x

Systems: "Complexes of elements standing in interaction" (von Bertalanffy 1968: 33). Complexes of systems (which are complexes of elements standing in interaction) standing in interaction with complexes of systems (which are...).  But you get the point.  It's like the turtles: systems all the way down... Systems exist within systems that exist within systems and there are systems of systems of systems.  

[R2] Further, we use systems to conceptualize systems, and develop systems of understanding about systems.  But how can [can?] a system be used to conceptualize a system - even (or especially) itself? Yet how else? This is, for me, one of the strong points of 'systems' and systems approaches - the potential for turning an approach back on itself, to investigate itself, view itself, reflect on itself. A systems approach - as much as any other approach (perhaps more than some) - has the potential[responsibility?] for such turning... 

[R3] Yet such reflexivity cannot be a function of simple systems, not even of simply complex systems. Such twists can only (to my mind) be accomodated through systems (and/or systems approaches) that address the second(or third)-order observer.  Further, I believe such twists can only approach a full accomodation through self-producing systems (and/or self-producing systems approaches) that incorporate the second(or third)-order ovserver.   Hence, the nature of my research. 

[R4] But perhaps it is best to start at the beginning (although the medium of this presentation allows other starting places as well)...

• What is a system...? 
• What is a second(or third)-order observer...?
• What is a self-producing system...?
• and what do they have to do with it all...?

x

Systems: "Complexes of elements standing in interaction" (von Bertalanffy 1968: 33). A theoretical construct that I take as one of my central research themes in order to address questions identified in the basic argument(s) that underly my dissertation.  I consider systems theory and systems thinking - most notably, complex, self-organizing, and self-producing systems theory and thinking.  I believe that new concepts and theory emerging in these areas provide useful perspectives and heuristics for attempting to understand and incorporate concerns and opportunities relevant to planning for sustainability.

[T2] 'Systems', however, should not be considered a well-defined or coherent discipline or area of research.  Varied definitions and discussions of systems, systems theory and systems thinking abound - even including some of my own earlier work. My intention here is to extend the latter, in different areas and ways. Some will follow the lead of systems-thinkers, some, the lead of systems-critics.

[T3] There is much to be developed in regards to this theme.  As a beginning, I offer some basic discussions:

• system definitions 
• General System Theory
• "system" as heuristic
• self-forming systems

x

x

Systems: "Complexes of elements standing in interaction" (von Bertalanffy 1968: 33). Ecosystems, knowledge systems, transportation systems, management systems, computer systems, organisms, tricycles, plants - industrial ones and living ones - the list goes on and one.  Each of these are identifiable as 'complexes of elements standing in interaction'; entities that can be characterized as organized wholes by pointing to the relations and interconnections among their component parts. 

 

[E2] These conceptions fit with my sense of the world. A complex diverse place teeming with life, connected to pieces of rock and ocean; people connected to people, connected to cultures, to ways of being. Knowledge and understanding connected to people and to cultures and to pieces of rock and ocean.  "Systems" provided a means for conceptualizing this teeming 'undifferentiated' cornucopia/mass - a means for teasing it apart without relinquishing the whole. My paradigmatic exemplar is a westcoast temperate rainforest - sensed through experience, conceptualized (understood...?) through education...  Or perhaps it is better understood through experience, which, for me, includes time spent on the West Coast Trail and similar places.

 

[E3] Throughout my studies, I have pointed - again and again - to the disconnect between my formal learning and this experience. This has led to and has confirmed - again and again - the rationale for using 'systems' and, more specificly, the notion of sympoietic systems.

[E4]

x

x

Systems: "Complexes of elements standing in interaction" (von Bertalanffy 1968: 33) - a definition I draw upon to indicate dilemmas that arise in considering the manifestation of results: Is this stated concept the 'result' or is the 'system' conceived through this concept, the 'result'?   I think the beauty of systems (and the complicatedness of them) lies in the answer: yes.  While I advocate for consideration fo systems as heuristics, I do not believe that the frequent and ubiquitous reference to 'systems' as entities-that-exist cannot be ignored.  Systems are both the concept and that which is conceptualized.  The way in which I might differe from the approach of others who claim that "systems exist" (Luhmann) is that I believe/concieve/take such entities as systems only when they are conceptualized as systems, not as systems existing in and of themselves as systems.   In other words, I can take a car or a tree to be a car or a tree, or to be a system.  To take a car or a tree as a system - existing out there in the world - however, means that I am conceptualizing the car or tree as a 'complex of elements standing in interaction'; I am attending to the relations among the diverse components that manifest the 'thing' as a whole.

[E4]

x

 

</div>