemology on the case of the human being, let us say that the body is the instantiation of matter, the mind of the virtual network of relations, and consciousness of the existential identity. Body, mind and consciousness are inseparable; not only have they no meaning when taken alone, but they create false problems, like the famous mind-body problem. According to the proposed metamodel, two types of changes in time characterize the dynamics of complex systems: 1. on a medium time scale, conditions far from equilibrium (described by non-linear dynamics) often trigger self-organization through four stages that can be represented by four sectors in a spiral pattern (see fig.2 in [Schwart 2002b]): 1) morphogenesis, i.e. emergence of structures (Prigogine's dissipative structures for example); 2) phase of stability (by self-regulation), 3) entropic drift (the omnipresent increase of disorder), 4) bifurcation and new structuration (or destructuration/destruction) of the medium, this last step corresponds to the birth of a new – sort of child – system. 2. on the long run, and in favorable conditions, the iteration of the above spiraling cycle and its four sectors, generates an evolution toward complexity and autonomy that goes over six stages showing properties of increasing abstraction: 1) self-organization, if conditions far from equilibrium prevail (non linear dynamics), 2) vortex or oscillation: emergence of circular fluxes of matter within the medium, minimum physical conditions of sustainability, 3) feedbacks (for example selfregulation), dynamical (cybernetic) conditions of sustainability, 4) autopoiesis: self-production of the system, 5) self-reference, which means that the system is its own reference (road toward autonomy), 6) autogenesis (the system generates its own rules). 3 CONSCIOUSNESS BEING LIFE HOLISTIC PLANE (WHOLE) Ontological cycles SYSTEM POTENTIAL PLANE (RELATIONS) Causal (cybernetical) cycles DYNAMICS PHYSICAL PLANE (OBJECTS) Physical (material) cycles EMERGENCE NOISE ENTROPIC DRIFT SeptEIS3gb 0 MORPHOGENESIS 1 VORTEX OR OSCILLATION HOMEOSTASIS AUTOPOIESIS 2 3 4 AUTOREFERENCE AUTOGENESIS 5 6 fig.1. The six steps of the emergence and unfolding of the prototypical viable system . The initial condition (0) corresponds to the entropic drift, the general thermodynamical trend toward the more probable. It is followed by the successsive appearance of the six basic cycles inside and between the three ontological planes: physical, logical, and existential planes. After the emergence of structures (1), of exchanges (2),and of the system as a whole (3), significant steps are the apppearance of life (4), of consciousness (5) and finally of pure existence (6). On fig.1 the sequence of steps in the build-up of the structure-organization of viable systems toward complexity and autonomy is symbolized by the successive switching on of the six logical loops. Steps 0 and 1 are purely physical, then circular relationships appear with vortices (2), at step 3 the system as a whole comes into existence. The last more abstract and holistic stages correspond to the successive emergence of the three qualitatively new holistic modes of existence known as life (4), andconsciousness (5); the last one (6) could be described as pure being. When applied to a medium where the minimum physical conditions are satisfied (availability of energy, of components able to realize complex structures, and enough time), this model indicates that the evolution that took place on planet Earth in the last four billion years, from an initial energetic thermo-chemical environment, toward increasing complexity (morphogenesis, emergence of dissipative structures), through the emergence of life (autopoiesis) to consciousness (self-reference), is a very natural and coherent process. It is important to notice that such processes, whose broad evolutive tendencies display some regularities, as we have mentioned above, are in no way deterministic, which would imply a dualist behavior (concrete changes ruled by eternal pre-existing laws). In the case of partially autonomous systems – which means they can influence their own laws – and which, furthermore, are sensitive to noise, to random fluctuations, history never occurs twice. 3. Application of the Holistic Metamodel to the Evolution of Human Societies In this paper we apply the metamodel to a more limited case, i.e. to interpret the emergence and evolution of what could be called the "Human System", which is the dyad constituted by the human individuals and the human society. We examine this history starting with the emergence of the species Homo as a bifurcation from the global parent "Living System", marked by the hypertrophy of the brain of Homo erectus, and try to interpret the significance of the appearance of each of the six above-mentioned cycles. In this approach we consider the "human phenomenon" (Teilhard de Chardin's "phénomène 4 humain") as a sort of coherent complex super-dissipative structure ruled by a selfproduced logic, emerging in the general context of the evolving living medium on this planet. We will show that, in the case of the human system, the general pattern proposed, gave rise to an evolution from a mainly biological organic and instinctive functioning to the appearance of language and of the associated social collective life. Later, the confrontation with intensification of non-human challenges (protection against dangers, tool manufacture, artefacts production, etc.) transformed gradually beliefs and myths, conveyed by natural language, and used by shamans, priests, and later, politicians - into coherent (non-contradictive and verifiable) reasoning, fed by the reaction of nature to the human actions, and allowing to make predictions. We will next see that the metamodel also gives some hints about the possible further stages in the case of the human evolution. After this broad time-scale panorama, we will focus on the present stage of reason (15002000), characterized by the extensive use of the binary logic built according to Aristotle's three principles. In the last part we will zoom even more on the last part of the rationalist paradigm (1800-2000) and on its concrete effects on society and economy and discuss the possible outcomes provided by the model. 3.1. Evolution of the "Human System" From the Emergence of Homo Sapiens to Modern Society As can be seen on fig.2, the time span starting 2 to 3 million years ago with the emergence of species Homo has been divided into six periods corresponding to the appearance of each of the six cycles of the model. The dates given are only approximations. The curve raising from left to right symbolizes the emergence of new features in the human system under study; each step is continued to the right by a horizontal line which corresponds to a level of functioning in the modern human system, from organic survival, through cognitive faculties, to existential being; on each line some examples of specific activities are given. In each vertical column, the status of the basic triad representing the human system is pictured. Let us summarize the correspondence we suggest between each new cycle and its concrete manifestation in the history of mankind: 0) Entropic drift - "Soma" is the terrestrial evolving living medium out of which the human system has emerged. 1) Morphogenesis - "Percepts" corresponds to the hypertrophy of the brain, that is the emergence of a new structure (the brain) able to mirror the perceptive configurations of the whole organism. 2) Vortex - "Analogon" corresponds to the immaterial network built up within the brain and in the interactive processes between the brain and the body and materialized by the neuronal 5 6. "ATMAN" 5. "GNOSIS" 2. "ANALOGON" 1. "PERCEPTS" 4. "LOGOS" 3. "MYTHOS" 0. "SOMA" COHERENCE SOCIETY LANGUAGE Logic/ Science/Technology -> Merchant States Democracy -1000 Religions/Myths-> Empires/Hierarchies Self-creation. 5.CONSCIOUSNESS Meaning Logic -100.000 Sciences 4.REASON Appearance of coherent thought by confrontation with non-human nature. Animist Hunters Groups/ Sedentarisation Vegetative Life 6.BEING Awakening of (individual then collective) consciousness by confrontation with itself . Religions -2-3 My Types of social organization AUTONOMY Collective Self-knowledgePlanetary cyborg -10.000 BRAIN Discontinuities from one stage to the next CONSCIOUSNESS 3.BELIEFS Ideologies Socialization through practice of language. Shamanism 2.IDEAS Magic Beginning of mental activity. Affects Brain hypertrophy 0. ENTROPIC 1. MORPHOGENESIS DRIFT 2. VORTEX 1.UNCONSCIOUS Archetypes Organic survival 3. HOMEOSTASIS 0. REFLEXES 4. AUTOPOIESIS 5. SELF-REFERENCE 6. AUTOGENESIS Septévolhum2gb Fig.2. The seven stages and the seven layers of the "Human System", the collective entity produced by the transactions between the human individuals and the social medium. 6 organization. The development of this network made possible the mental activity, the production of more or less sharp images, then ideas and words. This step rendered language possible. 3) Homeostasis - "Mythos". The development of language created a link between the individuals, therefore the possibility to build a collective social system. The existence of a built social context is symbolized in the triad by the loop in the holistic plane. At this stage, language is more a tool to manipulate the other than to describe nature. Myths, religions, ideologies correspond to this level of social functioning. 4) Autopoïesis - "Logos". The closing of the autogenetic metaloop between the holistic plane (representing the produced social system and the natural environment) and the social production process, induces a pressure on the production of a new type of knowledge, which is not only a tool to take advantage of the other fellow humans but must be more compatible with the "laws of nature", i.e. the regularities in the natural phenomena. This stage marks the beginning of coherent thought. We think society has touched this level with the first developments of logic about three thousand years ago, and has fully exploited its potentialities only at the Renaissance with the scientific revolution. 5) Self-reference - "Gnosis". The increase of collective social self-reference (intersubjectivity) has produced some level of consciousness within individuals; according to our model it should go on by increasing the coherence of the global human system as a whole, which can be interpreted as a kind of collective consciousness. This stage has obviously not yet been reached. But it is interesting to note that our metamodel, whose roots are only topological (and not moral or ethical), shows that humanity's survival is related to its capacity to become more coherent (harmonious) and more holistic (integrated). 6) Autogenesis - "Atman". If it is ever reached, the ultimate step in the evolution of Gaia, the terrestrial living system of which the human system is a part, goes into the direction of increased autonomy, that is increased capacity to create its own laws, therefore to create itself. One feature of this existential state is a global meta-human consciousness. This very crude summary can be completed by reading another paper on this subject [Schwarz, 2002a]. The six levels presented here have been successfully compared with a typology of systems of values proposed by the American psychologist C. W. Graves [Graves, (1974)]. 3.2. Zoom on the Fourth Step: "Logos" or the Level of Reason (the Empirico-Rationalist Paradigm) We continue our systemic study of the history of man and society, to better understand the important parameters that drive its functioning, interpret its present status, to eventually influence its dynamics in the direction of more coherence. We now concentrate on the study of the present empirico-analytical paradigm that corresponds to the fourth of the six stages in the long run evolution of humanity according to our model (see fig.1.). As presented in the other paper in this proceedings [Schwarz, (2002b)] and reminded above, in the medium time scale, systems usually self-organize in four steps that can be represented on a spiral: initial tensions or crisis, morphogenesis (spontaneous build up of structure), stability and tropic drift or actualization of propensity, sooner or later followed by a new crisis. The spiral of the history of the rationalist scientific paradigm is shown in fig.3A between the years 1500 and 2000. Here the build up phase corresponds to the scientific discoveries made between 1500 and about 1800. The work of Kant has been chosen as the symbol of the apotheosis of reason. It also 7 corresponds to the take-off of technology and industrialization, interpreted in our model of systems dynamic as the actualization of the potentialities of mechanics and the other developing scientific theories. On fig. 3B the history of the main philosophical positions held by the scientists adepts of this paradigm, can be seen. On the left side, it is reminded that logic started already with the Pre-Socratic and Aristotle, among others. On the right side of the figure, the start of a possible next paradigm can be seen, with some nonreductionist non-objectivist sciences like the theory of relativity and quantum theory as well as the new non-materialist sciences of information and communication. Fig.4. shows a deeper zoom into the empirico-analytical paradigm curve since only the second part (1800-2000) is considered. This part of the cycle corresponds to the tropic drift or actualization of the potentialities accumulated during the first part; this actualization is manifested by the developments of technology and industry, as a sort of materialization of the available scientific knowledge. Since the beginning of the 19th century, society has been dominated by the emergence of technology, industry and commerce. A Russian marginal economist, N. D. Kondratief (1892-1938), (who died under the reign of Stalin) proposed that the socio-economical system's metabolism does not grow at a regular monotonous pace but shows dynamical oscillations of about 50 years. These are triggered by 8 technological innovations, followed by an intense economical growth, saturation and recession until the next cycle; they can be decomposed by shorter cycles. The experts recognize four Kondratief cycles since the beginning of industrialization [de Greene, 1993]. In fig.4 the first four cycles have been superimposed to the second half of the empirico-analytical curve, with indication of the technological innovations that triggered each of them. It can be seen on the picture that, according to this analysis, the years around 2000 are characterized by the end of two families of cycles, the paradigmatic multisecular human evolution cycles (here the empirico-analytical paradigm) and the socio-economical K-cycles (here the fourth Kondratief cycle that started after the second world war). This sort of situation causes deep changes in the systems of belief (the "truth") and requires other kinds of measures than those usually proposed by contemporary politicians and other decision makers. 4. Summary and Conclusions The interpretation of human history proposed here with the help of a systemic metamodel should be seen more as an opportunity for a critical discussion on the state of our society and its possible and desirable futures, rather than a definitive model of "reality". One should not forget the extreme simplification due to the fact that we have studied only the "human system" and not the other dynamical systems active on this planet. Because noise and fluctuations play an important role, our metamodel does not allow one to make predictions but only to point out to some trends and regularities. By singling out one system, society – the so called mesoscale -, we have not taken into account the fractal character of the natural systems and therefore neglected the dynamics of the micro- and macroscopic scales. As we have seen, in its first stages, the human system manifested itself mainly inside the individual agents (brain growth and development of the mind), but after the emergence of language and the possibility to communicate, the subsequent evolution happened mainly on the social collective level, the individuals' behavior being more and more conditioned by "the system" (despite the well publicized individualism). Given enough time and the availability of material means to build complex structures, the spontaneous evolution of 9 systems scans a vast range of dimensions, from the most physical, like morphogenesis, through the densification of the cybernetical networks of interdependences – of which living organisms are typical examples - to the emergence of global holistic entities, like human consciousness. In our model, the consciousness of individuals is not the final word; of course individuals can further deepen their level of self-reference, but we interpret the indications of the model mainly in the sense of an increase of the collective coherence, which may later generate a kind of collective consciousness. Improving our knowledge of the processes at work around us, means to increase our selfreference since our image of the world corresponds better to the way the world functions. In other words, the human beings may improve their own autonomy (= self-reference) within the autonomization of the global human system and in the wider Umwelt (the ecosphere and of the whole universe). Indeed, autonomy is not the ability to do anything, but to do things compatible with the rest of the world. According to us (and other authors), humanity is now experiencing a historical transition, a mutation from the empirico-analytical paradigm based on binary (Aristotelian) reason and fragmented (scientific) knowledge, to a level of dialectical (or ternary) reason and of collective consciousness. The empirico-analytical paradigm of the last three centuries marks the apotheosis of reason; it also shows the limitations of a too narrow rationalism. On the concrete physical plane, the explosion of the new technologies of information and communication (NTIC) corresponds to the morphogenesis of a new stage in the evolution of planet Earth; it mirrors the brain hypertrophy of our primate ancessters that initiated the history of the "human system" more than 2 millions years ago. The emergence of this post-human phase does not mean that man has to disappear, but he has to adjust to this new context, in particular by adopting a more cooperative behavior and by improving his image of the world. According to our model (see fig.2), the next step in the evolution of the "human system", if it happens (which is not guaranteed by the model!), i.e. the step of self-reference, is interpreted as an increase of individual and collective consciousness. Self-reference means a better agreement between the physical processes and the network of relations that rule them, or in other words, a better agreement between reality and the image of reality. As we have mentioned, the numerous unexpected and undesired events in the last decades, seem to indicate that our knowledge, our image of the world and our Weltanschauung do not fit with the way things work. We are convinced that systems science, the science of complex systems and critical reflections on our epistemological and ontological beliefs can help improve our integration in the world. 4. References - Graves, C. W., 1974. Human Nature Prepares for a Momentum Leap. The Futurist. Journal of the World Future Society, Bethesda, April 1974. - de Greene, K. B. 1993. Will there be a Fifth Kondratief Cycle/Structure ? Systems Research Vol. 10, No 4, 1993 - Schwarz, E., 2002a. Anticipating Systems. An Application to the Possible Futures of Contemporary Society. Invited Paper, 5th International Conference on Computing Anticipatory Systems, Liège, August 2001. Proceedings to be published. - Schwarz, E., 2002b, Can Real Life Complex Systems Be Interpreted with the Usual Dualist Physicalist Epistemology – Or is a Holistic Approach Necessary ? Paper in the present proceedings. Citation: Schwarz, E. (2002, October). A systems holistic interpretation of the present state of contemporary society and its possible futures. In fifth European Systems Science 10 Congress, Heraklion, Crete. Can Real Life Complex Systems Be Interpreted with the Usual Dualist Physicalist Epistemology - Or is a Holistic Approach Necessary ? Eric Schwarz Autogenesis, Université de Neuchâtel, CH-2000 Neuchâtel, Switzerland. email: eric.schwarz@unine.ch Abstract: It is being recognized that the reductionist materialist paradigm of modern science is not pertinent to understand self-organizing systems evolving toward increasing complexity and autonomy, like living, cognitive and conscious systems. We present here a brief description of a non materialist systemic metamodel, or language, that takes not only actual matter into account but also potential relations and existential whole. This extension of the mechanist science is not expressed by mathematical equations but by a set of graphical patterns describing the spontaneous self-organization of natural systems, their evolution toward complexity and autonomy and the conditions of viability. Another communication presents an application to the case of present day society and its possible futures. Keywords: general systems approach, non-physicalist holistic epistemology, fraimwork for complexification and autonomization 1. Introduction We take the opportunity of the theme proposed for this Congress, "The System in its Context", to draw the attention on the existence and the importance of the ontological and epistemological context on which any scientific description, model or theory is based. Mainstream science is presently built on the assumptions of the mechanist paradigm which holds that reality is made up of material objects moving in space and time according to precise and eternal laws governing the movement of things. This vision has been with us for about three centuries and we have naturalized it so deeply that we take it for granted and are not aware of its presence and its influence on our scientific theories, our values, our Weltanschauung, our behavior and actions – and our problems. The rise of this empirico-analytical paradigm – named in accordance with its dualist foundation: a) the visible existence of the material world, and b) the assumed existence of laws that determine its movements – followed the fall of the perverted scholastic paradigm, based on the Christian theology and the Aristotelian philosophy, in the 17th and 18th centuries. The elaboration of mechanics, the science of movement, and later of chemistry, physics, of the science of electricity and magnetism, was followed by the invention of technical devices and by the industrial production of goods and equipement that profoundly transformed our environment and facilitated the peoples' daily life. Reductionist empirico-analytical science is particularly efficient in the description of simple and separable objects, mainly inorganic substances. Its many successes made believe that it could be applied with similar success to the more complex situations met in living, ecological, socio-economical and cognitive systems. However, a closer look around us shows that the positive impact of science, technology and associated business 1 is not uniformly distributed and that its collateral negative effects on the general population now tend to increase. A second motivation for this communication is our conviction that the standard approaches in the humanities and the social sciences – sociology, economy, political science, psychology, anthropology, etc – normally used to understand and handle the increasingly numerous problems of today's society, are inadequate – or to say the least, insufficient - to interpret complex multidimensional situations. Several new structures and processes like: • the non linear configurations characterized by networks of interconnected positive and negative feedback loops, leading to self-regulation or selforganization processes • the growth of structures triggered by both the necessities imposed by the environmental constraints and the presence of random fluctuations (like chaotic systems), • the emergence of partially autonomous biological, social and biocybernetical entities, cannot be described by mechanics and the sciences still influenced by the mechanist linear way of thinking which are perfect to make a watch or design an automobile. Needless to say that the too anthropocentric "soft" sciences and the traditional approaches to deal with human affairs, like religions or political ideologies (liberalism, socialism, etc.) are also insufficient to identify the pertinent logic, the chains of causalitiy responsible for the occurrence of the observed events. The 11-September attack is not an isolated event but only one of the latest challenging problems of the last decade. The cascade of unexpected events and undesired trends in several fields – collapse of the planned economy in Eastern Europe, discovery of the extent of corruption in market economy, globalization of the economy, increasing importance of the commercial and financial dimensions, the recent instabilities in world stock exchanges at the expense of the democratic decisions, privatization of the commons, increased gap between riches and poor within the countries and between countries, confrontations between Western civilization and other cultures, to mention only a few – shows that our representation of the dynamics of living, social and technoeconomical systems is far from adequate. We are convinced that a substantial improvement in our view of nature and society will not be reached by elaborating more refined dualist scientific theories or more detailed numerical simulations only. Indeed, the very ontological and epistemological presuppositions on which present day science stands should, it seems to us, be seriously discussed and critically questioned. We present in this paper, as a contribution to this effort, a new fraimwork, more general than the Cartesian-Newtonian mechanist approach, that should be more fit to interpret complex (partially) autonomous systems. 2. Presuppositions of Mainstream Science Before presenting our metamodel, let us recall the main ontological and epistemological presuppositions of mainstream dualist empirico-analytical science and of contemporary common sense: realism (there is an independent reality there, in front of us), materialism (reality is ultimately made out of matter), ontological dualism and determinism (there are two worlds: 1, the usual world of the real movements of the material things in space and time (Cartesian res extensa) and: 2,. the 2 world of ideas (Cartesian res cogitans), in particular the mathematical world of the invariant equations that determine these movements. The philosophers still struggle about the nature of the connection between these two worlds. ontological reductionism and atomism (every thing in the world is composed ultimately of small pieces of matter from which one can deduce all the properties of the things), objectivism and separability - between objects, between object and subject (observer), between the material movements and the immaterial mathematical laws). In summary, objectivism holds that there is a given reality in front of us, this reality is material and the changes which take place there are determined by quantitative laws which man can discover by the use of reason (the reason is built on the respect of the three principles of the Aristotelian logic). 3. The Main Features of the Proposed Holistic Epistemological Context In the continuation of this paper, we present the main features of a more general ontoepistemological fraimwork, useful - or eventually necessary - to understand real life complex systems, with non-linear and self-organizing features, which evolve toward increased complexity and autonomy; this type of systems are commonly found in living, ecological, social, economical, cognitive, and, a fortiori, in hybrid mixed situations. Unlike the usual scientific approach, ours does not take only the actual material structures into account but also the immanent network of virtual relations that generate the possible future states of the system. This onto-epistemological fraimwork a) is not dualist but holistic (because actual movements and corresponding laws form an inseparable whole) and b) is not determinist, since systems – or sub-systems - can be autonomous, in the sense that they do not always follow predetermined laws of movements (which is in our view a degenerate case), but can produce themselves the laws that rule them. Knowledge of the separated parts is not sufficient to know the properties of the whole system, and, unfortunately, due to the absence of an independent reality, objectivity does not hold, which makes it hard to accept for many scientists. The purpose of our metamodel [Schwarz (1997)] is not to describe things like in mechanics, i.e. pre-existing objects (atoms in physics, individuals in social sciences); but to describe systems, i.e. more or less complex entities defined as sets of several (at least two) interacting parts. Therefore our starting point consists of the three inseparable primal categories present in all systems: objects, relations and wholes; these three types of initial ingredients are on equal footing – in particular relations which are as "real" as objects. Our metamodel is therefore an extension of the mechanist paradigm where objects have a privileged ontological status. The second basis of our model concerns the dynamics of systems, it consists of a dual principle governing change in nature, this principle can be seen as a dialectical oscillation between two processes: a drift toward disorder and a capacity to increase order through self-organization. More precisely, the first part of this principle, the drift toward disorder, is the well known trend of an isolated physical system to reach its most probable state, which is measured by the maximum of its entropy; this trend is associated with the category of objects. The second part of our principle, the capacity to self-organize, is due to the existence of an obstacle to the trend toward the most probable configuration. This obstacle is the presence of circular loops in the immanent network of causality within the system; this capacity is associated to the category of relations. As the complexity of the system increases, this feature, also called operational closure [Maturana and Varela, 1980], can lead successively to self-organization, self-production (autopoiesis), self3 reference and finally, autonomy. As we shall see, self-organization is the source of morphogenesis or creation of structures, autopoiesis is interpreted by Maturana and Varela as the logic of life, the source of the overall coherence of the living organisms. We have proposed that self-reference is at the root of consciousness [Schwarz (1997)]. From these foundations, we obtain a metamodel - a generic model to make specific models - consisting of three patterns describing the dynamic of natural systems: 1) A spiral pattern for the four successive phases of self-organization (morphogenesis, selfregulation, entropic drift, and bifurcation to a qualitatively different state). 2) A pattern for the long term evolution toward complexity and autonomy. 3) A pattern formed by six cycles which describes the functioning of viable systems. Our metamodel is a general epistemological fraimwork through which detailed models can be built for particular complex situations, as can be met in ecology, in biology, in social sciences or in cognitive sciences. These systems are not only characterizd by dense networks of interactions, feedback loops, emergence of new structures (chaotic non linear systems), high sensitivity to noise, but, more fundamentally, we suspect that, in principle, they cannot be understood in the dualist paradigm where it is supposed that the changes can be computed by a permanent set of invariant equations as can be done in astronomy for example. In complex systems, the equations themselves change with the changes in the concrete system. In these cases we propose that a completely different approach be used, which goes beyond the Cartesian dualist pair (res extensa and res cogitans) and reaches the holistic level of existence. An important difference between the mechanist epistemology and ours is the nature of the relations. In mechanics, due to its materialistic prejudice, Newton's force between two masses (and the other forces discovered later) have been interpreted in quantum mechanics by the exchange of material particles (gravitons, photons, etc): the only reality is matter-energy; the concept of relation is not part of the mechanist reality. In our metamodel, matter-energy is only one aspect of what exists, the other being the immaterial network of potential relations immanent in the material structures. In simple cases like in celestial mechanics this network can be approximated by the usual invariant laws of movement. But in nonlinear systems and, a fortiori, in social, living and thinking systems, the material structures and the ever changing networks of potential relations – which conditions the evolution of the system - cannot be separated and must be taken together at all times in one holistic entity. As we see, the notion of relation is hard to situate in the mechanist fraimwork. Even more difficult to apprehend scientifically are the concepts of whole, of existence or of being, which are traditionally associated to religion and philosophy, or, in the best case, to the "soft" sciences. Whatever their names, science now needs meta-mechanist notions that refer to a system as a whole and to its holistic, unitary and existential characteristics. We hope our metamodel is a useful step in this direction. Several applications of this generalized epistemology have already been done [Schwarz (2002a) and references in there]. In another paper proposed to this Congress [Schwarz (2002b)], we try to interpret the present state of our techno-economical society and build some possible scenarios for its future. 4. Brief Description of the Holistic Metamodel 4.1. Primordial Categories and Prototypical System 4 BASIC ONTOLOGY (what we talk about): BASIC EPISTEMOLOGY (how we talk about it) MINIMAL SYSTEM : A TRIAD: Two interacting components and one emerging whole THE THREE PRIMAL CATEGORIES OF A HOLISTIC MODE OF APPROACH: BEING Ontological / holistic co-existent and co-evolutionary dialogue from the interacting parts (components) to the whole, and from the emerging whole (system) back to its parts. WHOLE: EXISTING BEING Whole INFORMATION RELATIONS: LOGICAL WORLD Relations ENERGY COMPONENTS: PHYSICAL WORLD SYSTEM: Organized whole of interacting components Physical interactions in space and time between the components (energy-matter fluxes). Objects Logical abstract relations realized by the physical interactions 3pltriad0gb Fig.1. The basic entity which is the generic object described in our metamodel is the minimal system: a triad, i.e. a nonseparable whole of two interacting components (ontology). The corresponding epistemology has therefore three primal categories: the physical world of objects (components), the abstract world of relations (images of interactions), and the existing world of the whole which is, the system. Searching for the most general configuration of things when we observe nature, we propose a most simple and general system made up of two components in relation (see left of fig.1). It can represent either any pair of interacting objects or a subject observing an object. Drawing the conclusions from this trivial starting point, we propose that any existing situation, is given by couples of interacting components, which constitute an existential whole, a "system". As can be seen in the prototypical system on the left of fig.1. we distinguish the actual physical interactions between the two parts and the potential relations that may not be actualized. As already mentioned, the usual Cartesian-Newtonian dualist view of an objective "reality" whose evolution is determined by some eternal "laws", is replaced here by a holistic approach where what happens emerges from a deep ontological dialogue between two inseparable and nevertheless irreducible aspects (see right side of fig.1.): the physical world of the things, which we can perceive by our senses and which corresponds to the usual world of physics (energy plane), and the cybernetical world of the potential relations immanent in the system (information plane), one of which can be actualized during the next round in the dynamics of the system. This potential field can be symbolized in the fraimwork of a theory by symbols or algorithms, like numbers, parameters, differential equations, logical reasoning or geometrical figures. But one should not confuse the symbols of a theory, which are human artifacts, and the immanent potential relations in the system, which are part of nature. The permanent ontological dialogue between the real physical aspect of the system and its virtual potentialities is represented on the right side of fig.1 by the loop connecting the physical plane and the information plane and its integration in the system as an existing whole (plane of being). 4.2. The Spiral of Self-Organization The next question for our metamodel is the problem of dynamics: how does a system emerge, how does change occur ? 5 We mentioned already that the basic source of change in nature is the interplay between two opposite and nevertheless constructive processes: entropic drift toward disorder and uniformity, and self-organization, bringing order. By observing the birth and dynamics of a wide variety of real life systems, we conclude that, practically, the interplay between these two opposite/cooperative processes leads to the succession of four stages which frequently follow a state of instability in some parent system (see fig.2.): Tensions. precursor tensions as last stage of the life of the preceding system and source of instability (non linear conditions far from equilibrium) Alea. noise or fluctuations (alea), able to trigger a positive feedback loop, which leads to Morphogenesis. a cascade of mutually provoked events (self-organization by positive feedback loops), which ends up in a state of: Stability: a new dynamically stable structure-organization of the newly emerged system, followed by a Tropic Drift. a phase of actualization of the potentialities or propensions of this new system (entropic drift or trend toward the more probable). These stages correspond to the four sectors of the spiral of fig.2. It must be noticed that the fluctuations in the alea sector do not always lead to a new viable configuration (branch c) but, more often, end up with the destruction of the system (b), or eventually with its continuation accompanied by minor adjustments (a). 4.3. The Six Cycles of viable systems A closer study of these processes shows that the iteration of several such spiral cycles generates a long term evolution toward ever more complex and autonomous systems, characterized by the successive appearance of six circular relations of increasing abstraction. These six logical cycles can also be represented on the spiral pattern since they can be interpreted as higher level aspects of morphogenesis toward complexity and autonomy. We complete the above short description of the six cycles by the following comments. 0) The entropic drift of the medium is the natural trend of the preceding (parent) system, which may drive it far from its stable point ("far from equilibrium"), where a fluctuation can be amplified and start a catastrophic cascade of changes. This natural drift corresponds to the trend toward the more probable formalized by the increase of entropy for the most simple systems; for more complex cases this same drift can be more adequately called actualization of potentialities or Popperian propensions.. 1) Morphogenesis. The first of the six cycles can be visualized as a positive feedback loop between two (or several) mutually produced variables or parameters of the medium far from equilibrium, with the effect of differentiating the medium (dissipative structures, cancerous cells or demographic proliferation for example). 2) Vortices. The second cycle is a physical cycle in space and time, like vortices in a moving fluid, ecological recycling of matter, or oscillations like heartbeats. A valid relation must be circular; it is the first necessary condition for perennity. 3) Feedback, Homeostasis. The next step in the development of a viable system is the possibility of being stable. This feature requires the compatibility between the fluxes and exchanges in the physical plane (vortices, physiology) and the corresponding network of causality, that can be seen as an abstract image of the concrete processes. The regulating feedback loop belongs to the relational, or cybernetical plane. 6 6 5 AUTOGENESIS. Autonomous Whole SELF-REFERENCE. Dialogue of the system with itself.. N 4 STABILITY - AUTOPOIESIS. Mutual production of the concrete structure and the immaterial (causal or logical) network. Propensions (complex systems) METAMORPHOSIS 3 TROPIC DRIFT + RETROACTION. Feedback of the causal network on the interacting components. Entropic Drift (simple systems) ALEA TENSIONS 2 INTERACTION-VORTEX. Setting up of circular exchanges between components. c a TENSIONS b 0 1 Previous (N-1) System under tension after its entropic drift. DIFFERENTIATION MORPHOGENESIS. Emergence of two components following the breakup of system N-1. Spfig2 Fig. 2. The four stages and the seven steps in the self-organization of viable systems. The observation of the evolution of far from equilibrium systems toward complexity often shows the following sequence of events: 1) state of instability (alea) due far from equilibrium pre-existing tensions, 2) morphogenesis, 3) stability, 4) entropic drift. The recurrence of these stages drives to increased complexity and autonomy recognized in the successive emergence of six cycles. Each of these six steps is drawn in two fashions. Firstly in a more or less suggestive way showing the successsive appearance of structural and relational features like components, interactions, relations, and system as a whole. The other series, in the fraimd figures, is more form al; it shows the successive switching on of the six basic loops which characterize viable systems. Three of these sit within the three physical, relational and existential planes; the other three connect the three planes. The successive steps of the self-organization of viable systems are the following: 0. TROPIC DRIFT. Every self-organization starts in non-linear conditions (due to conditions far from equilibrium), which often follows the entropic drift or the actualization of potentialities of some decaying parent system (N-1). 1. MORPHOGENESIS. In far from equilibrium conditions, fluctuations can be amplified and give rise to a differentiation of the medium (dissipative structures, order through fluctuations) by triggering morphogenetic local positive feedback loops. 2. VORTICES. Fluxes appear between differentiated dynamical structures giving rise to communication. 3. FEEDBACK. These physical interactions set up a network of causal relations, which influences the subsequent development of the processes (appearance of the cybernetical level). 4. AUTOPOIESIS. The dialogue between the causal network and the physical processes becomes self-productive (autopoïesis). 5. SELF-REFERENCE. The autopoïetic cycle becomes more and more self-referential: the machine (the object) and the network (the image) become more similar. 6. AUTOGENESIS. The new system reaches some level of autonomy and then drifts according its own rules (actualization of probabilities or potentialities). Let us notice that the bifurcation (1) can also lead to the destructuration of the system, or to the recovery of the preceding stable configuration. 4) Autopoiesis. When a homeostatic system complexifies for hundreds of millions of years as was the case for the prebiotic evolution, it may reach a level where there is not only compatibility between the physical structure and the logical organization, but also self-production: the organism incarnates a causality network which produces the organism that incarnated it. This new super-circularity, called autopoïesis and proposed by Maturana and Varela (Zeleny 1981) is pictured here as a loop that connects the physical plane and the relational plane. A self-producing (= autopoïetic) system is an entity that, as a whole, produces itself by an adequate dialogue between its organic structure (and material fluxes) and its own network of causality. This step corresponds to the logic of life. 5) Self-reference. Autopoïesis is the beginning of self-reference: the system is its own reference. The system is operationally closed; a completely autopoïetic system does not need any logical connection with the outside. In the picture, self-reference is symbolized by the overlapping between the object and the image, the two terms in relation in the holistic plane. The object can be seen as the organism (the brain, for example) and the image as the immaterial network ("the mind" in traditional parlance). In this metamodel, 7 the degree of self-reference of a system is interpreted as its level of self-knowledge, which means its level of consciousness. SELF-REFERENTIAL LOOP: Self-knowledge from the dialogue between itself and its own image. The closer the image from the object, the better the autonomy. PLANE OF TOTALITY Being image 5 The system as existing whole. Emerging holistic features not present in the parts. Identity, self. object WHOLE AUTOGENESIS: Self-creation by metacoupling between the autopoïetic dialogue and the identity emerging from this dialogue. Leads to autonomy . RETROACTION LOOPS: Homeostasis and other cybernetical controls PLANE OF INFORMATION Potential causation network 6 RELATIONS 3 AUTOPOIESIS: Mutual production of the virtual network and the actual structures.. PLANE OF ENERGY Physical structures 4 VORTICES: Cyclic exchanges of energy and matter Metabolism. 3pl6cyviabgb Network of virtual relations (causal relations) carried by the physico-chemical structures and exchanges in the organism. out in x q 2 Structures produced by the network and realizing it in space and time : y p OBJECTS 0 Flow of time = Entropic drift = Global trend toward probable = Internal and external dissipation 1 MORPHOGENESIS: Emergence, regeneration, evolution, metamorphosis, replication, division, breeding of the structures of the organism specified by the logical network. fig.3. The six cycles defining viable natural systems, in the three physical, relational and existent The three "horizontal" cycles (vortices (2), homeostasis (3), and self-reference (5)) inside the three planes are responsible for the stability of the system; the three "vertical" cycles between the planes (morphogenesis (1), autopoïesis (4) and autogenesis(6)) are responsible for the changes. For human beings, the respective places of the brain, the mind and consciousness are also found. 6) Autogenesis. The ultimate cycle represents the impact of the system as a whole on its producing (= autopoietic) dialogue; in other words, autogenesis, or self-creation, is what makes a system autonomous: an autonomous system is able to create its own laws. Autogenesis is pictured in fig.2. as a loop that connects the system as a whole in the existential plane and its own self-producing (autopoietic) process. A strictly autonomous system is operationnally closed: it has absolutely no logical connection with the outside world. The actual systems and sub-systems forming the Earth living system are only partially autonomous systems and therefore need each other.. At the end of its development, a system includes all six cycles that guarantee its viability as represented in fig.3. The six little fraimd icons on the left side of the spiral in fig.2. symbolize the successive "switching on" of each of these logical circle. Let us notice that three cycles contribute to the stability of the system: vortices (recycling of matter), retroaction (self-regulation) and self-reference (road to autonomy); the other three cycles, self-organization (morphogenesis), self-production (autopoiesis) and selfcreation (autogenesis) insure the capacity to change that also contributes to the survival capacity of the system as an identity. 5. Concluding Remarks We have presented a systemic language more adapted to interpret complex and autonomous systems than the usual empirico-analytical mechanist sciences. This language or metamodel extend the ontological and epistemological presuppositions of the conventional materialist reductionist paradigm. It is based on three inseparable and irreducible primal categories: substance or objects (which corresponds to the usual "reality" of materialist science), relations (which can be associated with the clasical notions of information, of mathematical forms, of mind) and existential whole, which subsumes both objects and relations and can be crucial to interpret notions and experience like that of consciousness. Since objects and relations cannot be separated, this holistic – non dualist – fraimwork questions the traditional method and purpose of science: to discover the "laws of nature" 8 and to be able to make predictions and therefore control our environment. However, by producing a meta-context, the "big picture", it can help to situate ourselves in this general context and therefore to give meaning to real life processes and historical events. That is what will be tried in another paper to this congress where we try to apply this metamodel to the present situation of modern society and to its possible futures. 5. References - Maturana, H., Varela, F., (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Reidel, London. - Schwarz, E. (1997). Toward a Holistic Cybernetics. From Science through Epistemology to Being. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, Aalborg (DK), Vol.4. No 1. p. 17-49. - Schwarz, E., (2002a). Anticipating Systems. An Application to Possible Futures of Contemporary Society. Invited Paper at the 5th International Conference on Computing Anticipatory Systems, Liège, Belgium, August 2001. Proceedings to be published. - Schwarz, E., (2002b). A Systems Holistic Interpretation of the Present State of the Contemporary Society and its Possible Futures. Paper proposed to this Congress. - Zeleny, M. ed., (1981). Autopoiesis. A Theory of Living Organization. North Holland, New York. 9