Systemics System:About
Systemics System is the website where I compile my system of sysmtics. As for its content, refer to the articles in this site. Here I explain why I chose this name for this site.
The term "systemics" is less popular than its synonym "systems theory". This is because Ludwig von Bertalanffy, the major founder of systems research, published an influential book titled General System Theory in 1968.
Bertalanffy was concerned the ever-increasing specialization of science prevented scientists from mutual communication and asked for a theory of universal principles applying to systems in general.
In this way we postulate a new discipline called General System Theory. Its subject matter is the formulation and derivation of those principles which are valid for “systems” in general. [1]
Bertalanffy was a biologist and he regarded a system as an organic whole composed of elemental parts by biological analogies. Such a structural definition is sterile and I propose another functional definition, namely defining a system as a subject of selection. I succeed his intention to transcend the boundaries of science, but I do not necessarily agree with Bertalanffy as to some arguments.
Nor do I adopt the name of "General System Theory" for several reasons. The following are the reasons I adopt the name "Systemics System" instead of it.
First let's examine "system theory". The expression "systems theory" in the plural is more common among native speakers of English but Bertalanffy's native language was German and "system theory" is probably a literal translation from "Systemtheorie". This one-word name is convenient, because you can derive its adjective/adverb "systemtheoretisch" easily. English has, however, no such way to string words together and the two-word adjective/adverb phrase, such as "systems-theoretical" and "systems-theoretically", are awkward, while from "systemics" you can derive its adjective (systemical) or adverb (systemically) easily.
So, "systemics" is more manageable than "systems theory" in English. The term was, however, originally not coined for such a pragmatic reason. According to Mario Bunge, the first influential proponent of this name, Bertalanffy’s General System Theory is not a single theory but a whole set of theories unified by a philosophical framework, which needs a new name.
We shall call systemics this set of theories that focus on the structural characteristics of systems and can therefore cross the largely artificial barriers between disciplines. [2]
Etymologically analyzed, “systemics” is the combination of “system” and “-ics”, a suffix used to form with the meaning “study”, which is in turn the combination of “-ic”, a suffix used to form an adjective from a noun with the meaning “of”, and “-s”, a suffix used to form a plural noun. Therefore “systemics” means “ studies of systems”. If general system theory is a set of theories rather than a single theory, as Bunge pointed out, the plural form “systemics” would be more appropriate than the single form “general system theory”.
This difference, however, is not so important and we can treat systemics as an abbreviated expression of systems theory/theories just as we treat math as an abbreviated expression of mathematics. In some cases, systems theory is more convenient than systemics. For example, social systems theory is easier to understand than sociosystemics. I will use two expressions as occasion may demand.
Next let's examine "general". Bertalanffy regarded general/special as equivalent to whole/part.
General system theory, then is scientific exploration of "wholes" and "wholeness" which, not so long ago, were considered to be metaphysical notions transcending the boundaries of science. [3]
Bunge also pointed out that systemics bears the character of metaphysics because of its generality.
Sysiemics, or general system theory, is a field of scientific and technological research and one of considerable interest to philosophy. Because of its generality it has a sizable overlap with ontology or metaphysics construed in the traditional, pre-Hegelian sense as well as in our own sense of scientific ontology.[4]
As is shown in this quotation, Bunge identified systemics with general system theory, but is it correct? Based on a traditional pair of genus and species, the antonym of “general” is “special”. So, if systemics were identical with general system theory, “special systemics” should be a contradictio in adjecto, but etymologically the word “systmics” does not imply “general”. As “systemics” means “ studies of systems”, we can think of “special systemics” as “ special studies of specific systems”, namely science of a specific discipline.
It follows “General System Theory” corresponds to “General Systemics” and I considered adopting this name for this site, but I finally dismissed it, because this site does not restrict itself to abstract metaphysics or ontology that discards special systemics. This site aims at integrating general systemics and special systemics into a system of systemics. That is why I named this site “Systemics System”.
Lastly I must explain why the systemics system is necessary. As Bertalanffy pointed out, the specialization of science prevented scientists from discovering universal laws applying to systems in general. The laws should not remain abstract generality but attain concrete universality that subsumes the special individuals under it. I hope this site will contribute not only to systemics in the narrow sense but also individual sciences.
Notes
- ↑ Ludwig Von Bertalanffy, General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, p.32
- ↑ Mario Bunge, Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Volume 4: Ontology II: A World of Systems, p.1
- ↑ Ludwig Von Bertalanffy, General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, Preface to the Revised Edition XX
- ↑ Mario Bunge, Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Volume 4: Ontology II: A World of Systems, p.3
