<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Phorum 5</title>
    <link>http://forums.isss.org/index.php</link>
    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>EN</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2007 05:13:06 +0000</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2007 05:13:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <category>Phorum 5</category>
    <generator>Phorum 5.1.11</generator>
    <ttl>600</ttl>
    <item>
      <title>[Systemics] Re: Beyond systems thinking?</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,163,211#msg-211</link>
      <author>tom</author>
      <description><![CDATA[The science of complexity is a mathematical science. And is perhaps as useful in reality as mathematics is useful. How they intend on showing emergence mathematically will be interesting to see. Calculus was a new mathematics which could do thing that ordinary arithmetic couldn't, but did calculus obsolete arithmetic? Is it fair also to say the calculus invented addition division multiplication?]]></description>
      <category>Systemics</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,163,211#msg-211</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2007 05:13:06 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Technical Administration] New section</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?4,195,195#msg-195</link>
      <author>tom</author>
      <description><![CDATA[How do I create a new section as opposed to a new topic? We want to use the forum for a group project, but it would have to be be itself. 

tom]]></description>
      <category>Technical Administration</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?4,195,195#msg-195</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:14:37 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Announcements] Calls for Papers and Panels for the www.incose.org Symposium at</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?2,192,192#msg-192</link>
      <author>simonkalechstein</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Call for Papers / Call for Panels
Systems Engineering: Key to Intelligent Enterprises
Seventeenth Annual International Symposium of                                                 The International Council on Systems Engineering 
Hosted by the Region II Chapters
San Diego, California, USA
24 - 28 June 2007

&quot;Systems Engineering: Key to Intelligent Enterprises” provides the theme for authors to address how Systems Engineering approaches and perspectives can improve enterprise performance. Papers will be judged on a range of parameters including clarity of expression, effective communication of ideas, and technical content. Papers must be submitted in English, the official language of the INCOSE 2007 Symposium.

The INCOSE Manuscript Template must be used to prepare a close-to-final paper of between 8 and 15 pages (including graphics). The close-to-final paper must be submitted using the Online Submission Form.  The Technical Chair or representative may contact successful authors with further comments, intended to fit them with the other successful papers into the developing session and track themes. Joint authors must nominate a single point of contact. Accepted papers will be published in the CD Proceedings of the Symposium and posted on the INCOSE web site.  See http://www.incose.org/symp2007 for more information.

Panel proposals must specify the topic of the panel and planned panelists, outline the themes and topics that will be debated by the panel, and include a one-page position statement for each panelist and bio from each panelist. Acceptable panel proposal must contain at least two contrasting / opposing viewpoints or positions. Each panel proposal must specify the panel moderator, who will be the point of contact for the proposal. Panel sessions may differ in length, but proposals should plan for a nominal duration of 90 minutes. Accepted panels are expected to provide a one to four page position statement for each panelist, which will be published in the Symposium proceedings.  See http://www.incose.org/symp2007 for more information.

IMPORTANT DATES:
Close to Final Paper Submission / Panel Proposal Submission:
6 November 2006

Acceptance Notifications:
9 February 2007

Final Papers Due / Panel Position Statements Due:
19 March 2007

TECHNICAL QUESTIONS:
Dorothy McKinney 
Lockheed Martin Corporation
USA
Tel: +1 408.742.8790
Fax: +1 408.297.7973
Email: 
dorothy.mckinney@lmco.com

ONLINE SUBMISSION QUESTIONS:
Christine Kowalski
PCM, Inc.
7916 Convoy Court
San Diego, CA 92111 USA
Tel: +1 858 565 9921
Fax: +1 858 565 9954
E-mail: incose@pcmisandiego.com]]></description>
      <category>Announcements</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?2,192,192#msg-192</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 23 Sep 2006 21:14:50 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Systemics] state of scientific consciousness research</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,191,191#msg-191</link>
      <author>tom</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Greetings
If one steps aways from the systems community, one finds a very different world. Instead of inclusion and tollerance, there is separatism and intolerance. Is it because the system notion does not live outside the system movement? Here is a letter from a scientific consciousness list, and it is the first inkling of systems thought beginning to emerge in consciousness science. Here is proof that what I have said for so many years, the systems notion is largely unknown. 

====

to/from jcs-online@yahoogroups.com  


Very nice thoughts, Thomas. I agree with your view. But I have got some 
questions, below. Could you clarify them?

Thanks, Monserrat.

Thommandel@aol.com escreveu:
&gt;  
&gt; In a message dated 9/13/2006 6:06:19 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
&gt; c.hales@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au writes:
&gt;
&gt; Framing  things in terms of &quot;objective VERSUS subjective&quot; as has been in 
&gt; vogue for  350 years simply does not match up with our actual experience and 
&gt; our  reality. That process does not work. A new one is  needed.
&gt;
&gt; [TM]
&gt; Our experiencing involves both subjective and objective. Subjective in the  
&gt; sense of what we are experiencing objectively. 
&gt;  
&gt; To some rain is cold, others it is wet and still others it is cool. 
&gt;  
&gt; The &quot;process which does not work&quot; does not work because the subjective and  
&gt; objective were taken apart. Taking them apart leads one to believe that unity  
&gt; means eliminating one of the two to get one.
Exactly, Thomas, and this still pervaising in our western science, 
unfortunately...
&gt;   
&gt;  
&gt; When knowledge is stated in terms of relationships (interactionings) then  
&gt; both are NEEDED and there is no attempt to get rid of one or the other.
All the more true.
&gt;   
&gt;  
&gt; This problem was written up in quantum theory by some to the extreme that  
&gt; all is creted by our consciuousness. Einstein himself was thrown into great  
&gt; doubt, once he asked his friend &quot;Tell me Pias, that the moon disappears when I  
&gt; turn my back on it.&quot; 
&gt;  
&gt; Well, let's take a look at what does happen. When Einstein was looking at  
&gt; the moon, he was abstract(ing - oops) a moon in his mind. 
I don't understand it... What do you mean by &quot;he was abstract a moon in 
his mind&quot;? What does it have to do with the &quot;objective VERSUS 
subjective&quot; issue?

&gt; When jhe turned his head away,  
&gt; that abstraction vanished. Did the moon vanish too? In the sense of a &quot;moon&quot; yes 
&gt;  it did vanish. But what took its place was the Whole that is not separated 
&gt; into  any parts.  So when we turn our head aways from the moon, the moon 
&gt; vanishes  into the indefinite that is always there.
&gt;   
The same: what do you mean by &quot;the moon vanishes  into the indefinite 
that is always there&quot;?

&gt;  
&gt; We can look at consciousness like Baars suggested,  by looking at our  visual 
&gt; system.  The point I want to make can be illustrated by considering  the two 
&gt; aspects of our vision - peripheral and focused attention.  Here is  an 
&gt; experiment - test yourself to see if your peripheral vision is different from  your 
&gt; focused attention.  One way of doing that is by focusing on this  letter &quot;O&quot; 
&gt; and attempting to ascertain the letters to the left or right. Don't  cheat.  
&gt; When I do this, I notice that there are letters out there that I  can see but I 
&gt; do not know what they are. The letter is there objectively, but it  has no 
&gt; subjective content. 
&gt;   
That's why MacCrone insistes in that there are gradual degrees from 
unconscious processes to the conscious ones, no magical leap from one to 
another, which is IMO a clear sign that we cannot study objectivity 
apart from subjectivity.
&gt;  
&gt; Again, the dualism, a product of our conceptualizing mind,  can be  avoided 
&gt; by paying attention to the relationships rather than the things.   What things 
&gt; are doing rather than what things are. 
&gt;   
The Earth viewed as a centre of the universe was a long ago product of 
our human conceptualizing mind (a &quot;real imagination&quot;). Several centuries 
has run till our modern concepts of an open universe with quantum and 
relativistic phisics, which still are mainly based on things and 
property parts. I think now it is the time to create a new view, based 
on interactions and relationships rather the things.

Thanks, Monserrat.]]></description>
      <category>Systemics</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,191,191#msg-191</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 04:17:24 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Technical Administration] qualified to edit</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?4,190,190#msg-190</link>
      <author>tom</author>
      <description><![CDATA[It has been my experience while editing at Wikipedia, that there are many who are not sincere with their editing and will go to great lengths to promote their point of view without any regard for the scientific evidence. This is expecially true if that evidence will falsify their premise. IT ultimately ends up as a power/control situation. 

It is suggested here, strongly suggested, that editing at isss.org be limited to members only. For two reasons

A. A reader should be able to assume that the information on the website actually reflects the society. If &quot;anyone&quot; can edit, anyone will. If anyone can edit, then how will we know if the information is reliable? Moreover, how will others know that our information actually reflects our perspective. To be blunt, there are deluded people out there who do not respond to reason.

B: It is an incentive for members to join and rejoin.

If this requires a resolution and policy chagnes, please inform me how to proceed. Of course there should be exceptions like the phorums

tom mandel]]></description>
      <category>Technical Administration</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?4,190,190#msg-190</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:13:59 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Announcements] Graduate programs in Systems Sciences</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?2,189,189#msg-189</link>
      <author>Hendrik</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hi

I'm interested in doing a MA, Mphil and possibly Phd program in Systems Sciences. Can anybody point me to good English language programs, preferably in Europe (UK) or elsewhere? 

Many thanks

Hendrik Tiesinga]]></description>
      <category>Announcements</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?2,189,189#msg-189</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:29:50 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Systemics] The Foundations of Development and Its Role as the Framework of General Ststems</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,188,188#msg-188</link>
      <author>Vincent Vesterby</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Systems science is fragmented, without a unifying framework of its own. Kenneth Boulding suggested that general systems theory should be the framework of science. He did not, however, provide a way to make it so, and general systems never came to play that role.

Development, as a general factor of organization, change, and becoming, was introduced as a basis for the framework of general systems science in a post to this forum on September 9, 2005.

“Origins of Self-Organization, Emergence and Cause,” presents a detailed description of the foundations of development. This work provides an introduction to the intellectual methods used by a modern generalist to achieve the breadth and depth of understanding required to use development as the unifying framework of general systems, and thereby as the unifying framework of the sciences.

This book was published in May, 2008, and will be available on Amazon.com.,Borders.com, and Barnes &amp; Noble.com]]></description>
      <category>Systemics</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,188,188#msg-188</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 04 Jun 2006 20:31:08 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Systemics] Re: PhD Graduate Programs in Systems Theory?</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,186,187#msg-187</link>
      <author>GASwanson</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Brian, I have emailed several individuals about your inquiry. I will post replies as I get them. Here is one from Professor Matjaz Mulej, current President of the International Federation for Systems Resaerch. &quot;I have a doctoral program in systems theory, but it is a European version: no classes, individual research and mentoring... It seems to be the same in Zagreb, Croatia, I was on defence committee earlier this year. I know also a case with prof. Kljajic, Faculty of Organizational Sciences in Kranj, University of Maribor.&quot;]]></description>
      <category>Systemics</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,186,187#msg-187</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 May 2006 18:14:43 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Systemics] PhD Graduate Programs in Systems Theory?</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,186,186#msg-186</link>
      <author>bjgreenberg</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I'm seriously looking to pursue a PhD in Systems Theory but I'm unsure where to start looking for a program.  I was hoping that someone here might have some suggestions for me.  

I hold a B.S. in Philosophy and Computer Science from ISU, a M.A. in Whole Systems Design from Antioch University, Seattle and I'd like to continue my learning of GST and its applications.  I have a lot to offer to a university that would sponsor me in a program.  I'm a part-time adjunct professor of philosophy at a community college in Chicago and have taught numerous courses in philosophy and computer science both in universities and for large corporations.  

My professional background is in Information Systems &amp; Technology and have consulted to many companies throughout the US, Japan and Mexico.  I'm currently the Director of Systems Architecture, Backup Engineering &amp; Operations at a financial institution in Chicago, IL.

My interests are in my continued education of General Systems Theory, Applications of GST, GST Education, Systems Dynamics Modeling and Urban Design.

If you have any ideas about people to talk to or universities to investigate, Iâ€™d appreciate any help you may have to offer.

Sincerely, 
Brian J. Greenberg
bjgreenberg@gmail.com 

]]></description>
      <category>Systemics</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,186,186#msg-186</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 May 2006 18:24:06 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Announcements] Presentations from 11th Annual Ansys Conference, 2005 Dec.</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?2,185,185#msg-185</link>
      <author>daviding</author>
      <description><![CDATA[David's note:  I received this e-mail from Kurt Richardson, which provided a link to the conference presentations (to those of us who may prefer drawings and big fonts to more chapters to read!)  There's some names that should be familiar to teh ISSS community.  (Small world).

See http://isce.edu/ISCE_Group_Site/web-content/ISCE%20Events/Christchurch_2005/Proceedings/Papers.html

Here's the original note from Kurt.

----------
&quot;Kurt A Richardson&quot;

Subject
New collection of (complex) systems papers - Systems Thinking &amp; Complexity Science: Insights for Action

Dear Colleague

I am writing to you today to let you know of a new (complex) systems publication: an edited ebook called &quot;Systems Thinking and Complexity Science: Insights for Action&quot; (ISBN 0976681447) which represents the proceedings of the recent 11th ANZSYS / Managing the Complex V conference held in Christchurch, New Zealand last December.  An editorial extract follows:

Following the success of the previous ANZSYS conferences and &quot;Managing the Complex&quot; events, it was a pleasure to announce the 11th Annual ANZSYS/Managing the Complex V Conference. The conference was held in the city of Christchurch in New Zealand from 5-7 December 2005, and was co-hosted by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited (ESR), New Zealand, and the Institute for the study of Coherence and Emergence (ISCE), USA. 

A lively forum for discussion and debate was provided for a wide range of academics and practitioners in the fields of systems thinking, complexity science and management. People from other disciplines who have an interest in the application of systems thinking and complexity approaches were also invited to participate. We brought together thinkers and practitioners in the fields of systems and complexity as it seemed to us that there has been a significant international resurgence in these areas in recent years. It would appear that this has been driven by at least four simultaneous forces: 

1. people right across the public, private and voluntary sectors looking for new ways to manage or deal with increasingly complex and multi-faceted problems; 

2. the obviously systemic character of many high-profile issues that transcend national boundaries, from global warming to international violence; 

3. the popularization of a number of systems approaches in the mid-1990s, especially among managers and policy makers; 

4. and the simultaneous popularization of complexity science, sparking major interest in new approaches to managing uncertainty. 

The fields of systems and complexity have many similarities, yet they are being developed by two (overlapping( research communities that have unique insights to bring to bear on the management of â€˜wickedâ€™ problems. We believe that, by providing forums, such as this conference, in which people working at the frontiers of complexity and systems thinking can learn from one another, significant new insights for action can emerge. At the end of the day, it is important to the vast majority of those working with complexity and systems ideas that they are able to make a positive difference in peopleâ€™s lives. It is therefore vitally important that we share our insights and build a community of practitioners that can take the research agenda forward. Our aim is to bring together as many people as possible who are engaging with complex environmental, social and business issues, with the intention of promoting an intense and lively debate with real implications for systems and complexity practice. Our hope is that this conference was a step in the right direction.

If you are interested in this collection you can find a list of the papers contained in the ebook here (along with some of the powerpoint presentations given, rather than the published papers themselves):

http://isce.edu/ISCE_Group_Site/web-content/ISCE%20Events/Christchurch_2005/Proceedings/Papers.html

The collection can be purchase through Amazon for US$45.99 here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0976681447/102-0136960-3172926
or directly from ISCE Publishing at a discounted price of US$32.99 here:
https://isce.edu/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=33

The collection contains a wide variety and new and original papers.  I hope you find at least some of them of interest.

Kind regards,
Kurt Richardson]]></description>
      <category>Announcements</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?2,185,185#msg-185</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 2006 22:46:38 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Technical Administration] Getting emails of posts to forums.</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?4,184,184#msg-184</link>
      <author>bjgreenberg</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Is it possible to have each post to any forum emailed to me?  A subscription to the forums of sorts.  That way I know when there's a new post just by looking at my email.]]></description>
      <category>Technical Administration</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?4,184,184#msg-184</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2006 16:29:51 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[2006 Meeting at Sonoma] Re: Gregory Bateson Forum</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?8,180,183#msg-183</link>
      <author>AllanCombs</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I am Allan Combs, the original organizer for this forum, and I am entering this note as a welcome message to those who will be participating in the Bateson forum. I am wondering how folks would feel about placing a greater emphasis on informality in this forum, say with less time for formal presentations, or emphasizing informality in the presentations, and more time for discussion? This approach seems consistent with the spirit of Batesonâ€™s thought.]]></description>
      <category>2006 Meeting at Sonoma</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?8,180,183#msg-183</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:24:56 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Announcements] American Evaluation Association Conference 2006</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?2,182,182#msg-182</link>
      <author>Bob Williams</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Kia ora everyone,

For the past two years, the American Evaluation Association (AEA) Conference has had a highly successful &quot;systems&quot; stream.  Interest in the systems field is growing fast in the evaluation community - and a special edition of the AEA Monograph series will be exploring this in detail,  It should be due out midyear.

Meanwhile here is a call for papers for the Annual Conference in Portland OR 1st to 4th November.


AMERICAN EVALUATION ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE
PORTLAND 1 - 4 NOVEMBER 2006

The Systems in Evaluation TIG encourages those interested in systems
approaches in evaluation  to submit proposals to the AEA Conference
in Portland this year.  

You can submit on-line via the folowing links

http://eval.org/eval2006/

If you chose to do so, please remember two things.

Firstly you need to specify in the proposal that you want the Systems
and Evaluation TIG to consider this proposal.  This is Section 5 Peer
Review Selection in the submission form.

Secondly the closing date is the 17th March.  

Your papers will contribute to the ongoing conversation about systems
thinking and its use in evaluation. We are looking for proposals that
address systems thinking as a theory base for evaluation design,
implementation, and data analysis.

For example :

1. Methodologies for evaluation that utilize systems theory in the
design and execution of the actual evaluation itself - the &quot;theory
base&quot; of evaluation methodology, as it were. Submissions from those
who have attempted to use systems theory to inform their evaluation
methodologies are strongly encouraged.

2. Discussion about how evaluation methodology should be grounded in
systems thinking and systems theory. What are the design issues that
need to be addressed? We encourage submissions that pose questions
and push discussion around definitions, design issues, methodology
constraints and the possibilities for using systems thinking as a
basis for evaluation.

3. The conference theme is about the consequences of evaluation.
Systems or systemic perspectives of the consequences of evaluation
could bring refreshingly different insights into this issue.
Anything on this topic would be especially welcome.

4. Presentation of evaluation approaches that used systems theory to
interpret the findings, draw conclusions, and offer recommendations,
even though the evaluation design itself was not based in systems
approaches. What considerations led to a systems approach in analysis
of data? What does a systems approach to analysis contribute to
evaluation? Does a systems approach lead to a different understanding
of results than a non-systems approach? Is a systems approach best
used for certain types of evaluation?

5. Discussion around the intersection of program design, evaluation
methodology, and analysis of findings. At a time when change and
reform efforts are increasingly being implemented from a systems
perspective, how does systems thinking in change and program design
influence and inform systems approaches to the evaluation of such
efforts?

Hope to see some of you there


Bob Williams
Systems in Evaluation TIG Program Co-Chair]]></description>
      <category>Announcements</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?2,182,182#msg-182</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:19:58 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Systemics] Honing an Aspect of Living Systems Theory</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,181,181#msg-181</link>
      <author>Vincent Vesterby</author>
      <description><![CDATA[This commentary was prompted by G. A. Swansonâ€™s article, The Study of Pathology and Living Systems Theory, in Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 22, 363-371 (2005).

SECTION ONE

As pointed out on the home page of ISSS, many people working in systems science are mainly interested in the theoretical and technical aspects of systems, while others are concerned primarily with the application of systems methodologies. Many of the problems where the application of systems methodologies would be appropriate are the most complex, or largest, or intractable ever faced by humanity. They range from the health, physical and mental, of the most complex coherent system known, a human being, to rational, sustainable environmental management, and the project of achieving fair and ethical social, economic, and political systems. It takes courage, hope, and self-sacrifice to tackle these problems, and we need to be grateful to those who do so.

Real problems require real understanding and realistic methodologies. Those of us whose work involves the identification and description of system structure and processes have an obligation to those who apply system science to significant problems of providing them with accurate understanding of the nature of systems. Failure to get it right at our stage, means failure of the methodologies, failure to solve the problems, and the consequent continuance of human misery and the ongoing deterioration of ecosystems and the biosphere.

Organisms, societies, and the biosphere are systems. It is not possible to understand them, to manage, create, or sustain them without the application of systems methodology. Foundational systems science can no longer be considered merely a fascinating intellectual pursuitâ€”there are consequences.

SECTION TWO

Millerâ€™s Living Systems Theory, published in 1978, is a good example of the general systems approach. It recognizes the hierarchic nature of the organization of material reality. Miller works with seven levels he has selected from the hierarchy of living systems and systems with living systems as components. Living systems theory recognizes the occurrence of patterns of relationships that exist at and play roles at different hierarchic levels, for example, steady state. Swanson points out that, â€œIt might also be expected that certain emergents at one level would not disappear at the next higher level.â€ (Swanson 2005 p. 369) And the theory recognizes that factors, such as Millerâ€™s critical subsystems, that occur at the various levels develop in complexity as they occur in progressively higher levels.

It is characteristic of factors that occur at different hierarchic levels (a) to develop, to occur in more complex form in one way or another in situations that are more complex, or (b) to occur in various different forms in situations where different sets of other factors are playing roles. Many factors emerge only at certain hierarchic levels where all the supportive factors required for their existence also occur. Those factors do not occur at previous stages of development and lower hierarchic levels where there is insufficient support. However, there can occur at those previous stages and lower levels a pattern of organization that resembles, in an incomplete way, the pattern of organization of a factor that occurs in fully developed form only at a higher level. In some cases the fully developed form emerges from, develops directly from, the prior, lower, incomplete form. In these cases, the previous lower occurrence is a precursor form. A precursor form is not a case of the fully developed factor, and cannot accurately be labeled as such.

Unfortunately, the use of metaphor in systems theory has resulted in the inappropriate labeling of lower level factors with terms that accurately refer only to higher level factors. Metaphor is:

1) â€œa figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblanceâ€ (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd. ed. 1993. New York: Random House.)

2) â€œThe figure of speech in which a name or descriptive term is transferred to some object to which it is not properly applicable;â€ (The Oxford Universal Dictionary on Historical Principles, Third Edition. 1955. London: Oxford University Press.)

In science and in the philosophy of reality, metaphor is nothing more than mislabeling.

There is another way in which a lower level factor can be mislabeled with a term that is properly applicable only at a higher level. This is mislabeling by decision, mislabeling by way of definition. (See http://www.themoderngeneralist.com At that website click the link, Defining, under Contents) In such cases the lower level factor is usually a precursor form or a pattern of organization that is in some limited way analogous to the pattern of organization of the higher level factor. In Millerâ€™s living systems theory this problem occurs with the factor purpose, and with the associated factor goal. As is so common in the rest of biology, living systems theory has a serious problem with inappropriate purposive language.

Purpose and goal are factors that require epistemological support. They cannot occur at levels that do not have the epistemological components that are required to support the existence of purpose and goal. There is a specific reason for this. Purpose and goal are factors with a future reference, and a future reference can occur only in the form of knowledge. For a system to have intrinsic purpose or to have a goal, that system must have a component that involves a knowledge of, or understanding of the relation of the present to the future. Such components are entirely lacking at the cellular level, and are not present at the organ level except in the case of a brain, which is an organ that has evolved to the stage of epistemological development. Prior to that stage, the notion of purpose is neither necessary nor accurately useful for description or explanation.

On page 368 of his article, Swanson makes the following statement in which he quotes Miller. â€œPurpose in a living system is then defined as â€˜A preferential hierarchy of values that give rise to decision rules which determine its preference for one internal steady-state value rather than anotherâ€™ (Miller, 1978, p. 39).â€ This definition of purpose does not apply to the cellular or nonepistemological organ levels. Life at these levels does not have preferences or decisions rules, nor does it make decisions. The structural and process components for preference and decision have not yet emerged at these levels. Applying the terms, purpose, goal, preference, decision, and decision rule, to the cellular level is anthropomorphic, for example when Miller says, â€œ...an amoeba has the purpose of maintaining adequate energy levels, and therefore it has the goal of ingesting a bacterium...â€ (Miller 1978 p. 39) (See http://www.themoderngeneralist.com At that website, under Contents, click the link Comments at Other Web Sites. Then click Anthropomorphism Is Not Science.)

Miller took particular care when choosing terms to refer to general factors, such as his labels for the various subsystems that occur at the seven levels. He was concerned that the terms be reasonably applicable at all the levels where these factors, these subsystems, occur and play roles. While he created a conceptual system, a theory, he meant for that theory and its terms to refer to real concrete systems. When it came to the concept of purpose in the theory, Miller applied it to real relations in concrete systems. The mislabeling occurs because, even though that set of relations occurs at all his levels, the lower levels are simpler than the higher levels in that they lack the components that make purpose possible at the higher levels. 

Living systems maintain the order of their structure and processes by way of steady states, each of which is generally kept within a range of stability. When a living systemâ€™s steady states are operating outside their ranges of stability, the system can become (a) less fit for the requirements of its own continuing-existence, for example, inadequate or runaway metabolic processes, (b) less adapted to its environment, for example, a decrease in tolerance of environmental temperature variations, or (c) the system could die. When a steady state is made to deviate beyond its range of stability, the system is in a state of strain, and adjustment processes play roles that return the steady state to its range of stability.

According to Miller, on pages 39 and 40, purpose in this situation is â€œ...its [the systemâ€™s] preference for one internal steady-state value rather than another.â€ â€œIt is the comparison value which it [the system] matches to information received by negative feedback in order to determine whether the variable is being maintained at the appropriate steady-state value.â€ â€œ...purpose is defined ... in terms of specific values of internal variables which systems maintain in steady states...â€

In an example of general systems thinking, Swanson extends the notion of purpose in living systems theory from specific steady state values of particular variables to â€œ...the relative urgency of reducing each strain in the context of all strains.â€ â€œPurpose happens in the flux of the relative urgency of reducing specific strains within the system. Purpose is the expression of the integrating together of the subsystems of a living system ...â€ (Swanson 2005 p. 369)

The notion of purpose is thus applied in living systems theory to two levels of organization within each of the seven levels Miller chose to study. There is the level of individual steady states, and there is the level of all the individual steady states as an integrated group. In the one case it is a specific value that maintains a particular variable in steady state. In the second case it is the relative significance of each individual steady state in relation to the others such that there emerges a group steady state.

However, at the levels of cells and nonepistemological organs, purpose does not occur with either of these sublevels. The steady state processes there, and their regulation, occur without purpose, without goals, without any reference to the future. An amoeba has no purpose of maintaining adequate energy levels. Such creatures do not have goals such as ingesting bacteria. Everything with cells and nonepistemological organs runs on automatic, solely by way of consequent-existenceâ€”what goes before determining what follows by way of its intrinsic nature without reference to the future. (See http://www.themoderngeneralist.com At that website click the link to the Glossary, and scroll down to consequent-existence)

SECTION THREE

With science, observation comes first, with hypothesis and theory following, based on the results of observation. The reason for this order of procedure is because science is about reality. It is a procedure for obtaining accurate knowledge and understanding of the intrinsic nature of what exists. To begin with observation orients the mind and the procedure to something that exists, with repeated observation and experiment maintaining the focus on reality. To begin with unfounded speculation leads to wasted time and effort studying an imaginary something that does not exist.

Miller made an error in defining. He labeled a lower level factor with a term that properly applies only to a higher level factor. It appears that he may have done so because he began with theory rather than adequate observation. It appears that he decided upon the definition first, a definition that can fit nearly all of the levels he chose to study, and then applied that definition to a level where a critical factor, the epistemological reference to the future, was absent. This looks like a theory induced error, which results in wasted time and effort in an attempt to study purpose in a system where it does not exist. For the accurate analysis and understanding of reality, it is incorrect procedure to establish definitions by decision, as when deciding the rules of a game, or as in this case, the decision to apply a theory originated definition to situations where it does not fit. In science, in the modern generalist mode, and in the philosophy of reality, defining must be based on observation, identification, and description. Observation first, definition second.

In the sequence of an argument or an explanation, once an error is introduced all else that follows is contaminated or suspect. This has occurred in living systems theory with the application of purpose to the cellular and nonepistemological organ levels. Once an aspect of cellular function has been labeled as purposive, then it is natural, logical even, to refer to other consequent aspects of cellular function as purposive. There are several examples in Swansonâ€™s article, sometimes in his own statements and sometimes in statements he quotes from Miller.

1)	â€œLST identifies seven general types of adjustment processes used to maintain steady states.â€ (Swanson, p. 366)

If maintaining steady states was actually a purpose, internal or external goal, intention, or preference of a living cell, then the purposive language â€œused toâ€ would be appropriate. But as the molecular processes within a cell do not have nor require purpose or goals for their ongoing continuance, that language does not fit the described situation. The adjustment processes do maintain the steady states, but that is not their purposeâ€”it is their consequence.

2)	Discussing output processes of matter-energy, Swanson says, â€œThe transfers are classified broadly as products or wastes depending on their relationships to the purposes and goals of the system and those of its suprasystems.â€ (p. 367)

This statement cannot accurately apply to the cellular level. While the transfers do play various roles in system processes, such as their effects on the continued existence of the system, and while the transfers can be recognized as products and wastes in their roles in system processes, those roles and that continued existence are not purposes or goals of the cellular level, and those transfers have no relation to purpose or goals.

3)	â€œâ€™When disturbed, this state is restored by the system by successive approximations, in order to remove the strain of the disparity recognized internally between the feedback signal and the comparison valueâ€™ (Miller, 1978, p. 39).â€ (p. 368)

At the cellular level all molecular processes occur by way simple of consequent-existence, that which goes before determining what follows without reference to the future. There is nothing in cellular molecular biology that occurs â€œin orderâ€ for something else to occur. Successive approximations may remove the strain of disparity between feedback and some cellular value, but they do not do so in order to have that effect. In cellular molecular processes, events do not occur so that their consequences occur. It just happens that way because of the intrinsic nature of the structural and process organization of the of the components of the cell, the elementary particles, atoms, molecules, and organelles of the cell. If the organization is there, the consequences follow. This occurs at the cellular level without reference to, knowledge of, or any causal relation with the future, other than that the future is a consequence of the present.

The misuse of purposive language has consequences. It is misleading, prompting readers to think a factor is present in the described situation when actually it is not there. Readers can then draw false conclusions based on the false language, similar to the above quotes.

There is additional anthropomorphic language used by Miller and Swanson in their discussions of living systems theory. It is again a case of misapplying terms to levels where the factors do not exist nor play any roles. For example, â€œOpen systems are concrete systems with permeable boundaries that allow the input and output of selected kinds of matter, energy, and information.â€ (Swanson, p. 364) At the cellular level the action of selection does not occur. Atoms and molecules interact with one another according to what they are, according to their intrinsic qualities. When one molecule joins with another, as on the surface of a cell, it is not an event of selection, but rather the consequence of the natures of the two units. They join, under the appropriate circumstances, simply because they can.

Here is another, with Swanson quoting Miller, â€œMiller (1978, p. 101) hypothesizes of those critical subsystems, â€˜A system cannot survive unless it makes decisions that maintain the functions of all its subsystems at a sufficiently high efficiency and their costs at a sufficiently low level that there are more than enough resources to keep it operating satisfactorily.â€™â€ (Swanson, p. 366) The anthropomorphism of cells making decisions has already been mentioned. A second case in this quote is the notion of a cell operating satisfactorily. Cells do not have the components to allow them to know or care about how they are operating. There is no such thing at the cellular level of operating satisfactorily or not satisfactorily. What is happening at the cellular level is nothing more than a chemical cascade driven by a flow of energy in relation to the factors of the organization of the cell. To apply the notion of satisfactory operation to that level is purely anthropomorphic.

]]></description>
      <category>Systemics</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,181,181#msg-181</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2006 02:19:53 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[2006 Meeting at Sonoma] Gregory Bateson Forum</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?8,180,180#msg-180</link>
      <author>simonkalechstein</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Welcome to the Sonoma 2006 web forum for the Gregory Bateson Forum!

The Gregory Bateson Forum has requested a web forum prior to the Sonoma meeting on which to post papers and conduct discussions in preparation for the actual gathering.

This Forum encourages a celebration and discussion of Gregory Batesonâ€™s work and legacy broadly focused around the four central conference themes: (1) Complex Systems and the Roots of Systems Thinking; (2) Self-Organization and Living Systems; (3) Ecological Systems and Sustainability; and (4) Social Systems Design and Practice. ]]></description>
      <category>2006 Meeting at Sonoma</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?8,180,180#msg-180</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 14:06:15 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Announcements] 2006/01 Proposals for festschrift for Ernst von Glasersfeld {Ranulph Glanville}</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?2,179,179#msg-179</link>
      <author>daviding</author>
      <description><![CDATA[May 2007 marks the 90th birthday of Ernst von Glasersfeld. Ernst is known for his pioneering work in cybernetics, working in the 50s with Ceccato in Italy, and his development of Radical Constructivism, an epistemological position that is closely related to that of Second Order Cybernetics. At the ASC Officers Meeting in Washington DC in October it was decided to award him the Society's Wiener Gold Medal.

Alex Riegler and I hope to publish a festschrift at the time of Ernst's birthday and are writing to ASC members and others on the ASC list to invite proposals for contributions. We are soliciting 2 types of contribution: academic papers that critically develop and/or evaluate Ernst's own work, or relate personal work and interests to von Glasersfeld's work; and more personal items including biography, reminiscence and anecdote. We believe that a festschrift should recognise the person and celebrate his work, so all contributions should be focussed on and around Ernst's work even when presented through your own work. The first sort of paper will typically be 3500 to 5000 words long, the second 1000 to 2500 words.

We invite members to write to us with their proposals. These should take the form of attached documents not longer than one side, containing your name and email address, a working title, and a brief synopsis that presents the argument or anecdote to be developed. You should indicate which type of contribution you wish to make. Proposals should reach us by Friday 13 January. We will consider all proposals and select those which, together, show the most promise and paint the most complete picture, informing applicants of our selection at the end January 2006. Final papers for refereeing will be due in at the start of September 2006. Please address your proposal and any other correspondence to:

festschrift@vonglasersfeld.com

We are also looking for graphic and photographic material. Please advise separately if you have such material. Given that the publication is web based, we can also include sound and video material.

The festschrift will be published as the May 2007 issue of Constructivist Foundations (CF; see http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/), an independent academic peer-reviewed e-journal. Its aim is to promote the interdisciplinary study of scientific foundations and applications of constructivist sciences.

Best Wishes and Season' Greetings,

Ranulph Glanville]]></description>
      <category>Announcements</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?2,179,179#msg-179</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 11 Dec 2005 17:47:23 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Systemics] Older and younger [was: Systems theory needs a practical structure: Project Universalis]</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,175,178#msg-178</link>
      <author>daviding</author>
      <description><![CDATA[There's an interesting tension between the older and younger participants in systems theory.

The oldest generation (e.g. probably those 60 years and older, including most of the luminaries) are not very web-savvy.  We consider ourselves fortunate that they're using e-mail, because their preferred method of communication is probably the telephone.  Some are more active than others in communicating electronically, but they're not really part of the web generation.  They do use the web browsers, but are more comfortable with the Internet as a place to view static content.

The youngest generation (e.g. 25 years and under) view e-mail as antiquated, and have migrated to using instant messaging.  They're comfortable in the world of blogs and wikis.

This forum is a bridge between the two.  Forum or BBS technology is far from new.  In some respects it's one step beyond e-mail, because it's multi-user.  On the other hand, it really requires people who are willing to move beyond an e-mail one-to-one communication pattern, into a one-to-many pattern.

The difference between ForumsISSS and the wiki at ProjectsISSS is that on this forum, each individual posts his or her own content, and therefore &quot;owns&quot; his or her words.  On ProjectsISSS, there's a free opportunity to write over someone else's content.  (We have moderators who watch for abuse, though).

Perhaps over time, ForumsISSS will be an artifact of the past.  It was conceived as one part of the ISSS web site, circa 2002 (first using alternate technologies, and then settling on the current platform circa 2003).  From an administration perspective, it's low maintenance, so it will probably remain a &quot;resource for action&quot; that members may choose to use or not use.

David Ing]]></description>
      <category>Systemics</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,175,178#msg-178</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 11 Dec 2005 17:42:54 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Announcements] 2005/08/30 Latest issue of Emergence: Complexity &amp; Organization 7.1</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?2,177,177#msg-177</link>
      <author>daviding</author>
      <description><![CDATA[&quot;Kurt A Richardson&quot;  08/30/2005 12:05 PM

Subject Latest issue of Emergence: Complexity &amp; Organization 7.1

Dear Colleague
The latest issue of the international journal Emergence: Complexity and Organization was published online today. The current issue includes:

Robust Policy Analysis for Complex Open Systems by Steven C. Bankes 

The Complexity of Concept Mapping for Policy Analysis by William M. K. Trochim &amp; Derek Cabrera 

Facilitating Resource Decision Making in Public Organizations Drawing Upon Insights from Complexity Theory by David P. Kernick 

From Worst Slum to Best Example of Regeneration: Complexity in the Regeneration of Hulme, Manchester by Cletus Moobela 

Questioning Cultural Orthodoxy: Policy Implications for Ireland as an Innovative Knowledge-Based Economy by Dermot Casey &amp; Cathal M. Brugha 

Using Complexity Science in Organization Studies: A Case for Loose Application by Jacco van Uden 

Futurology and the Future of Systems Analysis (originally published in 1972) by Ida R. Hoos (with an introduction by Graham Mathieson)

For those of you who currently subscribe to E:CO (Volume 7) you can access the latest issue using your personal access account. Your print version will be sent out in a couple of weeks time. If you would like to subscribe to E:CO then this can now be done online at:
http://emergence.org/ECO_site/web-content/sub_form.html

Issue 6.1-2 is still available for free at:
http://emergence.org/ECO_site/web-content/ECO_6_1-2.html 

Other events:
Following the success of previous ANZSYS conferences and &quot;Managing the Complex&quot; events, it is a pleasure to announce the 11th Annual ANZSYS / Managing the Complex V Conference. The conference will be held in the city of Christchurch in New Zealand from 5–7 December 2005, and will be co-hosted by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited (ESR), New Zealand, and the Institute for the Study of Coherence and Emergence (ISCE), USA.  Full details of this event can be found at:
http://isce.edu/Christchurch_2005/

The Havana Instituto de Filosofia is pleased to invite you to participate in the 3rd Biennial International Seminar on the Philosophical, Epistemological and Methodological Implications of Complexity Theory, COMPLEXITY-2006 on January 9-12th, 2006 at the Havana International Convention Center. This International Congress is organized by the Complexity Cathedra of the Havana Instituto de Filosofia and is co-sponsored by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (CITMA, according to the Spanish acronym) and the Academy of Sciences of Cuba. Further details of this event can be found at:
 
http://www.complexity-cuba.org/
Happy complexifying!
Kurt Richardson, Managing Editor E:CO
____________________________________]]></description>
      <category>Announcements</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?2,177,177#msg-177</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:30:01 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Systemics] Re: Systems theory needs a practical structure: Project Universalis</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,175,176#msg-176</link>
      <author>Kevin</author>
      <description><![CDATA[It should be the total opposite of this dead forum.]]></description>
      <category>Systemics</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,175,176#msg-176</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:28:39 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Systemics] Systems theory needs a practical structure: Project Universalis</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,175,175#msg-175</link>
      <author>Kevin</author>
      <description><![CDATA[In the early days of the internet, during the sixties, originally 4 universities were connected with each other through the internet. 

Now, 40 years later, all universities are connected to the internet but none of them are using it to realise the original idea.

Using universities as a backbone, there should be one website that connects the whole. F. Heylighen at the VUB and others, are working towards a Global Brain (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/GBRAIN-L.html), but that is not what I mean - though it could evolve towards that way.

This is the tool that should enable one to surpass its own academic borders and join others in multidisciplinary discussion groups. If you view all current knowledge as a system similar to the brain, then it is in a bad shape. There is simply not enough efficient communication between the different parts. As long as this is not established, what is it that we hope for? Many scientific topics require a new generation of &quot;homo universalis&quot; but this is almost made impossible: There is too much information scattered around in different journals, e-journals, books, people's minds, etc. and the education is not aimed towards this holistic vision.

Universities should start a project in which current scientific knowledge is bundled through one weblink. All students, instructors and researchers, gain access through a login and password as given by their institution. CMS or WiKi should be used to promote change rather than stase. Discussion groups will be easily created through an advanced forum, making it possible for any student/professor/etc. from any branche to enroll in it and share ideas, documents (.pdf, .word, .mov), send a PM to anyone there, check the profile (homepage) of all participants.

The way is see it, a handful of universities start this project. As time proceeds and the site runs smooth, more and more institutions are realising that they should join - they simply will have to in orde to keep pace.

One should also be able to publish papers electronically. I think there should be peer-review but not as strict as in journals. New ideas should be given oxygen to breathe. In the long run, paper journals will simply loose their status - People working there should be put on Project Universalis as the amount of papers online will probably ascent greatly.

This could be our only hope to change anything. The future demands people that are not only intelligent, but that can also communicate their ideas with others. In a way, this could be the era of the socials sciences. 

cheers]]></description>
      <category>Systemics</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,175,175#msg-175</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:32:51 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Technical Administration] problem with the mail address: webadmin@isss.org</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?4,174,174#msg-174</link>
      <author>Kevin</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I've received a message from my webserver that my mail couldn't be sent to webadmin@isss.org

Is someone aware  of this problem?

Greets,

Kevin

------------------------------------------------------------------

here are the details:
------------------------------------------------------------------

The original message was received at Mon, 7 Nov 2005 13:12:13 GMT
from procyon.cr8.com [64.38.255.150]

   ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----


   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
451 pandora.be: Name server timeout
451 pandora.be: Name server timeout
451 markolewis.com: Name server timeout
451 pandora.be: Name server timeout
Message could not be delivered for 5 days
Message will be deleted from queue
451 pandora.be: Name server timeout



Reporting-MTA: dns; rigel.cr8.com
Arrival-Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 13:12:13 GMT

Final-Recipient: RFC822; mark@markolewis.com
Action: failed
Status: 4.4.7
Last-Attempt-Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 14:04:20 GMT



Subject:
web moderator
From:
Kevin 
Date:
Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:19:04 +0100
To:
webadmin@isss.org

Hi,

I'm a student archaeology at KUL university (BEL). My thesis will revolve mainly around the general system approach, emergence, etc.
I've been moderator on forums before. I can't promess to be online every day ... but there's lots of topics on this forums I have to read yet,
so I'll be on it quite often.

let me know,

greets

Kevin ]]></description>
      <category>Technical Administration</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?4,174,174#msg-174</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:12:03 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Systemics] Re: [sigchairs] Option for electronic version? {Maurice Yolles 2004/04/03}</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,95,173#msg-173</link>
      <author>Kevin</author>
      <description><![CDATA[What a startling discovery!

Especially the corespondence could proof to be invaluable.]]></description>
      <category>Systemics</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,95,173#msg-173</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 06 Nov 2005 21:47:43 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Systemics] Re: Beyond systems thinking? (fractal definition)</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,163,172#msg-172</link>
      <author>Kevin</author>
      <description><![CDATA[&quot;Ignorance of scientific data is not occuring only in the systems sciences, a deep inquiry into cosmology reveals that data refuting the big bang theory has been surpressed by scientific journals (quantization of the redshift {Arp, Tifft}&quot;

Absolutely true. Other models predicted the background radiation temperature as well, and they were even more correct than the big bang value. 

The fact that big bang supporters distort this historical reality and claim that the big bang was accepted as leading theory because other models supposedly did not predict this radiation goes to show what good liars they are. I have an article here somewhere showing the whole history of red shift models and their predictions.

What is wrong with the scientific community, we may ask? Originating out of societies full of superstition, the scientific method should have helped us towards truth. It has never done so in my opinion. It has lead towards higher forms of technology, not towards understanding.]]></description>
      <category>Systemics</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,163,172#msg-172</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 06 Nov 2005 21:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Systemics] Re: Systems thinking on human resources</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,115,171#msg-171</link>
      <author>KurtR</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I know this is an old thread, but just in case anyone is listening... This is a hard problem because it demands a rather concrete definition of systems thinking, and insists that we prove that such thinking exists and can be readily measured.  What a fun challenge you present!  Probably there could be many ways to address this.  Here is one.  

How to detect the systems thinker?  By giving the team a problem that requires a systems perspective, such as consideration of both big and little picture issues.  Or, perhaps a problem that requires comprehension of process optimization, but in an organizational context rather than a technical field.  And see whether someone applies this type of thinking to the problem solution.  You might give them a business problem where the short-term solution will lead to long-term failure.  For example a customer is demanding that a product have a level of quality control that can not be sustained without a price raise.  And raising the price will lower the quarter profits because this is a particularly large production run.  At the same time there is great pressure from the shareholders/board to show a higher margin this year due to a hostile take-over threat.  Finally, you tell the team they have limited resources to solve the problem, they only have a few hours so can only make a few contacts.  Who would they call and what would they say or ask?  

I believe most business people would look at this as a choice to make about who is more important.  Which demand has a higher priority.  On the other hand, a systems thinker would try to understand the systemic interconnections between these competing demands, and find a solution that worked in an optimal way.  They would work through several possibilities, and try to find an innovative solution.  So for example, they would want to contact engineers on the production floor, and ask them to find new efficiencies in production.  They might also contact a board member or finance person and find a way to present lower margins as a benefit to the company.   

This is a simplistic example, but my point is just to suggest that if you define an attribute of a system thinker, such as being able to see both big and little picture and being able to optimize a process, then you can assess the team for people who do this.  You might find many such systems thinking attributes to measure.

--Kurt]]></description>
      <category>Systemics</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,115,171#msg-171</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2005 03:51:48 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[2006 Meeting at Sonoma] Invitation</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?8,170,170#msg-170</link>
      <author>Debora Hammond</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Welcome to the ISSS 2006 forum. I want to thank our webmaster David Ing for all he has done to improve the functionality of our website and to post preliminary notices for the 50th annual meeting next July. Thanks to the initial efforts of Gordon Feller, I have a dynamic local organizing committee and we are making good progress on the plans for next year's conference. The final call for papers, with invitations from the Chairs of the Special Integration Groups (SIGs), should be available within the next few weeks, and we will be updating the program and planning sections on the projects page soon.

We hope that this forum will provide a space for members of the planning committee and others interested in the planning process to share their ideas. I invite your comments and suggestions, and look forward to seeing you all in Sonoma next July.

Debora]]></description>
      <category>2006 Meeting at Sonoma</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?8,170,170#msg-170</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:53:03 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Systemics] There is a way to make general systems the unifying framework of the sciences.</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,169,169#msg-169</link>
      <author>Vincent Vesterby</author>
      <description><![CDATA[In 1956, Kenneth Boulding suggested that general systems theory should be the framework of science.

&quot;General Systems Theory is the skeleton of science in the sense that it aims to provide a framework or structure of systems on which to hang the flesh and blood of particular disciplines and particular subject matters in an orderly and coherent corpus of knowledge.&quot;
(Boulding, Kenneth E.  1956.  General Systems Theory—The Skeleton of Science.  Management Science  2:3:197-208.)

He was correct. By their very nature, the principles of general systems should play that role. Nevertheless, they did not achieve that status. Boulding did not provide a way to make it so. It was as if Bertalanffy had presented the key, and while many could see the importance of it, none could see how to use it.

In the early seventies an examination of the literature showed the situation to be the same, and there was the question, Why? The answer was there—in the literature. There were no generalists. All the researchers in general systems had been trained as specialists. Each tended to view general principles from the vantage point of their own specialty, often naming them according to specialist paradigms or terminology. There was considerable confusion about the nature of the principles and the kinds of roles they play in the world at large.

The next question, then, was Why were there no generalists? There were several answers. First, the flood of knowledge produced by science had made it impossible to be a generalist in the traditional sense of knowing nearly everything in most areas of knowledge. There was nothing one could do, except become a specialist.

Second, although Bertalanffy had provided a clue many years earlier, there was still no one who knew how to use that clue to train a generalist. No university offered a course of study leading to a degree that represented achievement of actual generalist understanding. There were no generalists because there was nowhere to go to get that kind of training.

Because all the researchers were specialists, none of them had the breadth or depth of understanding to recognize those general principles that were the most general, those principles that tied the rest together into a coherent body of knowledge and understanding. This is a third reason why there were no generalists. General systems did not become the framework of science because it had not yet found its own framework. It was not a coherent body of knowledge.

In the context that it is impossible to be a generalist in the traditional sense, Bertalanffy’s clue suggests that general understanding can be achieved by way of general system principles. Boulding’s clue can then set one on the track of the framework of general systems, on the track of those factors of existence, organization, and change that are sufficiently general to relate each and every thing that exists to some other thing that has existed, exists, or will exist. Once someone has those factors, and recognizes the framework of general systems, then all else falls into place. And with such understanding, that person is a generalist. Not a generalist in the old sense of knowing virtually everything, but in a modern sense of achieving the ability to understand anything, or everything.

The idea has been passed around that science deals with what and how, but does not concern itself with why. Setting aside the point that that idea is not particularly true, it should be understood that the type of knowledge a modern generalist works with is specifically about the why of things.

There are four necessary aspects of procedure required to find and understand those factors that provide the foundation and the core of the framework of general systems: (1) the prime imperative of analysis, (2) structural logic, (3) realist philosophy, and (4) a biological epistemology.

Intrinsically, general systems principles are factors that play roles in existence, organization, and change. They are factors of the nature of reality, factors that make it what it is. The prime imperative for the accurate analysis of the intrinsic nature of reality is to look to the subject of investigation itself. Let the intrinsic nature of reality dictate the understanding of reality. For the purpose of identifying those factors whose roles in reality universally relate one part to another, and thereby constitute the core of our understanding of general systems, its framework, it is necessary to let the intrinsic organization of reality dictate the organization of our knowledge and understanding.

The prime imperative means that you do not begin with speculation. A modern generalist does not begin with beliefs, assumptions, suppositions, postulates, hypothesis, or theory. Postulates, hypothesis, and theory in scientific method are used to guide further exploration, further looking at the subject of investigation. With correct scientific procedure they are derived from prior examination of the subject—look first, speculate second about what that first look indicates you do not yet know. In this context, it should be understood that theory is not the goal of science in that it contains speculation about what is not known in combination with what is known. Accurate knowledge is the goal of science, a correspondence between ideas about reality and the intrinsic nature of reality.

The term, structural logic, as used by a modern generalist refers to the manner in which the intrinsic qualities of things that exist determine the manner in which those things can interrelate. Structural logic is an intrinsic aspect of reality, an intrinsic aspect of that which exists. It is structural logic that determines the manner in which the qualities of the components of a whole interrelate to create the emergent qualities of the whole. Guided by the prime imperative, a modern generalist lets the structural logic of reality dictate the logical relations of concepts.

Because science and the field of general systems are about reality, the underlying philosophy must also be about reality. Realist philosophy is concerned with what can exist—in the past, now, and in the future. The philosophy of reality is an intellectual activity, one that relates knowledge one part with another. The epistemology associated with science, the field of general systems, and realist philosophy must be realist in nature. The raw data of knowledge comes by way of our senses, is then reworked by the brain, and finally experienced there. The senses, the brain, and the mind are all biological in nature. A realist epistemology, therefore, is a biological epistemology. As the senses, the brain, and the mind are all evolved entities, so too is knowledge an evolved aspect of reality. A biological epistemology concerns itself not only with the anatomy and physiology of the biological basis of knowledge, but also with its long-term origin, its evolution.

Further, to discover, understand, and effectively communicate those factors that constitute the core unification of general systems, it is necessary to avoid various approaches that interfere with the application of the prime imperative and that inevitably lead to error, such as (a) anthropomorphism, (b) thinking in the abstract in the sense of thinking about the relations of concepts rather than thinking about the relations of the reality referents of concepts, (c) any form of mentalism, idealism, or solipsism, (d) any form of Platonism, and (e) metaphor.

And now, to the framework of general systems. For a modern generalist, a factor is anything that exists that plays a role in the nature of reality. Space, time, and matter are factors, as is any form of relation, pattern of organization, or event. The factor that plays a universal role of connecting each and everything that exists with something else that exists, and that does so in an ordered fashion, is development. Development occurs in various forms—a few foundational universal forms, many developed less universal forms, and a multitude of forms that play roles in specific types of situations. The foundational universal forms are (1) extensional development, (2) existential-pathway-development, (3) factor development, (4) change development, (5) emergent development, (6) causal development, (7) through-flow development, (8) coherent development, and (9) situation development. Some general factors that play roles in foundational forms of development are (a) sequential-difference, (b) sequential enhancement, (c) determinate consequent-existence, (d) continuing-existence, (e) self-organization, (f) motion, (g) emergence, (h) combinatorial enhancement, (i) cause, (j) through-flow, (k) coherence, and (l) hierarchy. It is development, then, that can be used as the framework of the understanding of the existence, organization, and change of reality, that is, as the framework of general systems.

Reality is organized sequentially (and thereby developmentally), from place to place in space, from past, to present, to future with time, from stage to stage in processes, and from level to level with hierarchic material organization. Each of these sequential aspects of reality involves a transition from simpler situations, with fewer factors playing roles, to more complex situations, with greater numbers of factors playing roles. Development and the factors that play roles therein are foundationally extremely simple. The deepest foundations occur with space and time. The understanding of the core connecting factors of reality, and thereby of general systems, begins with the utter simplicity of space and time and builds up from there toward more complex situations and systems by way of additional factors and their roles.

Applying the prime imperative of the accurate analysis of the intrinsic nature of reality, observe a portion of space—that directly in front of you will do. Notice that it has the quality of extension. It extends from the left side of the portion all the way over to the right side. The left side is a different part of this portion of space from the part on the right side. These parts are adjacent to one another and organized sequentially, first the one and then the other.

Notice how the part on the left has its own left part and right part, as does the part on the right, allowing you to look at four parts of the portion of space in front of you. These four parts are organized sequentially with one another. Space is not made up of distinct individual units like matter. Instead, the parts of space blend into one another in a continuous manner. There is a continuous sequence of spatial part from the left side of the observed portion to the right side. Note next that all parts of this sequence are coexistent. They are all there together at the same time.

Since each part is there simultaneously, coexistently, with the other parts, and since each exists at a different part of the portion of space under observation, each part is individually different from the other parts. The parts are coexistent, sequentially organized, and different one from another. The observed portion of space is a case of coexistent-sequential-difference. Consider now a row of objects on a table. The objects are coexistent, sequentially organized, and individually distinct, constituting a second case of coexistent-sequential-difference.

Beginning at one end of the row of objects and continuing on to the other end, there is an increasing quantity of objects along the row. There is just the one object at the end. Then, with the second one, there are two, and so on. Two is more than one, two is greater than one, two is an enhancement of the situation from just the one. Down the coexistent-sequential-difference of the row of objects there is a sequential quantitative enhancement, a sequential development of more.

The situation with the coexistent-sequential-difference of spatial extension is the same. From one side of the observed portion of space to the other it is evident that there is an increasing quantity of space. There is a sequential quantitative enhancement from the one side to the other, a sequential development of more. There are here two cases of coexistent-sequential-difference, that of space and that of matter, each with the qualities of enhancement and development. The row of objects on the table occupies space, with the coexistent-sequential-difference, the sequential enhancement, and the sequential development of the row of objects occurring with the corresponding coexistent-sequential-difference, sequential enhancement, and sequential development of the sequence of spatial place occupied by the objects.

The spatial case is the simpler, lacking the substantiality of the material case with its distinct units. Space is place, immaterial place. Matter occupies space, with space providing an existential context, a place-to-be, for the existence of matter. Without space, matter could not exist, as there would be no place for it to do so. Matter has an existential-dependency relation with spatial place. Space, then, is not only simpler in nature than matter, it is the more fundamental aspect of reality.

As space is simpler and more fundamental than matter, so also are its coexistent-sequential-difference and the associated development. In the spatial case the sequential difference, enhancement, and development are based on the extension of space. There are many different kinds of spatially organized material sequential developments, and all those material cases have an aspect of extension as an aspect of their intrinsic nature, as an aspect of their mode of existence. Extension is a factor of both spatial and material coexistent-sequential-difference. Extension is the core factor of this form of development—extensional development.

This form of development is foundational and universal. All cases of the organization of matter in space of whatever stage of development, from the simple to the complex, are cases of extensional development in that the fundamental spatial form is still always present and playing its role of providing a place-to-be for the material forms.

The next universal foundational form of development is existential-pathway-development. With the observed portion of space, from one side to the other of the sequential difference of the spatial extensional development, there is an aspect of continuous existence. Something, spatial place, is there all the way across. With a long board, from one end to the other of the sequential difference of the material extensional development, there is again an aspect of continuous existence. Something, wood, is there from end to end.

The board occupies spatial place, with the continuous aspect of the material extensional development occupying the continuous aspect of the spatial extensional development. A mouse can run along the board, using it to get from one place to another. The mouse uses the continuous sequential difference of the material extensional development to get from one part of the continuous sequential difference of the spatial extensional development to another part, at the other end of the board. The mouse uses the aspect of continuous existence of the spatial and material extensional developments as a pathway. There exists there an extensional existential-pathway-development along which the mouse can run.

There is an aspect of continuous sequential difference to the running of the mouse along the board, and an associated development of the situation as the mouse progresses from one place to another. This is another case of existential-pathway-development, with many additional factors playing roles. It is no longer simple extensional existential-pathway-development, but rather a developed form. With existential-pathway-development, there is a quality of sequentially connected development, be it continuous extension (immaterial or material), or continuous change (as in running).

In this situation there are three forms of this type of development, that of the running of the mouse, that of the extension of the wood of the board, and that of the space occupied by the board. The spatial case is the simplest, existing only as a sequence of immaterial spatial place. The material case is developed in that there is now the additional role of the substantiality of the wood. In these cases change does not play a role, however, it does so as an additional factor in the case of the running mouse.

These three cases of this factor, existential-pathway-development, differ from the simpler to the more complex by way of additional factors. This is factor development. It is common in the existence, organization, and development of reality for factors to occur in simpler forms in simple situations with fewer factors playing roles, and to occur in developed forms in more complex situations where there are additional factors playing a greater diversity of roles.

To find the simplest and foundational form of the next type of development, change development, it is necessary to go back to space. Space exists—and it continues to do so. Pass your hand through the observed portion of space, noting that the space continues to be there the whole time your hand is moving from one part to another. Note also that the parts of the continuing-existence of that space are not coexistent. Your hand passes through one part of the portion of space during one part of the continuing-existence of the space, and passes through the other part of the space during a different, following, noncoexistent, part of the spatial continuing-existence. The continuing-existence of space is a form of change, with following part coming sequentially and noncoexistently after the previous part. This is noncoexistent-sequential-difference—change.

The continuing-existence of space is continuously ongoing, with an ever increasing amount of the continuing-existence that has occurred. Increasing amount by way of noncoexistent-sequential-difference is a form of development, change development. The change development of spatial continuing-existence is foundational and universal first because space is infinite, and second because everything that exists does so in space, with the continuing-existence of each and every factor or thing that exists occurring with, and conforming to, the continuing-existence of space. The change development of spatial continuing-existence forms a core element of the framework of general systems because it plays a role in the existence and intrinsic nature of all more development forms of change. It does so because spatial continuing-existence is the reality referent of the term, time.

Emergent development is next. When two or more units are coexistent in space, there are direction and distance relations between them. The group of units and these extensional relations constitute a pattern of material organization. When one of the units moves, it acquires different direction and distance relations with the other units. The pattern of organization of the group changes. A new pattern of material organization comes into existence—it emerges.

This is the development-of-origin for emergence, the simplest form in which it is known to occur. Like other factors, emergence develops, occurring in simple form in simple situations and in more complex form in situations with more factors playing roles. At whatever stage or level of the development of reality where emergence plays a role, a newly existing pattern of material organization comes into existence, be it a newly formed atom within a star, a seed in a pod, or a galaxy. This occurrence of an emergent pattern of material organization is a form of development—emergent development.

Next there is causal development. When a moving unit of matter collides with a stationary unit, the moving unit pushes against the stationary unit. This push is cause. Cause is push, with this simple case being a development-of-origin for cause. When a unit of matter moves in relation to another unit, the pattern of organization of the two units changes as a consequence of the motion. When one unit collides with another, there is again a change in the pattern of material organization of the units. This time the change is a consequence not only of the motion, but also of the push. The change in pattern is pushed into existence, forced to occur, caused to occur.

The occurrence of an emergent pattern of material organization that is pushed into existence, caused to occur, is a form of development—causal development. Like emergence and most other factors, cause develops, becoming more complex with the roles of additional factors. At whatever stage of the development of reality, though, at whatever level of the hierarchic organization of reality, whatever the degree of complexity of a causal situation, at its core there will be the role of push. That is why causal development is a factor of the core framework of general systems.

Something of particular significance happens when matter pushes against other matter. The matter receiving the push gives way—it begins to move. It is this caused motion that results in the new caused pattern of organization. What is significant in this situation for the next form of development is that the matter delivering the push slows down, loses motion, while the matter receiving the push gains motion. Cause involves an energetic transfer, an energetic through-flow from matter to matter. The occurrence of the acquired motion is a development of the situation due to this energetic transfer, and this transfer situation is a development-of-origin for through-flow and through-flow development. Through-flow development is a particularly significant factor in the framework of general systems because it plays required roles in the creation of systems, their operation, and their maintenance.

Matter bonds to other matter, resulting in coherent development. With this form of development, there are developments of hierarchy, diverse material form, and stable coherent pattern of material organization. Each of these factors are required for the existence and functional aspects of systems. The complexity of systems develops with the developments of coherent hierarchy, form, and stability.

A final example of a foundational form of development that plays a universal role in the nature of reality, and thus in the overall framework of general systems, is situation development. Every individual elementary particle in the universe, as it moves through space and continues to exist with time, undergoes a unique intrinsic existential-pathway-development. These particles interrelate with one another in a variety of ways, from bouncing off in collisions to tight coherent bonding. As they do so, their existential-pathway-developments interrelate, combining momentarily before the particles bounce away, or progressing jointly in coherent bond. The ongoing interrelation of existential-pathway-developments is situation development.

It is characteristic of elementary particles to combine into increasingly larger clumps—atoms, molecules, macromolecules, organisms, crystals, rocks, continents, planets. As all these various clumps of matter move through space and continue to exist with time, they each have a unique intrinsic existential-pathway-development. The units of matter that exist, from photons to stars, interrelate with one another in a variety of ways, from bouncing off in collisions to tight coherent bonding, with a vast diversity of modes of interrelation in between. As they do so their existential-pathway-developments interrelate.

All the units, from particles to stars, are there together, coexistent. All their existential-pathway-developments are at what is the current stage for each. The units together constitute the current situation, and the combined current stages constitute the current state of the continuously changing situation. Situations develop as the existential-pathways of their various interrelating components develop. The existential-pathway of a situation develops as the existential-pathways of the components develop together.

As a unit of matter is moving through space, it is passing through the coexistent-sequential-difference of spatial extension. The unit is moving along the extensional development of space. Also, as the unit continues to exist, it does so with the noncoexistent-sequential-difference of spatial continuing-existence. The unit is continuing to exist with the change development of spatial continuing-existence. Both spatial extensional development and the change development of spatial continuing-existence play roles in the existential-pathway-development of the moving unit.

At the development-of-origin of emergence, the existential-pathway-developments of all the units of matter constituting the emerging pattern of material organization are playing roles. Emergent development plays a role in the development-of-origin of causal development, and causal development plays a role in through-flow development. It is common for prior stages of development to continue playing roles in the origins and continued existence of later stages. Thus, in situation development usually all prior foundational forms of development are still there continuing to play their roles.

A system is a situation. It is a group of interrelating units of matter, which are often from a variety of hierarchic levels of organization, with the combined current stages of the various existential-pathway-developments constituting the current state of the system. The ongoing operation of a system is a consequence of the ongoing interrelations of the existential-pathway-developments of the components of the system.

Systems exist in space, change with time, and are made out of matter. Systems are patterns of material organization. They are composed of elementary particles, which become organized into atoms, which are patterns of material organization. Atoms, apparently, are little systems, their component protons, electrons, and neutrons having bonded into a clump of matter that continues to exist during time and that moves through space as a unit, a hierarchical whole composed of interrelating parts. Atoms bond together into molecules, a higher level of hierarchical pattern of material organization, and molecules join together to form more complex molecules, crystals, and a seemingly endless variety of substances or materials of varying degrees of complexity, which can recombine in increasing levels of hierarchic organization. Complex groupings of matter often have both coherently bonded units and loosely interrelating units as components of the overall pattern of organization of the situation.

All groupings of matter are patterns of material organization. Many of these patterns are persistent, for example asteroids and pennies. Systems, however, are more than just patterns that persist. They are both persistent and dynamic, maintaining their identity despite significant ongoing change. A number of factors have been discovered that play roles in the persistent stability of systems—through-flow, homeostasis, feedback, self-organization, and adaptation to name a few.

These factors occur in various forms in different types of systems, often in simple form in simple systems and in more complex form in complex systems. Like the systems of which they are structural/functional components, the factors that play roles in the existence and intrinsic nature of systems are themselves patterns of material organization. Like most factors of the existence and organization of reality, they develop, and this development can be mapped. Think of all the forms and levels of feedback that play roles in the functioning of a human body, from the molecular levels within a cell, through the hormonal systems, to the overall control of the body by the nervous system.

It would be an interesting research program to map all these cases of feedback. There are probably hundreds of them, of many different types. What would show up in the results of such an investigation is that different types of feedback play different types of roles in the functional processes of the body. Knowing that would provide a deeper, more accurate understanding of the physiology of the human body, from the molecular biology of the cell all the way up to the body as a whole. Think of how useful that knowledge would be to microbiologists and physicians. What if they had access to that kind of understanding for all the general factors that play roles in many different systems? These general factors in their various forms play roles that provide different types of systems their distinct characters.

A number of general systems research programs could be planned by way of this approach that would result directly in practical information for the management of complex systems. Overall it would be a project that identifies and maps factor development within the general development of reality, and more specifically from the more simple systems to the complex systems. For example, at this level a general systems researcher could track down the development of some particular general factor from its simplest developments-of-origin, wherever they might occur, on up through the various levels of the organization of material reality, in both abiotic and biotic situations and systems. In this project the researcher would be following the development of the factor of interest up through the various disciplines, such as from physics or chemistry up through geology or biology.

Another, more restricted project, would be to find and display all the different forms and stages of development of some general factor within a very complex system, such as the roles of feedback in human physiology as mentioned above, or in an ecosystem such as a forest, a grassland, or a coral reef. A large but still limited program would be to map out all the known general factors playing roles in a specific type of system, for example within a single cell. Perhaps mapping out all the known cases of a certain general factor within a simple organism, a bacterium or an alga for example, could be the basis of a graduate thesis.

The compliment of all this exploratory work would be to bring all the results together in one coherent body of knowledge. The product of this synthesis would be a map of the development of reality, and of all the various types of systems therein. This synthesis would be, quite literally, the framework of general systems.

It is well known now that specialization in the sciences has established artificial barriers in understanding within the hierarchy of the disciplines from level to level, from physics up to sociology. There is, therefore, one more component of the modern generalist worldview that is needed here, a factor that goes beyond showing how general factors play roles in the various disciplines, a factor that specifically plays the role of unifying the sciences into a single integrated body of knowledge. That factor is emergent development. The chemical world is emergent from the world of physics. Geology and biology, the reality referents, not the sciences themselves, are emergent from chemistry. The higher levels of the hierarchic order of material reality are emergent from the lower levels.

Up to now, emergence has been considered more mysterious than not, with claims of unpredictability, non-reducibility, the requirement of unique novelty, and so on. These are anthropomorphic attitudes about emergence, and not actual qualities of real cases of emergence. Emergent development is a consequence of interrelating existential-pathway-developments. The manner in which emergent properties and wholes come into existence can be figured out by carefully following those interrelating pathways of development. This presents another realm of research opportunities. For cases that are not overly complex, graduate students can analyze and map out in continuously connected detail the manner in which the intrinsic qualities of the components of an emergent whole determine, within the context of their manner of coming together, exactly how the interrelating existential-pathway-developments create the emergent whole. Research teams can tackle the broad scale emergent transitions from one level to another, from one science to another.


]]></description>
      <category>Systemics</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,169,169#msg-169</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:44:45 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Announcements] 2005 Nov. 9-10, I Brazilian Congress of Systems, Sao Paulo</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?2,167,167#msg-167</link>
      <author>daviding</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Dear Friends

We are members of a Brazilian group of systems (brazilian Chapter of the ISSS - Internacional  Society for the Systems Sciences).
As a request of Professor Dante Martinelli, president of ISSS Brazil and the main organizer of this event, we are sending you the information about the I Brazilian Congress of Systems, that will be held in Brazil, at the School of Economics, Business and Accounting of the University of São Paulo, campus Ribeirao Preto, Sao Paulo (FEA – RP/USP), on november 9th and 10th, 2005.
Subscriptions can be done from now on, and we ask you to send the information to whom it may interest.

Sincerely,

I Brazilian Congress of Systems Planning Team


I Brazilian Congress of Systems 

&quot;Arising the consciousness for the systemic view: perspectives for the XXI century&quot; 

Date: November 9th and 10th, 2005
Place: School of Economics, Business and Accounting of the University of São Paulo, Campus Ribeirão Preto (FEA – RP/USP)

PROGRAM:

November 9th

6 PM – Registration
7 PM – Opening of the event
Cerimony with Professor Marcos Cortez Campomar, Director of FEA – RP/USP
ISSS Brazil presentation - Professor Dante Pinheiro Martinelli
8 PM – Opening of the Conference
&quot;Looking at the world with the systemic view&quot;, by Professor Enrique Herrscher 
9:30 PM – Reception 

November 10th

9 AM - Lecture: 
&quot;The effectiveness from the systemic point of view&quot;, by Professor Ion Georgiou 
10:30 AM - Coffee Break
11 AM – Paper presentations 
1 PM - Lunch
2 PM – Lecture: 
“The systemic view in different human knowledge areas&quot;, by Professor Teodoro Oniga
3:30 PM - Coffee Break
4 PM – Paper Presentations
6 PM – Informal Coffee
6:30 PM – Lecture: 
&quot;Systems, Éthics and Society&quot;, by Professor Donald de Raadt (Former President of ISSS – International Society for the Systems Sciences)
8 PM – Event closure


Call for Papers

1. Subthemes
A: Systems Applications in Business and Industry 
B: Systemic philosophy and ethics of systems;
C: Computing and communication systems;
D: Systemic modeling and simulation;
E: Systemic psychology and psychiatry;
F: Information systems design and information technology;
G: Research related to the General Systems Theory;
H: Medical and health systems;
I: Educational systems design;
J: Processes and human processes;
K: Evolutionary development;
L: Evolution and complexity;
M: Applied systems and development;
N: Eco-systems approach;
O: Organizational Transformation and Social Change

2. General information 
2.1 Only non-published papers will be accepted;
2.2 Papers can be submitted in Portuguese, English or Spanish;
2.3 The accepted papers will be published only if at least one of the authors is registered for the event.

3. Formatting of Abstracts 
3.1 Up to 1000 caracteres, including the spaces;
3.2 Line space: 1.5 centimeters;
3.3 Abstracts should include:
-		 working title of the paper;
-		 subtheme
-		 authors' names, affiliation and contact information (address, telephone number and e-mail);
-		 3 key words;
3.4 The file must be saved with the letter that indicates the chosen subtheme and the last name of the first author. Eg: paper for the subject area A, first author Carlos Pereira: A_Pereira.

4. Paper Style Guidelines
4.1 Font: Times New Roman, size 12 pt;
4.2 The length of the paper should not exceed 15 pages, including title/summary page, figures and tables and references.
4.3 Pages must be single-spaced.
4.4 Margins: top and right: 3 cm; bottom and left: 2.5 cm;
4.5 Justification: both margins;
4.6 Paper size: A4
4.7 The file must be saved with the letter that indicates the chosen subtheme and the last name of the first author. Eg: paper for the subject area A, first author Carlos Pereira: A_Pereira.

5. First Page
5.1 It must include:
-		 Title and subtheme;
-		 Authors´ names (maximum: four authors for each paper);
-		 Affiliation and graduation;
-		 Authors´ full addresses;
-		 Authors´ telephone numbers and e-mail;
-		 Abstract (English and Portugues) (Font: Times New Roman, size 10 pt);
-		 3 key words.

6. Full paper structure 
-		 Introduction 
-		 Literature Review
-		 Methodology
-		 Findings and Results
-		 Final Comments 
-		 References

7. Information to submit papers
Authors must send formatted full papers until september 19 th to sistemas@facef.br.
The acceptance of the papers will be published until october 17th 

8. Evaluation criteria and Results 
8.1 Each paper will be evaluated by 2 referees;
8.2 The results will be sent to the authors by e-mail;

Registration

Category		 Registration fee
		 Until 9/1		 From 9/2 to 9/20		 After 9/20
Student		 Graduate		 R$ 40,00		 R$ 50,00		 R$ 60,00
		 Pos-Graduation		 R$ 70,00		 R$ 80,00		 R$ 100,00
Professors		 R$ 100,00		 R$ 120,00		 R$ 150,00
Others		 R$ 130,00		 R$ 200,00		 R$ 250,00
Payment: bank order – www.facef.br 


Further information:
Please contact the Systems Group
Luciana Oranges Cezarino
FEARP /USP – room 73
Avenida dos Bandeirantes, 3900 
CEP: 14040-900. 
Vila Monte Alegre 
Ribeirão Preto – São Paulo
Telephone numbers: 55 – 16 – 3602-4880 or 55 – 16 – 3602-4342
From 9AM to 5 PM, mondays to Fridays
E-mail: sistemas@facef.br]]></description>
      <category>Announcements</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?2,167,167#msg-167</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:32:51 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Announcements] 2005/06/14 Latest issue of E:CO 6.4 {Kurt Richardson}</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?2,166,166#msg-166</link>
      <author>daviding</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Dear Colleague
The latest issue of the international journal Emergence: Complexity and Organization was published today. The current issue includes:

Complexity Science as Order-Creation Science: New Theory, New Method (Bill McKelvey) 
Shifting the Mental Model and Emerging Innovative Behavior: Action Research of a Quality Management System (Stephen D. Tsai, Chung-Yu Pan &amp; Hong-Quei Chiang) 
Information Security in Cross-Enterprise Collaborative Knowledge Work (Ann Majchrzak &amp; Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa) 
Full Spectrum Analysis: Practical OR in the Face of the Human Variable (Graham Mathieson) 
Complexity and TINA (Pedro Sotolongo) 
Emergence (originally published in 1926) Stephen C. Pepper (with an introduction by Jeffrey Goldstein) 
Systems Theory and Complexity: Part 2 (Kurt A. Richardson) 
Chaos and Complexity: New Practices for an Emergence Concept of Family Health in a Brazilian Experience (Ivan A. Guerrini &amp; Regina Stella Spagnuolo) (with commentaries provided by Richard Knowles, David Boje and Ken Baskin) 
The Social String Theory - S2T: Establishing the Ties that Bind
(Ron Schultz)

For those of you who currently subscribe to E:CO you can access the latest issue using your personal access account. Your print version will be sent out mid-July. If you would like to subscribe to E:CO then this can now be done online at:
http://emergence.org/ECO_site/web-content/sub_form.html
Issue 6.1-2 is still available for free at:
http://emergence.org/ECO_site/web-content/ECO_6_1-2.html 
We will be soon be adding an alternative print version of the journal for those of you who'd prefer to have your yearly issues bound in one place.  During the current volume you would receive full e-access (including access to all archives) and then at the end of the volume cycle you would receive an edited book containing all the volume's papers in one publication.  Details will soon appear on E:CO's website (http://emergence.org).
Happy complexifying!
Kurt Richardson, Managing Editor E:CO]]></description>
      <category>Announcements</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?2,166,166#msg-166</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2005 19:52:10 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Announcements] CfP deadline 2005/11/11 EMCSR Vienna 2006 April 18-21 {MULEJ Matjaz}</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?2,165,165#msg-165</link>
      <author>daviding</author>
      <description><![CDATA[ 
 
                       EIGHTEENTH EUROPEAN MEETING
 
                                   ON
 
                    CYBERNETICS AND SYSTEMS RESEARCH
 
                              (EMCSR 2006)
 
                           April 18 - 21, 2006
 
                           UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA
 
 
        organized by the Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies
                          in cooperation with the
      Institute of Medical Cybernetics and Artificial Intelligence,
         Center for Brain Research, Medical University of Vienna
                                and the
             International Federation for Systems Research
 
                                * * * * *
 
  An electronic version of this CfP (and further information whenever
  it becomes available) can be found at
 
                     http://www.osgk.ac.at/emcsr/
 
                                * * * * *
 
  The international support of the European Meetings on Cybernetics
  and Systems Research held in Austria in 1972, 1974, 1976, 1978,
  1980, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000,
  2002 and 2004 (when 500 scientists from more than 40 countries
  from all continents, except the Antarctica, met to present, hear
  and discuss 137 papers) encouraged the Council of the Austrian
  Society for Cybernetic Studies (OSGK) to organize a similar meeting
  in 2006 to keep pace with continued rapid developments in related
  fields.
 
                                * * * * *
 
  Sessions
 
  A  Systems Science
     G.J.Klir, USA, and P.Prautsch, Czech Republic
  B  Mathematical Methods in Cybernetics and Systems Theory
     Y.Rav, France, and J.Scharinger, Austria
  C  The Cybernetics of Cybernetics: Cybernetics, Interaction and
     Conversation
     R. Glanville, UK
  D  Living Systems Theory
     G.A.Swanson, USA
  E  Biocybernetics and Mathematical Biology
     L.M.Ricciardi, Italy
  F  Systems Science in Medicine
     F.Tretter, Germany, G. Ossimitz, Austria, and G.Porenta, Austria
  G  Cultural Systems
     M.Fischer, UK, and D.Read, USA
  H  Cognitive Rationality, Relativity and Clarity
     P. Ballonoff, USA, I. Ezhkova, Belgium
  I  Management, Organizational Change and Innovation
     M. Mulej, Slovenia
  J  Software Components and Product Lines: From Business to
     Systems and Technology
     G. Chroust, Austria, and C. Hoyer, Austria
  K  Soft Computing and Knowledge-Based Systems
     C.Carlsson, Finland, and K.-P.Adlaßnig, Austria
  L  Artificial Neural Networks and Adaptive Systems
     G.Dorffner, Austria
  M  AT2AI-5: From Agent Theory to Agent Implementation
     J.Mueller, Germany, and P.Petta, Austria
  N  ACE 2006: Agent Construction and Emotions
     J.Gratch, USA, and P.Petta, Austria
  O  Agent-Based Modeling &amp; Simulation
     S.Bandini, Italy, and G.Vizzari, Italy
  P  Theory and Applications of Artificial Intelligence
     V.Marik, Czech Republic, and E.Buchberger, Austria
 
  A special sesssion will be held on the experiences with the 6th and
  expectations on 7th Framework Programme of the European Communities,
  with speakers from the European Commission and national represent-
  atives. Time will be available to find partners for potential future
  consortia for project proposals.
 
                           *******************
 
  Submission Guidelines
 
  Acceptance of contributions will be determined on the basis of
  Draft Final Papers. Each paper must explain clearly
 
    - what problem it is trying to address,
    - what has been tried before and why it isn't good enough,
    - WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND WHY IT IS BETTER,
    - some proof that your method is sound (or reference to it),
    - how it will help others/apply to other problems,
    - some results/proof it works.
 
  Draft Final Papers must not exceed 6 pages (10-point,
  double column, for style sheet see website), in English. They have
  to contain the final text to be submitted, including graphs and
  pictures.
 
  They must carry the title, author(s) name(s), and affiliation (incl.
  e-mail address) in this order, and must include an abstract.
 
  Please specify clearly the symposium you would like to submit your
  paper to. Each scientist shall submit only one paper.
 
  Submission of papers will be possible via direct upload of manuscripts
  in PDF or PS format only.  Please refer to the website for detailed
  instructions.
 
                         **********************
 
  Deadline for submission
 
                           November 11, 2005
 
  Submissions received after the deadline cannot be considered.
 
  Authors will be notified about acceptance or rejection no later than
  December 16, 2005.
 
                         **********************
 
  Final Papers
 
  Electronic camera-ready copies of the final paper will be due by
  January 30, 2006. Acceptance of the final paper will be based on
  compliance with the reviewers' comments.
 
                         **********************
 
  Presentation
 
  It is understood that each accepted paper is to be presented
  personally at the Meeting by one of its authors.
 
                         **********************
 
  Conference Fee
 
  EUR 230,-- if received before January 30, 2006
  EUR 280,-- if received later (only participants without paper
  contribution)
  EUR 330,-- if paid at the conference desk (only participants
  without paper contribution)
 
  The Final Paper must be accompanied by the payment of the
  Conference Fee.
 
  The Conference Fee includes participation in the Eighteenth European
  Meeting, attendance at the official reception, coffee during breaks,
  and the volumes of the proceedings available at the Meeting. Please
  send cheque, or transfer the amount (free of charges for beneficiary)
  to the account no. 0026-34400/00 of the Austrian Society for
  Cybernetic Studies at Bank Austria Creditanstalt, Vienna (bank routing
  number: 12000, IBAN: AT11 1100 0002 6344 0000, SWIFT/BIC
  Code: BKAUATWW).
 
  Please state your name clearly.
 
                         **********************
 
  Hotel Accommodation
 
  will be handled by
 
         AUSTROPA INTERCONVENTION,
         Friedrichstraße 7
         A-1010 Vienna
         phone +43-1-58800-514
         fax +43-1-58800-520.
 
                         **********************
 
  Scholarships
 
  The International Federation for Systems Research is willing to
  provide a limited number of scholarships covering the registration
  fee for the conference for colleagues from weak currency countries.
  Applications should be sent to the Conference Secretariat
  ***before*** November 11, 2005 under all circumstances.
 
                         **********************
 
  Insurance
 
  The conference organizers can accept no liability for personal
  injuries, or for loss or damage to property belonging to conference
  participants, either during or as a result of the conference. Please
  check the validity of your personal insurance.
 
                         **********************
 
  Chairman of the Meeting
 
  Robert Trappl, President
  Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies
 
  Secretariat
 
  I. Ghobrial-Willmann and U. Schulz
  Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies
  A-1010 Vienna 1, Freyung 6/6 (Austria)
  Phone: +43-1-5336112-60
  Fax: +43-1-5336112-77
  E-mail: sec@ofai.at
 
  Programme Committee
 
   K.-P. Adlaßnig (Austria)       M. Mulej (Slovenia)
   P. Ballonoff (USA)             J. P. Müller (Germany)
   S. Bandini (Italy)             G. Ossimitz (Austria)
   E. Buchberger (Austria)        P. Petta (Austria)
   C. Carlsson (Finland)          F. Pichler (Austria)
   G. Chroust (Austria)           G. Porenta (Austria)
   G. Dorffner (Austria)          P. Prautsch (Czech Republic)
   I. Ezhkova (Belgium)           Y. Rav (France)
   M. Fischer (UK)                D. Read (USA)
   R. Glanville (UK)              L. M. Ricciardi (Italy)
   J. Gratch (USA)                J. Scharinger (Austria)
   W. Horn (Austria)              G.A. Swanson (USA)
   G. J. Klir (USA)               R. Trappl (Austria)
   O. Ladanyi (Austria)           F. Tretter (Germany)
   V. Marik (Czech Republic)      G. Vizzari (Italy)
 
 
  Organizing Committee
 
   E. Buchberger                  J. Matiasek
   G. Chroust                     P. Petta
   I. Ghobrial-Willmann           U. Schulz
   W. Horn                        H. Trost
   R. Trappl
 
 
 
             ********************************************
             PAPER SUBMISSION DEADLINE: November 11, 2005
             ********************************************
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 EMCSR 2006   18TH EUROPEAN MEETING ON CYBERNETICS AND SYSTEMS RESEARCH
 
 
 
  REGISTRATION:
 
  Electronic registration is possible via
 
                     http://www.osgk.ac.at/emcsr/]]></description>
      <category>Announcements</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?2,165,165#msg-165</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:15:07 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Systemics] Re: Beyond systems thinking? (fractal definition)</title>
      <link>http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,163,164#msg-164</link>
      <author>tom</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Valadimir writes:

&quot;complexity thinking deals with concepts like strange attractors, fractals, self-organizing criticality, edge of chaos, etc. These concepts are not in the vocabulary of the system thinkers. &quot;

OK/ Let's take fractals. The definitions here are from Charles Francois' ISSS Dictionary, now named the International Encyclopedia of Systemics and Cybernetics.

----

For Fractal:

A figure that is self-similar at different scales. THe conceptual base of fractals is revursive self-smilarity by scaling. Fractals involve similarities generated by a template, independant of changes of scales. They are also characterized by the absence of derivative, an infinity of details, an infinite length, and a fractinal dimension. The mathematical theory was established by B. Mandebrott (1983), but numrous fractal figures where described beforehand by various authors, who did not seem to have perceived their common ground,
Lichtenberg's figures\\
Koch's snow flakes\\
Sierpinshi's carpets\\
Menger's sponges\\
Peano's curves\\
Cantor's triadic sets

The Weierstrass function is also self-similar and may lead to fractalized representaions of processes. Recently A. Edwards fractalized the Venn diagram, a very interesting and usefull application, for taxonic purposes.

Fractals describe structures and are somehow static objrects. If one is not interested in the order of appearance of their components at sucessive self-similar levels.

Frncois goes on to define 

Fractal aggregation\\
fractal basin boundaries\\
fractal curves, surfaces and volumes\\
fractal dimensions\\
fractal processes\\
f`ractal scaling\\
fractal time\\


----

Interesting comment about strange attractors, also according to Valadimir not in our vocabulary, but nevertheless described by our past president I. Prigogine&quot;Chaotic attractors are not characterized by whole dimensions, as a line or a surface, but by frationary dimensions. They are what is called since Mandelbrot, fractal varieties. (1982 p 73)
]]></description>
      <category>Systemics</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://forums.isss.org/read.php?6,163,164#msg-164</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:50:19 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

